Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-11-12 Committee of the Whole MinutesNovember 12, 1985 TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL 7:00 P.M. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL OF COUNCIL MEMBERS OFFICIALS IN ATTENDANCE REPORTS City Council Staff City Attorney CITIZEN'S COMMENTS Flashing yellow light at Pavilion Crossing. PUBLIC HEARING 7:16 8:05 P.M. Central Business Dist. Sidewalk Plan Policy. MINUTES Council President Bauch introduced Marilyn Stoknes, new Council Member who will take office in January. 5336 City Hall Council Chambers Council President Bauch called the Committee of the Whole Meeting to order and led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. L. C. BOHRER, MABEL J. HARRIS, EDGAR D. BAUCH (COUNCIL PRESIDENT), CHARLES E. SIMPSON Gary L. Van Dusen (Mayor), Maxine Anderson (City Clerk), Phil Fraser (Senior Engineer), Jim Haney (City Attorney), Lucy Lauterbach (Legislative Coordinator), Don Morrison (Adminis- trative Assistant), Ross Earnst (City Engineer), Byron Sneva (Public Works Director). Council President Bauch reported he had received a response to the request for suggested name for the new park. The name suggested was Joel Shomaker Memorial Park in honor of the first Mayor of Tukwila. Byron Sneva, Public Works Director, stated the south half of the Grady Way bridge will be open to traffic within five or six days. Attorney Jim Haney stated he attended the State Association of Municipal Attorneys. Of special interest was the subject of municipal liability insurance. Another subject discussed was the precedent established in Bothell where a police officer was sued by four individuals. The City defended the police officer and malicious intent prosecution was established. The City was reimbursed all legal fees. Council Member Harris reported receiving citizen comments that a flashing yellow light in the pedestrian lane crossing from the two parking lots at the Pavilion is needed. Council President Bauch stated letters had been received from the Chamber of Commerce and Pembrook Management, Inc., stating their views on the Sidewalk Plan Policies. Byron Sneva, Public Works Director, gave an updated report on the Sidewalk Plan. George Reynolds, Bell Walker, explained the plan and reviewed the history of the Sidewalk Plan. Jack Link, Tri -Land Corporation representing William E. Boeing Co., said flexibility in the policy is the key and that is excellent. The LID aspect is good in getting the sidewalks in as quickly as possible. Those who have already participated could be excused. The problem is how to get everyone agreed in the CBD. Councilman Bohrer asked Mr. Link if it was his contention that an area that has sidewalks will not benefit from construction of the plan and therefore should be excluded from the LID. Jack Link said that is from the work benefit, that they were already "either required or did it on their own." We have land that is still undeveloped that would be required to fit with this to connect the missing portions. In the area, for example, on Baker Boulevard, that one block there on the Andover Park East side would need to participate and we would go back to the time when we were required to put in a block of concrete that went to nowhere and that should not be whether it was a benefit now, or a benefit then or a benefit in the future for the people who will be using it. It will be a benefit to the people who will be using it. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING November 12, 1985 Page 2 PUBLIC HEARING Contd. Central Business Dist. Sidewalk Plan Policy. contd. S.3 3/ Currently it is a benefit to the future. We would go again to the word flexibility. Councilman Bohrer said Mr. Link seems to be saying that the only people who will benefit from construction of new sidewalks is the people who currently do not have sidewalks and all of those who do have sidewalks won't benefit from any new construction. Mr. Link said the ultimate is that everyone is going to benefit. He said he would say that the people who put them in are paying twice. The plan is to benefit the City so we have the missing parts. Councilman Bohrer asked if these other properties benefit shouldn't they be included in the LID? Mr. Link replied to the extent they are forgiven that part they have already put in. Council President Bauch asked Mr. Link to read the October 18 version of the funding and phasing of the sidewalk plan. Council Member Harris said Mr. Sneva has said that the policies have gone through all of the committees. That is true, but the Transportation Committee did not go along with Policy 4 and 5 for the financing of it. Today at the Chamber meeting she said she was inundated with people asking, "Now you surely don't mean to go ahead with construction of the sidewalks under the financing that is in the present policy She felt as City officials they should be fair to everyone and to charge some people twice when they have already put in sidewalks in front of their property and then have to pay for the rest of the sidewalks with tax money which would be coming out of their pockets would be double dipping for them. She felt it was unfair. Council President Bauch asked Council Member Harris if she had read Policy 6? Council Member Harris said she had and she felt the LID method would be much fairer as Mr. Link said the people who have already done thier part of the sidewalks should be excused from having to pay again. This seems a fair and equitable way and is the way the City has done in the past. Everything that has been developed down there has either been done by the developer