HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOW 2005-01-10 COMPLETE AGENDA PACKET Tukwila City Council Agenda
:COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Councilmembers: Pam Carter Joe Duffie'
/908 Rhonda Berry, City Administrator Dave Fenton Jim Haggerton
Pamela Linder, Council President Joan Hernandez Dennis Robertson
Monday, January 10, 2005; 7 PM Tukwila City Hall; Council Chambers
1. CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
2. SPECIAL a. Final presentation on connectivity project, David Litman.
PRESENTATION
b. Update /briefing: Hal Hieinstra and Michelle Giguere, Ball Janik
3, CITIZEN At this time, you are invited to comment on items not included on this
COMMENT agenda. To comment on an item listed on this agenda, please save your
comments until the issue is presented for discussion.
4. PUBLIC A proposed ordinance renewing a moratorium relative to transit-
HEARING oriented development areas.
5. SPECIAL ISSUES a. Huckell Weinman Associates (HWA), Inc.: Preparation of a
supplemental Environmental Impact Statement and planned action
ordinance for the Tukwila Urban Center plan.
b. Discussion of 2005 legislative priorities.
6. REPORTS a. Mayor c. Staff e. Intergovernmental
b. City Council d. City Attorney
7. MISCELLANEOUS
8. EXECUTIVE SESSION Potential Litigation per RCW 42.30.110(i)(c) (30 minutes).
9. ADJOURNMENT
Tukwila City Hall is wheelchair accessible.
Reasonable accommodations are available at public hearings with advance notice by calling the
City Clerk's office 206 433- 1800PTDD 206 248 -2933. This notice is available at www.ci.Tukwila.wa.us,
and also in alternate formats with advance notice for those with disabilities.
Tukwila Council meetings are audio taped.
COUNCIL AGENDA SYNOPSIS
ti tS�' Initials ITEMNO.
0 1 I F LEL elleeting Date I Pnpard 1 Mayor's renew 1 Council ncim
1/10/05 I FI I S sub- I f-c/ I
rsoa
I I I I
ITEM INFORMATION
CAS NUMBER: 05-004 I ORIGLNAL AGENDA DATE: JANUARY 10, 2005
AGENDA IITMTITLE Special Presentation Connectivity Project
CATEGORY Disetutvrn Motion Resolution Ordinanx Bid Award Public Hearing Other
Attg Dote M(g Date 31tg Date Mtg Date MUg Date AUg Date !g Dare 12 /13/01
ISPONSOR Council !vigor Adm Svcs DCD Finance Fire Legal Pe t Police PTY/
SPONSOR'S Asset Analytics will brief the Council on the proposed deployment of the Tukwila Fiber
SIDDIARY Network (TFN). TFN will provide Tukwila residents and businesses with access to high-
speed connectivity. Briefing will assist Council in making an informed "go" or "no -go"
decision on the project.
REVIEWED BY COW ?..Mtg. CA &P Cmte F &S Cmte Transportation Cmte
Utilities Cmte Arts Comm. Parks Comm. Planning Comm.
DATE:
RECOMMENDATIONS:
SPONSOR /ADMEN.
CoN1lTrEE
COST IMPACT FUND SOURCE
EXPENDITURE REQUIRED AMOUNT BUDGETED APPROPRIATION REQUIRED
Fund Source:
Comments:
1 MTG. DATE RECORD OF COUNCIL ACTION
12/13/04 Special Presentation Connectivity Project
1/10/05
MTG. DATE ATTACHMENTS
1/10/05 Information Memo from Asset Anatytics dated January 5, 2005
1
AAt
IJ.uaA~, '+-e.
7
INFORNIATION alEMO
From:
Mayor Mullet
Asset Analytics, Inc.
January 5, 2004
Connectivity Report to Council
To:
Date:
Subject:
ISSUE
Provide Council with final report regarding Tukwila Fiber Network (TIN). Discuss deliverables for
upcoming Council Retreat (Attachment I).
BACKGROUND
The City has contracted with Asset Analytics to acbieve the City's goal of deploying a metropolitan area
network and providing gigabit Ethernet connectivity to Tukwila citizens and businesses. The City has
requested Asset Analytics to analyze the affect of deploying fiber in the Central Business District first to
gain initial customers and to reduce costs in lieu of deploying the network throughout the City. There are a
number of tasks (Attachment 2) specific to the completion of this assignment.
DISCUSSION
The following is a summary of each task assigned to Asset Analytics:
CBD Business Model
From December Report
First, the Central Business District had to be carved out as a singular deployment event, along with a
connection from the CBD to the Sabey Data Center. While there is an assumption that the network will
stage from Sabey's Data Center, it does not have to and indeed could be deployed from one of the City's
buildings in the CBD. The advantage with Sabey is that it is a sophisticated network center, with physical
security and redundant backup systems in the event of any kind offailure. Businesses using the Tukwila
Fiber Network, will want systems such as Sabey's to ensure their connections are of the bighest quality.
Next a Bill of Materia Is (BOM) was developed to reflect the CBD carve out from the design previously
completed for the network. The vendors for each of the components have been contacted and we are
collecting price information from them. Additionally, we are considering a wireless solution to the
customer from the fiber located in the street. This may be a less expensive way to deliver data to business
customers rather than through the delivery of fiber from end to end. This is primarily due to the last
connection point costs in the CBD. Trenching, drilling, and micro-channel cuts are needed for a full fiber
deployment and may require owner permission. Wireless requires some infrastructure but may ultimately
cost less. Wireless c",!,abilities however, are not up to those of fiber in terms of data transmission rates,
clarity of signal and security. Additionally, wireless may be considered for some deployments as simply a
stop-gap m= from a cost standpoint. Theoretically, ifwireless is used and the customer requires a fiber
connection, the City could deliver it as an upgrade. To be resolved is whether there would be prohibitive
signal interference with the wireless deployment. Some have expressed concern that both Boeing and the
Homeland Security Building may cause substantial interference.
Business Model Findings
There are many variables that make up the business model. Take rates, network costs, personnel, average
payment to the city for a customer and ongoing maintenance are but a few of the costs that must be
considered. AAI has continually used conservative estimates in its modeling of the network. Conservative
in this case means bigher deployment cost estimates, lower take rate estimates, average sized payments to
16004 Tualatin-Sberwood Rd, Suite 505, Sherwood. OR 97140
Oient Confidential
AA(
A-uaA~, 1_,
the City by content vendors and a three-year time fuyne for the customer base to accrue to the model
assumptions.
AN ran four scenarios to test the elasticity of the model to changes as well as to quantify different
deployment methods. Full documentation will be provided in the Council Retreaz packet while only
summarized (bottom line) values are contained in this report. All scenarios assumed a 45% take rate (608
customers), the average gross revenue of $100 per month per customer with 20% of the revenues (540)
going to the City. The model assumes (2) City FIE's as well to manage the network. Co-location of the
electronics could add another 51,500 per month, the connection to Sabey will cost about 550,000 using
TFN conduit
Options 1&2: These options assume full deployment of a fiber-based system. The difference is a change in
the cost of the customer premise electronics (CPE) - the electronics deployed in the customer's location.
We know a data only device (no video and marginal telephony) can be purchased for around 5300 (possibly
lower in a formal RFP). Therefore, we ran the model using a CPE price ofS400 in Option I and 5300 in
Option 2.
Option I Net Revenue Results: -$197 Monthly or -53571 Annually (a small loss)
Option 2 Net Revenue Results: 5I39 Monthly or SI,676 Annually (positive cash flow)
Options 3&4: These options consider the use of wireless as part of the solution. In Option 3 we run fiber all
the way to the nodes (190 of them placed in fiont of major business locations) and in lieu oftrenchinglsaw-
cutting fiber to the building, we use a wireless solution from towers located in the CBD. This is a lower
cost option in preparation for when we ,,-ant to deliver fiber-based solutions over time. In Option 4 we
consider an entirely wireless solution but deploy the core (backbone) fiber for future use.
Wireless has advantages. It is considerably less expensive to deploy. It has disadvantages. It is less secure,
subject to weather or other interference and most importantly, it does not have the bandwidth capability
fiber does ranging to about 75 megs max today, versus 10 to 15 times that speed with fiber based solutions
(delivering gigabit speed).
Option 3 Net Revenue Results: 53649 Monthly or S43,789 Annually (positive cash flow)
Option 4 Net Revenue Results: 55,693 Monthly or 568,3 19 Annually (positive cash flow)
Consider that the more money you save, the less satisfactory the deployment (its slower). This may affect
take rates as well since the allure of speed up to a gigabit is attractive to businesses as well as the security
of a fiber based active system. The fiber only system deployment cost is about 52.1 million; the hybrid
about 51.6 million and wireless only is about 51.3 mil/ion (or much lower ifno fiber is utilized).
Recommendation: Try to make the complete fiber based system work financially. The loss is small enough
that increased advertising sales, higher take rates or other variables could easily push the model into the
positive. An RFP may pare prices down. All other options will be more costly in the future when upgrading
them to a fuIl fiber system. The alternative would be to charge the customer to upgrade. However this may
run afoul of the Goal IV mandate to provide gigabit Ethernet to all in Tukwila. Last, what is not considered
here is the positive attraction a first class network will have to busincsses. Hebert Research's econometric
model predicted just under a 10% increase in sales volume as a consequence of the network in Tukwila.
That was about 5300 million more in sales, given that there is S4 billion in gross sales for the area each
year. The City can use the TFN to attract clean, upper scale companies who need bandwidth. As an
economic development tool, it is hard to find one that would have such a considerable impact and cost-
maybe - 53,500 a year (the net loss each year). Employment and housing needs will increase as well.
Determine Revenue Opportunities
From December Report
With respect to revenue generation, we have assembled a list of potential content provider resources and
are working through the companies on the list to determine their qualifications, what interest - if any - they
16004 Tualatin-Sberwood Rd, Suite 505. Sbernood. OR 97140
Oient Confidential
AAt
A-w:JA~, r~,
would have in delivering content over the City's infr9structure and whether they would be willing to pay
the City for the right to do so.
Revenue Opportunities Findings
One of the key issues with respect to building the network is whether or not there are content providers who
would be interested in paying the City for access to business customers via the City's network. We know
fiom previous polling that there are small lSP's (data providers) out there who definitely are interested,
ho\\'ever partnering with a major provider seemed to provide a greater seme of viability and ongoing
revenue. Since the last report, we have found that Comcast, Verizon and Qwest all have interest in using
the TFN as a resource to deliver services to the Central Business District. Specific terms have not been
negotiated, but there is open interest in engaging with the City should it deploy a fiber network in the CBD.
There are enough data I voice vendors out there to ensure multiple partners utilizing the City's network.
This puts the City in a better negotiating position as well as ensuring a constant source of revenue fiom the
vendors signed to provide services across the network. Video providers remain elusive in terms of numbers.
However the large providers, Verizon and Qwest have both announced intentions to provide video as well
as voice and data. Their capability may come on stream as the City's network is completed. Verizon
especially is gearing up quickly to access markets over fiber. No specific negotiations where conducted
with respect to the content providers. The discussions were hypothetical in nature.
The conclusion is that there are vendors available for data and voice services who have expressed interest
in negotiating with the City to use its network to gain access to the Central Business District businesses.
Multiple vendors on the system not only create competition for payment to the City, but may increase the
take rate above what a single vendor could provide due to product differentiation.
Use of City's Street Crews
From December Report
Three members of the Public Works department have been trained to do fiber related activities such as
fusion splicing, fiber testing and termination. In an initial meetiog with Public Works, those attending the
meetiog did not think they any available resources to be utilized in the TFN project. There was additional
discussion regarding the logistics of how (or if) to structure the "on caU" fiber maintenance from the City
or whether to out-source it. This may be an issue to discuss with respect to the union as well. Regardless~
the consensus fiom the City personnel present was that there was no capacity for additional work with
respect to these three. Training another may be a possibility. Outsourcing the construction and maintenance
of the fiber can be done as well. If the TFN network requires roughly 4,000 splices, it will cost the City
about SI20,000.
Use of City Crew Findings
After the meeting with the Public Works it was clear that under current staffing requirements and
assignments that no personnel could be utilized for the TFN deployment. The business model was adjusted
to include outsourcing of the fusion spicing and termination activities that could have been done in-house if
resources were available. The approximate cost for the Central Business District fusion splicing of the fiber
is between Sloo,ooO to S130,000. lfthe City needs another Public Works FIE, possibly one of the fiber
trained Public Works personnel could help with the splicing of the fiber on the TFN. There are
approximately 4,000 splices required to complete the CBD network. At one half hour per fiber this equates
to about 330 man-days of work (given a six hour active work day). Spread over a two - three year
deployment would imply a workload of about one third of a workday average.
