Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-04-01 Regular MinutesTUKWILA CITY COUNCIL April 1, 1985 Tukwila City Hall 7:00 P.M. Council Chambers CALL TO ORDER and PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL OFFICIALS IN ATTENDANCE REPORTS Chamber of Commerce Installation Banquet Foster Bridge Groundbreaking Employee Service Pins CONSENT AGENDA Resolution #943 Regular Meeting M I N U T E S Mayor Van Dusen called the Regular Meeting of the Tukwila City Council to order and led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. LIONEL C. BOHRER, MABEL J. HARRIS, EDGAR D. BAUCH, Council President, DORIS E. PHELPS, JOE H. DUFFIE, WENDY A. MORGAN, CHARLES E. SIMPSON. JAMES HANEY, City Attorney; MAXINE ANDERSON, City Clerk; DON MORRISON, City Administrator; BYRON SNEVA, Public Works Director; DON PIERCE, Police Chief; HUBERT CRAWLEY, Fire Chief. Mayor Van Dusen reported on the Chamber of Commerce Installation Banquet. Councilman Duffie was presented a pla- que as the "Citizen of the Year." The name of Edgar D. Bauch was added to the Council President Plaque. The war4 for I}e outstanding Business of the Year Was yiven/tg Inc. with Mario Segale /and Cris Crumbaugh/both receiving pla- ques. Owner Corporate Consul Two special awards were given to the City; one in appre- ciation to the Tukwila Police Department for loyal and valuable service to the Business Community; the other to the Fire Department for the same thing. Mayor Van Dusen thanked the employees of the two Departments for their hard work in creating a better image of the City of Tukwila. Friday was the official groundbreaking ceremony for the Foster Bridge. There was a good turn out of citizens from the Point and officials of both King County and the City. Mayor Van Dusen presented employee service pins to the following: 5 year, Ramona Brown, Maintenance Secretary, Public Works 10 year, Dave Green, Firefighter. a. Approval of Minutes: March 18, 1985 b. Approval of Vouchers Claims Fund Vouchers #21377 #21509 Current Fund Golf Course Spec. Rev. Street Fund Federal Shared Revenue Water Fund Sewer Fund Equipment Rental Water /Sewer Const. 37,191.01 1,308.32 7,273.19 2,653.80 196.57 745.25 2,861.82 45,705.21 97,935.17 c. Budget Transfer No. 85 -02 to provide word processing com- munication capabilities between City Hall and the City Attorney's Office. d. A resolution of the City of Tukwila increasing the petty cash fund and repealing Resolution No. 857. e. Accept the Andover Park West Storm Drainage Rehabilita- tion Project as completed in accordance with Plans and Specifications. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL, REGULAR MEETING April 1, 1985 Page 2 CONSENT AGENDA Cont. Resolution #944 NEW BUSINESS Amend Agenda Authorize Admin. to proceed with com- pletion of documents for final negotiation with Metro f. Authorize Public Works to negotiate a consulting contract with Entranco Engineers, Inc. for the South 168th Improvement Project. g. A resolution of the City of Tukwila establishing a system of Formal Motions to record actions of the City Council. MOVED BY BAUCH, SECONDED BY DUFFIE, THAT THE CONSENT AGENDA BE APPROVED AS SUBMITTED. MOTION CARRIED. MOVED BY BAUCH, SECONDED BY DUFFIE, THAT ITEM 7D BE CONSIDER- ED AT THIS TIME. MOTION CARRIED. Council President Bauch explained that at the Committee of the Whole, this item was tabled. It is back for recon- sideration. It was noted that the agreement is the City's version; it is what Tukwila wants. Administration wanted a consensus from Council on whether these were the goals the City should aim for. MOVED BY BAUCH, SECONDED BY PHELPS, THAT IT IS THE CONSENSUS OF THE CITY COUNCIL THAT THE MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT, AS PRESENTED BY STAFF, WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE IF SIGNED AS IS.* Councilman Duffie said the Utilities Committee wanted this to come back to Council so that everyone knows what is being considered. Council Member Morgan said she objects to the wording in paragraph two....Metro is mandated by the Washington State Department of Ecology to construct an effluent transfer system.... She questioned whether they were given the spe- cific instructions on what they had to do to cleanup the river. She asked to have the language changed to reflect the order which was to remove the effluent from the river. Council Member Phelps noted that issue on the Val Vue Interceptor is addressed in Section 11. Dick Sandaas of Metro said that they have avoided routing the pipeline along Interurban. As it is proposed now, it does not actually tear up the street. We are not impacting Interurban Ave. with construction, therefore, it was beyond their ability to accept the proposed improvements in the agreement. They are not going to dig it up, therefore, they cannot restore it. Councilman Bauch said that the large trucks using the street are going to tear it up; don't you thing we have some miti- gating circumstances. Mr. Sandaas said their traffic will have to abide by axle loading limits. Councilman Bauch noted that Tukwila is not benefiting from the pipeline. All of the Tukwila effluent goes to the West Point Plant. Councilman Bohrer noted that there are a variety of concerns about Interurban that have to do with dirt, traffic, noise and inconvenience that this project is going to cause. You are going to cause disruption to the surrounding businesses and to the people who live there. There needs to be some TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL, REGULAR MEETING April 1, 1985 Page 3 NEW BUSINESS Cont. Authorize Admin. to proceed with com- pletion of documents for final negotiation with Metro (cont.) mitigation and there is no mitigation without some reconstruction to Interurban Avenue. The only thing Metro is doing is restoration to the things they have to disrupt. There are some other aspects of the program that are