The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCOW 2004-10-25 COMPLETE AGENDA PACKET Tukwila City Council Agenda -~t Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Councilmembers: · Pam Carter · Joe Duffle Rhonda Berry, City Administrator · Dave Fenton ° Joan Hernandez ~" '~ ........ '~J Jim Haggerton, Council President · Pamela Linder · Dennis Robertson °'.° COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE Monday, October 25, 2004; 7:00 PM Tukwila City Hall; Council Chambers 1. CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. SPECIAL a. Update on legislative activities: Jamie Durkan, M.J. Durkan, Inc. PRESENTATIONS b. Community-Oriented Policing Citizens Advisory Board (COPCAB) presentation and awards c. Introduction of new employee: - Brandon Miles, Assistant Planner, Dept. of Communi~! Development 3. CITIZEN At this time, you are invited to comment on items not included on this agenda. COMMENT To comment on an item listed on this agenda, please save your comments until the issue is presented for discussion. 4. SPECIAL ISSUES a. Amendment to contract with IGrshenbaum and Goss, Inc., P.S., for public defender services. b. An ordinance amending the Tukwila Municipal Code relating to signs for public facilities. c. An ordinance establishing a process for attaching tax liens and recoverIng costs to recoup abatement costs. d. A resolution committing to initiate an annexation process in conjunction with Tukwila Valley South annexation. e. Proposed contract supplement with ECONorthwest for services related to the Tukwila Urban Center (TUC). f. I~terlocal agreement with King County Rural Library District for library services. g. Proposed amendments to "Natural Environment" chapter of the Tukwila Comprehensive Flan, and revisions to the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. ,~ Please bring notebooks entitled: "Natural Environment Chapter and Sensitive Areas Ordinance." ~ h. Review of 2005 Proposed Budget and 2005-2010 Capital Improvement Program (CIP). 5. REPORTS a. Mayor b. City Council c. Staff d. City Attorney e. Intergovernmental 6. MISCELLANEOUS 7. EXECUTIVE SESSION 8. ADJOURNMENT Tukwila City Hall is wheelchair accessible. Reasonable accommodations are available at public hearings with advance notice to the City Clerk's Office 206-433-1800/TDD 206-248-2933. This notice is available at www.ci.tukwila.wa.us and in alternate formats with advance notice for those with disabilities. Tukwila Council meetings are audio taped. COUNCIL AGENDA SYNOPSIS o �,y1 y I utuls ITEM NO. (4,144 I 1 1 M Date PrepaS by 1 Mayor's review 1 Coil �ezieu 1 1 10/25/04 dh I ,t „v N /hi/ 1 1 I I TEM INFORMATION CAS NUMBER: 04-143 I ORIGINAL AGENDA DATE: 10/25/04 AGENDA ITEM TITLE Public defender contract renewal and payment increase CATEGORY Discttssion Motion Reclusion Otdinarxe Mil Alaird Public Hearing ®Q$er MtgDate MtgDate MtgDate MtgDate MtgDate MtgDate MtgDate 10/25/04 SPONSOR Council Mayor Admsws DCD Finarxe Fire Legal P& R Polk? PW l SPONSOR'S *COURT SUMMARY Renew Kirshenbaum Goss /Public Defender Services contract for 3 years: 1 -1 -2005 to 12 -31 -2008 Increase monthly payment to $9,000.00 per mo ($500.00 per month increase) REVIEWED BY COW Mtg. GA&P Cmte F&S Cmte Transportation Cmte Utilities Cmte Arts Comm. Parks Comm. Planning Comm DATE: 10/18/ 2004 RECOMMENDATIONS: SPONSOR/ADMIN. Recommend 3 yr contract renewal and payment increase to $9000 mo CDMMITIEE send to COW for consideration COST IMPACT FUND SOURCE EXPENDITURE REQUIRED AMOUNT BUDGETED APPROPRIATION REQUIRED $108,000.00 $108,000.00 $108,000.00 Fund Source: GENERAL FUND Comments: MTG. DATE RECORD OF COUNCIL ACTION 10/25/04 MTG. DATE ATTACHMENTS 10/25/04 MEMORANDUM FROM JUDGE WALDEN DATED OCTOBER 10 -18 -04 INFORMATION MEMO To: City Council From: Judge Kimberly Waldenx' Darlene Heskett Date: October 18, 2004 Subject: Renewal of Kirshenbaum & Goss Public Defender contract to expire December 31, 2008. Increase in Public Defender fees to $9,000.00 per month ISSUE The Kirshenbaum Firm has made a request for a $500.00 per month increase in contract fees for Public Defense services with thc Municipal Court. The amended contract would run for a period of 3 years, commencing January 1, 2005 and ending December 31, 2008. BACKGROUND The request would bring payment for Public Defender payment to $9,000.00 per month or $108,000.00 per year. The average number of new Public Defender appointments per month is 68.3 or 820 per eases year. Using these figures the Municipal Court will be paying the Kirshenbanm Firm approximately $131.71 per case per month. The Kirshenbaum Firm supplies a 'tag-team' of at minimum two attorney's every Wednesday to work the indigent pre-trial calendar with the City Prosecutor. [ have contacted Ann Harper, Director of the King County Office of Public Defense and she has provided me with the following standards currently maintained by her organ/zation. Public Defense payment per case $ 357.00 Number of cases per year-per Attorney 450 $160,650.00 {Tukwila would be paying $292,740.00 under these terms) The above figures are still lower than the standards set forth by the National Standards for Public Defense Services, which are: Public Defense payment per case $ 400.00 Number of cases per year-per Attorney 400 $160,000.00 (Tukwila would be paying $328,000.00 under these terms) RECOMMENDATION Approve the request for contract renewal and increase in payment to the Kirshenbaum Firm. COUNCIL AGENDA SYNOPSIS #y'' Initialr ITEM NO. X 4' 1 Meeting Date I Prebared Mayor's review I Council review N� z I 10/25/04 I SL itAL /.44 r 4 \c), obe 1 1 1 I I I I I ITEM INFORMATION I CAS NUMBER: 04-144 IORIGINAL DATE: 10 /25/04 AGENDA ITEM TITLE MODIFICATIONS TO TMC TITLE 19 REGARDING CERTAIN TYPES OF SIGNAGE CATEGORY Discussion Motion Resolution Ordinance Bid Award Public Hearing Other Mtg Date Mtg Date Mtg Date Mtg Date Mtg Date Mtg Date Mtg Date SPONSOR Council Ma Adm Svcs DCD Finance Fire Legal P&R Police P117 I SPONSOR'S THE PROPOSED CHANGES ADDRESS SIGN ISSUES AT PUBLIC FACILITES WITHIN PUBLIC SUMMARY RECREATION OVERLAY DISTRICTS, ANIMATED SIGNS WITHIN PUBLIC RECREATION OVERLAY DISTRICTS AND MUSUEMS. REVIEWED BY COW Mtg. CA &P Cmte F &S Cmte Transportation Cmte Utilities Cmte Arts Comm. Parks Comm. Planning Comm. DATE: 9 -14 -04 9 -28 -04 RECOMMENDATIONS: SPONSOR /ADMIN. (See attached staff memo.) COMMI I1 L^ E COST IMPACT FUND SOURCE EXPENDITURE REQUIRED AMOUNT BUDGETED APPROPRIATION REQUIRED $NA $NA $NA Fund Source: NA Comments: NA NITS. DATE RECORD OF COUNCIL ACTION MTG.DATE ATTACHMENTS 10/25/04 MEMO FROM STEVE LANCASTER DIRECTOR OF DCD (10/18/04) DRAFT ORDINANCE PREPARED BY STARFIRE MINUTES FROM CAP MEETING, SEPTEMBER 14, 2004 MINUTES FROM CAP MEETING, SEPTEMBER 28, 2004 MEMO TO: COW FROM: Steve Lancaster, Director Dept. of Community Development RE: Proposed Sign Code Changes.,)~'/,~,L'x/a~'/ DATE: October 18, 2004 ~' Introduction In September I briefed the Community Affairs and Parks Committee on a sign proposal presented to the City from the soccer facility at Fort Dent Park (Starfire). Since that time, City staff has also met with the Museum of Flight and the City of Tukwila Parks Department regarding slgnage at their facilities. DCD staff has identified five issues regarding the City's sign code. Starfrre did prepare a draft ordinance when they proposed changes to the City's Sign Code. That draft ordinance is attached with this memo. In some of the subsections below you will note that a brief overview of Starfire's proposal is presented followed by Staff's recommendation. Issue 1, Scoreboards Background Under the existing code, scoreboards are considered signs and subject to the limitations placed on signs under TMC Tire 19. Existing regulations limit a public facility in a residential zone to one sign (freestanding or wall) for each frontage with a maximum sign area of 60 square feet and a maximum height of 16 feet. The existing scoreboard at Foster High School was permitted using this code requirement. This however limits any future signage at the stadium, such as a freestanding sign along S. 144m Street or a wall sign. This code provision has also proven to be very limiting to the new soccer facility at Ft. Dent Park (Staffire). The Starfire facility would actually not be permitted any type of signage since it does not front on any public street. The Starfire Facility is comprised of seven soccer fields, one of which is the large stadium field and the operators of the facility would like to have a scoreboard al each field. It should be noted that there were two existing scoreboards at the two softball fields when the City acquired the park from King County. Starfire's Proposal Modify TMC 19.08.030 regarding animated signs to note that scoreboards at athletic facilities shall not be considered animated signs. Staff's Recommendation Modify TMC 19.08 and provide the following definition: Scoreboard is a visual communication device used to display the time, score, period, quarters, innings, downs, yards to go, and any other information directly relevant to a sporting event. Modify TMC 19.08.030 to note that scoreboards shall not be considered animated signs. Modify TMC 19.12.050 as follows: 1) exempt scoreboards fro~ having to obtain a permit 2) Scoreboards must meet the illumination and brightness limitations set forth in TMC 19.12.035 3) Scoreboards will only be permitted on sports fields 4) Scoreboards must be oriented towards the sport's field and must not be legible from the public right of way or adj acem properties. Issue 2, Signs (Permanent and Temporary within Public Facilities) Back~round Many public facilities tend to have smaller signs within the facility noting sponsorship of fields, sponsorship of scoreboards, floor files recognizing sponsorship, and other types of s~gnage which would differ from other commercial businesses. The purpose of the sign code is to establish regulations to minimize clutter and distraction and orderly appearance of the City and the City streets. The City's s~gn code does not regulate signs that are installed within buildings such as Southcenter Mall because they are not visible from City streets or from adjacent properties. The proposed sponsorship signs at Starfire would also not be visible from the public right of way or from adjacent properties. The signs would be directed towards patrons that are already on the site. The Musuem of Flight has also proposed signage near some of their planes that are kept outdoors. These mgns are used for identification of the planes and to aid museum patrons that are using the facility. Like Starfire, these signs are intended for patrons that are already on the site. Starfire's Proposal Starfire's proposal only includes temporary signs and would require that such signs be pre- approved by the Director of Community Development or the Parks Director. Staff's Recommendation Under TMC 19.12.050 clarify that non-animated signs within Public Facilities in the Public Recreation Overlay District that are not oriented towards the public right-of-way or adjacent properties and are not legible from the public right of way or adjacent properties are exempt from the City's sign regulations. Signs that are placed on Park's property would require the permission from the Park's and Recreation Director, yet a permit from the Department of Community Development would not be required. Issue 3, Animated Signs at Sport Facilities The operators of the Starfire Soccer Facility have proposed using an Animated Sign on the main field at the complex. The sign would use video displays for advertising purposes before, during, and after soccer matches. The sign would be placed on the main field at the complex and would be directed towards patrons on the site. The video displays would not be intended t6 attract individuals who are off-site. TMC 19.08.030 defines an animated sign as follows, "Any sign or portion of which physically moves, appears to flash, undulate, pulse or portray explosions, fireworks, flashes light, or blinking or chasing lights, or which appear m move toward or away from the viewer, to expand or contract, bounce, rotate, spin, twist, scroll, travel or otherwise portrays movement of animation at a frequency more rapid than once every 24 hours. Signs or portions of signs displaying a changing message content that is strictly limited to time, date, or temperature shall not be construed to be ammated." Under this definition, the proposed video displays at Starfire would not be pennitted. Starfire's Proposal Animated signs would be permitted under TMC 19.32.080 subject to the following standards: · The sign must be for a public facility where patrons attend to watch and/or participate in a sporting or similar event. · Only one such sign is permitted per sports field. · Moving ~mages only may only be shown during the sporting or other similar event and one hour before and after the evem. The sign must have a minimum visibility from the public streets and residential area. · The sign is limited te 40 feet in height. · The face of the sign may be no more than 400 square feet. Staff's Recommendation Amended TMC Title 19 to permit an/mated signs that change message more frequently than once every twenty-four hours for public facilities located in a Public Recreation Overlay. Such signs would be permitted subject to a Type II decision with certain limitations such as: · The signs are only permitted at a sports stadium that has a seating capacity of 2,000 persons or greater. · Only one sign will be permitted per field. · The animated sign can only be used one hour before the scheduled event and one hour after the scheduled event. · The size of the sign will be based on an increasing scale in regards to the sign's proximity to residential uses. · The sign must comply with the illumination and brightness level set forth in TMC 19.12.035. · The animated sign must face away from adjacent properties, pubic right of ways, public trails, and water bodies. The animated sign must .have minimal visibility from adjacent properties, public right of way, and public trails. · The sign must meet the setback requirement of TMI7 19.32.070, which is a foot of setback from all property lines for every foot in height. · The sign shall meet the height standards of TMC 19.32.140 (D) (3). This would permit the height of the sign to be no greater than 35 feet, but in no case shall the animated sign be taller than the stadium where it is being used. Issue 4, Signs located at Public Facilities in Public Recreation Overlay Districts Foster Golf Course is currently zoned LDR with a Public Recreation Overlay. Under TMC 19.32, the total number of signs for a public facility within a residential district is based upon the number of street frontages that border the facility. Foster Golf Course is only bordered by Interurban Avenue and is permitted to have only one sign. However, surrounding commercial business on Interurban Avenue are permitted to have a total of two signs. Staff's Recommendation Permit public facilities within Public Recreation zones to have two signs. The size of wall signs shall be limited to the area restrictions in Table 1 in TMC 19.32.140 and the size of the freestanding size shall be limited to the table in TMC 19.32.140 (D) (c). Issue 5, Museums It can prove very difficult for a City to incorporate all sign needs under one set of standards. The City has distinguished that Planned Shopping Centers and Service Stations have sign needs that differ from that of other commercial businesses. The Department of Community Development has been approached by the Museum of Flight regarding installation of signage that would not be permitted under the City's sign regulations. The proposed signs would be typical of what would be found at other large museums such as the Seattle Art Museum and the Tacoma Glass Museum. The need for identification at the Museum of Flight is important as nearly 70 percent of patrons of the site are first time users. Staff's Recommendation Provide a definition of museum under TMC 19.08. Amend TMC 19.24 to allow museums to have two temporary event banners that do not exceed six percent of the wall area where the sign will be placed or 500 square feet which ever is less. The event banners would not have to meet the time limitations set forth in TMC 19.24.010, Conclusion The next step would be to direct staff to take the proposed sign code changes to the Planning Commission for their review and recommendation. The Planning Commission would also need to hold a Public Hearing in regards to the proposed changes. A[N ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TUKWlLA, WASHINGTON, RELATIaNG TO LA[ND USE AND THE CITY SIGN CODE; AMENDING TI-W. TUKWlLA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO SIGNS FOR PUBLIC FACILITIES, INCLUDING PUBLIC SPORTS FIELDS AND ATHLETIC FACILITIES; AIVIENDING ORDIuNANCE NOS. 1770, A[ND 2019, AND TUKWILA MUNICIPAL CODE SECTIONS 19.08.030, 19.28.010, A[ND 19.32.080; ADDING A NEW SECTION 19.24.070 TMC; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND, ESTABLISHING'A[N EFFECTIVE DATE. ., WltEREAS, The City of Tukwila has adopted the Tukwila Sign Code as Title 19 Tukwila Municipal Code ("TMC"); AND WHEREAS, The Sign Code establishes standards and guidelines to provide for orderly and safe visual cbmmunications; )aND WHEREAS, Public facilities are typically sited on large parcels, providing opportunities to install signs that are directed toward the users of the facility with minimum visibility fi.om public streets and residential areas; AND WI-IEREAS, Public facilities such as Tukwila Community Center, Foster High School, and sports and athletic facilities, may be unreasonably constrained if sign regulations that allow one sign per street frontage are applied since such public facilities need more signs for the orderly function of the site; A[ND WHEREAS, Existing public facilities such as Foster High School, the Tukwila Community Center, Foster Golf Links. Fort Dent Park (Starfire Sports), and other public facilities as described in TMC 19.08.175, should be provided further opportunities for informational and community-oriented signage, sponsorships to offset the costs of such facilities and banners for celebrations and other events; AND WHEREAS, On ,2004 the Tukwila Planning Commission, following public notice, held a public hearing to receive ~estnnony concerning a proposal to modify the Tukwila Sign Code relating to public facilities; AND WlZlEREA,,S, Following the hearing the Planning Commission recommended Sign Code amendments to prtvide for additional signs for sports fields and athletic facilities; AND WHEREAS, On ,2004 the Tukwila City Council, following public notice, held a public hearing to receive testimony concermng the recommlndation of the Planning Commission; AND -1- WHEREAS, The City determines that amendments to the Sign Code are in the best interest of the community, NOW, TIt~EREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TLrKWlLA, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. TMC 19.32.080, as most recently amended by Ordinance 1770 § 74, is amended to read as follows: 19.32.080 Home Occupation--Church, Approved Conditional Use and Public Facility Signs A. Home occupations may be identified by a single, non-illuminated wall plaque of not more than 1-1/2 square feet. B. Churche~ and approved conditional uses may have one sign for each street upon which the property fronts; signs shall be located in the setback area or upon the face of the building. Total area of sign or signs shall not exceed 32 square 'feet; maximum height above ground, when in setback area, shall not exceed five feet, and base of sign shall be located in a landscaped areal Bulletin boards and readerboards are considered signs. Illuminated signs shall use indirect, concealed sources, or backlighted letters on an opaque background. All signs in this subsection must be approved as a Type 2 decision. C. Public facility signs are nennitted under this subsection as a Tyne 2 decision. 