Evaluate Potential Efficiencies with City Traffic Signal Projects
From December Report
The City has two traffic signal projects to be completed. One, in conjunction with surrounding
municipalities, is substantially completed. The other is about a year off. It was agreed that using the same
conduit could be a savings as well as using the same fiber bundle. The Traffic Signal project would always
have its own fiber as would the TFN. Some electronics could be common, but will ultimately depend upon
the vendor selected for the TFN project and ensuing interoperability (working together). The next step is to
16004 TuaJatin--Shervwod Rd. Suite 505, Sherwood, OR 97140
Oient Confidential
AA(
A-uaA~, (.-.e,
overlay the CBD TIN design over the traffic design JO see what physical efficiencies can be gained. In the
first project the fiber is mostly down, so there is no gain there. In the second, there could be common
bundles of fiber used and therefore pulled at the "ame time.
Gaining Efficiencies Findings
There may be some marginal cost savings available if the TIN is deployed. The current signal project is
just about completed and using common conduits could be the best chance for cost savings there. The
upcoming signal project may also have some cost savings if fiber is pulled (and spliced) concurrently with
the TIN. While hard to quantify, combining two deployments into one will usually save money. Fiber
could conceivably be shared as well. Separate bundles, but on the same cable would be the configuration.
Repair for either signal or consumer related data would then occur in separate fiber groups ensuring the
security of each from the other's activities. Overall, the cost savings would most likely be in the low five
figures, but could be had nonetheless.
Finalize List or Vendors ror System
From the Deamber Report
As mentioned above, the Central Business District was separated as a project fiom the City as a unique
deployment Then the component parts were identified and a list of vendors for the network was created.
Some of the vendors will only be contacted in the event the City goes to bid, others have been contacted to
get illustrative pricing for the business model.
List of Vendors for the System Findings
AAl has accumulated a list of numerous vendors for each necessary component of the network. This sets
up the possibility of price competition as long as quality and confonnity to design specificatioIl5 are not
affected. The business models use relatively conservative estimates of costs as provided by selected
vendors and presumably serious competition in an RFP would further reduce deployment costs. If Council
wants to move forward, an RFP for the network and for the electronics would be recommended.
Determine Financial Resources and Funding Strategies
From the December Report
Previously, the City has considered borrowing short-term funds at still fairly low rates to construct the
network and then bond afterward for long tenn amortization. We are investigating other sources that may
be available to the City. This wiI! be the last issue to be resolved. First the cost of the network must be
worked out (including optiOIl5), the general viability assessed and then payment strategies can be
addressed.
Financial Resource and Strategies Findings
During the course of AAl's engagement, DynamicCity Metronet Advisors approached the City to discuss
the possibility ofTukwilajoining a cOIl5omum of Seattle area cities interested in deploying fiber networks.
This is similar to the work done by DynamicCity (DC) in Utah under the name of Utopia. Essentially an
intergovernmental agreement (IGA) was struck between the interested small ruraI cities ostensibly to share
costs and an LLC is formed and run by the participants. DC is then engaged by the LLC to do feasibility
studies, business models and design initially; then help with the financing upon agreement to move forward
and finally to manage the network operationally after deployment The review of Utopia is mixed.
Originally there were 18 small cities involved, some dropped out Salt Lake City joined and then dropped
out It is unclear at this writing what Provo's position is, AAI is awaiting a response to a number of
questiOIl5 fiom Provo regarding their take on Utopia. The remaining Utopians are deploying a system.
In conversatioIl5 with DC, they indicated that the only way to attract the big companies was to have
population mass. The inference being that Tukwila is too small to attract the "big players". Significantly,
both Qwest and Verizon have expressed interest in utilizing the TIN without any concern as to market size.
Additionally the big guys aren't necessariIy the only answer to gain success. In some ways, nimble,
reactive, entrepreneurial small companies may be more attractive. The history of poor customer support,
monopoIistic pricing, lack of technology upgrades and legacy thinking don't auger support for the baby
Bells or large MSOs such as Comcast or Charter. The key is to have a mix. Interestingly, in DC's case,
16004 Tuahitin-SherYr"ood Rd, Suite 505, Sherwood, OR 97140
Client ConfidentiaJ
AAf
A1M1A~, (w..
AT&T, the big player they brought in to Utopia, will not provide triple play, refusing to bring video in.
Interestingly, DC's answer for video was a small lSP who decided to get into the video business as well.
Additionally the business model for a Utopia in Seattle would necessitate TukwiIa forming an LLC with
other interested cities. To date there are no others, DC is trying to leverage TukwiIa as the first and
springboard from there. The LLC owns the fiber - not Tukwila. TukwiIa would also have to pay in to the
LLC its pro-rata portion of contribution should there be a capital need. The network under Utopia would be
delivered at once, so Tukwila would lose its market advantage in fIrst to market deployment, which it still
has in the Seattle area, if it deploys and lights the network in the CBD.
For financing, DC then takes the LLC to its Bank of America loan rep and finances the loan to the LLC.
However, the City must still guarantee its portion of the loan proceeds and (presumably) help one of the
others in the event there is a partial default.
There are still questions that need to be answered, but to date we have not been able to validate cost savings
attributable to joining a Seattle Utopia, market advantage for joining or financing advantages for joining.
AAI at the City's direetion will continue to discuss this with DynamicCity Metronet Advisors, but to date
they have not proven to have added value. They are good marketers of what they do and they create a cloud
of doubt that if you don't join you will lose out on contracting with big content providers, but they haven't
proven that to be true as of yet. We recommend further study, with the idea that DC must pass some
fundamental test of value for Tukwila to consider moving forward with them.
PROJECT RECOMMENDATION
The project as modeled is --at the worst - close to neutral in tems of cost without going to a fomal bid. We
recommend adopting a resolution that the network be deployed subject to financial milestones for costs
being met, and subject to quality/design considerations. We recommend talking more to DynamicCity,
while continuing to proceed to gain initial market surprise and advantage.
Respectfully submitted by Asset Analytics, Inc.
1600-4 TuaJatin-Sberwood Rd, Suite 505, SheJ"'ffood, OR 97140
Client Confidential
COUNCIL RETREAT PACKET ITEMS (Attachment 1)
. AAI Summary of work to date completed regarding the TFN
. Network Electronics Proposal Documentation
. AAI CBD Conduit Gap Report (Conduit Needed To Complete The CBD Network)
. Bond Council Opinion Letter With Respect To Financing The Network
. AAI Tukwila Fiber NetwOIx Business Case
. Central Business District Key Businesses Contact List
. AAI Recommended Central Business District Deployment Process
. Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (CLECs) Regulated by the WUTC (for voice and data)
. AAI TFN Cost Breakdown
. Hebert Research Business and Residential Connectivity Survey Results
. AAI Network Pro Forma
. AAI Network Operations Model
. Tukwila Census Numbers
. Hebert Research Take Rate Rationale
. AAI Cash Flow Model
. AAI Survey ofTukwila Voice, Video and Data Monthly Rates
. Network Electronics and Related Equipment Vendor List
EXHIBIT A (Attachment 2)
,
Statement of\Vork
Work described in this Exhibit shall not commence without a wntten "Notice to Proceed"
provided by the City. Contractor shall submit to the City a written schedule that outlines
when the following tasks will be completed. Schedule shall be submitted to the City,
ATTN: Public Works Director, not later than 15 days after receipt of "Notice to
Proceed".
1. TASK A: SUBMIT A BUSINESS MODEL
Contractor shall re-evaluate the most recent business model associated with the proposed
deployment of the Tukwila Fiber Network (TFN). Update and submit a formal written
business model that considers the fiber deployment costs of only the Commercial
Business District (CBD) and as an option, a connection from the CBD to the Sabey Data
Center (CBD). The new business model shall include assumptions used in developing
the model such as take rates, network architecture selection, service providers, operations
and maintenance, bill of materials and other pertinent data.
2. TASK B: DETERMINE REVENUE SOURCES
Asset Analytics shall explore and determine from content providers, revenue
opportunities to defray or recapture deployment costs. Provide a written report to the
City, summarizing by content provider, the services and the amount of revenue that the
City can expect to receive.
3. TASK C: USE OF CITY'S STREET CREWS
In collaboration with City Staff, Contractor shall factor use of Public Works Department
Street Crews that have recently been trained and certified to work on fiber optic projects.
Contractor shall S1lmm~rize in written form, the advantages and disadvantages of using
trained City Crews and assess whether or not use of trained City Crews would lower fiber
deployment costs.
4. TASK D: EVALUATE POTENTIAL EFFICIENCIES WITH CITY TRAFFIC
SIGNAL PROJECTS
In collaboration with City Staff, Contractor shall explore possible efficiencies that could
be achieved with respect to the TIN Project and the City's traffic signal program (Green
River Signal Project and the CBD Signal Interconnect Project). Provide a written report
that outlines how TIN would interface with the two projects, and the savings that could
be obtained.
5. TASK E: FINALIZE LIST OF VEl\'DORS FOR SYSTEM COl'fIPONENTS
Contractor shall coordinate and develop a list of vendors that would provide equipment,
and service. Contractor shall provide to the,city a list summarizing the names of vendors
and the equipment/services that they could provide.
6. TASK F: DETER1\fiNE FINANCING/FUNDING STRATEGY
In close coordination with City's Finance Director, determine the optimal short and long-
term financing/funding resources. Coordinate with commercial entities (QWEST,
Verizon, COMCAST, Dynamic City, and other companies that may become potential
funding partners. Provide a ",Titten summary of companies contacted and an assessment
of their interest in becoming partners to the Project.
7. TASK G: MID-POINT REPORT
On or before November 15,2004, Contractor shall brief and submit report to the City
Council on progress related to TASKS A-F.
8. TASK H: OTHER TASKS DEEMED NECESSARY BY CITY
At the direction of the City, Contractor shall perform tasks related to this Statement of
Work. These tasks include but not limited to meetings with City Staff, attendance at
Utilities Committee Meetings, Connectivity Committee Meetings, and Council Meetings.
COUNCIL AGENDA SYNOPSIS
Ja y rnrriak ITEM No.
4$ 3 1, le 1 Jleetiny Date 1 Prepared Mayor'' mien' 1 Council mien• 1
',`uc,�. i 1 Jan 10, 2005 1 L /I A.ar VSL- 1
a
1 1 I I
I 1 I I I
ITEM INFORMATION 1
I CAS NUMBER: 05-005 IORIGLNAL AGENDA DATE: January 10, 2005
AGENDA ITEM TITLE Public hearing on proposed ordinance renewing a temporary moratorium on the
acceptance of applications for certain land divisions and land use decisions
within the area designated for transit oriented development.
CATEGORY Discussion Motion Remlutian Ordinance Bid Award X Public Hearing Other
Mfg Date 3L^g Dare At Date Mt Date Mg Date Mfg Date LIO.05 3178 Daft
SPONSOR Crunch MD-or
Adm Sirs X DCD Finance Fin Legal P&R Police PIF
SPONSOR'S Council is required to hold a public hearing on the proposed ordinance prior to
stmcfARY adoption.
RE\ IEWED BY COW Mtg. X CA &P Cmte F&S Cmte Transportation Cmte
Utilities Cmte Arts Comm. Parks Comm. Planning Comm.
DATE: 12.14.04
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Hold a public hearing and forward to regular meeting of the Council
SPONSOR/ADMIN. on January 18, 2005 for adoption.
Co.Om rEE CAP supported the ordinance and forwarded to COW for public
hearing.
I COST IMPACT FUND SOURCE'
EXPE \DIT[:RE REQUIRED AMOUNT BUDGETED APPROPRIATION REQUIRED
$None
Fund Source:
Comments:
1 MTG. DATE 1 RECORD OF COUNCIL ACTION
Council adopted Ordinance No. 2054, Establishing a temporary moratorium on the
7.19.04 acceptance of applications for certain land divisions and land use decisions within
the area designated for transit oriented development.
12.14.04 Community Affairs and Parks Committee recommends forwarding ordinance to COW
for a public hearing.
1 MTG. DATE 1 ATTACHMENTS
1.10.05 Memo to City Councilmembers RE: Public hearing on a proposed ordinance,
establishing a temporary moratorium on land divisions and certain land use
decisions in the Longacres TOD planning area.
I Proposed ordinance renewing six -month moratorium.
