Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11181996 PORT TOWNSEND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SESSION OF NOVEMBER 18, 1996 The City Council of the City of Port Townsend met in regular session this eighteenth day of November, 1996, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, Mayor Julie McCulloch presiding. ROLL CALL Councilmembers present were Kathryn Jenks, Bill Davidson, Ian Keith, Diane Perry-Thompson, Jean Camfield, Ted Shoulberg, Dan Harpole. Also present Michael Hildt, City Administrator; Tim McMahan, City Attorney; Bob Wheeler, Public Works Director; Linnea Patrick, Library Director; Jim Newton, Police Chief; Stacey Thompson, City Treasurer; Howard Scott, Fire Chief; Pamela Kolacy, City Clerk INTRODUCTIONS AND RECOGNITIONS None. PRIORITY PRESENTATION Michael Hildt introduced Mary Lynne Derrington, Superintendent of Schools, Chimacum and UGN Campaign Chair, and Martin Rowe, of the Community Action Council. They spoke about the United Good Neighbors Campaign. AGENDA CHANGES or ADDITIONS None proposed. 1 CONSENT AGENDA Councilmember Davidson moved to approve the following items on the Consent Agenda. Second by Councilmember Jenks. Motion passed unanimously by voice vote. Approval of the following Bills and Claims: FUND TITLE AMOUNT 010 Current Expense 30,991.93 094 Garbage 42,606.30 City Council Meeting 1 November 18, 1996 110 Street 120 Library 130 Park 411 Water-Sewer 412 Storm and Surface Water 500 Equipment Rental 610 Firemen's Pension and Relief Total 10,076.37 4,575.91 6,954.27 34,944.82 4,807.41 6,240.39 275.39 141,472.79 Appointments: Sy Kahn to Arts Commission, Gary Austin to Civil Service Commission. Approval of Resolutions RESOLUTION 96-13 8 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN AN AGREEMENT WITH RONALD SALADO REGARDING THE PURCHASE OF LAND IN THE CITY AND AUTHORIZING THE TREASURER TO ISSUE WARRANTS FOR THE PURCHASE OF THE LAND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE AGREEMENT RESOLUTION 96-139 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES/CONSULTANT AGREEMENT WITH EARTH TECH, INC. TO REVISE TITLE 17 PTMC TO CONFORM WITH THE PORT TOWNSEND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Communications: None Received PUBLIC COMMENTS Mayor McCulloch stated that those wishing to speak regarding the recent dismissal of Building & Community Development Department Director Dave Robison should direct their comments to her as chief administrative officer of the city, and noted the action did not involve the City Council. She also asked that comments be confined to the facts stated in the letter of dismissal and that no negative comments be directed toward any member of the city staff. The Mayor noted she would be available by appointment if anyone wished to speak with her privately. City Council Meeting 2 November 18, 1996 Jim Ewing remarked that the severe action of the termination sends a message to all employees about management; that a "vengeful" management team curbs diversity and fresh thought. He stated his sadness and disappointment that the action taken was characterized as the only way to handle the situation. He said he believed the action taken was far in excess of the act committed, and noted moral judgment should not be prerogative of management; it may be seen as an inept business move. He stated his hope that the Mayor would reduce the possibility that this sort of thing will happen again. Donn Trethaway stated that, far from being offended by Mr. Robison's actions, the public will benefit from his work for years to come and that public trust was earned by his exemplary work. He said that the city government administration has lost credibility before the citizens. He said there could not have been only one choice of action and wondered who has credentials so good that can "pick up the first righteous stone and throw it." Tom Duke read into the record a letter submitted to the Port Townsend Leader in support of Mr. Robison, signed by several local counselors. Cindy Wolpin stated that to many people in the community, Mr. Robison's dismissal is an issue far beyond a personnel matter, that it has served to vilify him; she believes the action taken was cold and heartless. Jim Pearson stated he had come to praise Robison and express anger at the act of dismissal. He stated that Robison has demonstrated the highest standards of professional work and integrity, and made a community no one would recognize who had seen it six years ago, citing Robison's work on the Urban Waterfront, Shoreline, Gateway, and Comprehensive Plans in particular. He asked for compassion from the City and stated the manner of dismissal was shameful. Linda Clifton stated that Dave Robison was the best planner she had ever worked with as a Shorelines Commissioner and a Planning Commissioner. She cited his consistent 60-80 hour work weeks, and stated she did not agree this was the only alternative. She stated it is demoralizing