Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11222004 . CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL BUSINESS SESSION OF NOVEMBER 22, 2004 CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The City Council of the City of Port Townsend met in workshop session this twenty- second day of November, 2004, at 6:30 p.m. in the temporary Council Chambers, Building 204 at Fort Worden State Park, Mayor Catharine Robinson presiding. ROLL CALL Council members present at roll call were Frank Benskin, Freida Fenn, Kees Kolff, Geoff Masci, Laurie Medlicott, Catharine Robinson, and Michelle Sandoval. Staff members present were City Manager David Timmons, City Attorney John Watts, Finance Director Michael Legarsky, and City Clerk Pam Kolacy. PUBLIC HEARINGS ORDINANCE 2884 . AN ORDINANCE APPROPRIATING THE SUM OF $511,972 TO THE GENERAL FUND; $58,654 TO THE STREET FUND; $758,200 TO THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND; $407,269 TO THE WATER/SEWER FUND; $139,227 TO THE EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND; $7,000 TO THE FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND; AND MAKING FINDINGS AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY Mayor Robinson reviewed the rules of procedure for open-record legislative public hearings. No Council members disclosed any financial or property interests related to the matter. Finance Director Michael Legarsky reviewed the packet information. Public comment There was no public comment Mr. Legarsky elaborated on the details of several items in response to questions from Councilors. Mr. Timmons noted that the supplemental budget represents an accumulation of 12 months worth of revisions to the budget, bundled and brought forward at one time. . There were no clarifying comments from the public in response to Council questions. City Council Business Meeting Page J November 22,2004 . Motion: Ms. Sandoval moved for first reading of Ordinance 2884. Mr. Masci seconded The motion carried unanimously, 7-0, by voice vote. ORDINANCE 2885 AN ORDINANCE FIXING AND ADOPTING 2005 PROPERTY TAX LEVIES Mayor Robinson noted that the rules of conduct for this hearing would be identical to the first hearing. No Council members had any financial or property disclosures in connection with the matter. Finance Director Michael Legarsky reviewed the packet material, noting that the percentage of property increase is limited by state law to 1 %; the final budget will include tax revenue for new construction and will be slightly different from the amount currently in the 2005 budget. He added that December 7 is the deadline set by County Assessor Jack Westerman for a signed ordinance to be delivered to the County. Mayor Robinson opened the meeting for public testimony. There was none. Mr. Legarsky confirmed Mr. Masci's statement that a 1 % increase would not equal the rate of inflation. . In response to Mr. Benskin, Mr. Legarsky stated that he will be checking with the County Assessor soon to ask for the new construction numbers and will share it with the Council. Mr. Kolff noted that the first reading is to get the process rolling, but the Council will actually set the percentage of increase at final adoption. In answer to Mrs. Medlicott's question, Mr. Legarsky stated that the ordinance before the council does specify a 1 % increase. He added that the new construction numbers would not be in the ordinance but in the final budget. Mayor Robinson closed public testimony. Motion: Mr. Kolffmovedfor first reading or Ordinance 2885. Ms. Fenn seconded Friendly amendment: Mrs. Medlicott proposed a friendly amendment to include "1 %" in the ordinance title. There was no objection. Vote: motion with amendment to the title carried unanimously, 7-0, by voice vote. Mr. Benskin moved to waive Council rules so a final reading could be done this evening. Mr. Masci seconded. . City Council Business Meeting Page 2 November 22,2004 . . . Mr. Kolffnoted his concern with passing the ordinance tonight as he would like the opportunity to study the budget further before the levy is set and added that it is only fair for citizens to have the opportunity to speak; citizens understand that there are normally two reading of an ordinance. Mr. Benskin stated he sees this as a housekeeping matter. Vote: motionfailed, 3-4, Fenn, Kolff, Robinson and Sandoval opposed FORT WORDEN PARKING FEES City Manager David Timmons reviewed the packet materials, noting that Council voted to add an item to this agenda regarding contribution of $6,000 by December 1, 2004, to Fort Worden parking fees for 2004, as requested by the Parking Fee Subcommittee of the Fort Worden Advisory Committee. Public comment James Fritz: strongly recommended finding money to cover parking fees Nora Porter: spoke in support and noted that this year is critical and the Committee believes that other partners such as Peninsula College and Jefferson County will be joining the coalition to preserve free parking at Fort Worden next year. Jean Dunbar: chair ofFt. Worden Parking Advisory Committee spoke in support of the funding and also noted that Peninsula College will probably contribute next year. Kate Burke: Fort Worden Superintendent, stated that Parks staff is