not being mitigated. The City deserves and will have mitigation for some of those other aspects of the program. Byron Sneva, Public Works Director, said the Right -of -Entry Agreement covers the concerns of Council as they relate to the impact that the ETS makes on the Golf Course. Councilman Bohrer commented on Exhibit A and asked if the City will receive reimbursement for costs that were incurred prior to July 1, 1985. Mr. Sneva noted the last item on Exhibit A and said that the City will prepare an estimate on those costs and submit them to Metro. Councilman Bohrer noted that there should be a combined total of the bottom of Exhibit A. Under Exhibit B, Item 5, the redesign should be removed and placed in Exhibit C so the City controls it, and it is reimbursed by Metro. Mr. Sneva noted that the Right -of -Entry document does not allow Metro to build anything. Attorney Haney said they will need an easement for construction. MOVED BY BOHRER, SECONDED BY DUFFIE, THAT THE MOTION BE AMENDED TO MOVE THE REDESIGN FROM EXHIBIT B TO EXHIBIT C AND LEAVE THE CONSTRUCITON IN EXHIBIT B. MOTION CARRIED. Council Member Harris commented that Tukwila is just asking for equal treatment. First, the first two years of the pro- ject were spent discussing which way the pipeline should go. Now, Tukwila is supposed to act promptly; we should be given more consideration on mitigations. Councilman Bohrer commented that Metro has to restore the area they are tearing up, but there are other "hurts" the City is withstanding that there is no mitigation for. He wondered if there should be another "Whereas," namely, the City doesn't benefit from this project directly. It benefits other constituencies outside the City, but we are receiving the impacts from it. Council Member Phelps asked where, in the process, is the City. Mr. Sneva explained that the next action to be taken by the Planning Department is on April 11 to consider the Shoreline Management Request. If a Joint Agency Agreement is ready, they can proceed with the processing of the permit. If all is ready, construction can be let the middle of June. MOVED BY MORGAN, SECONDED BY DUFFIE, THAT THE AGREEMENT BE AMENDED TO CHANGE PAGE 1, PARAGRAPH 2 TO READ: WHEREAS, METRO IS MANDATED BY THE WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY TO....INCLUDE HERE THE LANGUAGE STATED IN THEIR MANDATE AND ELIMINATE LANGUAGE THAT THEY WERE TO CONSTRUCT AN EFFLUENT TRANSFER SYSTEM FOR THE PURPOSE OF DIVERTING AND DISPOSING OF EFFLUENT FROM METRO'S RENTON TREATMENT PLANT TO PUGET SOUND BY JULY 1, 1986. Attorney Haney suggested that the wording be changed to read as follows: WHEREAS, Metro is mandated by the Washington State Department of Ecology to eliminate the discharge of sewage into the Duwamish River from Metro's Renton Treatment Plant by July 1, 1986, and TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL, REGULAR MEETING April 1, 1985 Page 4 NEW BUSINESS Cont. Authorize Admin. to proceed with com- pletion of documents for final negotiation with Metro (cont.) FM 85 -08 RECESS 8:20 8:30 p.m. Ordinance #1346 Reinstating the Building Inspector Position WHEREAS, Metro plans to construct an effluent transfer system in order to fulfull DOE's mandate along an alignment which will require construction within the corporate boundaries of the City, and. Council agreed with this wording. *MOTION FAILED. MOVED BY BOHRER, SECONDED BY HARRIS, THAT THE AGREEMENT BE AMENDED TO SAY THAT THIS CONSTRUCTION GOES THROUGH THE CITY OF TUKWILA; THE EFFLUENT TRANSFER SYSTEM DOES NOT DIRECTLY BENEFIT TUKWILA. MOTION CARRIED. Dick Sandaas of Metro asked if this agreement is not in place by April 11, what is the status of the Shoreline Application? Mr. Sneva said that the mitigation required by the Shoreline Management Permit is stated in this document. *MOTION CARRIED AS AMENDED. Councilman Bauch noted that this is Formal Motion #8. ,i`/ 7 U MOVED BY PHELPS, SECONDED BY SIMPSON, THAT COUNCIL RECESS FOR FIVE MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Van Dusen called the Regular Meeting of the Tukwila City Council back to order with Council Members present as previously reported. MOVED BY SIMPSON, SECONDED BY DUFFIE, THAT THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE BE READ BY TITLE ONLY. MOTION CARRIED. City Attorney Haney read an ordinance of the City of Tukwila, Wash., reinstating the Building Inspector Position as a full time position within the Planning Department, amending the 1985 budget adopted by Ordinance No. 1340 of the City, passed by the City Council on December 17, 1984, to transfer funds within the Planning Department Budget from Professional Services to Salaries and Benefits and establishing an effec- tive date. MOVED BY SIMPSON, SECONDED BY PHELPS, THAT ORDINANCE NO. 1346 BE ADOPTED AS READ. MOTION CARRIED. Resolution #945- MOVED BY HARRIS, SECONDED BY PHELPS, THAT THE PROPOSED Establishing uniform RESOLUTION BE READ BY TITLE ONLY. MOTION CARRIED. policies and procedures for acquisition of City Attorney Haney read a joint resolution of the City real property by Council and Mayor of the City of Tukwila, Wash., establishing the City which do uniform policies and procedures for acquisitions of real pro not involve the re- perty by the City which do not involve the relocation of any location of any persons. persons MOVED BY HARRIS, SECONDED BY DUFFIE, THAT RESOLUTION NO. 945 BE ADOPTED AS READ.* Councilman Bauch spoke against the Resolution because he feels it should be an Ordinance. Taking a person's property is more important than licensing a dog or controlling massage parlors. A new Council might overlook a resolution whereas a codified ordinance is easy to research. He urged Council to reject this resolution and replace it with an ordinance. *MOTION CARRIED WITH BAUCH VOTING NO. