Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-05-28 Committee of the Whole MinutesMay 28, 1985 TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL 7:00 P.M. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING CALL TO ORDER Reports Staff DISCUSSION E.T.S. Metro MINUTES Scab City Hall Council Chambers Council President Bauch called the Tukwila City Council Committee of the Whole Meeting to order at 7:11 p.m. ROLL CALL OF L. C. BOHRER, MABEL J. HARRIS, DORIS E. PHELPS, JOE H. DUFFIE, COUNCIL MEMBERS EDGAR D. BAUCH (COUNCIL PRESIDENT), WENDY A. MORGAN. OFFICIALS IN ATTENDANCE Maxine Anderson (City Clerk), Moira Bradshaw (Assistant Planner), Ross Earnst (City Engineer), Jim Haney (City Attorney), Don Morris (City Administrator), Lucy Lauterbach (Legislative Coordinator), Byron Sneva (Public Works Director). Byron Sneva, Director of Public Works, reported bids were opened on May 3 for janitorial services. The bids have been evaluated and the low bidder has been contacted. The award will be through the month of December so we can be on a yearly basis. Don Morrison, City Administrator, reported on personnel matters, stating there has been a resignation in the Fire Department. It is requested that Council review the attrition policy that was placed on Fire Department hiring some time ago. MOVED BY BAUCH, SECONDED BY DUFFIE, THAT THE COUNCIL AMEND THE AGENDA AND CONSIDER E.T.S. AT THIS TIME. MOTION CARRIED. Byron Sneva, Director of Public Works, gave a brief history of events on the ETS project, stating the City has received a letter dated May 24, 1985 regarding Metro's final offer on the ETS project. Terry Monaghan, Superintendent of Construction (Metro), stated Metro does not want to interrupt traffic on Interurban. Metro would like the golf course route and recommend that route. They have a commitment to the businesses to build in the least disruptive manner. They now have a 20 -week design schedule. They have to give their decision to the Executive Board tomorrow (Wednesday) as to the determined route. Negotiations are now at an impasse. COUNCILMAN SIMPSON ARRIVED AT THE MEETING AT 7:35 P.M. Councilman Duffie stated the May 24 letter states Mr. Monaghan will recommend the Fort Dent route to the Executive Board. Is that correct? Mr. Monaghan said the direction they have received from the Water Quality Committee is to tell the designer to begin design on some route tomorrow. The choice is the golf course, but negotiations cannot be agreed upon. Council Member Phelps asked the rationale for returning to the east side under I -5 and the straight shot north as opposed to going through the park- and -ride lot? Mr. Monaghan said it was due to the commitment they had to the business community that it would be least disruptive. They are prepared to meet that commitment, which is to put in the dog leg and the tunnel section. Councilman Bohrer said formal action cannot be taken at this meeting. Mr. Monaghan said in his discussions with Mr. Sneva that Metro needed a strong commitment to proceed with the design across the golf course. If that commitment could be obtained in this meeting the formal action could be taken next week. Councilman Bohrer said, in referring to the May 24 letter, that it says in Item 3 that "Tukwila will decide on the bridge." What does that mean? Mr. Monaghan said there has been talk that Tukwila wanted the bridge and some talk that they did not want the bridge. Metro is prepared to put in a temporary trestle to do the river crossing at the golf TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING May 28, 1985 Page 2 DISCUSSION Contd. ETS Metro contd. course and not build a bridge. The option is up to the City. Councilman Bohrer asked if the financial arrangements would be as agreed upon or as discussed before? Mr. Monaghan said Metro would take a credit to build a temporary trestle. He thought it was put at $150,000 fora trestle and they would have to deduct that. Council Member Harris said the permanent bridge then would be $500,000. Mr. Monaghan said that was right, but everyone must remember these are just preliminary estimates. Councilman Bohrer said under the Schedule Requirements, Item 3, it says, "Tukwila must act on the permit for Shoreline Development by May 28." Does the City have all of the information required to act on that permit? Mr. Monaghan said Metro will construct a temporary or permanent bridge for the golf links. The completed interagency agreement, which is why they are here tonight, needs sidewalk, trail, and landscaping plans for the alignment off Interurban. It is likely they could act on the permit and get that as they are consistent with the City's roadway design. Documentation of ownership easement of property along ETS alignment, what they need to give the City is a demonstration that they have the easements. They will be happy to do that. The big item is that Metro have the interagency agreement agreed upon in principle, and if they do then they can act on the permit and then there is a 30 -day appeal process. At the end of the 30 days the State issues the permit based on whatever conditions are attached to that permit and the conditions are those already put upon it by the B.A.R. They put six conditions on Metro. There is not an agreement on them as yet. Councilman Bohrer said in the working easement, Item 2, Metro mentions a haul road to the parking area. Where does that go? Is that the one from the bridge to the back or down the right -of -way? Mr. Monaghan said in the previous agreement of May 8 Metro had a haul road from the bridge basically to the Interurban right -of -way which will be left behind as a maintenance road. They are also talking about a haul road that will intersect that will run parallel to Interurban Avenue on the east side of the City Light right -of -way. Council Member Phelps said in Metro's negotiations with other municipalities or other jurisdictions where there is an interagency agreement involved and there are outstanding issues to be resolved such as the bridge, such as the permanent and temporary easement acros the golf course, such as a formula to identify lost revenues, if any, at the golf course as a result of the construction, those are the things the City has been talking about and have not as yet resolved; the process Metro has used, or is there a process available that these issues can be further discussed and mitigated at some future time if agreement were approved at this time. Mr. Monaghan said he had some discussions with Mr. Sneva about the easement cost and lost revenue issue at the golf course. He would suggest that the process be defined in the interagency agreement. The process would be something like: "We at Metro would hire an independent MIA appraiser and the City would hire an MIA appraiser and those appraisers would come to a conclusion as to what methodology to use. The City and Metro would come to a conclusion as to which method to use. That will be part of the agrement. That is an operative kind of thing that can be put into the agreement and the ground rules are set out. As far as some of the other concerns the level or degree of landscaping you can put words in there acceptable