1, Temnorarv si~'ns at oublic facilities to include, but not be limited to. flar, s. banners, oole han~ers and similar decorations may be oermitted at nublic facilities. Temnorarv simms do not reauire a Tyne 2 decision, but must be ore-anoroved by the Director of the Tukwila Parks Denartrnent or the Director of the Tukwila Planning Deoartment. . 2. Off-oremises advertising, including but not limited to soonsorshiv and commercial advertising, is vermitted at.vubtic facilities as Tyne 2 oermits. Such examnles of snonsorshins and advertisin~ include: (a)Golf course hole svonsorshiv on benches and directional simas: (b'~ Signs on high school stadiums, ball fields and similar scoreboards: and. (c) Sic-ns on baseball diamond outfield walls and similar field-bordering fencing. 3. Public facilities may include information kiosks or booths, and such kiosks or booths may include off-oremises advertising. -2- 4,' Animated signs, where comntiance with the followine nrovisions is shown. The below criteria constitute the decision makine criteria for this tyne of sign notwithstandine other nrovisions in the code which may ~mnose different _standards: a. The siena must be for a oublic facility where patrons attend to watch and/or Darticioate in a soortine or other similar event. b. Only one such sign is vermitted oer sports field. ¢. Movin~ imaees may only be shown durin~ the svortine, or other similar event and one hour before and after the event. d. The sign must have minimum visibility from nublic streets and 'dential ea e. The sign is limited to 40 feet in hei_oht. f. The face of the sign may be no more than 400 souare feet. Section 2. TMC 19.08.030, as most recently amended by Ordinance 2019 § l, is amended, as follows: 19.08.030 Animated Sign "Anirnatedsign" means any sign or portion of which physically moves, appears to flash, undulate, pulse, or portray explosions, fireworks, flashes of light, or blinking or chasing lights, or which appears to move toward or away from the viewer, to expand or contract, bounce, rotate, spin, twist, scroll, travel or otherwise portrays movement or animation at a frequency more rapid than once ever 24 hours. Signs or portions of signs displaying a changing message content that is strictly limited to time, date or temperature shall not be construed to be animated. ~ for ~ublic snorts and athletic facilities shall not be considered animated signs..However. televised or recorded imaees on a sign or scoreboard at snorts fields and athletic facilities are considered animated signs, which must meet the reauirements of 19.32.080(C'} to be r~ermitted: Section 3. TMC 19.28.010, as most recently amended by Ordinance 2019 § 6, is amended as follows: The following signs or devices are specifically prohibited: (3) Animated signs as defined in TMC 19.08.03~ unless anvroved for a public facilit,t aqcordine to the reauirements in 19.32.080(C] (6) Permanent off-premises signs, except shared directional signs as provided in TMC 19.32.020, 'l~illboards as provided in TMC 19.32.040, freestanding signs for City of Tukwila or Tukwila School District buildings, facilities, parks or properties, public libraries, freestanding signs for cemeteries, public parks, historic sites, and planned shopping centers (mall) signs as provided in TMC 19.32.150h and exceot as permitted in TMC 19.32.080(C). Any signs permitted under this section must meet all underlying height, setback or- area -3- requirements, except for those signs specifically provided for in other sections of this code, and must obtain a permit ftom the Department of Community Development. (7) Strings of pennants, banners or streamers, festoons of lights, clusters of flags, wind-animated objects, balloons, and similar devices of a carnival nature except as specifically provided in TMC chapters 19.12, and 19.24~ ~. Not prohibited are national, State, and institutional flags properly displayed or temporary signs and decorations customary for'special holidays, such as Independence Day, Christmas, Takwila Days, and similar events of a public nature. Section 4. A new section is added to Chapter 19.24 TMC, as follows: 19.24.070 This chanter does not anvlv to temvorarv siens authorized under TMC 19.32.080(C]. Section 5. Severability. If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance or its application to any person or situation should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional for any reason by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this ordinance or its application to any other person or situation. Section 6. Effective Date. This ordinance or a summary thereof shall be published in the official newspaper of the City, and shall take effect and be in full force and effect five (5) days after passage and publication as provided by law. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, at a Regular Meeting thereof this day of ,2004. Steven M. Mullet, Mayor ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: Jane E. Cantu, CH,C, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: By Office of the City Attorney FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO.: -5- Community and Parks Committee September 14, 2004 Present: Pam Linder, Chair; 3oe Duffie~ Dave Fenton Steve Lancaster, Lucy Lauterbach Siqn Code Amendments Starfire has asked the City for changes to the sign code affecting athletic facilities in Iow-density residential neighborhoods. Steve indicated he had briefed the Committee about a year ago on a "master sign plan" program for addressing Starfire's issues, but Starfire asked that we hold off on that approach. They have recently proposed a new approach to signage, as described in the agenda packet. Pam L said she was concerne~ about some ongoing issues relating to the Starfire facility, and would like to see those resolved before considering any code changes. Joe and Dave agreed with her, Steve will work with the City Attorney and Mayor's office to determine how to proceed. No recommendations on Siqn Code Chanqe; reschedule in the future. J~C'h~--Committee chair approval Community and Parks Committee September 28, 2004 Present: Para Linder, Chair; Joe Duffle, Dave Fenton Steve Lancaster, Bruce Fletcher, Rhonda Berry, Cyndy Knighton, Lucy Lauterbach; Stacy Tressler, Ross Fenton, Chris Slatt, Steve Beck 1. Starfire Sports Complex Update The Committee toured the Starfire site, taking in the nearly-completed sports complex and center building of the sports venture. They were able to see the fields and where the scoreboard signs are. Chris also showed the walls surrounding the stadium he would like to put advertising on. The Committee members appreciated the tour, and expressed their admiration for the fields, the work being done ..by Starfire, and the building. Back at City Hall, the Committee members and Chris had a free-ranging discussion ranging from the master sign process, to sewers and hotel rooms. Steve L noted the staff's recommended master sign plan that was presented a year ago has now devolved to possibly needing fewer changes to the sign code and not a special sign code for the park. There are several places inside the Starfire park where signs would only be seen by those in the park. However, some of the changes that would allow those signs could have negative results if used on school sports fields in residential areas. Making signs a Type 2 level decision could leave the final decision up to the Planning Director. Both sides were glad to have talked face to face, and agreed they understood each other's positions much better as aresult. Information. 2. Ikawa Park Impacts Ross and Stacy presented the current proposals for improving [-405. The original proposal was to put two new lanes in each direction, and extend Tukwila Parkway to Interurban where it would have an entry to 1-405. The State passed a 5 cent (nickel) package for transportation, including studying 1-405. Planners then scaled back their plans to adding one lane in each direction. Beyond that there is no construction money. Another project being considered for funding include SR 167, which is also considered in 1-405 plans. Any construction is likely to be years away. The Committee agreed with the recommendation to move the additions to the north rather than south side ofi-405. Mitigation for impacting Ikawa Park could involve widening the park, or using the whole south lawn for the park. Construction will be years away, but two members preferred the third option of using the whole lawn for the project. That will be decided when the plans become more realistic. Approval to move 1-405 north~ information. 3. Sound Transit Lease Offer Sound Transit's offer to lease the flat land of Riverbend Hill Park has been approved by all the groups who helped fund and plan the park. Bruce had some considerations he wanted to propose based on all those comments. Pam L added a consideration of the possible third year lease needed if the project takes longer than expected. The monthly fee for the third year is $9,742/month when it is at $11,000/month during the term of the two years. �Jdp11LA. COUNCIL AGENDA SYNOPSIS o AeP 4 Initials ITEM NO. r te Meeting Date 1 Prepared by I Mayor's mien; 1 Council review 1 w t 10/25/05 I S. Kers1akel AAA- 1 f• ivt f/ 1 1908: 1 1 1 1 1 L A C. 1 I I I I ITEM INFORMATION CAS NUMBER: 04-145 I ORIGINAL AGENDA DATE: October 25, 2004 AGENDA ITEM TITLE Ordinance Amending Chapter 8.45 Enforcement of the TMC to Implement Provisions of RCW 35.80. (Code Enforcement Tax Lien Ordinance) CATEGORY Discussion Motion Resolution Ordinance Bid Award Public Heating Other Mtg Date Mtg Date Mtg Date Mtg Date 10/25/04 Mtg Date Mtg Date Mtg Date SPONSOR Council Mayor Adm Svcs DCD Finance Fire Legal PevR Police PW SPONSOR'S The Proposed Ordinance establishes a process for attaching tax liens and recovering its SUMMARY costs to recoup abatement costs in a more timely manner. It was reviewed by the Community and Parks Committee on October 12, 2004. The Committee recommended that it be sent to COW for approval. REVIEWED BY COW Mtg. CA &P Cmte F &S Cmte Transportation Cmte Utilities Cmte Arts Comm. Parks Comm. Planning Comm. DATE: 10/12/04 RECOMMENDATIONS: SPONSOR /ADMIN. Adoption of Ordinance amending Chapter 8.45 of the TMC COMMIITEE tQST IMPACT /.FUND SOURCE EXPENDITURE REQUIRED AMOUNT BUDGETED APPROPRIATION REQUIRED -0- 0 $-0- Fund Source: Comments: .,latatrafE „rI „_s W ,ti..., RE'CO'RD,OF COUNCIL- ACTION 10/25/04 MT$ DATE 4 ar s ATTACHMENTS 10/25/04 MEMORANDUM FROM SHELLEY KERSLAKE DATED OCTOBER 18, 2004 MEMORANDUM FROM JACK PACE DATED OCTOBER 7, 2004 DRAFT PROPOSED ORDINANCE WITH ATTACHMENTS MINUTES COMMUNITY AFFAIRS AND PARKS COMMITTEE OCTOBER 12, 2004 ('aqe 2) INFORMATION MEMO To: Committee of the ..W_.~ole From: Shelley Kerslake ~× Date: October 18, 2004 /~' '~ Subject: Code Enforcement Lien Ordinance Project No. ISSUE The Department of Community Development requests an amendment to Chapter 8.45 of the TMC and adoption of RCW 35.80 allowing the City to recoups.abatements costs by filing tax liens. BACKGROUND The Tukwila City Council adopted the Intemational Property Maintenance Code in July, 2004. The new code replaced most of TMC Chapter 8.28 "Nuisances" and Chapter 16.06 "buildings and Construction: Housing Code of the TMC. In the past, the City could only recoup its abatement costs by filing a lien against the subject property. Costs would then be recovered when the property sold, which could take 20 years or longer. If adopted, the City would be able to file a tax lien under RCW 35.80 and recoup clean- up costs in a timely manner. DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS/ALTERNATIVES The City can continue its present policy of filing property liens and recouping costs at the time the property is sold or refinanced~f procedure which can take as long as 20 years to complete. By adopting the proposed ordinance the City would be able to recoup its costs in as little as three years by filing a tax lien instead. RECOMMENDATION Adoption of the Code Enforcement Tax Lien Ordinance. Attachments: Proposed Ordinance Minutes from October 12, 2004 Community and Parks Committee INFORMATION MEMO To: Mayor Mullet Jack Pace, Deputy Director, Dept. of Community Development X~{ Frojn: Code Enforcement Division (\' Date: October 7, 2004 Subject: Code Enforcement Tax Lien Ordinance ISSUE ~. Review the Code Enforcement Tax Lien Ordinance which provides the legal mechanism to allow the City to file tax liens for the purpose of recouping abatement costs. BACKGROUND In July of 2004, the Tukwila City Council adopted the International Property Maintenance Code. This code addresses existing structures and was designed to work hand-in-hand with the International Building Code. Adoption of the new International Property Maintenance Code (I.P.M.C.) replaced most of TMC Chapter 8.28 "Nuisances", and Chapter 16.06, "Buildings and Construction", Housing Code of the TMC In the case of a particularly grievous violation, whereby responsible parties are unwilling or unable to abate the violations themselves, the City may take the necessary steps to resolve the issues. This could include: boarding up/demolishing structures deemed to be unsafe; eliminating trash and debris that are of a magnitude so as to constitute a health hazard to surrounding properties and the public; removing abandoned, junk vehicles that are considered a nuisance. Currently, when the City steps in to resolve violations, a lien is attached to the property. The City can only recoup its costs when the property is sold, which could take 20 years or longer. If such a violation involves dilapidated or'dangerous ~Iructures that are unfit for human habitation or use, the State of Washington has provided the City with another enforcement mechamsm. RCW Chapter 35.8C, Unfit Dwellings, Buildings and Structures, allows the City to order property owners to abate such structures, and if the owner does not comply with the City's order, the City may conduct the abatement. Currently, when the City steps in to resolve violations, a lien is attached to the property. Where RCW Chapter 35 ~80 differs from the other enforcement mechanisms currently available to the City, is that the City's costs in abating a dangerous structure under Chapter 35.80 can be filed as a tax assessment against the property (see attached RCW 35.80). Under this assessment, often referred to as a tax li~n, the City's abatement costs are treated as delinquent taxes, with interest and penalties accruing from the date of filing the assessment. This allows the City to recoup its clean-up costs in as little as 3 years. The adoption of the Code Enforcement Lien Ordinance (see attached Draft Ordinance), establishes the mechanisms for the City to act under RCW Chapter 35.80, including the designation of a City Improvement Officer (Code Enforcement Officer) and an Appeals Commission (The City Hearing Examiner). This will also provid6 a final opportunity for "violators" to present their case, before the City takes further action. ALTERNATIVES The City can continue to utilize the current process of recouping abatement costs when property is refinanced or sold, or adopt the proposed Ordinance, establishing a process for attaching tax liens and recovering its costs in a more timely manner. RECOMMENDATION Recommend forwarding of this Ordinance to the Committee of the Whole for further review. CITY OF TUKWILA oT o AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, AMENDING CHAPTER 8.45, ENFORCEMENT, OF THE TUKWILA MUNICIPAL CODE TO IMPLEMENT THE PROVISIONS OF RCW CHAPTER 35.80 WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted various codes relating to dangerous and substandard buildings and structures, including the 2003 Edition of the International Property Maintenance Code; and WHEREAS, Chapter 8.45 of the Tukwila Municipal Code sets forth the enforcement mechanisms available to the City to protect the public from such buildings and structures; and WHEREAS, RCW Chapter 35.80 authorizes the City. to adopt an additional enforcement mechanism under which the City may order the repair or demolition of buildings and structures that are unfit for human habitation and use; and WHEREAS, if the responsible parties do not comply with the City's order, RCW Chapter 35.80 also authorizes the City to undertake the demolition or repair of buildings and structures and to place the cost of the remediation on the tax roles as assessment against the property; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the costs of repairing or demolishing an unfit building or structure should be borne by the owner of that building or structure, rather than the general public, NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. TMC 8.45 Amended. Chapter 8.45, Enforcement, of the Tukwila Municipal Code is hereby amended by the addition of the following sections: 8.45.110. Additional Enforcement Mechanism. In addition to, and in combination with, the enforcemem methods set forth in this. Chapter and elsewhere in the Tukwila Municipal Code, violations of the Tukwila Municipal Code 'may be enforced under the following provi§ions. 8.45.120. RCW Chapter 35.80 Adopted. RCW Chapter 35.80, Unfit Dwellings, Buildings, and Structures, as it currently exists or is hereinafter amended, is hereby adopted. C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\Code Enforcement-Buildings and Stmcturcs. DOC/DCDIlO/07104 . 