Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout051506 CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SESSION OF MAY 15, 2006 CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The City Council of the City of Port Townsend met in regular session this fifteenth day of May 2006, at 6:30 p.m. in the Port Townsend temporary Council Chambers in the Port Townsend Fire Station conference room, Mayor Mark Welch presiding. ROLL CALL Council members present at roll call were Frank Benskin, Geoff Masci, Laurie Medlicott, Catharine Robinson, Michelle Sandoval, Scott Walker and Mark Welch. Staff members present were City Manager David Timmons, City Attorney John Watts, Police Chief Conner Daily, Senior Planner Judy Surber, Public Works Director Ken Clow, Fire Chief Mike Mingee, and Legal Assistant Joanna Sanders. CHANGES TO THE AGENDA - None PROCLAMATIONS Mayor Welch read the following Proclamations: Foster Care Month - accepted by Bill Nesmith on behalf of Department of Social and Health Services. Fort2Fort Historic Ride Way - accepted by Patience Rogge on behalf of Friends of Fort Worden. PUBLIC COMMENT (Consent and non-agenda items) -- None CONSENT AGENDA Member Sandoval requested that Item C be removed from the Consent Agenda. There was Council agreement to place Resolution 06-014, authorizing Community Development Block Grant loan to John Gair and Kevin Ames, High Divide, LLC as the last item under New Business. Motion: Ms. Robinson moved to approve the following items on the Consent Agenda. Mr. Walker seconded. City Council Business Meeting Page 1 May 15, 2006 Approval of the following Bills, Claims and Warrants Vouchers 97870 through 97886 in the amount of $3,394.92 Vouchers 97894 through 97903 in the amount of $31 ,032.27 Vouchers 505061 through 505069 in the amount of $95,866.53 Approval of Minutes for May 1, 2006 Vote: Motion carried unanimously, 7-0, by voice vote. PUBLIC HEARING DOCKET FOR 2006 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE Mayor Welch read the rules of conduct for public hearings. Senior Planner Judy Surber reviewed the packet materials, including the proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions from the Planning Commission. With the approval of the Shoreline Master Program (SMP), Council requested that the Planning Commission review and make recommendations on any changes needed to the City's land use planning documents, maps, and development regulations to ensure consistency with the SMP. These docketed items were staff generated and extended out of the SMP. The SMP is still under review by the State, but because of anticipated suggested changes, the program would be coming back before Council with Ecology's revisions and Council would then adopt it concurrent with the state's adoption. Docketing of the 41 items is not a decision on anyone item, but is a list of items to be considered throughout this year. There would be additional environmental review, public notice, and public hearings before decisions are made on anyone of the 41 items. Ms. Surber responded to questions as follows regarding the proposed rezones, timeline, definitions, and table of permitted, conditional and prohibited uses. Mr. Benskin asked whether the removal of industrial zoning might impact the Port of Port Townsend's marina expansion plans. Ms. Surber explained that after a review of options for marina expansion during the SMP, the decision was to reflect the Port's preferred deepwater expansion alternative. Mr. Masci asked about prohibition of aquaculture under the new SMP within Mil-A. Ms. Surber explained that the removal of the MII-A zoning over the water in the Comprehensive Plan could be done without much impact given that the SMP would trump the zoning, but for consistency and because there may be times when the SMP may be silent on bulk, height and dimensional, then you would look to the zoning. Under the SMP, seafood processing on the upland portion would be permitted. However, there is some potential cleanup language for the SMP to reflect that if aquaculture is done in the upland, then it might be an appropriate use City Council Business Meeting Page 2 May 15,2006 because there would not be the same potential water quality issues as if there was aquaculture in the aquatic area next to a marina. She recognized there is an inconsistency in the SMP aquaculture section and Boat Haven use table. In response to a question from Mr. Welch, Ms. Surber reviewed the docketing time line. Once items are docketed, Staff would complete the SEPA review (including public comment), there would be a public hearing before the Planning Commission, and then their recommendations would come to Council for final action around November 2006. There was no public comment. Mr. Walker, referring to Table 17-68, community uses in listed in zones, believes brewery should be considered a permitted, marine-related use. Ms. Surber said this would be considered an additional docket item. There was support from Mr. Walker and Mr. Masci for adding to the use table under the M-IIA category "drinking establishments" and "micro breweries." Ms. Robinson asked Ms. Surber to