to realize anyone can work so hard and receive such a blow. Steve Hayden said that Mr. Robison made a mistake, but that the Mayor did as well. He hoped the mistake could be corrected.: STANDING/AD HOC COMMITTEE REPORTS Jefferson Community_ Network: Councilmember Perry-Thompson Perry-Thompson and Councilmember Harpole attended the Mobilization on Youth Summit November 14 at Fort Worden. More than 150 community members were present, including high school students. The conference was very successful; School Districts will put together the next event in February. Jefferson Transit Authority_ Board: Councilmember Perry-Thompson City Council Meeting 3 November 18, 1996 Money was allocated for improved signage for the Park & Ride. Councilmember Perry-Thompson also noted the City Council's holiday party for city employees will be held Friday, December 13 at the Library. Haines Street Cottage Project: Councilmember Perry-Thompson Doug Simpson, project manager says 8-10 people working 2-4 hours can do all required demolition work on one of the cottages. Perry-Thompson will return to Council with further details. Public Safety. Committee: Councilmember Jenks November 14, 1996 Discussion items: Interim public safety facility. Jenks would like to present to Council and public on December 2 an abbreviated version of the workshop conducted by John Graham Associates for the Public Safety Committee. The presentation would probably include further conclusions and recommendations which may arise from the Public Safety Committee meeting November 19 at the Fire Hall. Jenks will try to get written materials to Council before December 2 presentation. At this time, Mayor McCulloch suggested proceeding to the Public Hearing since it was 7:00 PM. PUBLIC HEARING Final hearing on proposed 1997 Budget Mayor McCulloch asked for public comment on any part of the 1997 draft budget. No one wished to speak so Mayor McCulloch closed the hearing to the public. City Treasurer D. Stacey Thompson provided the Council with revised pages to the Mayor's recommended budget that had been discussed during the several budget heatings and deliberations. Thompson noted most substantial corrections are included in the new pages, although some minor details have not been included yet. Regarding the new fund for cable television, Harpole noted that although salaries and benefits are listed as a line item, there is a greater probability that funding in the first year will be used for consultant services and therefore a professional services line item would be more appropriate. Mayor McCulloch agreed; however she noted that the funds could be transferred administratively from one line item to another at any time. Shoulberg questioned the $20,000 transfer from the General Fund to the Parks Fund. Thompson replied that the subtracting the additional allocation to the Parks & Recreation budget from the Parks Fund would result in a negative balance; therefore an appropriate amount was transferred from the General Expense Fund to the Parks Fund to maintain an appropriate balance. City Council Meeting 4 November 18, 1996 Thompson also noted an addition to the narrative for the City Clerk's budget explaining that part of the City Clerk's salary comes from the Public Works Department. He pointed out an adjustment in the Stormwater Fund balance reflecting more revenue than was originally anticipated. The transfer of the $11,000 advertising allocation from the Mayor's budget to the City Clerk's budget was also reflected in the changed pages. As Council requested, additional funds were added to the Library budget although the line item expenditures will ultimately be decided by the Library Board. Because the Library's fund balance was sufficient, the additional funds are shown as a reduction to the Library Fund balance. After discussion, it was agreed that the funds would be shown as a reduction in the current expense fund so that the Library Fund balance would remain appropriately substantial; therefore $11,052 will be subtracted from the Current Expense and added to the Library Fund. Regarding the addition to the Parks fund, Thompson noted that the increase in revenues for Parks and Recreation was not as large as had been contemplated since $6,000 of a projected $7,000 donation has already been received. Because the offsetting revenues were not as great they appeared, the $20,000 transfer from the Current Expense Fund was necessary. The Capital Improvement Fund reflected a transfer for Fire Department remodeling. Mayor McCulloch asked if there were any further comments from Council before the Budget is prepared in final form for the December 2 meeting. Harpole indicated he had received a number of calls regarding the proposed annual pass for the swimming pool. He moved that the recreation fee proposals include a six-month swimming pool pass for $150 on a trial basis. Perry-Thompson seconded, and the motion was carded unanimously by voice vote. There being no