8.45.130. Improvement Officer and Appeals Commission Designated. The Code Enforcement Officer, and the Code Enforcement Officer's designee, is designated as the City's "Improvement Officer" and shall have the full scope of authority granted to that official under RCW Chapter 35.80. The City of Tukwila Hearing Examiner is designated as the City's "Appeals Commission" and shall have the full scope of authority granted to that commission under RCW Chapter 35.80. 8.45.140. Improvement Officer Authority - Issuance of Complaint. If, after a preliminary investigation of any dwelling, building, structure, or premises, the Improvement Officer finds that it is unfit for human habitation or other use, the Improvement Officer may issue a complaint conforming to the provisions of RCW 35.80.030, stating in what respects such dwelling, building, structure, or premises is unfit for human habitation or other use. In determining whether a dwelling, building, structure, or premises should be repaired or demolished, the Improvement Officer shall be guided by the Tukwila Municipal Code and such other codes adopted pursuant to the Tukwila Municilfal Code as the Improvement Officer deems applicable, in particular the most recent edition of the International Propei'ty Maintenance Code. 8.45.150. 'Service of Complaint. A complaint issued under this Chapter shall be served on the parties and posted on the subject property pursuant to RCW 35.80.030 and shall also be filed with the King County Auditor. All complaints or other documents posted on the subject property shall remain in place until the complaint has been resolved. For purposes of service, such complaints or other documents are deemed effective on the day of posting. 8.45.160. Complaint Hearing. Not less than ten days no~ more than thirty days after-serving a complaint, the Improvement Officer shall hold a heating conforming to the provisions of RCW 35.80.030 at which all parties in interest shall be given the right to appear in person, to bring witnesses, and to give testimony regarding the complaint. At any time prior to or at the time of the hearing, any party may file an answer to the complaint· The Improvement Officer shall adopt procedural rules governing the procedure of such hearing, which shall be available for public inspection at the Tukwila Department of Community Development. 8.45.170. Determination, Findings of Fact, and Order. Within ten days of the complaint hearing, the Improvement Officer shall issue a Determination, Findings of Fact, and Order stating the Improvement Officer's determination as to whether the subject dwelling, building, str?ture, or premises is unfit for human habitation or other use, the findings of fact supporting the determination, and an order specifying the actions necessary to address any unfitness and a deadline for completing the actions. The Determination, Findings of Fact, and Order shall be served and posted as set forth in TMC 8.45.150, and if no appeal is filed within the deadline specified in TMC 8.45.180, a copy of the Determination, Findings of Fact, and Order shall be filed with the King County Auditor. · -2- C:\WEqDOW$\TEMP\Code Enforcement-Buildings and Stmctures.DOCIDCD[lO/07/04 . 8.45.180. Appeal to Appeals Commission. Within thirty days of service of a Determination, Findings of Fact, and Order, any party may file an appeal to the Appeals Commission. Such an appeal shall be governed by the City of Tukwila Hearing Examiner's procedural roles, except that the Appeals Commission shall conduct a hearing on the appeal and issue it ruling within sixty days from the date the appeal is filed, and if the Appeals Commission issues any oral findings of fact, the ruling shall contain a transcript of such findings in addition to any findings issued at the time of the ruling. The ruling shall be served and posted as set forth in TMC 8.45.150, and if no appeal is filed within the deadline specified in TMC 8.45.190, a copy of the ruling shall be filed with the King County Auditor. 8.45.190. Appeal to Superior Court. Any person affected by a Determination, Findings of Fact, and Order issued by the Improvement Officer, who has brought an appeal before the Appeals Commission pursuant to TMC 8.45.180 may, within thirty days after the Appeals Commission's ruling l~as been served and posted pursuant to TMC 8.45.150, petition the King County Superior Court for an injunction restraining the Improvement Officer from carrying out the provisions of the Determination, Findings of Fact, and Order. In all such proceedings the Court is authorized to affirm, reverse, or modify the order and such trial shall be heard de novo. 8.45.200. Remediation/Penalties. If a party, following exhaustion of the party's rights to appeal, fails to comply with the Determination, Findings of Fact, and Order, the officer may direct or cause the subject dwelling, building, structure, or premises to be repaired, altered, improved, vacated, and closed, removed, or demolished pursuant to RCW Chapter 35.80. 8.45.210. Tax Lien. The cost of any action taken by the Improvement Officer under TMC 8.45.200 shall be assessed against the subject property pursuant to RCW Chapter 35.80. Upon certification by the City of Tukwila Finance Director that the assessment amount is due and owing, the King County Treasurer shall enter the amount of such assessment upon the tax rolls against the subject property pursuant to the prowsions of RCW 35.80.030. 8.45.220. Salvage. Materials from any dwelling, building, structure, or premises removed or demolished by the Improvement Officer shall, if possible, be salvage and sold as if the materials were surplus property of the City of Tukwila, and the funds received from the sale shall be credited against the cost of the removal or demolition and if there be any balance remaining, it shall be paid to the parties entitled -thereto, as determined by the Improvement Officer, after deducting the costs incident thereto. Section_ 2. 8evembility. Should any section, paragraph, sentence, clause or pttrase of this Ordinance, or its application to any person or circumstance, be declared unconstitutional or otherwise invalid for any reason, or should any portion of this Ordinance be pre-empted by state or -3- C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\Cod¢ Enforcement-Buildings and Structures.DOCIDCD/lOl07104 . f~deral law or regulation, such decision or pre-emption shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance or its application to other persons or circumstances. Section 3. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be published in the official newspaper of the City, and shall take effect and be in full force five (5) days after the date of publication. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL AT A REGULAR MEETING THEREOF ON THE DAY OF ,2004. CITY OF TUKWILA Mayor Steven M. Mullel ATtEST/AUTHENTICATED: Jane Canto, City Clerk Approved astoform: Shelley M. Kerslake, City Attorney Filed with the City Clerk: Passed by the City Council: Date of Publication: Effective Date: -4- C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\Code Enforcement-Buildings and Stmcmres,DOC/DCDIlOl07104 , ' Page 1 of 1 RCW 35.80.010 Declaration of purpose. It is hereby found that there exist, in the various municipalities and counties of the state, dwellings which are unfit for human habitation, and buildings, structures, and premises or portions thereof which are unfit for other uses due to dilapidation, disrepmr, structural defects, defects increasing the hazards of fire. accidents, or other calamities, inadequate ventilation and uncleanliness, inadequate light or sanitary facilities, inadequate drainage, overcrowding, or due to other conditions which are inimical to the health and welfare of the residents of such municipalities and counties. It is further found and declared that the powers conferred by this chapter are for public uses and purposes for which public money may be expended, and that the necessity of the public interest for the enactment of this law is hereby declared to ~e a matter of local legislative determination. [1989 c 133 § 1; 1969 ex.s. c 127 § 1; 1967 c 111 § 1; 1965 c 7 § 35.80.010. Prior: 1959 c 82 § 14 http://www.~eg.wa.g~v/RCW/index.~fm?fusea~~~n=Secti~n&Secti~n=35.8~.~~~&printv... 10/06/2004 · Page 1 of 1 RCW 35.80.020 Definitions. The following terms, however used or referred to in this chapter, shall have the following meanings, unless a different meaning is clearly indicated by the context: (I) "Board" shall mean the improvement board as provided for in RCW 35.80.030(1) (a); (2) "Local governing body" shall mean the council, board, commission, or other legislative body charged with governing the municipality or county; (3) "Municipality" shall mean any city, town or county in the state; (4) "Public officer" shall mean any officer who is in charge of ~my department or branch of the government of the municipality or county relating to health, fire, building regulation, or other activities concerning dwellings, buildings, structures, or premises in the municipality or county. [1989 ¢ 133 § 2; 1969 ex.s. c 127 § 2; 1967 c Ill § 2; 1965 c 7 § 35.80.020. Prior: 1959 c 82 § 2.] http://www.~eg.wa.g~v/RCW/index.cfm?fuseacti~n=Secti~n&Secti~n=35.8~.~2~&printv... 10/06/2004 · Page 1 of 4 RCW 35.80.030 Permissible ordinances -- Appeal. (1) Whenever the local governing body of a municipality finds that one or more conditions of the character described in RCW 35.80.010 exist within its territorial limits, said governing body may adopt ordinances relating to such dwellings, buildings, structures, or premises. Such ordinances may provide for the following: (a) That an "improvement board" or officer be designated or appointed to exercise the powers assigned to such board or officer by the ordinance as specified herein. Said board or officer may be an existing mtmic~pal board or officer in the municipality, or may be a separate board or officer appointed solely for the purpose of exercising the powers assigned by said ordinance. If a board is created, the ordinance shall specify the terms, me,hod of appointment, and type of membership of said board., which may be limited, if the local governing body chooses, to public officers as herein defined. (b) Ifa board is created, a public officer, other than a member of the improvement board, may be designated to work with the board and carry out the duties and exercise the powers assigned to said public officer by the ordinance. (c) That if, after a preliminary investigation of any dwelling, building, structure, or premises, the board or officer finds that it is unfit for human habitation or other use, he shall cause to be served either personally or by certified mail, with return receipt requested, upon all persons having any interest therein, as shown upon the records of the auditor's office of the county in which such properVj is located, and shall post in a conspicuous place on such property, a complaint stating in what respects such dwelling, building, structure, or premises is unfit for human habitation or other use. If the whereabouts of any of such persons is unknown and the same cannot be ascertained by the board or officer in the exercise of reasonable diligence, and the board or officer makes an affidavit to that effect, then the serving of such complaint or order upon such persons may be made either by personal service or by mailing a copy of the complaint and order by certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, to each such person at the address of the building involved in the proceedings, and mailing a copy of the complaint and order by first class mail to any address of each such person in the records of the county assessor or the county auditor for the county where the property is located. Such complaint shall contain a notice that a hearing will be held before the board or officer, at a place therein fixed, not less than ten days nor more than thirty days after the serving of said complaint; and that all parties in interest shall be given the right to file an answer to the complaint, to appear in person, or otherwise, and to give testimony at the time and place in the complaint. The rules of evidence prevailing in courts of law or equity shall not be euntrolling in hearings before the board or officer. A copy of such complaint shall also be filed with the auditor of the county in which the dwelling, building, structure, or premise [premises] is located, and such filing of the complaint or order shall have the same force and effect as other lis per, dens notices provided by law. (d) That the board or officer may determine that a dwelling, building, structure, or premises is unfit for human habitation or other use if it finds that conditions exist in such dwelling, building, structure, or premises which are dangerous or injurious to the health or safety of the occupants of such dwelling, building, structure, or premises, the occupants of http://www.leg.walgov/Rcw/index.cfm?fuseaction=Section&S ection=35.80.030&printv... 10/06/2004 ' Page 2 of 4 neighboring dwellings, or other residents of such mumc~pality. Such conditions may include the following, without limitations: Defects therein increasing the hazards of fire or accident; inadequate ventilation, light, or sanitary facilities, dilapidation, disrepair, structural defects, uncleanliness, overcrowding, or inadequate drainage. The ordinance shall state reasonable and minimum standards covering such conditions, including those contained in ordinances adopted in accordance with subdivision (7)(a) herein, to guide the board or the public officer and the agents and employees of either, in determining the fitness of a dwelling for human habitation, or building, structure, or premises for other use. (e) That the determination of whether a dwelling, building, structure, or premises should be repaired or demolished, shall be based on specific stated standards on (i) the degree of structural deterioration of the dwelling, building, structure, or premises, or (ii) the relationship that the estimated cost of repair bears to the value of.the dwelling, building, structure, or premises, with the method of determining this value to be specified in the ordinance. " (f~ That if, after the required hearing, the board or officer determines that the dwelling is unfit for human habitation, or building or structure or premises is unfit for other use, it shall state in writing its findings of fact in support of such determination, and shall issue and cause to be served upon the owner or party in interest thereof, as is provided in subdivision (1)(c), and shall post in a conspicuous place on said property, an order which (i) requires the owner or party in interest, within the time specified in the order, to repair, alter, or improve such dwelling, building, structure, or premises to render it fit for human habitation, or for other use, or to vacate and close the dwelling, building, structure, or premises, if such course of action is deemed proper on the basis of the standards set forth as required in subdivision (1)(e); or (ii) requires the owner or party in interest, within the time specified in the order, to remove or demolish such dwelling, building, structure, or premises, if this course of action is deemed proper on the basis of said standards. If no appeal is filed, a copy of such order shall be filed with the auditor of the county in which the dwelling, building, structure, or premises is located. (g) The owner or any party in interest, within thirty days from the date of service upon the owner and posting of an order issued by the board under the provisions of subdivision (c) of this subsection, may file an appeal with the appeals commission. The local governing body of the municipality shall designate or establish a municipal agency to serve as the appeals commission. The local governing body shall also establish rules of procedure adequate m assure a prompt and thorough review of mattem submitted to the appeals commission, and such rules of procedure shall include the following, without being limited thereto: (i) All matters submitted to the appeals commission must be resolved by the commission within sixty days from the date of filing therewith and (ii) a transcript of the findings of fact of the appeals commission shall be made available to the owner or other party in interest upon demand. The findings and orders of the appeals commission shall be reported in the same manner and shall bear the same legal consequences as if issued by the board, and shall be subject to review only in the manher and to the extent provided in subdivision (2) of this section. If the owner or party in interest, following exhaustion of his rights to appeal, fails to comply with the final order to repair, alter, improve, vacate, close, remove, or demolish the http:~/www.~eg.wa.g~v/RCW/index.cfm?fuseacti~n=Secti~n&Secti~n=35.8~.~3~&printv... 