Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSEPA EPIC-22-91 - CITY OF SEATTLE / CITY OF TUKWILA - BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENTSEATTLE-TU KWI LA BOUNDRY ADJUSTMENT EAST MARGINAL WAY & 16T" AVE. SOUTH EPIC -22 -91 City of Tukwila la John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Rick Beeler, Director January 31, 1994 Mr. Rick Krochalis, Director, Department of Construction and Land Use City of Seattle 710 2nd Avenue, Suite 700 Seattle, WA 98104 -1703 Subject: Seattle- Tukwila Boundary Adjustment Dear Rick: Per your request, I have enclosed the most recent letter from Rick Beeler to Elsie Crossman related to the Tukwila - Seattle boundary adjustment. I have also included a letter dated July 19, 1991 from Mayor Gary VanDusen to Mayor Rice. Additionally, Vernon Umetsu of this office has had several subsequent conversations with Elsie: Because I am in the process of preparing the Manufacture /Industrial Center element of Tukwila's Comprehensive Plan, I've been in recent contact with Cliff Marks to get a better handle on Seattle's position on this issue so that we may move forward in a coordinated effort. Feel free to contact Vernon Umetsu at 431 -3684 or myself at 431 -3663 if you have any questions or wish to discuss this matter further. Thank you. Sincerely, ti\ Denni Shefrin Associate Planner Enclosures. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 1 I 1 I I SCALE • DUWAMISH WATERWAY \�'�'• Lam• �� PARKING o\. GATE B -72 1 • 2 -125 2 -121 PARKING • \2 -120 �\ 2 -040 2_ 2 -14 �� GATE 8-60 7 -321 sr 7 -320 2.05 • J �•wJ��l.J • • J1 1_ • • 2 -10 0 0 v.- v ?`i P 2 -09 :.-.;:_- _ .'�. `- :_:.,`v.l n 2.18 . GATE• IL B -42 j ,2226 2-30 C -22- -28 JES 2.27 2 -31 \ • 2 -25 BOEING FLIGHT TEST & OPERATIONS (SEE PAGE 211 11 GATE B -34 2 -24 BOEING COMPANY HEADQUARTERS GATE 8 -32 - .J . 2 -41 2 -40 2 -49 V--AS..1J✓J.A_ v.u.s_•v.�ui.- i ..v_.J._•.tCs.•=&:--,,l 2.74 tiMA. X V.J✓..�✓11 ^ ^�� A. LA • ' 2 75 .•... -a ✓.JAI...- •J.ULI...�J.l_a •/ ter•- \v.�.- �/2 -72 • ✓.J._V✓.,� - .a_..' 2-71 .� . �.. . ..\..ti..�v✓'�.✓...J 2a7 s 78 J.V.- ,�'�r��MJ..✓... V ._,Ml l.J..1.J✓._� v �•JJ_. J✓ C FOS UTH PARK 1 TE 15 -35 SEA. KING INDUSTRIAL ID eOW 0 15-194:\ 9 1§-21 \ 15: \ 15 -100 / 2- 2.66 2 -44 2 -51 - 2 -48 2 -65 2 -282 2.108 ed 2 -70 SEE BCAG %TES. PAGE 43 2 -82 2 -95 2 -106 2 -97" A 2 -63 N N 2-69 (a 0 2.68 2.61)� 1 LOBBY • It Ili-45 MEDICAL FACILITY moo 2 -47 ,, GATE B -18 1 f2 -57 i GATE B -14 /IR 2 -80 Im2 -86 2.96 . 2 -91 \ \ 2-117 \ 2 -126 2 -89 FAA TOWER BOEING FIELD 2 -05 Gas Pump Building 2-09 Butler Building 2-10 Material and Fabrication Bui North Half and South Half Balconies 2 -13 Oil Pump House (North Pro[ 2 -14 Guardhouse — Gates B -60 2 -15 Plant Services Terminal Buill First Floor Balconies 2 -16 Guardhouse 2 -18 Acid Storage (Ref Only) 2 -22 Cafeteria/Theater 2 -24 Administration Building (Gals Basement First Floor Second Floor Third Floor 2 -25 Engineering Building Basement First Floor Second Floor Third Floor Fourth Floor Filth Floor Penthouse 2 -26 Guardhouse — North Clock 2 -27 Emergency Generator Buildin 2 -28 North Boiler House 2 -29 North Pump House 2 -30 North Electrical Equipment He 2 -31 North Warehouse First Floor Balconies 2 -32 Dispatch Station 2 -40 Final Assembly Building First Floor Mezzanine 2 -41 Primary Building First Floor First Floor Mezzanine Second Floor Second Floor Mezzanine 2 -43 Tunnels and Underground Are 2 -44 South Warehouse First Floor Balconies Mezzanine 2 -45 Central Medical Building First Floor Second Floor 2 -47 Guardhouse — Gate B -18 2 -48 Factory Material Handling Tern 2 -49 Jig Erection Building First Floor Second Floor. 2 -50 Maintenance Storage 2 -51 Box Storage and Shipping 2 -52 Beryllium Waste Storage Buildi To: City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Rick Beeler, Director MEMORANDUM Tom Keefe, Fire Chief Ron Waldner, Chief of Police From: Rick Beeler Date: June 14, 1993 RE: Coordinated Seattle /Tukwila Emergency Response. Boeing continues to be upset by a problem with coordinated emergency response between Seattle and Tukwila in the East Marginal Way corridor. They raised the issue during recent discussions about the Seattle /Tukwila Boundary Adjustment. Boeing stated that during a medical emergency, confusion occurred reaching the correct 911 system, then the responding vehicle entered the wrong gate, had to ask directions, exit, and re -enter the building. There were no comments on getting to the patient once emergency personnel were out of the vehicle. No significant long term affects were caused by the delay, but they are very concerned about the next time. I assured them that this issue was being addressed, and would bring their concerns to your attention. A coordinated response between yourselves and Seattle counterparts should be made to Paul Seeley (655 -1968) about what actions have been taken to: 1. ensure clear delineation of responsibility for response (including any system tests), 2. on -going training to ensure minimum travel time, and 3. other steps taken to maximize emergency response effectiveness. I would also appreciate a copy of the response as I continue to meet with Boeing on the Boundary Adjustment matter which is making slow progress. Thank you for your help. cc:Mayor file:emerg 6344 S4uthcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431367D • fax• /2061413A2M5 Date: 11- Jun -93 14:07 • From: JOHN -M (JOHN McFARLAND) To: RICR 1 !, Subject: North Boundary Adjustment Message -id: B391182C01AEAEAE I just read the notes from the June 8, meeting with Boeing_and Seattle over the North boundary adjustment. Good effortWe need to keep subtle pressure on Seattle to assume a rightful and fair portion of the 16th Ave So. Bridge. This is a structure that serves Seattle, more than any other jurisdiction. I presume that Ross or a PW rep normally attends these meetings with you. If not, please let me know. CITAF TUKWILA Department of Community Development FAX TRANSMITTAL FAX NUMBER: (206) 431-3665 TO: Pik uL, DATE: TITLE: FROM: COMPANY: Eoc/t•iC TITLE: DEPARTMENT: DEPARTMENT: icK-c-u t c.,61- FAX NO. CALLED: 6,sS-.2 /23 NUMBER OF PAGES TRANSWITED, INCL. THIS COVER SHEET: SENT BY (INITIALS): SUBJECT: cg-i3 'TLC- /TO c-J (.../4- To untiti-fe Abig vs-r, COMMENTS/MESSAGE: IF THIS COMMUNICATION IS NOT CLEARLY RECEIVED, PLEASE CALL: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila WA 98188 Office: (206) 431-3670 06/01/92 CITAF TUKWILA 41 Department of Community Development FAX TRANSMITTAL. FAX NUMBER: (206) 431 -3665 TO: C . ) . L (P F H /q-( K S DATE: i8 ( ?2 TITLE: FROM: /e/c‹- 76-2._0e._ COMPANY: _col-T7-GC- pLi\c G' TITLE: DEPARTMENT: DEPARTMENT: r UKw 1LA-- b.C.b, FAX NO. CALLED: (233— 00 4-7 NUMBER OF PAGES TRANSMITTED, INCL. 2f, C-- THIS COVER SHEET: SENT BY (INITIALS): SUBJECT: s- T TGC / u w lLA- COMMENTS /MESSAGE: 7--000 A-(Z 'UST. IF THIS COMMUNICATION IS NOT CLEARLY RECEIVED, PLEASE CALL: ). 3 I- 3 6 7 0 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila WA 98188 Office: (206) 431 -3670 06/01/92 • City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Rick Beeler, Director MEMORANDUM To: Cliff Marks, City of Seattle Paul Seeley, The Boeing Company From: Rick Beel 1 Date: June 8, 1993 RE: Seattle /Tukwila Boundary Adjustment. First, I'd like to thank Paul and Jeff for working with both cities and hosting the June 3rd meeting. I feel that we've made good progress toward resolving many of the issues. I have attached my draft meeting minutes for your review.. Please contact Vernon Umetsu at 431 -3684, if there have been any misunderstandings. 3 cc d 1) T' fib s. file:mtgmin 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (2004313670 •- Fax (206) 431-3665 6/3/93 Meeting Minutes (6/3/93: 1:30 @ Boeing Corp.) Persons Present Elsie Crossman, Seattle Cliff Marks, Seattle Jeff Zahir, Boeing Paul Seeley, Boeing Rick Beeler, Tukwila Vernon Umetsu, Tukwila Information Items 1. Attention was focussed on the northern triangle trade between Seattle and Tukwila. Concerns raised are shown below. 2. Coordinated development permit requirements and review (i.e. so that they aren't shuttling between Tukwila and Seattle for the same building), a. Boeing states that they are ready to start construction in the immediate future if: i. they can be told which single set of city standards need to be satisfied (i.e. through the triangle swap) and ii. Seattle's shoreline access requirements can be satisfied though off -site provision per the existing SMC. b. Seattle states that they are committed to accomplishing this development standards, coordination and are convinced that it should be "do- able ". c. Seattle feels that off -site mitigation is an acceptable option if it is in Seattle. d. Please note that development standard coordination, even through an interlocal agreement, will require action by both city councils. 3. Emergency response. a. Seattle will talk with their Fire Dept. about what happened to delay their emergency medical response. • 4. Maintaining a tax revenue balance in the triangle trade. a. There is a current Seattle revenue loss of over $300,000 annually. b. Boeing states that they are extremely confident of new construction in the northern triangle which would more than make up for the revenue loss (see 2a). Alternatively, leaving the northern triangle split between two jurisdictions would stifle redevelopment for the foreseeable future. 5. Not increasing Seattle's exposure to 16th Avenue Bridge repair costs. a. Seattle is concerned that assuming jurisdiction of area adjacent to the bridge will make them liable for repair costs. b. Seattle is probably willing to take some fair share of repair costs, but is concerned that taking the northern triangle and then having to (logically) take the western river bank in GMA, will make them liable for 3/4's of all costs. c. Tukwila noted that it's original proposal included provisions that would not increase Seattle's exposure to repair costs as a result of the triangle swap. d. Tukwila further noted that jurisdiction over the bridge included the right to continue its operation or not. This was acknowledged by Seattle. e. There was general discussion about how the bridge and the 16th /SR -99 interchange alleviate congestion to the South Park industrial area. This interchange has been a significant element of Seattle's transportation system. Seattle notes that 16th Avenue is a Principal Arterial. f. Boeing is meeting with Gary Zucker of King Co. on this issue. Action Items Development Coordination /Tax Revenue Equivalence A. Boeing will send Marks a list of Boeing development concerns for the northern triangle. B. Seattle will internally review this list, develop what options it can, and meet with Boeing to start resolving the concerns. C. Boeing will meet with Zucker on the bridge in preparation for a County /Seattle /Tukwila (& Boeing ?) meeting on existing data on bridge usage, costs, and fair cost sharing (see D below). D. Marks will contact Umetsu about a bridge meeting when Seattle has completed its technical review, met with the Mayor, and formed draft. positions. The County and Tukwila will do the same. E. Tukwila and Seattle Fire and Police representatives will meet to ensure that service boundaries are logical, clear, and that a training and familiarization program to serve these areas are in place. cc: Tom Keefe, Fire Chief /Ross Earnst, Public Works Dir. /Mayor /Cliff Marks, Seattle /Paul Seeley, Boeing. goy 64)--467>4(0e-, Po c, i c 6r City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Rick Beeler, Director M E M O R A N D U M TO: John McFarlan FROM: Rick Beeler DATE: March 15, SUBJECT: Seattle - Tukwila Boundary Line Adjustment Attached is Seattle's response'to my letter asking for higher priority to be placed on realigning our mutual boundaries in the Boeing - Duwamish area. Seattle is wary of taking part of the 16th Ave. Bridge and losing any Boeing property and feels minor adjustments can be made. Staff is not holding out any hope of major adjustments. Vern will pick this up from here to set up a meeting with Seattle staff. Depending upon Seattle's attendees, he may • need support from Fire and Public Works. >; At least Seattle now has a planner designated to the issue. cc: Ross Earnst Ron Waldner Tom Keefe Don Williams Duane Griffin Vern Umetsu 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431 -3670 • Far (206) 4313665 • Your City, Seattle PLANNING DEPARTMENT J. Gary Lawrence, Director Norman B. Rice, Mayor March 10, 1993 L. Rick Beeler, Director Department of Community Development City of Tukwila Minolta Building, Suite 100 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Re: Seattle -- Tukwila Boundary Dear Rick: E u ",,R 1 2 1593 CC MNIU I am writing in response to . your letter of January 29, 1993. I agree that some minor boundary changes could be accomplished with relative ease. However, some of the proposed changes indicated on your map raise significant issues for us, especially with respect to our potential loss of relatively high value land. Also, of great concern to us is the issue of upgrading and operating the 16th Avenue South bridge. We do not want to take on this responsibility. I agree that the GMA and Countywide Planning Policies direct jurisdictions to establish urban growth area boundaries and proposed annexation area boundaries with respect to adjacent unincorporated land. Minor modifications of boundaries between cities affecting incorporated land may be desirable to facilitate permitting and service provision. However, I do not think that this is expressly required by the GMA. or Countywide Planning Policies. I would like to get together soon to discuss this issue further. Please give me a call to set up a meeting, or call Cliff Marks, 684 -8372, in the Planning Department. He is now working on annexation issues. I am looking forward to meeting with you. I am sure we can come to a mutually agreeable solution to this issue. Sincerely, Elsie Crossman, Manager, Physical Planning EGC: cmv WP1 O -403 cc: J. Gary Lawrence, Director Cliff Marks An equal employment opportunity - affirmative action employer. City of Seattle, Planning Department, 600 4th Avenue, Room 200 Municipal Building, Seattle, Washington 98104 -1826, (206) 684 -8056 'Printed on Recycled Paper' • City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Rick Beeler, Director February 9, 1993 Elsie Crossman, Physical Planning Manager Seattle Office of Long -range Planning 200 Municipal Building Seattle, WA 98104 RE: Seattle - Tukwila Boundary Dear Elsie: As you recall, the City of Tukwila in 1989 annexed the area of Boeing Field along East Marginal Way, known as Fire District No.1. The Fire District boundaries were originally drawn along topography and the Duwamish River waterway. Those boundaries no longer exist and are not relevant to existing development or appropriate government by either Tukwila or Seattle. We have agreed that adjustment of these shared boundaries is in our mutual best interests and'should be accomplished as soon as possible. On June 26, 1992, I wrote you that my understanding is that the boundaries are to be resolved in a future discussion of Growth Management urban area boundaries. The issues surrounding these antiquated boundaries have aged beyond reasonableness and need to be addressed as soon as possible. Permitting and service provision issues are increasingly pressing and complicating future development decisions. It is overdue for our cities to make adjustment of the boundaries a high priority for 1993. I will be calling you in the near future to discuss how we can jointly work toward the adjustment of our mutual boundaries. Sincerely L. Rick Beeler Director cc: Mayor City Administrator Building Official Fire Chief Police Chief Vern Umetsu Public Works Director 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431 -3670 • Fax (206) 431 -3665 Gary Lawrence Director Planning Department City of Seattle Seattle, WA Re: Seattle - Tukwila Boundary Dear RECEIVED JAN 21 1993 CITY OF TUKWILA MAYOR'S OFFICE As you recall, the City of Tukwila in 1989 annexed the area of Boeing Field along East Marginal Way, known as Fire District No.1. The Fire District boundaries were originally drawn along topography and the Duwamish River waterway. Those boundaries no longer exist and are not relevant to existing development or appropriate government by either Tukwila or Seattle. We have agreed that adjustment of these shared boundaries is in mutual best interests and should be accomplished as soon as possible. tiur The issues surrounding these antiquated boundaries have aged beyond reasonableness and need to be addressed as soon as possible. Permitting and service provision issues are increasingly pressing and complicating future development decisions. It is overdue for our cities to make adjustment of the boundaries a high priority for 1993. Sincerely, L. Rick Beeler Director to discuss how we can jointly work toward the adjustment of our mutual boundaries. cc: Mayor Building Official Vern Umetsu Fire Chief Public Works Direct( Pour.- C4 6/— 1�yt CatiVAS (-Cc - r ' ,i•or z 5 CAK GEL_ -rierS f "-- o reC-r eg72 A : rACget> t r&. r„Lt lx4 JAN 2 61993 COMMUNITY cie E oEN T June 26, 1992 • • City of Tukwila Department of Community Development Elsie Crossman, Physical Planning Manager Seattle Office of Long -range Planning 200 Municipal Building Seattle, WA 98104 John W. Rants, Mayor Rick Beeler, Director RE: Seattle - Tukwila Boundary Adjustment. Dear Elsie, This, is a follow -up letter to your conversation with Vernon Umetsu on June 8th. I understand that: a. your staff is already fully committed to an existing, Council approved work plan, b. that a small amount of hours to identify boundary issues is available, but not the greater number of hours needed to actually resolve these issues, c. that no change in this work plan is anticipated, and d. that DCLU would support an interlocal ordinance assigning building code responsibilities to avoid undue hardship on property owners. Duane Griffin (Tukwila Building Official) has already talked with Matt Lampe (DCLU Director of Permits) and reached consensus on the need for such an agreement. They will be meeting further to discuss specific solutions. It is hoped that this short -term solution can be implemented with a minimum of staff time. I understand that long -term issues of logical city boundaries will be addressed in the Growth Management process of setting "urban area boundaries ". Please contact Vernon Umetsu of my staff at 431 -3684 if I have misunderstood anything. I look forward to working with you on future projects. Sincerely, Rick Bee er, Director Department of Community Development cc: Mayor/Fire/Public Works. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 0 (206) 431 -3670 • Fax. (206) 431 -3665 City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard • Tukwila, Washington 98188 John W. Rants, Mayor MEMORANDUM To: John McFarland, City Administrator From: Vernon Umetsu Department of Community Development Date: April 27, 1992 RE: Seattle - Tukwila Boundary Adjustment Schedule. The Boundary Adjustment project began in July, 1991 with a letter from Mayor Van Dusen to Mayor Rice (attached). Seattle's Office of Long Range Planning (OLP) did not receive any "high priority" instructions until late August /early September. Due to Seattle staff constraints, a. Tukwila proposals could not be reviewed with OLP until 10/25/91, b. Seattle departments did not jointly meet to review the Tukwila proposal until about 12/15/91, c. OLP was to do further data collection and develop a Seattle alternative in three weeks (not done), and c. GMA and other Seattle priorities have preempted staff work on this project to date. I am currently working with Elsie Crossman to get Seattle agreement to an overall project work plan with firm deadlines. This is not expected to be completed until about June 6th, due to Seattle and Tukwila staff constraints (freeing Tukwila staff time could move this forward by 7 -10 days). Tukwila's (unsent) draft work plan is attached and summarized below: Staff Calendar Work Plan Element Hours Time Data Collection & Analysis 35 4/5 - 9/5/92 Alternative Development & Negotiation 80 9/5 - 12/15/92 Phone: (206) 433 -1800 • City Hall Fax (206) 433 -1833 Council Review and Action 30 12/15 - 2/19/93 B.R.B. Review and Waiver 40 2/19 - 4/5/93 Final Council Action 20 4/5 - 5/15/93 Total 215 4/5/92 - 5/15/93 A large amount of calendar time for relatively few staff hours reflects the historic pattern of Seattle staff allocation. This historic pattern is expected to continue since the same staff are working on the Sand Point N.A.S. reuse plan, operationalizing Mayor Rice's "urban village" concepts, and other projects. The first step in implementing this work plan is agreement by all parties. Please feel free to call me at 431 -3684 or x -1684, if I can be of further help. Attachment file:mcfar � 1 3/30/92 FC/.5 ELIV feW co°4 .1"4 ev c")( 7-,c37Ar S '� D GL.S i .r- Fa zd ` 7 -TLC. o tk: oc T /LS., A M Crossman returned my calls this A.M. explaining that o she and her staff had been tied up with GMA policy framework projects as well as normal Seattle business. We agreed that our joint schedules would not allow substantive work on this project until June, 1992. The tentative work plan is as follows: 6/5 Exchange staff understanding of the basis for evaluating boundary adjustment proposals. This was needed because Seattle has a wide range of concerns including maintaining neutral employment base impacts and fire service boundary concerns. Staff will complete •a comprehensive list of concerns and the data needed to evaluate solutions based on these concerns by this week if possible. Crossman and Umetsu will be alternately out of town from early April through May. vsart12 pcd iG Seattle and Tukwila develop work program and split responsibilities to fairly share work. This ensures that the same task is not done by both cities and are done efficiently (1 mtg.). 8/5 Each city reviews data and analysis to ID concerns and solutions. 9/5 Seattle and Tukwila staffs meet jointly to formulate a boundary adjustment proposal (2 mtgs). 10/15 Joint Seattle - Tukwila information meeting for affected parties* t-ft at (P y "-20 11/15 Administration level agreement on boundary adjustment proposal. 12/15 Present to respective Councils. No Council review until 2/93 due to work on budget, holidays and annual reorganization. pro 2 /%'-p/ Council adopts resolution of support and staffs prepare application as needed to the Boundary Review Board. 4/5 Boundary Review Board waives jurisdiction. City Council's adopt simultaneous annexing and deannexing ordinances. eT) g—o zrL c r co P * C6cAtib CS ?'/a -fC o (8 *), 30 MEMORANDUM To: Jack Pace From: Vernon Umetsu Department of Community Development Date: February 20, 1992 RE: Seattle - Tukwila Boundary Adjustment Status Summary. In July, 1991, Tukwila's Administration developed recommendations for city limit adjustments with Seattle to reflect more logical service areas. This was followed up with a request to Mayor Rice to jointly address this problem (July 19, 1992). Seattle's administration agreed to work with Tukwila on resolving this issue. Vernon Umetsu reviewed Tukwila proposals with Elsie Crossman of Seattle's Office of Long Range Planning (OLP) on October 25, 1992. Seattle department staff reviewed this proposal and Crossman telephoned the following concerns on December 16, 1991: 1. Boundary adjustment with Tukwila should be done on an area - wide basis, possibly in the context of GMA Urban Growth Boundaries; 2. Fiscal impacts should be equivalent; 3. Tukwila's proposed adjustment does not result in rational service boundaries; and 4. Much of Boeing is rationally within the Seattle service area. Currently, Crossman is getting data on property tax changes for Seattle's analysis and Umetsu is to call on in Mid - February to monitor progress. Crossman does not anticipate being ready to meet again until mid -March at the earliest. Umetsu's work plan does not allow work on this project until mid -March when 40 hours are available. Future work on this project includes a fiscal impact analysis as directed by the Tukwila City Council, and which should be done with Seattle, coordination with various departments in each city, and Boundary Review Board applications as needed for each non- contiguous city limit change. CC. 144:>\-- 5' Likre- - -3- -2/3) C� w- z C�D 4-45 14)- M ro (s caak«46-7: Ir ;, << 1991 • -^ "emu•'!" ,�.. .�:.. . CITY OF T UIi WILA coo. 11 T:ICfi`: TER BOULEVARD. TUKWILA. WASHINGTON 9818,s; . July 19, 1991 The Honorable Norman B. Rice, Mayor City of Seattle 600 Fourth Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 �t l L L)• Gtq l.. l;inDns'n, .11atior Dear Norm, Since you became Mayor of the City of Seattle in 1989, we have had the opportunity,to work cooperatively on many projects of mutual interest. I am now soliciting your assistance with an issue that has been a source of consternation on the part of employees and residents of both of our cities. In 1989, Seattle and Tukwila became neighbors with our annexation of Fire District No. 1. We soon discovered that there were six segments of our common city boundaries that cause considerable confusion in providing emergency services, infrastructure maintenance, and development regulation. These areas are shown on the attached map. Our respective police, fire, public works and building departments have been engaged in the drafting of interlocal agreements to resolve these problems. They have quickly concluded that a comprehensive approach involving realignment would be more efficient and effective in resolving these boundary line issues. In order to facilitate such a realignment I propose that we: A. Recognize that many public service delivery problems result from the old Fire District No. 1 boundary lines -- a decades old line that has little to do with the needs associated with solving today's service delivery requirements. B. Agree to work cooperatively to develop rational boundaries which are mutual beneficial in serving our citizens, and C. Appoint contact staff members in appropriate departments to draft revised city boundaries and agreements associated with them. I have designated Vernon Umetsu.from our Department of Community Development as my staff liaison for this project. If you are in . agreement with the initiating of a comprehensive process in dealing with this issue, please have your representative call him at 431- 3684 at the earliest convenience. I look forward to once again working cooperatively with you and your staff on this mutually beneficial project. If you have questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me at 433 -1805. Sincerely, 7 Ga L. VanDusen Mayor . GLVD:VU:rab cc: All City Departments Enclosure \City limits run through the Boeing 2 -1.0 Bldg. • Z• City limits run through the Boeing 2 -25 Bldg. SEATTLE TIIKWILA t Issl ekdentification Map July 1, 1991 City limits split off an airport segment and run through parcels. SEATTLE • ..• •\ • i -.•tom �`., • /� li('• , • • \ A. \\ North Scala 1 inch = 1.750 ft. \\ • • II \`{ � _ SE TTLE i. _ ._ __'t \\ \„\== _:I fi •• =• • 4: City limits run through the Assoc Groccrs Bldg., split Bocing Ficld, and emergency response and road /utilities maintenance is complicated by a short isolated Scattic arca. • \ City limits run through \ Cour narrow lots; —.I t J_. • • `,;'" complicating emergency •�•. • ' . ' response. —:-.'' ,l � , \ _-ter =ci 1 \- . -. . 1 :..-,.: � .. . \ , �t 1. • \... - —,• ,,o,.,17.• 2_1..... ** I L.4,.; — t TUKWILA_' TUKWILA .F.I! • • i\ h City limits cream a isolated segmcnt uf which complicates cmcrgcncy response. small I -5 �.r CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD, TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98188 July 12, 1991 Mr. Paul Jackson 10349 51st Ave. S. Tukwila, WA 98188 Dear Mr. Jackson, PHONE # (206) 4331800 RECEIVED JUL 1 5 1991 Cf 7Y OF 1-UK YIL!l Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor As follow -up to our conversation of this week, I'm enclosing a series of maps produced by our Planning Department depicting your neighborhood and that area annexed by Tukwila. As you can readily see from the maps, 51st Avenue South is indeed an enforcement nightmare. From the western edge of the street right -of -way (on or about the west -side curb) to the west, we find Tukwila. From the center of the roadway east, we find Seattle. In the middle lies the western half of the roadway that remains unincorporated King County. Current state law forbids the City of Tukwila to annex to the center of a roadway; thus we couldn't take the western half of 51st. We have no knowledge of any agreement that may exist between Seattle and King County as to enforcement authority on 51st, but such an arrangement may exist. The City of Tukwila has initiated efforts to resolve this difficult property split. We are hopeful of an arrangement that would reduce the jurisdictions to Seattle and Tukwila and assure curb -to- curb responsibility by one city or the other. Needless to say, if we can be of service on issues falling within our jurisdiction, please contact us. Res . G. Waldner CCs: -Asst. Chief Keith Haines Chief of Police -Sgt. Don Smith Seattle Police Dept So. Pct. RGW:fh -Vernon Umetsu, Asst. Planner Attachments City of Tukwila 3 ev w SEATTLE CITY LIMITS 51ST AVE S. FIRE pISTRiCT # O b . u : " I i v r�a>a '4847 II � �.11 I� W aN ry 11 � •b �i O — N I • MUM 5111 milks N ell fo >7 • \ \I A l 41 L.) N - - i s 47TH 10, lid /1714 49TH _p ii�� L3I 1 atm 50TH°— /4d JO I nC ! 9' JOT 44 t' 40 W 9 29' -J i AVE-� S (1) [3'6 ;O� iJ it 111; .f 44.4.0;ie4.5 7 Waal /t. /30 u 3 AC / ,o SIG _t 9S,I 3,1 AI /t 5/0 5 1 AC ,7, :goo o l) j b AC 'pUJ TSB y ^ . 70 RYAN WAY • \ \V ., , \ . �e so .jo ll 31. ([ •2/.:... 1� \\ \I ` wi Ili .•(N •'1. •'``� l •'11 D.C. MITCHELL \\ :; ® •t••��l �.Z , • 30 1.02 Al :. �\ \ rr , • L. ... \\ r-�~ .11.1. •� A. JUL. Y. & 7Nlkt E Y M YP.E::. a 1`e _Tr JUL. 18 Al. ' 1< MOO 26 MAP 21 N • 5Jaet2tee Ceae_ ) cJ, /(4i OD re • City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor MEMORANDUM TO: Chief Ron Waldner FROM: Michael R. Kenyon, City Attorney 1 tigic� RE: Seattle /Tukwila Boundary Interlocal DATE: May 29, 1991 Given the fact that it took Seattle 4h months just to respond to your letter of January 10, I very much doubt that it is worth pursuing an interlocal as an interim solution prior to the boundary line adjustments now being processed by DCD. Unless someone convinces me otherwise, I don't plan to spend more time on this. cc: (VETWA____ asu_ Tom Keefe )I R\v /[ [MAY 2 9 1991 CITY OF TUIKWJLA PLANNING DEPT. City of Tukwila TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: MEMORANDUM Mike Kenyon, City Attorney Ron Waldner, Chief of Police May 24, 1991 Boundary Interlocal Seattle/Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 Police Department 433 -1808 Attached is Seattle's response to our January proposal that we consider an interlocal that adjusts our emergency response along 16th South and East Marginal Way. I'm not sure I understand Leo's concerns in that I thought all could be resolved with an interlocal. In any event, this may all be mute if resolved via the border adjustments currently being processed by Planning. If you think the interlocal is worth pursuing as an interim solution, let me know. Otherwise, I'll assume this issue is dead and we'll leave all to Vernon. RGW:tr Attachment cc: Vernon Umetsu, Associate Planner Tom Keefe, Fire Chief L W 1V % i ri (MAY2S 199i Cfl Y uf° 1.u, vviLA PrLANNING CY PT. May 17, 1991 Washington State Boundary Review Board For King County 3600 136th S. E., Suite 122 Bellevue, WA 98006 Telephone (206) 296 -7096 TO: King County Cities and Special Purpose Districts FROM: Alda Wilkinson, Executive Secretary SUBJECT: Notice of Intention Format The Boundary Review Board recently decided to change all agenda materials from legal sized to standard letter sized (8 1/2 x 11 inch) paper. We are requesting that all Notices of Intention be submitted on 8 1/2 x 11 paper. Many of you are already using standard paper. For those of you who have your Notice of Intention format set up for legal sized paper, we greatly appreciate your cooperation in making the change. The change to 8 1/2 x 11 inch paper may require special attention to map legibility. Although you submit an original and eight copies of Notices of Intention for initial distribution to interested entities, we make an additional 25 copies for distribution with our meeting agenda packet. We need 8 1/2 x 11 inch maps, which can be copied on the Xerox, and will still be both legible and sufficiently detailed to provide necessary information. One of the copies submitted with your original Notice of Intention is used for reproduction of agenda materials. We immediately place the original in our file, and set aside the copy for agenda preparation. We ask that at least one copy be Xerox ready, meaning single sided and a clear first generation copy. Thank you very much for your attention to these technical details which expedite our processing and assure that the Board receives legible information. METE' MAY 22 1991 Gi Y OF s UKWiLA PLA.NN!NI''_: CCPT. • Seattle Police Department Patrick S. Fitzsimons, Chief of Police Norman B. Rice, Mayor May 17, 1991 Ron G. Waldner, Chief of Police Tukwila Police Department 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 Re: Boundary Interlocal agreement Dear Chief Waldner: In response to your letter of January 10, 1991, several differences may exist with respect to the City of Seattle's agreement to run fire service into Tukwila and the City taking police action in another jurisdiction. While we somewhat agree that there are advantages in the proposal, we are concerned that cases from a particular PSAP within the E911 system be consistent relative to the jurisdiction of the district or municipal court that criminal cases will be filed in. Otherwise we will occasionally have cases filed in the wrong trial court. For felonies there is not as much consideration since the jurisdiction of Superior Court is county wide, unless the case is reduced to a misdemeanor. Also we have the situation where the normal criminal ordinances of our respective cities will not apply. We believe that an interlocal agreement cannot change this aspect of enforcement within the City of Tukwila or the City of Seattle. It may be easier to change the PSAP for emergency services only, or it may be easier to change the emergency response relative to E911 and who arrives first to quell a public safety problem. We do not want to run the risk of losing criminal cases and we do not want to have our officers frequently responding to another district court to testify in cases. With these problems in mind, possibly your City attorney could talk with Jack Johnson of the Seattle City Attorney's Office An equal employment opportunity - affirmative action employer City of Seattle - Police Department, 610 Third Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98104 -1886 "Printed on Recycled Paper" • Ron G. Waldner May 7, 1991 Page two after a draft agreement is put together for the parties to review. Very truly yours, PATRICK S. FITZSIMONS Chief of Police Leo E. Poort Legal Advisor LEP:aks cc: A /Chief M. C. Brasfield Capt. D. Marquart Jack Johnson • • N .7 7- S T67P (I`( S'65rA.— `T v,?. plea (S "KCL� You O cA to icb /9 - c /k-1,4- W04-1 cdt.`(ce-t& -?j .) 6-)11-0 (s /Are s/d PE' 7,a/\(6 Z13 p:t.e 0±-644 /9k gT ‘77 — 474_ ,lia,6-cpdge,-t-414 4.04d c A aF Fle.02:Pcac1(0/ce- • MORANDUM To: Jack Pace l/ From: Vernon Umetsu, Associate Planner Department of Community Development Date: 4/30/91 RE: 91 -1 -A: Seattle- Tukwila (SEA -TUK) Boundary Adjustment Please authorize 4 hours of Sharon Dibble's time to prepare a base map in preparation for Thursday's interdepartmental meeting. The base map will use Kroll maps to show existing improvements, accurate property lines and city boundaries (transferred from assessor maps), and an overlay of proposed boundary changes on acetate. This is basic information required for a productive meeting, that must be prepared by Sharon or someone else (i.e. myself). Sharon says she can do it tomorrow morning. Please let me know by the end of today on who will be doing it. Thanks. To: • MEMORANDUM 1 Ross Earnst, Public Works Director Doug Micheau, Public Works Coordinator Tom Keefe, Fire Chief Keith Haynes, Assistant Police Chief Jack Pace, Senior Planner From: Vernon Umetsu, Associate Planner Department of Community Development Date: April 30, 1991 RE: Seattle - Tukwila Boundary Adjustment This memo is to confirm our interdepartmental meeting on straightening out the Seattle - Tukwila city limits. The purpose of the project is to improve public service delivery by creating more logical service area boundaries. The meeting will be held on: Thursday, May 2, 1991 10:00 - 11:00 A.M. Conference Room No. 1 (large conference room) AGENDA 1. Review preliminary site boundaries for areas to be exchanged between Seattle and Tukwila * Review Kroll maps with accurate lot lines, city boundaries and approximate building location. * Review and revise preliminary boundaries for properties to be exchanged with Seattle. 2. Identify the associated issues to be addressed from both the Tukwila and Seattle perspectives. 