further discussion, Council members agreed to continue on to the next scheduled public comment period because it was assumed members of the public present were attending to comment on the ordinances before the Council in new business. PUBLIC COMMENT Mayor McCulloch reminded members of the public that the public hearing regarding phase #1 code revisions had occurred at the last meeting and was officially closed. Any comments received tonight on this matter will not considered part of the public testimony on the proposals. Joan Fabian addressed the Council on behalf of the Boiler Room and invited them to an open house on Saturday, November 23, beginning at 7:30 PM. She thanked Council for their ongoing support of the Boiler Room. Jemma Utting identified herself as a local family therapist and added her support to Mr. Duke's letter read earlier in the evening supporting Dave Robison which will be published in the Leader. Robert Greenway spoke about Mr. Robison's termination. He noted his role of trying to keep City Council Meeting 5 November 18, 1996 the concept of planning alive in the County and said that much of the cooperation that has existed between the city and the county depended on Mr. Robison. He regards this expertise as essential to the cooperative process and expressed his great distress that that skill will be lost to the city at just this time. He stated his feeling that it is appalling that a piece of paper would stand as a higher criterion for continued employment than years of excellent and highly competent work. There was no further public comment. NEW BUSINESS ORDINANCE 2550 gan ORDINANCE RELATING TO FENCES, WALLS, ARBORS, HEDGES AND OTHER PARTIALLY OR TOTALLY SIGHT OBSCURING INSTALLATIONS; REPEALING AND REPLACING THE FENCES AND GREENBELT REQUIREMENTS CONTAINED IN CHAPTER 17.36 OF THE PORT TOWNSEND MUNICIPAL CODE; ESTABLISHING NEW REQUIREMENTS FOR THE HEIGHT OF FENCES, WALLS, AaRBORS AND OTHER PARTIALLY OR TOTALLY SIGHT OBSCURING INSTALLATIONS; ELIMINATING HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS FOR HEDGES; AND ESTABLISHING INTERSECTION "CLEAR VISION AREAS" TO PROMOTE TRAFFIC AND PEDESTRIAN SAFETY Staff Planner Eric Toews presented the highlights of Planning Commission and staff rationales for the proposed changes. He noted the primary rationale for repeal and replacement was promoting ease of administration and enforcement. There is now a proliferation of walls and fences that do not meet current code requirements; and this particular code issue was seen as a priority by staff and council during the last Council retreat. Staff was directed to correct perceived deficiencies in the code and by doing so to reduce the number of complaints fielded and enforcement actions pursued. He added that this rationale can be applied to the other proposed amendments on the agenda, Parking and Home Occupations. He stated that the version before Council is very similar to Option 1, the most permissive option reviewed by the Council and Planning Commission during their joint workshop in August. Jenks asked for clarification of the "clear vision area" calculation. Discussion and drawings were used. She questioned whether hedges were allowed in the right of way. Toews replied that hedges would be regulated to the extent they obscure vision or block emergency access to a dwelling and that they would be allowed in the public right of way only if a street use permit were obtained. Jenks asked what would happen to existing hedges in the right of way. Toews noted that the city's top priority in code enforcement would be safety issues. McCulloch clarified that the ordinance refers to planted, not natural hedges. Jenks asked for clarification of the language "partially or totally sight obscuring". Toews stated his interpretation, after listening to the deliberations, would be an installation that would result in City Council Meeting 6 November 18, 1996 a nearly total blockage of sight. After further discussion of hedges in the right of way, City Attomey McMahan reminded Council that one would probably not want to have an ordinance stating the city does not have authority to regulate what is in the public right of way. The proposed ordinance provides a clear statement that private property owners do not have the right to encumber what is a public asset and thereby preclude future use of the right of way by the city. Perry Thompson stated that she has concerns about the ordinance from the perspective of two different values: the value of privacy and the value of having a view. Although she believes the city cannot guarantee views to property owners, and understands the value of not over regulating, the fact remains that some property owners have paid more money for property because of the view. She suggested inclusion of some process, perhaps a citizen review board, which would help resolve disputes between abutting property owners. Camfield agreed on a need to regulate site obscuring entities, that