Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-07-15 Regular MinutesCALL TO ORDER and PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL OFFICIALS IN ATTENDANCE REPORTS Fire District #1 Annex Petiton Fire Truck Repairs Social Services Needs Study CONSENT AGENDA Ord. #1355 Regular Meeting M I N U T E S a. Approval of Minutes: July 1, 1985 b. Approval of Vouchers Claims Fund Vouchers #22478 #22601 Current Fund Golf Course Spec. Rev. City Street Arterial Street Federal Shared Rev. Land Acq, Bldg, Dev. Water Fund Sewer Fund Equipment Rental Firemen's Pension 32,188.49 9,924.95 24,597.08 23,323.30 593.47 37,323.48 29,841.51 36,251.80 2,567.18 186.55 $196,797.81 TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL July 15, 1985 Tukwila City Hall 7:00 P.M. Council Chambers 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, EDGAR D. BAUCH, Council President, JOE H. DUFFIE, WENDY A. MORGAN, CHARLES E. SIMPSON. MOVED BY MORGAN, SECONDED BY DUFFIE, THAT COUNCIL MEMBER HARRIS BE EXCUSED. MOTION CARRIED. JAMES HANEY, City Attorney; MAXINE ANDERSON, City Clerk; DON MORRISON, City Administrator, BYRON SNEVA, Public Works Director. Council President Bauch reported that the Council has received an official communication from the Office of the Prosecuting Attorney. They have certified that the petition for the Fire District #1 Annexation is sufficient. Don Morrison, City Administrator reported that the Fire Department pumper blew a head gasket and the repair estimate is $11,000. This may run the repair budget in the red. He reported that the Mayor has received a reply from the Cities of Renton and Auburn in regards to the inquiry to see if they would co -fund a social service needs assessment. They both have the feeling that the responsibility should not be borne by the municipalities but by other agencies that have already gathered needs information. c. Accepting the petition of intention to commence annexa- tion on a small parcel of property adjacent to So. 133rd (Macadam Road). d. An ordinance of the City of Tukwila vacating certain pro- perty located in the City of Tukwila dedicated for street purposes, said property being described as So. 133rd St. lying easterly of So. 134th Place. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL, REGULAR MEETING July 15, 1985 Page 2 CONSENT AGENDA cont. Res. #964 Res. #965 Ord. #1356 Res. #966 7:10 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING Continued From June 17, Appeal of Board of Arch. Review decision by Windmark Homes Council Member Phelps arrived. e. A resolution of the City of Tukwila approving a collec- tive bargaining agreement between the City of Tukwila and Public, Professional Office- Clerical Employees and Drivers Local Union No. 763 for the period commencing January 1, 1985 and ending December 31, 1986 and authorizing the Mayor to sign the same on behalf of the City. f. A resolution of the City of Tukwila authorizing the exec- ution of the Southcenter South Industrial Park Agreement, including the acceptance of Southcenter South Industrial Park utilities and street improvements, easements, and street right -of -way dedications. g. An ordinance of the City of Tukwila to appropriate unan- ticipated revenues in the Current Fund for a temporary secretary position, supplies, professional services and other services and charges to implement Effluent Transfer System Agreement with Metro. h. A resolution of the City of Tukwila designating the Daily Record Chronicle as the official newspaper of the City for the purpose of publishing ordinances and legal notices. MOVED BY BAUCH, SECONDED BY DUFFIE, THAT THE CONSENT AGENDA BE ADOPTED AS SUBMITTED. MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Van Dusen noted that this Public Hearing was continued from the meeting of June 17, 1985 with the approval of both parties. The application for Phase III of the Sunwood Development was filed with the City in January, 1984, by Pacific Townhouse Builders. It went before the Board of Architectural Review for design review. In February, 1984, the Planning Commission tabled consideration of the application at the request of the applicant. In March, 1985 a new application was filed with the City showing Windmark Homes as owner. The Planning Commission held a Public Meeting on April 25, 1985 to review the application. Based on testimony received, they denied the application. An appeal on behalf of the applicant was filed May 3, 1985. The intention of the applicant is to present revised plans and demonstrate that the concerns of the Board of Architectural Review have been satisfied. Mayor Van Dusen asked if there were any challenges against he or the Council over the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine. There was