to the City. You can make the document operative. Council Member Phelps said everyone understands the greater issue of cleaning up the Green River or not imposing development restric- tions on the drainage basin but the Council does not want to TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING May 28, 1985 Page 3 DISCUSSION Contd. ETS Metro, contd. foreclose the opportunity for the City to continue negotiating on some of the issues that are of importance and not included in the prepared document. There is a great deal of conflict in Items a, b, and c. Mr. Monaghan said in the Seattle agreement recently signed, one of the mitigation issues is the closing of the Trenton Street off -ramp and rebuilding, taking money that they would have to rebuild that off -ramp and deferring it to make an improvement at the 10th Avenue South. That is what it says in the agrement, but that is not what will be done. There is an amending process to the agreement and now something else will be done. If in the process and progress of the job something is seen that looks like a neat idea there is an amendment process. Those things can be worked out. Council Member Phelps said as far as the alignment through the golf course, Tukwila gave up ground in order to reach that compromise because Resolution 928 says that it is in the best interests of everyone to stay on the east side of the river. The golf course compromise was arrr'ived at in order to save disruption to the local business men. Council Member Morgan asked what coverage does the State Environment Protection Act have with Metro and would Metro be dealing with environmental impacts as they come through the City. Mr. Monaghan said the environmental process for the total pipeline through Tukwila has been completed and Metro is obligated to mitigate and restore per the environmental document. Robert Gunter, Metro's general counsel, said there are mitigation requirements placed in the agreement and if something comes up during the project that constitutes something not covered by the documents, Metro would have to take care of it. If there was a cave -in or asphalt started peeling, that would be something beyond the scope and would be an additional supplement. Council Member Harris said the agreement does not say that verbal agreements such as the loss of revenue will actually happen. Mr. Monaghan said he suggests there be a section to address the methodology and procedures to be followed for arriving at an equitable payment for easement and the loss of revenues on the golf course. The City Attorney and Metro attorney can work on this and Mr. Sneva and I will work to make this more operable. Councilman Duffie asked about the idea to go back to Fort Dent. Mr. Monaghan said Metro has to get the pipeline built. Since we seem to have reached an impasse on negotiations with the City, it has been the decision of the Metro Council Water Quality Committee to go back to Fort Dent route. Mr. Monaghan said if Metro had the timethey would go outside the City corporate limits. A considerable amount of time and money has been spent trying to find a compromise route. His recommendation is through the golf course. Metro is running out of time and they have a great regional problem to solve by January 1, 1987. Council Member Phelps said to Mayor Van Dusen that when the negotiating committee met they were concerned about how the specific items in category (a), (b), and (c) of the restoration/ mitigation issues would be ordered, whether some of the issues under (b) should be (a) or whether they should be (b). Has staff worked on that? Mr. Sneva said they have been summarized with the idea that the City would get as little involved as possible in the construction and restoration and let Metro do that. Another summary was that the City would take certain issues, maybe the golf course design, and handle that in- house, ask cash for that, and let Metro do the rest of it. A decision has not been made on which way to go. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING May 28, 1985 Page 4 DISCUSSION Contd. ETS Metro, contd. a /3 Council Member Harris asked if the negotiations that were last approved by the City been approved by Metro or have they not been seen by Metro, as part of the package that Metro is offering; If Metro has not seen them she would like to have them look at them and either approve or disapprove before they leave tongiht. Mr. Monaghan said he had not seen any last offer from the City except the April 24 offer which was to block traffic on Interurban and open cut on Interurban Avenue and take whatever savings there was and return it to the City for some fund. That has not been responded to as they were not legal but the $2.4 million package contained in the letter to Mr. Sneva of May 8 and the modifications to that which are contained in Metro letter of May 24 is the offer of Metro. Council Member Harris asked if the staff offer of May 21 encompasses what Mr. Monaghan has said. Mr. Sneva said there are some differences. Council Member Harris asked how they can be made the same? Mr. Monaghan said the letter from the Mayor to Ms. Bland has been responded to by Metro in a meeting with Mr. Sneva and the Metro letter of May 24 responds to that by saying that the perceived savings are not there and the legal issue still is a reality that Metro cannot perceive savings and turn them over to the City. The letter took exception to Metro taking exception to the City's estimate. Metro said the savings are not there, it is not legal, here is a modified offer which now includes some of the things that were in,the City's original proposal, i.e., improve at least the City easement and the City said they did not need the property acquired, they would allow Metro to get an easement over the City Light right -of -way. Metro has responded by saying they will get an easement and perform whatever cross section improvements have to be performed on that easement consistent with the Interurban Avenue development. Metro has responded to that so there is agreement. Mr. Sneva said in the May proposition from Metro they identified a bike trail and landscaping. In the most recent proposal from Metro they say they will put in sidewalks, curbs, trails, gutters, etc., but it does not include signal, street lights, etc. Those items show up in the easements. The proposals are not the same. Council Member Harris asked how far apart are they monetarily? Mr. Sneva said he thought a curb and gutter section and a sidewalk with 5' landscaping and trail would probably cost $30 to $50 a linear foot. A trail costs $7 to $8. Mr. Monaghan said in his earlier comments not contained in this sketch that they would require a 20 30 foot easement on a 900' stretch of property, generally in front of the golf course where they will require a 20' easement 10' east of the edge of the pavement and the City Light right -of -way is co- incident there. They would propose in that area to acquire a 30' easement and develop that easement to the street section excluding underground utiltiies, except the ones they disturb and street lights, but put in the curb, gutter and sidewalk section, if that is what the City plans