distinguish between beverage processing, drinking, and microbrewery. Ms. Surber said her understanding is that the intent was to ensure that marine trades was the primary use, but allow for related uses. Ms. Sandoval noted that Council underwent a lot of work to pass the SMP and had considerable discussion about strengthening the marine trades. She believes there would need to be language to limit the number and square footage of microbreweries if added. Mr. Walker said he would be uncomfortable limiting the number of such businesses. Under Definitions, he said "Dock" is being defined as something that does not include storage facilities. This seems overly broad as docks often have storage boxes. Ms. Surber noted this definition is consistent with the SMP. Motion: Ms. Sandoval moved to approve the 2006 docket of forty-one (41) items. Mr. Robinson seconded. Amendment: Mr. Masci proposed adding to the use table under M-IIA and M-IIB "drinking establishments" and "microbreweries" as permitted uses. Vote on Amendment: Carried, 5-2, by voice vote, with Ms. Sandoval and Ms. Robinson opposed. Amendment: Mr. Masci asked for clarification of "dock" in docket items 24 and 37. Mr. Benskin seconded. (Amendment was later withdrawn) Ms. Robinson does not think the motion needs to be amended because the docket already mentions the need to ensure consistency with the SMP definitions. City Council Business Meeting Page 3 May 15,2006 Ms. Sandoval reminded that Council previously had an opportunity to review the SMP, but now that it has been submitted, Council should be concerned with ensuring consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, not making more changes. Mr. Masci said he does not believe it is too late to make these changes. Ms. Surber pointed out that there is a different definition and treatment of the term marina. Any facility that accommodates, she believes, six or more boats is considered a marina. If there is a specific question about storage facilities within a marina versus a dock, she could do more investigation. Mr. Welch asked if it is out of Council's scope to make corrections as these docketed items are reviewed between now and November. Mr. Watts said he does not believe Council has the option at this time to propose a change affecting the SMP. He suggested accepting Ms. Surber's suggestion to see what is or is not allowed in terms of storage under the "dock" definition. Ms. Sandoval said issues with the SMP should be viewed in the context of that program, not during the process of trying to ensure consistency with the Comprehensive Plan docket. She recognized it is difficult to look at the Compo Plan changes independent of the SMP. Mr. Timmons said following Ecology's review of the SMP, the City would be presented with a set of amendments, to which Council mayor may not agree. Because the SMP trumps zoning, then that is the document on which to focus. He agrees if Council is proposing an amendment to the SMP that would be an independent process. Ms. Robinson reminded that Council action tonight is to bring the Comp Plan into consistency with the projected update of the SMP. Ms. Surber stated that if an issue arose during Ecology's public comment period, the City could respond with a recommendation, which could result in a change before the final adoption. Mr. Masci withdrew his amendment. There was unanimous consent by Council to strike the amendment. During Council discussion of the appropriateness of the first amendment to the original motion, Ms. Surber noted that if the revision is strictly to the Municipal Code and if the revision is considered consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the Council would not be tied to the Compo Plan docketing process, the change could be made outside the annual update. City Council Business Meeting Page 4 May 15,2006 Mr. Watts said he believes Staff would need additional time to look at the Comprehensive Plan to determine whether or not the proposed change can be accomplished through code amendment outside the Comprehensive Plan amendment cycle. Council could decide to leave the change in the original motion and then if Staff discovers it does not need to be part of the Compo Plan process, Staff could bring it back and it could be deleted. Vote on original Motion as amended: The motion carried unanimously, 7-0, by voice vote. RECESS Mayor Welch declared a recess at 7:44 p.m. for the purpose of a break. RECONVENE The meeting was reconvened at 7:51 p.m. UNFINISHED BUSINESS ORDINANCE 2921 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND AMENDING ORDINANCE 2906 AND PORT TOWNSEND MUNICIPAL CODE, SECTIONS 10.32.010 (DEFINITIONS), .130 (HELMET REQUIRED) AND .140 (PENALTY AND ENFORCEMENT) City Attorney John Watts reviewed the packet material and Council's action options to move to approve Ordinance 2921 repealing the bicycle helmet requirement, refer the matter to Council committee, postpone action, or take no action. In response to a question by Mr. Benskin, Mr. Watts explained how the matter of revisiting the ordinance came up during the Council In Box process and he understood revisiting meant to consider