no comment. Brad Collins, Planning Director, presented the following Exhibits: 1. Master Land Use Application filed January 5, 1984 2. Master Land Use Application filed March 6, 1985 3. Revised staff report to Planning Commission 4. Minutes of April 25, 1985, Planning Commission meeting 5. Appeal of Planning Commission decision received May 3, 1985 6. Planning Commission findings and conclusions 7. Notice of June 17, 1985, Public Hearing of the City Council 8. Notice of April 25, 1985, Public Hearing of the Planning Commission, mailing list and affidavit of distribution TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL, REGULAR MEETING July 15, 1985 Page 3 PUBLIC HEARING cont. Windmark Homes Appeal ,.,,<,f) 9. Letter of April 25, 1985, from Lawrence E. Hard on behalf of Sunwood Condominium homeowners and presented to Planning Commission at the April 25, 1985, Public Hearing. 10. Memorandum of April 23, 1985, from Lawrence E. Hard to Sunwood Homeowners Association and presented to Planning Commission at the April 25, 1985 Public Hearing 11. Letter of March 1, 1985, from Pacific Townhouse Builders notifying City of the sale of the property to Windmark Homes. Lawrence E. Hard, Attorney representing Sunwood Condominium Homeowners, presented a letter written by him dated July 15, 1985 to the City Council and it was labeled Exhibit 12. Mayor Van Dusen opened the Public Hearing to consider an appeal filed by Windmark Homes, Inc. He noted that 12 exhi- bits had been read into the record. Mayor Van Dusen asked everyone wishing to speak during the hearing to stand and be sworn in. Attorney Haney issued the oath. Brad Collins, Planning Director, gave the opening remarks. This is an appeal of a decision by the Board of Architectural Review that was heard at their April 25, 1985 meeting. The Findings and Conclusions of the Planning Commission are listed in Exhibit 6. He reviewed the Findings and Conclusions and listed the options the Council has in reviewing the appeal. 1. Review the information presented to the BAR and make their own decision regarding the criteria and the ade- quacy of the application in meeting the criteria. 2. Review and agree with the BAR. 3. Since the applicant has submitted revisions to the site plan, the decision could be remanded back to the BAR to review the new information. George Kresovich, Attorney with the firm of Hillis, Cairncross, Clark and Martin at 403 Columbia Street, Seattle, said he represents the applicant, Windmark Homes. Their pre- sentation will consist of statements by: 1. John Lane, Architect for the project 2. Steven Shea, Landscape Architect 3. John Snyder, President of Windmark Homes John Lane, Architect and Planner representing Windmark Homes, 115 West Denny Way, Seattle, discussed their project. The zoning allows 77 dwelling units on the site, but they are proposing 66 units in 8 buildings 3 six- plexes and 6 nine plexes. The location of the structures is in agreement with the site plan submitted by the previous owner. The building locations have been maintained, but the density has been cut. Exhibit #13, Proposed Site Plan for the development, was recorded. Mr. Lane said they reviewed slopes of drives, Fire Department access to buildings and maximum building areas and they concluded that the site plan developed by the previous plan- ners and themselves is, not only the best, but possibly the only solution for an efficient development of the site. Their proposal sits very well with existing development and are consistant with existing structures to the north. They are proposing two story buildings with daylight basements and units two or three wide. The buildings are cedar siding and shingles and earthtone colors as suggested by the Planning TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL, REGULAR MEETING July 15, 1985 Page 4 PUBLIC HEARING cont. Windmark Homes Appeal (Cont.) Staff. Mr. Lane displayed Exhibit #3, Attachment D (Side Elevation Study) which shows end gables. They are also showing carports and covered trash receptacles. To mitigate impacts the proposal may have on the community, they have added an indoor jacuzzi and barbecue structure throughout the site. The total of the recreation and open space areas is 18,000 square feet. Their structures are well within the R -4 zoning requirements. The setback from the development to the north is a minimum of 60 feet, and in some places 80 feet. Their elevation of 200 is well below the eye level of occu- pants of all of the units east of Sunwood Boulevard. There is a view corridor between Buildings 1 and 2. Exhibit #14, Building Location Plan, was recorded. Steven Shea, Landscape Architect at Thomas Bing and Associates, said they were hired to redesign the landscaping. Planning