for that particular area. Metro can only build on an easement a trail, or a sidewalk or whatever. They are prepared to do that. The cost is roughly $50,000. There is already a commitment to build a trail north of I -5. Councilman Bohrer said he would like to go back on the process because his perception is a little different than the one portrayed. The Water Quality Committee identifed a "conflict resolution committee." They met with some City officials on the 15th of April and presented an offer. The City replied in writing on April 24. There was staff evaluation but the first we heard back from you in writing was on May 8 when we received a letter saying basically all of the things the City was told on April 15 are it. There TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING May 28, 1985 Page 5 DISCUSSION Contd. ETS Metro, contd. was not a reply to the City's letter of April 24. The City asked for a meeting again between the Conflict Resolution Committee and City officials so there could be a discussion on the issue. The discussion was never held. On May 9 the Water Quality Committee met and there was some discussion about the issue and the City received the minutes that said some fairly negative things. After receiving the Metro letter of May 8, Mayor Van Dusen replied in writing on the 13th. On the 21st we received this proposition from Metro at staff level but again no meeting with the conflict resolution committee. On the 23rd the Water Quality Committee met again and there was some discussion with the City asking why the City had not talked to the Water Quality Committee. Mr. Bohrer said he thought they were talking to the Water Quality Committee when they were talking to the Conflict Resolution Committee and the City thought they were engaged in negotiations. On May 24 the City received this latest letter in which Metro says if the City does not act within one working day to agree with Metro's demand, which really has not changed much from the outset. Metro letter says it is the City's inability to reach agreement that has caused all of the trouble. We did not see Metro address some of the City's concerns about land use and the use of the City Light right -of -way which would impact that property severely and impact the City's tax base in the future and impact City Light's use of the property. These were City concerns. We thought Metro was beginning to understand and address them. Suddenly we are issued this ultimatum which is to forget negotiations and act on Metro's demand. Now there is the issue of legality and he said he would like to take that up with Mr. Gunter. Had the City been able to meet with the conflict resolution committee some of the issues might have been resolved. It is the City's position that they are asking for nothing different than Metro is already granting in other areas. The City does not understand why Metro thinks the City's position is illegal. Beth Bland, Metro Water Quality Committee, said evidently the City thought the conflict resolution committee was a negotiating committee. There has been a misunderstanding. Metro started out along Interurban Avenue, although Metro did not want to break up the traffic and we were going to go beside it. The City then suggested that Metro go through the golf course and Metro agreed to that. Metro understood it would cost about $2 million more in construc- tion and Metro's last offer was $2.2 million in mitigation. We have always got bogged down in our talks. Metro said this was their best offer. What came back to Metro was not that the City needed more questions answered but a different proposal that the City wanted Metro to come down Interurban, which you had told Metro not to do in the first place, to interrupt traffic, have an open -cut method, the business community would suffer with that, and the City wanted another $2 million for that which you thought would be mitigation measures for $6 million. Metro legal attorney said it could not be done. The Council would not do it either. Metro represents the rate payers. We can only build the sewer pipes. We have been told by the Environmental Protection Agency and then DOE to get out of the Duwamish. We don't have a choice. We have decided as a body that Metro will not consider Interurban Avenue, if we cannot go through the golf course we will take the Fort Dent route. We cannot give you more than $2.2 million. Any damage that is done will be repaired. Metro was willing to offer $4 million, we legally cannot offer more than that. We are at an impasse. We will have to go back to the original alternative of Fort Dent. Councilman Bohrer said he hoped Metro staff does not feel they were treated badly. There are issues that involve several million dollars. Metro mentioned the golf course route was going to cost Metro $2 million more than going down Interurban. A very large part of that was the original Metro estimate of $1.5 million to construct the bridge and that estimate is now one -half million dollars or so. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING May 28, 1985 Page 6 DISCUSSION Contd. ETS Metro contd. 5"" /S Ms. Bland said that is a misconception, that is not true. The $2 million does not have to do with the amount of the bridge. That is an example of what went wrong. Maybe all of you are convinced that the $2 million difference included a $1.5 million amount for the bridge. It did not. There are other differences. Councilman Bohrer said he remembered those figures well and he believed $1.5 million was the original estimate when we were looking at trade studies for the cost. Ms. Bland said it could have been the original estimate, but right now we can look at the differences in cost, not including $1.5 million for the bridge and still find $2 million difference just in the construction route, not including the bridge of $1.5 million. She said she could not speak on technical differences in the construction route. Mr. Monaghan can answer that. It was believed that there was not a $2 million difference in construc- tion costs, not talking about the mitigation and the other things. There is still a $4 million cost to go to the golf course route assuming you accept that mitigation. If just the construction were done it would not. Councilman Bohrer said some substantial part of the mitigation package is really restoration of damage to the golf course and the other facilities the City has. If there were no construc- tion there would not be any of that included. If you take that amount out it is really substantially less than that. Ms. Bland said Metro came with a mitigation package and then the City expanded on it with a different route. The new idea was that you do not have to use that money for an expanded parking lot at the golf course, you can just have it paved over and it would be better than it is. You do not have to use that money on a fancy bridge, you can take the difference; we would have to have a trestle bridge to do our work but there would be a $350,000 difference on that, etc. We said you could use that money in the best way you decided. We can legally only give you the amount that would be for mitigation. You did not have to put it all in