on their property or by an LID and that seems equitable. Councilman Bohrer said the City should be fair and if he can be shown a way that is imminently fair to all in the CBD he would gladly adopt it. He stated he disagreed with the LID method. The position the committee has taken from the outset and it was recognized by the Chamber's Transportation Committee at one time that there is not a totally fair way to do this. The people who developed in the CBD developed under a different set of rules that the City had that allowed them to put in landscaping, beautiful landscaping, that is a benefit to the City. To now ask those same people to put in a sidewalk when over the years they have borne the cost of maintaining the landscaping which is probably greater than maintaining the cost of sidewalks that went in other areas, but to now require them to put in sidewalks for the benefit of others when they will not directly benefit from them does not seem fair. There are some instances where that will occur. The issue of funding is one that needs to be addressed further. Namely, what portion of these sidewalks that the City under the current policy would put in might the City reasonably expect reimbursement for at a future time because those current properties are undeveloped or perhaps more speculatively could be subject to redevelopment. The reason the proposal was made this way was inconsonance with the Chamber's Transportation Committee original recommendation and thought, one that the Community Affairs Committee still endorses that there are some areas where we should move rapidly to institute the sidewalks and an LID will be a lengthy process. If we can agree TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING November 12, 1985 Page 3 PUBLIC HEARING Contd. CBD Sidewalk Plan Policy contd. 533 on some of the areas where we can move rapidly this is the best place to do it. In driving through that area in the morning, it is amazing the number of people you see walking along the streets, on the streets, and through the bushes and you see trails in the bushes, there are hazards there. Sidewalks are needed and the City needs to move rapidly. He said he was concerned that there are two sides to this story in terms of fairness. If you try to create an LID and assess what the real benefits are it will be another ten years before the sidewalks are off and running. There are two sides to the story and the concern is getting something to happen as fast as possible. One of the comments made in the Chamber letter was that the City was going to have to raise taxes to do this. He said he had not heard that. Robyn Wilhelme, representing Pembrook Management and Chairperson of the Transportation Committee of the Chamber of Commerce, said she looked at the policy in a number of ways. She has seen the progress from the beginning. Her question is more specifically to the properties that she is involved with which is the Southcenter South Industrial Park. According to the letter she submitted to the Council, they feel they are outside the CBD. Until this month they may not even have had to be involved in this because the streets were private streets until October 31. They are now public streets which is the reason for the concern in the properties being included in the definition of the CBD. They feel they have no pedestrian traffic in the park, with the exception of going from a parking lot to an office building where there are already sidewalks to walk on. To put in sidewalks throughout the rest of the park so these people might go elsewhere they feel is not going to happen. If there is an opinion of the Committee she would like to hear it in this meeting and if not she will come again until a decision is made. Councilman Bohrer said we could ask Mr. Reynolds, Bell- Walker, to give an interpretation of what the plan says for sidewalks construction in Southcenter South. Mr. Reynolds said they do not show any recommended sidewalks in that area. It would be low priority, based on the condition and nature of the development. Consideration that should be made would be plotting into the trail system and sidewalks. Robyn Wilhelme said in the talking earlier about an LID it was said that if the City were to impose an LID they might require property that currently has sidewalks to participate. Council Member Harris said it seems those would be included in and would be given credit for the sidewalks they have. Councilman Bohrer said in the matter of assessing an LID is it on the basis of past contributions or on the basis of present benefits such contributions might be assessed? Attorney Haney said as far as assessments in an LID the general rule is that properties in an LID are to be assessed according to the special benefit which they receive from the improvements that are constructed. That special benefit is to be measured by increase in market value of the property which accrues by virtue of the improvements themselves. Some questions that have come up, it is according to the present benefits that the property will receive from the improvements therefore it is a special benefit, the present benefit to the property. The question has come up as to whether or not properties that already have sidewalks could or would be assessed if they were included in an LID. It is possible that they would be depending upon how much they benefited from the fact that the sidewalks which they had constructed themselves how much the value of their property is raised by the fact that those sidewalks are now connected with others in the district. Their assessment would likely be lower than those properties which do not have sidewalks because their benefit from sidewalks actually being constructed would be much greater. Generally what is done in an LID is to have a special benefit study prepared showing how each property will benefit from the sidewalk construction. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING November 12, 1985 Page 4 PUBLIC HEARING Contd. CBD Sidewalk Plan Policy contd. 5 3 V Council Member Harris asked where she would benefit if the fellow next to her who has not had a sidewalk but has been benefiting from her sidewalk, he would then have to pay special for the benefit he has received from her sidewalk. That does not make sense if you already have a sidewalk that you would be assessed for extra benefit from the sidewalk that went on before you. The same way for a street you are not assessed for a street if it is in front of your property. Attorney Haney said the question is whether or not the value of a particular piece of property that already has a sidewalk in front of it would rise due to the fact that the sidewalk is now connected with a City -wide sidewalk system and if that is the case there may be some special benefit. That is taken care of in a benefit study. They have an appraiser do that study. There could be some benefit. Council Member Harris asked about a person who has landscaping. Is a sidewalk part of landscaping or could a sidewalk be part of landscaping and the landscaping altered to include a sidewalk which would then be part of the lanscaping? Attorney Haney said that would depend on what the City code required. The City code currently has not defined a sidewalk as included within landscaping although it could give credit. That is one of the things that has been discussed. Council Member Harris said the policy says the businesses will donate rights -of -way or easement. She thought it would be illegal for the City to tell anyone they have to donate something Attorney Haney said generally you can require donation through a couple of things. One, there is specific authority in the State subdivision statute for cities requiring property owners to dedicate land for any public purpose as a condition of subdiv- ision. There may not be very many subdivisions. Another way is through impact through an environmental study of a particular development proposal. For example, the developer comes to the City and says he wants to put in a 20 -story office building and there will be 5,000 people in the building. In looking at the impact, the city could specify as a mitigating measure that the individual was going to donate land for a public right -of -way for streets because there was going to have to be transportation, etc. Those are ways it could be done. They have to be specifically related on a project -by- project basis. You are correct in saying the City could not just pass an ordinance saying that everyone in town will donate 5 feet of right -of -way along the edge of their property to the city. That would be condemnation of people's property. Council Member Harris said that is what she found wrong with Policy 5. Attorney Haney said as he understood the policy it was that if individuals would not donate the right -of -way then the City could simply not build the sidewalks there, if they desired not to do that. The policy was not mandatory in requiring the donation of the right -of -way. Council Member Harris said then if anybody did not want to donate property the City would not put a sidewalk there. Attorney Haney said the City certainly has the power to condemn. Council Member Harris said but if it were done by the LID method they could be given credit. Attorney Haney said they could be given credit against their assessments for the donations. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING November 12, 1985 Page 5 PUBLIC HEARING Contd. CBD Sidewalk Plan Policy contd. Robyn Wilhelme said from what she is hearing if the plan is on a City Councilmanic bond or on an LID that the property like her own will be included. They could not be assessed and have their property increased in value because of the sidewalk going into the CBD if they were not part of the CBD. Council President Bauch said they are part of it by definition. It is everything east of I -5 and south of 405, within the City limits. Robyn Wilhelme said it seems it was said that it was not necessary and it was not included in the study. Council President Bauch said it was not said that it was not included in the study, it just says at the present time the traffic is such that it would not be now. To state that nobody is going to walk or you are not going to have offices or retail in Southcenter South is premature. Robyn Wilhelme said it may happen some day, but their attitude is that they would like to put it in at that time when there is a need. Council President Bauch said by City code they would have to. If you change any use of those buildings and they are on public streets you would have to put in a sidewalk. Council Member Harris said if there is an LID it is doubtful that part would be encompassed in the LID. Councilman Bohrer said in the letter from the Chamber that Robyn Wilhelme and Mr. Jordan in the fifth paragraph said we have since learned that the City will most likely be required to raise taxes in order to retire the bonds." What is the source of that information? Robyn Wilhelme said her source of information was Pam Thorsen, the Chamber Director. Pam Thorsen, Chamber of Commerce, said that is the information she received at a committee of the whole meeting. She thought it was relayed to her. Councilman Bohrer said they have heard a lot