restrict air and light, but noted there is a broader question than just regulation of fences and hedges. For example, a home could be built on neighboring property which could obstruct a neighboring view. Keith stated his understanding that the proposed ordinance is an interim ordinance; at this time hedges would be unregulated with the expectation that the broader issues of bulk and height requirements would be addressed next year. Shoulberg agreed that this was a trial period and that results would be quick to appear in the next few years. Camfield noted that complaints have been received from neighbors on both sides of this privacy / view issue. Harpole agreed that as the process continues, Council should not confuse addressing vegetation issues with the broader issues of view and privacy; he noted a large motor home stored in a driveway could also cut off a view. He expressed his understanding that the Council 1 is not avoiding the light and air issue, but is recognizing that the there are farther reaching regulatory impacts than those addressed in this ordinance. Davidson reported that he struggles with not wanting to craft an ordinance that creates additional regulations and enforcement problems for the city, but is unable to support unrestricted hedges in side and rear yards since there will be some instances in which this will cause a tree burden to citizens whose view or light are significantly impacted. Jenks noted that when the Land Use Committee set up the process for dealing with Phase I code amendments, the option of an additional hearing to deal with difficult issues was added. She stated she did not believe the ordinance necessarily had to be adopted tonight, but that Council did have the option to delay and suggest rewrites. City Council Meeting 7 November 18, 1996 Jenks stated her major concerns about the enormous ramifications of enforcement when the height of a hedge keeps changing. She said that not having the energy to enforce this appears to be one reason hedges are less regulated than fences and walls. She stated that in her opinion, regulation of hedges should primarily be addressed through public safety concerns." Keith noted that it did not appear that the ordinance would affect a hedge changing height, because if the height is not regulated, there is no enforcement issue when it grows taller. Davidson noted that under the existing ordinance, hedges are regulated in rear and side yards. He estimates that 95% of hedges that exist that violate the current ordinance never cause a problem; however when there is a problem, having some restriction would give an avenue of help if there were a complaint. Jenks suggested using the original wording referring to "planted" hedges in 17.08.211 to limit the scope of the ordinance to planted rather than naturally occurring vegetation; she again asked to strike the term "partially or totally sight obscuring" on page 6, line 32. Shoulberg stated that public safety in a clear vision area is at stake whether a hedge is planted or not. He noted that the definition is there because one must define to regulate and hedges are regulated in a clear vision area. McMahan noted that precise words are used for precise legal reasons. He noted that the Planning Commission debated wording changes at length and tried to eliminate ambiguous language. Shoulberg moved that the first reading of Ordinance 2550 be considered the second reading, and the third be by title only. Jenks seconded. The motion carded unanimously by voice vote. Shoulberg then moved for adoption of Ordinance 2550, pages 1-8 of the Planning Commission's final draft dated October 24, 1996. Harpole seconded. Jenks asked for clarification of the footnote on page 6 regarding the burden of surveying property for the purposes of determining right of way. City Attorney McMahan noted that in a dispute over the location of the right of way, in most instances the choice would be payment by taxpayers or payment by the owner of the property. Jenks had further questions about that process. Shoulberg noted the Director would made an initial decision that an obstruction appeared to be in the right of way. McMahan added that in an enforcement action where there is a right of way dispute between the city and a property owner, the city can ask the property owner to demonstrate that the obstruction is indeed not in the right of way. If the wording were changed, that burden would fall on the taxpayers. Mr. Hildt noted that if there is concern that the Director is requiring an unnecessary survey, the other party has recourse through the appeal process. He added that s survey is usually a last resort in these cases.. City Council Meeting 8 November 18, 1996 Camfield then called for the question. The vote on the question carded 5-2, with Keith and Jenks opposing (2/3 majority needed). A roll call vote was then taken on the motion before Council for adoption of Ordinance 2550. The motion was defeated 4-3, with