3. Review work program. cc: Mayor /Beeler MEMO FOR RECORD DATE: April 15, 1991 FROM: ^ DUane Griffin, Bldg Offl TO File At the last WABO meeting I talked to Matt Lampe from Seattle DCLU regarding the boundary line situation between Seattle & Tukwila where the line runs through some buildings. He advised me to call Mark Summers, 684-8880, who had been working on the subject '/fjrior to Mark getting a different job. I called Mark Summers on 4-15-91 and he told me the last he had heard about the subject was that their attorney was working on an interlocal agreement that would include police, fire° and building. He said it appears everybody thought the best way is to perform an actual boundary line change if possible. They feel that a interlocal agreement could possibly work until you get to a point where land use issues come into it, and then it would become much more difficult. Mark said that Rebecca Herzfeld would probably know more current information about the subject than he did and he would leave a message for her to contact me. I also called Sue Putnam, DCLU, 684-8850, this date, to answer a phone message I had from her and she said she had run down a copy of the letter she had talked to me about earlier regarding the permit on Boeing cafeteria. She said she previously thought the letter had gone out but it hadn't and I would be getting a copy of it shortly. She said the letter she had seen said that Seattle didn't have any problems with us issueing the permit for this TI and it would be signed by somebody in DCLU that has the authority for that type decision. When I told Sue about the conversation I had earlier with Mark Summers she thought she would get in touch with him or Rebecca Henzfeld and discuss the subject in more detail with them. Sue said she would get back in touch with me to let me know what she finds out. 1Ke- A-c--pozro&O (0, //cffA-v7), / v•cA_ --rerCi dqcwe_Ac) CITY OF TUKWILA 62uu.SUU TUCK r\7ERBOULE BOULEVARD, TUKWILA, WASHING 7uA9s155 March 11, 1991 Patrick Fitzsimons, Chief Seattle Police Department 610 Third Avenue, #1001 Seattle, WA 98104 Dear Chief Fitzsimons: /'HONE n (zoo) as:: lsur, RECEIVED MAR 1 21991 TUKWIL PUBLIC WORKS Goop L. l'anthisen, Mayor Approximately 60 days ago, we initiated correspondence on a proposal that Seattle and Tukwila develop an interlocal designed to clean up jurisdictional lines on Boeing property at 16th Avenue South and East Marginal Way. We are still supportive of this emergency services proposal and will initiate the needed documentation, if the City of Seattle is in agreement. Should you require any additional information to bring this matter to closure, don't hesitate to call me at 433 -1804. Sincer G. ' aldner Chief of Police RGW:tr cc: Tom Keefe, Fire Chief Mike Kenyon, City Attorney John McFarland, City Administrator Doug Micheau, Public Works Coordinator , "\e�,� Cam% ' � i s CA\1161 (12,e/V C Cti-e-c) l'AgAvue 415 t5 sag, f4CeJQ - 2 ,,' ,�ctti /lo G'�OC�/�� -t 5 'tom mot" d-� d act • /10)44. o /4 /1-t I/vl, O 7 i " 74-14te-e-4-74s SUBJECT 07 /- /7- ',99/ /iw- 6 , 1 ,G oe 414/7 BUILDINGS STRADDLING TUKWILA /SEATTLE BOUNDARY LINES PROBLEM There are presently individual buildings that have Tukwila /Seattle jurisdictional boundary lines running through the building, and there are no interlocal agreements assigning overall jurisdictional authority for the entire building. This results in split jurisdictional authority that causes confusion, inconsistency, non - conformity, and possible non - complying code health /life /safety issues. DISCUSSION 1. Jurisdiction on individual buildings should not be split for the following reasons: a. Tukwila & Seattle don't have same code requirements. b. There is no formal coordination on plan checking. c. On remodels the floor plan for the entire building, not . just the part of one side of a boundary line, has to be considered when doing a plan check. Exiting requirements are an example of this, because an approved exitway has to provide emergency egress all the way to the exterior of the building. Consequently, an exit corridor or passageway and how it is constructed become critical when making decisions during the plan check process. d. Permit fees can amount to a substantial amount of revenue. I would assume that both jurisdictions would have an interest in the subject of fee revenue. e. Plan check fees, procedures, and requirements placed on the-contractor differ between Seattle and Tukwila. I would assume Boeing would have an interest in any interlocal agreement because of the possible difference in service levels provided by each jurisdiction. f. Inspection procedures are different between Seattle and Tukwila. This is not only confusing to contractors but it could disrupt our inspection procedures and in some cases cause incomplete inspection of critical components of the structure. g. Fire Dept sprinkler requirements. When does Tukwila requirements kick in as a result of remodels? i. Public: Works requirements. When does the sidewalk ordinance kick in as a result of a remodel on a split jurisdiction building? 2. This could be a subject for DRC action. 3. After input from DRC the City Attorney could be tasked with coming up with a draft interlocal agreement for review by DRC and other appropriate Tukwila staff. 4. City Attorney could then work appropriate channels to get .a interlocal agreement finalized. pstmax In the past, buildings straddling the King Co. /Seattle boundary line were governed by an unwritten "gentleman's agreement" on who had jurisdiction. In discussions with representatives from both King Co. and Seattle the Tukwila Building Official has been told the unwritten agreement is not very satisfactory for numerous reasons, some of which are listed above. He has also been told by Boeing that there are plans in the works to demolish some existing buildings and replace them with new buildings that are expected to be located on property that is divided by Tukwila /Seattle boundary, but will be physically located over the boundary line. It is recommended that some sort of agreement, or possibly a boundary line adjustment, be reached by our jurisdictions as soon as possible before the present unsatisfactory situation becomes even worse. It may also be advisable to determine what the City's posture will be if no boundary line solution is reached between Seattle and Tukwila, but Boeing comes in with plans for a new building that straddles • the boundary lines. 111 EmW 3.A .91 Boundary Line Adjustments. I attended a meeting on January 16th with King County Public Works and Seattle,Engineering Department on the boundary line adjustments issue. The attached maps show the adjustments which are currently planned and the parties involved by color coding. The green is between Seattle and King County in cases where Seattle will annex, Seattle assuming lead role. The blue is between King County and Tukwila, Tukwila assuming lead. The yellow is between Tukwila and Seattle with property being annexed to Tukwila through joint action. Pink is between Tukwila and Seattle with Seattle annexing through joint action. Area 1 - Consists of Right of Way on 51st Ave. S. and S. 114th which will be a boundary line adjustment by Seattle. Area 2 - Consists of a swap by Seattle and Tukwila which will involve the property owners in order to align city limits along property lines. Area 3 - Consists of a straightening of the limits which will bring State and Seattle Right of Way to the City of Tukwila. Area 4 - Should be accomplished along with or following Area 3 to bring State and King County Right of Way into the City of Tukwila. Areas 5 & 6 - This involves a swap of areas in Seattle and Tukwila to align city limits along the northwest of 16th Ave. S. and east of East Marginal Way. This will require coordination between the cities and Boeing. Area 7 - Involves an annexation by the City of Seattle. The County and Seattle will work on this annexation. The Seattle Engineering representative, Kirk Jones, is to get back to me when he has done his research and homework on the areas involved. Future areas for discussion with Seattle will probably involve the Airport and the area south of the Airport between Boeing Access Road and S. Norfolk Street. 2 include forms to be provided to Finance to accommodate billable work orders and payroll (according to relevant functions). Boundary Line Adjustments. I attended a meeting on January 16th with King County Public Works and Seattle Engineering Department on the boundary line adjustments issue. The attached maps show the adjustments which are currently planned and the parties involved by color coding. The green is between Seattle and King County in cases where Seattle will annex, Seattle assuming lead role. The blue is between King County and Tukwila, Tukwila assuming lead. The yellow is between Tukwila and Seattle with property being annexed to Tukwila through joint action. Pink is between Tukwila and Seattle with Seattle annexing through joint action. Area 1 - Consists of Right of Way on 51st Ave. S. and S. 114th which will be a boundary line adjustment by Seattle. Area 2 - Consists of a swap by Seattle and Tukwila which will involve the property owners in order to align city limits along property lines. Area 3 - Consists of a straightening of the limits which will bring State and Seattle Right of Way to the City of Tukwila. Area 4 - Should be accomplished along with or following Area 3 to bring State and King County Right of Way into the City of Tukwila. Areas 5 & 6 - This involves a swap of areas in Seattle and Tukwila to align city limits along the northwest of 16th Ave. S. and east of East. Marginal Way. This will require coordination between the cities and Boeing. Area 7 - Involves an annexation by the City of Seattle. The County and Seattle will work on this annexation. The Seattle Engineering representative, Kirk Jones, is to get back to me when he has done his research and homework on the areas involved. Future areas for discussion with Seattle will probably involve the Airport and the area south of the Airport between Boeing Access Road and S. Norfolk Street. 3) Turnover of Kincr County Surplus Land. King County has agreed to do the turnover if we will give them water for street sweepers. We are currently working with their Public Works Staff to select a fire hydrant. The - County is sending us the deeds for the parcels. This process should be completed by the end of February. 6 r O� 1 9 2 E DISTRICT Gov't. Lot 13 27.34 Acres SEATTLE CITY LIMITS Ite5 ?ea NORT I L /NE JOHN BUCKL (APPROX. OC. OF CTR. LN. OF S. ROSE 57 EX7D.) 0 Nit17;'14 N N x t- T 60 f0 3 b ter 11 b' a._ • Y DON •r /ON LAND CL 4 / 65 MAP 02 4.5;.; i \'1' 11 ''93 s• \ 94 .,— • 17—• , :,,,, ,•,92\. :\...N :,, 1 \ , 1„:),, \:\ ..,.„- st, ;•3 :•:::\ .... 10 I 1:: ,,,;•\ ..., • \ s••••,:.......- • • , ,,,, - • • • — \::.N .\.- • N ,..• • • .., I ‘,I ... ._ 6... , I-. ' 1 : 7; • • • • \ • 'alai' -11101.10.1.4.1040.3 .."Sa' 4:3 '4.:.°j r C ‘12:14.3 '-"Ck‘ 5-7. ‘1 r° c--JUNI PER c •,,,..• .---, • 1 1 ,c.:. • .:'..•.• _ , ' 7 • 4 !...:-.0 . MID , , \ , , . <9 \ G \ \ \ c e Gn 1,\ co • • • • 41 MAP 36 5 _ _ I '..:1 .. ._ L 641 ...p• 1. • • :, No e5 ri 4e AL ,,.. tz 1211 It /4 5 Li. S 3 v 035 AC. %., . ..- .. ....kr' ..,4 0.er, ac..0 • TL 1,4 Pi . 68 AC // /0 "I 85 34 A( • ez•C 1::1] /L 3/ 0 5 I AC 1.4 4 4 I s I • "J 0 8 1,1 \/•• u k. MI 1 CIILL L L rl ' r L. I, c ' -, c .), H i ) la 1/11.1._ 10313 10!'•' J).. 12.J_ ) . " t 101.10 _ 103 S8 !In74; t .1 I • • 1 ' • RYAN WAY S. ; 1 107T H .s14 513 26 MAP 21 • Itli Gor f,Lof 210 o \ \\ 20 N *.N 10 \ sc���\ r SEATTLE CITY LIMITS 32,33 °0.1 6oif. Lof 1 4 2K-1 0 60 6a 9 t VAC ' VAS( VIC .H N• ••••-e-' N '4i \ Nom\ \ ST.r a ( w 17,E I BLK. I J w SSTHISTLE 51 16 B) 2 fin 52.10 6 )332 31.34 fli • 4 Li ii i $101121 14151681819 2122r23o 24 d 0847146145 r 3142 j4 IQ 417 38 r1 r35 34133 32 !QI ri 2625 4.422 21 LJ 1] 7. MAP 01 LO 3 0 co Sb30H�NSi �O • SOIRECrOaS, LSN O FIRE DISTRI •• OUTSIDE FIRE DISTRICT , ► 1. ;Gird -- :1�1�.� .�;.F �,;�;r.;.-- t�,.-: o. - - a ir N I •. 1 113111111 I Iv'Oc, IS 1.' 21 ft' OP 9 60 1 3 , I , --M OS 16e 81.12r JON 0 at• .7.- I 11 I II I :, i. I LS' 11 I 3V C) H16P or cU 0, 7S NJdO r- S I J. 09 Ill x..11, ro I' + I IIIV� I1 I, , I • ' .. 4 co r, .O 0 I tl) if F7 I . 1r) la If Ji .767 •1 . AV N 3dn or olidlan CO 0% pi N 1.4JN .'b' I•. .. i it I b,. /f 9. t C. G6 i in r Py 4 tp 12 PO/ 09 Ill x..11, ro I' + I IIIV� I1 I, , I • ' r cs:, :f H1Lt' ON 11 II 7 IV 0 2C0 oI SEATTLE CITY' LIMITS 51ST AVE S. ) s5 `z o r 9 two �.tvi-1 -() ) S! .r Si 1-D- SS`s)1 r rn X f. Mfr, -41111 r NTKS� ..MEMORANDUM 'DATE: December 20, 1990 FROM: Duane Griffin, Bldg Offl TO: Rick Beeler, DCD Director. SUBJ: Jurisdiction over buildings that straddle jurisdictional boundary lines Apparently, during the Duwamish annexation process, the issue of buildings that straddle boundary lines was not thought of, or if it was there was nothing in waiting that I'm aware of that spells out who has jurisdictional authority over the buildings in question. I have brought this question up before, as it relates to Boeing buildings, but have never received any guidance. The subject keeps coming up in the Building Division because of plan check requirements on tenant improvement permit applications submitted by Boeing, but I would assume it also has implications for SEPA and other DCD issues. On December 18, 1990, I contacted Kermit Robinson, Code Research Coordinator for Seattle DCLU, to try to get some background data an how jurisdictional authority was determined in the past, prior to annexation when the property in question was in King County. On 20 December . he called me back, after talking to a number of Seattle DCLU people, and said as far as he could find out it had always been handled on an unwritten gentleman's agreement type arrangement. He also said that in the conversations he had with the people there, everyone felt that a formal written policy should be established for a number of different reasons. My personal opinion is that a formal policy should definitely be established so that there is no doubt who has authority and responsibility for enforcing code requirements, collecting permit fees, and possibly jurisdictional liability. Kermit told me he would be talking with Mark Summers, DCLU Code Compliance Coordinator, 386 -9147, in an attempt to get something started on this subject. He suggested we might want to have the Tukwila city attorney contact Mr. Summers to maybe coordinate a joint effort regarding a formal agreement. a tU Seattle Engineering Department Gary Zarker. Director ^r Norman B. Rice. Mayor L EP I . u'- URUC WORKS September 25, 1990 " Louis J. Haff County Road Engineer King County Department of Public Works 956 King County Administration Building 500 - 4th Avenue Seattle, Washington 98104 Dear Mr. iaff: COPIES TO; DOUG MATTOON /for review & appropriate action REX KNIGHT /for your information This letter is in response to your August 23, 1990 memo regarding Transfer of Road Maintenance and Revision of Boundaries to City of Seattle. The two areas for which you are seeking our comments are: 51st Avenue South between South Ryan Street and South 113th Street (South Avon Street), and South 120th Street (South Juniper Street) westerly of Empire Way South. We are willing to assume maintenance of 51st Avenue South per RCW 36.75.203. The portion of 51st Avenue South, between South Ryan Street and South 112th Street (South Leo Street), appears to fit the guidelines of RCW. The portion between South 112th Street and South 113th Street does not; there is no center line boundary; the entire street right - of -way is in King County. Legally the maintenance responsibility of that portion may have to be transferred as a boundary revision per RCW 35.21.790. I don't believe we would have any objection to a revision that would make the westerly margin of 51st Avenue South the corporate boundary of the City of Seattle. We also have no objection to a revision that would make the southerly margin of South 120th Street (west of I -5) the corporate boundary as allowed by RCW 35.21.790. This is a small unimproved area that is isolated from any street right -of -way other than I -5 and it appears to be of no use as street to Seattle, Tukwila, or King County. Perhaps it should be returned to private ownership. It is also within the area that Tukwila (in their March 23, 1989 letter) proposed annexing by adjusting the Seattle /Tukwila corporate boundary to the easterly margin of Empire Way South. Maybe that option should be pursued. "Printed on Recycled Paper" An equal employment opportunity - affirmative action employer Seattle Engineering Department. Room 910, Seattle Municipal Building. 600 Fourth Avenue, Seattle, WA. 98104 -1879, (206) 684 -5000 Louis J. Haff September 25, 1990 Page 2 If either a transfer of maintenance responsibility, or a boundary revision occurs, we would appreciate receiving any plans or other information you may have concerning street improvements such as paving, sewers, drainage facilities, traffic control devices, etc. Before a formal motion is prepared, I believe we (King County, Seattle, and Tukwila) should meet and discuss your immediate proposal and other possible boundary adjustments. If you have any questions, please call Joe Ralph at 684- 5085. Sincerely, ry/Zarker, Director HWA:mg D012HWA.LTR cc: Andrew Lofton, Elsie Crossman, Planning Ross A. Earnst, Tukwila Director, Office of Management Acting Director, Office For Long Range Director of Public Works, City of King County Division of Roads and Engineering Department of Public Works 956 King County Administration Bldg. 500 Fourth Avenue Seattle, Washington 98104 August 23., 1990 TO: Gary Zarker, Director, Seattle Engineering Department Andrew Lofton, Budget. Director, Office of Mgmt & Budget Ric -1 d Y k •i;usky, Director, Office of Long Range Planning FM: Lai '. al County Road Engineer, King County .epartment of Public Works RE: Transfer of Road Maintenance and Revision of Boundaries to City of Seattle The purpose of this memo is to inform you that the King County Department of Public Works is currently drafting a motion for consideration by the King County Council to transfer maintenance responsibilities for a one -half street portion of 51st Avenue South to the City of Seattle. The proposed motion also requests revision of the existing Seattle city limits to include the unincorporated portions of 51st Avenue South and South 120th Street. These portions were left between Seattle's boundary and the boundary of Tukwila when it was recently established by the Fire District No. 1 annexation. The location is noted on the enclosed map. The King County Department of Public Works would like to discontinue the maintenance of the isolated portion of unincorporated 51st Avenue South that lies between South Ryan Way and South 113th Street. The right -of -way is no longer contiguous to unincorporated properties, and is surrounded on all sides by either Tukwila or Seattle. The roadway represents a maintenance hardship for King County by requiring the transport of equipment a considerable distance over city streets. Chapter 36.75.203 RCW allows for this transfer. The King County Department of Public Works would also like to revise two Seattle areas where the existing corporate limits coincide with the centerlines of 51st Avenue South and South 120th Street. Chapter 35.21.790 RCW allows for the substituting of right -of -way lines for centerlines as city limits. This city limit revision will eliminate the unincorporated 30 foot right - of -way between the two cities and in each instance place the entire road inside the Seattle city limits. 