of discussions here at this meeting about options of funding. Mayor Van Dusen said he thought this idea has come about through discussions. If the City does all of the things they have been wanting to do with budget and CIP there would be only one way to do it and that would be to raise the one -half cent sales tax. It was probably just discussion. Councilman Bohrer said he would like to go back to the opposite side of the coin on the costing. He said he would pick out a warehouse that he drives by on a daily basis that has beautiful landscaping in front of it and adequate parking for its own people. He asked if it seemed a likelihood that such a business which does not depend in general on foot traffic would be materially benefited by construction of a sidewalk or even that its property value would be substantially increased by so doing. Attorney Haney said he would say that the benefit there would certainly be a lot less than in a multi family complex or some retail outlet. There may be some benefit, but how much it would be hard to say. Councilman Bohrer said his suggestion is that it is probably as unlikely that they are benefited as that there is a carry -over benefit to some of the areas that already have sidewalks. He said he would put the two of them in sort of the same category of probability. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING November 12, 1985 Page 6 PUBLIC HEARING Contd. CBD Sidewalk Plan Policy contd. OLD BUSINESS Approval of Minutes: October 28, 1985 Prop. Ord. amending MOVED BY HARRIS, SECONDED BY SIMPSON, THAT THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE official zoning map BE ON THE AGENDA OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION. estab. zoning classifi- MOTION CARRIED. cation on prop. recently annexed to City known as 51st Ave. So. between S. 164th S. 166th Annexation. NEW BUSINESS Council Member Harris said she would go back in history. Originally, Andover West was the dividing point that everything to the west of Andover was commercial and everything to the east was industrial and no commercial was allowed in the industrial part not even a sandwich shop. That was where the big landscaping beds were with the setbacks to make this industrial park a thing of beauty and everyone just drove through, there was no need of any walking because they went to their place of business, they got out of their parked car and walked in. It was mandatory to have landscaping. Now things have changed, it is no longer sacred that on one side we have commercial and on the other industrial. It is rapidly becoming commercialized and the chance of it becoming greatly more is happening all of the time. Now sidewalks are needed. They have pulled up all of the land- scaping and are remodeling and putting in sidewalks. The era is coming where there are very few places where a sidewalk is not entirely needed. It seems that everyone would benefit from sidewalks, some a lot more than others. We should concentrate on the ones that are needed desperately now and attempt to get something started and done. She said that LID's don't take much longer than any other you have to go out for bids, you have to get your contractor, in the meantime you start your financing. It takes about 70% of the property owners to approve an LID. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED AT 8:05 P.M. MOVED BY BOHRER, SECONDED BY SIMPSON, THAT THE SIDEWALK POLICY BE ON THE AGENDA OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE COUNCIL AT THE DISCRETION OF THE COUNCIL PRESIDENT. MOTION CARRIED. MOVED BY HARRIS, SECONDED BY SIMPSON, THAT THE MINUTES OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING HELD OCTOBER 28, 1985 BE APPROVED AS PUBLISHED. MOTION CARRIED. Prop. Res. accepting MOVED BY SIMPSON, SECONDED BY HARRIS, THAT THE PROPOSED RESOLUTION turnover of storm BE ON THE AGENDA OF THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING OF THE COUNCIL. sewer manhole construc- MOTION CARRIED. ted by Solly Dev. So. on east side of 52nd Ave. South. King Subregion Special MOVED BY HARRIS, SECONDED BY SIMPSON, THAT THE CITY COMMITMENT Transportation Projs. IN THIS PROJECT BE ON THE AGENDA OF THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING OF Program, Green River THE COUNCIL. MOTION CARRIED. Valley Transportation Action Plan. Prop. Ord levying gen. MOVED BY HARRIS, SECONDED BY SIMPSON, THAT THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE taxes for fiscal year BE ON THE AGENDA OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE COUNCIL. MOTION 1986 on property, real CARRIED. personal. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING November 12, 1985 Page 7 NEW BUSINESS Contd. Prop. Ord. amending 1985 MOVED BY HARRIS, SECONDED BY SIMPSON, THAT THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE budget to appropr. BE ON THE AGENDA OF THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING OF THE COUNCIL. unanticipated revs. in MOTION CARRIED. Land Acq., Bldg., Dev. Fund for future park dev. land. EXECUTIVE SESSION 8 :30 8:55 P.M. ADJOURNMENT 8:56 P.M. COUNCIL MEMBER PHELPS ARRIVED AT THE MEETING AT 8 :35 P.M. 3 7 MOVED BY HARRIS, SECONDED BY SIMPSON, THAT THE COUNCIL GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION TO CONSIDER PURCHASE OF PROPERTY FOR PARK PURPOSES. MOTION CARRIED. MOVED BY HARRIS, SECONDED BY PHELPS, THAT THE COUNCIL MOVE OUT OF EXECUTIVE SESSION. MOTION CARRIED. MOVED BY HARRIS, SECONDED BY PHELPS, THAT THE TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING ADJOURN. MOTION CARRIED. P 4', Edgar D auch, Council President No a Booher, Recording Secretary