HomeMy WebLinkAboutCAP 2008-01-14 COMPLETE AGENDA PACKET Dist V. Jessop
City of Tukwila J. Duffle S. Kerslake
J. Hernandez G. Labanara
2 Community Affairs and V. Griffin K. Matej
10 New Councilmember M. Miotke
;d Mayor Haggerton C. O'Flaherty
Pa Committee R. Berry J. Pace
Joan Hernandez, Chair E. Boykan D. Speck
1 908 ♦Verna Griffin J. Cantu R. Still
B. Fletcher B. Miles
New Councilmember K. Fuhrer CC File (cover)
AGENDA
Monday, January 14, 2008
Conference Room #5 (this meeting only)
5; 00 PM
ITEM ACTION TO BE TAKEN Page
1. PRESENTATION(S)
2. BUSINESS AGENDA
a. Interlocal Agreement for Minor Home Repair Program; a. Forward to 1/28/08 Pg.1
Evelyn Boykan, Human Services Manager C.O.W. and 2/4/08
Regular Meeting.
b. Creation of Sign Code Committee for Sign Code b. Forward to 1/28/08 Pg.7
Update; Brandon Miles, Assistant Planner. C.O.W. and 2/4/08
Regular Meeting.
c. Starfire Sports Presentation on Programs c. Information only. Pg.
and Major League Soccer;
Bruce Fletcher, Parks Recreation Director.
d. Formation of a Public Facilities District for Operation d. Forward to 1/28/08 Pg.13
of Fort Dent Park; Rhonda Berry, City Administrator. C.O.W. and 2/4/08
Regular Meeting.
3. ANNOUNCEMENTS
4. MISCELLANEOUS
Next Scheduled Meeting: Monday, January 28, 2008
The City of Tukwila strives to accommodate those with disabilities.
Please contact the City Clerk's Office at 206 433 -1800 for assistance.
INFORMATION MEMO
To:
From:
Date:
Subject:
Mayor's Off~ Community and Parks
Evie Boykarr,'lFtuman Services
January 15, 2008
Proposed Interlocal Agreement benveen the City of SeaTac, Des Moines and the
City of Tukwila for planning, funding and implementing a joint minor home
repair program in 2008
ISSUE
Tukwila, SeaTac, and Des Moines seek to enter into an agreement to deliver a jointly run minor
home repair program for low and moderate income residents. The program is funded through the
Community Development Block Grant funds.
BACKGROUND
Prior to 2006, our respective cities each had a contract with King County. In an effort to create
administrative efficiencies the County requires larger and less contracts. In 2007 we were
awarded $65,000 to cover minor home repair needs for SeaTac, Tukwila and Des Moines.
Council supported submission of this proposal to King County in September 2007 for 2008.
DISCUSSION/ANAL YSIS/AL TERNA TIVES
Committee needs to review agreement and forward to full Council for discussion.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommend that Council supports the interlocal agreement and authorizes the Mayor's
signature.
Attachments:
Interlocal agreement
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SEATAC, DES
MOINES, AND THE CITY OF TUKWILA FOR PLANNING, FUNDING,
AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A JOINT MINOR HOME REPAIR
PROG~1
TIDS INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT ("Interlocal") is entered into pursuant to
Chapter 39.34 RCW, the Interlocal Cooperation Act, by the City of SeaTac ("SeaTac"), the City
of Des Moines ("Des Moines"), and the City of Tukwila ("Tukwila"), hereinafter referred to as
"City" or "Cities," to provide for planning, funding, and implementation of a minor home repair
program.
WHEREAS, the Cities engage in activities which support human service providers in
King County; and
WHEREAS, the Cities wish to make the most efficient use of their resources by
cooperating to provide funding to support human service providers in south King County; and
WHEREAS, through the Interlocal Cooperation Act, Chapter 39.34 RCW, the Cities
have the authority to engage in cooperative efforts that will result in more efficient use of
government resources;
NOW, THEREFORE, and in consideration of the terms, conditions, and performances
made herein, it is agreed as follows:
I. Purpose. The purpose of this Interlocal is to set up a cooperative arrangement
between the Cities to consolidate the funding process and implementation of a minor home repair
program. This Interlocal will increase the efficiency of administering the program while
decreasing administrative costs.