Copy of Memo to CAP dated 12/11/di' RE: Renewal of current moratorium
Copy of Public Hearing Notice dated 1.3.05
Copy of letter dated December 29, 2004 sent to affected property owners and
businesses in the TOD planning area.
Minutes of CAP meeting, December 14, 2004.
City of Tukwila
Steven M. Mullet, Mayor
Department of Communit;y Development
Steve Lancaster, Director
TO:
From:
Date:
Special Meeting/City Council ~vJ'
Steve Lancaster, DCD Director
January 5, 2005 .
Subject:
Public hearing on an ordinance renewing a temporary moratorium on land
divisions and certain land use decisions in the Longacres TOD planning area.
Background
In September 2002, Council adopted an ordinance establishing a six-month moratorium on the
acceptance of certain land divisions and land use decisions within the transit-oriented
development (TOD) planning area surrounding the Sounder Commuter Rail/Amtrak station (see
Figure I). The moratorium was intended to preserve land available for development or
redevelopment and restrict land uses that do not implement the vision for the area until land use
and transportation plans and regulations supporting the TOD at the station are in place.
Ordinance No. 2054 will expire January 24, 2005. Council must decide whether to renew the
ordinance or let the moratorium lapse. Planning for the TaD area is progressing, however there
is still a need for keeping the moratorium in place until a master plan for the area is in place.
On December 14,2004, CAP authorized staff to forward the proposed ordinance to Council for a
public hearing at their COW meeting on January 10,2005. Notice for the public hearing on the
moratorium was provided. In addition, individual letters were sent to affected property owners
and businesses notifYing them of the scheduled hearing. Attached is a copy of the proposed
ordinance.
Discussion
The current ordinance:
. Prohibits the filing of all pennits and approvals related to land divisions and such uses or
activities as manufacturing, industrial & auto-oriented businesses.
. Exempts the filing of and approvals related to the expansion of existing businesses on
existing lots, sign pennits and building pennits for tenant improvements, and the
extension of a current land use pennit.
. More uses are permitted in the TOD area than affected by the moratorium. The
moratorium does not affect the filing of approvals related to all other uses currently
allowed under TUC zoning, which support and implement the vision for the area,
including those that are easily redevelopable such as auto sales lots, contractor or storage
yards, or commercial parking.
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 . Tukwila, Washingtoa 98/88 . Phone: 206-43/-3670 . Fax: 206-43/-3665
Renewal of the moratorium will not affect the J2roposed zoning code amendment allowing mixed
use multifamily developments as a conditional use on properties adjacent to the Sounder
commuter rail/Amtrak station. Staff has not received any requests to modify the ordinance since
the last renewal in August 2004.
Proposed Next Steps
I. Council holds a public hearing on the moratorium at their COW meeting on January 10, 2005.
2. At the next regular meeting on January 18,2005, Council has the following options:
a) Adopt the proposed ordinance. Its provisions remain the same as the current Ordinance
No. 2054, without modifications. The moratorium remains in effect for six months, at the
end of which Council must hold another public hearing and renew or modify the
ordinance, or allow it to lapse.
b) Modify the proposed ordinance. It remains in effect for six months, at the end of which
Council must hold another public hearing and either renew, modify, or repeal the
moratorium.
c) Take no action. When Ordinance No. 2054 expires on January 24, 2005, land divisions,
development activities and land uses will occur in the area as allowed under the City's
zoning. Planning and implementation of the ruc vision and other transportation
improvements may be more difficult.
Conclusions
Staffwill be reviewing and revising the administrative draft ruc Plan in January through
February 2005. Planning Commission and City Council worksessions and public hearings will
begin late February. Plan adoption is anticipated in the third quarter of2005. However, there is
still a need for keeping the moratorium in place until that time. Should a specific project be
proposed that falls outside the uses pennitted under the moratorium, Staff will consider the
appropriateness of the project and bring it forward to the Council for deliberation.
Staff Recommendations
Staff recommends adopting the proposed ordinance without modifications at the Council's next
meeting on January 18,2005.
I
Transit-Oriented Development {TOD)
Planning Area
~.!!JT1iS1\
TUG
En BLVD
BlVD
a
---
r-
z
o
}-
z
w
a:
-
t;
:.::
~
c..
.~
~
'.
Figure 1.
----
lIDOOffi~1J
CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON
Ordinance No.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, RENEWING A SIX-
MONTH MORATORIU1YI ON ACCEPTANCE OF
APPLICATIONS FOR CERTAIN LAND DIVISIONS, AND
DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES AND LAND USES WITHIN
THE AREA DESIGNATED FOR TRANSIT ORIENTED
DEVELOPMENT AROUND THE TEMPORARY
COMMUTER RAIl/AMTRAK STATION AT LONGACRES;
PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND DECLARING AN
EMERGENCY.
WHEREAS, the City ofTukwila issued an Unclassified Use Permit in 1999
allowing Sound Transit to construct a temporary station for Sounder
commuter rail and Amtrak service at Longacres, adjacent to the Burlington
Northern Railroad; and
WHEREAS, Sounder's Unclassified Use Permit for the temporary station
expires in February, 2004, and either the station must be built or permit
renewed prior to this date; and
'VHEREAS, the City recognized the unique opportunity to promote a more
compact, mixed use, pedestrian supportive pattern of development that makes
effective use of its proximity and accessibility to the rail station, and includes
a mix of retail, service, office and residential uses; and
'WHEREAS, a more intensive pattern of transit-oriented development (TaD)
would assist the City with the redevelopment of the Tukwila Urban Center,
one of thirteen designated urban centers \vithin King County, and provide
workers with commercial, public and recreational services close to where they
live or work; and
WHEREAS, a more intensive pattern of TaD would benefit the region by
assisting in achieving Gro\\ih Management Act requirements and increasing
local and regional transit ridership; and
WHEREAS, in August, 2001, the City held a workshop, inviting other key
stakeholders to explore the possibilities for a TaD in the Longacres area; and
'VHEREAS, the workshop resulted in strong support for the project and a
"vision" for land use and transportation in the Longacres TaD area; and
,
WHEREAS, to implement this vision, the City applied for and was awarded a
S1.5 million grant by the Federal Highways Administration to prepare a
master plan for the Longacres area, identifYing land use, urban design and
transportation/circulation objectives, as well as to prepare implementing
ordinances and design guidelines, complete environmental review of the plan
and designate it as a planned action, and integrate the design of the pennanent
commuter rail/Amtrak station; and
WHEREAS, while the City anticipates the TOD master plan project to be
completed by the end of.:'~':_;)2005. some issues need to be addressed
immediately in order for the TOD project to be successful; and
WHEREAS, the Tukwila Urban Center (TUC) zoning district allows for a
variety of high-intensity regional uses in the TOD planning area, including
light industry and warehousing, some of which may not be of appropriate
type, density or character to support the intent of a TOD; and
WHEREAS, the Longacres site is considered one of the region's key
opportunities for TOD, primarily due to the large amount of vacant and
redevelop able land surrounding the station; and
\VHEREAS, Sound Transit's Unclassified Use Pennit for the temporary
Sounder Commuter Rail Station will need to be extended in order to ensure
that the pennanent Sounder Station is designed based on a completed TOD
master pJan, and
\VHEREAS, any significant amount of new development occurring prior to
the estabJishment of a desired pattern of uses in the TOD master pJan could
jeopardize the City's abiJity to impJement the TOD plan; and
WlIEREAS, the City has already received a proposal for development within
the TOD planning area that would have been inconsistent with the stated
vision for the TOD and threaten the successful implementation of the TOD
master plan; and
WlIEREAS, the City's Municipal Code allows for the division ofJand and
adjustment of boundary Jines that, if allowed to occur in the TOD planning
area, would make future land assemblage for a TOD project difficult and
costly, and threaten the successful implementation of the TOD master pJan;
and
\VHEREAS, within the TOD planning area, the City desires to take
immediate steps to preserve the land available for development or
redevelopment and restrict land uses that do not implement the vision for the
area until the TOD at Longacres master plan and environmental review are
completed, certain implementing zoning regulations are adopted by the City,
and otber related regional transportation infTastructure issues are decided; and
\"1!EREAS, the City also desires to ensure public input on these issues; and
\VHEREAS, the moratorium win expire on :'. ::i=t:3: : _ :2e'8-1-Januarv 24. 2005,
and the TaD planning process is not yet completed; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing on this proposed ordinance was held on J~::y
:", "'(',Januarv 10.2005; and
\VHEREAS, the City desires to preserve the status quo for the protection of
the health, safety and welfare of City residents, as it relates to development in
Tukwila, until these matters are more fully considered and, therefore, has
determined that an emergency exists; and
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA,
WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Findings of Fact and Emergency Declared. The "Whereas" clauses, above,
are hereby adopted by reference as the City Council's fmdings of fact as if fully set forth
herein. Furthermore, the City Council hereby declares an emergency necessary for the
protection of the public health and safety.
Section 2. Moratorium Area Established. For the purposes of this ordinance, "the TOD
planning area" is identified in Figure I. This area is bounded by 1-405 on the north,
Tukwila city limits on the east, the southern boundary of parcel number 2523049006 on
the south, and West Yaney Highway on the west.
Section 3. Moratorium on Activities. A moratorium established by Ordinance No. 1996
is hereby renewed, regarding the filing of permits and approvals within the TaD
planning area relating to:
1. Land divisions: This includes all permits and approvals related to subdivisions, short
subdivisions, boundary line adjustments, and lot consolidations.
I. Development Activities and Land Uses: Except for sign permits, building permits for
tenant improvements, the extension of current land use permits, and expansion of
existing businesses on existing lots, this includes all applications and approvals for
any and all:
a. rezones
b. conditional use permits
c. unclassified use permits
d. vanances
e. binding site plans
f. required enyironmental review
g. building pennits ,
h. land altering pennits relating to the following activities and uses:
(1) Amusement parks
(2) Automobile, recreational vehicles or travel trailer sales rooms. No
dismantling of cars or travel trailers nor sale of used parts allowed.
(3) Automotive services
(4) Cemeteries and crematories
(5) Commercial laundries
(6) Drive-in theaters
(7) Drive-through restaurants
(8) Electrical substations - distribution
(9) Heavy equipment repair and salvage
(10) Internet data/telecommunication centers
(11) Manufacturing, processing and/or packaging of foods, including but not
limited to, baked goods, beverages (except fennenting and distilling),
candy, canned or preserved foods, dairy products and byproducts, ITozen
foods, instant foods and meats (no slaughtering)
(12) Manufacmring, processing and/or packaging pharmaceuticals and related
products, such as cosmetics and drugs
(13) Manufacturing, processing, and/or packaging previously prepared
materials including, but not limited to, bags, brooms, brushes, canvas,
clay, clothing, fur, furnimre, glass, ink, paint, paper, plastics, rubber, tile,
and wood
(14) Manufacturing, processing, assembling, packaging and/or repairing
electronic, mechanical or precision instruments such as medical and dental
equipment, photographic goods, measurement and control devices, and
recording equipment.
(15) Manufacturing, processing and/or assembling previously prepared metals
including, but not limited to, stamping, dyeing, shearing or punching of
metal, engraving, galvanizing and hand-forging.
(16) Motels
(17) Recreation facilities (commercial - indoor), including bowling alleys,
skating rinks, shooting ranges
(18) Warehouse storage and/or wholesale distribution facilities
Section 4. Effective Period of Moratorium. The moratorium established by this
ordinance shall become eftective as set forth in Section 7 below, and shall continue in
effect for SLX months thereafter unless repealed, renewed or modified by the City Council
after a subsequent public hearing and entry of findings of fact.
Section 5. 'York Program. The Mayor is authorized to allocate the necessary resources
to prepare a work program to address the land use and transportation planning issues
identified in this ordinance and the City shall implement such a work program.
Section 6. Severability. If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause or pluase
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 federal law or regulation, such decision or
preemption shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of
this ordinance or its application to any other persons or circumstances.
Section 7. Effective Date. This ordinance, or a summary thereof, shall be published in
the official newspaper of the City. As set forth in Section I, this public emergency
ordinance -- necessary for the protection ofthe public health, public safety, public
property or the public peace -- shall be effective immediately upon its adoption, pursuant
to RCW 35A.12.130.
PASSED BY TIIE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON,
at a Regular Meeting thereofthis _ day of _,200-:'2.