51st Ave S & S 120th Page 2 Please review this proposal and respond with comments by September 19th. If you have any questions feel free to contact Rex H. Knight, Manager, Engineering Services Section, Roads Division at 296 -6520. IJH:JRB:sz Enclosure cc: Rex H Knight, Manager, Engineering Services Section Attn: Jim Bergsma, Engineer Attn: Sandy Adams, Intergovernmental Relations Coordinator TO BE ANNEXED BY TUKWILA 51st Avenue /Juniper Street Triangle (Rev. 4/12/90) That portion of the southwest 1/4 of the northwest 1/4 of Section 11, all in Township 23 north, Range 4 east, W.M., more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at a POINT being the southwest corner of said northwest 1/4 of Section 11, said point being on the westerly extension of the South margin of South 120th Street, also known as Juniper Street; thence east along said South margin of South 120th Street and its westerly extension to the northeasterly margin of Empire Way South (State Road No. 2); thence northwesterly along said northesterly margin to its intersection with the west line of said Section 11; thence south along said west line to the POINT OF BEGINNING. , • I . 4. 4. '\.U.I'l'--;-'-‘3.•,\-2.:•'•'t ..1 1.1.:\ 1-•,,..kIJ \ • j,4.1' ' v..5 \.._<.N 1 L'•!0: 1, cs. :•::•_1 - 1 - 1 •• CE„, , . .:.,- 1 -- WALLA I - - .z.: ; I, f / -,. , ''..,'c,',„., •,v N, \\ I 1 \ ' ''',•' q,,I'l \ ‘„,, ,.. ;101. II _.\ ,t••\ u,-, ,' , ‘• „, ‘1 \ . 1 \ \ .-11.■ I \ \ AL6 " ..•.' A:: ‘1\-‘1-- - : 11 \t, Y \\•: , -!1:•."4:--- •!, I. •1. S. I I s,1 I B ••,. i 1 ,,;/ ST 11 'Is\ i' \ • 12 2 1 120 7,5 -1 tt c • 93 \ 94 95 9 ■ di \ts.: t•-',„ r , --c- ',I \ n 41 ‘ —1 --ft 5 :At_ _ /.n.4-1 ,, • .., . • 1 1 ' Q.' 1 1?' 1 /7IP /Is 14 \ 113 \_ 112 7942 NOT c OP f .0.• 1;9..'S' C:3A51 Ir\-•=1 0 &JD N I P Eafi' 0 = o CS T. = ... • L.,I 1. I .., , L.,, • I 1 3 ..1, c„ 1, ? •,-;• ,, A:,'-• ' 0' %' 7 •.. . ,. 63 ;' •c 'If 7 ft-: et '.- I • 0 ,!t 1 j..- 4 4,14. .7.2r jo .1' .6' '1s '•• 1 ... , • c) \ 1 02 L.,■,;831 0 • 1 11.9.scil-,-7- 2 ---1-LT-7'.."'N'7 itc 6 0 1 i r,..t, 1 17, .,... , T., ,..: , --- , '-','„- ,...,,. ., ,,,.F L [ , .,... ,, t=3 ci.c-i c:3S. Li a ca 120T Hi —C Q l'ORADINA I Ac . • 1/4, 1 • • ter"--"iv L:14; 0 0 .'\ 00 • • • • ' / • • c,(N. • N \. • - r 00 .17)% \ <<\ \\\ , o • • ,-• - +1 -•- •?/- 5 /26TH sr .2i.(i?c,f,t-sq/-L'( sr) 7 " g • • 2 0 n 3 4 „ 8 7 , L S /28T) 4/017f105 C. C. LEfrVIS DONATinv . A Il• •Jet •-• %our - r',1,1 4 iv c7 • ••• flOirs.ar 1 ul AV KOS ti, S ' i0 - v!S AV I. 1416, 12 4V4P x nv ,i 1 , t4 z s - I.' S — 1 SO itit"..it;"1 . l'' 0 AV s: ,,.. HUY — , —, — 'L-- ." i,_ S 414,74■11-1? • LUTHER KwyING ON V 4.° '''3 • SI, •OV t7,1:k4s § s Ay HIV v, AV 1416T . ,, s Os: , 'AVS1.19q, : .4iPZ's a- Gig OTi• "" S AY OW QUANTITY TABULATION AND LOCH _ . . I/ 14 °f- t4. -Stan-Mel t. J. State 900 i t3 $ 'AMINO -AVMS U.S • s. Is %soils city taster 1 MAINTENANCE DIVISION NO. TO BE ANNEXED BY SEATTLE (Rev.3 /20/90) That portion of the northeast 1/4 of the northeast 1/4 of Section 32, Township 24 north, Range 4 east, W.M., more particularly described as follows+ Beginning at the northeast corner of said Section 32; thence westerly along the north line of said Section 32, said line also being the current Seattle City Limits, to its intersection with the westerly margin of 16th Avenue South and the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; thence southerly along said westerly margin of 16th Avenue South and the southerly extension thereof to the thread of the Duwamish River; thence northwesterly along said thread of the Duwamish River and waterway to the north line of said Section 32; thence easterly along said north line, also being the current Seattle City Limit Line, to the westerly margin of 16th Avenue South and the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. TO BE ANNEXED BY TUKWILA (Rev.3 /20/90) That portion of the southwest 1/4 of the southwest 1/4 of Section 28, and the southeast 1/4 of the southeast 1/4 of Section 29, all in Township 24 north, Range 4 east, W.M.T more particularly described as follows+ BEGINNING at a POINT being the southeast corner of said Section 29, Township 24 north, Range 4 east, W.M.7; thence westerly along the south line of said Section 29, said line also being the current Seattle City Limits, to its intersection with the westerly margin of 16th Avenue South; thence northeasterly and northerly along said westerly margin of 16th Avenue South and the northerly extension thereof, to the easterly margin of East Marginal Way South; thence southeasterly along said easterly margin to the south line of said Section 28; thence westerly along said south line to the POINT OF BEGINNING. NOSH30N3H s n 80 338101 IS (i},oDNOj �U O -S i 1S ILSnV 1S 3SOa S N 71 d 0 N� IS 3O NOW �N3N © n a is 0V31H3_� "�i 1S NV-1180d° b31S63r•1` S l S N 0 l H y S y IS 1Sw ^N73017 n .• • ... - -:::. bl0A2f3Sb: L IS 3- 1b0a3n01 v LS 311S < zr LS 3n089ill N 0 S • S � "aL 1S �111y S N 08V9 O113H1• S 0a • H380 ®®k 1< Ia 3 18AIN= ti i 1S OVN31NONi 1S NOAN3N 9N/308 S j' S1n ; n L � ) 1 7T r n S r 7013N:Ili psei OS MO H `7 i10S10 3 p S NOiaIHM O O IH E AO 03. %13AIH 1S I- 1C ! DLO w >3 SVDLOsc U • IS 'Al o �d3 b08bD30 �l 3 i .e NOONbNB S NOONV.g Sr, 1S NO MVO NOS*fH� ONVNI <s re cn °0y i 09 42/.06/ S.89° I4* 27 E. M1 Fti i7 2 y�?,� 5°O VA 12 IhI4 is X117 \Y�'%4 .4o a e4 303.9de 9 -.e - 1 • V 2.4 04 P.m .73 C 74 0 00 of `41 S. E.. 29-24-4 J- O W J Z. D • 0 /282 . CO 25 ,2 44.9 424.496 25 m g /05S B 2369 P4 0090 /00 4 /N5 B 2369 P2 �..� " —... oft 107.3! wp,g7 II 5. N 0 44.91 5 TN R N TITS MAP IS POR THE PURPOSE 0P • ASSISTILG If LOCATE :3 YOUR .PHCy ?ER'iY A.:D IS NOT GJ4RANTEED TO SH;,.t k' CUF:.'' M•.::,.'i . ^m:2J "iB: i h f zz495 5 '97 O .9 1331. N E . 32-24-4 SC =. °Ho N. .� a`' � CO law ikTet E I 100' 42 s0N ill aids Empi. gmen goisom e/,‹ 4(1,4 /M /7 MAP QEJISe 7- /9BE 25 Pt 1 Odd � 4/1011 VAG PISSED :'VE 5 -24 32- III R R9 h k •U • 5 PAA v 6 A•. JUDITH G. STOLOFF, AICP PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANT 9 February 1990 Ross Earnst Director, Department of Public Works City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Dear Ross: Here is a revised draft letter to Gary Zarker on the annexations. This resolves the questions raised, to the best of my understand- ing. The next step is to have Pat Brodin do the legal descrip- tions, or let me know if you want me to get an outside engineer to do it for the sake of expediency. I am enclosing the 1989 revisions to RCW 35.13 which app134 s to adjustments to rights of way only. This applies to some of the properties discussed in the letter to Zarker. I will check with your office next week in case there are rques- tions. Yours truly, '1 dith G. toloff . enclosure, cc: Ron Cameron ECEIVED FEB 1 4 1990 UUKWILA PUBLIC WORKS IgOcj 7'4 41, S /° 233-Dgy'(0) SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 9810/ 206 322 -8252 0 2nd DRAFT LETTER TO SEATTLE ON ANNEXATION BOUNDARIES Gary Zarker Director of Engineering Seattle Engineering Department Municipal Building 600 Fourth Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 Subject: Boundary Adjustments Dear Mr. Zarker: Thank you for arranging the meeting between Joe Ralph of your staff, Ron Cameron of our staff and our consultant, Judy Stoloff W have re ie ed the boundary adjustment issues internally s��} fp °A - current state law and have come up with the following suggested approaches. There are two areas to be considered for reciprocal annexations between Seattle and Tukwila. One is the area along East Marginal Way and 16th Avenue South: A. To be annexed by Tukwila: A triangular area formed by the East side of East Marginal Way from current City of Seattle limit north to its intersection with 16th Ave. S. and South on the West side of 16th Avenue South to the current City of Tukwila limit. B. To be annexed by Seattle A triangular area starting on the North at the West side of 16th Av S. at the current City of Tukwila limit south along the west side of 16th Avenue South to the thread of the Duwamish River and then Northwest on the thread of the River to the exist- ing Seattle limit. The second area involves an annexation by Tu,) i It is along MLK Way between 51st Avenue South extended a ' � u h Juniper ? T&a0.1L,L A( * Street. We propose moving the Tukwila boundary from the West side of MLK Way to the East Side of MLK Way, annexing an area from Seattle. There is a straightforward procedure to accomplish this trade of streets described in RCW 35.13 as revised in 1989, which we propose to follow for this area. This approach requires only City Councils to agree to a boundary line adjustment and is not subject to BRB review. A copy is enclosed. Ar0-4-0/ 9F0 a,., s -7 a�no�. =' WA. •. da.A.e— Aaka. The west side of Airport Way between Trenton St. and South to the extension of Fletcher will be resolved between Seattle and King County. 51st Avenue South from Ryan. Way to the South side of Avon cur- rently has Seattle's boundary at the center line, King County owning the southbound lanes, and Tukwila's boundary west of the right of way. In considering whether Tukwila would attempt to move the Tukwila boundary to the center line, we contacted the Boundary Review Board and were told that this would not be legal under current State law. We therefore recommend that Seattle resolve this right of way question with King County. It would also fall under the simplified process mentioned above. As long as we are pursuing reciprocal annexations, we propose straightening the north /south Seattle /Tukwila boundary line between Augusta and South 118th to the property lines in the following manner: Tukwila deannex portions of lot 79 and lot 31 and annex a portion of lot 32.(These are found on the Kroll W 1/2- 11- 23 -4). On the boundary adjustment between South 114th and South 113th west of 51st Avenue, we recommend that Seattle move its boundary to the property line. (Our assumption is that this small area is now in King County. This needs to be checked.) Each jurisdiction would assume all normal responsibilities for the areas within its territories as described above. Tukwila will serve as lead agency for environmental review of proposed recriprocal annexations. Tukwila will prepare resolutions for Tukwila City Council action regarding reciprocal annexations Tukwila will assist Seattle in preparing comparable resolutions for Seattle City Council action as requested. Tukwila will draft the agreements between Tukwila and Seattle on the simple boundary line adjustment along MLK Way. We will contact Joe Ralph to continue our efforts on the annexa- tions. Yours truly, Ross Earnst cc: Ron Cameron Ch. g4 WA.SH1NGTON LAWS, i to the other lodge of the right of way. However, the right of way line of any public strcel, road, or highway, or any segment thereof, may be used to dc- 5ric a part of a corporate boundary in an annoxatinn pruo ding. Sec, 10. Section 17. chapter 220, Laws of 1975 1st ex. sits. and RCW 35.21.790 are each amended to read as follows: (1) Tire governing bodies of a cotlrety and any city to "tool' ;mood therein may by agroerrrr! revise any part of the corporate boundary of the city o: town which uo ncitl,^s with the centerline oe any portion of a public street, road or highway r ht of way by substituting therefor a right of way line of, the same public street. road or highway so as fully to inclook or fully to exclude that scgment of the public street, road at highway from the en orate limits of the city or- town. (2) The revision of a coup rate boundary :t authoriz d by this scctico shall bourne cflective when approach by ordiaarce of the city or tease+ co nc,-il. or commission- and by ordinance or resolution of the ((board-of)) county ((conanissibne!s-oor -ra t; ..ototlii)) l slati. -c authority. Such a boundary rcri oo is not sails xt to potential review by a bozodary reviver board. Sec. 11. Section 18. chapter 220, Laws of 1975 1st es. sess.,and RCW 35A..21.210 are each amended to read as faiiows: (1) The governing bodies of a county and any code, city ((ortowrr)) lo- cated thereto may by agreement revise any part of the sorporatt boundary of the city ((or-tow-o)) which coincides with the conierlioc Hdge or any portiarb rA a public stmt, road or highway right of way by s=,txstituting therefor a right of way line of the same public street, road or highway ac* as fully to include or fay to east =trek brit segment of doe; paretic street, road o highway front the o rpototc lints of the city ((or-town)). (2) The revision of a corporate bow dory as authorized by this section . shall- become ere-olive whorl !pp:o ocl by ordinance of the city ((ev -t n)) wta9 cif (( - )) dud by ordinonoo ar resofiutio» of the «blend-. ere dt►-comnti rs or)) mousy f..(etr cii)) legislative. authority. Sort: a boa;* g h'Rision is not_ si to petentiai review by a boust -y revic -w too rd. NEW SECTION. Scc. 12. A new sanction is added to chapter 35.13 RCW sa, real as follows: The pw -ptto of scions 12 through 15 of this slot as to establish a pro - caa lot the adjustment of exting or proportod city boundary lines to avoid a situati€rti .Ma`ns'e a axon boundary lime as or would tic to tad within a right of way of a frabtic Voted, road, or highway, oc a situation where two cities arc separated co would be serrorzood by only the rigid of way of a ;public area, road, or highway, other than situations whore a boundary licit tons from out edge of the right of way to the other edge of the right of way. WASHINGTON LAWS, 191h R. 1144 - o As used in sections 12 through 15 of this act, "city' includcs cvr:ry city or town in the state, including a code city operating undo Title 35A RCW. NEW SECTION. Soc. 13. A new section is added to chapter 3.5.13 RCW to read as fold: (1) This section provides a method to adjust the boundary trines be- twcen two cities where the two cities shire a common boundary within a right of way of a pob(ic strew, rid, or highway, or the two cities /rave a. portion of their boundaries scp'arated only by all or pan of the right of way a€ a public street, road, or highway. However, this section does not apply to situations wheat: a boundary line rum from ore -edge of trio right of way to the other edge of the right of way. (2) Ths coanccils of any two cities; in a situation described in sultoctction (1) of this section may enter into an agreement to alter $ha c portions of their boundaries that are otoemary to eliminate this sitttatiotr and creole a partial cxrnfnon bavrddary on &thee edge of tics right of way of the public street, goad., or highway. Aa agrearnert made andcr this sectioo shall im- ago only borsrrdary het adjustrnenht botwecn the two cities that are sexes - sary to eliminate the snootiest described in stebseetiott (1) of this sin- A boundary knit at i stmemt under this section is not subject to poten- tial review by a boundary review booed. NEW SECTION. Sec. 14. A new seeticat is added to chaplea` 35.13 RCW to read as Wows: The councils of any two cities that will be in a situation dcotarilted in sectiort 13(1) of this act as the result of a proposed annolation by :mss of the cities may Beier into an af;rocnsent to adjust the portiono or the a- - atioe proviso! and the bou &dance. of the city that is uiot proposing tle an- neaatioat. Such an 28 1-cot sk-til no be e1 dive old= the aacittesation is made. The attaaesatioa .prow! t.tt>il proceed if s tcb an alfi re nor made, but any resulting bouteriari between the Iwo Mies that mee. the descriptions of section 13(1) of this act shalt be adjusted by aveemeni be- tyre= the two citi+rs witbia can btmdred 41ity days of the effective date of the annexatsors, oy the thet wiaty legisboive atetbority of the county within which. the right of way kx.atmi shag adjust the botattdariel within a ssoOiy- dav period immediately #'c leering the oe a hone:rod itightieoh day. An agretoowt or ate rude by a county ardor this soctic>o shall in: ** boundary lino adjutstmonts betwtro tale two cities that ar_ too- =wry to Cliffnnate the sita-a6on deecribed ie► secaioo 13(1) of this at,#_ A. borodziy lite adjuototiont undo this =aim is not su.bjo t to tip dal review by a btrtac dart' grew board. NEW SECTION. Ste. 1.5. A new section is added to clsopom. 