repealing the ordinance. He said there was no requirement that Council take action, but it could have chosen an alternative process to refer the matter to a committee. On May 1, Council chose not to send this to a committee, but to instead do first reading on an ordinance. Public Comment: Charles Espey: Urged Council to rescind ordinance. While those supporting this ordinance are concerned about citizen safety, he believes bicycle and motorist education is the best approach. Rita Mandoli believes greater education and general safety on streets is the priority. She believes police could be doing something more appropriate than policing helmet law. City Council Business Meeting Page 5 May 15,2006 Motion: Mr. Benskin moved to postpone action to rescind the bicycle helmet ordinance and refer the issue of bicycle safety education programs to the Public Safety Committee for review. Mrs. Medlicott seconded. Amendment: Mr. Welch proposed including a list of alternative programs as well as funding and potential mechanisms for funding and traffic laws relating to bicycle behavior. Mr. Benskin accepted the amendment. Ms. Sandoval said while this decision would take pressure off Council, she thinks it is more important to rescind the ordinance, move forward with an education plan, provide funding for the plan, and give the education a chance. Mr. Walker believes if we do not rescind this ordinance, we would still be at loggerheads. He is supportive of a bicycle safety education program for bicyclists and drivers and believes education should come first and then review this ordinance when there is broader community support. He would support putting bicycle safety education under the purview of the Public Safety Committee. Ms. Robinson spoke in favor of repealing this ordinance. She believes bicycle safety education is already listed as a Council priority and is aligned with a Council committee. The motion would be redundant. The issues are who is going to develop the program and how much it is going to cost. Mr. Welch clarified this matter has currently been assigned to the Transportation Committee. He is not in favor of a helmet law, but is very supportive of comprehensive bicycle safety education as long as there are no rules that might prevent tabling the first reading of the ordinance. If a comprehensive bicycle safety education does not occur, the Council could revisit the Ordinance repealing the helmet law. Mr. Benskin said his motion is not a delay tactic. He would like to get helmet education occurring. He would welcome recommendations to the Public Safety Committee. Ms. Medlicott said the Transportation Committee had a lengthy discussion of the need for an education program. Both the Non-motorized Transportation Advisory Committee and the bicycle club were strongly encouraged to become actively involved in development of a program, which was the reason for the delay in the enforcement of the original ordinance. The only education in place to date is through the Police and Fire Departments. There are a lot of laws she does not like, but she would support sending this item to Public Safety. Ms. Sandoval suggested putting this item on the Council agenda a year from today. She does not think the education could be accomplished in a year's time. At the opening of the skateboard park, 80% of the participants did not have helmets. While City Council Business Meeting Page 6 May 15, 2006 Council rescinded the portion that would make it applicable to the park, she questions whether helmet enforcement is the best use of time of the Police Department. She believes efforts should be focused on education. Ms. Robinson expressed concern about having bicycle education under the purview of two committees. She suggested one committee at a time review this topic to avoid confusion - the Transportation Committee. She believes the Police Chief also has a task force working on this topic. Police Chief Daily mentioned that Fire District volunteer Julie Mathews and Police Officer Tony Polizzi are working with Linda Pfafman of the County Sheriff's Department on the issue of helmet safety. Mr. Masci called for the question. Vote on whether discussion of the motion should be terminated: Motion failed 3-4, by voice vote, with Mr. Welch, Mr. Walker, Ms. Sandoval and Ms. Robinson opposed. Mr. Welch reiterated that he does not support the helmet law, but does support education, which has not yet begun. He is not concerned with which committee would address bicycle safety education. He is willing to postpone the second reading with the hope that by the end of summer there would be a bicycle helmet safety program. Mr. Walker questioned whether there is enough volunteer energy to develop a comprehensive bicycle education program. Mr. Masci read e-mail correspondence from Nora Porter dated May 7 on bicycle safety education and the bicycle helmet ordinance. He again spoke to the need for an educational program and a bicycle helmet ordinance. He reviewed efforts by Officer Polizzi and Julie Mathews on helmet education. A report from them to the Public Safety Committee would provide enough encouragement to come up with a