Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09062005 . CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SESSION OF SEPTEMBER 6, 2005 CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The City Council of the City of Port Townsend met in regular session this sixth day of September, 2005, at 6:30 p.m. in the Port Townsend temporary Council Chambers in the Cedar Room of the Waterman & Katz Building, 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 (Ms. Sandoval participated by telephone). Staff members present were City Manager David Timmons, City Attorney John Watts, Public Works Director Ken Clow, City Engineer Dave Peterson, Long Range Planning Director Jeff Randall, Fire Chief Mike Mingee, and City Clerk Pam Kolacy. Also present were contractors Rick Sepler and Tom Miller. CHANGES TO THE AGENDA . Mr. Masci asked that the proclamation regarding National Alcohol and Drug Addiction Recovery Month be pulled from the agenda because the City has not followed up on giving a $5,000 contribution. Mayor Robinson stated that the proclamation was prepared upon request of local agencies. She also noted that the City does contribute funding to the County's substance abuse programs. PROCLAMATIONS Jefferson AIDS Service AID Awareness Day (accepted by AI Hernandez) National Alcohol and Drug Addiction Recovery Month COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC (consent and non-agenda items) Steve Emery: made comments regarding Hurricane Katrina - noted that if Fort Worden is used for temporary transitional housing, the Council may need to act on that; he also stated that there are many things to be learned from the disaster especially about the need for self-sufficiency. CONSENT AGENDA . City Council Business Meeting Page 1 September 6, 2005 . . . Motion: Mr. Koltt moved for adoption of the following items on the Consent Agenda. Ms. Fenn seconded. The motion carried unanimously, 7-0, by voice vote. Approval of Bills, Claims and Warrants: Vouchers 51134 through 51142 in the amount of $3,050.67 Vouchers 94972 through 94988 in the amount of $2,830.17 Vouchers 95131 through 95273 in the amount of $382,490.41 Vouchers 819051 through 819058 in the amount of $80,168.78 Vouchers 902051 through 902058 in the amount of $80,133.63 Approval of Minutes: August 15, 2005 PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE NO. 2909 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TABLE 17.22.020 OF THE PORT TOWNSEND MUNICIPAL CODE INCREASING THE MAXIMUM SIZE ALLOWED FOR RESTAURANTS IN THE M-II (B) ZONING DISTRICT; ESTABLISHING A LIMITATION ON THE TOTAL NUMBER OF RESTAURANTS IN THE M-II (B) ZONING DISTRICT AND ESTABLISHING A MARITIME CORRIDOR OVERLAY DISTRICT Mayor Robinson read the rules of procedure for public hearings. She asked if any Council members have any interests, financial or property, to disclose in association with this matter. Ms. Fenn noted for the record she does not hold any interest in Pygmy Boats, a business in Point Hudson, so she has no conflict of interest. Contract Planner Rick Sepler presented the staff report and provided two new documents; a map and memorandum dated September 6, with additional language suggested for Section 17.23.040. The language has the effect of unambiguously allowing for continued conditional use review of proposed restaurants located within the M-II(B) zoning district (by adding "The provisions of Section 17.22.020 PTMC shall apply in addition to the use provisions of the Shoreline Master Plan." He reviewed the packet materials, noting that the current City code limits restaurant size at point Hudson to 1,500 square feet. Existing restaurants on the site are all non- conforming to this limit and the issue is being addressed due to the current process underway to revise the Shoreline Master Plan as well as a proposal which is being developed to expand and rebuild the Landfall restaurant. The Council, in anticipation of the Landfall application, requested the Planning Commission to consider and recommend potential revisions to the restaurant size limitation via a zoning text amendment. The Planning Commission, after reviewing the record, receiving public testimony and discussing the issue, has recommended a draft ordinance for Council approval City Council Business Meeting Page 2 September 6, 2005 . which limits the total area of all restaurants in the Point Hudson District to 11,000 gross square feet and any single restaurant to 3,500 gross square feet. The Mayor opened the floor to public comment. Joe Finnie: stated he supports the change conditionally and is sympathetic with the business model of the Landfall in regard to needing a larger space to make the restaurant work. He referred to a letter already submitted to the