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL, REGULAR MEETING April 1, 1985 Page 5 NEW BUSINESS Cont. Approve Scope of work authorize P.W. to proceed with the selection of a consultant for the Transportation Comp. Plan ADJOURNMENT 8:58 P.M. MOVED BY HARRIS, SECONDED BY MORGAN, THAT COUNCIL APPROVE THE SCOPE OF WORK AND AUTHORIZE PUBLIC WORKS TO PROCEED WITH THE SELECTION OF A CONSULTANT FOR THE TRANSPORTATION COMPREHEN- SIVE PLAN. MOTION CARRIED. MOVED BY MORGAN, SECONDED BY DUFFIE, THAT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL ADJOURN. MOTION CARRIED. Gar9 -C. Van Uusen, Mayor 'Maxine Anderson, City Clerk Verbatim Transcript Regular Council Meeting held April 1, 1985. METRO ETS Mayor Van Dusen: We have before you in probably in the packet there is a letter from Beth Bland that I just that is not really part of the packet that was given you tonight but I did receive it today so I wanted to share it with you and there has been several meetings with the staff and Metro staff and a couple of meetings that I have been involved in and if some of you were lucky you got called by Metro today. BAUCH: I would like to explain to the Council why this is on the agenda tonight. If the Council recalls this matter was tabled at the Committee of the Whole and during the week as I talked to Mr. Sneva and he explained exactly what the purpose of bringing it to the Committee of the Whole and what he wanted to accomplish I decided to put it back on the agenda and the and as it was brought out at the Committee of the Whole this is the City of Tukwila's version of the agreement...this is what Tukwila wants...the negotiators for the City consisting of the Public Works and the Mayor and the City Administrator wanted a feel from the Council whether this is what the Council had in mind...a consensus from the Council as to whether these were goals the City should go towards as far as being negotiated. This whatever the agreement is when it is finally brought back to us would be passed by resolution and we do not have an agreement from Metro. So, there were a couple of minor changes made in this draft and Mr. Sneva was going to underline them or highlight them what they were and it was dated 3/27/85 and it was different than what we had in our package for the... I read it all over again and I could not find it and so it was so minor that or except that it did take the ValVue Sewer extension out of the title and out of the body of the "Whereases" and put it in the Appendix A as I mean Appendix B as one of the tasks that needed to be done. As Mr. Sneva explained this has been in the long -range plans of Metro since the 60's and that it certainly will affect, at least in the City of Tukwila, the tearing up again of the street if and when they were ever put that extension were ever put in. If Metro chooses to say that that is no longer required and removes it from their plan then a different approach would have to be taken. With that explanation I would make the following motion: MOVED BY BAUCH, SECONED BY PHELPS, THAT IT IS THE CONSENSUS OF THE CITY COUNCIL THAT THE MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT AS PRESENTED BY THE STAFF WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE IF SIGNED AS IS. HARRIS: I noted that Exhibit A has also been changed. The first item for Project Coordinator department was I believe $169,000 is now $98,000 was that approved by the City. SNEVA: What happened there is that Exh. A, B, and C all we did was take them and consolidated the engineering fees (cannot hear, not talking into microphone). HARRIS: Oh, I see, these are then acceptable to you. SNEVA: They are acceptable to me. Mayor: Yes, we went over them many times. HARRIS: It seems to me that the second one, administration also the figures were changed. Was that moved someplace else. SNEVA: That is a percentage of, that was calculated as a percentage HARRIS: I see. okay. 2 DUFFIE: I would like to say one thing. This was brought up last week in the Utility Committee and we decided unanimously to bring it back to the Committee because when Mr. Sneva was going over explaining this to us we found out that there were a lot of changes in it and we were very upset about it. We suggested to him that since it was tabled to try to bring it back and I am glad to see that Mr. President did bring it back and put it before the Council tonight because once you once Mr. Sneva started explaining this you will find out there are a lot of things that we thought we would be getting that we are no longer getting and it has not been approved with us. We found out this is the time for this to come back to the Committee before it gets out of hand. I am glad to see that they did bring it back and I want the Council to pay close attention to this because it is not as rosy as we thought we were getting at first. MORGAN: I would like the Public Works Director, the Mayor, and the Attorney in that order to speak to the issue of that is first mentioned in this agreement of reimbursement for work done in the permit process by the City and whether you consider this to place the City in an awkward situation when the permitting processes is in the best interest of the City and reimbursement by the agency who is seeking the permit seems a bit strange to me, I wonder if you would explain that arrangement and assure me that there is no way ..somehow conflicts of interest slips into my head. MAYOR: You mean why these fees are being levied to go though the permit..? MORGAN: I understand that there are costs involved in a permit process but I do not understand separating the fact that the City is a legal entity is bound to observe these ordinances of the City and laws of the State regarding protecting our environment and dealing with our own permit process. We are doing that for an agency whom we are now saying in this agreement will reimburse us for that work and somehow that seems like a bit like mixing something that ought not to be mixed up. I would