the golf course you could put it in other places that was a new option. The idea was Metro would make it better than it was before plus the City would have all of that additional money to do with as they wanted. Council Member Phelps said what Metro needs to hear is that the goal of the negotiation was to include as many of the issues that were of concern to the City as possible in the interagency agreement aside from the (a), (b), (c) attachment. Also, City staff felt there were some better engineering solutions to some of the problems that City would like to offer Metro for their study. If the City has to make a decision tonight to avoid an adverse action she understood there are ways and means in which the City can still talk about some other unresolved issues in addition to entering into an interagency agreement. Ms. Bland said the design will have to begin and obviously the design takes five months. The awards go out for two months and then there is the building. It is to the advantage of the City to build in the winter when you do not have the Longacres traffic. Metro needs to cross the river next summer in order to meet the guidelines by the DOE, and to be in operation when they have man- dated. They will close down growth on the east side if we do not meet that. It is not a threat, it is true. Metro is in a bind. There are people on the east side who are developing who don't want to have that closed down. We are under tremendous pressure. Council Member Phelps asked if Metro would feel comfortable recom- mending to the Water Quality Committee that some process be set up in the interagency agreement to resolve some of these issues, the details that have not been resolved. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING May 28, 1935 Page 7 DISCUSSION Contd. ETS Metro contd. a /L Ms. Bland said she thought the negotiations got bogged down in details without looking at the big picture. The Water Quality Committee wanted to look at the big picture and delegated to staff the discussion of details. The big picture that Metro go down Interurban into the other traffic lane for cut and cover was absolutely rejected by everyone at Metro. If the Council believes that coming down through the golf course is a route that they can approve if Metro agrees to the concerns that the Council has that are not major financial or difficult ones; if Council can tell Metro that then they can tell the designers to go ahead. The problem has been that we did not have the design ready, if we do not go out for bid on schedule then we would not have the pipe done in time and then there would be some real major problems. The decision by the Committee to go back to the other route was due to the fact that Metro did not hear from anyone that the plan through the golf course was acceptable, there was never agreement on that. Metro only received a proposal to cut and cover Interurban and discussion never did return to the golf course route. Council Member Phelps said the items were on the table verbally, they were never documented. Council Member Harris said she apologized if Metro staff has felt browbeaten when they have been here. When the Tukwila citizens are being attacked or feel they are being victimized the discussions sometimes become heated. She thought and felt sure all of the merchants thought that the golf course was the accepted route. The merchants have not been in attendance because they have assumed that the golf course was the route and it was merely the details that were being negotiated. Ms. Bland said Metro never received assurance that all that was needed was the details; instead they received a new proposal.to cut and cover down Interurban. Metro felt it was wrong politically and unfair to the community and was too much money. It was unacceptable. Metro agrees that they want to go the golf course route and they are willing to pay the 4.2 million or whatever details turn out to be because they do not want to go an alternative route. Metro had to go back to the orginal route because we did not see any agreement one way or another. Council President Bauch said there was never a proposal to cut and cover down Interurban. It was a proposal to cut across Interurban at one place at the golf course so Metro could save some cost in putting in a tunnel and they were going to cut across the Metro park and -ride lot in an open cut. It came back to the City that Metro Transportation did not want any cut and cover in their park lot, they were committed to put in a park- and -ride lot. The Council thought you would save a lot of money of cut and cover across the park- and -ride lot rather than putting a half mile of tunnel there. We did not propose the cut and cover all of the way down Interurban. Ms. Bland said it was not all of the way down Interurban, but there would be much interruption of traffic. We did not talk about actual details. Council Member Morgan asked how elected officials, who are not members of Metro Council, gain access to a process in which they actually have a voice. Ms. Bland said any Council meeting or committee meeting is open and anyone who wishes to come and speak. Council Member Morgan said she was not aware that the agenda from the past meeting included this issue. The City Council in good faith asked three of its members to represent the Council in what was thought to be a series of meetings in which open discussions would take place. She was dismayed to hear that does not happen. The City Council is unusually bright and sees the larger picture. The communications from the City have presumed the larger picture. We passed a resolution which was public information, had several TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING May 28, 1985 Page 8 DISCUSSION Contd. ETS Metro contd. 7 meeting with Metro staff with the understanding that the City was willing to compromise to keep disruption away from the major business area along Interurban. The Council has spent many hours talking with people and traveling to see the larger picture. We have acted professionally in handling the matter. The Council does care about the people who have elected them. Ms. Bland said it has never been indicated to Metro on paper that we could go back and talk about the proposal through the golf course. There has been a breakdown in communications; the Water Quality Committee understood negotiations were over. Mr. Crostick, audience, said Metro brought up the proposal that the pipeline go through the golf course. Ms. Bland said Metro agreed to spend $2 million on mitigation. It was rejected by the conflict; Metro has made their best offer. Mr. Crostick, audience, asked who changed it back to the Fort Dent route? Ms. Bland said it was the decision of the Water Quality Committee, Metro was never told the golf course route was agreeable. Councilman Bohrer said the Council thought we were talking about going across the golf course. Council thought we were working out details to cross the golf course. The process of getting to the Water Quality Committee meeting is hard. Staff has been in the meetings. We are not asking Metro for more money, we are asking that it be spent in the best interest of the