Council, noting his areas of concern, which included building mass, potential elimination of view corridors, setbacks, HVAC, noise, landscaping and streetscaping. He stated he would like a mechanism to provide stakeholders to express these concerns in the course of the permitting process. He stated his support of the additional language that would condition the use of restaurants at Point Hudson, as this would require a thorough review in all areas of concern. . Eric Toews, Cascadia Community Planning, appearing on behalf of Tony and Betty Harriman, owners of the Landfall Restaurant, urged the Council to adopt the ordinance without modification. He stated that existing policy has a clear focus of assuring the vitality of marine uses at Point Hudson. He added the current proposal effectively implements City policy. The original drafters of the Code employed the limit of 1500 sf per restaurant to assure restaurant uses would not overpower or displace other water related uses, even though other effective regulatory uses would apply. The square footage limitation was a starting point in 1997 and was not supported by analysis nor was it a specific topic of discussion. He stated the proposed amendment with the aggregate and individual square footage limits achieve the objective of the plan and assure viability for restaurants. The individual size limit is entirely in keeping with the size and scale of other full service restaurants in town and also brings the other Point Hudson restaurants into code compliance. In addition, it accomplishes the goals of allowing a single restaurant to accommodate ADA compliant uses on the second floor, is realistic for a full service restaurant, and protects water related and water enjoyment uses. He said that the proposal, if adopted, would ensure the viability of Port Townsend's working waterfront while supporting local restaurateurs. Mary Winters, Port of Port Townsend attorney, stated that the Port supports the ordinance. Passing the ordinance would bring existing restaurants into compliance and neither the community nor citizens have expressed issues with the size of those establishments. She stated that there are other issues that are not being dealt with at this time that will come before Council when they consider the Shoreline Master Program. An example is the mixed-use resort. The status quo is that restaurants are not a conditional use; it has been proposed that if the restaurants were water- oriented they would be permitted outright. She stated the Port has no problem with the new language proposed tonight, adding, and "until such time as a new SMP is adopted." . City Council Business Meeting Page 3 September 6, 2005 . . . Larry Crockett, Executive Director, Port of Port Townsend, stated he was a member of the Shoreline Advisory Group that spent an enormous number of hours, compromise, discussion and debate to come up with the language proposed. He stated it has been lifted out of what the SAG devised so far as the Shoreline Master Plan update. He added that the map shows that the Maritime Center property is incorporated as part of this and that they will have a food capability as well; it aids the Maritime Center's mission and accomplishes community goals. He said that the 3,500 square foot limitation provides flexibility for current restaurants to be in compliance and economically sound while not being so large as to allow a restaurant like Anthony's Home Port, which would be at least 9,000 square feet. Tony Harriman, owner of Landfall Restaurant: stated his appreciation for the hard work of the SAG, Planning Commission and Council over the last months. He stated he is here to support the zoning change and feels that what he and his wife have in mind for the Landfall and the additional lease space for water-oriented use will fit in with the character of the Maritime Center, Mr. Finnie's property, and the remainder of Point Hudson. He stated that the current footprint of the Landfall is spread over 5,000 square feet and the proposed building would fit within a 3,500 sf footprint. He stated their intention is to build a business that will make the local customers happy. A 3,500 sf restaurant is a small restaurant, according to statistics from restaurant associations; anything smaller runs a significant risk of failure. He stated he supports the change and will make the new Landfall a place that citizens of Port Townsend will be proud of. Mr. Timmons stated that the Historic Preservation Committee has requested that Council hold the record open so they can comment on the ordinance; this would not preclude first reading tonight. They wish to have some input on the document as it conforms to historic guidelines. Mr. Sepler noted that staff