10/06/2004 Page 3 of 4 dwelling, building, structure, or premises, the board or officer may direct or cause such dwelling, building, structure, or premises to be repaired, altered, improved, vacated, and closed, removed, or demolished. (h) That the amount of the cost of such repairs, alterations or improvements; or vacating and closing; or removal or demolition by the board or officer, shall be assessed against the real property upon which such cost was incurred unless such amount is previously paid. Upon certification to him by the treasurer of the municipality in cases arising out of the city or town or by the county improvement board or officer, in cases arising out of the county, of the assessment amount being due and owing, the county treasurer shall enter the amount of such assessment upon the tax rolls against the property for the current year and the same shall become a part of the general taxes for that year to be collected at the same time and with interest at such rates and in such manner as provided for in RCW 84.56.020, as now or hereafter amended, for delinquent taxes, and when collected to be deposited to the credit of the general fund of the municipality. If the dwelling, building, structure, or premises is removed or demolished by the board or officer, the board or officer shall, if possible, sell the materials of such dwelling, building, structure, [or] premises in accordance with procedures set forth in said ordinance, and shall credit the proceeds of such sale against the cost of the removal or demolition and if there be any balance remaining, it shall be paid to the parties entitled thereto, as determined by the board or officer, after deducting the costs incident thereto. The assessment shall constitute a lien against the property which shall be of equal rank with state, county and municipal taxes. (2) Any person affected by an order issued by the appeals commission pursuant to subdivision (1)(f) hereof may, within thirty days after the posting and service of the order, petition to the superior court for an injunction restraining the public officer or members of the board from carrying out the provisions of the order. In all such proceedings the court is authorized to affirm, reverse, or modify the order and such trial shall be heard de novo. (3) An ordinance adopted by the local goveming body of the municipality may authorize the board or officer to exercise such powers as may be necessary or convenient to carry out and effectuate the purposes and provisions of this section. These powers shall include the following in addition to others herein granted: (a)(i) To determine which dwellings within the municipality are unfit for human habitation; (ii) to determine which buildings, structures, or premises are unfit for other use; (b) to administer oaths and affirmations, examine witnesses and receive evidence; and (c) to investigate the dwelling and other property conditions in the municipality or county and to enter upon premises for the purpose of making examinations when the board or officer has reasonable ground for believing they are unfit for human habitation, or for other use: PROVIDED, That such entries shall be made in such manner as to cause the least possible inconvenience to the persons in possession, and to obtain an order for this purpose after submitting evidence in support of an application which is adequate to justify such an order from a court of competent jurisdiction in the event entry is denied or resisted. (4) The local governing body of any municipality adopting an ordinance pursuant to this chapter may appropriate the necessary funds to administer such ordinance. (5) Nothing in this section shall be construed to abrogate or impair the powers of the courts or of any department of any municipality to enforce any provisions of its charter or http://www.leg.wa.gov/RCW/index.cfm?fuseaction=Section&Section=35.80.030&printv... 10/06/2004 ' Page 4 of 4 its ordinances or regulations, nor to prevent or punish violations thereof; and the powers conferred by this section shall be in addition and supplemental to the powers conferred by any other law. (6) Nothing in this section shall be construed to impair or limit in any way the power of the municipality to define and declare nuisances and to cause their removal or abatement, by summary proceedings or otherwise. (7) Any municipality may (by ordinance adopted by its governing body) (a) prescribe minimum standards for the use and occupancy of dwellings throughout the municipality, or county, (b) prescribe minimum standards for the use or occupancy of any building, structure, or premises used for any other purpose, (c) prevent the use or occupancy of any dwelling, building, structure, or premises, which is injurious to the public health, safety, morals, or welfare, and (d) prescribe punishment for the violation of any provision of such ordinance. ~' [1989 c 133 § 3; 1984 c 213 § 1; 1973 1st ex.s. c 144 § 1; 1969 ex.s. c 127 § 3; 1967 c 111 § 3; 1965 c 7 § 35.80.030. Prior: 1959 c 82 § 3.] http://www.leg.wa.gov/RCW/index.cfm?fuseaction=Section&Section=35.80.03 0&printv... 10/06/2004 - , 'Page 1 of 1 RCW 35.80.040 Discrimination prohibited. For all the purposes of this chapter and the ordinances adopted as provided herein, no person shall, because of race, creed, color, or national origin, be subjecSed to any discrimination. [1965 c 7 § 35.80.040. Prior: 1959 c 82 § 4.] NOTES: Discrimination -- Human rights commission: Chapter 49.60 RCW. http://www.leg.wa.gov/RCW/index.efm?fuseaction=Section&Section=35.80.040&printv... 10/06/2004 Community and Parks Committee October 12, 2004 Page 2 Code En£oreement Tax Lien Ordinance. Jack Pace introduced Stephen King of KenyordDisend. Stephen is DCD's primary legal resource for code enforcement. Stephen explained that under the City's current code enforcement regulations we have the ability to undertake certain kinds of nuisance abatement work if the property owner refuses. Ftuther, the City is able to recoup its costs by attaching a lien against the property. The lien must be satisfied (the City must be paid) at the time the property is sold. Obviously, it can take many years for the City to recoverdts costs. State law provides a more effective mechanism for cost recovery whe. n the violation involves dilapidated or dangerous structures not fit for human habitation. Under KCW Chapter 35.80 the City may order owners to abate such structures a~d if the owner doesn't comply, the City may conduct the abatement itself· The City can then file a tax assessment, under which the city's abatement costs are treated as delinquent taxes, which allows the city to recover its'costs in as little as three years. The ordinance included in the agenda packet would authorize use of this new tool for nuisance abatement. Forward to COW with recommendation to aoprove. lnterloeal A~reement -I~ing Coun~ Rural Library. District,. Para Linder indicated she would prefer that the proposed interlocal agreement be forwm:ded to the next Committee of the Whole Committee, rather than d~rectly t a regular City Council meeting. The other Committee members agreed. Forward to COW. Tukwila South Annexation.. Steve Lancaster explained that King County ~s reluctant to support annexation of the Segale (La Pianta) property separately from the rest of Tukwila's south potential annexation area (PAA). They would prefer we annex the entire PAA at once. Staff and the property owner are reluctant to attempt a single annexation, since it will likely lengthen and complicate the annexation process· Staffhas reached a tentative agreement with the County Executive under which he will support the Segale annexation, if Tuio~rila commits to initiate annexation of the remainder of the PAA mediately after. The attached draft resolution would provide this commitment. Forward to COW with recommendation to approve,. ~,~ommittee chair approval A JFMIIA kg s COUNCIL AGENDA SYNOPSIS O i \-z% Initial ITEM No. t �1�, 0I 4l it7eetit y Date Pupated by 1 Mayor's MIS 1 COI/Mil review 1 iai iA �I WNt. 10/25/04 I sl I ha it L:i,.^ti ff. 4 rsoa I I I I I I I I I I ITEM INFORMATION CAS NUMBER: 04-146 1 ORIGINAL AGENDA DATE: 10/25/04 AGENDA ITEMTITLE Tukwila South Annexation Resolution CATEGORY Discussion Motion Resolution Ordinance Bid Award Public Hearing Other Mtg Date Mtg Date Mig Date Mtg Date Mtg Date Mtg Date Mtg Date I SPONSOR Council Mayor Adm Svcs DCD Finance Fire Legal P&R Police PW/ SPONSOR'S King County has indicated it will support annexation of the Segale property if the City SUMMARY commits to annexing the entire south potential annexation. REVIEWED BY COW Mtg. CA &P Cmte F &S Cmte Transportation Cmte Utilities Cmte Arts Comm. Parks Comm. Planning Comm. DATE: 10/12/04 RECOMMENDATIONS: SPONSOR /ADMIN. Adopt resolution CoMbIITTEE. resolution COST IMPACT FUND SOURCE EXPENDITURE REQUIRED. AMOUNT BUDGETED APPROPRIATION REQUIRED so $0 $0 Fund Source: N/A Comments: MTG. DATE I RECORD OF COUNCIL ACTION 10/25/04 1 MTG. DATE ATTACHMENTS 10/25/04 Memo from Steve Lancaster datedOctober 20, 2004 Draft resolution Map showing annexation area and remainder Minutes, CAP meeting 10/12/04 INFORMATION MEMO To: Committee of the Whole From: Steve Lancaster''.-~:~ Date: October 20, 2004 Subject: Tukwila South Annexation ISSUE Should the City Council adopt a resolution committing to the phased annexation of Tukwila's south Potential Annexation Area? BACKGROUND City staff continues to work with representatives of the Segale family regarding the annexation and future development of approximately 250 acres within the City's south Potential Annexation Area (PAA). This annexation would leave approximately 60 acres of the south PAA in unincorporated King County (map attached). King County would prefer that Tukwila annex the entire PAA at once, and could oppose a "partial" annexation (as it has done elsewhere). King County opposition would significantly delay or could stop the Segale annexation. King County Executive Ron Sims has indicated he will support the Segale annexation ifTukwila commits to initiating annexation of the remainder of our PAA immediately following completion of the Segale annexation. The attached draft resolution would provide such a commitment. ALTERNATIVES 1. Adopt the proposed resolution. This would satisfy Executive Sims' concerns and commit Tukwila to initiating annexation of the entire PAA in phases. 2. Adopt a modified resolution. We would want to discuss any proposed changes to determine opposition by the Executive. 3. Attempt to annex the entire PAA at one time. This would likely add complexity and delay to the process. 4. Move forward on Segale annexation without committing to a future phase. This may result in King County opposing the annexation and requesting review by the Boundary Review Board. 5. Abandon or defer plans for annexation. CAP REVIEW The Community Affairs and Parks Committee reviewed this issue at its October 12 meeting and recommends approval. RECOMMENDATION Adopt the proposed resolution (Option #1). A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUICWILA, WASHINGTON, COMMITTING TO INITIATE AN ANNEXATION PROCESS FOR A CERTAIN UNINCORPORATED ISLAND OF TERRITORY AFTER SUCH ISLAND BECOMES CONTIGUOUS TO THE CITY. WHEREAS, the City has received a notice of intention to commence annexation proceedings related to the territory known as the La Pianta annexation area the boundaries of which are described in Exhibit A, which is attached hereto and incorporated as if set forth in full; and WHEREAS, the City Council has authorized the circulation of an annexation petition for the La Pianta annexation area; and tits: j1" WHEREAS, the La Pianta annexation area lies within the Tukwila South Potential Annexation Area identified by the Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Plan; and WHEREAS, the La Pianta annexation will reduce but not eliminate King County's obligation to provide municipal services to an area that is difficult for the County to serve due to its size and isolation from other County service areas; and WHEREAS, the King County Countywide Planning Policies recognize cities as the appropriate provider of local urban services to urban areas; and WHEREAS, King County has indicated it will support the La Pianta annexation if the City commits to timely annex the remainder of its Tukwila South Potential Annexation Area the boundaries of said remainder being described in Exhibit B, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein as if set forth in full; and WHEREAS, the City of Tukwila is willing to annex the area described in Exhibit B, but would like to delay action on this annexation until after a final resolution his been reached with respect to the La Pianta annexation area NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Sect 1. Within three weeks after the area described in Exhibit A becomes contiguous to the City of Tukwila, the City Council will adopt a resolution commencing negotiations pursuant to RCW SSA. 14.460 for an interlocal agreement between the City and King County to accomplish the annexation of the area described in Exhibit B to the City, and directing staff to complete said negotiations on an expedited basis. Within six weeks of approval of said negotiated interlocal agreement by the City and Icing County, the City will adopt an ordinance providing for the annexation of the area described in Exhibit B, which ordinance shall provide for an effective date of annexation not later than sixty (60) days after adoption of the ordinance. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, at a Regular Meeting thereof this day of 2004. ATTEST /AUTHENTICATED: Jim Ha Council President Jane E. Cantu, CMC, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM BY Filed with the City Clerk: Passed by the City Council: Office of the City Attorney Resolution Number: Annexation commihnent 10/22/04 Segale Annexation Vicinity Map Community and Parks Committee October 12, 2004 Page 2 Code Enforcement Tax Lien Ordinance. Jack Pace introduced Stephen King of Kenyon/Disend. Stephen is DCD's primary legal resource for code enforcement. Stephen explained that under the City's current code enforcement regulations we have the ability to undertake certain kinds of nuisance abatement work if the property owner refuses. Further, the City is able to recoup its costs by attaching a lien against the property. The lien must be satisfied (the City must be paid) at the time the property is sold. Obviously, it can take many years for the City to recove~,'its costs. State law provides a more effective mechanism for cost recoveIy wh.e.n the violation involves dilapidated or dangerous structures not fit for human habitation. Under RCW Chapter 35.80 the City may order owners to abate such structures ai~d if the owner doesn't comply, the City may conduct the abatement itself. The City can then file a tax assessment, under which the city's abatement costs are treated as delinquent taxes, which allows the city to recover its costs in as little as three years. The ordinance included in the agenda packet would authorize use of this new tool for mdsance abatement. Forward to COW with recommendation to approve.. Interlocal Agreement - King County Rural Library. District.. Pam Linder indicated she would prefer that the proposed interlocal agreement be forwarded to the next Committee of the Whole Committee, rather than directly to a regular City Council meeting. The other Committee members agreed. Forward to COW. · . Tukwila South Annexation.. Steve Lancaster explained that King County is reluctant to su crt annexation of the Segale (La Pianta) property separately from the rest of PP · · uld refer we annex the entire Tukwila's south potenttal annexatton area (PAA). They wo p . ~ PAA at once. Staff and the property owner are reluctant to attempt a single annexation, since it will likely lengthen and complicate the annexation process. Staff has reached a tentative agreement with the County Executive under which he will support the Segale annexation, if Tukwila commits to initiate annexation of the remainder of the PAA immediately after. The attached draft resolution would provide this commitment. Forward to COW with recommendation to approve. COUNCIL AGENDA SYNOPSIS tc Initials ITEM No. 411/41401x, fi I DleetiuR /mac Date I P[eDated 1 Mayor's Mayor's review 1 C�ui! avian I i 61 ,'Gf 1 �t r% Q' I 10.25.04 I Sll/r I 1' 13/s /1 1 sa rsos_ I 1 1 I I I 1 1 ITEM INFORMATION 1 CAS NUMBER: 04-147 I ORIGINAL AGENDA DATE: October 25, 2004 AGENDA ITEM TITLE Proposed contract supplement with ECONorthwest for services related to the TUC plan CATEGORY X Discussion Motion Resolution Ordinance Bid Award Public Hearing Other Mtg Date 10.25.04 Mtg Date Aft Date Mtg Date Mtg Date Mtg Date Mtg Date SPONSOR Council Mayor Adm Svcs X DCD Finance Fire Legal P&R Police PW SPONSOR'S This contract supplements ECOs previous work on the TUC Plan, providing more detailed analysis on: 1) at SUMMARY a policy level, potential financial strategy packages; and 2) the extent to which City investments could pay for themselves. ECO will also summarize previous reports for the Final TUC plan. The $26,000 contract will be 100% funded by the City's federal grant for TUC /TOD planning. REVIEWED BY COW Mtg. X CA &P Cmte F &S Cmte Transportation Cmte Utilities Cmte Arts Comm. Parks Comm. Planning Comm. DAlh: 10.12.04 RECOMMENDATIONS: SPONSOR /ADMIN. Recommend approval of contract supplement. COMMITTEE Forward to Committee of the Whole for discussion. COST IMPACT FUND SOURCE EXPENDITURE REQUIRED AMOUNT BUDGETED APPROPRIATION REQUIRED $26,000 $26,000 Fund Source: Federal grant for preparing the TUC/TOD plan. Comments: MTG. DATE RECORD OF COUNCIL ACTION MTG. DATE ATTACHMENTS 10.25.04 Staff memo to COW RE: Proposed contract supplement with ECONorthwest Proposed ECONorthwest Contract Supplement Staff Memo to CAP RE: Proposed contract supplement with ECONorthwest Copy of minutes of CAP meeting, October 12, 2004 City of Tukwila Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Depari.