citizens of Tukwila. We have alternative proposals that should be considered that would be of benefit to the citizens. What would the bids be on open and cut? Mr. Monaghan, Metro, said if they build a tunnel on the east side compared to a tunnel through the parking lot, which is hard soil, it would be two different costs. Council Member Morgan asked the City Attorney what the Council should do, since they cannot pass official ordinances or resolutions at this meeting, so Metro will not leave the meeting without having the matter resolved. Ms. Bland said they would need to feel the dollar amount is acceptable and there is room to have the problems and details worked out. Jim Haney, City Attorney, said Council cannot take official action at this meeting. They could take a straw vote. Councilman Bohrer said the City through staff could come forward with a resolution stating we will accept the Metro proposal. That would make the intent known. Council Member Phelps asked 'what will happen if the Council agrees to a dollar amount and then construction to the golf course exceeds that? Ms. Bland said Metro would mitigate if it comes to more. Mayor Van Dusen asked what is restoration and what is mitigation? Mr. Gunter, legal counsel for Metro, said in the offer Metro has made the City can trade or use. Some details are up in the air. Regarding mitigation and restoration, the City can take cash in lieu, and the City can use it as they see fit. Councilman Bohrer said Metro has said the City's counter proposal was illegal. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING May 28, 1985 Page 9 DISCUSSION Contd. ETS Metro contd. Councilman Bohrer asked how the City proposal violated that requirement? 7 Mr. Gunter said Metro has some contraints that the City has and some the City does not have. One constraint that is shared in common is the State Accountancy Act. That Act says that a utility fund within a City or any public agency or fund cannot benefit another fund or agency by gratuitous transfer. Tne statute, 43.09.210, states specifically tnat the City cannot agree to simply give Metro the easements. The City has to receive something of value in exchange equal value. We have an obligation to mitigate but we cannot give you something beyond what that obligation is. That is an area of restriction that is shared. Mr. Gunter said as Metro understood it one of the concepts coming back from the City was cost out the golf course alignment, build something cheaper along Interurban in the City's vantage point, but give the City the difference. In effect Metro would be taking that savings and gratuitously provide that to the City. It is a pot of money that is unrelated to the actual construction costs and we are looking at State law, what SEPA requires, bond covenants, our own basic agreements with all of the other component agencies. Metro cannot create a pool of savings and then transfer it, it has to be related to the actual legal obligation to mitigate. Councilman Bohrer said then Metro felt the City made an illegal proposal do you think the City was naive in that regard? I thought the City was saying open -cut Interurban Avenue, save the money, but fix Interurban Avenue with it the part that you have cut. According to the earlier statement, open- cutting Interurban Avenue is an adverse impact to Interurban Avenue. Metro is permitted under State law to remedy that adverse impact by repairing Interurban Avenue. Mr. Gunter said the illegality characterization went to the concept as he understood it and he thought the Metro staff understood it, of having savings created and then transferred to the City. Councilman Bohrer said he thought the City proposal had been misunderstood. Mr. Gunter said there has been a lot of misunderstanding. He said he had a theory that talk has been going on at this level and at the Water Quality Committee level, there has been talk with the dispute resolution committee and Mr. Sneva and Mr. Haney have been talking with Mr. Monaghan and him and other staff members, so discussions have been going on at three different levels. We have not had formal discussions. If Metro were to presume the best intentions of the City and Metro is that we all want the golf course route and the mitigation package offered with this additional change that Mr. Monaghan and Mr. Sneva worked out about moving it over and the agreement is signed, the permits are issued, these have been the big questions that Metro has had. Metro has a permit but it is contingent upon a signed agreement and a resolution. If those basic elements are agreeable we do not have any legal problems. If we agree on the golf course route, that Metro's $2.2 or .4 in the mitigation package is satisfactory and we are not talking about getting back on Interurban, we can sign an agreement and get the permits issued. It is unfortunate that communication did not occur at one single level. Mr. Gunter said the State Accountancy Act is significant; SEPA has been talked about and how regulations require a relationship be drawn. We have bond covenants that protect Tukwila as well as the bond holders, that we pay for costs that are incident to construction or acquisition. Metro has a basic sewage disposal agreement with all of the component agencies, including Tukwila. Councilman Bohrer said when Metro cuts across the llth fairway they can restore the llth fairway. Mr. Gunter said that is correct. Councilman Bohrer said then if Metro cuts across Interurban, they can restore Interurban? If the City were proposing that Metro cut across Interurban and Metro repairs Interurban that would be a legal thing for Metro to do. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING May 28, 1985 Page 10 DISCUSSION Contd. ETS Metro contd. 5 a /9 Mr. Gunter said as long as it was consistent with the design per ameters and had a functional part of the project it would be legally possible. The question also comes as to how Metro Council exercises its legislative discretion just as the City Council does as to which is the best route, the best facility, what is the least cost. While it might be legal, the Council could choose to build a lesser cost alternative. Councilman Bohrer said the only reason the City made that proposal was because the City felt it was, 1) lower cost to Metro, and 2) a better expenditure of those rate payer's funds that you are collecting and have responsibility of stewardship. The City felt going underground and putting people underground to dig a hole is going to be costly and risky and there is no benefit from it, whereas if you go across Interurban the City will at least get part of the street repaired,it is a long street and part of it to the south we won't get repaired, but there will be that public benefit that comes from that result, so the tax payers, we felt, were better served by the proposal the City made. It was not the intent of the City to ask for more money. We are dealing with esti- mates done on different bases. We do not have a common set of figures across the board with which to deal. The issues should have been resolved in a face -to -face discussion and they never were. Ms. Bland said if the City Council agrees with a