supports the amendment sunsetting when the Shoreline Master Plan is adopted. Mr. Masci asked the method for arriving at the 11,000 square foot aggregate limit. Mr. Sepler stated that the 3,500 sf per restaurant is the basis and the total would allow for existing restaurants plus another small food purveyor in the maritime corridor. The figure was determined on the basis of practicality. Mr. Masci had questions about the extent of the overlay district. Mr. Sepler noted that this was lifted as part of the ongoing work of the SAG - it was provided by the advisory group to the Planning Commission and the Planning Commission did not discuss the parameters of this boundary. The Planning Commission thought it was appropriate. City Council Business Meeting September 6, 2005 Page 4 . . . Mr. Sepler added that Council wanted early guidance on a singular issue regarding restaurant size in Point Hudson; the Council will likely be addressing restaurants and other uses beyond the scope of this particular issue during the SMP process. Mr. Randall noted that there is only one Mil (B) zone in the City. The 11,000 square foot cumulative cap for restaurants applies to the Mil (B) zone and the 4,000 cap is only in the maritime overlay corridor, an area that is especially sensitive. The aggregate number was derived from three restaurants at 3,500 square feet plus a 500 square foot "fudge factor" for the Maritime Center. Mr. Koltt asked for further explanation regarding Table 17.22.020 which states that the 11,000 gross square footage limitation for restaurants shall not apply to a single restaurant that is part of a single new shoreline mixed use resort development but that any such restaurant shall be subject to the 3,500 gross square footage limitation. He asked if that means the aggregate could end up being 14,500 square feet. Mr. Sepler replied that is correct; there may be a provision for a small conference center related to maritime trades and toward that end was recommended for reservation by the SAG; if the complex got through the review process it could include a restaurant. He stated that this is currently a placeholder, as no definition exists so far for a shoreline mixed use resort development. He said this is a reserve in case the concept passes muster; it may also be extinguished as part of the reconciliation of the plan with the zoning code. Mr. Randall noted that the mixed use resort referenced with the possible single 3,500 square foot restaurant was proposed by the Port and discussed by the SAG; it grew out of several issues, one of which was the fact that jf the current RV spaces are removed, it would be desirable to have a replacement income stream. Mr. Benskin asked about the upcoming definition of what the mixed-use resort would be and whether it has anything to do with expansion into a full service restaurant. Mr. Sepler noted that this concept has been brought forward by the Maritime Center and has not yet been discussed. In answer to a question from Mr. Benskin, Mr. Sepler stated the potential site might be the parade grounds; the concept is currently being reviewed and developed and is included so the Council knows it is under discussion. In answer to a question from Mr. Koltt, Mr. Sepler stated that the total allowable restaurant square footage is 11,000 in the Mil (B) zone and if there is some type of mixed-use resort development there would be an additional 3,500 square foot restaurant allowed as well as another 500 square feet for incidental food service. City Council Business Meeting Page 5 September 6, 2005 . Mr. Masci asked how the boundary line was drawn around the district. Mr. Randall stated that the line is based on the measurement of 200 feet from the ordinary high water mark. Ms. Fenn asked if there were discussions of examples of the square footages of businesses during Planning Commission deliberations. Mr. Sepler noted a chart was prepared for the Planning Commission workshop showing that all restaurants in Point Hudson exceeded 3,500 square feet and that most full service restaurants in town exceed 3,500 square feet; restaurant associations have indicated that 3,500 square feet is comparatively small. Ms. Fenn asked for confirmation that the 11,000 square foot aggregate is for restaurants in Point Hudson and there is also an additional apportionment of 4,000 square feet for the Marine corridor overlay district. Mr. Sepler stated that is correct. Ms. Fenn asked Mr. Watts for a definition of non-conforming use. Mr. Watts stated that a "non-conforming" use is one which is legal at the time it is established and becomes non-conforming with a subsequent code change; in other words, it is a legal operation which is non-conforming to the current zoning code. These "legal, non-conforming" uses are typically permitted to continue and are not required to come into compliance with the new code. . Mr. Fenn asked which rules prevail if there is a discrepancy between the zoning code and the SMP. Mr. Watts stated that the current statement in the code says that the SMP prevails (by city ordinance); statewide, if there is an issue where the code and SMP are inconsistent, the shoreline plan prevails; however the inconsistency must be reconciled. Mr. Watts stated he agrees with Mr. Toews, that following the adoption of the Shoreline Master Plan, there should be an omnibus code cleanup that removes inconsistencies of the zoning code so there are clear and explicit rules for the public, staff, property owners and applicants as to which rules prevail. Ms. Robinson asked why the square footage limitation does not include or establish parameters around outdoor seating. Mr. Sepler stated that outdoor seating is highly desirable to attract people and also for public safety reasons. There are functional limitations on outdoor seating but the outdoor seating parameters for a particular establishment could be considered during the conditional use process. . Ms. Robinson asked if Mr. Finnie's concerns would be covered if restaurants were subjected to a conditional use permit. Mr. Sepler replied some would be addressed through design review with specificity to Point Hudson; the conditional use process would affect non-building envelope issues. City Council Business Meeting Page 6 September 6, 2005 . Mr. Randall stated that a project like the Landfall would go through HPC review, but not commercial design review. Clarifying comments from audience: Larry Crockett noted there would be a SEPA process for the restaurant application; also stated that the Landfall proposal would not impact the approved urban waterfront view corridors already adopted by the City. Motion: Mr. Kolff moved to continue public comment regarding this matter to the business meeting on September 19. Ms. Fenn seconded. Mr. Watts clarified that this would mean there would be opportunity for oral and written comment through the meeting on the 19th. Mr. Masci clarified that this would apply to all comment and not just to the HPC. Vote: motion carried, 5-2, Benskin and Medlicott opposed. Motion: Mr. Masci moved for first reading of Ordinance 2909 as amended with additional language at the end of 17.23.040 to read, "until such time as a new SMP is adopted. " Ms. Medlicott seconded. . Vote: motion carried, 6-1, by voice vote, Fenn opposed. RECESS Mayor Robinson declared a recess at 8:00 p.m. for the purpose of a break. RECONVENE The meeting was reconvened at 8:15 p.m. UNFINISHED BUSINESS RESOLUTION 05-033 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND, WASHINGTON, ENDORSING FINANCING OF CERTAIN INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR WORK AT THE CITY HALL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ORDINANCE 2908 . City Council Business Meeting Page 7 September 6, 2005 . AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND, WASHINGTON, PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF LIMITED TAX GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS OF THE CITY IN THE AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF [$1,545,000] TO COMPLETE THE RENOVATION OF THE CITY HALL IMPROVEMENTS AND VARIOUS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS; PROVIDING THE FORM AND TERMS OF THE BONDS; AND AUTHORIZING THE SALE OF SUCH BONDS City Manager David Timmons reviewed the packet materials, noting that the Council received information on the City Hall restoration and annex project at the August 22 meeting, including the resolution and ordinance contained in the packet. Approval of the resolution would allow staff to move forward with the process of pricing the sale of bonds. He stated that the bonding amount suggested ($1,545,000) would get the core infrastructure pieces in place so the restoration of the interior of historic City Hall can begin. He added that the original scope of work of these phases of the project was $6.4 million in 2002 and the total now is projected to be $6.7 million. The only difference is that in 2002, the City was looking at two separate projects connected by a sky bridge; in 2003, the buildings were "married" together, thus transferring some of the restoration costs to the annex for structural reinforcement which would benefit historic City Hall. He added that the bottom line is that costs are on line with adjustments for inflation. . Mr. Timmons stated there is a cost savings involved with continuing work with the current contractor; staff has reviewed the City's financials and feels that costs can be incorporated into a