~ent of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director MEMORANDUM TO: Committee of the Wholer~L~'- FROM: Steve Lancaster, DCD Directo RE: Proposed Supplemental Contract with ECONorthwest f~r services related to the Tukwila Urban Center (TUC) Plan DATE: October 20, 2004 RE: TUC ECONorthwest contract supplement#2 Background As part of our staff/consultant TUC planning team, ECONorthwest (ECO) has provided technical assistance with economic and fiscal issues related to the planning of the Tukwila Urban Center (TUC) and the transit-oriented development (TOD). ECO's original contract amount for $59,928.26 was approved in February 2003. A $20,000 contract supplement was approved in March 2004 for additional economic analysis related to the "catalyst" project. However, the project has continued to evolve and additional economic analysis is needed. Discussion The Tukwila community has selected a preferred land use scenario for the Tukwila Urban Center (TUC) plan. This plan has been presented to the Tukwila City Council and Planning Commission. Like any major investment, detailed economic analysis is warranted to ensure that these specific capital investments can be paid for. At the last joint Council/Planning Commission worksession, ECO identified the initial TUC catalyst projects and their rough costs, as well as the types of funding soumes typically available to a jurisdiction. The remaining work to be done builds upon this information and explores how these projects could be paid for. In Task 1, ECO will prepare preliminary financial strategy packages at a p(~licy level for consideration. In Task 2, ECO will simulate the extent to which the City's investment in the catalyst project "pays for itself". ECO will attend one worksession with the Council to present their findings on Tasks 1 and 2. In Task 3, ECO will summarize their economic and financial factors reports prepared over the last two years into an appendix to the final TUC plan. These tasks are anticipated to be completed during the winter 2004/05. This $26,000 contract supplement will be funded by the existing TUC/TOD grant. Washington 98188 Phone: 206-431-3670 * COMMUNITY AFFAIRS AND PARKS COMMITTEE ACTION Reviewed ECO's proposed scope of work and sent it to the COW for consideration. REQUESTED ACTION Forward to the full Council for their consent agenda at the November 1, 2004 meeting. p:\LYNNM\TUC\Contmcts\Market analysis\administrative\supplement 7.04\COW10.25.04memo. DOC Page 2 ~ Washington State Department of Transportation Organization and Address Supplemental Agreement ECONo.hwest 99 W. 10th JAgreement Suite 400 Number Eugene, OR 97401 LA 5377 Project Number Phone TCSP-TCSP (010) 541.687.0051 Project Title New Maximum Amount Payable Tukwila Transit Oriented Development atLongacres $ 105,938.26 Description of Work Prepare plans, market and fiscal analyses, and resource allocation studies. The Local Agency of City of Tukwila, Washington desires to supplement the agreement entered into with ECONorthwest and executed on 3.18.2003 and identified as Agreement No. LA 5377 All pmwsions in the basic agreement remain in effect except as expressly modified by this supplement. The changes to the agreement are described as follows: I Section 1, SCOPE OF WORK, is hereby changed to read: See.~ittached Exhibit B-1 II Section IV, TIME FOR BEGINNING AND COMPLETION, is amended to change the number of calendar days for completion of the work to read: En(;~:JaJ. e_has~z~n changed from D~e~_3.]~ZQOAJn III Section V, PAYMENT, shall be amended as follows: T~_JRclude hQur3, and expenses as3e, tXotth, in the attached.D_- 1. IV ~ctiorLXZI, SL[RCO~TRA_CTING: shall he amended.tQ_indudeJlzose items_ofworkaad_expenses_as ~et forth ln_Jhe~Rache~G~C~L- and G-~2 and by this reference made a part of this supplement. If you concur with this supplement and agree to the changes as stated above, please sign in the appropriate spaces below and return to this office for final action. By: ............. ECOBIo~hwest ................... By: ............ City .of Tuk~v/la Consultant Signature Approving Authority Signature DOT Form 140-063 EF Revised 10/97 EXHIBIT B-1 ECONorthwest Contract Supplement Proiect Status The community has selected a preferred land use scenario for the Tukwila Urban Center (TUC) plan. This plan, including the initial catalyst projects and associated costs, has been presented to the Tukwila City Council and Planning .~ommission. Concerns of the Council regarding plan implementation include the costs and benefits of the recommended investments, and the financial strategy needed to pay for them. ECONorthwest has been doing the technical work for the TUC plan related to economics and financing. ECO's contracted obligations and budget were completed in May 2004 with its presemation to the City Council. This contract supplement allows ECO to continue the financial work, adding more detail to the financial alternatives and strategies. Supplemental Tasks for ECONorthwest Task 1. Preliminary Evaluation of a Financial Strategy to Implement the TUC Plan Prepare a preliminary funding strategy to finance those transportation and land use/amenity improvements identified as necessary for implementing the TUC plan. Memo should address: · Recommended list of projects/improvements needed to implement the TUC plan and their approximate costs and timing. · Potential sources of funding. · At a policy level for Council consideration, a financing strategy consisting of a package of funding sources the City could choose (considering tools such as bonds, likely grant sources, LIDs, and impact fees). ECO will need the assistance of the City's finance director or staff, at a minimum, as follows: (1) to answer questions by phone as ECO prepares the strategy, and (2) to comment in writing on the draft of the strategy. ECO will attend one City Council work session to discuss the preliminary funding strategy. Product: Memorandum Meetings: One City Council/Planning Commission work session Schedule: Winter 2004/05 Budget: $15,000 ECO will bill for this task as follows: · $4,000 upon approval of the City of an outline of the memorandum · $7,000 upon delivery of a draft of the memorandum · $2,000 upon delivery of a final memorandum $2,000 after attendance and presentation at a joint Council / Planning Commission work session. Task 2: Simulation of Returns to the City One reason (not the only one) for the City to invest in the TUC and in what is referred to as the "catalyst" project is so the TUC will grow, more than it would otherwise, and potentially m a more diversified way, in order to generate additional revenue for the City. In particular, any additional development that the City investment generates should generate property tax and, for retail development, sales tax. ECO has done earlier simulations as part of this project, and has made it clear that such simulations are exactly that: simulations, not predictions. No one can predict with any confidence how the TUC retail sales will be different over a 20-year period with and without the investment. Thus, ECO and City staff agreed to the following simulation: 1. Estimate what the City will be investing. 2. Estimate how much the City would need to get repaid on that investment. Say the City's marginal (extra; new) investment in the catalyst project is $10 million in 2004 dollars. Assume that the City has patient capital: it does not want a big rate of return on its investment, but it would like to recover that money over a 20-year period at a low (possibly zero) rate of return. Say that works out to a need for an extra $600,000 per year. 3. Estimate, crudely, the amount of property tax or sales tax revenue that goes to servicing a new development, tn other words, we are looking for some estimate of net cash. The professional literature and our prior work suggest that the residential component of new development is not going to generate net cash. That does not mean the City should not support residential development in the TUC: such development supports GMA and regional requirements, the City's goal of creating a sense of place in the TUC, and ultimately, may create revenue to the City via property and sales taxes paid by business that now operate better because of the combined retail/residential base. So ECO would be making some rough estimate of net revenue contributions by type of business development. 4. Make assumptions about the amount of new business development (divided by retail and office) that would occur because of the investment. 5. Using the results of 3 and 4, estimate the present value of the new net revenue generated. 6. Using the results of 2 and 5 describe the extent to which the investment "pays for itselF' (given the assumptions in the simulation). Attend one work session with City Council/Planning Commission members to discuss outcomes. Discuss other fiscal issues or concerns raised by the Council. Product: Memorandum Meetings: One presentation (occurring at the same Council/Planning Commission Workshop in Task 1) Schedule: Winter 2004/05 Budget: $6,000 Task 3: Preparation of Economic Materials for the Final TUC Plan This project comprises two years of technical work and almost 10 memoranda or reports on some aspect of the economic or financial factors related to the TUC. The final plan adopted for the TUC will have an appendix summarizing all this work. ECO will work with City staff on developing an outline for the appendix, prepare the draft of that appendix, and revise it based on a single, consolidated set of City comments in writing. The City will be responsible for final formatting in a manner consistent with the plan document. Also, ECO will review and edit a section on Market Conditions in the Existing Conditions portion of the draft TUC Plan, to be written by Freedman Tung & Bottomley. Product: Appendix to final TUC Plan Meetings: None Schedule: Winter 2004/05 Budget: $5,000 Exhibit D-1 Consultant Fee Determination - Summary Sheet (Lump Sum, Cost Plus Fixed Fee, Cost Per Unit of Work) Project: Transit Oriented Development at Longacres/Tukwila Urban Center Plan Direct Salary Cost (DSC): Classification Man Hours Rate -- = Cost Project Manager 68.0 X .43.50 $ 2,958.00 Research Analyst 38.0 X " 18.50 703.00 Tech Assistant 22.0 X 13.00 286.00 Clerical Support 17.0 X 13.16 223.72 X X X X X Total DSC = $ 4,170.72 Overhead (OH Cost -- including Salary Additives): OH Rate x DSC of 2.1095 % x $ 4,170.72 8,798.13 Fixed Fee (FF): FF Rate x DSC of .3109 % x $ 4,170.72 1,296.68 Reimbursables: Itemized 1,734.47 Subconsultant Costs (See Exhibit G): 10,000.00 Grand Total 26,000.00 Prepared By: Roberta Smythe Date: October 13, 2004 EXHIBIT G Scope of Work for Berk and Associates as subcontractor to ECONorthwest Berk and Associates will be assisting ECONorthwest with all aspects of ECO's scope of work. In particular, Brett Sheckler will be doing most of the work for Berk and Associates. ECO will have primary responsibility for all project management, quality control, and presentations. Berk will assist with all aspects, of the technical analysis described below. Overview The community has selected a preferred land use scenario for the Tukwila Urban Center (TUC) plan. This plan, including the initial catalyst projects and associated costs, has been presented to the Tmkwila City Council and Planning Commission. Concems of the Council regarding plan implementation include the costs and benefits of the recommended investments, and the financial strategy needed to pay for them. Those concerns are the focus of this scope of work. Tasks for ECONorthwest Task 1. Preliminary Evaluation of a Financial Strategy to Implement the TUC Plan Scope for Berk and Associates ECO will work with the City staff to refine the scope of work and products. ECO will outline the memorandum, and make initial data requests to the City. Sheclder will conduct or assist with various aspects of the technical analysis and contribute to the memorandum. Berk will bill for Sheckler's service based on time and expenses. The expected level of effort is $5,000. Task 2: Simulation of Returns to the City Scope for Berk and Associates ECO will have primary responsibility for the review and formatting of the final product, and the presentation. Sheckler will have primary responsibility for a draft of the analysis. ECO and Berk will collaborate on defining the analytical strategy and refining it during the development of the memorandum. The expected level of effort is ~;4,000. Task 3: Preparation of Economic Materials for the Final TUC Plan Scope for Berk and Associates This is primarily a task for ECO. Scheckler ~vill review and comment on ECO's draft. The expected level of effort is $1,000. The total budget for Berk and Associates is $10,000. Exhibit G-1 Subconsultant Fee Determination - Summary Sheet PrOject: Transit Oriented Development at Longacres/Tukwila Urban Center Plan [Berk Associates) Direct Salary Cost (DSC): Classification Man Hours Rate = Cost Economist [Berk Assoc.) 100.0 X 32.10 $ 3,210.00 X X X X X X X X Total DSC = $ 3,210.00 Overhead (OH Cost -- including Salary Additives): OH Rate x DSC of 1.8267 % x $ 3,210.00 = 5,863.71 Fixed Fee (FF): FF Rate x DSC of .2825 % x $ 3,210.00 = 906.83 Reimbursables: Itemized = 19.47 Grand Total = 10,000.00 Prepared By: Roberta Smyth Date: October ]9, 2004 Exhibit G-2 Breakdown of Subconsultants Overhead Cost Account Title $ Beginning Total % of Direct Labor Direct Labor : 241,276.00 ] 00.00% Overhead Expenses: : FiCA ~ 18,458.00 7.65% Unemployment I 6,438.00 . 2.67% I Health/Accident Insurance i 33,603.00 13.93% I Medical Aid & Industrial Insurance HolidayNacation/Sick Leave 2,988.00 ! 1.24% Commission/Bonus/Pension 103,354.00 i 42.84% Total Fringe Benefits 164~841.00 i 68.32% General Overhead: State B&O Taxes 19,875.001 8.24% Insurance 1,867.00 0.77% Administration & Time Not Assignable 155,393.00 64.40% Printing, Stationery & Supplies 6,493.00 2.69% Professional Services 2,277.00 0.94% Travel Not Assignable 3,230.00 1.34% Telephone & Telegraph Not Assignable 9,162.00 3.80% Fees, Dues & Professional Meetings _ _~,394.00 , 0.99%_ I Utilities & Maintenance t 2,134.00 .i ....... 0.88% Professional Development L .... 2,_9 _9_6.._0__0_ .l~ ....... 1.24% Rent i __37,58_6.O0 t _ _ _ 14.75% Equipment Suppod ( .... _28,_763 00 _ 11.92% Office, Miscellaneous & Postage 5,716.00 2.37% Total General Overhead 275,886._00 .. 114.34o~/~o. Total Overhead (General + Fringe) 440,727.00 182.67% Overhead Rate (Total Overhead / Direct Labor) 182.67% City of Tukwila Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Department of CommunitY Development Steve Lancaster, Director MEMORANDUM TO: Community Affairs and Parks Committee FROM: Steve Lancaster, DCD Director ' ",~/~t~- RE: Proposed Contract with ECO Northwest DATE: October 6, 2004 RE: TUC ECONorthwest contract amendment742 Background As part of our staff/consultant TUC planning team, ECONorthwest (ECO) has provided technical assistance with economic and fiscal issues related to the planning of the Tukwila Urban Center (TUC) and the transit-oriented development (TOD). ECO's original contract amount for $59,928.26 was approved in February 2003. A $20,000 contract supplement was approved in March 2004 for additional economic analysis related to the "catalyst" project. However, the project has continued to evolve and additional economic analysis is needed. Discussion The Tukwila community has selected a preferred land use scenario for the Tukwila Urban Center (TUC) plan. This plan has been presented to the Tukwila City Council and Planning Commission. Like any major investment, detailed economic analysis is warranted to ensure that these specific capital investments can be paid for. At the last joint Council/Planning Commission worksession, ECO identified the initial TUC catalyst projects and their rough costs, as well as the types funding sources typically available to a jurisdiction. The remaming work to be done builds upon this intbrmation and determines how these projects could be paid for. In Task 1, ECO will prepare preliminary financial strategy packages at a policy level for consideration. In Task 2, ECO will simulate the extent to which the Cit~ 's investment in the catalyst project "pays for itself". ECO will attend one worksession with the Council to present their findings on Tasks I and 2. In Task 3, ECO will summarize their economic and financial factors reports prepared over the last two years into an appendix to the final TUC plan. This $26,000 contract sopplement will be funded by the existing TUC/TOD grant. Recommendation Review the draft contract and forward to the Committee of the Whole ~br consideration. EXHIBIT B-1 ECONorthwest Contract Supplement Proiect Status The community has selected a preferred land use scenario for the Tukwila Urban Center (TUC) plan. This plan, including the initial catalyst projects and associated costs, has been presented to the Tukwila City Council and Planning .Commission. Concerns of the Council regarding plan implementation include the costs and benefits of the recommended investments, and the financial strategy needed to pay for them. ECONorthwest has been doing the technical work for the TUC plan related to economics and financing. ECO's contracted obligations and budget were completed in May 2004 with its presentation to the City Council. This contract supplement allows ECO to continue the financial work, adding more detail to the financial alternatives and strategies. Supplemental Tasks for ECONorthwest Task 1. Preliminary Evaluation of a Financial Strategy to Implement the TUC Plan Prepare a preliminary funding strategy to finance those transportation and land use/amenity improvements identified as necessary for implementing the TUC plan, Memo should address: · Recommended list of projects/improvements needed to implement the TUC plan and their approximate costs and timing. · Potential sources of funding. · At a policy level for Council consideration, a financing strategy consisting of a package of funding sources the City could choose (considering tools such as bonds, likely grant sources, LIDs, and impact fees). ECO will need the assistance of the City's finance director or staff, at a minimum, as follows Il) to answer questions by phone as ECO prepares the strategy, and (2) to comment in writing on the draft of the strategy. ECO will attend one City Council work session to discuss preliminary funding strategy. Product: Memorandum Meetings: One City Council/Planning Commission work session Schedule: Fall/winter 2004, prior to the Council/Planning Commission ~vork session on the draft TUC plan. Buciget:$15,000 ECO will bill for this task as follows: · $4,000 upon approval of the City of an outline of the memorandum · $7,000 upon delivery ora draft of the memorandum · $2,000 upon delivery of a final memorandum · $2,000 after attendance and presentation at a joint Council / Planning Commission work session. Task2: Simulation of Returns to the City One reason (not the only one) for the City to invest in the TUC and in what is referred to as the "catalyst" project is so the TUC will grow, more than it would otherwise, and potentially in a more diversified way, in order to generate ~dditional revenue for the City. In particular, any additional development that the City investment generates should generate property tax and, for retail development, sales tax. ECOhas done earlier simulations as part of this project, and has made it clear that such simulations are exactly that: simulations, not predictions. No one can predict with any confidence how the TUC retail sales will be differem over a 20-year period with and without the investment. Thus, ECO and City staffagreed to the following simulation: 1. Estimate what the City will be investing. 