Steven M. Mullet, Mayor
ATIEST/AUTHENTICATED:
Jane E. Cantu, CMC, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By
Office of the City Attorney
City of Tukwi{a
Steven M, Mullet, Mayor
Department of Community Detlelopment
Steve l.<incaster, Director
TO:
From:
Date:
Community Affairs and Parks Committee Members
Steve Lancaster, Director
December 14, 2004
Subject:
Renewing the current moratorium on certain land divisions and development
activities within the transit oriented development (TOD) planning area
Back!!round
In September 2002, Council adopted an ordinance establishing a sLx-month moratorium on the
acceptance of certain land divisions and land use decisions within the transit-oriented
development (TOD) planning area surrounding the Sounder Commuter Rail!Amtrak station (see
Figure I). The moratorium was intended to preserve land available for development or
redevelopment and restrict land uses that do not implement the vision for the area until land use
and transportation plans and regulations supporting the TOD at the station are in place.
Ordinance No. 2054 expires January 24, 2005. Council must decide whether to hold a public
hearing and renew the ordinance or let the moratorium lapse. To date, Council has renewed the
moratorium four times, modifying it to provide more flexibility in use of the parcels while the
ruc plan was being developed. However, there is still a need for keeping the moratorium in
place until a plan for the area is adopted.
Discussion
The Current Ordinance:
. Prohibits the filing of all permits and approvals related to land divisions and such uses or
activities as manufacturing, industrial & auto-oriented businesses.
. Exempts the filing of and approvals related to the expansion of existing businesses on
existing lots, sign permits and building permits for tenant improvements, and the
extension of a current land use permit.
. More uses are permitted in the TOD area than affected by the moratorium. The
moratorium does not affect the filing of approvals related to all other uses currently
allowed under ruc zoning, which support and implement the vision for the area,
including those that are easily redevelopable such as auto sales lots, contractor or storage
yards, or commercial parking.
Renewal of the moratorium will not affect the proposed zoning code amendment allowing mixed
use multifamily developments as a conditional use on properties adjacent to the Sounder
commuter rail/Amtrak station.
6300 South center Boulevard, Suite #/00 . Tukwila, Washington 98/88 . Phone: 206-43/.3670 . Fax: 206.431-3665
Options
1. Council renews the Ordinance as is. Its provisions remain the same as the current Ordinance
No. 2054, without modifications. The moratorium remains in effect for six months, at the
end of which Council must hold another public hearing and renew, modify, or repeal the
moratorium.
2. Council modifies the Ordinance. It remains in effect for six months, at the end of which
Council must hold another public hearing and either renew, modify, or repeal the
moratorium.
3. Council allows the Ordinance to lapse. Land divisions, development activities and land uses
will occur in the area as allowed under the City's zoning. Planning and implementation of the
ruc vision and other transportation improvements may be more difficult.
Conclusions
Staffwill be reviewing and revising the administrative draft ruc Plan in January 2005. Planning
Commission and City Council worksessions and public hearings will begin late February. Plan
adoption is anticipated in the third quarter of2005. However, there is still a need for keeping the
moratorium in place until that time. Should a specific project be proposed that falls outside the
uses permitted under the moratorium, Staff will consider the appropriateness of the project and
bring it forward to the Council for deliberation.
Staff Recommendations
Renew the Ordinance without modifications. Forward the proposed amendment on to the COW
for a public hearing at a special meeting at their January 10,2005 meeting.
City .of Tukwila
NOTICE OF
PUBLIC HEARING
Notice is hereby given that the TukwiIa City Council will hold a public hearing on
Monday, January 10, 2005, beginning at 7 PM in the Council Chambers at Tukwila City
Hall, 6200 Southcenter Blvd, Tukwila, Washington, to consider the following:
An ordinance renewing a six-month moratorium on
acceptance of applications for certain land divisions
and development activities and land uses within the
area designated for Transit-Oriented Development
(TO D) around the temporary Sounder Commuter
RaiV Amtrak station at Longacres.
All interested persons are invited to be present to voice approval, disapproval, or
opinions on this issue. Those unable to attend in person may submit written testimony to the
City Oede's office until 5 p.m. on the day of the hearing.
TukwiIa City Hall is wheelchair accessible. The City strives to accommodate people
with disabilities. Reasonable accommodations are available at Public Hearings with advance
notice. This notice is available in alternate formats for individuals with disabilities. Please
contact the City Oerk's Office at (206) 433-1800 or roD (206) 248-2933 by Noon on the day of
the hearing if we can be of assistance.
...,.A.l ~
Dated this '- ') day o! .L( I ~. 2005.
(}?~IP 0.{~~
Jane E. Cantu, CMC City Oerk
1/
Published: Seattle Times, December 31, 2004
City of Tukwiia
Steven M. Mullet, Mayor
1
Department of Community Development
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Steve Lancaster, Director
December 29,2004
Dear Sir or Madam:
The Tukwila City Council is considering renewing Ordinance No. 2054 establishing a temporary
moratorium on certain land divisions, and development activities and land uses within the area
designated for Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) around the temporary commuter
rail/Amtrak station at Longacres (see Figure I). No changes to the ordinance are proposed.
According to City records, your property or business may be affected by this moratorium.
Consequently, we wanted to notify you of the public hearing on this ordinance scheduled for
Monday, January 10, 2005, at 7:00 p.m. in Council Chambers, located in Tukwila City Hall,
6200 Southcenter Blvd.
The moratorium is intended to preserve land available for development or redevelopment and
restrict land uses that do not implement the vision for the area until land use and transportation
plans and regulations supporting the TOD are in place.
Within the TOD area, the current ordinance:
. Prohibits the filing of all permits and approvals related to:
. land divisions
. such uses or activities as manufacturing, industrial & auto-oriented businesses.
. Allows the filing of and approvals related to:
The expansion of existing businesses on existing lots.
Sign permits and building permits for tenant improvements.
. Allows the filing of approvals related to:
All other uses currently allowed under roc (Tukwila Urban Center) zoning which
support and implement the vision for the area, including those that are easily
redevelopable such as auto sales lots, contractor or storage yards, or commercial
parking.
The current Ordinance, No. 2054, expires January 24, 2005. Council must hold a public hearing
and decide whether to renew the ordinance or let the moratorium lapse. Planning for the TOD
area is underway, and there is still a need for keeping the moratorium in place until a master plan
for the area is in place.
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 . Tukwila, Washington 98188 . Phone: 206.431-3670 . Fax: 206.431-3665
-2-
December 21, 2004
For additional information, or to obtain a copy of the proposed ordinance, please contact Lynn
Miranda, Senior Planner, or Jack Pace, Deputy Director, at 206.431.3670.
Sincerely,
~L-A-
Steve Lancaster
Director, Department of Community Development
Community and Parks Committee
December 14,2004
Present:
Pam Linder, Chair; Joe Duffie, Dave Fenton
Steve Lancaster, Kevin Speck, L}lU11vfiranda, Lucv La
Renewal Moratorium on TOD Area Since 2002 there has been a moratorium on certain uses
of the land around the Transit Oriented Development area. The moratorium prohibits
manufacturing, industrial, and auto-related businesses, but many uses are allowed that will not
prevent easy redevelopment in future years. Steve L said the moratorium will not affect the
proposed new housing development in the area. Noting there have been several extensions of this
moratorium, he said the plan is progressing toward completion, and though this may not be the
last extension, it should be fInished in 2005. The plan will be ready for initial Council review in
January. There will be a public hearing Jannary 10, and adoption a week later. Recommend
Public Hearing- and renewing- the moratorium to a CO\"" January 10.
Contract with Huckell Weinman Associates for EIS for TUC The City has been very
successful in doing a Planned Action environmental review of the manufacturing area so that
developers generally don't need to do EIS work for their projects. DCD is planning to do the
same in the TUe. The plan would look at the environment impacts possible in the area, and then
specify what projects could go forward where. The end product will be a Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS)_ Dave asked about the consultant. Steve said they had
done the Westfield ElS. Recommend contract to COW,
Connecti\'itv The Committee talked about how the City might be able to connect at least the
CBD and eventually the neighborhoods with gigabit ethemet. They discussed what a benefIt to
certain businesses this would be, and Dave said it would be beneficial to some apartments as
well. How much it would cost businesses to buy in was one issue. Though Tukwila has a
substantial amount of capacity for fiber in the ruc, some of the larger companies want to o\\'n
their --G\\-'Rpipes-as-well-as--fiber ~fle si gnal-imerc-onnectiJwjects-on-the east-s-ide-of the-e-ity-a!so------- --
have helped to put capacity in the ground. Dave said he had originally thought it would be good
to do a joint project with our neighboring cities, but he is re-thinking that might not be good, as
Tukwila is far ahead of our neighbors in putting pipe in the ground. Joe asked how connectivity
would affect the many poor people who live in Tukwila. One thing many lower income people
do have is cable TV, and they may want to use connectivity for that as long as they have to pay a
bill for cable. Pam asked Derek if he could prepare an information paper in January on how
having Ethernet would affect the CBD in its quest for attracting new businesses. She said she
would bring this up with the lVlayor to clarify and get approval for her request. Information.
~-
.J( -
\ ~ Committee chair approval
COUNCIL AGENDA SYNOPSIS
k \S% initials ITE'�1-r No.
G a r1tAki 1 Oi Mainz Date i Pr ;wad by' 1 f or's review l G,_:md/ min; 1
.,en /2 1.10.05 1 SL 1 \‘‘7, AAA t' L/
Isoa I 10 S I I v\
i I I I I
ITEM INFORMATION 1
I CAS NUMBER: 05-006 I ORIGLNAL AGENDA DATE: January 10, 2005
1 AGENDA ITEM TITLE Contract for preparing Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
CATEGORY X Disors ion Motion Resolution Ordinance Bid Award Public Heating Other
11g Date Mfg Date 316 Date rs Da :e Mfg Date Air g Date
SPONSOR Council Algol-
9 Adm Sres X DCD Fina,;c Fire Legal P&R Police Pll%
SPONSOR'S This contract with Huckell Weinman Associates (I -IWA) Inc. is for preparation of a Supplemental Environmental
SL L\IARY Impact Statement and Planned Action Ordinance for the Tukwila Urban Center Plan. It is funded by the Tukwila
Urban Center/TOD federal grant.
REVIEWED BY COW Mtg. X CARP Cmte 12/14/0t0 FRS Cmte Transportation Cmte
Utilities Cmte Arts Comm. Parks Comm. Planning Comm.
DATE:
RECOMMENDATIONS:
SPONSOR /ADMLN. Recommend approval of contract
CO\DIITTEE Recommend approval of contract
jCOST IMPACT FUND SOURCES
E YE \DITL.RE REQUIRED AMOUNT BUDGETED APPROPRIATION REQUIRED
0 0 $0
Fund Source: N/A
Comments :Preparation of amendment can be completed in- house.
MTG. DATE I RECORD OF COUNCIL ACTION
MTG. DATE ATTACHMENTS
1.10.05 I Staff memo to COW RE: Contract with HWA for TUC SEIS preparation
Minutes from CAP Meeting December 14, 2004
City of Tukwiia
Steven M. Mullet, Mayor
Department of Community Development
Steve LanC11Ster, Director
TO:
From:
Date:
Committee of the Whole Memb~"
Steve Lancaster, DCD Director
January 2. 2005
Subject:
Contract for Consultant Services related to the Supplemental Environmental
Impact Statement and Planned Action for the Tukwila Urban Center Plan
Backl!round
As you will recall, the Tukwila Urban Center Plan will focus on the Mall to Station alternative as
well as a "no action" alternative. The TUC plan is due out in draft form in February 2005.
In order to streamline future environmental review for projects in the TUC, environmental
review for the ruc plan will be completed as a "Planned Action". Designating a specific area
as a planned action shifts detailed environmental review of projected land uses and their
impacts to the planning phase rather than the permitting phase. So, although a typical project
requires additional detailed environmental review at the permitting phase, a project qualifYing
for "planned action review" does not.
The intent is to provide a more streamlined environmental review process. Benefits of this
include:
. increase predictability of development requirements for permit applicants
. less applicant and City staff time for environmental permitting tasks.
In 1997, the City ofTukwila adopted the MIC Plan as a planned action. This technique has
worked successfully to streamline the environmental process for projects in the MIC zone.
Process
In order to designate the ruc plan a planned action, the City must do the following:
1. Complete a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement addressing likely significant
adverse environmental impacts of the ruc Plan.
I. Designate by ordinance those types of projects qualifYing for planned action review,
including mitigation measures that will be required. The types of projects must be
limited to certain type of projects or to a specific geographical area I.
I (See RCW 43.21C.031, WAC 197-11-164 and 168 tor more information).
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #/00 . Tukwila, Washington 98188 . Phone: 206.431.3670 . Fax: 206-431-3665
Contract
?