like Bryon to speak to that first and then you and then the attorney. SNEVA: In the preface to each one to Exhibits A, B, and C.there is a short heading or statement and in A I don't believe these services and fees are in addition to those normally provided by permit fees. What we are asking for is reimbursable costs that are over and above those that are normally... MORGAN: Which makes it even worse in my mind. I understand that there is aprocess involved in granting a permit, correct, but I am also hazarding a guess that because this particular project is very complicated and so large that there will be extra work attached to it in that permitting process some of which has come about as a result of some revisions in our ordinances and City law regarding how certain kinds of work and the passage of SEPA correct. Now, explain to me how you separate the fact that you are performing work for a body that needs to have apermit approved and at the same time you are asking that body to pay for above and beyond okay, answer me a question. Do you design your permit payment process to be a self- supporting process, in general. SNEVA: I cannot answr for the Planning Department. I am not positive if it does or it doesn't. I know that the other permits do not the fees that we charge for them do not cover the costs of the administration fee. Our situation here is that we have a much larger project and the time frame is much quicker and there is no way to get that done without spending additional money for somebody to do the work. MORGAN: I understand that but my problem is that I do not like the direct relationship that you have explained in this about reimbursement. Maybe if I ask the Mayor his interpretation and the Attorney in part you will assauge my concerns. 3 MAYOR: My understanding about these service fees, first they were requested by Metro because they wanted extraordinary services by the City or expedient service, whatever term we came up with, but they requested that we negotiate these with Metro. Now, I don't know if this is the final figure we have come up but at least we have been talking about these fees so it is not something we arbitrarily laid on them and said, "Hey, because you are such a big entity and separate and it is complicated project we are going to lay them on you. I don't know what the fee would be if there was not anything negotiated with this but I tell you one thing it would take them a heck of a long time to get the permits through. MORGAN: I don't have any that bothers me too....that kind of statement..because what you are saying is you are asking them to pay to facilitate a process that you may not necessarily facilitate for another entity. MAYOR: No, no it takes just plain time doing it. We would have to find money somewhere to go out.,. MORGAN: I understand that, I guess I am looking for an alternative way of explaining that they would be paying for they would be paying for this rather than reimbursing you.for services that result in a permit which results in a go -ahead to do work in the City. Am I right in my interpretation? BAUCH: I would like to respond to this because the political part of this. Metro is a governmental unit, non profit, all of this work which is a responsbility of the whole Metro district which is essentially all of the east side is benefitting from this but Tukwila is not because ordinarily when we process permit and the like we increase our assessed valuation in the City, those people eventually pay taxes and those taxes go to the current fund of the City to help fund future type things. There is absolutely no money coming in from Metro to do this and Metro is exactly like the federal government, when the federal government does a project in a local jurisdiction they pay no taxes, they pay no fees but they come back and immediately give you a subsidy to cover that because that construction in going on in that jurisdiction and it is a normal type thing when a governmental jurisdiction does work in another government. MORGAN: Maybe I am arguing semantics but I need an explanation from you about the relationship between what this says and the letting of a permit. HANEY: There is no conflict in interest involved here. I think that is part of your question. as to whether or not Metro is paying for result. They are not paying for result, what they are paying for is for an extraordinary effort to complete the process within the guidelines,schedule guidelines, that Metro is asking the City to say, "yes, we will go through the permitting process but we have limited City resources and staff time and you are going to have to wait your turn with everyone else, to the extent that Metro wants an accelerated review and the City will have to put on additional staff hours and the City is requesting reimbursement from Metro to take care of that. Metro is not, however, adverse to this. The City is not contracting away any of its authority to place conditions on permits or to not issue permits if certain conditions or condition permits so make sure that all of the impacts are stated and the process is controlled and in control of the City. What Metro is saying is and what the City is saying this process has to be placed in a limited amount of time and in order to do that the City is going to incur expenses far beyond what it normally would incur just be processing one on their own time frame. That is what the City is asking to be reimbursed for. That is what the City is negotiating with Metro on. Metro is agreeing to pay the City for this. MORGAN: One follow up question. The assumption in your language and the assumption in this agreement is that it will move ahead at a fairly rapid pace and I question that if we truly are observing our process and we truly are dealing with the permits as they were intended it could take a very long time but if the worse scenario for Metro probably