2. Responsibilities.
A. Tukwila's Duties.
I) Contract and act as the fiscal and administrative agent with King County for
the implementation of a Block Grant for a minor home repair program for Des Moines, Tukwila
and SeaTac.
2) Maintain required documentation and prepare required reports for King
County consistent with the County's requirements regarding the use of Community Development
Block Grant funds.
3) Maintain accounts and records that properly reflect transactions related to this
Interlocal.
4) Responsible for reimbursing participating cities and submitting required
paperwork to King County.
Joint Human Services Application and Funding MOD
Page 1 of5
5) Responsible for the implementation of the minor home repair program within
Tukwila in accordance with terms specified in the Block Grant contract betvv'een Tukwila and
King County.
6) Review and pay invoices for any services performed in Tukwila pursuant to
this Interlocal.
7) Reimburse SeaTac and Des Moines on an as received basis for any invoices
received pursuant to this Interlocal.
B. SeaTac's Duties
1) Responsible for the implementation of the minor home repair program within
SeaTac in accordance with terms specified in the Block Grant contract between Tukwila and
King County.
2) Review and pay invoices for any services performed in SeaTac pursuant to
this Interlocal.
3) Remit invoices to Tukwila for reimbursement.
C. Des Moines' Duties
1) Responsible for the implementation of the minor home repair program within
Des Moines in accordance with terms specified in the Block Grant contract between Tukwila and
King County.
2) Review and pay invoices for any services performed in Des Moines pursuant
to this Interlocal.
3) Remit invoices to Tukwila for reimbursement.
D. Cities' Joint Duties
1) Subcontract with an agency/contractors that will perform qualified home
repairs in Tukwila, SeaTac and Des Moines in accordance with King County's Block Grant
program and applicable city policies.
2) No City shall use more funds than have been annually allocated to it by King
County for a minor home repair program. However, if a City is unable to spend its portion of the
funds by the 3rd quarter of the year for which the funds were allocated, the Cities may mutually
agree to shift those funds to another City that has an on-going demand for minor home repair.
3. Duration. This Interlocal shall become effective when it is approved by the Cities
and shall remain in effect on an ongoing basis so long as funds are available for the minor home
repair program.
Joint Human Services Application and Funding ILA
Page 2 of 5
4. Termination. Any City may terminate this Interlocal without cause by giving the
other Cities a thirty-day written notice. The terminating City shall remain fully responsible for
meeting its funding responsibilities to date up to the point of termination and other obligations
established by this Interlocal through the end of the calendar year in which such notice is given.
5. Notices. Notices to the Cities shall be sent to the following persons:
City Contact
SeaTac Human Services Coordinator, currently Colleen Brandt-Schluter
4800 S. 188th Street, SeaTac, WA 98188
206.973.4815; cbschluter@ci.seatac.wa.us
Des Moines Code Enforcement Officer, currently Nancy Uhrich
21630 11th Ave S, Suite D
Des Moines, WA 98198-6398
206-870-6558
nuhrich@desmoines\va.gov
Tukwila Human Services Manager, currently Evelyn Boykan
6200 Southcenter Blvd, Tukwila, W A 98188
206.433.7180; eboykan(cl}ci.tukwila.wa.us
6. Indemnification. Each City agrees to indemnify the other City from any claims,
damages, losses, and costs, including, but not limited to, attorney's fees and litigation costs
arising out of claims by third parties for breach of contract, property damage, and bodily injury,
including death, caused solely by the negligence or willful misconduct of such City, the City's
employees, affiliated corporations, officers, and lower tier subcontractors in connection with this
Interlocal.