bond. Repayment would come from the current allocation of $171,000 per year for leased space and Real Estate Excise Tax funds. Public comment: Pat Teal: urged that the project continue and added she looks forward to having a City Hall and annex which will be accessible to all citizens, no matter what their challenges are. Jim Hagen stated he does not think the public is getting what they were told in 2003. . David Hero reminded the Council that the project was originally planned as a phased project over a couple of years but it now makes more sense to complete the work while the building is torn apart. He gave a history of the building and noted it is the oldest continually used City Hall in the state and councils and task forces have concluded that the structure needed serious work every decade for fifty years. He said that four years ago, the Historical Society committed resources to the project, inventoried the building and developed a citizen task force which recommended restoring historic city hall and building the annex behind it to keep the property as a civic center. Preliminary designs showed a savings if the projects were joined City Council Business Meeting Page 8 September 6,2005 . together. The initial bond was issued, citizens re-formed the task force to look at new options and numbers and came to the same conclusion. He supports moving forward now on completion of the project. Joshua Bennun referred to misleading statements by the local press. He stated the costs for the annex/city hall project are not significantly greater than predicted, especially considering unexpected repairs. He said that the press and some opponents of the project are giving the public at large the wrong impression. He said he feels he is speaking for many middle of the road locals in expressing his complete approval of the way the construction project is being done. He said that the financial package designed to minimize immediate impact is urban planning at its best. Mr. Timmons reviewed the history of the project through the last five years and explained the projected phasing process. Ms. Fenn asked for clarification that the $285,000 figure include $100,000 in contingency funding. Mr. Timmons confirmed and said the contingency is primarily for the historic City Hall. . Ms. Fenn asked if, with this amount budgeted, the City Council chambers will be ready for use at the same time as the annex. Mr. Timmons noted the condition of the Chambers would be incomplete until we have additional funds available from the Historical Society. He added that he understands the Chambers will be the first priority for the interior completion. In answer to further questions from Ms. Fenn, Mr. Peterson stated that the annex will be ready the first of January; historic City Hall will probably require about another $150,000 in order to be completed enough to function. At this time, it is anticipated that the Chambers will be ready in April. At Mr. Masci's request, the phasing of the project was reviewed. Mr. Masci asked that since the repayment schedule is based on REET funds, is there a contingency to make the payments if the real estate bubble bursts and REET funds go down significantly. Mr. Timmons replied that past history has been used as an indicator; there would have to be a total collapse for that situation to occur (inability to make repayments out of REET funds.) . Mrs. Medlicott asked what dollar amount it would take to have the Council Chambers finished before April. Mr. Peterson stated the schedule is related somewhat to the contractor's work load and staffing level; currently the schedule is to finish the annex and then move on to historic City Hall. Mr. Timmons stated that approximately $150,000 would be required for the final restoration work for the Chambers. Mr. City Council Business Meeting Page 9 September 6,2005 . Peterson said that as soon as staff knows the money is available, design could begin. Mr. Hero stated that the JCHS funding is not all in hand, but includes several pledges. Mr. Benskin asked if the City could front the money, with the knowledge that the pledge money would be a payment source over time. Mr. Timmons stated that there is an option to add the JCHS commitment of $600,000 into the bond and have them payoff that portion only; however, staff recommends keeping the amounts as separate issues. Mr. Benskin asked if we are still addressing problems in the foundation of the building as a use for contingency funding. Mr. Miller noted that the forensic expert has looked at it and does not think there are major worries, although the shelving and plywood have not yet been removed for a complete study. Ms. Sandoval asked if any of the 2003 bond was allotted for City Hall