would be if something would be found that would say that in fact the construction of this poses an extraordinary problem for the City. I did not notice or there is not one of the clauses in this o to provide for that sort of thing happening or either party HANEY: There is provisions for changes in the agreement. MORGAN: Okay. HANEY: We can renegotiate parts of the agreement to recover additional monies if there some reason. One of the things that the City talked about with Metro is that Metro agrees that the permit process to be completed in accordance with the ETS schedule. The City consistently said we cannot commit to your schedule. We do not know until we see the plans and permits, applications. So the City is not saying we are going to absolutely grant the permits and get you out of here with the appropriate conditions and permits within any specific time frame. The City will make every reasonable effort to process the permits as timely as possible but not in accordance with their schedule. MORGAN: My last question is for you also. I do not remember reading anywhere and perhaps I did not see the right document, that as you state in paragraph 2 on page 1 of the draft agreement that "Whereas, Metro is mandated by the Washington State Department of Ecology to construct an effluent transfer system I am not sure they were given the specific instructions of what they had to do to get the river clean, but I know they were given instructions that the river was to be clean. I object to the language that is specifically that infers that they were mandated to use a particular system or clean the river out. I would much rather have that reflect the exact language that the State of the order to provide for an environmentally sound river. HANEY: I think that is MORGAN: I don't like it HANEY: We can say Metro desires to construct... and Metro says well, we are mandated to do it, we have been told to do it. MORGAN: They have been told to clean the river out, they have not been told how to do it. Is that correct? Did they tell you exactly how you were to get that done? UNKNOWN VOICE: Our compliance order required the removal of the effluent from the river. MORGAN: But it does not tell you that you will construct a pipe line and that it will... where it will go, does it? UNKNOWN: It does not tell us precisely where it will go, but I do not recall the exact language but the nature of the order is to remove it from the river. MORGAN: Why don't you...then I would like the language to reflect that. UNKNOWN: We would be happy. MORGAN: I am done. MAYOR: Any more questions? Ms. Phelps. uro PHELPS: The concerns in Councilmember Bland's to you regarding the ValVue interceptor and the rehabilitation of Interurban Avenue along the golf course and north out of the City limits, those two issues, at least one of them, the Va1Vue interceptor is already addressed in the body of the agreement in Section 11 under Additional Agreements and is probably subject to Section 9 Conflict Resolution Process somewhere down the line I would assume. What is the status then other than being noted -5- PHELPS (Contd.) on Exhibit C of the Interurban Avenue portion in the agreement. Would you bring me up to date on that? HANEY....: As the agreement stands at the present time, the agreement was drafted in this form...as the agreement was drafted the construction of Interurban Avenue is noted on Exhibit C as to be completed by the City with Metro being by the City for costs and that is the way it is spelled out in the agreement. I am not entirely convinced that they that is their primary concern there, as far as the disruption of Interurban I would assume that Metro would restore that portion of Interurban that it does disrupt. ....That is something that remains to be seen as to whether I don't understand the concern other than that the City did want something in exchange for getting that, I don't see why they can't address that PHELPS: I think we need some more discussion on that particular issue, as far as the ValVue interceptor is concerned that has been a part of Metro's plan to abandon that lift station and do something else for quite a number of years now and it has been a policy of the City for many year, too, that if you are making improvements within an area then you make all of the improvements that you need to make all at once and not come back and tear up the area again in order to do something later and I see that as a much different issue for the City than, and for Metro too, than the Interurban Avenue issue. I need to hear some more information about that. MAYOR: Okay, Dick, do you want to address that some more? Dick: I am Dick Sandaas. Our discussions with the staff on this agreement that centered around Interurban Avenue really had to do with the concept that originally was in front of us and that was to avoid it at all possible ways and the route that we now have is identified through the golf course does not actually tear up any of Interurban Avenue, we have made a number of attempts to avoid it where possible and we have done that. In other words, we parallel it on the City Light transmission line right -of -way north of 139th and we tunnel underneath it and we go through the Metro park- and -ride property south of I -5 and we proceed parallel but off of Interurban Avenue on DOT property on the northerly direction north of I -5 and then we tunnel back underneath it to get back on transmission line right -of -way north of there, so we are not impacting Interurban Avenue by any construction, in terms of digging it up so with all of that said it was difficult, in fact, beyond our ability to commit to the kind of improvement that was identified here because as we understood it it was quite a comprehensive improvement and that was our inability to fund such a thing inasmuch as this project did not go in Interurban Avenue. It is a long explanation but