Staff has reviewed their plan and concur with it. He explained the landscape plans as shown on Exhibit #13. Along with the landscape plan there is a path system that allows access throughout the site that connect the recreation areas and gazebos. They have addressed the con- cerns of the Board, have provided better views and still pro- vided separation between the units. Council Member Morgan asked who monitors landscaping for compliance. Mr. Collins said the Planning Department in cooperation with the Building Official. John Snyder, Vice President and Project Manager for Windmark Homes, 510 Rainier Avenue South, Seattle, commented that they obtained the property in February, 1985. It had already been rezoned to R -4 allowing up to 20 units per acre. The concep- tual site plan was used throughout the proceedings. Their present proposal asks for approval for 66 units. They will be the same type units as in Sunwood I and II. They have done everything they could to respond to the concerns of the Homeowners' Association, but it has been to no avail. They feel the Homeowners are primarily interested in using this process to leverage the settlement of their dispute with Pacific Townhouse Builders, the previous owners. They have settled the concerns expressed by the Association. They have assured the Homeowners that they intend to build con- dominiums, that the purchase prices will be around $85,000, that their parking ratio is 2 to 1, and they had a joint maintenance agreement drafted and sent to the Association. They have never responded. The Homeowners agreed to drop their appeal if Windmark agreed to join their Association. Then, they were told that the compliance with the Homeowners' request was not good enough. Mr. Snyder said they want to build a fine project in Tukwila one they can be proud of and they want to comply with all the requirements. They want to be treated like everyone else. He asked Council to approve their project. Attorney Haney explained that Council is sitting as the Board of Architectural Review. Council has the same criteria to look at as they did. George Kresovich, Attorney, said they agreed to join the Homeowners' Association providing they would not oppose this project and informed their attorney of the agreement. The Homeowners' Association was not agreeable. In reviewing the BAR decision, it is clear there are three major problems: TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL, REGULAR MEETING July 15, 1985 Page 5 PUBLIC HEARING Cont. Windmark Homes Appeal (Cont.) 1J 7 1. Adequacy of the recreation areas and facilities. In an effort to satisfy the concerns of the Board of Architectural Review the recreation areas were revised. 2. The Landscape Plan. The BAR said the Landscape Plan was incomplete. Rather than fight about it, they prepared a new plan, which was developed by professionals. 3. Concern about view blockage. The Board of Architectural Review relied on two provisions in the Code to make their findings. The first says that the height and scale of each building should be considered in relation to its site. The next says buildings should be to appropriate scale and be in harmony with neighboring developments. The type of buildings that are proposed for this site are precisely the same type and precisely the same scale as the buildings in the existing Sunwood Development. The buildings have been sited very carefully in order to minimize the view blockage. The project has been designed to be a good neighbor. Mr. Kresovich asked that the same standards be applied to them that have been applied to other developments. He asked Council to approve the project as proposed. Lawrence E. Hard, Attorney representing the Sunwood Homeowners, 2400 Columbia Center, Seattle, said he was asked to assist the Homeowners with some problems relating to their application of Windmark Homes. He prepared a letter, now marked Exhibit 12, that has been distributed to Council. There are three people that would like to speak. 1. Ryan Thrower, President of the Board of the Homeowners' Association 2. Dick Taylor, Homeowner 3. Joan Hernandez, Board Member. Mr. Hard said he is concerned about statements that have been made by Mr. Snyder and Mr. Kresovich about conversations and statements that have been made. If this were a trial those would be hearsay and not admissible. He asked to have these comments taken with a grain of salt. He is concerned about the impression trying to be made here that the Sunwood Homeowners' Association consists of nothing but a bunch of angered Homeowners angered, not at what is happening at the Windmark side, but at the company that sold them their homes. He reminded Council they are to consider only the application of Windmark Homes. The Homeowners