2. Estimate how much the City would need to get repaid on that investment. Say the City's marginal (extra; new) investmem in the catalytic project is $10 million in 2004 dollars. Assume that the City haspatient capital: it does not want a big rate of return on its investment, but it would like to recover that money over a 20-year period at a low (possibly zero} rate of return. Say that works out to a need for an extra $600,000 per year. 3. Estimate, crudely, the amount of property tax or sales tax revenue that goes to servicing a new development. In other words, we are looking for some estimate of net cash. The professional literature and our prior work suggest that the residential component of new development is not going to generate net cash. That does not mean the City should not support residential development in the TUC: such development supports GMA and regional reqmrements, the City's goal of creating a sense of place in the TUC, and ultimately, may create revenue to the City via property and sales taxes paid by bus~ness that now operate better because of the combined retail/residential base. So ECO would be making some rough estimate of net revenue contributions by type of business development. 4. Make assumptions about the amount of new business development (divided by retail and office} that would occur because of the investmem. 5. Using the results of 3 and 4, estimate the present value of the new net revenue generated. 6. Using the results of 2 and 5 describe the extent to which the investment "pays for itself' (given the assumptions in the simulation). Attend one ~vork session with City Council/Planning Commission members to discuss outcomes. Discuss other fiscal issues or concerns raised by the Council. Product: Memorandum Meetings: One presentation (occurring at the same Council/Planning Commission Workshop in Task 1) Schedule: Fall 2004 Budget: $6,000 Task 3: Preparation of Economic Materials for the Final TUC Plan This project comprises two years of technical work and almost 10 memoranda or reports on some aspect of the economic or financial factors related to the TUC. The final plan adopted for the TUC will have an appendix summarizing all this work. ECO will work with City staff on developing an outline for the appendix, prepare the draft of that appendix, and revise it based on a single, consolidated set of City comments in writing. The City will be responsible for final formatting in a manner consistent with the plan document. Also, ECO will review and edit a section on Market Conditions in the Existing Conditions portion of the draft TUC Plan, to be written by Freedman Tung & Bottomley. Product: Appendix to final TUC Plan Meetings: None Schedule: Fall 2004 Budget: $5,000 Community and Parks Committee October 12, 2004 Present: Pam Linder, Chair; Joe Duffle, Dave Fenton. Stephen King, Steve Lancaster, Maggie Lubov, Lyrm Miranda, Jack Pace, Joyce Trantina, Lisa Verner. Sue Carlson (Segale Properties), Martin Dicker (King County). Southwest King Count. Economic Development InitiatiVe (SWKCEDD Presentation.. Jack Pace provided some background on ,Tukwila's participation in the SWKCEDI, and introduced Martin Dicker. Martin is a Senior Economic Development Specialist with King. Martin Dicker. Martin is a Senior Economic Development Specialist with King County. He described the goals of the Economic Development Initiative as increasing employment opportunities and household incomes throughout southwest King County. He recognized Pam Linder's contributions to the organization as a member of the Steer/ng Committee, and Jack Pace's contributions as a member of the Executive Committee. Martin described two significant programs of the Economic Development Initiative: the small Business Assistance Center located at highline Community College; and the Export Promotion Program. He also described how the relatively modest but critical financial support provided by Tukwila and other cities has been successful in leveraging significant financial support form other sources. Forwarded to November 1~ 2004 Citw Council meeting as a Special Presentation. Approval of Metro Implementation Contract for Commute Trip Reduction Program. Maggie Lubov distributed information relating to the City's Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) program and briefed the Committee concerning program status and funding. She described services to be provided by King County Metro under the proposed implementation contract. Tukwila has contracted for these services with Metro since 1995, and this has been a very beneficial relationship. Forward to COW with recommendation to approve.. TUC/ECONorthwest contract amendment #2. Lynn Miranda described the next of ECONorthwest's work the Tukwila Urban Center Plan identification phase on as: 1) of potential infraslructure funding strategies; 2) preparation of an "economic simulation" to provide information on the ability ofg!'oposed City investments to "pay for themselves" over time; and 3) preparation of a sunhuary of previous economic and financial factors reports, to be included in the proposed TUC plan. The proposed amendment increases ECONorthwest's contract by $26,000. Forward to COW with recommendation, to, approve.' ~ . . x"'~'~'~C~ Eode Enforcement Tax Lien Ordinance. Jack Pace introduced Stephen King of Kenyon/Disend. Stephen is DCD's primary legal resource for code enforcement. Stephen explained that under the City's current code enforcement regulations we have the abd~ty to undertake certain kinds of nmsance abatement wi~.k if the property owner ~'. CO UNCILAGENDA SYNOPSIS .................................. I, itials ................................. ITEM NO. Meetbt~g Date P~pared .bp, Ma)ors remew CoHcil mvifm 10/25/04 IL .~ ITEM INFORMATION CAS NUMBER: 04-148 IORiG~N,~AGENDADATE: 10/25/04 AGENDA ITEM TITLE Interlocal Agreement for Library Services CATEGORY [] Discussion [] ~'lotion [] Resolution [] Ordinance [] Bid A~vard [] Public Heating [] Other Mtg Date 10./~$/04 Mtg Date Mtg Date Mtg Date Mtg Date Mtg Date Mtg Date 10/25/04 SPONSOR [] Councff [] Mayor [] Adm Svcs [] Dcm [] Finance [] Fire [] Legal [] p~.vR [] Police [] SPONSOR'S King County Library District staff are interested in a new interlocal before they start SUMM~RY putting in improvements into the Tukwila Library on the North Hill. Approval of the interlocal will show the District the City is interested in working with the District. I>~.EVIEWED BY [] COW Mtg. [] CA&P Cmte [] F&S Cmte [] Transportation Crate [] Utilities Crate [] Arts Comm. [] Parks Comm. [] Planning Comm. DATE: October :t2t 2004 RECOMMENDATIONS: SPONSOR/ADMIN. Discuss the interlocal agreement; recommend it for approval COMMITTEE Community and Parks sent it to the COW. COST IMPACT / FUND SOURCE EXPENDITU1LE B.EQUIP, ED AMOUNT BUDGETED APPROPRIATION REQUIRED $ $ $ Fund Source: Comments: MTG. DATE RECORD OF COUNCIL ACTION 10/25/04 MTG. DATE ATTACHMENTS 10125/04 Memo from L, Lauterbach dated October 20, 2004 Draft Interlocal Agreement To: City Council From: Lucy Lauterbach Date: October 20, 2004 Subject: King County Library Interlocal Agreement When the Mayor and Dennis Robertson were to the Library Board to ask if they would increase the adult content of the Tukwila Library and add some hours, the Board said they would consider it. They sent a draft interlocal agreement for library services that includes several improvements the City had asked for, including more adult and young adult hooks and resources; more space for adult library users, and more hours. These things are included in the Agreement. An important provision in the Agreement is a reckoning, two years after the Agreement is signed, of the services at the Library. That reckoning will be done by the Library District, and will not include the City as an intermediary as they've been under the 1991 Agreement. It is this Agreement the Library District was interested in the City supporting before they undertook the improvements asked for by the City. The Community and Parks Committee wanted the whole Council's understanding of the Agreement, so it is being presented at the Committee of the Whole. INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF TUKWILA AND THE KING COUNTY RURAL LIBRARY DISTRICT THIS INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT REGARDING THE PROVISION OF CERTAIN LIBRARY SERVICES (this "Agreement") is dated 'as of , 2004 (the "Effective Date"), as authorized by RCW 39.34, by and between the CITY OF TUKWILA, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington (the "City"), and the KING COUNTY RURAL LIBRARY DISTRICT, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington (the "DISTRICT"). VCITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the City and the District desire to memorialize the provision of certain library services atthe Tukwila Library for a period of two (2) years from the Effective Date; and WHEREAS, this Agreement shall supersede and replace any previous agreements and/or arrangements between the District and the C~ty concerning the prov~smn of lib ary services at the Tukwila Library. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants hereinafter cqntained, the .." parties agree as follows: ' ARTICLE I DISTRICT RESPONSIBILITIES The District will provide library services within the Tukwila Library as deemed appropriate with due zegard to available resources, the City's needs and the capacity of the facilities provided by the City. In specific, the District will provide the following services in such manner as it deems reasonable, in its sole discretion: (a) Hold the Tukwila Library open to the public for a minimum of thirty (30) hours per week; {b) Expand adult and young adult-oriented print and media materials including adult fiction, non-fiction, periodicals, audio books, DVDs, CDs, and videos; (c) Offer additional technology opportunities through the District's "KCLS Tech Litb"; (d) Provide additional shelving and furniture; (e) Make available to senior citizens located in the vicinity of the Tukwila Library a "Founder's Club," which will provide personalized reading profiles and materials through the Traveling Library Center; DRAFT (f) Identify a member of the District's Board of Trustees who will attend two (2) Tukwila Library Advisory Board meetings over the course of each year of this Agreement's two (2)-year term, for a total of four (4) meetings; (g) Communicate with the City (through the City's designated liaison, Bruce Fletcher) and with the Tukwila Library Advisory Board (through the member of the Board of Trustees described under subparagraph (f) of this Article I) regarding issues facing the Tukwila Library; and (h) Track and record usage statistics for the Tuk.wil~i Library, including foot traffic counts and circulation strategies, and will make such datti; available to the Tukwila Library Advisory Board as requested. ARTICLE II CITY RESPONSIBILITIES The City will take 'affirmative steps to promote the Tukwila Library and increase its patronage, including without limitation, promoting the Tukwila Library in the City's newsletter, the Hazelnut. "· ARTICLE III TERM This Agreement shall take effect upon the Effective Date and continue in effect for a period of two (2) years from the Effective Date. After such time, the nature, scope and level of services provided at the Tukwila Library shall be deteimined by the District, in its sole discretion. ARTICLE IV MISCELLANEOUS Section4.01 Interlocal Cooperation Act ProviSions. The'parties acknowledge that: (1) they have entered this Agreemem pursuant to the express authority granted by Chapter 27.12 KCW; (2) pursuant to R.CW 39.34.100, the powers and authority conferred by the Interlocal Cooperation Act (Chapter 39.34 RCW) are supplemental to powers or authority conferred by any other law; and (3) nothing contained in the Interiocal Cooperation Act limits the power or authority of either party to-contract pursuant to Chapter 27.12 RCW. To avail themselves of the supplemental powers and authority granted by the Interlocal Cooperation Act, the parties agree that: (a) No separate legal or administrative entity within the meaning of RCW 39.34.030(3)Co) or "joint board" within the meaning of RCW 39.34.030(4)(a) is created by this Agreement; 2 (b) The establishment and maintenance of a budget for the services described in this Agreement, as well as the financing necessary therefore shall be pursuant to Chapter 27.12 RCW; (c) The is appointed as the "administrator" within the meaning of RCW 39.34.030(4)(a) responsible for administering the City's rights and duties set forth in this Agreement, and the District's Director is appointed as the "administrator" within the meaning of RCW 39.34.030(4)(a) responsible for administering the District's rights and duties set forth in this Agreement; (d) The City will, pursuant to RCW 39.34.040, cause this Agreement to be filed with the King County auditor immediately upon the full execution hereof by the parties; and (e) This Agreement shall supersede and replace any previous agreements and/or arrangements between the City and the District concerning the provision of library services at the Tukwila Library. Section 4.02 Notices. Except as otherwise provided herein, all notices, consents or - other communications required hereunder shall be in writing and shall be sufficiently given if "addressed and hand delivered or mailed by first-class mail, as follows: -. To the City: City of Tukwila Attention: [Mayor Steve M. Mullet] 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 To the District: King County Library System Attention: Bill Ptacek, Director 960 Newport Way NW Issaquah, WA 98027 The City or the District may, by notice given hereunder, designate any further or different addresses to which subsequent notices, consents .or other communications shall be sent. Notices shall be deemed served upon deposit of such n6tices in the United States mail in the manner provided above. Section 4.03 Amendment. This Agreement may not be amended without the prior written consent of the parties hereto. 3 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and the District have caused this Agreement to be executed in their respective names by their duly authorized officers, and have caused this Agreement to be dated as of the date set forth on the first page hereof. CITY OF TUK .WILA, WASHINGTON ;. Steve M. Mullet Mayor Attest: Jane Cantu City Clerk KING COUNTY RURAL LIBRARY DISTRICT Judge Richard Eadie President, Board of Trustees Attest: Wai.-Fong T. Lee Secretary, Board of Trustees 4 STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) SS. COUNTY OF KING ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that and are the persons who appeared before me, and acknowledged that they signed this instrument, on oath stated that they are authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it, as the Mayor and Clerk, respectively, of the CITY OF TUKWILA, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington, to be the free and voluntary act of such municipal corporation for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated this day of ,2004. I " Notary Public Print Name My commission expires (Usc this spaz~ for notarial stamlffs~al) STATE OF WASHINGTON ) COUNTY OF KING ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that. and are the persons who appeared before me, and acknowledged that they signed this instrument, on oath stated that they are authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it, as the President and Secretary, respectively,, of the Board of Trustees of the KING COUNTY RURAL LIBRARY DISTRICT, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington, to be the free and voluntary act of such municipal corporation for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument Dated this day of ,2004. Notary Public Print Name My commission expires 5 COUNCIL AGENDA SYNOPSIS I Initials ITEM NO. 4 t '14 19i 1 Meetin.g Date 1 Prepared by 1 Mayor's review 1 Counc review 1 i i i 1 09/20/04 1 SL 1 1 1 10/04/04 1 SL 1 1 ri 1 10/25/04 1 SIZ 1 .Mit' 1„1,0- 11 1 k I 1 1 I ITEM INFORMATION CAS NUMBER: 04-130 I ORIGINAL AGENDA DATE: 9-20-04 AGENDA ITEM TITLE Proposed Amendments to Natural Environment Chapter of Tukwila Comprehensie Plan and revisions to Sensitive Areas Ordinance CATEGORY Discussion Motion Resolution Ordinance Bid Award Public Hearing Other Mtg Date Mtg Date Mtg Date Mtg Date Mtg Date Mtg Date Mtg Date I SPONSOR Council Mayor Adm Svcs DCD Finance Fire Legal P&R Police PW SPONSOR'S Begin deliberations on proposed amendments to policies in the Natural Environment SUMMARY Chapter of the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan and major reorganization and revisions to Sensitive Areas Ordinance to comply with requirements of the Growth Mangement Act. The revisions have been reviewed and recommended by the Planning Commission. REVIEWED BY COW Mtg. CA &P Cmte F &S Cmte Transportation Cmte Utilities Cmte Arts Comm. Parks Comm. Planning Comm. DATE: 4- 29 -04; 5- 13 -04; 5- 20 -04; 6- 10 -04; 6- 24 -04; 7- 22 -04; 9 -16 -0 RECOMMENDATIONS: SPONSOR /ADMIN. N/A COMMIT IhE Planning Commission COST IMPACT FUND SOURCE l EXPENDITURE REQUIRED AMOUNT BUDGETED APPROPRIATION REQUIRED N/A N/A N/A Fund Source: Comments: MTG. DATE i RECORD OF COUNCIL_ ACTION 9 -20 -04 1 Briefing on Natural Environment Chapter and Sensitive Areas Ordinance revisions 10 -04 -04 1 Public Hearing on 2004 amdts to Tukwila Comprehensive Plan and regulations I MTG. DATE ATTACHMENTS 10 -25 -04 1 Memo draft comments from DOE DCD response; draft CTED comments 1 *Please bring notebook labeled "Natural Environment Sensitive Areas Ordinance." 