that was our Wedon't dig it up so therefore we do not feel we can restore it. MAYOR: Dick, when you say comprehensive improvement you are talking about the whole plan for improvement for the Metro sewage system? DICK: No, I am talking abut the comprehensive improvement of Interurban Avenue, the reconstruction with a broader, more driving lanes and we understand there is some underground wiring and other utility work involved. In other words, more than what is there now. BAUCH? :When you construct the pipeline will you not be brining large construction equipment loaded with bulldozers, trucks loaded with pipe, up and down Interurban Avenue over a period of four or five months. Are you planning on doing that same type of things, of running the same kind of trucks up the streets of Kirkland, up the main streets of Bellevue, up the main streets of Redmond, they don't suffer that but Interurban does which we have paid to maintain. Now you are going to tear it up. Don't you think that we have some mitigating circumstances there? DICK: I will answer that question this way. All of our traffic will have to abide by axle loading limit the same as any of our other construction, projects do in the region. We have a lot of projects going in Kirkland and in Bellevue and other places -6- DICK SANDAAS (Contd.) and all I can tell you is that those streets are in fact the same way that Interurban Avenue will be... BAUCH Yes, but they are benefitting from that. We are not benefitting at all. We don't put anything into the Renton Treatment Plant. All of ours goes downstream to the West Point plant. That is not benefitting us one bit, nothing in that pipeline has come from the City of Tukwila. DICK: That is another issue. All I can tell is that in terms of impact on Interurban Avenue if this construction were to impact it we would restore it. I can say that categorically, we would restore damage to Interurban Avenue. My understanding of the discussions we have had talked about a real comprehensive, not the reconstruction of the thing, and considerably more than we would envision that a restoration would involve. BAUCH: Any different than the park that you are going to build in Seattle down on the ...on Puget Sound? DICK SANDAAS: That park is linked to a fee for use of that area as a construction staging area. BAUCH: Okay, we will charge you a fee for construction on Interurban. What is the difference. What about the fee for going across the golf course? DICK: The agreement calls for payment of a fee for construction use as well as permanent easement in the golf course. HARRIS? I just wanted to comment on the inability to do the ValVue project at the same time This whole project that we are now going to be torn up for well over a year, as Mr. Bauch said, you take care of Bellevue, and Redmond and Kirkland and here is ours, it is sitting there and we are going to have to tear up our whole Interurban Avenue again to take care of it. We are not benefitting at all by the one that you are doing, we are just being real good and letting you tear up our whole City or portion of the City so that the eastside can benefit and ours get left here to tear it up again at a later date or leave it as it is and I just don't understand why once as Doris said we have a policy that when you are going to do any construction of any kind that you all of it at one time and get it over, we don't like to have it torn up two or three times, we like to have it done and get it over with and I don't think any of the other cities would let you do that either. It just seems to me the time to do Val Vue is do it now and get it done with and then get all of the reconstruction done at one time. This just does not make an awful lot of sense to me. Maybe you can tell me why that is not being done at this time. DICK: There are two things associated with the ValVue Interceptor. One is simply that it is not in the capital program, there are no funds that I would be able to obtain that would provide for its construction. But more important than that is the fact as you are well aware that Metro is required to go secondary treatment. There is very intensive planning program on right now to deal with that. We have four Puget Sound plants that have to go to secondary treatment and there is a lot of concern about where the flows need to go. What is the best way to do all of this? It is a very expensive and complex problem. There is also concern about putting additional flows into the West Point system which the ValVue Interceptor would do. It may make more sense to send it to Renton someway permenantly rather than the temporary way that it is now. Those secondary treatment issues are ongoing right now and it is an issue that water quality committee talked about last Thursday and they were concerned about any decision made now in haste that would add more flow to West Point. That is a Council policy decision on behalf of Metro Council that they are going to have to wrestle with this fall. HARRIS: Are you tell me then that there can be no more construction going on on the east side then because this will now fill the present pipes that you are about to construc 7 DICK: No. I am not saying that. I am saying that the flows into West Point, long term are under study right now and additional flows from the ValVue Interceptor has to be carefully considered in light of all of the other flows that are going to be going to West Point under certain treatment configurations. A very complex thing. That planning is only about one fourth of the way through. BOHRER: Mr. Sandaas, I would recommend that you accelerate the part that deals with the ValVue Interceptor. To go back to the issue of Interurban, on, I think, Mr. Bauch, expressed some of our concerns but there are a variety of other concerns about disruption on Interurban that has to do with all of the dirt and traffic and noise and inconvenience