Each City hereby waives its immunity under Title 51 of the Revised Code of Washington
for claims of any type brought by any City agent or employee against the other City. This
waiver is specifically negotiated by the parties and a portion of the City's payment hereunder is
expressly made the consideration for this waiver.
7. Insurance. Each City shall procure and maintain in full force throughout the duration
of the Interlocal comprehensive general liability insurance with a minimum coverage of
$1,000,000.00 per occurrence/aggregate for personal injury and property damage. In the event
that a City is a member of a pool of self-insured cities, the City shall provide proof of such
membership in lieu of the insurance requirement above. Such self-insurance shall provide
coverage equal to or greater than that required of non-self insurance pool member Cities.
8. Applicable Law; Venue; Attorney's Fees. This Interlocal shall be governed by and
construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington. In the event any suit,
arbitration, or other proceeding is instituted to enforce any term of this Interlocal, the parties
specifically understand and agree that venue shall be exclusively in King County, Washington.
The prevailing party in any such action shall be entitled to its attorney's fees and costs of suit.
Joint Human Services Application and Funding ILA
Page 3 of 5
9. Counterparts. This document may be executed in any number of counterparts, each
of which shall be considered an original.
10. Amendment or Modification. This Interlocal may be amended or modified in writing
with the mutual consent of the Cities.
IN \VITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have entered into this Interlocal as of this
day of ,2008.
CITY OF SEATAC
By:
Craig Ward, City Manager
Date:
Attest:
[Printed Name 1
Title:
Approved As To Form:
Mark S. Johnsen, Sf. Assistant City Attorney
CITY OF DES MOINES
By:
Tony Piasecki, City Manager
Date:
Attest:
fPrinted Name 1
Title:
Approved As To Form:
Pat Bosmans, City Attorney
Joint Human Services Application and Funding ILA
Page 4 of5
CITY OF TUKWILA
By:
Steven M. Mullet, Mayor
Date:
Attest:
fPrinted Name 1
Title:
Approved As To Form:
Shelley M. Kerslake, City Attorney
EXHIBIT A
To
Interlocal Between the Cities For Planning, Funding, and Implementation of a Joint Minor
Home Repair Program
CALKNDAR YEAR 2008
Name of A encies
Total Home Improvement and qualified
contractors
Partici atin Cities & Tentative Fundin
Tukwila - Lead City $25,044
Des Moines $21,044
SeaTac $26,044
TOTAL $72,132
Joint Human Services Application and Funding !LA
Page 5 of5
City of Tukwila
Jim Haggerton} Mayor
Department of Community Development
Jack Pace} Director
TO:
Mayor
Community Affairs and Parks
Jack Pace, Director \\-
Brandon Miles, senio~\>lanner
FROM:
RE:
Resolution Creating the "Sign Code Advisory Committee"
DATE:
January 9, 2008
Issue
Providing specifics on how the Sign Code Advisory Committee will be organized and
function.
Background
In 2007, Planning staff provided a briefing to Planning Commission and City Council on
the proposed plan to update the City's sign code. Planning staff had suggested the
creation of a special committee to assist in the update.
The attached resolution creates the "Sign Code Advisory Committee" and provides
specifics on:
· Responsibilities,
· Make-Up,
· Staffing,
· Keeping of the record,
· Meetings; and
· Schedule
The purpose of the Committee is to start the legislative record and provide an opportunity
for debate and issue resolution with affected parties. Upon completion of the
Committee's work staff would finalize a draft code that would be presented to the
Planning Commission and City Council for their review.
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 · Tukwila, Washington 98188 · Phone: 206-431-3670 · Fax: 206-431-3665
Next Step
Staff recommends that the draft resolution be reviewed and forwarded to the January 27,
2008 COW meeting for review and consideration.
Attachment: Draft Sign Code Advisory Committee Resolution
City of Tukwila
Washington
Resolution No.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL CALLING FOR THE CREATION
OF THE SIGN CODE ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND CALLING FOR PUBLIC
PARTICPATION IN THE CREATION OF NEW SIGN CODE FOR THE CITY.
