HomeMy WebLinkAboutReg 2003-01-06 COMPLETE AGENDA PACKET Tukwila City Council Agenda
s
-1 iG) Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Councilmembers: Pam Carter Joe Duffie
4
John McFarland, City Administrator Dave Fenton Jim Haggerton
Richard Simpson, Council President Joan Hernandez Pamela Linder
7908
REGULAR MEETING
January 6, 2003; 7 p.m. Ord #2011 Res #1512
1. CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/ROLL CALL
2. SPECIAL Introduction of New Employee-
PRESENTATIONS Jeff Morton, Fleet Supervisor, Public Works
3. CITIZEN At this time, you are invited to comment on items that are not
COMMENTS/ included on this agenda. If you wish to comment on an item
CORRESPONDENCE listed on this agenda, please save your comments until the
issue is presented for discussion.
4. CONSENT AGENDA a. Approval of Minutes: 12/16/02 (Reg.)
b. Approval of Vouchers.
5. OLD BUSINESS Tri- Association Joint Legislative Proposal (consideration and
possible motion of support).
6. NEW BUSINESS Election of 2003 Council President.
7. REPORTS a. Mayor d. City Attorney
b. City Council e. Intergovernmental
c. Staff
8. MISCELLANEOUS
9. EXECUTIVE SESSION
10. ADJOURNMENT
This notice is available in alternate formats for individuals with disabilities upon advance request.
Reasonable accommodations at public hearings are available with advance notice. Tukwila City Hall is wheelchair accessible.
Please call the City Clerk's office 433- 1800/TDD 248 -2933 if you require assistance.
Agenda is also available at City of Tukwila's website: htto:/ /www.ci.tukwila.wa.us
j Please be advised that all Tukwila Council Meetings are audio taped.
ITEM INFORMATION
CAS Number: 03-001 trq- 03 1 Original Agenda Date: December 9, 2002
Agenda Item Title!' Tri -Asso> ation Joint Legislative Proposal
Original Sponsor: Council Admin. X
Timeline:
Sponsor's Summary: Discuss proposal, and if you support it, make a motion of support for the Local
Government Joint Legislative Proposal.
Recommendations:
Sponsor: Support the Proposal
Committee: N/A
Administration: Same as sponsor
Cost Impact (if
_known)
Fund Source (if known)
Meeting Date
1/6/03
Meeting Date
1/6/03
COUNCIL AGENDA SYNOPSIS
Initials
1 Meeting Date Prepared by I Mayor's review
I 1/6/03 I LL I g; w
I I
I I I
I I I
RECORD OF COUNCIL ACTION
Action
Memo from L. Lauterbach 12/30/02
Joint Legislative Proposal January 2003
APPENDICES
Attachments
Council review
ITEM No.
To: Mayor Mullet
City Council
From: Lucy Lanterbach
Date: December 30, 2002
Re: Local Government (Tri Association) Joint Legislative Proposal
In mid December you discussed the Local Government Joint Legislative Proposal. This was a
proposal for the city and county associations to pool legislative efforts in passing some specific
legislation this next session. The draft proposal was put together with staff from Association of
Washington Cities (AWC); Washington Association of County Officials (WACO); and
Washington State Association of Counties (WSAC).
One of the issues that came up in your discussion was under Capital Projects, and was to "allow
local jurisdictions to bid on each other's projects in order to increase competition and make
better use of specialized equtpment and staff". You expressed some hesitation in accepting it
since you couldn't think when it would be applicable. AWC's Jim Justin told me this was a
county proposal to give them more flexibility, and related not to Puget Sound as much as smaller
counties that could do work for other counties or for some city within the county, or could use
specialized city equipment/people to do county work.
AWC is interested in cities approving of these Legislative proposals. If you support the proposal,
it can be passed at the January 6th meeting. If you have questions, it can be referred to another
meeting.