Staff has completed a consultant selection process for preparation of the Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement and Planned Action Ordinance and has selected Huckell
Weinman Associates Inc. The contract is for S39,072 and will be funded by the Tukwila Urban
CenterrrOD federal grant. The attached contract package includes Attachment B, the scope of
work for the project. This scope of work has been summarized below for your convenience.
Task I: Project Strategy and Kick-off
Task 2: Draft SEIS
Scoping
Collection of Background Information
Project Description and Alternatives
Summary of Prior Environmental Analysis
Analysis of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Miscellaneous EIS Sections
Task 3: Final SEIS
Task 4: Planned Action Ordinance
Task 5: Implementation and Administration - Development Tracking and Monitoring
Staff Recommendations:
Approve the contract with Huckell Weinman Associates Inc. to prepare the ruc SEIS and
Planned Action Ordinance.
Next steps:
Forward the proposed contract on to the City Council for action on the consent agenda on
January 18.
Exhibit A-1
Certification Of Consultant
Project No. TSP (IOl)
Local Agency LA5377
I hereby certify that I am Richard Weinman
representative of the firm of Huckell/Weinman Associates, Inc.
270 - 3rd Ave Ste 200, Kirkland, W A 98033
firm I here represent has:
and duly authorized
whose address is
and that neither I nor the above
(a) Employed or retained for a commission, percentage, brokerage, contingent fee or other consideration, any
firm or person (other than a bona fide employee working solely for me or the above CONSULTANT) to
solicit or secure this contract.
(b) Agreed, as an express or implied condition for obtaining this contract, to employ or to retain the services of
any firm or person in connection with carrying out the contract.
(c) Paid, or agreed to pay, to any firm, organization or person (other than a bona fide employee working solely
for me or the above CONSULTANT) any fee, contribution donation or consideration of any kind for, or in
connection with procuring or carrying out the contract; except as here expressly stated (if any):
I further certify that the firm I hereby represent is authorized to do business in the State of Washington and
that the firm is in full compliance with the requirements of the board of Professional Registration.
I acknowledge that this certificate is to be available to the State Department of Transportation and the
Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, in connection with this contract
involving participation of Federal aid funds and is subject to applicable State and Federal laws, both
criminal and civil.
12/16/2004
Date
Signature
Certification of Agency Official
I hereby certify that I am the AGENCY Official of the Local Agency of Tukwila, Washington
and that the above consulting firm or their representative has not been required, directly or indirectly as an
express or implied condition in connection with obtaining or carrying out this contract to:
(a) Employ or retain, or agree to employ or retain, any firm or person, or
(b) Payor agree to pay to any firm, person or organization, any fee, contribution, donation or consideration of
any kind, except as here expressly stated (if any).
I acknowledged that this certificate is to be available to the Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department
of Transportation, in connection with this contract involving participation of Federal aid highway funds and it
subject to applicable State and Federal laws, both criminal and civil.
- ~ --.
-~-
Date
Signature
Exhibit A-2
Certification Regarding Debarment,,suspension, and Other Responsibility
Matters-Primary Covered Transactions
I. The prospective primary participant certifies to the best of its knowledge and belief, that it and its
principals:
(a) Are not presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily
excluded rrom covered transactions by any federal department or agency;
(b) Have not within a three-year period preceding this proposal been convicted of or had a civil judgment
rendered against them for commission or ITaud or a criminal offense in connection with obtaining,
attempting to obtain, or perfonning a public (federal, state, or local) transaction or contract under a public
transaction; violation offederal or state antitrust statues or commission of embezzlement, theft, forgery,
bribery, falsification or destruction of records, making false statements, or receiving stolen property;
(c) Are not presently indicted for or otherwise criminally or civilly charged by a governmental entity
(federal, state, or local) with commission of any of the offenses enumerated in paragraph l.b. of this
certification; and
(d) Have not within a three-year period preceding this applicationJproposal had one or more public
transactions (federal, state, or local) tenninated for cause or default.
2. Where the prospective primary participant is unable to certify to any of the statements in this certification,
such prospective participant shall attach an explanation to this proposal.
Consultant (Firm): HuckelllWeinman Associates, Inc.
12/1612004
(Date)
{Signature} President or Authorized Official of Consultant
Exhibit A-3
Certification Regarding The Restrictions
of The use of Federal Funds for Lobbying
The prospective participant certifies, by signing and submitting this bid or proposal, to the best of his or her
knowledge and belief, that:
I. No federal appropriated funds have been paid or wiII be paid, by or on behalf of the undersigned, to any
person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any federal agency, a member of
Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a member of Congress in connection with
the awarding of any federal contract, the making of any federal grant, the making of any federal loan, the
entering into of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or
modification of any federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement.
2. If any funds other than federal appropriated funds have been paid or wiII be paid to any person for
influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any federal agency, a member of Congress,
an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a member of Congress in connection with this
federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement, the undersigned shall complete and submit Standard
Fonn-LLL, "Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying," in accordance with its instructions.
This certification is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when this transaction
was made or entered into. Submission of this certification is a prerequisite for making or entering into this
transaction imposed by Section 1352, Title 3 I, U.S. Code. Any person who fails to file the required
certification shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than S I 0,000 and not more than S I 00,000 for each
such failure.
The prospective participant also agrees by submitting his or her bid or proposal that he or she shall require
that the language of this certification be included in all lower tier subcontracts which exceed S I 00,000 and
that all such subrecipients shall certify and disclose accordingly.
Consultant (Finn): HuckelI!\Veinman Associates, Inc.
12/16/2004
(Date)
(Signature) President or Authorized Official of Consuftant
Exhibit A-4
Certificate of Curreqt Cost or Pricing Data
This is to verify that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, the cost or pricing data (as defIned in
section 15.801 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and required under FAR subsection 15.804-2)
submitted, either actually or by specifIc identification in writing, to the contracting officer or to the
contracting officer's representative in support of LA5377 / TCSP (010)
* are accurate, complete, and current as of September 15,2004 **. This certifIcation includes
the cost or pricing data supporting any advance agreements and forward pricing rate agreements between
the offeror and the Government that are part of the proposal.
Finn Huckell/Weinman Associates, Inc.
Name Richard Weinman
Title Vice President
Date of Execution*** December 16, 2004
* Identify the proposal, quotation, request for price adjustment, or other submission involved,
giving the appropriate identifying number (e.g., RFP No.).
** Insert the day, month, and year when price negotiations were concluded and price agreement
was reached
*** Insert the day, month, and year of signing, which should be as close as practicable to the date
when the price negotiations were concluded and the contract price was agreed to.
Exhibit B-1: ProjeGt # TCSP- TCSP(01 0)
Tukwila Urban Center Planned Action
Scope of Work
HuckelllWeinman Associates' scope of work for the Tukwila Urban Center Planned
Action includes the following major elements: preparation of a Supplemental EIS (draft
and final), strategic advice on how to define the planned action area, preparation of a
planned action ordinance, and identification of tools/procadures to help staff implement
and track the planned action. Major tasks are described below.
Task 1. Proiect Initiation/StrateQV
Objective: "Kjck off' the project and discuss strategic issues relating to scope,
define the planned action area, and identify implementation issues and tools.
The initial task is intended to provide the consultant and City with an opportunity to
discuss strategic issues related to defining, evaluating and implementing the planned
action. This will include how the planned action is defined in terms of uses, intensity,
design and location; the content of the SEIS (what analysis is being supplemented
andlor deferred); and issues with administration and implementation of planned actions,
based on the City's prior experience. This meeting will also provide an opportunity to
brainstorm ideas about potential tools that could be used to review and make
consistency determinations for planned actions, and to monitor and track development.
The consultant will provide examples of existing planned action ordinances for the City
to consider in conjunction with Task 4.
Product: Memorandum documenting strategy decisions and course of action.
Schedule: Within 2 weeks of, or prior to, contract execution.
Task 2. Draft SEIS .
Objective: Prepare Draft SEIS for the TUC Planned Action
Task 2 is divided into several sub-tasks, beginning with scoping and leading to
publication of the Draft SEIS.
a. Scopinq. The consultant will prepare a scoping notice for publication by the City.
The notice will generally describe the proposal and alternatives, environmental issues
preliminarily identified for discussion in the SEIS, and will invite public/agency comment.
A scoping meeting is not required by SEPA and is not proposed.
b. Collection of Backqround Information. The City will provide to the consultant relevant
environmental information contained in existing environmental documents (e.g., the
Westfield EIS, the Comprehensive Plan EIS, and the SEPA Checklist for the current
Comprehensive Plan update), and City plans (e.g., plans for public services and utilities).
The City will also provide copies of the Urban Center sub-area plan, zoning regulations
and design guidelines when drafts are available. The consultant will compile and
summarize this information for incorporation in the SEIS. The consultant will also
HuckelI/Weinman Associates Scope of Work
Tukwila Urban Center Planned Action
1
identify the framework contained in relEWant planning documents and development
regulations, which will be relevant to mitigation.
c. Project Description & Alternatives. The consultant will describe the proposal &
alternatives. The proposed action is adoption of a sub-area plan, development
regulations and design guidelines for the Urban Center, and designation of the sub-area
as a planned action for purposes of future SEPA compliance. Key aspects of the
description will include the planned action area, planned land uses, intensity/amounts of
development (net increase and mid-term development, building heights, FAR, etc.),
population and employment forecasts/capacity, planned improvements, proposed
policies, design guidelines, development regulations, thresholds for vehicle trips, the
planned action time period, and other relevant parameters. Where appropriate, this
information will be presented in tabular form.
We are assuming that the entire urban center will be designated as the planned action
sub-area. The focus of the analysis will be on the type, amount, location and form of
expected mid-term development (2020). Focus areas and typical development
forms/footprints will be used as representative examples of expected development.
Longer-term development will be described more generally.
Prior planning has effectively limited the range of reasonable alternatives for the City
Center; speculative or "straw man" development scenarios are not necessary or
appropriate. Therefore, only the No Action alternative, as required by SEPA, will be
addressed in the SEIS. No Action will assume continuation of existing Comprehensive
Plan policies, development regulations and land use trends (including vested and other
reasonably certain background growth). A sub-area plan, area-specific regulations and
design guidelines would not be adopted. The sub-area would not be designated as a
planned action. No Action will provide a baseline against which to measure the impacts
of the proposal.
The project description will also describe the context of prior planning, environmental
review and regulatory actions. It will summarize SEPA's planned action provisions and
procedures. This information will help describe the framework for the City's proposal.
This description would be based on the Task 1 meeting, subsequent discussions and
information provided by the City. Describing the proposal accurately is crucial for
properly framing the EIS analysis. We will circulate a draft project description and
incorporate feedback before proceeding with the analysis.
Our budget assumes that graphics to support the description of the proposal and
alternatives will be taken from the plan and/or provided by the City's plan consultant.
d. SummalY of Prior Environmental Ana/vsis. The consultant will prepare a summary of
existing environmental information/analysis for those elements of the environment not
addressed in the planned action SEIS. The purpose is to document the rationale for the
SEIS' limited scope, and to provide a road map that can be used by project staff
reviewing implementing projects to find relevant environmental analysis and to
determine project consistency. The summary would also provide a rationale for phased
review of selected issues (e.g., air quality conformity analysis). This information could
be placed as an introduction to the Impact section of the SEIS. or contained in the
project description.
Hucke/I/Weinman Associates Scope of Wolk
Tukwita Urban Center Planned Action
2
Relevant information regarding utilities will be prepared by the City, edited by the
consultant, and included in the summary. It is assumed that utilities systems are
adequate, that this fact is documented in existing plans or analysis, and that further
analysis in the SEIS is not required.
e. Analvsis of Impacts and Mitiaation Measures. Our scope of work assumes that the
SEIS will address the following substantive issues: transportation, land use (land use
patterns and relationship to plans and policies), and aesthetics. Each element is
described briefly below.
i. Transportation will be the major focus of the SEIS. This analysis will be
prepared by Mirai Associates pursuant to their scope of work with the City. (The
consultant will review Mirai's scope of work, provide any relevant SEPA-related
approach, methodology and coordination issues.) The transportation analysis
will be submitted to HWA in electronic form and reviewed/edited by HWA for
incorporation into the SEIS.
ii. Land & Shoreline Use will describe existing conditions and will evaluate
significant changes to land and shoreline use expected to result from the sub-
area plan. The framework for analysis will include identifying types of uses,
overall land use patterns. intensity of development, etc. The range of impacts will
include direct (e.g., displacement), indirect (e.g., potential influences on future
land uses) and cumulative impacts. Any land use conflicts or incompatibilities
will be identified. (These will, presumably have been anticipated and addressed
in the sub-area plan and development regulations.)