that this project is going to cost Interurban. You guys are going to make Interurban for the period of time that you are using it practically unusable by anyone else, I believe, and you are going to cause great disruption to all of the surrounding businesses and people who live there with all of the noise and light and dirt from all of the other environmental disruptions that you will cause. My understanding is that there needs to be some mitigation. In my sense there is no mitigation without some reconstruction to Interurban Avenue. The rest of the things you are doing is sorta of well, gee, I am going to break your leg on the golf course but I will put it in a cast for you. All of these other things, the ValVue Interceptor is not mitigation, all we are saying there is don't break our leg the first time, go around us, don't break it. Sometime, ten year down stream when you decide what you are going to do..put it in now so you don't have to come back and disrupt the City one more time later. You are going to put in a bridge, cross the golf course, cross the river, which was discussed as mitigation. The City has a perfectly useful bridge down there that solves all of our requirements as far as traffic to and from the golf course. The carts are not that big. The bridge is for Metro. None of this serves the City of Tukwila except the change to Interurban Avenue. The only other things you are doing are restoration of things that you have to disrupt. Now maybe that legally qualifies as mitigation, but there are other aspects to the program that are not being mitigated. I think the City deserves and will have mitigation for some of those other aspects of the program. If it does not I know one vote that you are never going to get on any agreement to sign. DICK: I think there are some issues here that would best be addressed to my bosses, the Metro Council. I would say though that the letter you received was hand delivered down here last Friday and it was a reflection of the Water Quality Committee meeting on Thursday. Mayor Bland is chairman of the Water Quality Committee. MAYOR: George. GEORGE: It is my o nian t g e best interests of the City to proceed and enter into this agreement dnr t U i dfi u t O tocess the requirements of the SEPA permit. The clock is ticking on the project and I don't want to be in a position of letting these two open -ended issues hold up the entire agreement, because there are some other issues in the joint- agency agreement that we need to address and talk about right now and within the next few months that are important to the City as well. I wonder if the Council would be favorable to the idea of entering into separate agreements which cover the ValVue Interceptor and the Interurban Avenue improvements or some language that would allow that within this agreement and proceed. BOHRER: I think the whole issue ought to be resolved as rapidly as possible or the whole thing goes out. BAUCH: I don't believe in a divide and conquer. DUFFIE: I would like to address Mr. Sneva. Mr. Sneva, you had some information that were going to bring to us that I that was brought up in the Committee meeting last week about the Metro agreement about coming across the golf course. Would you explain that to us now? SNEVA: The agreement that Metro has entered into with us and other investigations ordinarily the issues are really relate to the impact that will be made on the golf course. unintelligible.... MAYOR: Bud. BOHRER: We have dispensed with those issues. I have somequestions and comments on the exhibits. I will beging with Exh. A. This talks about expenditures of the City from July 1 through the end of the year. My question is will the City receive reimburse- ment for expenditures prior to July 1? SNEVA: The last item on Exh. A and my discussions with Metro on that has been that we will prepare an estimate of those and list them and submit. At this point in time unintelligible. BOHRER: So this should probably contain a statement that services to be reimbursed include a reasonable adjustment for services prior to 1 July. MAYOR: It is the last item on the bottom. BOHRER: But it stands outside the total budget amount so my concern was is it also an item MAYOR: This budget is from 7/1 to 12/31. I guess there should be another line totalling. BOHRER: Okay. Or the total should appear below that one, that would be called a subtotal, Exh. B, Item 2, extent of the ETS Dike and river bank protection. Is the new bridge upstream or downstream from the existing bridge. UNKNOWN: Upstream from the existing. BOHRER: Item 3, permanent river crossing bridge. Is the roadway included in Item 6, Intrastructure, as well as any sewers, drains, whatever that also need to be constructed. There is a roadway that leads over to the bridge that also needs to be constructed to take the kind of equipment they will need for the pipeline and for the dike repair. UNKNOWN: Yes, I think that covers it. One part of the entry. And the plans we are presenting for approval include a roadway across the south end of the golf course all of the way from one end to the other. BOHRER: My concern is that I did not see a roadway specifically mentioned here at this point. Item 5 says we will reimburse Metro for redesign and construction of golf course interface with the ETS which is tees, greens, fairways, irrigation system drainage courses, etc. I would recommend that we take redesign out of this and put it in Exh. C so the City controls it and it is reimbursed by Metro to the City and leave this as reconstruction of the golf course. I would not like to put Metro in the golf course design business. The City has enough trouble. Item 7, the right of entry document, is for, in effect, survey work at the golf course. Will there be a separate right of entry document for construction? SNEVA: No, the right of entry of all the forconstruction... unintelligible. It