WHEREAS, the City recognizes that signs are vital to the continued commercial success
of businesses within the City; and
WHEREAS, the City's current sign code was written in 1982 and the City wishes to
update its sign code to reflect the current and anticipated future development patterns as
well as technological changes in the sign industry.; and
WHEREAS, because a city's sign code has a significant impact upon the community,
the City desires to include Tukwila residents, businesses, and property owners in the
update process; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the subject of sign regulations does not readily
fit the City's standing committee structure and that an update of the sign code requires a
special approach in order to craft an appropriate sign code for Tukwila.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA,
WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOL YES AS FOLLO'VS:
Section 1:
Sign Code Advisory Committee. A Sign Code Advisory
Committee (hereafter "Committee") is formed to advise in the
development of a new sign code for the City.
Section 2:
Committee's Responsibilities. The Committee shall be advisory
on substantive issues related to the sign code revisions. These
issues include but are not limited to types of signage,
placement/location of signs, design of signs, temporary signs, off-
site signs, billboards, animated/electronic/holographic signs and
non-conforming signs.
H:\Sign Code Update\Sign Code Resolution, Working Draft.doc 1
01/10/2008
In consideration of time, the committee shall not concern itself
with code administration, appeals, enforcement, and non-aesthetic
construction requirements of the new sign code.
Section 2:
Committee Makeup. The Committee shall be comprised of two
council members to be determined by the Council President, one
Planning Commission member to be determined by the Mayor,
three citizens at-large position to be determined by the Mayor, and
two business representatives to be determined by the Mayor.
All committee members shall have equal standing on the
committee. The committee shall serve as an_advisory body
General consensus should be obtained by the committee on matters
related to the new sign code.
A quorum of the Committee is not required.
Section 3:
Chair. The senior councilmember appointed to the Committee
shall serve as the Chair. The Chair shall strive to be neutral and be
responsible for presiding over all meetings, directing the process
and helping the Committee to arrive at consensus
Section 3:
Committee Staffmg:. The Department of Community Development
(hereafter "DCD) shall be responsible for staffing all Committee
meetings. Other City Departments may be called to provide
information to the Committee. DCD shall prepare issue papers, as
necessary, to be presented to the Committee.
DCD shall have the sole responsibility of drafting the actual code
language after consulting and discussing pertinent issues with the
Committee.
Section 4:
Record. In order to ensure that a proper record is kept, all
meetings of the Committee will be recorded by staff. All
documents and items that go before the Committee shall be part of
the legislative record.
Section 5:
Meetings. The Committee shall strive to limit its meetings to a
total of 12 meetings with the first meeting being devoted to
organization and administration functions of the Committee. The
Committee shall determine a regular meeting date, time, and place.
All Committee meetings shall be open to the public. The
Committee and DCD shall attempt to reach out to groups that may
have an interest in sign issues and invite them to observe and
provide pertinent discussion on signage issues.
H:\Sign Code Update\Sign Code Resolution, Working Draft.doc 2
o I II Oi200S
Section 7:
Schedule. The Committee shall conclude its recommendations by
September 1,2008 or sooner. The Committee shall have an
opportunity to discuss their recommendations at a joint meeting of
the City Council and Planning Commission
H:\Sign Code Update\Sign Code Resolution, Working Draft.doc 3
01110/2008
W:
City Council
FROM:
DATE:
December 6, 2007
RE:
Request for the Formation of a Public Facilities District
The City has received a request from Starfire Sports to consider forming a Public
Facilities District ("PFD") which would own and operate Fort Dent Park. The District would
then contract with Starfire Sports to operate the facility. In order for this to be a possibility, there
must be change in state law. Currently cities in King County are not eligible to create PFD's.