35.13 RCW to read as fetus: eneral Provisions Roads And Bridges --G - 36.75.110 --:_— 3; 1963 c 4 § 36.75.060. Prior: 1937 c 187 - _ =_ estate project to allow coordination with county- funded im- §x5; RRS2§ §6450 -5.] •ncnu: RCW 47.05.085. ears are county - ► hw_ays. worked seven y_ �t o.0 o Powers commissioners of eachncounty, in rela- _roads?A11 public highways in-this state, outside incorpo- of county co rid power and it raced cities and towns and not designated as state. high- _i roads and bridges, shall have the p ways, which have been used as public highways for a e its duty to: years, where r the public. are • � in the manner provided by law property perioddO and kept up at theex where they have 61 n Acquire i nd personal and acquire or erect structures peter- worked roads. [1963 c 4 § 36.75.070. Prior: 1955 c prior: 1945 c 125 § 1, part: 1937 c 187 § 10, part- or the administration of the county roads of such 6450 -10, part.] �; Rein. Supp. 1945 § Maintain a county engineering office and t:ep � 1 of all proceedings and orders pertaining to the 3,Oga,High s- used en_yeat :ace °county road :y roads of such county; Alg public`ftigiiways in this state, outside incorporated Acquire ift, or condemnation, mr county road exercise the right put- period of o cities and towns and not designated as state highways ;,gift, or co as by lawn, and exefor the rking of which have been used as public highways for a p for domain as by law provided for the taking of not less than ten years are county roads: Provided, ,What for Perform use by cnecess of and state; no duty to maintain such public highway. I Perform all acts necessary roads ao f such county as ad- by , ity for any injury or damage for failure to maintain such prove on of the coo public highway or any road signs thereon shall attach to provided; its rOve- the county until the same shall have by resolution n adopted dfasha In its discretion rent or below any lands, imp part of the county road system 36.75.080. f the is or air space above any person any county road or county commissioners. [ 1963 c 125 4 l§ part; 7 c Prior: will 1955 c 361 § 3; prior: 1945 c 1-5 § P aecounty roads to any person or entity, p 1945 § 6450-10, § 1. part.] its: Provided. That the said renting or leasing 10, part; Rem. Supp• interfere with vehicular traffic along said county 36.75.090 Abandoned state highways: All public 1 or adversely affect the safety of the traveling pub- part of the Provided byd further, bid in any such manner p lve or yawl highways in this state and 'nave a ben may hereafter it r by d furl er, h the hi h provided st by law: route of a state highway be no longer necessary as such, if situated outside of the d provided further, That nothing herein necessity. t [19 9 limits of ger incorporated e cities ch towns, shall, upon certtf e : county from granting easements . ior: 1 c 187 ;. c S § 15; 1963 c 4 § 36.75.040. Prior: 1937 c 187 cation thereof by the state department of transportation RRS § 6450-3.1 to the legislative authority of the county in which any 16.75.050 Powers— How exercised. The powers portion of the highway is located, become a county road of the county, and if situated within the corporate limits * duties vested in or imposed upon the boards with Of any city or town shall upon certification thereof by mayor ;peer to establishing, examining, surveying, construct- the state department of transportation the ghwayof 1, altering, repairing, improving, and maintaining the city or town in which any p Ott the unty roads, shall be exercised under the supervision located become a street of the city or town. Upon !d direction of the county road engineer. certification the secretary of transportation shall'execute .The board shall by resolution, and not otherwise, or- a deed, which shall be duly. acknowledged ;'conveying the 4 the survey, establishment, construction, alteration, or abandoned highway or portion thereof 1977 ecouct78 § �provement of county roads; the county road enginecr city as the case may be. [ 1984 c 7 § 28; 4; prior: -_lall prepare all necessary maps, plans, and sp 4; 1963 c 4 § 36.75.090. Prior: 1955 c 361 § P 1953657§ 1 ;194561. i t, part; c36c14; § 10, logs ents.og, showing the right d way widths, the 15 c 125 5 § 1, part.] lign3 c 4 § 6.75.50. and standards 73 § 1, construction. ; 1937 c part; Rem. Supp. 7 7 § c 4 § t: R 5.0 Supp. Prior: 1943 c 53 § P Severability_1984 c 7: See note following RCS' 47.01.141. �87 § 4, part; Rem. Supp. 1943 § 6450 -4•] of 36.75.100 Informalities not fatal. No informalities al er'ingany 36.75.060 County road districts. For the purpose the records in laying out, establishing. fatal. N . -" ificient administration b a, but the county th roonCe in each public highways exitinglo1S state the offices records the var- tar. the board may, but not more or any once ious county auditors strive counties, or any part thereof, department or the transportation commission. may be ear, form eheir respective public .may y be -=� suitable and convenient road districts, not exceeding construed to invalidate or vacate the °. [1984 c 7 § 39: 1963 c 4 § 36.75.100. Prior: ItJ37 c 187 ,; ice in number, their and cause a description thereof to be [ 11; RRS § 9: 196 l.] --, ntered upon their records. § Unless the board decides otherwise by majority vote. $e.erability -19.4 c 7: Sc e note following RCW 4"1.01.11 he -e shall be at least one road district in each county _Sur - ommissioner's district embracing territory outside of 36 75 110 True locations to he determined pities and towns and no road district shall extend into Whenever the board declares by resolution that the more than one county commissioner's district. [ 1969 vet e ITitle Zh Rt w —P 1571 tIVMC F.d.l Roads And Bridges — General Provisions 36.75.010 36.75.100 Informalities not fatal. 36.75.110 True locatio' s to he determined— Survey. 36.75.120 Action to determine true iocation. 36.75.130 Approaches to county roads. 36.75.140 Approaches to county roads —Rules regarding construction. 36.75.150 Approaches to county roads — Penalty. 36.75.160 Power of county commissioners as to roads, bridges, and other structures crossing boundary lines. 36.75.170 Power of county commissioners as to roads, bridges, and other structures crossing boundary lines — Resolu- . tion to acquire or construct. 36.75.180 Power of county commissioners as to roads, bridges, and other structures crossing boundary lines— Freehold- ers' petition to acquire or construct. 36.75.190 Engineer's report— Hearing— Order. 36.75.200 Bridges on city or town streets. 36.75.203 Responsibility of city to maintain county road forming a municipal boundary. 36.75.205 Street as extension of road in town of less than one thousand. 36.75.207 Agreements for planning, establishment, construction, and maintenance of city streets by counties —Use of county road fund — Payment by city— Contracts, bids. 36.75.210 Roads crossing and recrossing boundaries. 36.75.220 Connecting road across segment of third county. 36.75.230 Acquisition of land under RCW 36.75.210 and 36.75.220. 36.75.240 Sidewalks and pedestrian paths or walks — Bicycle paths, lanes, routes, and roadways— Standards. 36.75.243 Curb ramps for physically handicapped. 36.75.250 State may intervene if maintenance neglected. 36.75.255 Street improvements— Provision of supplies or materials. 36.75.260 Annual report to secretary of transportation. 36.75.270 Limitation of type or weight of vehicles authorized — Penalty. 36.75.280 Centralized repair and storage of machinery, equip- ment, supplies, etc. 36.75.290 General penalty. 36.75.300 Primitive roads — Classification and designation. Bridges across navigable waters: Chapter 88.28 RCW. Cities and towns annexation of unincorporated areas, disposition of road district taxes: RCW 35.13.270. disincorporation, effect on streets: RCW 35.07.110. incorporation, disposition of uncollected road district taxes: RCW 35.02.140. Classification of highways, county roads: RCW 47.04.020. Contracts for street improvements: Chapter 35.72 RCW. County roads construction or maintenance of, cooperative agreements: RCW 47.28.140. defined for highway purposes: RCW 47.04.010(9). defined for motor vehicle purposes: RCW 46.04.150. designation as arterial: RCW 46.61.195. federal funds for, state to match: RCW 47.08.020. federal grants to, department of transportation to administer: RCW 47.04.060, 47.04.070. may be selected as state highway route: RCW 47.28.010. projects by department of transportation, funds set aside: RCW 47.08.080. state participation in building: RCW 47.04.080. title to rights of way vested in state: RCW 47.04.040. Department of transportation and urban arterial board to coordinate long range needs studies: RCW 47.01.240. -_._ Destroying native flora near county roads unlawful: RCW 47.40.080. Dikes along public road, diking districts by: •RCW 85.05.250. Diking, drainage, and sewerage improvement districts benefits to roads. costs: RCW 85.08.370. crossing roads, procedure: RCW 85.08.340. Diking, drainage district benefits to roads, how paid: RCW 85.07.040, 85.07.050. (1987 Ed.) Diking and drainage intercounty districts, counties to contribute for benefits to roads and bridges by: RCW 85.24.240. Ditches across highways, bridging: RCW 90.28.030. Drainage ditches along roads by drainage improvement district: RCW 85.08.385. Flobd control districts (1937 act), crossing county roads, procedure: RCW 86.09.229. Glass bottles thrown along -minty roads, collection and removal: RCW 47.40.090. Highway advertising control act county information signs allowed under: RCW 47.42.050. not to supersede county ordinance: RCW 47.42.070. Labor on, maximum hours of prescribed: Chapter 49.28 RCW. Limited access facilities: Chapter 47.52 RCW. Motor vehicles, maximum weight, size, speed in traversing bridges, tunnels, etc.: RCW 46.61.450. Public lands rights of way over for county bridges, trestles, across waterways, tide or shore lands: RCW 79.91.100. � rights of way over for roads, county wharves: RCW 79.01.340. sale of road materials on to counties: RCW 79.01.176. Public works contracts, reserve from amount due contractors to cover lien for labor, material or taxes: Chapter 60.28 RCW. Railroad grade crossings, county participation in grant, duty to main- tain: Chapter 81.53 RCW. Reclamation districts of one million acres benefit to public roads, pro- cedure: RCW 89.30.181. Right to back and hold waters over county roads: RCW 90.28.010, 90.28.020. Speeds, maximums on county roads: RCW 46.61.415. State cooperation in building roads, bridges, etc.: RCW 47.04.080. Street railways, may cross public road: RCW 81.64.030. Telecommunications companies, use of county roads, how: RCW 80.36.040. Title to rights of way in county roads vested in state: RCW 47.04.040. Toll bridges ferry crossings not to infringe existing franchises: RCW 47.60.120. state given right of way through county roads: RCW 47.56.100. Toll roads, bridges, and ferries of state, sale or lease of unneeded property to county. RCW 47.56 -253. 36.75.010 Definitions. As used in this title with rela- tion to roads and bridges, the following terms mean: (1) "Alley," a highway not designed for general travel and primarily used as a means of access to the rear of residences and business establishments; (2) "Board," the board of county commissioners or the county legislative authority, however organized; (3) "Center line," the line, marked or unmarked, par- allel to and equidistant from the sides of a two –way traffic roadway of a highway except where otherwise in- dicated by painted lines or markers; (4) "City street," every highway or part thereof, lo- cated within the limits of incorporated cities and towns, except alleys; (5) "County engineer" includes the county director of public works; (6) "County road," every highway or part thereof, outside-the limits- of - incorporated cities- and- -towris -arid-- which has not been designated as a state highway; (7) "Department," the state department of transportation; (8) "Director" o" "secretary," the state secretary of transportation or his duly authorized assistant; (9) "Pedestrian," any person afoot; [Title 36 RCW —p 1611 36.75.010 Title 36 RCW: Counties (10) "Private road or driveway," every way or place in private ownership and used for travel of vehicles by the owner or those having express or implied permission from the owner, but not by other persons; (11) "Highway," every way, lane, road, street, boule- vard, and every way or place in the state of Washington open as..a.matter_of right to public vehicular travel.both inside and outside the limits of incorporated cities and towns; (12) "Railroad," a carrier of persons or property upon vehicles, other than streetcars, operated upon stationary rails, the route of which is principally outside incorpo- rated cities and towns; (13) "Roadway'," the paved, improved, or proper driv- ing portion of a highway designed or ordinarily used for vehicular travel; (14) "Sidewalk," property between the curb lines or the lateral lines of a roadway, and the adjacent property, set aside and intended for the use of pedestrians or such portion of private property parallel and in proximity to a highway and dedicated to use by pedestrians; (15) "State highway," includes every highway as herein defined, or part thereof, that has been designated as a state highway, or branch thereof, by legislative en- actment. [1984 c 7 § 26; 1975 c 62 § 1; 1969 ex.s. c•182 § 1; 1963 c 4 § 36.75.010. Prior: 1937 c 187 § 1; RRS § 6450 -1,] Severability -1984 c 7: See note following RCW 47.01.141. Severability -1975 c 62: "1f any provision of this amendatory act, or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the re- mainder of the act, or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not affected." [1'975 c 62 § 52.] 36.75.020 County roads — County legislative au- thority as agent of state — Standards. All of the county roads in each of the several counties shall be established, laid out, constructed, altered, repaired, improved, and maintained by the legislative authority of the respective counties as agents of the state, or by private individuals or corporations who are allowed to perform such work under an agreement with the county legislative author- ity. Such work shall be done in accordance with adopted county standards under the supervision and direction of the county engineer. [ 1982 c 145 § 6; 1963 c 4 § 36.75- .020. Prior: 1943 c 82 § 1; 1937 c 187 § 2; Rem. Supp. 1943 § 6450 -2.] 36.75.030 State and county cooperation. The state department of transportation and the governing officials of any county may enter into reciprocal public highway improvement and maintenance agreements, providing for cooperation either in the county assisting the department in the improvement or maintenance of state highways, or the department assisting the county in the improvement or maintenance of county roads, under any circumstance where a necessity appears therefor or where economy in public highway improvement and maintenance will be best served. [ 1984 c 7 § 27; 1963 c 4 § 36.75.030. Prior: 1939 c 181 § 11; RRS § 6450 -2a.] Severability -1984 c 7: See note following RCW 47.01.141. [Title 36 RCW —p 162] 36.75.035 County may fund improvements to state highways. A county pursuant to chapter 36.88 RCW, or a service district as provided for in chapter 36.83 RCW, may, with the approval of the state department of trans- portation, improve or fund the improvement of any state highway within its boundaries. The county may fund improvements .under..this section .by_any.means authc- ized by law, but may not make any expenditure for the purposes of this section from a county road fund under chapter 36.82 RCW. Nothing in this section shall limit the authority of a county to fund cooperative improve- ment and maintenance agreements with the department of transportation, authorized by RCW 36.75.030 or 47- .28.140. [1985 c 400 § 1.] County road improvement districts and service districts may improve state highways: RCW 36.83.010 and 36.88.010. Delay of state project to allow coordination with county – funded im- provements: RCW 47.05.085. 36.75.040 Powers of county commissioners. The board of county commissioners of each county, in rela- tion to roads and bridges, shall have the power and it shall be its duty to: (1) Acquire in the manner provided by law property real and personal and acquire or erect structures neces- sary for the administration of the county roads of such county; • (2) Maintain a county engineering office and keep record of all proceedings and orders pertaining to the county roads of such county; (3) Acquire land for county road purposes by pur- chase, gift, or condemnation, and exercise the right of eminent domain as by law provided for the taking of land for public use by counties of this state; (4) Perform all acts necessary and proper for the ad- ministration of the county roads of such county as by law provided; • (5) In its discretion rent or lease any lands, improve- ments or air space above or below any county road or unused county roads to any person or entity, public or private: Provided, That the said renting or leasing will not interfere with vehicular traffic along said county road or adversely affect the safety of the traveling pub- lic: Provided further, That, any such sale, lease or rental shall be by public bid in the manner provided by law: And provided further, That nothing herein shall prohibit any county from granting easements of necessity. [1969 ex.s. c 182 § 15; 1963 c 4 § 36.75.040. Prior: 1937 c 187 § 3; RRS § 6450 -3.) 36.75.050 Powers How exercised. The powers and duties vested in or imposed upon the boards with respect to establishing, examining, surveying, construct- ing, altering, repairing, improving, and maintaining county roads, shall be exercised under the supervision and direction of the county road engineer. The board shall by resolution, and not otherwise, or- der the survey, establishment, construction, alteration, or improvement of county roads; the county road engineer shall prepare all necessary maps, plans, and specifica- tions therefor, showing the right of way widths, the (1987 Ed.) 35A.21.120 Title 35A RCW: Optional Municipal Code 35A.21.120 Utilities— Facilities for generation of electricity. Any code city owning and operating a public utility and having facilities and /or land for the genera- tion of electricity shall be governed by the provisions of RCW 35.21.420 through 35.21.450. [1967 ex.s. c 119 § 35A.21.120.] 35A.21.130 Codification of ordinances. Compilation, codification, and revision of code city ordinances shall be as provided by and be governed by the provisions of RCW 35.21.500 through 35.21.570. [1967 ex.s. c 119 § 35A.21.130.] 35A.21.140 Change of name. Any code city may change its name in accordance with the procedure pro- vided in chapter 35.62 RCW. [1967 ex.s. c 119 § 35A.21.140.1 35A.21.150 , Sewerage and refuse collection and dis- posal systems. The general law as contained in, but not limited to, chapter 35.67 RCW, relating to sewerage systems and the collection and disposal of refuse, the manner of providing therefor, and the issuance of gen- eral obligation or revenue bonds therefor, the establish- ment of a revenue bond fund in connection therewith, compulsory connection with a city sewer system, setting and collection of rates, fees, and charges therefor, and the existence, enforcement, and foreclosure of a lien for sewer services is hereby recognized as applicable to code cities operating systems of sewerage and systems and plants for refuse collection and disposal. A code city may exercise the powers, in the manner provided, per- form the duties, and shall have the rights and obligations provided in chapter 35.67 RCW, subject to the condi- tions and limitations therein provided. [ 1967 ex.s. c 119 § 35A.21.150.] 35A.21.155 Collection and transportation of recycla- ble materials by recycling companies or nonprofit enti- ties —Reuse or reclamation — Application of chapter. Nothing in this chapter shall prevent a recycling com- pany or nonprofit entity from collecting and transporting recyclable materials from a buy –back center, drop –box, or from a commercial or industrial generator of recycla- ble materials, or upon agreement with a solid waste col- lection company. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed as prohib- iting a commercial or industrial generator of commercial recyclable materials from selling, conveying, or arrang- ing for transportation of such material to a recycler for reuse or reclamation. [1989 c 431 § 35.] Severability -1989 c 431: See RCW 70.95.901. 35A.21.160 General application of laws to code cit- ies. A code city organized or reorganized under this title shall have all of the powers which any city of any class may have and shall be governed in matters of state con- cern by statutes applicable to such cities in connection with such powers to the extent to which such laws are appropriate and are not in conflict with the provisions [Title 35A RCW —p 38) specifically applicable to code cities. [1967 ex.s. c 119 § 35A.21.160.] 35A.21.161 Regulation of activities and enforcement of penal laws. All code cities shall observe and enforce, in addition to its local regulations, the provisions of state laws relating to the conduct, location and limitation on activities as regulated by state law and shall supply po- lice information to the section on identification of the state patrol as required by chapter 43.43 RCW. [1983 c 3 § 59; 1967 ex.s. c 119 § 35A.21.161.] 35A.21.162 Nonpolluting power generation by indi- vidual Exemption from regulation— Authorization to contract with utility. See chapter 80.58 RCW. 35A.21.164 Hydroelectric resources — Separate le- gal authority — Creation by irrigation districts and cit- ies, towns, or public utility districts. See RCW 87.03.825 through 87.03.840. 35A.21.170 Fiscal year. The fiscal year of a code city shall commence on the first day of January and end on the thirty –first day of December of each calendar year unless a different fiscal period is authorized by RCW 1.16.030, as amended. [1967 ex.s. c 119 § 35A.21.170.] 35A.21.180 Flags to be displayed. The flag of the United States and the flag of the state shall be promi- nently installed and displayed and maintained in code city buildings and shall be as provided in RCW 1.20- .010. [ 1967 ex.s. c 119 § 35A.21.180.] 35A.21.190 Daylight saving time. No code city shall adopt any provision for the observance of daylight saving time other than as authorized by RCW 1.20.050 and 1.20.051. [1967 ex.s. c 119 § 35A.21.190.] 35A.21.195 Actions by and against code cities. A code city may exercise the power to bring an action or special proceeding at law as authorized by Title 4 RCW, chapters 7.24, 7.25, and 6.27 RCW, and shall be subject to actions and process of law in accordance with proce- dures prescribed by law and rules of court. [ 1987 c 442 § 1117; 1983 c 3 § 58; 1967 ex.s. c 119 § 35A.20.150. Formerly RCW 35A.20.150.] 35A.21.200 Limitation of actions. The limitations prescribed in chapter 4.16 RCW shall apply to actions brought in the name or for the benefit of, or against, a code city, except as otherwise provided by general law or by this title. [1967 ex.s. c 119 § 35A.21.200.] 35A.21.210 Revision of corporate boundary within street, road, or highway right of way by substituting right of way Tine —Not subject to review. (1) The governing bodies of a county and any code city located therein may by agreement revise any part of the corporate boundary of the city which coincides with the centerline, edge, or any portion of a public street, road or highway right of way by substituting therefor a right of way line of the (1989 Ed.) Municipal Elections in Code Cities same public street, road or highway so as fully to include or fully to exclude that segment of the public street, road or highway from the corporate limits of the city. (2) The revision of a corporate boundary as author- ized by this section shall become effective when ap- proved by ordinance of the city council and by ordinance or resolution of the county legislative authority. Such a boundary revision is not subject to potential review by a boundary review board. [ 1989 c 84 § 11; 1975 1st ex.s. c 220 § 18.] Legislative finding, intent -1975 1st ex.s. c 220: See note follow- ing RCW 35.02.170. Boundary line adjustment: RCW 35.13.300 through 35.13.330. Use of right of way line as corporate boundary in incorporation pro- ceeding —When right of way may be included in territory to be incorporated: RCW 35.02.170. When right of way may be included in territory to be annexed —Use of right of way line as corporate boundary in annexation: RCW 35A.14.410. 35A.21.220 Liability insurance and workers' com- pensation for offenders performing court – ordered com- munity service. The legislative authority of a code city may purchase liability insurance in an amount it deems reasonable to protect the code city, its officers, and em- ployees against liability for the wrongful acts of offen- ders or injury or damage incurred by offenders in the course of court –ordered community service, and may elect to treat offenders as employees and /or workers un- der Title 51 RCW. [1984 c 24 § 2.] Workers' compensation coverage of offenders performing community , service: RCW 51.12.045. 35A.21.230 Designation of official newspaper. Each code city shall designate an official newspaper by reso- lution. The newspaper shall be of general circulation in the city and have the qualifications prescribed by chap- ter 65.16 RCW. [1985 c 469 § 102.] 35A.21.240 Right of way donations — Credit against required improvements. Where the zoning and planning provisions of a city or town require landscap- ing, parking, or other improvements as a condition to granting permits for commercial or industrial develop- ments, the city or town may credit donations of right of way in excess of that required for traffic improvement against such landscaping, parking, or other require- ments. [ 1987 c 267 § 8.] Severability -1987 c 267: See RCW 47.14.910. Right of way donations: Chapter 47.14 RCW. Chapter 35A.24 AERONAUTICS Sections 35A.24.010 Airport operation, planning and zoning. 35A.24.010 Airport operation, planning and zoning. A code city may exercise the powers relating to airport planning and zoning, improvement and operation as authorized by chapters 14.07, 14.08, and 14.12 RCW (1989 Ed.) Chapter 35A.29 and chapter 35A.63 RCW of this title in accordance with the procedures therein prescribed. [ 1967 ex.s. c 119 § 35A.24.010.] Chapter 35A.27 LIBRARIES, MUSEUMS AND HISTORICAL ACTIVITIES Sections 35A.27.010 General laws applicable. 35A.27.010 General laws applicable. Every code city may exercise the powers relating to the acquisition, de- velopment, improvement and operation of libraries and museums and the preservation of historical materials to the same extent authorized by general law for cities of any class, including,' but not limited to, the authority for city libraries granted by RCW 35.22.280, the power to acquire and operate art museums, auditoriums, and other facilities as authorized by RCW 35.21.020, to participate in the establishment of regional libraries, and to contract for library service for public libraries with county, intercounty, and rural library districts, and for regional libraries as authorized by chapter 27.12 RCW, to have a county law library or branch thereof generally under the provisions of chapter 27.24 RCW, to preserve historical materials, markers, graves and records as pro- vided in chapters 27.48 and 27.34 RCW, and to expend municipal funds thereon. [1985 c 7 § 101; 1983 c 3 § 60; 1967 ex.s. c 119 § 35A.27.010.] Chapter 35A.28 SCHOOLS Sections 35A.28.010 General laws applicable. 35A.28.010 General laws applicable. Code cities shall have the authority to enter into contracts for joint ac- quisition of land and improvement thereof with school districts. Code cities and their relationship with public schools, colleges and school districts shall be governed by the provisions of general law, including Titles 28A and 28B RCW. Each code city shall be contained within one school district except as may be otherwise provided in RCW 28A.57.150` [1983 c 3 § 61; 1967 ex.s. c 119 § 35A.28.010.] Chapter 35A.29 MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS IN CODE CITIES Sections 35A.29.010 35A.29.020 35A.29.030 35A.29.040 35A.29.050 35A.29.060 35A.29.070 35A.29.080 Definition of city clerk. Definition of code city precinct. City clerk as registrar. County auditor as supervisor of elections. Qualifications for voting. Time and places for registration. Times for holding elections— Conduct of elections. Costs of elections. [Title 35A RCW —p 39] ' 436.75.160 Title 36 RCW: Counties The board of any county may construct, maintain, and operate any county road which forms the boundary line between another county within the state or another county in any other state or which through its meander- ing crosses and recrosses such boundary; and acquire by purchase or condemnation any lands or rights within this state, either within or without its county, necessary for such boundary road; and enter into joint contracts with authorities of adjoining counties for the construction, operation, and maintenance of such boundary roads. The power of condemnation herein granted may be exercised jointly by two counties in the manner provided in RCW 36.75.170 for bridges, or it may be exercised by a single county in the manner authorized by law. [ 1963 c 4 § 36.75.160. Prior: 1943 c 82 § 3; 1937 c 187 § 26; Rem. Supp. 1943 § 6450 -26.] 36.75.170 Power of county commissioners as to roads, bridges, and other structures crossing boundary lines — Resolution to acquire or construct. The board may by original resolution entered upon its minutes de- clare its intention to pay for and erect or construct, or acquire by purchase, gift, or condemnation, any bridge, trestle, or other structure upon any county road which crosses any stream, body of water, gulch, navigable wa- ter, swamp or other topographical formation constituting a boundary, or to join therein with any other county, city or town, or with this state, or with any other state, or with any county, city or town of any other state, in the erection, or construction, or acquisition of any such structure, and declare that the same is a public neces- sity, and direct the county road engineer to report upon such project, dividing any just proportional cost thereof. In the event two counties or any county and any city wish to join in paying for the erection or acquisition of any such structure, the resolution provided in this sec- tion shall be a joint resolution of the governing authori- ties of the counties and cities and they shall further, by such resolution, designate an engineer employed by one county to report upon the proposed erection or acquisi- tion. [ 1963 c 4 § 36.75.170. Prior: 1937 c 187 § 27; RRS § 6450 -27.] 36.75.180 Power of county commissioners as to roads, bridges, and other structures crossing boundary lines — Freeholders' petition to acquire or construct. Ten or more freeholders of any county may petition the board for the erection and construction or acquisition by purchase, gift, or condemnation of any bridge, trestle, or any other structure in the vicinity of their residence, and upon any county road which crosses any stream, body of water, gulch, navigable waters, swamp or other topo- graphical formation constituting a boundary by joining with any other county, city or town, or the state of Washington, or with any other state or with any county, city or town of any other state, setting forth and de- scribing the location proposed for the erection of such bridge, trestle, or other structure, and stating that the same is a public necessity. The petition shall be accom- panied by a bond with the same requirements, condi- tions, and amount and in the same manner as in case of (Title 36 RCW—p 170J a freeholders' petition for the establishing of a county road: Upon the filing of such petition and bond and be- ing satisfied that the petition has been signed by free- holders residing in the vicinity of such proposed bridge, trestle, or other structure, the board shall direct the county road engineer to report upon the project, dividing any just proportional cost thereof. In the event two counties or any county and any city or town are petitioned to join in paying for the erection or acquisition of such structure, the board of county commissioners of the counties or the board of county commissioners of the county and governing authorities of the city or town shall act jointly in the selection of the engineer who shall report upon such acquisition or erec- tion. [ 1963 c 4 § 36.75.180. Prior: 1937 c 187 § 28; RRS § 6450 -28.] 36.75.190 Engineer's report Hearing — Order. Upon report by the examining engineer for the erection and construction upon any county road, or for acquisi- tion by purchase, gift or condemnation of any bridge, trestle, or any other structure crossing any stream, body of water, gulch, navigable water, swamp or other topo- graphical formation, which constitutes a boundary, pub- lication shall be made and joint hearing had upon such report in the same manner and upon the same procedure as in the case of resolution or petition for the laying out and establishing of county roads. If upon the hearing the governing authorities jointly order the erection and con- struction or acquisition of such bridge, trestle, or other structure, they may jointly acquire land necessary there- for by purchase, gift, or condemnation in the manner as provided for acquiring land for county roads, and shall advertise calls for bids, require contractor's deposit and bond, award contracts, and supervise construction as by law provided and in the same manner as required in the case of the construction of county roads. Any such bridges, trestles or other structures may be operated free, or may be operated as toll bridges, tres- tles, or other structures under the provisions of the laws of this state relating thereto. [ 1963 c 4 § 36.75.190. Prior: 1937 c 187 § 29; RRS § 6450 -29.] 36.75.200 Bridges on city or town streets. The boards of the several counties may expend funds from the county road fund for the construction, improvement, repair, and maintenance of any bridge upon any city street within any city or town in such county where such city street and bridge are essential to the continuation of the county road system of the county. Such construction, improvement, repair, or maintenance shall be ordered by resolution and proceedings conducted in respect thereto in the same manner as provided for the laying out and establishing of county roads by counties, and for the preparation of maps, plans, and specifications, advertis- ing and award of contracts therefor. [ 1963 c 4 § 36.75- .200. Prior: 1937 c 187 § 30; RRS § 6450 -30.] 36.75.203 Responsibility of city to maintain county road forming a municipal boundary, If the centerline of a portion of a county road is part of a corporate boundary (1989 Ed.) Roads And Bridges -- General Provisions 36.75.250 of a city or town as of May 21, 1985, and that portion of county road has no connection to the county road sys- tem, maintenance of all affected portions of the road shall be the responsibility of such city or town after a petition requesting the same has been made to the city or town by the county legislative authority. [1985 c 429 § 2.] 36.75.205 Street as extension of road in town of less than one thousand. Whenever any street in any town, having a population of less than one thousand persons, forms an extension of a county road of the county in which such town is located, and where the board of county commissioners of such county and the governing body of such town, prior to the commencement of any work. have mutually agreed and each adopted a resolu- tion setting forth the nature and scope of the work to be performed and the share of the cost or labor which each shall bear, such county may expend county road funds for construction, improvement, repair, or maintenance of such street. [1963 c 4 § 36.75.205. Prior: 1959 c 83 § 1.] 36.75.207 Agreements for planning, establishment, construction, and maintenance of city streets by coun- ties Use of county road fund Payment by city — Contracts, bids. See RCW 35.77.020 through 35.77.040. 36.75.210 Roads crossing and recrossing boundaries. Whenever a county road is established within any county, and such county road crosses the boundary of the county and again enters the county, the board of the county within which the major portion of the road is lo- cated may expend the county road fund of such county in laying out, establishing, constructing, altering, repair- ing, improving, and maintaining that portion of the road lying outside the county, in the manner provided by law for the expenditure of county funds for the construction, alteration, repair, improvement, and maintenance of county roads within the county. The board of any county may construct, maintain, and operate any county road which forms the boundary line between another county within the state or another county in any other state or which through its meander- ing crosses and recrosses such boundary; and acquire by purchase or condemnation any lands or rights within this state, either within or without its county, necessary for such boundary road; and enter into joint contracts with authorities of adjoining counties for the construction, operation, and maintenance of such boundary roads. The power of condemnation herein granted may be exercised jointly by two counties in the manner provided for bridges, or it may be exercised by a single county in the manner authorized by law. [ 1963 c 4 § 36.75.210. Prior: 1937 c 187 § 23;.RRS § 6450 -23. FORMER PART OF SECTION: 1943 c 82 § 3, part; 1937 c 187 § 26, part; Rem. Supp. 1943 § 6450 -26, part, now codified in RCW 36.75.160.] (1989 Ed.) 36.75.220 Connecting road across segment of third county. Whenever two counties are separated by an in- tervening portion of a third county not exceeding one mile in width, and each of such counties has constructed or shall construct a county road to the boundary thereof, and the boards of the two counties deem it beneficial to such counties to connect the county roads by the con- struction and maintenance of a county road across the intervening portion of the third county, it shall be lawful for the boards of the two counties to expend jointly the county road funds of their respective counties in acquir- ing right of way for the construction, improvement, re- pair, and maintenance of such connecting county road and any necessary bridges thereon, in the manner pro- vided by law for the expenditure of county road funds for the construction, improvement, repair, and mainte- nance of county roads lying within a county. [1963 c 4 § 36.75.220. Prior: 1937 c 187 § 24; RRS § 6450 -24.] 