Davidson, Jenks, Keith and Perry-Thompson voting against. Keith then moved to reconsider the motion to adopt Ordinance 2550. Jenks seconded. The motion carded by voice vote, 6-1, with Davidson opposing. Keith noted that if a significant number of property owners built 8-foot fences on their front property lines, the city streetscape would change dramatically. Upon questioning, Planning Commissioner Lisa Enarson stated that the Planning Commission did not specifically discuss a possible resulting change in town character associated with this provision.. Councilmember Harpole left the meeting at 9:20 because of illness. Keith then moved for adoption of Ordinance 2550 amended to provide that no fence, wall or other partially or totally sight obscuring installation shall exceed four feet in height within any required setback area abutting a public street right of way; and an amendment that the words "of the BCD" be stricken after "Director" in all cases (to eliminate the need to change the code if the name of the department changes). Shoulberg seconded. Jenks asked for clarification that the height limit of eight feet would then still apply anywhere behind the setback. Hildt confirmed. She then asked if current non-conforming fences would be "grandfathered." Hildt replied that given of resources and common sense, these structures would not be pursued for enforcement in most cases. Jenks expressed a wish to revisit enforcement priorities at a future date. More discussion ensued about whether or not the four foot limit could apply to fences, with an additional allowance for "open" fencing on top. Shoulberg suggested a friendly amendment to the motion adding an allowance for a four foot height extension above the original four feet, with the additional four feet to be predominantly open, allowing for passage of light and air. Keith accepted the amendment. There being no further discussion, a roll call vote was taken on the motion to adopt Ordinance 2550, as amended. The motion carded 4-2, with Davidson and Perry Thompson opposing. Staff was directed to add the appropriate language to the final ordinance. ORDINANCE 2551 AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO HOME OCCUPATIONS; AMENDING AND ADDING NEW DEFINITIONS TO CHAPTER 17.08 OF THE PORT TOWNSEND MUNICIPAL CODE; REPEALING AND REPLACING THE HOME OCCUPATIONS REQUIREMENTS City Council Meeting 9 November 18, 1996 CONTAINED IN SECTION 17.64.040 OF THE PORT TOWNSEND MUNICIPAL CODE; AND ESTABLISHING NEW, MORE FLEXIBLE REQUIREMENTS AND AN ADMINISTRATIVE PERMIT APPROVAL PROCESS FOR HOME OCCUPATIONS. Mr. Toews introduced the ordinance, and noted the key provisions encouraging home occupations in accordance with the direction of the Comprehensive Plan; noting also that the introduction includes a purpose statement indicating it is not the city's intent to become involved in private restfictve covenants. He stated noted the exemptions are now performance based, rather than prescriptive. Jenks stated she hold a home occupation permit, and asked whether she should be excluded from the discussion. McMahan noted that since this is a legislative matter, that would not be necessary. Jenks then stated her concerns, many brought about through about citizen correspondence, that the peace of neighborhoods not be disturbed; she also stated the code would be difficult to enforce. Her preference is that business visits should not be allowed to continue as late as 9:00 pm and that visits should not start as early as 8 am. She also expressed concern about the change in maximum floor area, and stated that if the home occupation required 50% of the floor space, the smacture would not then be primarily a home. Shoulberg noted that track deliveries "not common to the neighborhood" are not allowed; constant movement of UPS and Federal Express tracks for personal deliveries are common in residential areas. He also voiced his support for economic development and stated that because home occupations are a growing industry they should be encouraged. He contended that this is where many businesses get their start and he supports making it as easy as possible for them. He noted that If the impact remains within the house and the neighbors are not disturbed, it is not relevant how great an area of space is devoted to business inside the structure. Keith noted that on the Director is required to make affirmative findings that the business is not injurious or detrimental to neighborhood character; if it is, the permit can be denied on those ground. Those findings may often establish a higher standard than the minimums spelled out. Toews confirmed that meeting minimum standards does not automatically result in issuance of a permit; if there are conditions where minimum standards are satisfied but all impacts associated with the home occupation mean a change in neighborhood character, the project could be mitigated further to ensure that character. Jenks expressed concern that three