majority that they will instruct staff to go ahead with the agreement then Metro can go ahead with the permits. When Council is in full session they can then agree to the package as presented with the understanding that there would be some things written out. Council President Bauch said the Council is not going to agree until the details are worked out. Council Member Morgan asked the Metro attorney if, in order to aid in the deliberations, he would draft some of the statements that he has made this evening that are part of the agreement, meet with the City Attorney in drafting a resolution that could come before the Council next week so action can be taken. MOVED BY MORGAN, SECONDED BY HARRIS, THAT THE COUNCIL ENTERTAIN A RESOLUTION WHICH HAS THE INTENT OF ENTERING INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH METRO TO WORK WITH THEM ON THE PLACEMENT OF THE PIPELINE ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE RIVER CROSSING AT THE GOLF COURSE, INCLUDING HOW THE DETAILS WILL BE WORKED OUT. Mr. Gunter said the details would be primarily the golf revenues, the easements across the golf course, and the agreement would also provide the hard dollar mitigation amounts would be there for the City to basically use as they wanted as long as the basic minimum needs of the project were met. Council Member Morgan said the Council is also interested in the issue of problems that emerge both legal and environmental which Metro would be responsible to assume. Violation of the commitment would result in termination of the agreement. Mr. Gunter said clauses that be put in that speak to emergencies and conditions that arise that are unanticipated not identified in the current planning and environmental documents so there would be an escape clause for both Metro and the City to use. Council Person Phelps said the decision on the bridge at the golf course is an open issue that has to be decided. The reordering of some of the items whether they are restoration or mitigation on Pages B and C of the Innter Agency Agreement will have to be done by the City. It will not change the dollar amount. There are some engineering issues surrounding Interurban Avenue north of the golf course that are not yet resolved with regard to easements. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING May 28, 1985 Page 11 DISCUSSION Contd. ETS Metro contd. RECESS 9:30 9:40 P.M. INFORMATIONAL MEETING Prop. Str. Improvement Project, 57th Ave. S. from S. 141st Str. to S. 147th Street. OLD BUSINESS Approval of Minutes: May 13, 1985. Accept prop. design for 1985 Residential Street Project. Adopt Budget Transfer Motions for Crestview Park, Phase I Contract. Budget Trasnfers total $71,300. NEW BUSINESS Approve design specs. authorize turnover documents for park- and -ride lot. Prop. res. approving selection of CH2M Hill to perform engrg. services in connection w /No.Hill Water Reservoir Pump Station. Prop. ord. estab. Zoning Classification for certain property annexed to City, known as 51st Ave.So. Annexation. Council President Bauch said he would not vote for a motion that says our staff will issue every permit Metro wants. Until it is in writing the City should not allow Metro to turn over a shovel of dirt. This is a big issue to the people of Tukwila. *MOTION CARRIED. MOVED BY PHELPS, SECONDED BY HARRIS, THAT THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING RECESS FOR FIVE MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED, WITH DUFFIE VOTING NO. The Committee of the Whole Meeting was called back to order by Council President Bauch, with Council Members present as previously listed. Ross Earnst, City Engineer, presented the proposed project with the slide projector, stating the project has been discussed with the property owners. Mrs. Gardner, audience, asked how soon construction will begin; there is a hole on shoulder of the road that should be repaired. The son of one property owner asked about the sidewalk and curb and stated his mother did not want rubble put in her yard. Council Member Morgan said Council was interested in statements about the entire project that would help Council in working with the City staff to make decisions. Several citizens in the audience asked about the parking and the desire of most of the property owners for more parking than it appears will be provided. MOVED BY HARRIS, SECONDED BY DUFFIE, THAT THE MINUTES OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING HELD MAY 13, 1985 BE APPROVED AS PUBLISHED. MOTION CARRIED. APPROVAL MOVED BY HARRIS, SECONDED BY PHELPS, THAT THE PROPOSED DESIGN /FOR THE 1985 RESIDENTIAL STREET PROJECT AND THE CALL FOR BIDS BE ON THE AGENDA OF THE NEXT REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING. MOTION CARRIED. MOVED BY PHELPS, SECONDED BY DUFFIE, THAT THE PROPOSED BUDGET TRANSFER BE ON THE AGENDA OF THE NEXT REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING. MOTION CARRIED, WITH BOHRER VOTING NO. Councilman Bohrer stated he thought another source for funds should be found. MOVED BY HARRIS, SECONDED BY PHELPS, THAT THE APPROVAL OF DESIGN AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE PROPOSED PARK AND -RIDE LOT AND A RESOLUTION BE ON THE AGENDA OF THE NEXT REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING. MOTION CARRIED. MOVED BY DUFFIE, SECONDED BY MORGAN, THAT THE PROPOSED RESOLUTION BE ON THE AGENDA OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE COUNCIL. MOTION CARRIED. MOVED BY PHELPS, SECONDED BY SIMPSON, THAT THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE BE ON THE AGENDA OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE COUNCIL. MOTION CARRIED. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING May 28, 1985 Page 12 NEW BUSINESS Contd. Set meeting date w /initiating parties on prop. annexation for June 3, 1985. Approve funds for summer banners pole brackets. Prop. Res. providing for gen. budget state- ment for 1986. MISCELLANEOUS Summer Retreat ADJOURNMENT: 11:20 P.M. MOVED BY DUFFIE, SECONDED BY SIMPSON, THAT THE DATE OF JUNE 3, 1985 BE SET AS DATE FOR MEETING WITH INITIATING PARTIES ON A PROPOSED ANNEXATION. MOTION CARRIED. MOVED BY BOHRER, SECONDED BY DUFFIE, THAT THE APPROVAL OF FUNDS FROM THE CURRENT BUDGET FOR SUMMER BANNERS AND POLE BRACKETS BE ON THE AGENDA OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE COUNCIL. MOTION CARRIED. MOVED BY SIMPSON, SECONDED BY DUFFIE, THAT THE PROPOSED RESOLUTION BE ON THE AGENDA OF A REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING. MOVED BY PHELPS, SECONDED BY MORGAN, TO AMEND THE ATTACHMENT TO THE RESOLUTION AND DELETE ITEMS 3(A) AND (B) OF THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMITTEE, ATTACHMENT A. MOTION CARRIED. MOVED BY MORGAN, SECONDED BY PHELPS, TO AMEND THE GENERAL BUDGETARY GOALS OF ATTACHMENT A. MOVED BY BOHRER, SECONDED BY HARRIS, TO AMEND THE AMENDMENT OF ATTACHMENT A, GENERAL BUDGETARY GOALS, TO STATE: "THERE WILL BE NO INCREASE IN THE SIZE OF THE CITY WORK FORCE OTHER THAN THAT REQUIRED TO SUPPORT THE NEWLY ANNEXED AREA." MOTION CARRIED. *MOTION CARRIED, AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED, AS AMENDED. Don Morrison, City Administrator, asked if