1 I City of Tula ila StevenM. Mu et, 4a or · ................. ....'"' Deparlment of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director ~ INFORMATION MEMO To: Mayor Mullet, Members of the City Council Prom: Steve Lancaster, Director, Department of Communit~ Development Date: October 20, 2004 Subject: Council Deliberations on Natural Environment.Chapter of Comprehensive Plan and Proposed Revisions to Sensitive Areas Ordinance Project No. L04-0025, 2004 Comprehensive'l~lan Amendments ISSUE The Growth Management Act requires local jurisdictions to incorporate the use of Best Available Science (BAS) in its policies and development regulations. The City has addressed this requirement through proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and development regulations, particularly the Sensitive Areas Ordinance (SAO). BACKGROUND The Planning Commission reviewed staffproposed revisions to the Comprehensive Plan and a major revision to the Sensitive Areas Ordinance (TMC 18.45) during the Spring and throughout the Summer. The Council was briefed on the proposed changes on September 20, 2004 and a public hearing was held on October 4, 2004. Two letters were distributed to the Council at the public hearing commenting on the drai~ Sensitive Areas Ordinance revisions: 1} John H. Song, a property owner in Tukwila; and 2) Chad Armour, Wetland Consultant. Since the public hearing, two State agencies, the Washington State Departments of Ecology (DOE) and Community, Trade and Economic Development (CTED), have provided draft commems on the proposed changes to the Natural Environment Chapter and SAO. These are attached to this memo for your review. A copy of the City's response to the DOE comments is attached as well. DISCUSSION The City will provide an explanation of the sources o£Best Available Science used and the reasons behind any decisions that are not based on BAS, once Council deliberations are completed as part of its submittal to the Department o£ Community, Trade and Economic Developmem. This explanation cannot be prepared until the conclusion of the Council's deliberations. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 · Tukwila, Washington 98188 · Phone: 206-431-3670 · Fax: 206-431-3665 Mayor Steve Mullet Members of the City Council October 25.2004 Council Meeting At this work session, staff hopes to be given direction by the Council on what revisions they ~vould like to make to the Planning Commission recommended Natural Environment Chapter policies and the proposed regulation changes to TMC 18.06, Definitions, TMC 18.45, Sensitive Areas Ordinance, and TMC 18.50.110, Archaeological/Paleontological Information Requirements. Attachments: Draft Comments from Department ofEcology dated 10-4-04 DCD Response to DOE Comments, dated 10-15-04 Draft Comments from Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development, dated 10-14-04 2 q:\l-04 SAO Update\Council Review\10-25-04 Council Memo.doc October 4, 2004 Ms. Rebecca Fox Senior Planner City of Tukwila 6300 Southcemer Boulevard ~ Tukwila, WA 98188 Dear Ms. Fox: RE: Comments on Tukwila's Draft Critical Areas ~date Thank you for the chance to comment on Sensitive Areas Ordinance (SAO), Tukwil de dated July 22, 2004. I appreciate the work that x to include best available science ~ Department of Ecology (Ecology) ~ to "protect the environment ... designate and classify to protect these areas and their functions and values...." #8 loss of wetland and watercourse over present conditions." ; not provide all of the standards necessary to meet this do not adequately include the best available science, net degradation of wetland functions and values in the City. that would ensure that the best ~ wetland functions and values are protected. 18.45.BB Sensitive J ! Studies A. Required 1. A qualified wetlands specialist should be a certified Professional Wetland Scientist or a noncertified professional wetland scientist with a at least two years of full-time work experience as a wetlands professional, including delineating wetlands using the state or federal manuals, preparing wetland reports, conducting function assessments, and developing and implementing mitigation plans. B. Wetland and Watercourse Sensitive Area Studies Ms. Rebecca Fox October 4, 2004 Page 2 For each wetland identified on-site and within 300 feet of the project site, provide the wetland rating per the provisions of this Title; required buffers; hydrogeomorphic classification; wetland acreage based on a professional survey from the field delineation (acreages for both the onsite portion and for the entire wetland area, including any offsite portions); Cowardin classification of vegetation communities; vegetation characterization; habitat elements; soil conditions based on site assessment and soil-survey information, and to the extent possible, hydrologic information such as location and condition of inlet/outlets (if they can be legally accessed), estimated water depths within the wetland, estimated hydroperiod patterns based on visual cues (e.g., algal mats, drift lines, flood debris). Provide acreage estimates, classifications, and ratings based on entire wetland complexes, not only the poCdon present on the proposed project site. 18.45.80 Sensitive Area Permitted Uses A. General Uses 6. Maintenance within sensitive-area buffers of existing landscaping and gardens should not include the alteration or removal of established native trees and shrubs. B. Permitted Uses subject to Administrative Review 4. Use of wetlands or wetland buffers as sites for stormwater ponds is inconsistent with protecting wetland functions and values. Volume I, "Minimum Technical Requirements," of Ecology's Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (2001) states the following under "Minimum Requirement #8: Wetlands Protection": Stormwater treatment and flow control facilities shall not be built within a natural vegetated buffer, except for: * necessary conveyance systems as approved by the local government; or · as allowed in wetlands approved for hydrologic modification and/or treatment in accordance with Guidesheet lB. Guidesheet 1B and others from Appendix 1-D of Ecology's stormwater manual are a good guide to the level of protection that should be required for different categories of wetlands with respect to stormwater facilities. As a rule, Category IV wetlands are the only ones that may be considered, under specific circumstances, for modification for runoff control. 5. "Enhancement or other mitigation including landscaping" should specify "with native plants." 18.45.CC Wetlands Designations, Ratings and Buffers A. Wetland Designations Ms. Rebecca Fox October 4, 2004 Page 3 The Definitions chapter of this title was not included in the materials we received. The following wetland definition, which may be the one you are using, is required by RCW 36.70A.030(20): "Wetland" or "wetlands" means areas that are inundated or saturated by surface water or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas. Wetlands do not include those artificial wetlands intentionally created ,from nonwetland sites, including, but not limited to, irrigation and drainage ditches, grass-lined swales, canals, detention facilities, wastew~ter treatment facilities, farm ponds, and landscape amenities, or those wetlands created after July 1, 1990, that were unintentionally created as a result of the construction of a road, street, or highway. Wetlands may include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from non-wetland areas created to mitigate conversion of wetlands. B. Wetland Ratings The wetland classification system proposed in the current draft of your SAO is inconsistent with the best available science. The thresholds for wetland size and number of vegetation classes are not related to performance of functions and should not be used as a basis for differentiating wetlands for applying varying protection measures. We urge the City to adopt Ecology's Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington (2004). Ecology first introduced a rating system for western Washington in 1991, and it has been extensively field tested, revised, and refined since then. A new edition of the rating system (see http://www.ec¥.wa, gov/biblio/0406014.html), which was finalized in August, is based on a better understanding of wetland functions, ways to evaluate them, and what is needed to protect them. This function-based rating system represents best available science for rating wetlands in Washington. E. Wetland Buffer Widths The best available science tells us that the proposed wetland buffers are not wide enough to protect habitat and water-quality functions. A 50-foot buffer for "Type 2" wetlands (using either Tukwila's or Ecology's ranking), for example, is not nearly wide enough to protect either of these functions in an urban setting. Ecology's guidance on buffer widths and compensation ratios is based on the level of protection or compensation required for particular functions. Our recommended buffer widths take into account not only the functions that need to be protected, but also the impact of adjacent land use. Low-intensity adjacent land uses allow for narrower buffers around wetlands than those needed to protect from the impacts of high-intensity uses. Our recommendations are contained in the enclosed Appendix 8-C of Volume 2 of our BAS document, Freshwater Wetlands in Washington State (see Ms. Rebecca Fox October 4, 2004 Page 4 http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/bas wetlands/index.html). Buffer Alternative 3 (Tables 4 through 7) described in this appendix offers the most flexibility, basing buffer widths on the wetland category, adjacent land use, and the specific wetland functions that require protection. Also enclosed are Appendices 8-E and 8-F, which explain the reasons for the recommended buffer widths and compensation ratios. The advantages of using this approach include the following: 1. It provides for specific buffer widths based on the more detailed information provided by the new wetland rating system that the City is proposing to adopt. 2. It is based on the best available science regardi/lg wetland buffers and provides for wider buffers around the more valuable and sensitive wetlands and narrower buffers around the wetlands that are less valuable and sensitive. 3. It will generally result in smaller buffers around wetlands in highly urbanized areas because many of the wetlands in developed areas are not providing the habitat functions that reqmre larger buffers. 4. It provides incentives to landowners and developers m incorporate low-impact site-development measures to reduce runoff, noise, light, etc. Using such measures allows for reduced buffers. 5. It provides incentives to landowners and developers m provide connectivity between wetlands on their property and other habitat areas in exchange for reduced buffers. This approach will also provide a greater degree of predictability for applicants and reduce the risk that the City will act in an arbitrary or capricious manner in applying buffer reductions. The use of the proposed buffer widths, in conjunction with the proposed classification system, will ensure the continued degradation of wetland functions and values in Tukwila and is inconsistent with the purpose and intent statements in the draft SAO. G. Variation of Standard Wetland Buffer Width The proposed buffers fall even further short when buffer widths are reduced by up m 50%. Providing incentives for landowners to enhance degraded wetland buffers is a good idea, but coupling this with reduction of buffer widths would strip many wetlands of the mimmum buffers needed to protect their functions. The proposed ordinance offers no guidance on determining the levels of buffer degradation o~ enhancement required to qualify for this reduction. Consequently, this provision for reducing buffer widths poses dangers of misunderstanding and conflict, in addition to inadequate protection of wetland functions. 18.45.DD Wetlands Uses, Alterations and Mitigation B. Alterations & D. Mitigation Plans Ms. Rebecca Fox October 4, 2004 Page 5 Wetland replacement ratios should reflect the best available science. The scientific information on mitigation is consistent in documenting the frequent failures and poor performance of compensatory mitigation. Replacement ratios are a critical tool in helping ensure adequate replacement of lost wetland functions and values. Ratios should take into account the risk of outright failure; the long time frame required to successfully create, restore, or enhance wetlands; and the tradeoffs in functions that result from creating or restoring a wetland of a different type or in a different location. Recent studies of wetland mitigation conducted by King Cour~ty and the Department of Ecology found similar results as previous studies conducted in the Pacific Northwest and elsewhere in the US: mitigation projects continue to fail td adequately compensate for permitted impacts. Unless, the City has conducted an independent evaluation of mitigation in Tukwila and found a much higher rate of success, there is no rationale for the ratios proposed in the draft SAO. As with buffers, this section is inconsistent with the stated purpose of the draft SAO and with Goal #8. We urge you to consider using the guidance on pages 12 to 19 of the attached Appendix 8-C. Table 9 in this appendix shows suggested compensation ratios for different types and categories of wetlands and for various kinds of mitigation. This guidance is consistent with what the state and federal agencies require for mitigation. By adopting this guidance the City will help applicants by providing consistency with state and federal requirements, which will streamline the approval process for mitigation projects. Depending on the category and type of wetland affected, ratios should be significantly higher than proposed. This would better account for the risk of mitigation failure and the at least temporal loss of wetland functions and values. Ratios may be increased or decreased in specific cases according to the probability of success, the difference in functions, the timing of mitigation, and other factors. We suggest that standard compensation ratios be based on the category of the wetland impacted and the nature of the mitigation, i.e.: · reestablishment or creation,; · rehabilitation; · enhancement; or · a combination of reestablishment or creation and enhancement. 18.45.DD B. Alterations 6. Isolated wetlands Even isolated wetlands in disturbed environments can perform important wetland functions. Permission of the Director and compensation for impacts should be required for any alterations of such wetlands. C. Mitigation Sequencing Ms. Rebecca Fox October 4, 2004 Page 6 The steps to be considered in mitigation sequencing should be those set forth in WAC 197.11.768: Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action; 2. Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation, by using appropriate technology, or by taking affirmative steps to avoid or reduce impacts; 3. Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment; 4. Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action; 5. Compensating for the impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute resources or environments; and/or 6. Monitoring the impact and taking appropriate corrective measures. F. Mitigation Standards Compensatory mitigation projects should be monitored for at least five years, preferably ten. Ten years or more of monitoring are needed for forested and scrub-shrub communities, which take at least eight years after planting to reach 80-percent canopy closure. Having a ten-year monitoring program need not require biologists to collect data and produce a report every year. That could be done in years 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, and 10, for example. 