currently auditing all of the revenue sources, including fee subsidies and event tickets as well as national investment passes. She added that the State Parks have agreed to extend the final payment date to December 31. Thatcher Bailey: Centrum, encouraged continued participation by the City. Ms. Sandoval asked why there is a large discrepancy in the meeting room subsidy; questioned what was the original assumption. Ms. Burke answered that the Fort saw more conference use than day use; because conferences pay fairly substantial fees already, it was thought that only those renting for day use were charged. Mrs. Medlicott asked if the $6,393 shortfall includes the already committed $5,000 payment from LTAC reserves. Mr. Kolffstated that the $5,000 is included in the total, so the unanticipated payment amount is $1,393. City Council Business Meeting Page 3 November 22,2004 . . . Mr. Benskin asked if parking fees were discussed during the negotiations between Peninsula College and Fort Worden. Ms. Burke answered that when negotiations started, the College was made aware of the City's contribution which was committed for two years. Ms. Burke added that once parking fees are instituted, all day use parking will be $5 although there will not be collection boxes in every parking lot. Arrangements will be made for people to come into the office and pay. There will be provisions for those eating or entering the museum or involved with a conference. She also stated that students have been made aware that they can purchase an annual parking pass for $50. There is also a subsidy available from DSHS if students qualify. Ms. Burke stated that in 2006 the fee will be increased to $7 per day. Mrs. Medlicott asked if it is still possible to earn a free pass by volunteering hours for the Fort. Ms. Burke stated that passes may be earned by contributing 20 volunteer hours (Fort Worden pass) or 50 hours (all state parks pass). Mrs. Medlicott asked where the parking funds ultimately end up. Ms. Burke stated that the park gets a portion back for projects -last year it was $55,000 for Fort Worden, Old Fort Townsend and the Rothschild House. Mr. Kolff estimated that is approximately a 75% return on what was paid in. Motion: Mr. Kolffmoved that the City contribute $6,393 to State Parks in order to meet the agreement between the City and State Parks and that the money come from LTAC reserves rather than the General Fund Ms. Sandoval seconded. Ms. Fenn spoke in support, stating that a major concern in the horrendous parking problem that will occur in the neighborhood just outside the gates which will result in police and public works expenses well beyond the amount the city is contributing to the parking fund. She added that her opinion is that recreational opportunities must be open to the public regardless of their income level and that she feels it is appropriate to use tourist dollars, not money from Port Townsend taxpayers. Mr. Masci stated it is easy to step forward with other people's money and that the $25,000 is a General Fund contribution which comes directly from the citizens. Free parking will be a gift to both County, state and out of state residents. He noted that legally charges have to be determined by the cost of service and reality demands a re- figuring. He stated this is a form of double taxation for citizens because they pay state taxes and now pay an assessment to the state parks. He stated that monopolistic contracts for the Commons fly in the face of all reason and do not justify parking activities. The Leader survey estimating how many people supported the parking contribution was a survey of less than 120 respondents which is spurious at best and unreliable. He stated that Fort Worden needs to eat the shortfall, not the city. He believes the failure to meet the revenue goal voids the contract. City Council Business Meeting Page 4 November 22,2004 . Ms. Sandoval stated she agrees that the state shouldn't be subsidized but would put the county in that category as well; even so we should not cut off our nose to spite our face and throw out the two-year contract for $6,000. She believes that there will be more partners next year; she added that Fort Worden is an economic development driver for the community. Mr. Benskin stated that subsidizing state parks with city money is a bad idea and that the Park needs to pay its own bills. He added that not everyone in town feels disposed to fund the world's parking at Fort Worden. He is surprised that parking fees were not included in the first place in Fort negotiations. He asked if there has been a freeze on expenditures from L T AC funds. Mr. Timmons noted that a modified budget plan has been submitted but that his understanding is that these funds will come from the reserves. Mr. Legarsky added that the LTAC reserve amount is approximately $70,000. . Mrs. Medlicott stated she will support the part ofthe motion for contribution of $5,000 from L T AC funds because that was a recommendation from the Citizen Advisory Committee, but she objects to the funds coming from LTAC reserves as those are not meant for continuing expenses but by definition and design to pay for expenses incurred during emergencies. She said anyone has the