plan. Ms. Sandoval expressed her appreciation for existing Police and Fire Department efforts, but said they do not comprise an education program. The Non-motorized Transportation Advisory Committee said they did not think it was good to do helmet safety education with the ordinance on the books. An ordinance that is not enforced is a potential liability to the City. In response to a question by Mr. Welch, Mr. Watts explained the public duty doctrine - no requirement to enforce every law in every circumstance. However, the City's insurance authority has said if there is a law it needs to take some action to enforce. City Council Business Meeting Page 7 May 15, 2006 Mrs. Medlicott reminded that the adopted Ordinance would not be enforced until 2007. Mr. Benskin spoke in support of his motion. He agreed the delay in enforcement was to allow an opportunity for education. There are existing education programs and the City simply needs to pick one and be willing to pay for it. Mr. Walker reviewed that members of the Non-motorized Transportation Advisory Committee agreed to help with a comprehensive bicycle safety education program. They asked for City assistance and have done what they could as volunteers. He spoke about the wasted time of Council discussing the helmet ordinance and suggested repealing it and focusing on bicycle safety education. Mr. Welch said he believes Public Safety is the appropriate Committee to address this topic, but given other Councilor concerns about several committees being involved, he asked whether Mr. Benskin would consider revising his motion to refer the matter only to the Transportation Committee. Mr. Benskin declined believing bicycle safety and helmet use is a Public Safety issue. Mrs. Medlicott said there appears to be agreement that bicycle safety education program is a priority, but some want the ordinance in place while others do not. Mr. Timmons, reading the title of the original Ordinance, said the original intent was to educate the public in regard to the helmet provisions. This morphed into a more comprehensive bicycle safety program. This is where the disconnection originated. The Police and Fire began helmet education in order to enforce that provision. He suggested tasking the Transportation Committee or City Administration to develop a comprehensive bicycle safety education program on a separate timeline. Council could then decide how to deal with the ordinance. Mr. Masci suggested withdrawing or voting positively or negatively on the motion, deciding which committee would work on an education program, and then whether to rescind the ordinance. Vote on Amended Motion: Motion failed, 3-4, by voice vote with Mr. Welch, Mr. Walker, Ms. Sandoval and Ms. Robinson opposed. Motion: Mr. Walker moved to adopt Ordinance 2921 rescinding Ordinance 2906. Ms. Robinson seconded. Amendment: Ms. Sandoval proposed referring the topic of bicycle safety education program (including helmets) to the Public Safety Committee and Transportation Committee (with oversight of Non-motorized Transportation Advisory Committee) to City Council Business Meeting Page 8 May 15,2006 address not only different types of education and funding. This process should be started as soon as possible. Amendment: Ms. Robinson suggested that the helmet use and safety go to Public Safety and that the rules of the road and transportation aspects go to the Transportation Committee. Amendment: Mr. Walker proposed that concurrently in both the Transportation and Public Safety Committees that we develop a "comprehensive" bicycle safety education program. Mr. Masci read an e-mail communication from Nora Porter of May 9 to Mr. Welch. Based on these comments, he opposes a repeal of the bicycle helmet ordinance because of his concerns about accidents and brain injury. Mr. Walker again spoke about this ordinance gumming up city process and believes it will hinder a bicycle safety education program. Mr. Welch reiterated his opposition to the helmet ordinance. He is a proponent for a comprehensive bicycle safety program. He said a helmet law in New Zealand had no affect on injuries or fatalities, but there is evidence that education and enforcement of existing traffic laws is effective. He would prefer to see the motion to rescind the helmet ordinance tabled until a bicycle safety education program is developed. Ms. Robinson said staff time and money would get the education program done. Ms. Sandoval said if the ordinance does not work, why support it. Mr. Benskin said he does not think a safety program will happen without this ordinance as an impetus. He spoke in favor of the ordinance. Vote: Motion failed, 3-4, by roll call vote, with Mr. Benskin, Mr. Masci, Mrs. Medlicott and Mr. Welch opposed. Motion: Mr. Benskin moved that Council fund the development of a bicycle safety education program for the community with all due haste. Ms. Medlicott seconded. Mr. Benskin said he would like the Non-motorized Transportation Advisory Committee to work with the Transportation and Public Safety Committees to complete this program in the next two months. Amendment: Mr. Walker proposed that it be a "comprehensive