improvements. Mr. Timmons stated that approximately $750,000 was earmarked. Ms. Sandoval asked what percentage of total REET funding would be taken up by the projected payment schedule. Mr. Timmons replied one third to one half. . Ms. Sandoval asked if the City is liable for any arbitrage penalty if the money received from the 2003 bond is not expended by the end of 2006, and if that is the case, whether the funds which were allocated to other projects but not spent by that time could be reallocated to the City Hall/annex project. Mr. Timmons stated that although the funds could be re-assigned, the City would only be liable for a penalty if the interest income exceeded the interest payments on the bond proceeds (showing the money was not arbitraged). Ms. Sandoval asked about the streetscape funding and whether funding a piece through the latest bond will eliminate the possibility of the federal grant coming through. Mr. Timmons stated the grant request was for a much larger project and that is currently in the Senate Transportation Bill, in committee. Ms. Fenn stated she is planning to propose inclusion of $150,000 in the budget covered by the resolution for full restoration of City Hall Chambers, based on the fact that there are pledges to the Historical Society which will eventually cover that cost. She said materials are short and becoming more and more expensive; on the other hand, she would not want to negatively affect the Historical Society's efforts to raise money. . Mr. Timmons stated that this could be accommodated in the bond by picking a date at some time in the future for a balloon payment to be due; he added this would have to be done under a structured agreement with JCHS. The cost to add this City Council Business Meeting Page 10 September 6, 2005 . amount to the bond would not add to bond costs, just to the interest that would accrue on that portion of the bond funding. He said that other instruments for financing might be more favorable and more flexible, such as a private development loan bank. In answer to Ms. Fenn's question, he confirmed that there would be options for getting funding, but raising the budget for the project does mean we can schedule and do the work while Council considerers the various funding options. Motion: Mr. Koltt moved for approval of Resolution 05-033. Ms. Fenn seconded. Motion to amend: Ms. Fenn moved to amend the motion to add an additional $100,000 for contingency to the subtotal containing "additional change orders"- making that subtotal $1, 160,000 and the final total $1,596,000. Ms. Sandoval seconded. Ms. Fenn stated her intent was to provide $100,000 to the general contingency fund in anticipation of the rising costs of building materials. In answer to Mrs. Medlicott's question, Ms. Fenn stated the funding could come from adding additional money to the bond. Mr. Kolff stated that budgeting the amount does not mean it all has to be spent, but will be available if needed. . Vote on amendment: motion carried, 4-3, by voice vote, with Benskin, Masci and Medlicott opposed. Motion to amend: Ms. Fenn moved to amend the resolution to add an additional $150,000 for completion of restoration work in the Council Chambers only. Ms. Sandoval seconded Ms. Fenn stated that she would like to enable the room to be finished prior to having the JCHS funding in hand so that materials costs can be contained. Ms. Sandoval noted that the Council will revisit the structuring of the bond again; they are not necessarily leaving this for future generations to repay and can structure the bond to pay down principle from the beginning. She stated she never had an assumption as to what the bond payment schedule would be. Ms. Robinson stated that the motion and amendment have the effect of adding the funds into the project budget and are not tied to the bonding ordinance. Mr. Timmons confirmed that this would be an authorization for staff to proceed administratively if funds are made available; the Council would need to approve the funding method. . Mrs. Medlicott stated she is in total support of the project but cannot vote for an increase in the budget without knowing the source of the funding. City Council Business Meeting Page 11 September 6, 2005 . Ms. Fenn stated she will propose that both budget increases be added to the bond, but hopes that Mr. Timmons will come back with a range of alternatives for methods of funding. She said the Council will not finalize the bond tonight and she wants to get this into the budget and let staff present a funding mechanism for the $150,000 for Council Chambers. In answer to Ms. Robinson's question about prior bond money, Mr. Timmons stated that of the $500,000 earmarked for the pool, $200,000 will now be used (pending