AWC
Association of
Washington Cities
WACO
Washington
Association of
County Officials
WSAC
Washington State
Association
of Counties
LOCAL
GOVERNMENT
JOINT
LEGISLATIVE
PROPOSAL
Chuck Mosher, AWC President
Greg Zempel, WACO President
Harold Moss, WSAC President
January 2003
TRI-ASSOCIATION PRINCIPLES
For
LOCAL GOVERNMENT REVENUE
The Association of Washington Cities, the Washington State Association of Counties, and the
Washington Association of County Officials recognize the fiscal crisis faced by state and local
government and adopt the following principles:
· The Tri-Association will make every effort to assist uniquely impacted jurisdictions to
secure sufficient resources so that all cities and counties are able to provide basic
services.
· The Tri-Association recognizes the need to enhance local government revenues with a
focus on securing additional resources for criminal justice and public health expenses.
The Tri-Association will advance legislative solutions that assist both cities and counties
and will seek $200 million - $250 million in additional annual revenue options for cities
and counties. The Tri-Association will also work to ensure that cities and counties are
provided adequate flexibility in the use of current revenue sources.
The Tri-Association will support legislation to reduce and/or eliminate state-imposed
mandates and program responsibilities or to seek reimbursement and to expand
opportunities for increased efficiencies in local government.
· The Tri-Association will assist the members in each of the associations to communicate
with citizens concerning the impact of insufficient revenues on basic city and county
services and the need for corresponding service reductions.
TRI-ASSOCIATION
LEGISLATIVE PROPOSAL
To assure the capacity of cities and counties to meet criminal justice needs, protect public health,
and provide other critical services, the Tri-Association recommends that the Legislature protect
local governments' existing revenue base and authorize the following revenue options:
RELIEF FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
· State assistance to local governments that suffered a sizeable loss of their general fund revenues
is essential to assure that they can provide minimum levels of services. (Funding soume to be
determined.)
· Continued funding for local public health is a high priority for state and local officials. The state
must find the means to meet growing demands and assure stable program funding. Twenty-five
cents of the state levy unused capacity could be used to fund 15ublic health in the state.
LOCAL REVENUE OPTIONS PACKAGE
Sales Tax Subject to Voter Approval
· Counties are authorized to impose an additional sales tax up to 0.2%.
· If a county failed to impose such tax, a city therein may, subject to voter approval, levy
such tax.
· Countywide Distribution: Countywide sales taxes would be distributed using a formula
of 40/40/20.
o 40% for County regional servmes.
o 40% for City services.
o 20% for Unincorporated services.
· Within each county, the cities and county may negotiate a differem distribution formula.
Property Tax Subject to Voter Approval
Shift 35 cents per thousand from the unused state statutory levy capacity as follows:
· 10 cents countywide, increasing the maximum county general levy authority from $1.80
to $1.90 per thousand, for regional services.
· 25 cents to cities, increasing the maximum city levy authority from $3.60 to $3.85.
· 25 cents to unincorporated areas for police and other services. (This would require
formation of an Unincorporated Service Area.)
Utility Taxes Subject to Action by the Local Legislative Authority
· Cities are authorized to impose up to an additional 2% utility tax without voter approval.
· Counties are authorized to have taxing powers in unincorporated areas identical to cities,
except that there is no authority to impose a business and occupation tax other than on
utility services.
· The authority to tax utility services shall apply to all such services provided to consumers
by any utility purveyor.
3
IMPROVE EXISTING REVENUE ELEMENTS
Levy Lid Measures: Reduce the frequency of levy lid lift ballot measures to allow voters to
approve multi-year levy lid lifts:
· Flexibility for Capital Purposes: Loosen restrictions on the usage of the current Real Estate
Excise Tax (REET) to allow use for all capital purposes.
· Recognize Community Priorities: Eliminate or reduce statutory fund restrictions that require
local governments to spend money on lower priority programs, while higher priority programs are
being cut.
· Parity for Utility Taxation within Cities: Authorize cities to impose utility taxes on special
purpose utility districts for services consumed within such cities.
· Interest Earnings: Clarify treatment of interest earnings to'permit counties to deposit interest
earnings frgm all county funds in the county current expense fund.