are concerned about what is going to be placed on the piece of property immediately to the south of them. The property was originally part of the Sunwood development. It was to be developed by the same people as Phase III, but in March of this year, they were no longer dealing with these people, but rather with a company called Windmark Homes. Ryan Thrower, 15232 Sunwood Boulevard, is President of the Homeowners' Association and a member of the Board of Directors. There are 178 households in Sunwood. When they bought their homes, they thought they were buying into a total community. They felt they would have a voice in how the community would be run, how rules would be adopted and enforced. At the time of purchase, they received a copy of the declarations of the Condominium Association which con- tained a legal description of the Phase III property. The legal said the property was subject to the convenants and restrictions of the Homeowners' Association. They found that this did not give them the protection they thought they had. Now they are looking to Tukwila and the Land Use Planning Policies to protect their investment. They asked that, if the development is allowed, they have to live up to the same TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL, REGULAR MEETING July 15, 1985 Page 6 PUBLIC HEARING Cont. Windmark Homes Appeal (cont.) set of standards that the Sunwood Complex followed. We feel this proposal is lacking recreation facilities. It would be easy for residents of another complex to wander in and use their facilities. He asked the City to help them to protect their investments, stand behind the decision of the Planning Commission and reject any project that does not meet the requirements. Dick Taylor, 15278 Sunwood Boulevard, expressed concern over blockage of their view. At the time they bought they were given a maximum elevation for Phase III. He recalled that it was 203 feet. There have been several figures discussed so he asked what the "iron clad" maximum elevation is at this time. Joan Hernandez, 15224 Sunwood Boulevard said she is on the Board of Directors for the Homeowners' Association. A copy of her letter to the Planning Commission is included in Exhibit #3 as Item H. Sunwood is a beautiful place to live and she would like to stay there. She hopes that this deve- lopment will not affect their quality of life. She would like to have the Phase III property governed under the same convenants and restrictions they live by. She would not like to see the cheap housing units being built in the area deve- loped on this property. She said she has faith in the Council that they will not allow a developer to ruin their property. Lawrence E. Hard called attention to Exhibit #12, his letter dated July 15, 1985. It outlines the legal reasons why the Homeowners are asking the City Council to affirm the decision of the Planning Commission sitting as the Board of Architectural Review. That decision was to require this developer to go back and resubmit a design plan that met the requirements of the Tukwila Municipal Code. The applicant has submitted a revised site plan, but it does not address the fundamental problems that the Planning Commission had with the plan. They continue to have a concern over 1) who is the applicant and 2) who is the record property owner. The deed to the property is to Windmark Homes, Inc. whereas, the applicant is Windmark Homes Tukwila, Inc. Their con- cerns are that Council has had inadequate materials for a proper review. The landscaping plans are not sufficiently detailed, there has been no analysis of the slope profile, and a more detailed environmental analysis should be made. The fundamental problem with this application is the question of adequate recreation space. The Code requires 200 square feet of recreation space per unit. Nothing shows how this applicant has calculated the recreation space. What they have done is say open space equals recreation space. There has been no analysis of the amount of open space on slopes over 4 to 1. This applicant has not complied with the Tukwila Municipal Code on its analysis of what is proper recreation space. It is up to the Council to make the deci- sion as to whether or not the application meets the intent of the code. This proposed application does not meet commit- ments that were made by the previous owner. He asked that the City Council affirm the decision of the Planning Commission at their meeting of April 25, 1985. If Council wishes to modify the application and approve it, he asked that the applicant be required to submit a new environmental checklist and that a new environment review be made. Council Member Morgan asked what happens if Council upholds the Board of Architectural Review decision. Mr. Collins said they could submit a new application or proceed their appeal through the Court System. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL, REGULAR MEETING July 15, 1985 Page 7 PUBLIC HEARING Cont. Windmark Homes Appeal (cont.) Attorney Haney noted that TMC 18.90.020 provides that the City Council shall affirm, deny or modify the decision of the Planning Commission (BAR) within 90 days after the filing of the appeal. Prior to making a decision, the City Council may hold a Public Hearing. If Council wanted Staff to prepare additional information, the hearing could be continued and Staff directed to bring the information back. John Lane clarified the issue of height of the buildings. The buildings will be 168 feet above floor grade and 32 feet above that to the peak. We are going to stand on the 200 feet for the record. The condominium market is very com- petitive and you do not put out a bad product and expect it to sell. George Kresovich discussed the new information they had sub- mitted to Planning Staff and the Homeowners' Association for review. He commented that it was not new information just for this evening. If the developer intended to put as many units on the property as he could and then leave, he would not be reducing the number of units. The property was rezoned in 1981 to allow 77 units. The developer is trying to build a marketable product that people can afford to buy and will be in keeping with the neighborhood. Lawrence E. Hard stated that they do not think Council has enough information to make an intelligent decision. If Council does not affirm the decision of the Planning Commission, they do have the power to send it back to them and allow them to reconsider the application with the addi- tional information. If Council does not do this, they ask that the application be denied because it is not clear. There is no analysis of open space versus recreation space or how much of it is on slopes of 4 to 1. If Council should go ahead and permit this design plan as proposed, we think that the applicant should be required to submit a new environmen- tal check list. There is not enough adequate data here for anybody to make a decision. Lastly, nothing has been said about who the applicant is or who the owner of the property is. This should be of concern to Council. If the applicant says something is going to be done, what assurance do you have when we do no even know for sure who the applicant is or that is is the property owner. We have presented information that raises that question. We think this is another reason why the Council should affirm the action of the Planning Commission. Attorney Haney suggested that Council look over the City of Tukwila Board of Architectural Review Design Review Evaluation Guide which lays out the criteria by which Council needs to decide whether or not this application should be approved or denied. If Council wishes to ask any additional questions, now is the time before you close the Public Hearing. Mayor Van Dusen asked if anyone had anything more they would like to put into the record. Council Member Phelps asked what the relationship to the street is as far as a shared use for ingress and egress for the development. Mr. Kresovich said that there is an ease- ment across the Windmark property to the Sunwood Homeowners' Association so they have a right to use the right -of -way and both properties have that right. MOVED BY BAUCH, SECONDED BY BOHRER, THAT THE PUBLIC HEARING BE CLOSED. MOTION CARRIED. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL, REGULAR MEETING July 15, 1985 Page 8 PUBLIC HEARING Cont. Windmark Homes Appeal (cont.) RECESS: 9:30 P.M. 9:35 P.M. OLD BUSINESS Proposed Ordinance Amending the Comp. Land Use Map to change certain property from Low Density Residen- tial and Commercial to Professional Office MOVED BY BAUCH, SECONDED BY PHELPS, THAT THE CITY COUNCIL REMAND THIS BACK TO THE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW.* *COUNCIL PRESIDENT BAUCH WITHDREW HIS MOTION WITH APPROVAL OF THE SECOND. MOVED BY BAUCH, SECONDED BY MORGAN, THAT COUNCIL CONCUR WITH THE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW AND ADOPT THEIR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS. MOTION CARRIED. MOVED BY MORGAN, SECONDED BY PHELPS, 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 BAUCH, SECONDED BY PHELPS, THAT THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE BE READ BY TITLE ONLY. MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Van Dusen read an ordinance of the City of Tukwila, Washington, amending the Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan Map adopted by Ordinance Number 1039 to change the designatin of certain property previously shown as low density residen- tial to professional office. MOVED BY BAUCH, SECONDED BY PHELPS, THAT THE ORDINANCE BE ADOPTED AS READ.