The relationship of the proposal to adopted plans & policies will be described.
This is intended to help establish the consistency (or identify any inconsistencies)
between the sub-area plan and the Comprehensive Plan, Growth Management
Act policies, and the County-wide Planning Policies.
iii. Aesthetics will describe any significant change in the form (height, bulk and
scale) and appearance of development resulting from the sub-area plan. Any
significant conflicts (including potential view blockage or shadowing caused by
taller buildings) will be identified. In large part, expected visual change is
expected to be positive. The discussion will be qualitative; photo-simulations are
not proposed.
The discussion of mitigation measures for each element of the environment addressed
in the SEIS will specify the requirements contained in adopted development regulations,
and identify any measures that are specific to implementing future development
proposals. Requirements in proposed sub-area development regulations and design
guidelines will be identified. Mitigation will also be linked to any quantitative or temporal
measures (e.g., number of trips, LOS, population or employment levels) that would
trigger the need for identified capital improvements. This approach is intended to enable
the City to effectively program, phase and monitor development in the TUC to ensure
that concurrency requirements are satisfied.
f. Miscellaneous EIS Sections. This task includes preparation of the fact sheet,
summary, references and distribution list (the latter will be provided by the City).
HuckelllWeinman Associates Scope of Work
Tukl'li/a Urban Center Planned Action
3
The consultant will produce a preliminary, document for internal review and comment;
our budget assume one round of substantive review. We would then revise the
document and prepare it for printing/publication. It is assumed that the City will distribute
the SEIS and publish any required notices.
Product: Camera-ready Draft SEIS
Schedule: March 2005 (timing could be adjusted based on completion of sub-
area plan documents)
Task 3. Final SEIS
Objective: Respond to public and agency comments on the Draft SEIS, and
address any changes to the proposal.
Comment letters will be reviewed and numbered. and issues will be categorized. We
would initially meet to discuss the comments and potential responses with the City.
The Final SEIS will respond to comments received on the Draft SEIS from agencies,
organizations and the public. Responses may take the form of a written answer to a
specific comment, a modification to the proposal, new or revised alternatives, providing
additional information or analysis, or describing why no response is necessary (WAC
197-11-560). Our budget assumes a moderate number of comments (25) and that no
additional substantive analysis will be required. It is assumed that Mirai Associates will
respond to comments relating to transportation. (Since it is impossible to predict the
number or substance of comments in advance, we propose to revisit the Final SEIS
budget after comment letters are reviewed.)
The consultant will produce a draft for internal review and comment; our budget
assumes one round of internal review. We will then revise the document and prepare it
for printing/publication.
Product: Camera-ready Final SEIS.
Schedule: May 2005 (could be adjusted based on completion of sub-area plan
and publication date of Draft SEIS)
Task 4. Planned Action Ordinance
Objective: Prepare a draft ordinance designating the TUC planned action and
incorporating legal requirements.
The consultant will prepare a draft ordinance consistent with the requirements of
WAC197-11-168. In general, the ordinance will describe:
(1) the types of projects designated as planned actions (i.e., in terms of use,
amount, configuration, location, etc.);
(2) a finding that environmental impacts of the panned action have been
adequately addressed in the EIS;
(3) a description of how the planned action satisfies the criteria in WAC 197-11-
164 (I.e., a GMA sub-area plan. located within an urban growth area. not an
essential public facility, and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan); and
(4) specific mitigation measures - other than adopted development regulations -
that will apply to projects.
HuckellfWeinman Associates Scope of Wotk
Tukwila Urban Center Planned Action
4
The ordinance (or the EIS) may limit the planned action to a specific time period.
For efficiency, the consultant will compile and use, as appropriate, some provisions from
adopted planned actions. One round of internal review of the draft ordinance is
assumed. The City may wish to involve the City attorney at this point. or earlier.
The consultant will attend and provide support at the public hearing (one hearing
assumed) for the ordinance.
Product: Draft planned action ordinance for public review.
Schedule: June 2005
Task 5. Implementation & Administration - Development Trackinq & Monitorinq
Objective: Develop tools and procedures to help the Gity efficiently make planned
action consistency determinations; and to enable the Gity to track and monitor
development within the TUG.
The consultant will meet with planning and project review staff to gain an overview and
understanding of the City's development review process, including projects reviewed
pursuant to the Manufacturingllndustrial Center planned action. Our goal is to clearly
understand how City staff currently use planning and environmental documents and
information to make decisions. This will provide a basis for identifying tools and
techniques for making TUC information more accessible and useful. We envision that a
number of matrices andlor checklists will be prepared to help staff identify and track
issues and impacts quantitatively (e.g., amount of development by type, number of trips
generated) and qualitatively (e.g., land use conflicts).
These initiatives could also effect the type or format of information provided by the
applicant. As noted previously, we propose to integrate these concerns into the
summary and presentation of information in the SEIS, so it is easier to make conclude
whether or not project impacts are addressed in the planned action SEIS. Developing
these tools is envisioned to be a collaborative process between the consultant and City
staff.
A new planned action checklist form will be developed to replace the standard SEPA
checklist that is currently used to make planned action consistency determinations.
(DOE approval or a new checklist is required per WAC 197-11-315 (2)). It would
reorganize and focus the information provided by the applicant so it is more closely
related to the decisions that must be made by staff in making its planned action
determinations (based on WAC 197-11-164 through 172). Two iterations of a draft
checklist are envisioned, plus a response to DOE comments (which are assumed) on
the draft checklist.
Product: PA consistency checklist; matrices and/or checklists.
Schedule: May 2005 (could be adjusted based on completion of sub-area plan
and publication date of Final SEIS)
Huckell/Weinman Associates Scope of Work
Tukwila Urban Center Planned Action
5
Estimated Project Budget
7
I Richard W Jacquelyn S David N Total
Hours/Cost I
Task ,
I
Project I 14 2,352 141 1,260 28 3,612
Management/Coordination 1 I
Meetings/Hearings < I 12 2,016 8 720 8 1,008 28 3,744
Task 1. Project I 4 6721 4 360 I 4 504 12 1,536
Initiation/Strategy
Task 2. Draft SEIS I 30 5,040 92 8,280 I 122 13,320
Task 3. Final SEIS " I 10 1,680 241 2,160 I I 34 3,840
Task 4. Planned Action 1 20 3,360 I 4 504 24 3,864
Ordinance
Task 5. Implementation Tools 12 2,016 140 5,040 52 7,056
Subtotal Labor 102 17,136 142 12,780 56 7,056 300 36,972
SEIS PrintinQ 4 1,600
Misc. Expenses 500
Total Cost I 39,072
Notes:
2004 Hourly Billing Rates (fully burdened): RW=$168; DN= $126; JS=$90
1. Project management assumes an average of 1 hour per week for 28 weeks.
2. Assumes 2 meetings (@2hrs) with City staff (RW, JS, ON); assumes attendance at 1
hearing (RW).
3. Assumes 25 comment letters received: 75 percent are assumed to be related to
transportation, with the remainder related to SEPA, process or land use.
4. For both Draft and Final documents, assumes 10 copies of prelim and 100 copies of
published document @ 100 pages x .07 page. Assumes distribution by the City.
Huckell/Weinman Associates Scope of Work
Tukwila Urban Center Planned Action
6
Schedule *
7
2004
November Contract neaotiation
2005 1
January Contract approval
Proiect initiation; brainstorm meetina
February Prepare Draft SEIS
March Internal review draft completed
City review & comment
Revise document
April Publish Draft SEIS
Beain comment oeriod (30-45 davs)
May End of comment oeriod
June Prepare Final SEIS
Adminfimplementation tools
July Internal review draft
City review and comment
Revise document
Publish Final SEIS
Prepare Planned Action ordinance
* Task completion dates could be adjusted to reflect any slippage in the schedule for the
sub-area plan, development regulations and design guidelines.
HuckeltNIeinman Associates Scope of Work
Tukl'lila Urban Center Planned Action
7
Exhibit C-2
Payment
(Cost Plus Fixed Fee)
The CONSULTANT shall be paid by the AGENCY for completed work and services rendered under this
AGREEMENT as provided hereinafter. Such payment shall be full compensation for all work perfonned or
services rendered and for all labor, materials, equipment, and incidentals necessary to complete the work
specified in Section II, "Scope of Work." The CONSULTMT'f shall conform with the applicable portion of 48
CFR3L
A. Actual Costs
Payment for all consulting services for this project shall be on the basis of the CONSULTANT's actual cost
plus a fixed fee. The actual cost shall include direct salary cost, overhead, and direct nonsalary cost.
L Direct Salary Costs
The direct salary cost is the direct salary paid to principals, professional, technical, and clerical personnel
for the time they are productively engaged in work necessary to fulfill the tenns of this AGREEMENT.
2. Overhead Costs
Overhead costs are those costs other than direct costs which are included as such on the books of the
CONSULTANT in the nonnal everyday keeping of its books. Progress payments shall be made at the
rate shown in the heading of this AGREEMENT, under "Overhead Progress Payment Rate." Total
overhead payment shall be based on the method shown in the heading of the AGREEMENT. The three
options are explained as follows:
a. Actual Cost Not To Exceed Maximum Percent: If this method is indicated in the heading of this
AGREEMENT, the AGENCY agrees to reimburse the CONSULTANT at the actual overhead rate
verified by audit up to the maximum percentage shown in the space provided. Final overhead
payment when accumulated with all other actual costs shall not exceed the total maximum amount
payable shown in the heading of this AGREEME1\T'f.
b. Fixed Rate: If this method is indicated in the heading of the AGREEMENT, the AGENCY agrees to
reimburse the CONSULTANT for overhead at the percentage rate shown. This rate shall not change
during the life of the AGREEMENT.
A summary of the CONSULTANT's cost estimate and the overhead computation are attached hereto as
Exhibit D- I and by this reference made part of this AGREEME1\T'f. When an Actual Cost method, or
the Actual Cost Not To Exceed method is used, the CONSUL TAt'IT (prime and all subconsultants) will
submit to the AGENCY within three months after the end of each finn's fiscal year, an overhead
schedule in the format required by the AGENCY (cost category, dollar expenditures, etc.) for the
purpose of adjusting the overhead rate for billing purposes. It shall he used for the computation of
progress payments during the following year and for retroactively adjusting the previous year's
overhead cost to reflect the actual rate.
Failure to supply this information by either the prime consultant or any of the subconsultants shall
cause the agency to "ithhold pa}ment of the billed overhead costs until such time as the required
information is received and an overhead rate for billing purposes is approved.
The STATE and/or the Federal Government m<;y perform an audit of the CONSULTANT's books and
records at any time during regular business hours to determine the actual overhead rate, if they so desire.
3. Direct Nonsalary Costs
Direct nonsalary costs will be reimbursed at the actual cost to the CONSULT At'IT. These charges may
include, but are not limited to the following items: travel, printing, long distance telephone, supplies,
computer charges, and fees of subconsultants. Air or train travel will only be reimbursed to economy
class levels unless otherwise approved by the AGENCY. Automobile mileage for travel will be
reimbursed at the current rate approved for AGENCY employees and shall be supported by the date and
time of each trip with origin and destination of such trips. Subsistence and lodging expenses will be
reimbursed at the same rate as for AGENCY employees. The billing for nonsalary cost, directly
identifiable with the Project, shall be an itemized listing of the charges supported by copies of original
bills, invoices, expense accounts, and miscellaneous supporting data retained by the CONSULT At'lT.
Copies of the original supporting documents shall be provided to the AGENCY upon request. All of the
above charges must be necessary for the services to be provided under this AGREEMENT.
4. Fixed Fee
The fixed fee, which represents the CONSULT ANT's profit, is shown in the heading of this
AGREEMENT under Fixed Fee. This amount does not include any additional fixed fee which could be
authorized ftom the Management Reserve Fund. This fee is based on the scope of work defined in this
AGREEMEl'rr and the estimated man-months required to perform the stated scope of work. In the event
a supplemental agreement is entered into for additional work by the CONSULTANT, the supplemental
agreement may include provisions for the added costs and an appropriate additional fee. The fixed fee
will be prorated and paid monthly in proportion to the percentage of work completed by the
CONSULTANT and reported in the monthly progress reports accompanying the invoices.
Any portion of the fixed fee earned but not previously paid in the progress payments will be covered in the
final payment, subject to the provisions of Section IX, Termination of Agreement.