employees might be too many; that the number may alter "use and enjoyment" of property. McMahan noted that a decision must be reasonable: many non- business activities in a neighborhood cause early morning coming and going and several automobile trips. Neighbors view a situation subjectively about whether or not they are disturbed; in an enforcement action, the view must be completely objective.. Keith pointed out that although there is a restriction on how late business visits can take place, City Council Meeting 10 November 18, 1996 no limit regarding early morning visits has been placed. He suggested 8 AM. Jenks noted her preference is that business visits would be limited to 8 AM - 6 PM. Camfield asked for a definition of "business visit." She questioned whether arrival and departure of employees is covered. She also agreed that outside impacts should be the primary focus of regulation, and believed that a rime limit for early arrival should be established. Shoulberg pointed out that Council is looking at home occupation in the way traditional work is viewed. He added that the nature of work in one's home is changing and the concept of "regular" business hours cannot be the same in this context. Keith proposed 8 am as the earliest possible for rime arrival of employees and business visits. Keith moved that the first reading of Ordinance 2551 be considered the second reading, and the third reading be by rifle only. Davidson seconded. The morion passed by unanimous voice vote. Ms. Kolacy read the ordinance by rifle. Keith then moved for adoption of Ordinance 2551, with the amendment that section 17.23.060 also include "before 8 AM" section C be amended to read "maximum floor area devoted to home occupation shall not exceed 800 square feet". Shoulberg seconded. Keith explained that by removing the constraint of limiting 50% of the floor space to be devoted to business, a scenario may occur where the builder of a new home who needed 800 square feet of space for a home occupation would be required to build a 1600 sf home in order to do that; in a 1200 square foot house, he would be limited to 600 square feet. This becomes in some cases, an incentive to build a larger structure than originally planned. Shoulberg suggested a friendly amendment to the motion which would add the phrase "or non- resident employee arrivals or departures" after "no business visits" in 17.23.060. Keith agreed to the friendly amendment language "no business visits or non-resident employee arrivals or departures Perry Thompson asked why there is no requirement to notify adjacent property owners when a home occupation permit application is received. City Attorney McMahan stated that notification is not required for a Type I building permit (another Type I example is a building permit). Toews noted this requirement would make the permit application process more difficult and lengthy as well as increasing administrative costs to the city. Davidson questioned whether a home occupation permit can be transferred to a new owner who buys the property and the business. Hildt explained that the permit is a simple and fast one to obtain, and by requiring all new owners to apply, it is more clear that the applicant understands all that is involved in a home occupation. Jenks again expressed concern over allowing 50% of space to be used for business, blurring line City Council Meeting 11 November 18, 1996 between business and home, again stating her feeling that the "occupation" should be secondary to the "home". She would stated her preference to cutting off business visits before 9PM and limited non-resident workers to fewer than three per business. Camfield also expressed concem about the number of non-resident employees allowed as that may affect the character of the neighborhood. Perry Thompson questioned the cumulative impact of several home businesses in one area, noting that it would increase traffic significantly. Toews noted that may be a factor included in the Director's review of the application, Shoulberg added that this sort of impact may become evident over time with possible tracking of home business locations, and that if the impacts appear to be seriously affecting neighborhoods, the standards may be changed. Jenks proposed a friendly amendment to the motion to allow fewer non-resident employees. Keith refused. Jenks proposed a friendly amendment limiting hours for business visits to 6PM instead of 9 PM. Jenks proposes a friendly amendment that floor space for business shall not exceed 3 3-1/3 %. Keith refuses. There being no further discussion, a roll call vote on the motion to adopt ordinance 2551 as amended results in a 3-3 tie, with Camfield, Jenks and Perry Thompson opposing. The mayor declined to vote on the advice of the City Attorney because the vote was for passage of an ordinance, a legislative matter. The motion therefore failed for lack of a majority. Shoulberg the moves to adopt Ordinance 2551, amended to