school district's assessment of facilities) and that of the remaining funds, $100,000 was allocated to the Skate Park and $200,000 to the Wave Viewing Gallery (based on matching a grant the state was appearing to offer us.) So far only $125,000 of that grant has come through. If the grant does not reach the $200,000, funds could be reallocated to the City Hall project. Motion to amend: Ms. Fenn moved to amend Resolution 05-033 to add $150,000 for restoration of the Historic City Hall Council Chambers. Ms. Sandoval seconded. The motion carried, 4-3, by voice vote, with Benskin, Masci and Medlicott opposed. Ms. Fenn reiterated that the sooner the bond is locked in the better, due to the upcoming significant increases in construction costs. . Mr. Benskin stated his opposition, saying the Council is short sighted and the staff will be back in six months wondering how we will finish the project. He believes the figures for the completion of the project are not accurate. Mr. Masci stated there needs to be a public forum, and this project should have been voted on by the citizens. Mrs. Medlicott expressed her frustration over the amendments proposed this evening. Ms. Sandoval stated the Council must think hard about the problems which will be coming forward with construction materials in short supply and getting more expensive. She added she still wishes to look at a variety of sources of repayment and is not committed to adding the total additional amount to the bond but would like to consider other funding mechanisms. Motion to amend: Mr. Koltt moved to amend Resolution 05-033 to replace the words "Councilmanic bond" with the phrase "Councilmanic bond and/or other funding" (first paragraph after "Now, Therefore" clause and first paragraph after final numbers total column). Ms. Sandoval seconded. Mr. Masci spoke in opposition stating that this will drag the decision out for several weeks. . City Council Business Meeting Page 12 September 6, 2005 . Ms. Robinson spoke in support, stating she wants to get this done for the sake of the community. Vote on amendment: motion carried, 4-3, by voice vote, with Benskin, Masci and Medlicott opposed. Vote on the main motion, to adopt Resolution 05-033 as amended (total changed to $1,746,000) carried, 4-3 by voice vote, with Benskin, Masci and Medlicott opposed. Mr. Kolff moved for approval of first reading of Ordinance 2908 with funding in the amount of "at least $1,545,000" Ms. Fenn seconded. The motion carried, 5-2, with Benskin and Masci opposed. Consensus: The following items were postponed by Council consensus to the September 19 meeting: RESOLUTION 05-034 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND, WASHINGTON, AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO RELEASE RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS ON BEHALF OF THE CITY RESOLUTION 05-036 . A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND, WASHINGTON, AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AGREEMENTS WIT NON-PROFIT ORGANIZA TIONS THA T PROVIDE FOR CITY RECEIPT OF PRIVATE DONA TlONS DESIGNA TED FOR CITY PURPOSES DONATED ART - JACQUA SCULPTURE Mr. Watts stated that contract planner Rick Sepler processed the sites through the shoreline substantial development process. The decision from the Hearings Examiner stated that there are no shoreline issues with respect to any of the three proposed sites (A, 8, and C). Tonight the matter is before the Council to make a final decision on the location of the donated sculpture. The sites were described and it was noted they are all within the critical area buffer. Public Comment: Frank Vane, on behalf of Arts Commission stated that the Arts Commission recommended site C because sites A and 8 are on the trail which is narrow and steep on both sides. He said the sculpture was intended to be in a vegetative area. Due to the size of the sculpture, the Arts Commission thought it should be placed at a distance so no one had to look straight up at it and many people do bicycle and walk near site C where they would be able to see the art. . City Council Business Meeting Page 13 September 6, 2005 . Doug Mason, on behalf of Jefferson Land Trust, stated he has worked on this project on behalf of JL T. He said the person who made the bequest of funds that went to the creation of the work never expressed any preference for where the sculpture would be sited; it was to be a gift to the Land Trust and City to honor the work of the Land Trust, particularly in admiration for the work done on the wildlife corridor. This is why the initial thinking was to site it somewhere along the corridor; the drawback was that it is a habitat we're trying to preserve and it is not good to draw people to wetlands as they are