option to earn a pass by putting in volunteer hours at the Park. She also noted that L T AC funds come from visitors to the community but those funds are earned by citizens who put a lot of hard work into lodging establishments and other tourism enterprises. She suggested the $1,393 be found elsewhere. Ms. Robinson spoke in support and stated she believes this is within the definition of use for L T AC funds; she added the motion from the L T AC Committee does designate the funding from reserves. She suggested the $1,393 be taken from the General Fund because that was the agreement. Mr. Legarsky stated if the Council wishes to have the money paid this year, a supplemental budget must be done; if the payment can be delayed, this could be part of the 2005 budget. Mr. Robinson asked if it can be taken from the General Fund and paid back from L T AC. Mr. Timmons noted this can be a reappropriation in the 2005 budget. Vote: motion failed, 1-6, with Fenn in favor. Motion: Mr. Kolffmoved to direct that $6,393 be paidfrom the General Fund to cover the Fort Worden Parking Fee contract and that an interfund transaction be done in 2005 to reimburse $5,000 to the General Fundfrom LTACfunds. Ms. Sandoval seconded . Amendment: Ms. Sandoval proposed a friendly amendment that if the result of the audit being conducted by Fort Worden shows that the funding shortfall is not as great; the amount of additional revenue will be credit toward the city's contribution to the shortfall. Mr. Kolff did not accept this as a friendly amendment. City Council Business Meeting Page 5 November 22,2004 . Vote: motion carried, 5-2, by voice vote, Masci and Benskin opposed. RECESS Mayor Robinson declared a recess at 8:40 p.m. for the purpose of a break. RECONVENE The meeting was reconvened at 8:50 p.m. ORDINANCE 2886 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND REPEALING ORDINANCE 2781 AND CHAPTER 3.48 OF THE PORT TOWNSEND MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO BANKED REAL PROPERTY TAX CAPACITY ""- VOTER APPROVAL . City Attorney John Watts reviewed the packet material. Mr. Timmons clarified that the recent proposal to raise the tax levy would have erased the available banked capacity. He noted that Ordinance 2781 passed in 2001 provided that Council would seek voter approval before using "banked capacity." "Banked capacity" represents the difference between the amount of tax levy the City could have legally levied in the past and what it actually levied. At this time the City has 13% banked capacity, or an amount equal to $180,000 (rounded). Public comment: Rosemary Sikes: supported passage of the ordinance and use of the banked capacity; she cited the current budget constraints and concern that community services will be cut as a result. Joshua Bennun: spoke against passage of the ordinance and stated there are other ways of closing the gap. Ms. Sandoval asked if the ordinance can be repealed at any time. Mr. Watts confirmed that it could. Ms. Sandoval asked if the vote is not binding and it remains within the legislative powers ofthis Council to decide whether or not to use the banked capacity, why is the law on the books? Mr. Watts replied it is a lawful local enactment, just not one required by state law. Ms. Robinson said that in the original ordinance, the wording is voter "approval" not voter "advice." . City Council Business Meeting Page 6 November 22,2004 . Mr. Watts stated as long as the requirement is on the books, there must be a vote and then approval to use banked capacity. It is true that not only must you have the vote, but must have 51 % of those voting approving the use; otherwise banked capacity cannot be used. State law should not allow the voters themselves to have the authority to set the property tax levy; only the Council can set the levy. Mr. Timmons stated that the ordinance surrenders certain authority given to the Council by state law and gives it to the voters. Ms. Fenn said she thought the vote was merely advisory; now she is hearing that the previous council relinquished the right to use banked capacity. Mr. Timmons stated the wording was set because it cannot be worded to be binding. Ms. Sandoval stated that if the banked capacity were to be used this year, the Council would have to have a conclusion by December 6, prior to the end of the budget deliberations; she stated she does not think enough discussion about the budget has taken place yet to be certain as to whether the banked capacity will be needed. Ms. Robinson stated that the committee budget recommendations will be summarized for the Council at the December 2 meeting. . Mrs. Medlicott stated she finds it difficult to comprehend why the Council would consider ignoring what the majority of citizens have told them (71 % voted in favor of original ordinance; 66% said don't lift the levy lid.) Mr. Masci stated he was not present when the ordinance was passed but he originally opposed it, thinking it curtailed inherent powers ofthe Council. After the advisory ballot he has great respect for the way the citizens feel and would not support repeal. He stated that the Council must touch base with citizens and all our efforts to get citizens involved in the budget efforts have been