Starfire has requested that we attempt to lobby for this change this upcoming legislative session.
1. WHAT IS A PUBLIC FACILITIES DISTRICT?
PFD's can be established by cities for the purpose of developing certain regional
facilities, such as convention or special events centers. "Regional center" means a convention,
conference, or special events center, or any combination of facilities, and related parking
facilities, serving a regional population constructed, improved, or rehabilitated after July 25,
1999, at a cost of at least ten million dollars, including debt service. RCW 35.57.020. "Regional
center" also includes an existing convention, conference, or special events center, and related
parking facilities, serving a regional population, that is improved or rehabilitated after July 25,
1999, where the costs of improvement or rehabilitation are at least ten million dollars, including
debt service. A "special events center" is a facility, available to the public, used for community
events, sporting events, trade shows, and artistic, musical, theatrical, or other cultural
exhibitions, presentations, or performances. RCW 35.57.020.
PFD's are authorized to impose a local sales tax (0.033%) credited against the state sales
tax and thus can contribute new special revenues to certain public projects. Their ability to
impose this tax is subject to numerous legal constraints and the PFD's independent structure can
create both opportunities and issues that should be carefully considered.
PFD's are municipal corporations to perform a specific function. They are able to
acquire, construct, own, finance and operate one or more regional centers. They can buy and
lease property; enter into contracts; impose fees for the use of their facility; impose the following
C:\DOCUME-I \shelley\LOCALS-1 \Temp\XPGrp Wise\MEMO - PFO Fonnalion.doclS/12106/07
taxes: non-voted sales tax, voted sales tax, parking tax, and admissions tax; and issue bonds.
Further, as a separate legal entity, the PFD can sue and be sued, hire staff, and operate
independently from the City.
II. FORMATION
PFD's are formed by Council ordinance or resolution. In most instances the local
government also contemplates the approval of a charter to govern the PFD.
Ill. GOVE~~ANCEOFTHEPFD
The PFD is run by an independent board. The board \vould consist of five members
selected by the City Council, a portion based on recommendations from local organizations such
as local chambers of commerce, local economic development councils, and local labor councils.
The PFD then takes over control and responsibility for the facility.
PFD's are subject to the same laws that govern municipal corporations: public records
laws, open meetings laws, prohibition against use for campaign purposes, audit requirements,
and ethics statutes.
IV. ISSUES TO CONSIDER
PFD's can only be used in limited circumstances. The project contemplated must be
rather large, at least $10 million. Currently, the non-voted sales tax is only available for PFD's
created before 2002; thus, a change in legislation would be necessary on this point as well.
Another issue which the Council should consider is the lack of control that the City
would have over the PFD. Although the City holds the po\ver of appointing members of the PFD
board, the development, management, and operation of projects are in the hands of the PFD
board. This lack of control also \vorks to limit the City's liability related to the operation of the
facility.
-2-
C:IDOCUME-llshelleyILOCALS-lITemp\XPGrpWise\MEMO - PFD Formalion.doc/S!l2I06/07
PUBLIC CORPORATIONS, COMMISSIONS
AND AUTHORITIES
THE NUTS AND BOLTS
MARCH 16, 2004
PRESENTED BY: CHRIS BACHA AND STEVE VICTOR
ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEYS,
CITY OF TACOMA
Outline:
I. BACKGROUND
A. Comprehensive City Demonstration Programs
B. State Law Enactment
C. 1974 Supplemental Legislation
D. 1985 Expansion of Funding
II. POWERS/LIMITATIONS IN GENERAL
A. Any Lawful Purpose
B. Corporate Boundaries
C. Limitation of Liability
D. Governmental Oversight
E. Grant of Powers
F. Limitation on Powers.
G. Restrictions on Assets Transferred From Enabling Authority.
i. Deed Restrictions
ii. Notice of Sale
iii. Approval/Public Hearing
H. Dissolution
III. MUNICIPAL CODE
A. In General
B. Use of Funds/Assets/Credit
C. Creation of Public Corporations/Commissions/Authorities
i. Private Party Application
ii. City Manager Request
iii. TEDD Director Review
iv. Charter
IV. WHY CREATE A PUBLIC CORPORATION/COMMISSION/AUTHORITY
A. Single Project/Purpose
B. Benefits
i. Project Management
ii. Fund Raising
iii. Fewer Restrictions
iv. Decision Making
v. Insulate the Council
vi. Risk Reduction
vii. Financing
C. Are the Benefits Real
I. Project Management
II. Insulate the Council
III. Risk Reduction
iv. Financing
Public Corporations
2
I. BACKGROUND:
A. Comprehensive City Demonstration Programs (Federal Law): In
1966 Congress enacted public law 89-754 known as the Demonstration City
and Metropolitan Development Act 80 Stat 1255).
Purpose: Congress found that there was a persistence of
widespread urban slums and blight, a concentration of persons of low income in
older urban areas, and unmet needs for housing and community service resulting
in deterioration of quality of life. It also found that cities did not have the
resources to deal adequately with these problems even with the Federal
assistance provided through the urban renewal program and other grant-in aide
programs, and so it created this act to provide additional financial assistance to
help cities plan, develop and carry out locally prepared and scheduled
comprehensive city demonstration programs containing new and imaginative
proposal to rebuild or revitalize slum and blighted areas, expand housing, job and
income opportunities, improve educational facilities, combat disease, reduce
crime enhance recreational and cultural opportunities, etc.
B. State Law Enactment. In 1970 and 1971 new legislation was
enacted, codified at RCW 35.21.660 and RCW 35.21.670 in 1971 authorizing all
cities to create public corporations, commissions and authorities to carry out the
purposes of the DEMONSTRATION CITY AND METROPOLITAN
DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1966.
In this legislation we see the hallmarks of the public corporation:
. Limitation of liabilities to assets of the corporation
. No taxing authority or powers of eminent domain
. No recourse to the assets of the enabling body
. Power to sue and be sued
. Power to loan and borrow funds
C. 1974 Supplemental Legislation. In 1974 the legislature added RCW
35.21.730-35.21.755 to supplement RCW 35.21.660 and 670. This legislation
clarified the powers of the public corporations/commissions/authorities in the
administration of authorized federal grants or programs.
Public Corporations
3
D. 1985 Expansion of Fundin~. Prior to 1985, public
corporations/commissions/authorities were limited to programs involving either
federal grants and loans or private funds. The 1985 amendment removed the
limitations on use only of federal and private funds, thus allowing local
governments to contribute resources and further allowing PDA's to issue tax-
exempt bonds. The purpose of public corporations/commissions/authorities was
now stated as follows:
I. improve the administration of federal grants and programs,
II. improve governmental efficiency and services, or
III. improve the general living conditions in the urban areas of the
state.
RCW 35.21.730.
II. POWERS/LIMITATIONS IN GENERAL.
A. Any Lawful Purpose. In general any city, town or county may create
a public corporation, commission, or authority by ordinance or resolution to:
I. administer and execute federal grants or programs,
II. receive and administer federal funds, goods or services, or
II. perform any lawful public purpose or public function.
RCW 35.21.730(4).
Thus, a public corporation, commission, or authority may be formed for
any lawful public purpose using funds & assets from any sources.
B. Corporate Boundaries. Any powers expressly or impliedly given to
such a corporation, commission, or authority shall not extend beyond the
boundaries of the enabling authority unless through a contract with another city
or county.
RCW 35.21.740.
C. Limitation of Liability. The enabling ordinance or resolution must
provide that the liability of such public corporation is limited to its assets to
prevent recourse to the enabling authority.
RCW 35.21.730(4).