36.75.230 Acquisition of land under RCW 36.75.210 and 36.75.220. For the purpose of carrying into effect RCW 36.75.210 and 36.75.220 and under the circum- stances therein set out the boards may acquire land nec- essary for the right of way for any portion of a county road lying outside such county or counties by gift or purchase or by condemnation in the manner provided for the taking of property for public use by counties. [1963 c 4 § 36.75.230. Prior: 1937 c 187 § 25, part; RRS § 6450 -25, part.] 36.75.240 Sidewalks and pedestrian paths or walks Bicycle paths, lanes, routes, and roadways — Standards. The boards may expend funds credited to the county road fund from any county or road district tax levied for the construction of county roads for the con- struction of sidewalks, bicycle paths, lanes, routes, and roadways, and pedestrian allocated paths or walks. Bi- cycle facilities constructed or modified after June 10, 1982, shall meet or exceed the standards of the state de- partment of transportation. [ 1982 c 55 § 2; 1974 ex.s. c 141 § 7; 1963 c 4 § 36.75.240. Prior: 1937 c 187 § 25, part; RRS § 6450 -25, part.] 36.75.243 Curb ramps for physically handicapped. See RCW 35.68.075, 35.68.076. 36.75.250 State may intervene if maintenance ne- glected. If by any agreement with the federal govern- ment or any agency thereof or with the state or any agency thereof, a county has agreed to maintain certain county roads or any portion thereof and the maintenance is not being performed to the satisfaction of the federal government or the department, reasonably consistent with original construction, notice thereof may be given by the department to the legislative authority of the county, and if the county legislative authority does not within ten days provide for the maintenance, the depart- ment may perform the maintenance, and the state trea- surer shall pay the cost thereof on vouchers submitted by the department and deduct the cost thereof from any sums in the motor vehicle fund credited or to be credited [Title 36 RCW—p 171) 35.02.140 Title 35 RCW: Cities and Towns by the city or town: Provided, That this section shall not apply to excess property tax levies securing general in- debtedness or any special assessments due in behalf of such property. [ 1986 c 234 § 20; 1965 c 7 § 35.02.140. Prior: 1957 c 180 § 1.] County road districts: RCW 36.75.060. 35.02.150 Pending final disposition of petition no other petition for incorporation to be acted upon — Withdrawal or substitution Action on petition for annexation authorized. After the filing of any petition for incorporation with the county auditor, and pending its final disposition as provided for in this chapter, no other petition for incorporation which embraces any of the territory included therein shall be acted upon by the county auditor, the county legislative authority, or the boundary review board, or by any other public official or body that might otherwise be empowered to receive or act upon such a petition: Provided, That any petition for incorporation may be withdrawn by a majority of the signers thereof at any time before such petition has been certified by the county auditor to the county legislative authority: Provided further, That a new petition may be substituted' therefor that embraces other or different boundaries, incorporation as a city or town operating under a different title of law, or for incorporation as a city or town operating under a different plan or form of government, by a majority of the signers of the original incorporation petition, at any time before the original petition has been certified by the county auditor to the county legislative authority, in which case the same pro- ceedings shall be taken as in the case of an original pe- tition. A boundary review board, county auditor, county legislative authority, or any other public official or body may act upon a petition for annexation before consider- ing or acting upon a petition for incorporation which embraces some or all of the same territory, without re- gard to priority of filing. [1986 c 234 § 23; 1982 c 220 § 3; 1973 1st ex.s. c 164 § 1; 1965 c 7 § 35.02.150. Prior: 1961 c 200 § 1.] Severability -1982 c 220: See note following RCW 36.93.100. Annexation petition action without regard to priority of filing: RCW 36.93.115. no other annexation petition to be acted upon pending final dis- position: RCW 35.13.175. 35.02.160 Cancellation, acquisition, of franchise or permit for operation of public service business in territory incorporated. The incorporation of any territory as a city or town shall cancel, as of the effective date of such in- corporation, any franchise or permit theretofore granted to any person, firm or corporation by the state of Washington, or by the governing body of such incorpo- rated territory, authorizing or otherwise permitting the operation of any public transportation, garbage collec- tion and /or disposal or other similar public service busi- ness or facility within the limits of the incorporated territory, but the holder of any such franchise or permit canceled pursuant to this section shall be forthwith granted by the incorporating city or town a franchise to continue such business within the incorporated territory [Title 35 RCW—p 12] for a term of not less than the remaining term of the original franchise or permit, or five years, whichever is the shorter period, and the incorporating city or town, by franchise, permit or public operation, shall not extend similar or 'competing services to the incorporated terri- tory except upon a proper showing of the inability or re- fusal of such person, firm or corporation to adequately service said incorporated territory at a reasonable price: Provided, That the provisions of this section shall not preclude the purchase by the incorporating city or town of said franchise, business, or facilities at an agreed or negotiated price, or from acquiring the same by con- demnation upon payment of damages, including a rea- sonable amount for the loss of the franchise or permit. In the event that any person, firm or corporation whose franchise or permit has been canceled by the terms of this section shall suffer any measurable damages as a result of any incorporation pursuant to the provisions of chapter 35.02 RCW, such person; firm or corporation shall have a right of action against any city or town causing such damages. [ 1986 c 234 § 24; 1965 ex.s. c 42 §1•] 35.02.170 Use of right of way line as corporate boundary When right of way may be included. The right of way line of any public street, road or highway, or any segment thereof, may be used to define a part of a corporate boundary in an incorporation proceeding. The boundaries of a newly incorporated city or town shall not include a portion of the right of way of any public street, road or highway except where the bound- ary runs from one edge of the right of way to the other edge of the right of way. [ 1989 c 84 § 7; 1986 c 234 § 25; 1975 1st ex.s. c 220 § 2.] Legislative finding, intent -1975 1st ex.s. c 220: "The legislature finds that the use of centerlines of public streets, roads and highways as boundaries of incorporated cities and towns has resulted in divided jurisdiction over such public ways causing inefficiencies and waste in . their construction, improvement and maintenance and impairing effec- tive traffic law enforcement. It is the intent of this act to preclude the use of highway centerlines as corporate boundaries in the future and to encourage counties and cities and towns by agreement to revise exist- ing highway centerline boundaries to coincide with highway right of way lines." [1975 1st ex.s. c 220 § 1.] For codification of 1975 1st ex.s. c 220, see Codification Tables, Volume 0. Revision of corporate boundary by substituting right of way lines: RCW 35.21.790. 35.02.180 Ownership of county roads to revert to city or town — Territory within city or town to be removed from fire protection, road, and library districts. The ownership of all county roads located within the bound- aries of a newly incorporated city or town shall revert to the city or town and become streets as of the official date of incorporation. However, any special assessments attributable to these county roads shall continue to exist and be collected as if the incorporation had not oc- curred. Property within the newly incorporated city or town shall continue to be subject to any indebtedness attributable to these roads and any related property tax levies. The territory included within the newly incorporated city or town shall be removed from the road district as (1 989 Ed.) Incorporation Proceedings district continues to collect taxes in such incorporated or annexed ar- eas, in cash, properties or contracts for fire protection services, a per- centage of the value of said assets equal to the percentage of the value of the real property in the entire district lying within the area so in- corporated or annexed: Provided, That if the area annexed or incorpo- rated includes less than five percent of the assessed value of the real property of the district, no payment shall be made to the city or town or fire protection district. (2) As provided in RCW 35.02.210, the fire protection district from which territory is removed as a result of an incorporation or annex- ation provide protection incorporated for period as the district to collect taxes levied in such annexed or incorporated area. (3) For the purposes of this section, the word "assets" shall mean the total assets of the fire district, reduced by its liabilities, including bonded indebtedness, the same to be determined by usual and accepted accounting methods. The amount of said liability shall be determined by reference to the fire district's balance sheet, produced in the regular course of business, which is nearest in time to the certification of the annexation of fire district territory by the city or town. [ 1989 c 76 § 3; 1986 c 234 § 19; 1967 c 146 § 1; 1965 c 7 § 35.13.248. Prior: 1963 c 231 § 4. Formerly RCW 35.13.248.] of the official date of incorporation. The territory in- cluded within the newly incorporated city or town shall be removed from a fire protection district or districts or library district or districts in which it was located, as of the official date of incorporation, unless the fire protec- tion district or districts have annexed the city or town during the interim period as provided in *RCW 52.04- .160 through 52.04.200, or the library district or districts have annexed the city or town during the interim period as provided in * *RCW 27.12.260 through 27.12.290. [1986 c 234 § 17.] Reviser's note: *(1) RCW 52.04.160 has been decodified and RCW 52.04.170 through 52.04.200 have been recodified as RCW 52.04.061 through 52.04.101, pursuant to 1984 c 230 § 89. •*(2) The reference to "RCW 27.12.260 through 27.12.290" ap -. pears to be erroneous. RCW 27.12.360 through 27.12.395 relates to annexation of a city or town by a library district. 35.02.205 35.02.190 Annexation of fire protection district Ownership of assets of fire protection district When at least sixty percent of assessed valuation is annexed or incorporated in city or town. If a portion of a fire pro- tection district including at least sixty percent of the as sessed valuation of the real property of the district is annexed to or incorporated into a city or town, owner- ship of all of the assets of the district shall be vested in the city or town, or, if the city or town has been annexed by another fire protection district, in the other fire pro- tection district, upon payment in cash, properties or contracts for fire protection services to the district within one year, of a percentage of the value of said assets equal to the percentage of the value of the real property in entire district remaining outside the incorporated or annexed area. The fire protection district may elect, by a vote of a majority of the persons residing outside the annexed or incorporated area who vote on the proposi- tion, to require the annexing or incorporating city or town or fire protection district to assume responsibility for the provision of fire protection, and for the operation and maintenance of the district's property, facilities, and equipment throughout the district and to pay the city or town or fire protection district a reasonable fee for such fire protection, operation, and maintenance. If all of a fire protection district is included in an area that incorporates as a city or town or is annexed to a city or town or fire protection district, all of the assets and liabilities of the fire protection district shall be transferred to the newly incorporated city or town upon its official date of incorporation or to the City or town or fire protection district upon the annexation. [1989 35 63 2; 1986 c 234 § 18; 1981 c 332 § 5; 1965 c 7 § .247. Prior: 1963 c 231 § 3. Formerly RCW 35.13.247.] Severability -1981 c 332: See note following RCW 35.13.165. 35.02.200 Annexation of fire protection district — Ownership of assets of fire protection district —When Tess than sixty percent (as amended by 1989 c 76). (1) If a portion of a fire protection district in- cluding less than sixty percent of the assessed value of the real prop- erty of the district is annexed to or incorporated into a city or town, the ownership of all assets of the district shall remain in the district and the district shall pay to the city or town or if the city or town has be en annexed d b other fire rotection district to the other fire nr o- tection district within one year or within such period of time as the (1989 Ed.) 35.02.200 Annexation of fire protection district — Ownership of assets of fire protection district —When Tess than sixty percent (as amended by 1989 c 267). (1) If a portion of a fire protection district including less than sixty percent of the assessed value of the real prop- erty of the district is annexed to or incorporated into a city or town, the ownership of all assets of the district shall remain in the district and the district shall pay to the city or town within one year or within such period of time as the district continues to collect taxes in such in- corporated or annexed areas, in cash, properties or contracts for fire protection services, a percentage of the value of said assets equal to the percentage of the value of the real property in the entire district lying within the area so incorporated or annexed: Provided, That if the area annexed or incorporated includes less than five percent of the ((as- )) area of the district, no payment shall be made to the city or town except as provided in RCW 35.02.205. (2) As provided in RCW 35.02.210, the fire protection district from which territory is removed as a result of an incorporation or annex- ation shall provide fire protection to the incorporated or annexed area for such ,,eriod as the district continues to collect taxes levied in such annexed or incorporated area. (3) For the purposes of this section, the word "assets" shall mean the total assets of the fire district, reduced by its liabilities, including bonded indebtedness, the same to be determined by usual and accepted accounting methods. The amount of said, liability shall be determined by reference to the fire district's balance sheet, produced in the regular course of business, which is nearest in time to the certification of the annexation of fire district territory by the city or town. [1989 c 267 § 1; 1986 c 234 § 19; 1967 c 146 § 1; 1965 c 7 § 35.13.248. Prior: 1963 c 231 § 4. Formerly RCW 35.13.248.] Reviser's note: RCW 35.02.200 was amended twice during the 1989 legislative session, each without reference to the. other. For rule of construction concerning sections amended more than once during the same legislative session, see RCW 1.12.025. 35.02.205 Annexation of fire protection district Distribution of assets of district when less than five per- cent of district annexed Distribution agreement Arbitration. (1) A distribution of assets from the fire protection district to the city or town shall occur as pro- vided in this section upon the annexation or incorpora- tion of an area by the city or town that constitutes less than five percent of the area of the fire protection dis- trict upon the adoption of a resolution by the city or town finding that the annexation or incorporation will impose a significant increase in the fire suppression re- sponsibilities of the city or town with a corresponding reduction in fire suppression responsibilities by the fire protection district. Such a resolution must be adopted [Title 35 RCW—p 13] 35.21.770 Title 35 RCW: Cities and Towns receive the same compensation, insurance and other benefits as are applicable to other volunteer firemen em- ployed by the city or town. [ 1974 ex.s. c 60 § 1.] 35.21.775 Provision of fire protection services to state –owned buildings and equipment. Whenever a city or town has located within its territorial limits buildings or equipment, except those leased to a nontax – exempt per- son or organization, owned by the state or an agency or institution of the state, the state or agency or institution shall contract with the city or town for fire protection services necessary for the protection and safety of per- sonnel and property pursuant to chapter 39.34 RCW, as now or hereafter amended. Nothing in this section shall. be construed to require the state, or any state agency or institution, to contract for services which are performed by the staff and equipment of such an entity or by a fire protection district pursuant to RCW 52.30.020. The di- rector of community development shall present in the budget submitted to the governor for each biennium, an amount sufficient to fund any fire protection service contracts negotiated under the provisions of this section. [1985 c 6 § 4; 1984 c 230 § 82; 1983 c 146 § 1; 1979 ex.s. c 102 § 1.] 35.21.777 Provision of fire protection services to state –owned buildings and equipment — Separate con- tract not prohibited. Nothing contained in RCW 35.21- .775 shall prohibit a separate contract for fire protection between a city or town and a state agency if the con- tractual relationship preceded the enactment of RCW 35.21.775 or if by mutual agreement a city or .town and a state agency find that the funding under RCW 35.21- .775 is inadequate to compensate the city or town for fire protection services or equipment provided to state facilities. [1983 c 87 § 1.] 