5. Management Reserve Fund
The AGENCY may desire to establish a Management Reserve Fund to provide the Agreement
Administrator the flexibility of authorizing additional funds to the AGREEMENT for allowable
unforeseen costs, or reimbursing the CONSULT At'\'T for additional work beyond that already defmed in
this AGREEMENT. Such authorization(s) shall be in writing and shall not exceed the lesser ofS50,000
or 10% of the Total Amount Authorized as shown in the heading of this AGREEMENT. The amount
included for the Management Reserve Fund is sho\\TI in the heading of this agreement. This fund may be
replenished in a subsequent supplemental agreement. Any changes requiring additional costs in excess of
the "Management Reserve Fund" shall be made in accordance with Section XIV, "Extra Work."
6. Maximum Total Amount Payable
The maximum total amount payable, by the AGENCY to the CONSULTANT under this AGREEMENT,
shall not exceed the amount shown in the heading of this AGREEMENT.
The Maximum Total Amount Payable is comprised of the Total Amount Authorized, which includes the
Fixed Fee and the Management Reserve Fund. The Maximwn Total Amount Payable does not include
payment for extra work as stipulated in Section XIV, "Extra Work."
7
B. Monthly Progress Payments
The CONSULTANT may submit invoices to the AGENCY for reimbursement of actual costs plus the
calculated overhead and fee not more often than once per month during the progress of the work. Such
invoices shall be in a format approved by the AGENCY and accompanied by the monthly progress reports
required under Section m, General Requirements, of this AGREEMENT. The invoices will be supported by
an itemized listing for each item including direct salary, direct nonsalary, and allowable overhead costs to
which will be added the prorated Fixed Fee. To provide a means of verifying the invoiced salary costs for
CONSULTANT employees, the AGENCY may conduct employee interviews. These interviews may consist
of recording the names, titles, and present duties of those employees performing work on the PROJECT at
the time of the interview.
C. Final Payment
Final payment of any balance due the CONSULT At'IT of the gross arnount earned will be made promptly
upon its verification by the AGENCY after the completion of the work under this AGREEMENT,
contingent upon receipt of all PS&E, plans, maps, notes, reports, and other related documents which are
required to be furnished under this AGREEMENT. Acceptance of such final payment by the
CONSULT At'IT shall constitute a release of all claims for payment which the CONSULTANT may have
against the AGENCY unless such claims are specifically reserved in writing and transmitted to the
AGENCY by the CONSULTANT prior to its acceptance. Said final payment shall not, however, be a bar
to any claims that the AGENCY may have against the CONSULTAt'IT or to any remedies the AGENCY
may pursue with respect to such claims. The payment of any billing will not constitute agreement as to the
appropriateness of any item and that at the time of final audit, all required adjustments will be made and
reflected in a final payment. In the event that such final audit reveals an overpayment to the
CONSULTAt'IT, the CONSULTANT will refund such overpayment to the AGENCY within ninety (90)
days of notice of the overpayment. Such refund shall not constitute a waiver by the CONSULT A1\'T for
any claims relating to the validity of a finding by the AGENCY of overpayment.
D. Inspection of Cost Records
The CONSULT A1'1T and the subconsultants shall keep available for inspection by representatives ofthe
AGENCY and the United States, for a period of three years after fmal payment, the cost records and
accounts pertaining to this AGREE!vfENT and all items related to or bearing upon these records with the
following exception: if any litigation, claim, or audit arising out of, in connection with, or related to this
contract is initiated before the expiration of the three-year period, the cost records and accounts shall be
retained until such litigation, claim, or audit involving the records is completed.
Exhibit D-1
Consultant Fee Determination. Summary Sheet
(Lump Sum, Cost Plus Fixed Fee, Cost Per Unit of Work)
Project: Tukwila Urban Center SElS
Direct Salary Cost (DSC):
Classification
Man Hours
133.0 X
68.0 X
71.0 X
0.8 X
1.0 X
X
X
X
X
Senior Principal
Principal
Project Planner
Support Staff
Support Staff
Overhead (OH Cost - including Salary Additives):
OH Rate x DSC of 1.9241 % x $
Fixed Fee (FF):
FF Rate x DSC of
.30
%x$
Reimbursables:
Itemized
Subconsultant Costs (See Exhibit G):
Grand Total
Prepared By: Jennifer Swanson
Rate = = Cost
52.12 S 6,931.96
42.30 2,876.13
22.84 1,621.43
23.60 17.70
22.04 22.04
Total DSC =
$
II ,469.25
II,469.25
22,067.98
II,469.25
3,440.78
2,094.00
39,072.01
Date:
December 16, 2004
Exhibit E
Breakdown of Overhead Cost
Calculation of 2003 Overhead Expense Factor ,
HuckelllWeinman Associates, Inc.
%of
Direct
$ Amount Labor
DIRECT LABOR EXPENSE $ 574,099.00 100.00%
OVERHEAD EXPENSES:
PAYROLL BURDEN
Payroll Taxes $ 82,701.07
Vacation/Holiday/Sick Leave $ 134,144.70
Employee Insurance $ 78,913.02
Employee Incentive Compensation $ 31,600.01
Sub-total Payroll Burden $ 327,358.80 57.02%
GENERAL & ADMINISTRATNE
Administrative Labor $ 461,973.30
Auto Expense $ 1,413.83
Business Insurance $ 13,495.00
Communications $ 9,697.90
Delivery & Postage $ 3,951.60
Depreciation $ 29,007.00
Employee Relations $ 6,663.20
Equipment Rental & Maintenance $ 4,398.91
Fumiture & Equipment $ 592.85
Legal & Accounting (Does Not incl Fed Tax Prep) $ 1,968.40
Licenses $ 1,117.50
Memberships & Conferences $ 8,586.96
Office Maintenance $ 6,148.40
Printing & Reproduction $ 177.10
Publications $ 1,659.43
Rent & Tennant Improvements $ 168,412.30
Storage Rental & Access $ 3,685.17
Supplies $ 5,831.42
Taxes - Business & Property $ 40,539.64
Travel & Lodging $ 1,358.54
Utilities $ 6,582.16
Sub-total General & Adminitrative Expense $ 777,260.61 135.39%
TOTAL OVERHEAD EXPENSE
1$1,104,619.41 192.41%1
Exhibit F
Payment Upon Termination of Agreement
By the Agency Other Than for
Fault of the Consultant
(Refer to Agreement, Section IX)
Lump Sum Contracts
A final payment shall be made to the CONSULTANT which when added to any payments previously made shall
total the same percentage of the Lump Sum Amount as the work completed at the time oftennination is to the
total work required for the PROJECT. In addition, the CONSULTANT shall be paid for any authorized extra
work completed.
Cost Plus Fixed Fee Contracts
A final payment shall be made to the CONSULTANT which when added to any payments previously made, shall
total the actual costs plus the same percentage of the fIxed fee as the work completed at the time of tennination is
to the total work required for the Project. In addition, the CONSULTA1'IT shall be paid for any authorized extra
work completed.
Specific Rates of Pay Contracts
A final payment shall be made to the CONSULT A.1'IT for actual hours charged at the time of tennination of this
AGREEMENT plus any direct nonsalary costs incurred at the time oftennination of this AGREEtvfENT.
Cost Per Unit of Work Contracts
A fInal payment shall be made to the CONSULT A1'\'T for actual units of work completed at the time of
tennination of this AGREEMENT.
Community and Parks Committee
- 7
December 14,2004
Present:
Pam Linder, Chair; Joe Duffie, Daye Fenton
Steve Lancaster, Kevin Speck, Lynn Miranda, Lucy Lauterbach
Renewal Moratorium on TOD Area Since 2002 there has been a moratorium on certain uses
of the land around the Transit Oriented Development area. The moratorium prohibits
manufacturing, industrial, and auto-related businesses, but many uses are allowed that will not
prevent easy redevelopment in future years. Steve L said the moratorium will not affect the
proposed new housing development in the area. Noting there have been several extensions of this
moratorium, he said the plan is progressing toward completion, and though this may not be the
last extension, it should be finished in 2005. The plan will be ready for initial Council review in
January. There will be a public hearing January 10, and adoption a week later. Recommend
Public Hearine: and renewine: the moratorium to a CO,,, Januarv 10,
~-
Contract with Huckell Weinman Associates for EIS for TUC The City has been very
successful in doing a Planned Action environmental review ofthe manufacturing area so that
developers generally don't need to do EIS work for their projects. DCD is planning to do the
same in the ruC. The plan would look at the environment impacts possible in the area, and then
specify what projects could go forward where. The end product will be a Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS). Dave asked about the consultant. Steve said they had
done the Westfield EIS. Recommend contract to COW.
\
Connectivity The Committee talked about how the City might be able to connect at least the
CBD and eventually the neighborhoods with gigabit ethemet. They discussed what a benefit to
certain businesses this would be, and Dave said it would be beneficial to some apartments as
well. How much it would cost businesses to buy in was one issue. Though Tukwila has a
substantial amount of capacity for fiber in the ruc, some of the larger companies want to own
theii'-Owll~i pc&-as-weU-as-.fiber ~The-signal-il'lterconnect-projects-{}n the-east si dlKlf-the-eity-also--
have helped to put capacity in the ground. Dave said he had originally thought it would be good
to do a joint project with our neighboring cities, but he is re-thinking that might not be good, as
Tukwila is far ahead of our neighbors in putting pipe in the ground, Joe asked how connectivity
would affect the many poor people who live in Tukwila. One thing many lower income people
do have is cable TV, and they may want to use connectivity for that as long as they have to pay a
bill for cable. Pam asked Derek ifhe could prepare an infonnation paper in January on how
having Ethernet would affect the CBD in its quest for attracting new businesses. She said she
would bring this up with the Mayor to clarify and get approval for her request. Information.
" ,
,J(j
~'Committee chair approval
COUNCIL AGENDA SI'NOPSIS
k J a r S y rrita� I1mwNo.
i°I
.J.ir 10 dfeetinR Date 1 Prepared by 1 Jiafor, Teth;i• I Cgxr,:itr iew
�N. 01/10/05 I L-L- 1
1 1
t►:
/902, I I I I b
I I I I
ITEM INFORMATION
CAS NUMBER: Ref 05-002 (ORIGINAL AGENDA DATE: 1/3/05
AGENDA ITEM TITLE State legislative priorities for consideration
CATEGORY Dir rt.ian Maio,: Resolution Orinaw e Bid Award Public Hearing Other
ft Date 1/3/05 1fg Date Mg Darr MIA Daft 3Lg Dart Mtg Dote 3fa Dare
I SPONSOR Coto:: =i 1Lrror Adm Sr:s DCD Finance ❑Fie 4ga; P&R Pollee PIE%
SPONSOR'S This is an opportunity to discuss the AWC options to decide if you will support or oppose
&'M LARY them. We can use these issues in discussions with our state legislators in the upcoming
session.
REVIEWED BY COW Mtg. CA &P Cmte F &S Cmte Transportation Cmte
Utilities Cmte Arts Comm. Parks Comm. Planning Comm.
DATE:
RECOMMENDATIONS:
SPONSOR /ADML\. Discuss issues and support them or decline to support them.
CoMLMn 1T-E N.A.
COST IMPACT FUND SOURCE
EXPENDITURE REQUIRED AMOUNT BUDGETED APPROPRIATION REQUIRED
Fund Source:
Comments:
MTG. DATE RECORD OF COUNCIL ACTION
1/3/05 Regular Meeting; discussion held on related resolution which was then approved.
AWC Legislative priorities, through Council consensus /agreement, were forwarded
to the January 10, 2005 Committee of Whole meeting.
MTG. DATE ATTACHMENTS
1/3/05 Memo dated 12/27/05 from L. Lauterbach
1/10/05 Memo dated 1/6/05 from L Lauterbach
AWC Prinriti PS
1
To:
City Council
From:
Lucy Lauterbach
Date:
January 6, 2004
Subject:
Leqislative Priorities
The AWC Priorities listed below are as Pam Carter said, issues that AWC will lobby on
in the Legislature this session. Whether Tukwila should support them is your decision.
Obviously we will oppose streamlined sales tax unless we are compensated for lost
revenues and unless it doesn't take effect until the federal government institutes a tax
on internet sales.
Direct Gas Tax Distribution to Cities
AWC is working to allow direct gas tax distribution to cities. We currently get
some funds through the state, but AWC would like us to get part of the increase
that was passed last year that now goes all to the state, as well as work to
increase the gas tax for funds that would go directly to cities and counties as well
as to the state.