the Council would be interested in a summer Council /Administration Joint Retreat. MOVED BY BAUCH, SECONDED BY DUFFIE, THAT THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING ADJOURN. MOTION CARRIED. d'w/d Edgar D(/ Bauch, Council President Norr�ra Booher, Council Secretary TO: FROM: DATE: City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 Gary L VanDusen, Mayor M EMORANDUM Council Members Phelps and Bohrer Norma Booher, Recording Secretary June 6, 1985 SUBJECT: VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT, Meeting of May 28, 1985 (ETS Project) 30HRER: It is the City's position that we are asking for nothing different than you are already granting us in other areas. We don't understand why you think the Citv's )osition was illegal. I am very eager to hear that discussion on what our problems are. 1 SETH BLAND: Evidently the name of the committee and I don't remember it being named that Save you the idea it was a permanent negotiating committee. When I came down I said at the )eginning of the meeting and I said at the end of the meeting, this is the best offer we can flake. We had gone through the legal thing. I am sorry that you and the rest of the Council ere of the impression that you could keep on negotiating. Certainly that is the message that ve have gotten. There has been a tremendous misunderstanding here. The way we understand it at the Metro Council, I think since you have made it clear the way that you understand it is that we started out along Interurban although we were not going to break up the traffic ve were going to be beside it. We came down here and you said it was very bad and you suggested we go through the golf course and we agreed with you. The way that we understood that is that would cost us about $2 million more in construction and our last offer to you as $2.2 million in mitigation. We can talk all evening and it is interesting and we always lot bogged down. We said this was our best offer. What came back to us was not that we seed more questions answered or we need to meet more but a different proposal from you that said come down Interurban, which you had told us not to do in the first place, interrupt traffic, have an open -cut method, your business community would suffer with that, and you anted another $2 million for that which you thought would be mitigation measures for $6 nillion. Our legal attorney said we could not do it. The Council would not have done it Zither. We represent the people of your community also. They are rate payers in the Metro system. Everytime we tried to talk we were bogged down with little details and we were told hat about this and that. The big issue is that there was not agreement. I do not feel there was negotiation in good faith. I don't feel that you always all knew everything and maybe we did not always know everything and it was assumed that you could keep asking For more. Every time we made an offer we got a counter -offer much bigger. We cannot Jo that. We are the rate payers. We can only build the sewer pipes. We were told by the EPA and then DOE to get out of the Duwamish. We don't have a choice about that. de have decided as a body and this was an unanimous decision was if we cannot go through the golf course if that is not agreeable because we will absolutely not consider interrupting traffic on Interurban, we think it is an outrageous proposal financially and politically. de would be the bad guys and you would have invited us to do that. That is out. You did lot hear when we said that was out, we said that was our best offer, we could not give you nore than $2.2 million. We can sit here and argue these little details, the point is any iamage we do we will be glad to pay back. Of course, we will pay back. If anything 3oes wrong, you get sued we would have to pay all of that. We tried to have mitigation. Every time we came down we got, "Well, you don't care about Tukwila." We were willing to pffer $4 million because we cared. Then you were going to put us back on Interurban. I really question that.. Who is the bad guy here. We have to get out of the river. We were Council Members Phelps and Bohrer June 6, 1985 VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT Portion of C/W Meeting 5 -28 -85 (ETS Project) BETH BLAND Contd: willing to mitigate. Now we have to make a decision because we don't get an answers of "yes, we agree." No one agreed to anything- What are we going to do. We have a deadline that has nothing to do with your decision. We have decided that we will have to go back to our original one because you did not accept the $4.2 million which of course has been explained is not exact. We did not have agreement of the minds so we always got bogged down with little details that really in the big picture did not matter. I think you should understand what the big picture is. It is going to cost our rate payers $6 million less to go down. We have to go against the City because you cannot agree to our best offer. We legally cannot offer you more than that so we are going back to the original one and save the rate payers $4 million and it is not because we don't care because after negotiation, negotiation after some of our staff have been treated badly, nothing happened. I am not saying you treated me badly, I have been present when there were questions raised in an excited way and I don't think it has been negotiated fairly. We get one answer and then we get another. We are at an impasse. The reason I am here is not to threaten you it is to tell you that a decision was made to go down to the original alternative and we are here to say if you like that mitigation package it is available until tomorrow, but we are not here to be insulted and that is all I can tell you. I will be happy to answer the whys of any questions that you have here. BOHRER: We hope you do not feel you have been treated badly tonight. There are some issues here and they do involve several millions of dollars and I think I do not yield to anyone in saving the taxpayer's money, in fact I think the City's proposal has been very much in line of getting more for the taxpayer's money than the or000sal that we saw from Metro. You mentioned the golf course route was going to cost Metro $2 million mroe than going down Interurban. A very large part of that was the original Metro estimate of $1.5 million to construct the bridge and that estimate is now one -half million dollars so. BLAND: That is a misconception, that is not true. The $2 million does not have to do with the amount of the bridge. That is a good example of what went wrong. Maybe all of you are convinced that our $2 million difference included a $1.5 million amount for the bridge. It did not. There are other differences. BOHRER: I think I remember those figures very well and I believe $1.5 million was the original estimate when we were looking at trade studies for the cost. BLAND: It could have been an original estimate, I am not saying it was not. I am saying that right now we can look at the differences in cost, not cindluging $1.5 million for the bridge and still find $2 million difference .lust in the construction route, not including the bridge of $1.5 million. I