City Council Meeting - Nov 4, 2008
A quick note to all you civic-minded readers: on account of the election, the council delayed tonight’s Citizen’s Forum until the Nov. 18 meeting. Also, there will be no meeting next Tuesday, which is Veterans Day. Alright then, on with the show.
REGULAR AGENDA
Resolution 37644 Authorizes a $156,774 extension to the agreement with KPG for improvements to the City’s solid waste administration and shop building. The additional money will go towards acquiring a LEED silver certification for the building. This sparked a discussion as to whether it was worth paying so much just for the certification if no actual improvements are made to the structure. We’re reminded of the debate over organic vs. local food, and we all know which is trendier these days.
Resolution 37646 Authorizes the transfer of the Tacoma Narrows Airport and all associated property, valued at $3 million, to Pierce County. The problem with the airport was that it was not within Tacoma’s city limits. Thus, the City could not collect property taxes on it, and had no say in its operation. The Airport had also taken on $3 million in debt, which needed to be paid for by other sources since the City received no revenue from the airport. This is a decades-long issue, with Tacoma trying to annex the airport in 1993 to the horror of the Gig Harborites. Mayor Baarsma emphasized that the City is not selling the airport, and that while a private entity had shown interest in the facility, no offer was ever made.
That’s all for the biggest political news from November 4, 2008. Yes we can reallocate operational responsibility for a regional transit entity to an appropriately regional legislative body.
Filed under: City Council, Legislation, City Government
3 comments
E Eric LeMay November 6, 2008
No offer made on the airport? That’s funny.
J John Sherman November 6, 2008
Did I miss the Tacoma City Council meeting presentation—-for example, what has The Council learned from City of Seattle about ratepayer utilities defined services delivered and the difference between ratepayer services delivered compared to a general government services delivery responsibilities and obligations?
And, in this similar Tacoma services delivered Citizens results; it follows, like our Tacoma utility(s) and how it funds its fire hydrants and maybe other services. So, I think the Tacoma City Council is beginning to become educated about Municipal Utilities and ratepayer defined services delivery rules.
See generally, CommencementBayOpinion.com, `Ratepayer Defined Services Don’t Include Fire Hydrants’ available at
http://www.commencementbayopinion.com/?p=748 (a article with some citation hyperlinks about Seattle, and a interpretation of legal remedy for ratepayers related to fire hydrants and who is responsible for fire hydrants, but this subject just-might-have some relation to Tacoma utility ratepayer practices today and past years).
E Eric LeMay November 7, 2008
The letter of intent was given to the city for the airport by a solid group. That group doesn’t exist anymore.