add language in 17.23.060 (f) stating that there will be no business visits or non-employee arrivals or departures before 8 a.m. or after 9 p.m. Keith seconded. Jenks requests a friendly amendment to the motion removing the word "hand" from "hand crafted" in 17.23.060 (E) and to limit the number of non-resident employees to two rather than three. Shoulberg accepted the wording change to "crafted", but declined the suggestion to further limit non-resident employees. Since there was no further discussion, the roll call vote to adopt Ordinance 2551 as amended was taken. The motion passed 4-2, with Camfield and Jenks opposed.. COUNCIL DISCUSSION Since the time was approaching 11 PM, discussion dealt with the remainder of the agenda. Keith suggested going through the remainder of staff reports and mayor's report and continuing the meeting to discuss the Parking Ordinance. Mayor McCulloch noted she would be unavailable this week and next and suggested taking up that matter at the next regularly scheduled meeting on December 2. The remaining item of new business was the first reading of the Supplemental Budget Ordinance. City Council Meeting 12 November 18, 1996 ORDINANCE 2552 AN ORDINANCE APPROPRIATING THE SUM OF $54,046 TO THE CURRENT EXPENSE FUND, $37,251 TO THE LIBRARY FUND, $19,611 TO THE PARKS FUND, $10,625 TO THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND, AND $86,812 TO THE WATER/SEWER FUND, MAKING FINDINGS AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY Shoulberg moved for the first reading of Ordinance 2552. Davidson seconded. The motion passed by unanimous voice vote. The Clerk then read the Ordinance by title. MAYOR'S REPORT Mayor McCulloch read a letter from General Clinton Hom, U.S. Air Force Special Operations Command regarding the exercises conducted in and around Port Townsend. He apologized for the inconvenience to citizens and pledged to do better in the future. McCulloch also noted that a workshop executive session regarding the Port Townsend Gold Course needs to be scheduled. The session will take place during the Council Meeting on December 16, but will be prior to the meeting rather than following it. The executive session will begin at 4 pm at Pope Marine Building. STAFF REPORTS City. Administrator: Mr. Hildt noted several upcoming training opportunities. On Monday, November 25, sexual harassment awareness training will be available for any employees who have missed this opportunity. On December 3, Maschoff Barr will send a representative to speak about coping with change; sessions are scheduled for noon and 1 PM. On December 12, an representative from Association of Washington Cities will discuss benefits for non-bargaining unit employees at 1:00 in Council Chambers. Hildt also said that the first draft of the personnel policies manual has been completed; target for completion is February. Ci_ty Attorney: Mr. McMahan announced meetings of the Land Use Study Commission on December 4 in Olympia and December 10 in Tacoma. These will be key meetings; Councilmembers with interest may want to consider attending. He also noted Growth Management Hearing Board heard the City's motion on the issue of standing by those not involved in the public process. The decision should be issued this week. Public Works: Mr. Wheeler stated that Doug Mason had succeeded in securing IAC funds in the amount of $100,000 for Union Wharf. The Parks and Recreation functional plan survey was mailed today with copies to the City Council. He also requested that the Utilities Committee schedule a meeting to discuss next year's contracts, and Master Plan schedules. The meeting was set for 12 Noon on Wednesday, December 18 at Public works. City Council Meeting 13 November 18, 1996 Police: Chief Newton stated the promotional exam for sergeant has been set for December 17. An assessment center consultant has been hired to do that test. He also said the Civil Service Commission had agreed to waive the rule requiring four years with Port Townsend law enforcement as a requirement for applicants since only two officers would qualify. Instead, applicants will be required to have at least a total of five years of appropriate law enforcement experience. An examination for lateral entry officers will also be conducted early in 1997. Chief Scott noted the pumper track is still out of service. Library_: Ms. Patrick noted that the Library Board meeting on November 26 is scheduled to begin at 5:00 pm. City Administrator: Mr. Hildt added that staff had visited the state office of procurement and had information about buying off state bids. He asked if he could bring the proposed agreement before council at the next meeting, without going to Finance Committee. There was no opposition. PUBLIC COMMENT There was no further public comment There was no general discussion. GENERAL DISCUSSION ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 11:37 pm. Pamela Kolacy, City Clerl~ ~ City Council Meeting 14 November 18, 1996