City Council Meeting - January 20th, 2009
Deputy Mayor Julie Anderson presided over a crazy-quick City Council meeting this evening. Here’s what happened:
PROCLAMATIONS
Deputy Mayor Anderson proclaimed January 24th 2009 as TV Tacoma Day on the occasion of the 25th Anniversary of TV Tacoma. Just so you know, on Thursday January 22nd at 9:00 am, there will be a live showing of City Line that will include several previous hosts and provide a bit of a retrospective. Given that we’re watching this meeting on TV Tacoma, we are indebted to you! Thank you.
APPOINTMENTS
Resolution No. 37718 appointed our City Council Members to various national, state, regional and local committees, boards and commissions, including the Council’s standing committees, for the year 2009. Thrilling, eh?
RESOLUTIONS
Resolution No. 37719 extended Enhanced 9-1-1 service.
Then this is where it got interesting. We had dissent!
FINAL READING OF ORDINANCES
Amended Ordinance No. 27783 Amended Ordinance No. 27677, relating to the Center for Urban Waters, to change the interest component of the monthly rent from 5.75 percent to 7.5 percent per annum, for an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $38,550,000.
So here’s the challenge. In last week’s Study Session it was explained that the 63-20 financing model that the Council had approved for Urban Waters could actually result in higher costs than if we had used a Design Bid Build approach. This wasn’t how it worked when originally approved. Yet, switching now would lead to a 3 to 6 month delay and we don’t actually know what interest rates or construction costs will be at the end of that window.
The approved 63-20 method has a guaranteed maximum cost.
So, the ordinance raised the ceiling for the allowable interest rate. It didn’t mean the city was stuck at 7.5%, however, it did allow the project to move forward unless the interest rate supassed 7.5%.
Approving the ordinance would be an acceptance of the potential for higher costs against the risks of an unknown interest rate and construction costs.
Not exactly simple. Here are the votes:
Anderson – Yes
Baarsma – Absent
Fey – No
Ladenberg – Yes
Lonergan – No
Manthou – Yes
Strickland – Yes
Talbert – No
Walker – Yes
The ordinance was approved 5 to 3.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Tonight was the public hearing for the proposed sale of a 7,801 square foot property to the City of Gig Harbor.
Tonight was the public hearing on the proposed sale of 7,801 square feet of surplus property located adjacent to the Cushman Transmission Line Right-of-Way to the City of Gig Harbor, to be used as a recreational trail and restrooms. The price is $19,500 based on an independent appraisal. There was no public comment.
That’s it. Go back to watching your inauguration coverage.
Filed under: City Council, Legislation, City Government
1 comments
J John Sherman January 21, 2009
In re: Amended Ordinance No. 27783 “[R]elating to the Tacoma Sanitary Sewer Utility; . . .”; it follows, why would the Municipal Public Utilities operating in Tacoma and funded by ratepayers for specific value added defined services delivered to ratepayers; as a result, get tangled-up with this Urban Waters building—-it’s cost, construction, its interest funding, and provided resulting benefit to other groups, schools, education, and ‘economic development’; since all these beneficiaries reside outside of the Municipal Tacoma Sewer Utility (or any other Tacoma Municipal Utility defined ratepayer services delivered) benefit delivery of defined services is back to the utility ratepayers. And, the Utility is working (spending ratepayer money on these outside issues) using money and resources to get this building built with other partners outside of the utility ratepayers defined services; naturally, the essence of what a sewer or wastewater utility was formed to do and services delivery defined specific for ratepayers resulting benefit for the ratepayers payments to receive these services, and not some loose economic development or education of others or a research organization benefit to somebody sometime somewhere.
So my question presented is this: Is this using utility resources, money, tax-exempt debt, all apparent outside of delivery of ratepayer defined services been reviewed by any State of Washington agency that has oversight for Municipal Public Utilities and their defined service provided to ratepayers?
I think this: The City of Tacoma General Government should be the Municipal Corporation that funds, uses their government money, grants new debt, and employee resources expenses for the construction, loans, and operating and all maintenance required to and for the support of this new Urban Waters Building proposed; as a result, and the Sewer Municipal ratepayer Utility might rent some space within this new City of Tacoma General Government Urban Waters Building as a tenant once constructed for its ratepayers laboratory use to support the ratepayer defined service—-which is wastewater treatment of effluent to meet State and Federal wastewater permits compliance then discharge the treated effluent into Puget Sound Waters. That is the entire objected of wastewater ‘ratepayers’ needs today and for tomorrow.
Economic development belongs to expenses of City of Tacoma General Government not some slight-of-hand getting the utility ratepayers to fund and support something outside of defined services delivered for an additional cost to ratepayers of any Municipal Utility, so don’t throw in any extra expenses that the present and future ratepayers must fund ever! Just my thought and I am a ratepayer right now for Tacoma Municipal Utilities.
Anybody, tell me about which State agencie(s) that have approved and blessed this mixing up Municipal Utilities ‘ratepayers’ defined services delivered services for a cost to ratepayers. It is apparent to me that Citizens that are also ratepayers can not make a choice to opt-out of any expense incurred, so this is more like a new City of Tacoma tax mandated under mask as ratepayer defined value added services delivered possible additional cost. So, what oversight memorandum reports exist, what do these reports say, and where is the ratepayers ability to review reports written for this Urban Waters Project initiative? Cite your sources. Thanks.