CHANGE STATE LAWS TO PERMIT CITIES AND COUNTIES TO
CUT COSTS AND MAKE MORE EFFICIENT USE OF EXISTING
RESOURCES
Environmental:
· Flexibility in Meeting Unfunded Regulatory Mandates: Suspend mandates for environmental
or land use planning updates if state funding is not provided (e.g. Shorelines, GMA). Local
governments need flexibility in meeting unfunded regulatory mandates, such as the stormwater
management requirements, which mandate practices with significant costs to local government.
Local Government Operations:
· Efficient Purchasing: Eliminate red tape generated by outmoded purchasing and bid
reqmrements. Increase competition and cut costs by publishing bid requiremems on a central
website.
· Market Interest Rates: Reduce interest rates paid by governments (and therefore taxpayers) for
court awards. Currently. awards are set at 12%, even when ordinary bank accounts are earning
about 1%.
· Updating Building Codes: Adopt building codes used by other states to reduce costs for
training, documentation and building.
· Independent Audits: Reduce the cost of audits by allowing jurisdictions the flexibility to have
audits competitively bid by private firms.
· Binding Interest Arbitration: Mandate that arbitrators use the implicit price deflator for cost of
living adjustments. Amend the binding interest arbitration statutes to require arbitrators to
consider a jurisdiction's ability to pay. Eliminate comparables outside the state for all interest
arbitration.
Capital Projects
· Inter-local Cooperation on Construction and Maintenance: Allow local jurisdictions to bid on
each other's projects in order to increase competition and make better use of specialized
equipment and staff.
· Public Works Projects: Speed up public works projects by eliminating months of delay caused
by the redundant approval process for Public Works Trust Fund projects.
· Alternative Construction Bid Methods: Authorize or ex. pand alternative construction bid
methods, such as design/build or general contractor construction management (GCCM).
· Cut the Cost of Jail Construction: Allow jail projects to qualify for low-interest financing
through the Public Works Trust Fund.
Law and Justice
· Local Courts: Reduce court costs by allowing jurisdictions to downs~ze and/or consolidate
courts to recognize changes in local government boundaries, caseload reductions, and/or to permit
economies of scale.
· Publicly Funded Criminal Defense: Improve standm:dsmnd process for determining when
criminal defendants are entitled to free legal defense.
· Tort Costs Limitation: Set reasonable limits on tort liability related to the criminal justice
system.
· Downsizing and Multi-jurisdictional Consolidation: Permit local governments to offer early
retirement incentives for LEOFF personnel for downsizing or multi-jurisdictional consolidation.
· Third Degree Driving While License Suspended: Decriminalize Third Degree DWLS to
unclog criminal courts, warrant systems and jails of thousands of cases for this offense.
ELIMINATE STATE COST SHIFTS WITHOUT REVENUE
· Election Costs: Require the state to pay its share of even-year election costs.
· Jail Medical Costs: The state's failure to fund this expense has cost local taxpayers millions.
P, equire the state to fund the medical costs in jails.
· Tax Exemption Review: Require a periodic review of current tax exemptions to determine if'
they are still in the public interest.
· Equalize Impacts of Sentence Reductions: If the state reduces semences for crimes, reduce the
corresponding sentences that impact jails operated by local governments. Share the cost savings
between state and local governments by adjusting the one year cutoff for felony prisoners sent to
state prisons versus county jails, potentially reducing the cost of incarceration for both state and
local governments.
A~.S OOATION O~
WASHI~GTO~ CITIES
ASSOCIATION OF WASHINGTON CITIES
1076 S Franklin St SE
Olympia WA 98501
(360) 753-4137
www.awcnet.org
WASHINGTON ASSOCIATION OF COUNTY OFFICIALS
206 Tenth Av SE '
Olympia WA 98501
(360) 753-7319
www.wacounties.org
WAS HINGTON STATE ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES
206 Tenth Av SE
Olympia WA 98501
(360) 753-1886
www.wacounties.org
7