Local Transportation Options
A number of components are being considered by AWC. They are listed below.
1. Fuel Efficiency Tax-taxing vehicles that have poor fuel efficiency.
2. Local Option Fuel Tax-cities now have the ability to have a citizen-voted gas
tax of 10%. AWC will try to get that increased to a 20% voted tax.
3. Street Utility Authority- cities once had the ability to pass a street utility with
taxes on property to fund it. Court action found those utilities to be illegal.
AWC will work to allow it again.
4. Vehicle License Fee-this tax that went to the state and to cities was reduced
by an Eyeman initiative. AWC will try to replace those lost funds with new
vehicle licensing fees
5. Vehicle Weight Fee-a revenue to be based on vehicles' weights (except farm
equipment).
6. Expand the Regional Transportation District Authority (RTID) beyond its
Current boundaries of King, Pierce and Snohomish counties.
Street Light Authority
This may be rolled into the local options issue above. AWC has found a model in
Minnesota they think may work here. It would allow cities to pass a street utility
that would allow charges for street lights and other street costs that were
disallowed in the court case. Jim Morrow opposes this, saying there's no fair way
to charge for a street that so many different people use. He believes it's fair for
the cost to come from the city's general fund. Alan Doerschel would support any
method of recovering the cost of street lights or other street costs.
Municipal Court Issues
This is a multi-faceted approach to several bills affecting courts. AWC will try to:
Legislative Prionties
Page 2
- Find money to help courts pay for judges, indigent people's cases, juror fees,
and increased filing fees. All these are paid for by cities now. The money would
be optional, and it would be optional for cities to apply for the funds.
-Allow local jurisdictions to decide whether or not to accept additional subject
matters that could be added to their bailiwicks.
- Allow cities to contract together for court services and allow for the appointment
of part-time municipal judges. Our law firm has asked the City to support this, as
several of their smaller cities do contract with neighboring cities for court
services. Though Tukwila doesn't do this now, we could do it in a small way in
the future. Also, our judge and court are "part time" because our judge is not
elected. It's important we retain this working arrangement. Judge Walden works
32 hours/week.
-Oppose the bill to elect all judges. We would prefer our judge be appointed.
Gambling/Local Zoning It's important to Tukwila we be able to zone casinos.
Currently cities can ban all casinos or allow casinos everywhere in their city. A
new bill would give cities zoning authority for casinos.
Capital Facilities Strategic Investment
A new capital facilities investment fund would build state funds for large local
infrastructure projects that add or retain local jobs, stimulate the economy, or add
economic development. The funds would come from credits on part of the sales tax.
Pension Contribution Rates
As you know, the cost of pension contributions has risen sharply recently. AWC
will work toward allowing cities to raise the pension contribution rates more
gradually, make annual rate adjustments, and establish a floor below which
contributions could not fall. Alan and Kevin support this move.
Multi Family Housing Property Tax Exemption
Cities with populations over 30,000 have been able to give 10-year property tax
exemptions for new, rehabilitated, or converted multi-family housing projects.
AWC will work to allow all cities to do this. This could be one more tool to use in
cleaning up some of the apartments in Tukwila.
Amend General Contractor/Construction Management Legislation
This effort would try to offer the option for design/build/construction management
in public works projects to more cities than can currently use this process. Cities
over 70,000 can use it. Jim Morrow is a proponent of design /build, and would
like to be able to use it. The process is that a contract is let for a project that
includes both the design, building, and construction management of the entire
project.
Awe Legislative Priorities for 2005
7
On December 17, 2004, the Board of Directors of the Association of Washington Cities
adopted the following Legislative Priorities for 2005:
High Priorities
Direct Gas Tax Distribution to Cities
AWC will pursue a new gas tax distribution to cities. In addition, AWC will pursue
increased grant funding from the Transportation Improvement Board, WSDOT-
Highways and Local Programs Division, and other sources, and for freight
mobility.
Local Transportation Options
AWC will pursue a variety of local transportation options, including:
1. Fuel Efficiency Tax - taxing vehicles that are inefficient.
2. Local Option Fuel Tax - increasing the local option from 10% to 20% of
the state gas tax.
3. Street Utility Authority - pursue legislation to allow re-enactment of this
authority.
4. Vehicle License Fee - replacing funds lost due to Initiative 776.
5. Vehicle Weight Fee - imposing a weight fee on all vehicles (exempting
agricultural equipmenUvehicles).
6. Expand Regional Transportation Improvement District Authority to
Jurisdictions Outside of King, Pierce, and Snohomish Counties.
Street Light Authority
AWC will seek revenue sources to replace lost street light utility funds, including
a broad Street Utility that would encompass street lights.
Municipal Court Issues
AWCwill:
. Pursue state funding for municipal court judges' salaries, indigent defense,
increased juror fees, and increased filing fees, as contained in the Board
for Judicial Administration legislative package, ensuring that a local
jurisdiction maintains the option of whether or not to accept the money if
additional strings are attached.
. Pursue preserving local decisions regarding whether additional subject
matter is to be added to municipal court caseloads.
. Continue to protect the authority for cities to contract together to provide
court services and the authority to appoint part-time municipal court
judges.
. Oppose the requirement to elect more judges, including those that serve
in the contracting cities.
AWC 2005 Legislative Priorities
- 1 -
Downtown Revitalization
AWC will seek additional state assistance for economic development programs
for downtowns - both technical and financial assistance. We will pursue
enhancement of the Department of Community Development's various
"downtown programs." AWC will also attempt to enhance the Community
Economic Revitalization Board's (CERB) resources and programs.
Gambling/Local Zoning
AWC will again seek the passage of legislation clarifying cities' land use and
zoning powers with respect to any land uses involving gambling activities. We
have introduced legislation the last few years attempting to clarify local
governments' ability to zone gambling activities. Cities can currently ban
gambling entirely, but some question cities' authority to zone the activity.
Capital Facilities Investment
AWC will work with the Legislature to create a new "Capital Facilities Strategic
Investment Fund." The purpose of the fund will be to provide state financial
assistance for costly local government infrastructure projects that create new or
assure the retention of existing jobs, and stimulate community and economic
development.
Other Priorities
Public Duty Doctrine and Liability Reform
AWC will pursue passage of the Public Duty Doctrine and other liability reforms -
joint and several, caps on non-economic damages, allowing seatbelt information
to be made available to the juries, and providing limits on exposure for providing
employer reference checks.
Six-Year Operation and Maintenance Excess Levies-
Constitutional Amendment
AWC will ask the Legislature to place a constitutional amendment before the
voters which would provide cities and other local taxing districts the ability to
seek voter approval of multi-year operation and maintenance excess levies, for a
period up to six years. According to the state constitution, cities may only ask
voters to approve maintenance and operations excess levies (which are exempt
from statutory limits) for a one-year period. School districts and fire districts are
currently authorized to request levies for a multi-year period.
Sufficient Water/Water Right for Growth
AWC will seek legislative and administrative opportunities to help resolve gridlock
in the processing of new water rights. This is a complicated issue impacted by
both policy and budget considerations within the Department of Ecology.
AWC 2005 Legislative Priorities
-2-
Pension Contribution Rates
The State Actuary is recommending>significant pension contribution rate
increases over the next six years. AWC will advance legislation which raises
pension contribution rates gradually, makes annual rate adjustments, and
establishes a rate "floor" that the Pension Funding Council will not move below
during their rate-setting process. This phase-in would make it easier for cities
and other local governments to manage and budget for the increases.
GMA Revisions
AWC will initiate and pursue a variety of changes to the Growth Management Act
to make sure it continues working in cities of various sizes that are characterized
by widely disparate rates of growth and infrastructure needs.
. Change the frequency of GMA review and update responsibilities from
every 7 years to every 10 years.
. Allow smaller and slower-growing cities to update less frequently than
larger and faster growing ones.
. Clarify what the state expects when cities are mandated to consider
the use of best available science when reviewing and updating local
environmental protection regulations.
. Clarify that cities may zone for residential uses at a variety of densities
within their communities, as long as their overall density is more than a
certain minimum density established either by the Legislature or
through some collaborative means within each county.
. If not allowable under current law, initiate and pursue an amendment to
last year's legislative pre-emption of city and town authority to disallow
siting of manufactured homes on individual lots in single-family zones
that would let them apply a dollar value criteria, requiring that the
manufactured home be valued at least as much as the average house
on the block. In addition, AWC will aggressively block state efforts to
control what neighborhoods look like.
. Ensure that cities have discretion to exempt some development from
transportation "concurrency" requirements.
. Expand the list of capital projects eligible for use of locally imposed
Real Estate Excise Taxes (REET) and make the list the same for both
the first and second %0/0 REET, Eliminate the restriction on using them
for operations or maintenance costs in the smallest cities - those
under 1500 in population. Oppose changes to current GMA Impact Fee
authorities that restrict the timing of collection.
City & County Economic Development Authority
AWC will advance legislation clarifying the ability of cities and counties to enter
into economic development projects with other public and private entities, not just
nonprofit corporations.
AWC 2005 Legislative Priorities
- 3 -
Multifamily Housing Property Tax Exemption
AWC will seek legislation to extend to all cities the 1 O-year property tax
exemption for new, rehabilitated or converted multifamily housing projects.
Currently, the exemption only applies to cities above 30,000 in population or the
largest city in a GMA planning county with no city of 30,000 population or greater.
Sales Tax Flexibility
AWC will advance legislation that amends ESB 5659, passed in 2003, that
provided cities additional voter approved sales tax authority up to .3%. The
amendments will delete the mandate that one-third of the new money be spent
on criminal justice programs and the mandate that new money not supplant
existing funds.
Voter Approval to Freeze Property Tax Rate
AWC will advance legislation to allow a city to ask their voters to "lock in" or
"freeze" an existing property tax rate for a period of up to six years. Legislation
passed in 2003 allows a local government to seek approval from their voters for a
levy lid lift and identify the associated annual growth rate for a period of up to 6
years, but does not allow a city to ratify a current property tax rate over a period
of years.
Annexation Reform
AWC will pursue and endorse legislation that authorizes additional methods of
annexation and provides new tools to facilitate the annexation of lands, including:
limiting Boundary Review Board review when joint planning and/or interlocal
agreements have been achieved; creating more streamlined annexation methods
for small annexations; revising the petition method of annexation to require
signature of property owners of 60 percent of the value of the property in the
proposed annexation for both code and non-code cities and towns; and
encouraging counties to identify potential annexation and incorporation areas in
their county-wide planning policies.
AWC will also pursue legislation that allows annexation to move forward, without
a referendum, if a county and city (I.e., current and future governing authorities)
agree though an interlocal agreement on how and when annexation will occur.
Amend General Contractor/Construction Management
Legislation to Increase the Number of Eligible Cities and Modify
the Water Quality Joint Development Act
AWC will seek a broader use of the design build and general contractor/
construction management public works process. Currently, only cities over
70,000 in population have access to this process. AWC will seek to either lower
the population threshold or move to a criteria based process that allows our cities
to demonstrate they can effectively use this process.
AWC 2005 Legislative Priorities
-4-
The Water Quality Joint Development Act of 1986 authorizes local governments
to enter into service agreements for,the design, financing, construction and
operation of wastewater facilities. AWC will pursue legislation to update and
clarify some provisions based on actual field experience and is seeking
expansion of these procedures to include drinking water supply and treatment
systems.
Gas Tax Distributions for All Street Transportation Purposes
AWC will seek changes to existing law to remove restrictions on how cities
allocate their gas tax on city streets proceeds, to provide more flexibility. Current
law requires existing gas tax distributions to be allocated for construction and/or
maintenance purposes, depending on the size of the jurisdiction.
Cost of Providing Transportation Infrastructure on State
Highways (cities over 22,500 population)
Cities over population 22,500 are required to assume the costs for maintenance,
signalization, ADA and most traffic control functions on managed access state
highways (non-Interstate) that go through their respective jurisdictions. AWC will
propose a study to determine the fiscal costs of maintaining state highways, and
seek legislative funding to offset those transportation responsibilities and costs.
Other Issues
Streamlined Sales Tax
The AWC Board appreciates the work of the AWC Streamlined Sales Tax
Committee and their efforts to reach agreement on a mitigation formula. The
Committee did agree on a number of issues associated with taxation of remote
sales but could not agree on a specific mitigation formula and recommended that
AWC "take no position on the issue." The AWC Board recognizes the sensitivity
of this issue and believes it is in the best interest of the city family for the
Association to "at this time, remain engaged but take no position."
AWC 2005 Legislative Priorities
- 5-