18.45.115 Exceptions A. Best available science offers no support for excluding wetlands from protection based on size alone. Even very small wetlands can provide habitat and important ecological processes. Any exception for wetlands of a certain type or size should be justified by analysis of the exception's cumulative impact on wetland functions within a specific basin or watershed. In- lieu fees that could be spent on City wetland projects may be considered in place of direct mitigation for minor impacts. B. Reasonable Use Exceptions Conditions for reasonable-use exceptions should include no net loss of critical-area functions and values. We believe that, in the areas noted, the proposed SAO does not adequately include the best available science and will not protect wetland functions and values. We urge you to consider our suggestions for improvement and evaluate the enclosed documems. We are available to discuss our comments with you and provide additional assistance. Ms. Rebecca Fox October 4, 2004 Page 7 Where the proposed SAO departs from the guidance of best available science, the City should set forth the reasons for this departure and its implications and potential risks. The City's reasoning and analysis should be part of the findings of the adopting ordinance. I look forward to working with you to support your efforts to update Tukwila's SAO using best available smence. Please call or e-mail me with any questions or for further discussion. I can be reached at (425) 649-4447 or riro461i~,ec¥.wa.gov. Sincerely, Richard K. Robohm Wetland Specialist Enclosures RKR:rc cc: Anne Fritzel, Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development Donna Bunten, Ecology CAO Review Coordinator Erik Stockdale, Wetlands Specialist "; City of Tukwila St enM. Mu et, Ma or ? Deparlment of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director October 15, 2004 Mr. Richard K. Robohm, Wetland Specialist Shorelands. & Environmental Assistance Program Department of Ecology - NW Regional Office 3190 160th Avenue S_E . Bellevue, WA 98008-5452 RE: Draft Comments on Tukwila Draft Sensitive Area Ordinance Dear Richard: . Thank you very much for the opportunity to review a draft of your suggestions on the City's proposed Sensitive Areas Ordinance. We have had an opportunity ro discuss your letter; a number of the suggestions are well taken, and staffconcum However, we have the following feedback on several key points you make With which we disagree. We believe that your assessment that the proposed SAO, if adopted as is, would result in "...the si~maificant degradation of wetland functions and values in the City" is an overly harsh assessment and too strong a statement to make. The proposed SAO improves on the current SAO and in particular provides much better criteria that must be met for any alteration to wetlands (18.45.DD.B) and differentiates between mitigation through restoration or creation and mitigation by enhancement by providing differing mitigation ratios. Through the updated wetland inventory and mapping, the City has identified mom than twice the number of wetland areas for regulatory protectign. The City has also used BAS to adjust the'mitigation ratio for wetland enhancement proposals. Since adoption of the current SAO in 1991, we believe them has not been a "continued degradafi6n of wetland functions and valu~es in Tukwila." On the proposed ordinance, staff had recommended larger buffer widths for wetlands and watercourses to the Planning Commission. After reviewing information presented on best available science, the Planning Commission ultimately recommended that the existing buffer widths be retained based upon concerns that wider buffer width~ would impact negatively residential property owners. The City Council will remsit the issue of appropriate buffer widths and your comments and the draft Appendices will be included with the materials they will review. On the issue of the wetland ratings, we disagree that our rating systemics inconsistent with best available science. The Department of Community Trade and .Economic Development offers the 6300 Southcenter Boulevara, Suite #I00 · Tukwila,"Washington 98188 · Pi~one: 206-431-3670 · Fax: 206-431-366~ Mr. Richard K. Robohm Department of Ecology October 15, 2004 DOE rating system as one example that can be used, but does not require its use. At the time we were preparing our inventory and reviewing our current rating system, the Department of Ecology had not issued its final recommendations on a wetland rating system. Local jurisdictions subject to the Growth Management Act are required to meet the December 1, 2004 deadline established by the State legislature for adoption of comprehensive plan amendments and amendments to regulations incorporating best available science. We appreciate the guidance provided by the research prepared by DOE, but it comes too late in the process we are required to meet to be incorporated into our code. In addition, it is appropriate that Ecology rank wetlands at a statewide level using four or more classes due to the diversity of types of wetlands in the state. Hdwever, within an urban area like the city of Tukwila, fewer types of wetlands occur that at a statewide level. As a result, it is appropriate and scientifically valid to rank the wetlands occurring in Tukwila using a modified rating system using three wetland classes. Wetland size and habitat characteristics are used in many current wetland functions assessment publications. The proposed ordinance d(~es provide guidance on the findings that must be made in order to approve buffer reduction - this is found in TMC 18.45.CC. G.2 a-c. On the issue of mitigation ratios, wetland mitigation ratios supported by scientific research ~ndicate that greater than 1:1 replacement of wetland is necessary since many wetland mitigation projects have historically failed to meet all performance criteria. The scientific record alone does not support mitigation ratios greater than approximately 2 or 3:1 replacement. Mitigation ratios . above 2:1 replacement are typically recommended to offset temporal losses of wetland functions (while the mitigation wetland matures) and to act as a disincentive to developers for wetland impacts. The scientific research indicates that the main reason that mitigation projects often fail is the lack of follow-through by regulatory agencies to insure that the mitigation projects were correctly installed and monitored for success (Ecology, 2001). The mitigation sequencing suggested in your letter is from the SEPA regulations set forth in WAC 197.11.768. We believe the hierarchy of preference set forth in the City's.proposed mitigation sequencing speaks more directly to appropriate sequencing as it relates to impacts to wetlands. The purpose of the wetland exemption fo?mall wetlands is to provide an appropriate balance between protection of wetlands and the cost and burdens of code administration. The goal is to focus staff review time and applicant mitigation effort on development proposals affecting wetlands important to the City on a landscape-wide analysis level. It is recognized that the functions and values of wetlands diminish as wetlands become smaller and more disturbed in the urban environment. As proposed, the exemption is limited to the lowest value wetlands in the City. It has been our experience, over the course of the 13 years we have been administering the current SAO, that the wetlands that fit this exemption category are typically low in habitat value and other wetland functions. Most of these wetlands are isolated in the. landscape due to man- made infrastructure (roads, buildings, utility easements etc.), are surrounded by highly disturbed land uses and are often dominated by invasive plants. Havinisaid this, based on your 2 q:\l-04 SAO Update\Council Review\Robohm.doc Mr. Richard K. Robohm Department of Ecology October 15, 2004 suggestions, staff is considering recommending to the Council that the language in the.proposed code be refined to require that a finding be made that the cumulative impacts of altering the wetland do not Unduly counteract the purposes of the SAO chapter. Regarding reasonable use exceptions, the requirement ro ensure no net loss of critical-area functions and values is found in TMC 18.45.DD.D.2. A mitigation plan would be required as part of a reasonable use exception approval and this plan wo~ld address the goal of no net loss. Thank you again for reviewing our draft sensitive areas ordinan, ce. We hope that the above comments will be helpful as you finalize your comments to us. We would like to forward your final comment letter to the City Council as soon as possible'hnd look forward to receiving them. Sincerely, Carol Lumb Senior Planner cc: Steve Lancaster, Director, Department of Community Development lack Pace, Deputy Director, Department of Community Development Gary Schulz, Wetland/Forest Ecologist Teresa Vanderburg, Adolfson Associates Lynn Kol'm, Washirigton State Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development q:\l-04 SAO Update\Council Rcview\Robohm.do¢ DRAFT October 14, 2004 Steve Lancaster, Planning Director City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100 Tukwila, Washington, 98188 RE: Proposed amendments to the Natural Environment element of the Comprehensive Plan, and draft amendments to the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. Dear Mr. Lancaster: Thank you for sending the Washington State Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development (CTED) the proposed amendments to Tukwila's comprehensive plan and development regulations that we received on September 1, 2004. We recognize the substantial mvestment of time, energy, and resources that these documents represent. We especially like the following: · The Environmentally Sensitive Areas section of your Municipal Code includes policies stating that you will include the best science available to protect the functions and values of critical areas. · The addition ofFish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas to your definition and coverage as an Environmentally Sensitive Area. · In your Natural Environment element, Policy 4.4.1 promotes an educational program dealing with sensitive areas as well as outlining responsibilities for its implementation. Policy 4.4.1 also proposes to sponsor joint City and citizen cleanup and rehabilitation programs. Implementation of this policy will support the ~equirements for NPDES Phase II as well as be proactive in terms of having individuals take responsibility for their actions when dealing with sensitive areas. We see this as a very positive step. We have concerns about the following that you should address before you adopt your plan and development regulation amendments: City of Tukwila -DRAFT- October 13, 2004 Page 2 · Although the proposed ordinance includes good policies regarding the inclusion of Best Available Science, we are concerned that the information we have seen does not tie the substance of the ordinance to any source of scientific information that would lead to a conclusion that those standards are adequate to protect the functions and values at stake. In accordance with WAC 365-195-915, the record developed by the city should show how the best available science that was included in the development of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance and related policies. The record should identify the specific policies and regulations and the relevant sources of best available science that was included in the decision making process. We have recommended several options for jurisdictions to cite the BAS in their planning efforts; an appendix to the development regulation, as a stand-alone report that accompanies the proposed regulations, as a part of the staff report prep ,a, red for the planning commission, within the development regulation itself, or within the findings of the adopting ordinance. Footnotes within the development regulation itself is a good choice when relying predominantly on one source of BAS, such as state agency management recommendations. A stand-alone report is helpful when documenting how the city chose to reconcile a greater array of scientific information or when the city is documenting a need to depart from the science and its decision process in doing so. In any case, the decision makers need to be aware of what scientific information is available to inform their choice about the substance of the ordinance and how it protections critical area function and value. The following is a suggestion to strengthen your Sensitive Areas Ordinance. This is not, however a requirement: · The area specified in your Ordinance for the application of the regulations is your Sensitive Area or Sensitive Area buffer. In the case that development near a buffer could possibly cause harm to the Sensitive area, you might want to consider adding the requirement that all development that is within [a specified distance] outside the sensitive area, must be reviewed for potential impacts. Some suggestions for doing this include: Establishing a 10, 15 or 20 foot area outside the buffer area where construction activities (e.g. clearing & grading) that might cause erosion or other impacts to the habitat in the buffer area, will not be allowed. Including a statement in your section on Sensitive Area Special Studies that areas outside of wetland buffers will be looked at for potential impacts on the Sensitive area and landowners may be contacted by your Department to inform them about the potential hazards. Congratulations to you and your staff for the good work these amendments embody. If you have any questions or concerns about our comments or any other growth management issues, please call me at (360) 725-3042. We extend our continued support to the City of Tukwila in achieving the goals of growth management. City of Tukwila -DRAFT- October 13, 2004 Page 3 Sincerely, Lynn Kohn Growth Management Services LK:lw cc: Rebecca Fox, Senior Planner Carol Lumb, Planner " Leonard Bauer, AICP, Managing Director, Growth Management Services, CTED David Andersen, AICP, Planning Review Team Manager, Growth Management Services, CTED COUNCIL AGENDA SYNOPSIS Ni s k 4 Initialr ITEM NO. Q tra 1 1 Meeting Date I Prebared by 1 Mayor's review 1 Council review 1 D ''Z f 10/25/04 I LL I /air I :I ia-, 1 I I I I I iicii t--I (N I I I I I ITEM INFORMATION CAS NUMBER: 04-149 I ORIGINAL AGENDA DATE: 10/25/04 AGENDA ITEM TITLE Review of 2005 Budget and 2005 -2010 CIP CATEGORY Discussion Motion El Resolution Ordinance Bid Award Public Hearing Other Mtg Date 10/25/04 Mtg Date Mtg Date Mtg Date Mtg Date Mtg Date Mtg Date SPONSOR Council Mayor Adm Svcs DCD Finance Fire Legal Pc°R Police PIP' SPONSOR'S Review the water and sewer sections of the CIP, and the Revenues section of the budget SUMMARY REVIEWED BY COW Mtg. CA &P Cmte F &S Cmte Transportation Cmte Utilities Cmte Arts Comm. Parks Comm. Planning Comm. DATE: RECOMMENDATIONS: SPONSOR /ADMIN. Review budgets COMMI1 I EE Two committees have started their budget reviews COST IMPACT FUND SOURCE EXPENDITURE REQUIRED AMOUNT BUDGETED APPROPRIATION REQUIRED Fund Source: Comments: MTG. DATE RECORD OF COUNCIL ACTION 10/25/04 MTG. DATE ATTACHMENTS 10/25/04 Memo from Lucy Lauterbach dated October 20, 2004 Minutes from Finance and Safety Committee (10- 18 -04) Minutes from Utilities Committee (10- 19 -04) To: City Council From: Lucy Lanterbach Alan DoerscheI Date: October 20, 2004 Subject: Review of the 2004 Budget and CIP Two committees have started reviewing the 2005 Budget and Planning Model. Alan began his overview of the budget and Attachmenl A and B last week. He would like to continue with an overview and explanation of Attachments D, E, F, and G before the Council gets into specific budgets. The Utilities Committee began their review of the Utility CI~S, including Attachments D,E, and F. They completed reviews of Water and Sewer in the CIP, and can lead the Council in your review of those sections if you have time. The Finance and Safety Committee only had time to review the Revenues, which include some overall city issues that will come up in departments. Bring both your CIP and Budget books, and depending on the time you have, you may review the CIP sections and the Revenues Section in the budget at the COW. Finance and Safety Committee October 18, 2004 Page 2 6. Budget Review Alan spent some time going over the Revenues with the Committee, as they included some anomalies that needed explanations. The Committee asked about the Lodging Tax's payments for the TOD property near McCloud, and Alan explained that they are making payments of $100,000/year for several years in order to pay offthe loan fi.om the 103 Street fund they used to buy the property. That way, when the property is sold for less than what it was bought for, there will not be a huge discrepancy. They'll pay offthe whole thing when the property is sold. The Mall's $525,000 contribution for Klickitat is shown in 2005. There are Real Estate Excise Taxes (REET) in the 301 fund that have come in fi.om the sale ofJC Penney's and Winners. Andy Berg will be paid for his carwash from these funds. Alan pointed out the Golf Course may need a loan from the general fund in the first few years after construction, as play has not returned to its former level. Them is revenue from Gordy's who is paying offthe kitchen equipment. Information. Committee chair approval Present: Pam Carter Chair; Pam Linder, Dennis Robertson Alan Doerschel, Jim Morrow, Frank Lriarte, Bob Giberson, Mike Cusick, Ryan Larson, Gail Labanara, Pat Brodin, Lucy Lauterbach 1. Budget and CIP Review The Committee began their budget review by going through the projects in the CIP. Alan explained Attachments D, E, and F which brought forth several issues in funding over the long term of the enterprise funds. They then went through first the Water fund. Jim M said the Nisqually earthquake didn't cause obvious damage, but two water pipes in the CBD got cracks that needed repair within 6 months of the shake. Infrastructure pipes will be needed, but staff decided after their analysis this year that current rates are adequate. They'll know more about pipe conditions after 2007. Rates will be looked at each year. The Committee liked the explanation of which projects on the list were new on the title page of each utility. They also asked that the term "Enterprise Funds be added on each of the utility sections, with an explanation of what an enterprise fund is. Jim M said the bids on the Allentown sewers were high, and they are still analyzing what to do about it. One issue that came up is the possibility the City may one day annex parts of water districts within the City. Developments of the Mall and at the JC Penney's site may affect the timing of the Minkler water looping. Alan had some new numbers in the Sewer fund Attachment E. Jim talked about the need for a new sewer worker, though it is not in the budget. He said they have not added new sewer staff since 1989 and there is much more infrastructure to maintain now. The Committee added a new note on Page XV to say there are remaining unsewered areas beyond 2010. Dennis said he was thinking of the Loop area, where sewers could cost $20 m. A $3m. sewer line that may extend s. orS. 180th is not in the plan yet, though it's mentioned in the Southcenter Parkway street project. The sewer fund is adequate now but could not handle any unanticipated repairs, TVS sewer lines, or issues like the higher cost of putting sewers in Allentown. The Committee discussed planning a rate increase beyond the 15% increase planned in 2006. Dennis argued that planning for another increase in 2008 was prudent fiscal strategy. Pam C thought more time and discussion should go into the decision to raise rates. The Committee asked for a matrix of all the utility rates and expected increases for the next 6 years. A new sewer line and pump station upgrade will he needed from Minkler to behind Levitz at S. 180th and eventually to S. 200th. 3. Status of Court/Council Chamber Uoerade Jim passed out a sheet with the most basic information about the upgrade. The committee was very interested in the topic, and asked for the detail sheet with what would be done by whom. Jim said they had considered putting in both laptops and flat screens, but found they were too expensive. The Council will have clip microphones with wireless transmitters. It is still unknown when the project will start. Information. Committee chair approval