thwarted. Mr. Benskin agreed with Mr. Masci about seeking counsel from citizens and stated that the Council has received clear messages that citizens want to have a say in how we spend their money. He said he would not support rescinding the ordinance. Mr. Kolff stated he is concerned that we are not very far along in considering the ramifications of the ordinance. He said no other city in the state of Washington has such legislation. Rescinding the ordinance does not imply we would have to use banked capacity and the Council still has the choice to go to the voters if they want. He stated that to have an ordinance on the books that was passed by a previous council and is not supported by a majority ofthe current council hampers the Council's ability to provide to the citizens the services they want. He added he believes the Council should have all legal options open to them and that the Council should remove this ordinance from the books because it is obsolete and inappropriate. . City Council Business Meeting Page 7 November 22,2004 · Ms. Fenn said she opposed this ordinance when it was implemented and spoke publicly against it at that time. She stated her reasons have not changed but that doesn't necessarily mean she has decided it is appropriate to repeal the ordinance. She stated she does consider this bad law and a bad move as the Council which passed the ordinance did not impose the restriction on themselves and their own work but did it at the end of a seated Council and none of the people who voted for it had to operate within those constraints. She characterized this as a political booby trap intended to make it difficult for future councils to deal with the City's fiscal problems. She said voters are motivated by a distrust of government that people have a right to fell; however this inability to raise money is destroying the ability of many communities to deliver services. She stated many people attending the town meeting were supportive of using banked capacity if that were an option as well as saying they might vote for a levy in a smaller amount. She stated she would favor a first reading, would like to invite citizen comment and would not dream of waiving council rules on this one. She said she does not know whether she will support passage. · Ms. Robinson stated her concern that this ordinance takes away responsibility given to the Council by state law. She added that the Council's responsibilities in terms of financing are serious. She stated that she does see this as the Council's responsibility but also stated that if the Council isn't familiar enough with the budget to make a decision at this point, imagine the general citizen's unfamiliarity. She is uncomfortable with this ordinance since it was presented as requiring an advisory vote but it is apparently one that gives the citizens binding authority. She stated that banked capacity is our savings account and if we need to tap that account, she is not comfortable with this constraint on the books and feels it is not appropriate given the Council's legislative authority from the state. She has not decided whether she would like to address prior to the end of the year but would support first reading. Ms. Sandoval asked if banked capacity would be lost if not used now. Mr. Watts replied that under current law it would not be lost. Mr. Legarsky confirmed that the current banked capacity is based on what could have been collected in years past but wasn't. Ms. Fenn stated we must think not just of now but ofthe future; she stated she thought the ordinance was limiting legislative action when passed; she also said there is another possible initiative on the horizon that might wipe out banked capacity which could be on the state ballot next year and this is a factor she is concerned about. Mr. Benskin stated the Council says it wants to hear what people have to say but every time it comes to getting a vote or taking the temperature of the public it is the last thing the Council wants to do. He stated he does not think the citizens are controlling our legislative action by their vote and will not support the ordinance. · Mr. Kolff stated the will ofthe people is important but we must also remind ourselves that the initiative that limited the ability of governments to raise taxes by more than 1 % City Council Business Meeting Page 8 November 22,2004 · · · failed in our community by 70%. He said this raises a question of how well the community understood the issue since they voted down the ability to restrict Council's ability to raise taxes and then voted to have the Council constrained by the necessity of a ballot measure to raise the levy. He stated the whole question of community education is important. Motion: Ms. Fenn moved for first reading of Ordinance 2886. Mr. Kolff seconded. Motion: Mr. Kolff moved to postpone consideration of the motion until Thursday, December 2. Ms. Sandoval seconded. Motion failed, 2-5 with Kolff and Sandoval in favor. Vote on first reading of Ordinance 2886 carried, 4-3, Benskin, Masci and Medlicott opposed ADJOURN There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:41 p.m. Attest: Q~ c¡{~ Pamela Kolacy, CMC City Clerk City Council Business Meeting Page 9 November 22, 2004