Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11152001CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL SESSION ON NOVEMBER 15, 2001 The City Council of the City of Port Townsend met in special session this fifteenth day of November, 2001 at 6:30 p.m. in the Port Townsend Council Chambers of City Hall, Deputy Mayor Joe Finnie presiding. ROLL CALL AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Council members present at roll call were Joe Finnie, Allen Frank, Vern Garrison, Syd Lipton, Alan Youse and Bill Wolcott. Geoff Masci was excused. Staff members present were City Manager David Timmons, City Attorney John Watts, and City Clerk Pam Kolocy. UNFINISHED BUSINESS ORDINANCE 2780 AN ORDINANCE FIXING AND ADOPTING 2002 PROPERTY TAX LEVIES Deputy Mayor Finnie noted that the noticed public hearing had been held at the previous meeting on November 14, and that any additional public testimony should be limited to new information. The first reading of the ordinance was approved on November 14. There was no further information or presentation from staff. Public comment Nancy Dorgan stated concern that the council committee budget deliberations and recommendations have not yet been returned to the full city council, therefore it seems odd to have the decision on the levy rate prior to final discussion regarding the budget. City Manager Timmons noted that time lines required by state law differ with respect to adoption of the tax levy and the final city budget. The regulations are not mutually compatible. Motion: Mr. Frank moved for a second reading and adoption of Ordinance 2780. Mr. Garrison seconded The motion carried, 6-0, by roll call vote. ORDINANCE 2781 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND ESTABLISHING A VOTER APPROVAL REQUIREMENT TO UTILIZE BANKED REAL PROPERTY TAX CAPACITY, AND HEREBY ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 3.48, BANKED REAL PROPERTY TAX CAPACITY--VOTER APPROVAL, TO TITLE 3, REVENUE AND FINANCE, OF THE CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND MUNICIPAL CODE City Council Special Meeting Page 1 November 15, 2001 The first reading of the ordinance was approved on November 14. Staff had no further presentation. Public comment Nancy Dorgan stated that the ordinance, although well-intended, will just postpone the inevitable. Not raising taxes is a luxury this council can enjoy because the last three budgets have been floated by the solid waste contract. The next council will not have that slush fund to underpin their budget. She stated that this ordinance won't help solve the real problems facing the city; it only ends up costing taxpayers more, and those people being protected are sooner or later going to get hit with the burden of paying for needed improvements. Kees Kolff Stated that the questions of initiatives, referenda and advisory votes are worth looking at carefully although they are sometimes difficult to implement and can sometimes be abused. He added that they are often written by a small number of individuals without the deliberation of council with adequate citizen input, and may lead to inadequate information and education. A straight yes/no ballot cannot substitute for careful community decision making process and the responsibility of the city council. This is an example: the advisory vote passed overwhelmingly but was done with less than full education of the community. He expressed qualms about the result and again questioned whether there was adequate citizen input and community discussion about the implications. He noted that few, if any, other cities have had such an issue presented for a vote nor have taken that type of result and codified it. He believes the idea of codifying something the community has voted on is laudable but needs to be put into the bigger meaningful discussion of the council and certainly not by the community, and therefore urged the council not to pass the ordinance. He stated it is premature if appropriate at all and that in time we are looking at potential financial insecurity so this is not the time to strap the council with an ordinance for which the negative impacts have not been adequately studied. Freida Fenn said she would reiterate what she said the previous night. There is nothing in which the ordinance requires an education campaign or direct mailing on information to the voters. It will not be simple for the furore council to look at needing an increase in just one budget line item, more likely if the council felt they needed to increase the tax rate to meet inflation, (through the language on the ballot there is no room for detail). The ordinance attempts to translate opinion into a requirement. It is not fair to say 70% of the citizens who said they wanted to advise the council felt they had all the information they neededto look a the banked capacity issue. She added that the complexity of the issue cannot be ignored. Motion: Mr. Frank moved for the second reading and adoption of Ordinance 2781. Mr. Garrison seconded. City Council Special Meeting Page 2 November 15, 2001 Mr. Frank stated that work went into crafting the ballot so that it was clear and concise. He stated that the result is decisive. He said that he thinks it is really important to honor what is said by the voters. He stated that the education element in future budgets is the responsibility of city councils. Mr. Garrison stated that the measure was written clearly to ask voters whether they support gaining voter approval before use of the banked capacity by the city council. He added that there was plenty of time during the election for candidates to explain the issue to the electorate. Mr. Lipton spoke in opposition. Mr. Youse stated that it is difficult to educate the public on complex issues and that although there are different ways to educate the public, it is up to the public also to educate themselves. Citizens should not cast a vote with taking the initiative to understand the ballot measure. Governments have to stay within a budget and he stated that rather than spending the money to mail out information to the public, citizens should take the opportunity to come to council meetings. Whether this advisory ballot indicates advice or authorization, it is what the people have said. He stated he has talked to many people who voted on each side of the issue and noted that he would personally welcome the opportunity to vote on whether his taxes go up or down. He also stated that if the people are to vote on taxation, the council must get out and educate them. Sometimes when taxes are cut, the result is simply leaner and better managed government. Mr. Finnie stated that he is not a fan of propositions nor a fan of advisory ballots but he is a fanof representative government. He stated his acknowledgement that those who supported the proposition and who are proposing the ordinance are doing it because in their minds they really believe politicians haven't demonstrated fiscal prudence. He does not agree. He said he ran for elected office knowing that it was his responsibility to educate himself and vote his conscience. He added that most of the 70% who voted in favor of the proposition do not understand the budget of the city of Port Townsend as well as he does and he is being paid and entrusted with providing funding for needed services. Vote: The motion carried 4-2, by roll call vote, with Mr. Finnie and Mr. Lipton opposed. ADJOURN There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:05 p.m. Attest: Pamela Kolacy, CMC City Clerk City Council Special Meeting Page 3 November 15, 2001