Public Corporations
4
D. Governmental Oversight. The governmental authority creating the
public corporation/commission/authority shall, IN ORDER TO ENSURE THAT
THE PURPOSES OF EACH PROGRAM UNDERTAKEN ARE REASONABLY
ACCOMPLISHED AND TO CORRECT ANY DEFICIENCY:
i. provide for the organization and operation of the public
corporation/commission/authority (see Chapter 1.60 TMC),
ii. control and oversee operation of the public
corporation/commission/authority, and
iii. control and oversee the funds of the public
co rpo ration/ comm iss ion/a utho rity
RCW 35.21.745.
E. Grant of Powers. Any public corporation/commission/authority may
be empowered by the enabling authority to:
I. own and sell real and personal property,
ii. contract with individuals, associations, and corporations, the
state and the United States,
III. to sue and be sued,
iv. to loan and borrow funds,
v. to issue tax-exempt bonds and other instruments evidencing
indebtedness,
vi. transfer any funds, real or personal property, property interest,
or services (subject to RCW 35.21.747),
vii. to do anything a natural person may do, and
viii. to perform all manner and type of community services.
RCW 35.21.745.
Public Corporations
5
F. Limitation on Powers.
I. No power of eminent domain,
II. No power to levy taxes or special assessments,
III. May not lend credit or gift funds (Article VIII, Section 7),
IV. Payment of Prevailing wage,
v. Open competitive bidding,
VI. Compliance with open public meetings and public disclosure
laws,
vii. Must perform public functions/purposes (Meaning such
corporations must provide a public benefit and cannot service private purposes),
viii. Compliance with the code of ethics for municipal officers
(Chapter 42.23 RCW), and
ix. Local government whistleblower laws apply (Chapter 42.41
RCW).
RCW 35.21.745 & 35.21.757.
G. Restrictions on Assets Transferred From Enablin~ Authority.
RCW 35.21.747 was added in 1990 in response to a situation with a transfer of
assets to the Pike Place Market. The legislation mandated the following
whenever the enabling authority transfers real property to a public
co rporati 0 n/ com miss ion/a utho rity:
i. Deed Restrictions. Appropriate deed restrictions must be
included to ensure the continued use of the property for public purposes or the
purposes for which the property was transferred,
ii. Notice of Sale. 30 days written notice in advance of any
proposed sale or encumbrance of the property to the enabling authority as well
as each local newspaper of general circulation and other media requesting such
notice, and
iii. Approval/Public Hearin~. The governing body of the enabling
authority must approve the sale or encumbrance at a public meeting that has
been advertised in conformance with the statute.
RCW 35.21.747.
Public Corporations
6
H. Dissolution. In the event of insolvency or dissolution, the superior
court shall have jurisdiction and authority to appoint trustees or receivers of
corporate property and assets. Again, all liabilities must be satisfied from such
assets; there is no recourse against the enabling authority.
III. MUNICIPAL CODE (Chapter 1.60 TMC).
A. In General. In 1994, the City of Tacoma enacted Chapter 1.60 TMC
as a statement of municipal policy and procedures for the creation of public
corporations/commissions/authorities. Chapter 1.60 TMC is a codification within
the Municipal Code of the state law requirements; however, this chapter
establishes the process for chartering of such public
corporations/commissions/authorities, more specifically delineates the authority
they may exercise and the limitations upon such power. For example, additional
enumerated restrictions include:
i. limitations on lobbying, partisan political activity, and further the
election or defeat of a candidate for office (see also, RCW 42.17.130),
II. may not engage in business for profit, and
III. may not issue shares of stock.
TMC 1.60.070 & 080.
B. Use of Funds/Assets/Credit. The Municipal Code requires that all
funds, assets, or credit of the public corporations/commissions/authorities shall
be applied:
i. toward community services and projects and activities
authorized by its charter, and
II. in furtherance of
a. a public program (meaning any program a public
corporation may be authorized to perform, see TMC 1.60.020(24)),
b. an agreement by the City, or
c. an agreement with the United Stated for a Federal
program.
TMC 1.60.080(A).