35.21.780 Laws, rules and regulations applicable to cities 500,000 or over deemed applicable to cities 400,000 or over. On and after June 12, 1975, every law and rule or regulation of the state or any agency thereof which immediately prior to June 12, 1975 related to cities of five hundred thousand population or over shall be deemed to be applicable to cities of four hundred thou- sand population or over. [ 1975 c 33 § 1.] Severability -1975 c 33: "If any provision of this 1975 amenda- tory act, or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act, or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not affected.' [1975 c 33 § 7.] 35.21.790 Revision of corporate boundary within street, road, or highway right of way by substituting right of way line —Not subject to review. (1) The governing bodies of a county and any city or town located therein may by agreement revise any part of the corporate boundary of the city or town which coincides with the centerline, edge, or any portion of a public street, road or highway right of way by substituting therefor a right of way line of the same public street, road or highway so as fully to include or fully to exclude that segment of the public street, road or highway from the corporate limits of the city or town. [Title 35 RCW —p 781 (2) The revision of a corporate boundary as author- ized by this section shall become effective when ap- proved by ordinance of the city or town council or commission and by ordinance or resolution of the county legislative authority. Such a boundary revision is not subject to potential review by a boundary review board. [1989 c 84 § 10; 1975 1st ex.s. c 220 § 17.] Legislative finding, intent -1975 1st ex.s. c 220: See note follow- ing RCW 35.02.170. Boundary line adjustment: RCW 35.13.300 through 35.13.330. Use of right of way line as corporate boundary in incorporation pro- ceeding--When right of way may be included in territory to be incorporated: RCW 35.02.170. When right of way may be included in territory to be incorpo- rated—Use of right of way line as corporate boundary in annex- ation: RCW 35.13.290. 35.21.800 Foreign trade zones — Legislative find- ing, intent. It is the finding of the legislature that foreign trade zones serve an important public purpose by the creation of employment opportunities within the state and that the establishment of zones designed to accom- plish this purpose is to be encouraged. It is the further intent of the legislature that the department of trade and economic development provide assistance to entities planning to apply to the United States for permission to establish such zones. [ 1985 c 466 § 43; 1977 ex.s. c 196 § 3.] Effective date --- Severability -1985 c 466: See notes following RCW 43.31.005. Effective date -1977 ex.s. c 196: See note following RCW 24.46.010. 35.21.805 Foreign trade zones — Authority to apply for permission to establish, operate and maintain. A city or town, as zone sponsor, may apply to the United States for permission to establish, operate, and maintain for- eign trade zones: Provided, That nothing herein shall be construed to prevent these zones from being operated and financed by a private corporation(s) on behalf of a city or town acting as zone sponsor. [ 1977 ex.s. c 196 § 4.] Effective date -1977 ex.s. c 196: See note following RCW 24.46.010. 35.21.810 Hydroplane races — Providing for rest - rooms and other services in public parks for spectat- ors— Admission fees — Authorized. Any city or town may provide restrooms and other services in its public parks to be used by spectators of any hydroplane race held on a lake or river which is located adjacent to or within the city or town, and in addition any city or town may charge admission fees for persons to observe a hy- droplane race from public park property which is suffi- cient to defray the costs of the city or town accommodating spectators, cleaning up after the race, and other costs related to the hydroplane race. Any city or town may authorize the organization which sponsors a hydroplane race to provide restroom and other services for the public on park property and may authorize the organization to collect any admission fees charged by the city or town. [ 1979 c 26 § 1.] (1989 Ed.) Annexation of Unincorporated Areas 35.13.310 certificate shall be used 'as the basis for the allocation and payment of state funds to such city or town. For the purposes`of this section, each quarterly period . shall commence on the first day of the months of Janu- ary, April, July, and October. Whenever a revised cer- tificate is forwarded by the office thirty days or less prior' to the commencement of the next quarterly period, the population of the annexed territory shall not be con- sidered until the . commencement of the following quar- terly period. [1979 c 151 § 25; 1975 1st ex.s. c 31 § 1; 1969 ex.s. c 50 § 1; 1967 ex.s. c 42 § 2; 1965 c 7 § 35- .13.260. Prior: 1961 c 51 § 1; 1957 c 175 § 14; prior: 1951 c 248 § 5, part.] Effective date -1967 ex.s. c 42: See note following RCW 3.30.010. Savings -1967 ex.s. c 42: See note following RCW 3.30.010. Allocations to cities and towns from motor vehicle fund: RCW 46.68- .100, 46.68.110. Census to be conducted in decennial periods: State Constitution Art. 2 §3. Population determinations, office of financial management: Chapter 43.62 RCW. 35.13.270 Road district taxes collected in annexed territory Disposition. Whenever any territory is an- nexed to a city which is part of a road district of the county and road district taxes have been levied but not collected on any property within the annexed territory, the same shall when collected by the county treasurer be paid to the city and by the city placed in the city street fund. [1965 c 7 § 35.13.270. Prior: 1957 c 175 § 15; prior: 1951 c 248 § 5, part.] 35.13.280 Cancellation, acquisition, of ranchise or permit for operation of public service business in territory annexed. The annexation by any city of any territory pursuant to those provisions of chapter 35.10 RCW which relate to the annexation of a third class city or town to a first class city, or pursuant to the provisions of chapter 35.13 RCW shall cancel, as of the effective date of such annexation, any franchise or permit theretofore granted to any person, firm or corporation by the state of Washington, or by the governing body of such an- nexed territory, authorizing or otherwise permitting the operation of any public transportation, garbage collec- tion and /or disposal or other similar public service busi- ness or facility within the limits of the annexed territory, but the holder of any such franchise or permit canceled pursuant to this section shall be forthwith granted by the annexing city a franchise to continue such business within the annexed territory for a term of not less than five years from the date of issuance thereof, and the an- nexing city, by franchise, permit or public operation, shall not extend similar or competing services to the an- nexed territory except upon a proper showing of the in- ability or refusal of such person, firm or corporation to adequately service said annexed territory at a reasonable price: Provided, That the provisions of this section shall not preclude the purchase by the annexing city of said franchise, business, or facilities at an agreed or negoti- ated price, or from acquiring the same by condemnation (1989 Ed.) upon payment of damages, including a reasonable amount for the loss of the franchise or permit.' In the event that any person, firm or corporation whose fran- chise or permit has been canceled by the terms of this section shall suffer any measurable damages as a result of any annexation pursuant to the provisions of the laws above – mentioned, such person, firm or corporation shall have a right of action against any city causing such damages. [1983 c 3 § 54; 1965 c 7 § 35.13.280. Prior: 1957 c 282 § 1.] 35.13.290 When right of way may be included Use of right of way line as corporate boundary. The boundaries of a city or town arising from an annexation of territory shall not include a portion of the right of way of any public street, road, or highway except where the boundary runs from one edge of the right of way to the other edge of the right'of way. However, the right of way line of any public street, road, or highway, or any segment thereof, may be used to define a part of a cor- porate boundary in an annexation proceeding. [1989 c 84 § 8.] 35.13.300 Boundary line adjustment Pur- pose— Definition. The purpose of RCW 35.13.300 through 35.13.330 is to establish a process for the ad- justment of existing or proposed city boundary lines to avoid a situation where a common boundary line is or would be located within a right of way of a public street, road, or highway, or a situation where two cities are separated or would be separated by only the right of way of a public street, road, or highway, other than situations where a boundary line runs from one edge of the right of way to the other edge of the right of way. As used in RCW 35.13.300 through 35.13.330, "city" includes every city or town in the state, including a code city operating under Title 35A RCW. [1989 c 84 § 12.] 35.13.310 Boundary line adjustment Agree- ment Not subject to review. (1) This section provides a method to adjust the boundary lines between two cities where the two cities share a common boundary within a right of way of a public street, road, or highway, or the two cities have a portion of their boundaries separated only by all or part of the right of way of a public street, road, or highway. However, this section does not apply to situations where a boundary line runs from one edge of the right of way to the other edge of the right of way. (2) The councils of any two cities in a situation de- scribed in subsection (1) of this section may enter into an agreement to alter those portions of their boundaries that are necessary to eliminate this situation and create a partial common boundary on either edge of the right of way of the public street, road, or highway. An agree- ment made under this section shall include only bound- ary line adjustments between the two cities that are necessary to eliminate the situation described in subsec- tion (1) of this section. A boundary line adjustment under this section is not subject to potential review by a boundary review board. [1989 c 84 § 13.] [Title 35 RCW—p 35] - 35.13.320 Title 35 Kt, w: IUUV3 a ■ ■� 35.13.340 Boundary line adjustment Inclusion or exclusion of remaining portion of parcel When sub- ject to review Definition. The boundaries of a city shall be adjusted to include or exclude the remaining portion of a parcel of land located partially within and partially without *of the boundaries of that city upon the governing body of the city adopting a resolution ap- proving such an adjustment that was requested in a pe- tition signed by the owner of the parcel. A boundary adjustment made pursuant to this section shall not be subject to potential review by the boundary review board of the county within which the parcel is located if the remaining portion of the parcel to be included or ex- cluded from the city is located in the unincorporated area of the county and the adjustment is approved by resolution of the county legislative authority or in writ- ing byy ordinance r of employee the county eto make such approvals. Where part of a single parcel of land is located within the boundaries of one city, and the remainder of the parcel is located within the boundaries of a second city that is located immediately adjacent to the first city, the boundaries of the two cities may be adjusted so that all of the parcel is located within either of the cities, if the adjustment was requested in a petition signed by the property owner and is approved by both cities. Approval by a city may be through either resolution of its city council, or in writing by an official or employee of the city who has been designated by ordinance of the city to make such approvals. Such an adjustment is not subject to potential review by the boundary review board of the county in which the parcel is located. Whenever a portion of a public right of way is located on such a parcel, the boundary adjustment shall be made in such a manner as to • include all or none of that por- tion of the public right of way within the boundaries of the city. As used in this section, "city" shall include any city or town, including a code city. [1989 c 84 § 24.] *Reviser's note: The word "of" appears to be unnecessary. 35.13.350 Providing annexation information to pub- lic. A city or town can provide factual public informa- tion on the effects of a pending annexation proposed for the city or town. [ 1989 c 351 § 8.] 35.13.320 Boundary line adjustment When ad- justment required — Limitation —Not subject to re- view. The councils of any two cities that will be in a situation describedlin RCW 35.13.310(1) as the result of a proposed annexation by one of the cities may enter into an agreement to adjust those portions of the annex- ation proposal and the boundaries of the city that is not proposing the annexation. Such an agreement shall not be effective unless the annexation is made. The annexation proposal shall proceed if such an agreement were not made, but any resulting boundaries between the two cities that meet the descriptions of RCW 35.13.310(1) shall be adjusted by agreement be- tween the two cities within one hundred eighty days of the effective date of the annexation, or the county legis- lative authority of the county within which the right of way day ipe located shall adjust immediately tfollowing ar the within a sixty- one hundred eightieth day. a county under An agreement or adjustment made by Y this section shall include only boundary line adjustments between the two cities that are necessary to eliminate the situation described in RCW 35.13.310(1). A boundary line adjustment under this section is not subject to potential review by a boundary review board. [1989 c 84 § 14.] 35.13.330 Boundary line adjustment Agreement pending incorporation — Limitation —Not subject to review. (1) The purpose of this section is to avoid situa- tions arising where the boundaries of an existing city and a newly incorporated city would create a situation described in RCW 35.13.310(1). (2) A boundary review board that reviews the bound- aries of a • proposed incorporation may enter into an agreement with the council of a city, that would be in a situation described in subsection (1) of this section as the result of a proposed incorporation of a city, to adjust the boundary line of the city and those of the city pro- posed to be incorporated to avoid this situation described subsection of this the to be approved b Y thevoters. Such an agreement shall not be effective unless the incorporation occurs. The incorporation proposal shall proceed if such an agreement were not made, but any resulting boundaries between the two cities that meet create a situation de- scribed in RCW 35.13.310(1) shall be adjusted by agreement between the two cities within one hundred eighty days of the official date of the incorporation, or the county legislative authority of the county within which the right of way is located shall adjust the bound- aries within a sixty -day period immediately following the one hundred eightieth day. An agreement or adjustment made by a county under this section shall include only boundary line adjustments between the two cities that are necessary to eliminate the situation described in RCW 35.13.310(1). A boundary line adjustment under this section is not subject to potential review by a boundary review board. [1989 c 84 § 15.] [Title 35 RCW —p 36] Chapter 35.13A WATER OR SEWER DISTR1CTION ASSUMPTION Sections 35.13A.010 . Definitions. 35.13A.020 Assumption and ri authorized Out tanding indebtedness properties ghts ge ment and control. 35.13A.030 Assumption of control if sixty percent or more of area or valuation within city. percent of area 35.13A.040 Assumption of control if Tess than sixty or valuation within city. 35.13A.050 Territory Dut es ofgcity'oridistrict--Rates and (1989 Ed.) -1 j1 \\L..............] 111..L" '. a, • - r 71i MAC cYA). 71t.;14 . • C.1.C.:i CO ./ : I e•—••• N AN S 1 I 1 F .......--_- . . r . ......t. • „,„,:,.., ., [ ., C I 411111-• i Prit PLIT.1114•11-11 , OCING FIELD . lam.s SEATTLE CITY LIMITS CITY OF TUKWILA LANDS TO SEATTLE FROM TUKWILA LANDS TO TUKWILA FROM SEATTLE SEATTLE ITY LIMITS LINE NO SCALE • • NM 1 MI 1 MI.C.i&X .”. :•• '.1 M-2 /1. 7 \_\Cr. = .1•••■■••■■••■■•■••■•• M-2 M-2I r M-2 S'Nf St+ n * • C-1,' ••••""."""e""..* \ ; •• ' . • K CA- --77; Cdpe_t_ voc /44--cA.s24L, dAg 5.4 leitS11- • • • • eee-ege.d2 c.cc, 604- 2LeA .ANDOVER PARK EAST ` LIL•LILILL '� I•Ii . L,LGCf I "/ / I'.. C` I GIGIGI °IGIc'- y— I ^l_7 i I .•IG�LI, GIGIj` I.r.' I' I I.I.II. IL I LILIC 1 LI v I I ILI LI IGc I I G� I ' IV 11 11 - .I I I \ I I ,/L - . - 11 c4 n M . uG LOT o .6 J I IccLlc J fQ i - . i r r . eUrco 1. .?I 1 0._I.I I \ "I I L I c' L c I i /.'u'O0V s r �R_2$© ^ 1 I'1 I I LL ILI L 3 Q 1°,1,.1°,1,..1c1,..14 . 10101 " tge �© (l&) rt' E4' rt' EXIST... BUILDING EXIJT ADDITION PROJECT NAME: • EAGLE - SOUTHCENTER QRER: SAHEY CORPORATION. 1 - • 210 ELLIOT AVE N. 8000 SEATTLE, WA 98119 TENANT, EAGLE HARDWARE AND GARDEN . 19115 N. VALLEY HAY. . . KENT, WA 98032 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT 3 ANDOVER PARK INDUSTRIAL PARK RI • KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON ADDRE80, 101 ANDONEA PARK CAST -( _ BUILDING CODE DATA OCCUPANCY: D-2 OFFICE /RETAIL - ICWNERT: E11571Ni YARE)DUSE TO CONSTRUCTION TYPE: III -N SPRINKLERED . BUILDING ABER ISD. FT.): TO HE - •TOTAL REMOVED REMAIN ADDITION TOTAL GROUND FLOOR 100,574 3,144 197,430 21.582 • 119,012 FLOOR . ' 31,808 10,169 :21,639 558 22,197. , TOTALS 132,382 13,313 119,069' - 22,140.141.209 mEUMIIJALY SITS PEVE.LOPMC.,UT. ZONING DATA; , 2DNING. CM' - INDUSTRIAL PARK • SITE AREA;. 395,836 SD.- FT.. 9.08 ACRES B116014O LOT COVERAGE: 119.012 30.17 395.836 PARKINS REQUIRED.' ." 141,209/400-.!I353.0 PARKING PROVIDED: 42'5 - frl CDNNSLTANTS - ARCHITECT. GCONZO ASSOCIATES -t.. 919 124TH AVE, N.E., :SUITE 101 BELLE NE, WA .98005 / - CONTACT. JON( IALLSTRON 45 5-3203 • STRUCTURAL - ENGINEER. 'ENGINEERS -9, MAC!' . 6869 1ADDLA-AVE N. SEATTLE, WA 98115 E. CONTACT. RICARD JANKE 525-7560 sass CIVIL ENGINEER; • DAVID EVANS.• ASSOC) 301 116TH AVE S.E., SUITE 170 BELLEVUE, 1A. -98004 ! . CONTACT :. 'NEIL NACNBARTH 455 -3511 MECHANICAL/... ELF2TRICAL' .. ! CONTACT. LAMPUIR WARIER ENGINEER; - TEAM ENGINEERING - 1107 S.Y. GRADV NAY (SUITE 210 RENTON, . ;IA 98055 22E -7832 LAYIDGEJSPE RRCHTI6T. ' RICHARD .YARD ASSOCIATES 1906 E. ALOHA STREET, SEATTLE, YR 98112 F '- CONTACT:- RICHARD YARD 329-2110 JOB NO' •DRAWN. ,JGH CHECKED' J40 DATE. I1Aj,..M UNTO MAY-19 1990