City Hall
Council Majority Plans to Torpedo O'Brien Tunnel Amendments
City Council members Jean Godden, Sally Bagshaw, and Richard Conlin plan to introduce a resolution, as well as several amendments to a council resolution on the deep-bore tunnel, that would torpedo three of the five amendments being proposed by their colleague Mike O'Brien. (One of the amendments, asking the state to identify all of the differences between the bids that are initially submitted and the final contract, is likely to be uncontroversial, and another, requiring the legislature to remove language in state law saying Seattle property owners are on the hook for any cost overruns on the tunnel, has no chance of passing.)
The first proposal, a resolution sponsored by five of the council's nine members, would reportedly express support for transit funding as part of the viaduct replacement project but would not---unlike O'Brien's amendment---make the agreements with the state contingent on the state providing funding for transit. The text of that resolution is not yet available online.
The second proposal, an amendment reportedly being sponsored by Nick Licata, would water down the language O'Brien has proposed, which would forestall any agreements with the state until the Port of Seattle has identified funding sources for the $300 million it has committed to the tunnel, would reportedly say something to the effect of, "the Port and the council commit to work together to secure funding" for the Port's $300 million contribution.
Finally, the third amendment would replace O'Brien's proposal to hold off on agreements until the state department of transportation studies the impact of the tunnel on traffic on city streets, including the impact of tolling, with language saying the city have agreed to figure out a way to resolve traffic impacts at a later date. That amendment is reportedly being sponsored by council president Richard Conlin.
The council's viaduct oversight committee meets after the full council meeting on Monday, at around 2:30, and could vote on the tunnel resolution then.
The first proposal, a resolution sponsored by five of the council's nine members, would reportedly express support for transit funding as part of the viaduct replacement project but would not---unlike O'Brien's amendment---make the agreements with the state contingent on the state providing funding for transit. The text of that resolution is not yet available online.
The second proposal, an amendment reportedly being sponsored by Nick Licata, would water down the language O'Brien has proposed, which would forestall any agreements with the state until the Port of Seattle has identified funding sources for the $300 million it has committed to the tunnel, would reportedly say something to the effect of, "the Port and the council commit to work together to secure funding" for the Port's $300 million contribution.
Finally, the third amendment would replace O'Brien's proposal to hold off on agreements until the state department of transportation studies the impact of the tunnel on traffic on city streets, including the impact of tolling, with language saying the city have agreed to figure out a way to resolve traffic impacts at a later date. That amendment is reportedly being sponsored by council president Richard Conlin.
The council's viaduct oversight committee meets after the full council meeting on Monday, at around 2:30, and could vote on the tunnel resolution then.