cannot speak of the technical differences in the construction route. Terry can answer that. That is a very good example of why negotiations broke down. It was believed that really there was not a $2 million difference in construction costs, not talking about the mitigation and the other thing. MORGAN: GUNTER: MORGAN: GUNTER: GUNTER: MORGAN: TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING May 28, 1985 SUBJECT: MOTION CONCERNING THE METRO EFFLUENT TRANSFER SYSTEM I, as a Council Member, would be willing to put forth a motion that the Council entertain such a resolution which has the intent of entering into an agreement with Metro to work with them on the placement of the pipeline on the east side of the river crossing at the Golf Course. The motion will include how the details will be worked out. As I understand, the details to be worked out would be pri- marily Golf Revenues, the easements across the Golf Course, and the agreement would also provide that the hard dollar mitigation amounts have been identified would be there for Tukwila to basically use as they wanted to as long as the basic minimum needs of the project were met. I am also interested in the issue of problems that emerge both legal and environmental which Metro would be responsible for -the liabilities Metro would assume. I am not as interested in having each detail worked out at this point as I am in seeing a document which represents a commitment to process. Violation of that commitment would result in the termination of that agreement. The process is no problem in terms of the violation resulting in breach of the agreement. I suppose it would be possible to draft a contract where you would call something breach- normally it is left to the court to decide whether there had been sufficiently severe violations to create a breach. For example, if one of the exhibits provided a small detail to be done and it wasn't done by omissions, does that mean we are in breach- -the whole deal is off -there would have to be some kind of discussion with Mr. Haney to kind of put a magnitude on that. MORGAN: Do you understand what I am saying? I do. We can put in clauses that speak to emergencies and conditions that arise that are unanticipated -not identified in the current planning and environmental documents so that there is that escape clause for both metro and the City to use. Are there any other issues that my colleagues feel need to be included in that motion. If there is a second to that motion, then it could be a matter for discussion or prior to the second, those items could be added. MOTION CONCERNING THE METRO EFFLUENT TRANSFER SYSTEM Page 2 HARRIS: I'll second it. PHELPS: I'll speak to the motion. I think the decision on the bridge at the golf course is an open issue we have to decide. That the reordering some of the items whether they are restoration or mitigation on pages 8 C of the Inner Agency agreement will be done by Tukwila. It won't change the dollar amount at all. And there are some engineering issues surrounding Interurban Avenue north of Foster Golf Course that are not yet resolved with regard to easements. MORGAN: Are those so noted by City Staff. If they do not appear in the resolution next week, it is the right of Council to add them. Are they so noted? BAUCH: [suggested attorneys prepare document now, etc.] I will not vote for a motion that says our City Staff will issue every permit Metro wants and that is what I take from this; that we will bow down and, from now on, Metro is King of the Town. Until we get it all in writing, I still say I will not approve anything to allow them to turn over a shovel of dirt in town until we have an agreement. They ought to know by now that we are going to allow them to go through the golf course. The details won't mean a thing to the people of Bellevue or Redmond, but they are a big issue to the people of Tukwila. MORGAN: I was asking them to do this during the week. MOTION CARRIED t VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT MR. CROSTICK BETH BLAND 5 -28 -85 BILL CROSTICK (AUDIENCE): When this proposal was changed, where did it come from, who changed it back to the Fort Dent route? BLAND: First there was an original route by the engineers at Metro, then the route through the golf course, I am not sure who's staff came up with that or whether that was kind of discussed. CROSTICK: You were the people who made the switch, you did not have the right do do that...Whv did it take you two years to go to Seahurst and give us nine months to ....(unintelligible )where is the difference? BLAND: We did not go to Seahurst, we had a preliminary. We spent....$500,000 on the stud: which identified Seahurst as the best alternative. CROSTICK: Who changed it back to the Fort Dent route? There has been no one here but what they thought it would go through the golf course. BLAND: We agreed to spend $2 million more on the construction and to give a mitigation package to the City of Tukwila of $2.2 million. That was rejected. It was rejected I guess by the Conflict Resolution Committee. I cannot tell you that. We were... the next thing that happened, we have a letter we can show you, is that we got this counter proposal that it was a flyer, that came back to us and we never got anything ..we will show you every single piece of paper that we have. CROSTICK: Well, your work is strictly on paper. BLAND: No, we're not. I have an answering machine and they take messages for me at Metro, I did not get any communication that the golf course was the route we could go...that we could have more discussion. I did talk to one of your Council Members who said, "Could we talk more I said, "yes, we can talk more but you must understand that is our best offer. We cannot spend that additional money. We could do it a different way within that framework. CROSTICK: The question is, who changed it back to Fort Dent. BLAND: The Water Quality Committee made a decision last week. CROSTICK: Did you involve the City of Tukwila in this... BLAND: Oh, no, no. The Water Quality Committee is under the gun from DOE and they put the real pressure on us besides the fines that they can give us is they are able to stop development on the east side and the whole area which collects for the Renton Treatment Plant. CROSTICK: We went home thinking the problem was solved that you were going through the golf course. BLAND: To tell you the truth, so did the Water Quality Committee. CROSTICK: Well, where is the problem then. BLAND: The problem is that this Council or whoever is their spokesperson never told us that that was alright. The$4.2 million package is on the table right now and we have said I have forgotten the date that we came down here April something, we said this is our best offer we cannot give you it is illegal for us to offer more money than that for mitigation. We are only a utility, we can only do what is good for the ratepayers, all we can do is take care of wastewater. We take it and we treat it and we cannot build roads except make them the way they were, that we must do. BOHRER: I thought we were talking about going across the golf course. We were working out details about going across the golf course