Exit133 is about Tacoma

Point Ruston Updates

The Tacoma City Council has until February 24 to decide whether it is open to the idea of annexing the Ruston side of Point Ruston.

State Lawmakers Weigh In

The City isn't making any decisions just yet, having postponed its vote on a resolution at last week's council meeting that would have accepted the petition. But The News Tribune reports that while officials from the cities of Ruston and Tacoma, the EPA, and the Point Ruston developers are meeting to try to resolve the dispute, state law makers have weighed in. Representative Jake Fey with the support of Laurie Jinkins, David Sawyer, and Steve Kirby, has filed a placeholder bill that could be used to impose a state-level solution if the parties can't sort things out amongst themselves.

Point Ruston backs Fey's HB 2074, which at this point reads in full as follows:

AN ACT Relating to the petition-based annexation method for owners of property within a city or town that seek annexation to another city or town. 

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON: 

NEW SECTION. Sec. 1. This act shall be known as the petition-based municipality annexation act of 2015.

That's all it says for now, but it's a placeholder that would allow Fey to go back and fill it in if the parties can't come to a workable solution at the local level. It's unclear at this point what the details of the bill would be, but Ruston obviously doesn't like the idea of state-level intervention, and other small municipalities are concerned that a bill on petition-based annexation could affect them as well. Everyone seems to hope that it won't come to that.

 

Refuse Collection Dock

Meanwhile, Point Ruston has submitted a request to allow it to use a narrow strip of land running between Ruston Way and the BNSF rail lines as a refuse transfer dock. Garbage would be collected from the Point Ruston development and taken to the proposed transfer dock for pick up by Tacoma Solid Waste. This was not included in original master plans and environmental approvals for the development, but Point Ruston contends that since it will serve only Point Ruston, it is accessory to the uses already approved, and should be allowed.

The requested dock would be a concrete slab 220 feet long by 26 feet wide, and no more than 8 feet high, serving as the base for a trash compactor and garbage and recycling bins. The design includes a 6 foot-tall brick and masonry wall separating the facility from Ruston Way with a 5-foot landscaping strip.

If approved, the decision on this is not subject to appeal. Find related documents here.

 

Century Building Progress

And in case you're wondering how development is progressing, Point Ruston has produced a video of work on the site over the last few months - you can watch the new Century building progress right before your eyes. If you've been following Point Ruston's growth, you know this as the mixed-use building that will house the Century movie theater, along with a few restaurants, below condo units.

 

More on Point Ruston previously from Exit133 here.


Do you want to help the folks at Exit133 pay our bills and keep up with of all things Tacoma? Do you want to see even more coverage? Exit133 has always been free to read and comment, and it will stay that way. However, over the years, readers have contributed to the bank account to help us keep up our coverage of goings-on around town. Contribute and this message disappears!

Support Exit133

Comments

Terry

Oh boy! This could get ugly. I know the easy solution would be to blame Ruston, but I don’t think would be completely fair or even remotely productive. Like it or not, Ruston, Tacoma and the EPA are all in bed together. Tacoma knew that dealing with Ruston and the EPA wasn’t going to be easy, so here we go!

February 13, 2015 at 4:40 pm / Reply / Quote and reply

1 | 2

Jake

The song in the video.. I bet that they picked it because of the Ruston issues.
“I think that we should break up. I think I want to live my life and you’re just in my way”

February 13, 2015 at 5:49 pm / Reply / Quote and reply

5 | 0

RoryRegistered

I’m not sure why the folks driving down Ruston Way and those living on stack hill should have to put up with Point Ruston’s Garbage. They have plenty of space on their main site,, let them put it there and not ‘trash’ everyone else’s view.

February 14, 2015 at 8:38 am / Reply / Quote and reply

2 | 0

John Sherman

Let’s take a look at what a “placeholder” bill looks like; for example, it just looks like any other bill traveling through the legislative process already(just like any other bill moving quickly). See http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2015-16/Pdf/Bill Reports/House/2074 HBR LG 15.pdf

Apparent to me, what this H.B. 2074 might attempt to accomplish with new added rule; as a result, have the courts ignore all petitions that oppose or support annexation and let City of Tacoma file a court remedy appeal against City of Ruston, if Ruston decides against the annexation plan as City of Tacoma proposes.