allows them to entry over a time period past the construction period as they would have to enter. It does not allow them to build. BOHRER: So my question is there is a separate power of right of entry agreement for construction. SNEVA: Well, the construction agreement they will get will be the permit to go out and construct within this area. MAYOR: Jim, do you want to answer? -9- HANEY: I think it is all appropriate they will need an easement on the golf course as I understand it, it is a 1' wide easement for the sewer itself and additional 8' for construction. That easement BOHRER: I see. So that easement UNKNOWN: Under easement, unintelligible.. BOHRER: Are the costs of doing those included in the generally in the reimbursed costs by Metro? UNKNOWN: Yes. BOHRER: Okay, I have no further comments. BAUCH: Is it your intent that we make a amendment to the motion to negotiate? BOHRER: I would assume that if we are to approve this tonight I would PART MOVED BY BOHRER, SECONDED BY DUFFIE TO AMEND THE MOTION AND REDESIGN /BE PUT IN THE EXH. C AND RECONSTRUCTION BE LEFT IN EXH. B. MOTION CARRIED. BOHRER: I think the other concerns I had were adequately addressed. HARRIS: I just have a couple of comments to make. I sat in on the Capital Improvement Meeting of Metro Council when the mitigating amount for Seattle was discussed. Several of the Council, I specifically remember Lois North, and it seems Bruce Lang and Virginia Galle commented rather heatedly about the fact that the fact that the lion share of the amount for mitigation that was allowed was going to Seattle and what about when Tukwila's turn came and King County's, what were they going to get? No one seemed to care and they overwhelmingly voted to give it all to Seattle. Now, we are sitting here and asking for no equal treament, but at least somewhat equal treatment and all we get is a letter from Beth Bland that says somewhat snarlingly that we should be good kids and vote for this because if we delay in processing the Shoreline Permit it is likely to cost more which means that all the people in the final analysis will have to pay the costs. If we are not really nice then all of the people whom Metro serves will be hurt by us. I resent that deeply. In the first place we got this project belatedly when it two years were taken to discuss whether it should go to the Sound and now we are supposed to drop everything and jump aboard. I just feel that we should be given a little more consideration on the mitigations. BOHRER: My recollection was that the budget for this project was grossly on the order of $220 million for construction and included about 10% for mitigation. I guess if you were to proportion it according to foot length of pipeline, what part of it on that basis is coming to the City of Tukwila? SANDAAS; I cannot give you a specific amount you may have sat in on the discussions a year or so ago, there was a lot of interest in perhaps unintelligible. On the other hand, the Metro Council was unwilling to do that and rather than name a specific amount, though the amount was sufficient for restoration, mitigation. Unintelligible. BOHRER: Much of what you cited, Terry, really is, are items that are being built for Metro's purposes not for the City's purposes and the restorations, if the thing were not there we would never have the problem to begin with. I start out with saying those were givens, you guys have to do those for yourself and you have to restore the hurt that you are making to the City. I can restore the hurt if you are tearing up ground or whatever, but there are some other hurts that the City is standing that I don't see any mitigation for yet. Not one item. All I see so far is that you are restoring some parts to the City and you are going to build some facilities for yourself *MOTION CARRIED, AS AMENDED. -1 BOHRER (contd.) andthe City doesn't need that. Our golf course does not need any more facilities. or the ones that it does we can build ourselves. I am not sure that I see any mitigation I guess the other... I am just wondering some of the comments and previously mentioned inspire me to wonder where we should not have another WHEREAS which is namely the City does not benefit from this project directly. It benefits other constituencies that are outside the City but we are receiving the impacts from it. PHELPS: From what I understand on the progress of this project, the next critical point is the issuance of the Shoreline Permit, SEPA permit, that will allow everything else to happen after that. Where is the City as far as the processing of that? SNEVA: unintelligible. The Planning Dept. on April 11 considered the Shoreline request and if a joint agreement is in place so they can proceed with the processing of the permit and send it on I think it will be the construction schedule with Metro will.. MAYOR: Thank you. MORGAN: I would like to put my suggestion for Page 1 into a motion. The Memorandum of Agreement, Page 1, Paragraph 2. MOVED BY MORGAN, SECONDED BY DUFFIE, THAT THE LANGUAGE IN THIS SENTENCE "WHEREAS METRO IS MANDATED BY THE WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY TO INCLUDE LANGUAGE THAT WAS SO STATED IN THEIR MANDATE AND ELIMINATE LANGUAGE THAT THEY WERE REQUIRED...TO CONSTRUCT AN EFFLUENT TRANSFER SYSTEM FOR THE PURPOSE OF DIVERTING AND DISPOSING OF EFFLUENT FROM METRO'S RENTON TREATMENT PLANT TO PUGET SOUND BY JULY 1, 1986. THAT THAT LANGUAGE BE CHANGED TO WHAT THEIR ACTUAL MANDATE WAS." BOHRER: I believe Ms. Morgan's desire can readily accommodated by Metro is mandated to whatever that language is and therefore chooses or has MORGAN: That is my intent. HANEY: I will prepare the language. *MOTION FAILED, WITH ALL VOTING NO. BOHRER: I e g Rg5 suggested by the City Attorney, and I would like to say that even though it goes through the City, the City does not directly benefit by the effluent system. MOTION CARRIED.