a fragile habitat. He said the wetland was, however, the inspiration for the artist. He said he took the artist to the Larry Scott Trail and showed him the trestle area (A) and he thought this was a good location, particularly due to the connection to the open water. He said he is not sure about Mr. Jacqua's feelings about the other sites. Mr. Benskin stated that he looked at the sites today and noticed that the area near Site C is fairly inaccessible for small children and disabled people; there are also many birds in the habitat. Site A has public access along the trail, the opportunity for benches to be located in a way one can sit and view the sculpture as well as the water and mountains. He added that the maintenance building at site C is distracting. Mr. Masci stated that Jim Todd, who had to leave the meeting, supports Site Band could live with Site A. . Ms. Fenn agreed that Site B is the best place, since it is right by the main trail and accessible, but is not between the walkers and the water, affecting the open expanse of view. She also does not like the backdrop of the maintenance building at Site C. Motion: Ms. Fenn moved to direct placement of the sculpture on Site B. Ms. Sandoval seconded Mr. Kolff noted that he agrees with Mr. Benskin's reasons for supporting Site A. His concern about Site B is that is was the recommendation of neither the Arts Committee nor the Park and Recreation Advisory Board. He added he has heard all along that the artist favored Site A and was surprised to hear that the artist may have also endorsed Site B. He added that as a long-term member of the Land Trust Board, he is delighted that the sculpture will finally be sited but he does prefer A as it will have more visibility than B. Ms. Sandoval noted that the CD/LU recommendation was site A or C; she stated her primary interest is getting it installed; if Mr. Jacqua favors site "B" she would support that. She also added for the record that she has a business relationship with W.C. Harvey, whose name is mentioned in the paperwork. . Mr. Masci supported approving site A or B and letting the artist make the final decision. City Council Business Meeting Page 14 September 6, 2005 . Ms. Fenn agreed to withdraw her motion. Ms. Robinson thanked the staff for marking the sites. She believes that site C is not really accessible and too close to wetlands. She added that site A was more accessible and would be seen by more people; therefore that is her choice. Motion: Mr. Masci moved to approve either site A or B, with final choice to be left to the artist. Ms. Fenn seconded. The motion carried unanimously, 7-0, by voice vote. NEW BUSINESS RESOLUTION 05-035 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND, WASHINGTON, IMPLEMENTING THE NATIONAL INCIDENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM FOR INCIDENT MANAGEMENT WITHIN THE CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND . Fire Chief Mike Mingee noted that a Presidential Directive requires federal departments and agencies to make adoption of NIMS by state and local agencies a condition of federal preparedness assistance through grants, contract and other activities. The issued deadline for adoption of the use of NIMS through Council Resolution is September 30, 2005. Motion: Mr. Benskin moved to approve Resolution 05-035. Mrs. Medlicott seconded. Ms. Fenn noted that she would not support the motion because of her opposition to the budget cuts proposed by the Bush administration and the diversion of the National Guard to Iraq when they are needed here. She stated she couldn't support the directive of the President. Vote: motion carried, 6-1, by voice vote, with Fenn opposed. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT Mr. Timmons reported on the following: Hurricane relief: the City may be asked for technical assistance; staff will update Council and community on our own situation with relation to disaster preparedness. The City has again received a clean audit, with no findings from the state auditor. . City Council Business Meeting Page 15 September 6, 2005 The skate park project is underway, and the existing ramps are being removed. . Labor negotiations with the IAFF regarding a consolidated department are underway. Finalists for the DSD Director position will be chosen this week. Golf Course lease is nearly completed, will be brought to Council for approval later this month. FUTURE AGENDAS Ms. Sandoval proposed a public forum for the community to discuss disaster preparedness and the role of various agencies in the city and county. ADJOURN There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:45 p.m. . Attest: O~ cI><~ Pam Kolacy, CMC City Clerk . City Council Business Meeting Page 16 September 6, 2005