Public Corporations
7
C. Creation of Public Corporations/Commissions/Authorities.
i. Private Party Application. To initiate proceedings to charter a
public corporation, ANY PERSON OR GROUP OF PERSONS shall apply to the
City Clerk. (See TMC 1.60.090 for required applicant information).
ii. City Mana~er Request. In the alternative, the City Manager
may request the initiation of proceedings to charter a public corporation. In such
case, the procedure for review and approval of the charter shall be set forth by
resolution adopted by the City Council.
iii. TEDD Director Review. Upon receipt of an application from a
private party, the TEDD Director shall review the application, make a
determination as to whether or not the applicant meets the criteria identified in
the code (TMC 1.60.100), and make a recommendation to the City Council.
iv. Charter. The City Council may, in its discretion, issue a charter
pursuant to resolution.
TMC 1.60.090, 100, & 110.
IV. WHY CREATE A PUBLIC CORPORATION/COMMISSION/AUTHORITY?
A. Sin~le Project/Purpose. Typically a public
corporation/commission/authority is created to manage a single project or for a
single purpose. For example,
i. The FWDA was created by the City to redevelop the western
uplands of the Thea Foss Waterway;
ii. The TCRA was created to manage and administer various
federal loan programs, and
iii. The Seattle Pike Place Market is a PDA tasked with managing
and operating the Market property.
B. Benefits. The perceived benefits of a public
corporation/commission/authority are:
i. Project Mana~ement. Day-to-day operations of a particular
enterprise can be managed by professionals.
ii. Fund Raisin~. Some parties are more likely to provide funds to
the public corporation/commission/authority because the public
corporation/commission/authority is viewed as being independent from local
government and because the public corporation/commission/authority can
Public Corporations
8
ensure the funds will not be used for other purposes. This may also create
opportunities for partnerships with the private sector, who would otherwise seek
to avoid dealing with governmental bureaucracy.
iii. Fewer Restrictions. The public
corporation/commission/authority is not subject to the same limitations as the
enabling authority such as charter requirements and some restrictions on
competitive bidding and procurement and hiring (civil service).
iv. Decision MakinQ. Decision making may be more expedient
because the public corporation/commission/authority can react more quickly than
the enabling authority.
v. Insulate the Council. The public
corporation/commission/authority can relieve the council from the political
pressure that might bear on a particular project or undertaking as well as the day-
to-day decision making.
vi. Risk Reduction. The public corporation/commission/authority
can insulate the City from liability associated with a project.
vii. FinancinQ. The public corporation/commission/authority can
finance projects without impacting the debt capacity of the enabling authority
through loans or bonds.
C. Are the Benefits Real. The reality of the public
corporation/commission/authority is not necessary equal to the perception. Local
government will not always succeed in realizing the benefits of establishing a
public corporation/commission/authority for a variety of reasons. The success
will depend upon the purpose and more importantly the financial autonomy of the
public corporation/commission/authority. The down side of the perceived
benefits often occurs as follows:
i. Proiect ManaQement. The costs of project management often
are borne by the enabling authority.
ii. Insulate the Council. The enabling authority has an obligation
to oversee the operation and financing of the public
corporation/commission/authority, and thus must still be involved in the affairs of
the public corporation/commission/authority. In addition, because state law
requires council approval of sale or encumbrance upon property transferred to
the public corporation/commission/authority, the Council must still be involved in
the policy decisions made by the public corporation/commission/authority. The
Council therefore will be subject to efforts to influence the governing body of the
enabling authority.
Public Corporations
9
vi. Risk Reduction. Often, the public
corporation/commission/authority will ask the enabling authority to protect it from
exposure to liability as part of a development project. This is often at the
insistence of a developer who wants protection from a deep pocket.
vii. Fjnancjn~. Frequently, the public
corporation/commission/authority is unable to obtain financing without the
guarantee of the full faith and credit of the enabling authority.
Public Corporations
10