* Attorney Haney explained the Exhibits attached to the ordi- nance. Exhibit A is the legal description of the entire annexation area. Exhibit B should change the designation from Low Density Residential to Professional Office. Exhibit C should be the commercial property. It was difficult to draft the Exhibits now knowing what Council was going to do with some of the property. He reminded Council that they need to adopt Findings and Conclusions. MOVED BY BOHRER, SECONDED BY PHELPS, THAT THE MOTION BE AMENDED TO ASK THAT STAFF PREPARE THE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS AND THE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS FOR COUNCIL THAT SUPPORT THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION ON THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT. Mr. Collins explained that Exhibit B is the proposed changes to the Comprehensive Plan. It designates the properties shown as 16218, 16228 and 16234 to Professional Office. The properties at 16238 and 16360 are designated Commercial. Council Member Phelps asked is the Office designation or any other, other than R -1, applicable to the DiGiovanni property. Mr. Collins explained that 4230 and 4220 So. 164th Street would remain Low Density; there would be no change in the City's Comprehensive Plan, per the Planning Commission recom- mendation. Mr. Collins explained that Day Care facilities require a Conditional Use Permit. The facility on Mr. DiGiovanni's property would be Grandfathered in. Any changes they might make would require a Conditional Use Permit. Councilman Bohrer said he favors the recommendation of the Planning Commission. Mr. DiGiovanni submitted a request for TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL, REGULAR MEETING July 15, 1985 Page 9 OLD BUSINESS Proposed Ordinance- zoning to the County for 21 units on 2/3 of an acre. It is Amending the Comp. very high density and is as dense as anything we currently Land Use Map to change have in Tukwila and would require a buffer. It would be certain property from opening the door to further multi family in the area. Our Low Density Residen- cascading zoning approach doesn't allow us to designate 4220 tial and Commercial as office. If we were to do that, it would permit RMH or to Professional multi family. There is no way, at this general session, that Office (cont.) Council could change it to permit office use. It could only come from a contractural rezoning request. The other pro- perty that has been discussed is the Markham property located at 42nd and the freeway. The request to designate this as multiple family opens, again, the penetration of multiple family into the entire area and it would be the only multiple family designation in the area. It is not unique; it is similar to all the other land along the freeway. Council should go forward with the approach that is recommended by the Planning Commission. Council Member Phelps said that, where Mr. DiGiovanni's pro- perty is concerned, there is a special economic hardship involved. However, I would not approve a density of 21 units on that lot. It far exceeds what Tukwila has in mind as far as adequate standards for development. A lower density might seem more reasonable. I feel that an R- 1.7200 designation is not fair on parcel 4220. As far as the Markham property is concerned, I would prefer to look at a rezone request so that specific conditions or controls could take place. Councilman Duffie said he looked at the Markham property; then, he surveyed the citizens. He asked the people how they feel about apartments coming into the neighborhood -5 people were for; 5 people don't care; 47 people said, no; and 1 was neutral. The people are very concerned about what is going on in their neighborhood. Councilman Simpson said that in the case of Mr. DiGiovanni, he got caught in the middle. I don't agree that high density is the way to go; low density would be the best compromise in this situation. As far as the Markham property, people who are building single family houses do not want to build them next to a freeway. Apartments next to a freeway would be appropriate. Council President Bauch said the Comprehensive Plan has been in effect since the early 80's. The planning area is shown as low density for this area. The County Council has con- sistently turned down zoning changes to higher density. Proposed Ordinance Amending the official zoning map by estab- lishing zoning classi- fications on recently annexed property known as McMicken Heights *MOTION CARRIED WITH PHELPS AND SIMPSON VOTING NO. *MOTION CARRIED WITH PHELPS AND SIMPSON VOTING NO. *MOTION CARRIED WITH PHELPS VOTING NO. Council President Bauch said this will come forward as soon as the legal descriptions and the Findings and Conclusions are ready. MOVED BY BAUCH, SECONDED BY DUFFIE, THAT STAFF PREPARE THE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS AND THE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS THAT SUPPORT THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION.* Council President Bauch clarified that this adopts the zoning to match the Comprehensive Plan. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL, REGULAR MEETING July 15, 1985 Page 10 NEW BUSINESS Ordinance #1357 Appropriate unanti- cipated revenues in the Fed. Rev. Sharing Fund Approval to purchase two ton roller MISCELLANEOUS Undergrounding Utilities MOVED BY BAUCH, 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, Washington, amending the 1985 Budget adopted by Ordinance No. 1340 of the City, passed by the City Council on December 17, 1984, as amended by Ordinance No. 1346, passed by the City Council on April 1, 1985, and Ordinance No. 1351, passed by the City Council on June 17, 1985, to appropriate unan- ticipated revenues in the Federal Revenue Sharing Fund for chemical suits, typewriter, Council Chambers equipment and estimated ending fund balance and establishing an effective date. MOVED BY DUFFIE, SECONDED BY SIMPSON, THAT ORDINANCE NO. 1357 BE ADOPTED AS READ.* Council President Bauch commented that he does not like the changes that happen in mid -term. The chemical suits are an emergency, but the other two items are just things that would be nice to have. He specifically objected to Council Chambers improvements without having requested any comment from Council. *MOTION CARRIED WITH BAUCH VOTING NO. Don Morrison, City Administrator, explained that this request is to substitute the purchase of one capital item in the Equipment Rental Fund for another. It was recommended that the paint striper go through a rebudgeting process for 1986 and to purchase a self propelled 2 -ton vibrating roller compactor at this time. MOVED BY PHELPS, SECONDED BY SIMPSON, THAT COUNCIL CONCUR WITH THE REQUEST FROM ADMINISTRATION TO PURCHASE A TWO -TON ROLLER FROM THE EQUIPMENT RENTAL DEPARTMENT.* Council President Bauch said that Council spent many hours reviewing the Capital Improvement Plan. The first thing we do is violate the program. We don't have a plan. We don't know how this purchase fits in with the other priorities in this City. Unless something is an emergency, we should not consider capital items until the next budget period. Mr. Morrison explained that the intent is not to buy a new toy for the Street Department, but to provide a roller that meets compaction standards under the codes. After adding up the rental costs, the analysis is that we purchase a more cost effective approach. *MOTION CARRIED WITH BAUCH AND BOHRER VOTING NO. Mr. Morrison explained that the 55th Avenue Street project is under construction. The past several months there has been on -going discussions with Puget Power and City Light regarding undergrounding the overhead utilities. The City has an undergrounding agreement with Puget Power to do the work at their own expense. City Light refuses to consider any language in an undergrounding agreement which obligates them to pay for the undergrounding. There are three options; stop the 55th Avenue Street Project; require them to relo- cate the overhead lines; or go ahead with the undergrounding, pay for it, and send them a letter stating we will seek reim- bursement. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL, REGULAR MEETING July 15, 1985 Page 11 MISCELLANEOUS Undergrounding Utilities (cont.) EXECUTIVE SESSION 10:43 P.M. ADJOURNMENT 10:50 P.M. MOVED BY BAUCH, SECONDED BY PHELPS, THAT THE CITY PROCEED WITH THE PROJECT AND BILL CITY LIGHT. MOTION CARRIED. MOVED BY MORGAN, SECONDED BY DUFFIE, THAT COUNCIL GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION. MOTION CARRIED. Executive Session called to discuss the N.A.A.C.P. Lawsuit. MOVED BY BAUCH, SECONDED BY SIMPSON, THAT COUNCIL GO OUT OF EXECUTIVE SESSION. MOTION CARRIED. MOVED BY BAUCH, SECONDED BY SIMPSON, THAT THE MAYOR BE AUTHORIZED TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH THE SOUTH CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT TO SHARE THE COST OF THE FOSTER PARK PROPERTY LITIGATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $6,250, THAT THE TERM OF THE LEASE AGREEMENT BE EXTENDED TO 30 YEARS, AND THAT AN AMENDMENT BE DRAWN TO TAKE THE FUNDS OUT OF ENDING FUND BALANCE. MOTION CARRIED. MOVED BY DUFFIE, SECONDED BY PHELPS, THAT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL ADJOURN. MOTION CARRIED. GA4t. Vn`Difsen, Mayor Makine Anderson, City Clerk