Maybe I have read the new proposed H.B. 2074 rule wrong. Maybe somebody else knows how to explain the benefit from H.B. 2074 new rule if enacted?

How is that $150 million notice of claim doing that Point Ruston made public against City of Ruston? I failed to see the U.S. EPA joined with Point Ruston in this notice since it relates to Asarco EPA project environmental cleanup money demands?

And let’s not forget to review Ruston’s City of Ruston, Wash., Ruston Municipal Code, Title 25 Zoning: Point Ruston Master Development Plan (PRMDP) § 25.01.061 (Apr. 2, 2013) available from http://bit.ly/1JB3iTJ

February 23, 2015 at 11:12 am / Reply / Quote and reply

0 | 0

John Sherman

Let’s take a look at what a “placeholder” bill looks like; for example, it just looks like any other bill traveling through the legislative process already(just like any other bill moving quickly). See http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2015-16/Pdf/Bill Reports/House/2074 HBR LG 15.pdf

Let me get a hyperlink that actually works: http://1.usa.gov/18gcwV0

 

February 23, 2015 at 11:17 am / Reply / Quote and reply

0 | 0

JohnShermanRegistered

New newspaper news: The Tacoma City Council decided to move forward with the annexation of some of the Town of Ruston with the force of Washington State Legislature bill to get the annexation forced as presented in article by Kate Martin, Staff writer, “Tacoma Oks first step in Point Ruston annexation,” The News Tribune, Feb. 25, 2015, at A1 A12 available at http://www.thenewstribune.com/2015/02/24/3656329/tacoma-council-votes-to-continue.html.

According to the Tribune article this Wash. Leg. Sess. H.R. bill does not imply: “A bill proposed by Rep. Jake Fey, D-Tacoma, would require cities being asked permission for the annexation to say no to the petitioner twice. Ruston officials fear the bill will be amended to remove their veto power.” Where did these words `twice’ come from?

But the Wash. 64th Leg. Sess. Intent words say this: “Modifies the direct petition annexation method under which territory may be annexed from one city or town to another city or town by specifying that a decision by a city or town legislative body to reject an annexation proposal may be appealed to the legislative body of the city or town rejecting the proposal.” See Wash. H. Committee on Local Government, Wash. H. Commitee on Local Government, HOUSE BILL REPORT HB 2074 As Reported by House Committee On: Local Government Title: An act relating to the petition-based annexation method for owners of property within a city or town that seek annexation to another city or town, HOUSE BILL REPORT HB 2074, (An act relating to the petition-based annexation method for owners of property within a city or town that seek annexation to another city or town) available at http://1.usa.gov/18gcwV0

Wash. H.R. 2074 (2015) words: “(a) The legislative body of the city or town from which the territory would be taken must approve the annexation before it may proceed; and (b) a decision by a city or town legislative body to reject the annexation proposal, either before or after the circulation of petitions, may be appealed to the legislative body of the city or town rejecting the proposal within ninety days of the issuance of a rejection decision.”

See Wash., H.R. 2074, (2015-16) Relating to the petition-based annexation method for owners of property within a city or town that seek annexation to another city or town. available at http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=2074&year=2015

I think all this H.R. 2074 words might mean this; for example, If City of Ruston, for whatever reason, rejects the annexation request from City of Tacoma, as proposed by City of Tacoma; as a result, City of Tacoma may file a remedy requested to a Washington court; it follows, request for City of Ruston annexation decision reversal and where any petitions on record or filed by residents of the City of Ruston have no considered value in the annexation reversal opinion offered to the court in favor of City of Tacoma? Could this be the intent of these Wash. H.R. 2074 words joined?

February 25, 2015 at 3:13 pm / Reply / Quote and reply

0 | 0

Ellnobe

How Can I Buy Cialis In A Store In Ct Kamagra Store buy generic cialis Relax De Propecia Propecia Side Effects Temporary Get Discount Direct Dutasteride France Renfrewshire

June 12, 2018 at 5:05 pm / Reply / Quote and reply

0 | 0

Post A New Comment

Please enter the word you see in the image below:


Potentially Related Articles