bicycle safety education program, " and that it include funding and staff support. Mr. Benskin denied the amendment. City Council Business Meeting Page 9 May 15,2006 Mr. Timmons suggested that Council assign staff to present a comprehensive bicycle safety education program to Council within 60 days. Mr. Benskin withdrew his original motion. Motion: Mr. Benskin moved to assign staff to present a comprehensive bicycle safety education program to Council within 60 days. Mr. Walker seconded. The motion carried unanimously, 7-0, by voice vote. ORDINANCE 2923 AN ORDINANCE VACATING A 20' x 30' PIECE OF RIGHT-OF-WAY LYING ADJACENT TO AN UNOPENED PORTION OF QUINCY STREET AND WITHIN LOT 12, BLOCK 23 OF THE MOUNTAIN VIEW 2ND ADDITION TO THE CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND; ESTABLISHING CONDITIONS TO THE STREET VACATION; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE City Attorney John Watts reviewed the packet materials, noting that this matter is before Council as a follow-up to its approval of a street vacation on February 21, 2006 conditioned upon the completion of an appraisal. The appraisal has now been obtained. Keith Fleming spoke in support of Ordinance 2923. There was no other public comment. Motion: Mr. Masci moved for adoption of Ordinance 2923, vacating a piece of right- of-way lying adjacent to an unopened portion of Quincy Street and within Lot 12, Block 23 of the Mountain View 2nd Addition to the City of Port Townsend; establishing conditions to the street vacation; and establishing an effective date. Mr. Benskin seconded. The motion carried unanimously, 7-0, by roll call. NEW BUSINESS QUIMPER WILDLIFE CORRIDOR ACQUISITIONS Mr. Timmons reviewed the background materials provided in the agenda packet. He believes this action would be consistent with other acquisitions and with the overall policy objective to consolidate these parcels under one management plan. There would be no financial obligations on behalf of the City. City Council Business Meeting Page 10 May 15, 2006 Motion: Mr. Masci moved to accept the transfer from Jefferson County Land Trust of Lots 5-16 in Block 19 and Lots 3,4, 17-20 in Block 11 of Fowler's Park Addition from Jefferson County Land Trust. Mr. Welch seconded. Mrs. Medlicott asked if this removes property from tax roles, which Mr. Timmons confirmed. Because they are wetlands, it would be a nominal amount. Motion carried unanimously, 7-0, by voice vote. RESOLUTION 06-015 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND, WASHINGTON, CONCERNING WATER UTILITY SERVICE Public Works Director Ken Clow reviewed the agenda packet materials, including the resolution with three options for consideration related to the request by property owner Patricia Miller to connect to the City water line in Jacob Miller Road. He explained that a City/County Agreement was signed that established the water service area boundaries and these boundaries were included in the adoption of the water service plan. In the agreement, Section 3 dealt with boundary streets with Jacob Miller being one western boundary. This section also said that unless separate agreements exist with adjacent utilities concerning water services or other utility services, the City would be entitled to provide future water service on both sides of those streets. He then reviewed subsequent resolutions that provided additional policy direction and noted that Staff has been working under the guidance of Resolution 96-023, which states no additional City water extensions or connections will be made or allowed in this rural area west of North Jacob Miller Road. After reviewing customers currently served in this vicinity and the capacity of the existing water line, he reviewed the four options listed as follows: Option 1 - rescind policy Resolution 96-023, precluding serving the western side of Jacob Miller Road Option 2 - deal with new proposals on the west side of Jacob Miller on a case-by- case basis, so Staff could review/evaluate impacts to water service Option 3 - substantiate the policy, which precludes serving West of Jacob Miller Option 4 - postpone decision and include it in water system plan update Staff is recommending Option 2. While the addition of one customer is minor, if zoning were to change and become denser, Staff would return with a different recommendation. Mrs. Medlicott asked what the impact would be in customers if the City served the west side under current zoning. Mr. Clow responded that there would be approximately 20 and the impact would be minimal if they remain residential. City Council Business Meeting Page 11 May 15, 2006 Ms. Sandoval asked about the status of the water service area plan. Mr. Clow said Council discussed possible changes over three different meetings. Because there was no resolution, the City stayed with the current water service area. Mr. Walker asked for a clarification why Option 2 is recommended. He wonders if approving one would lead to others. He also asked how wide could parcels be. Mr. Clow said Option 2 would provide more control, but Staff could also support Option 1. He does not see property owners choosing to develop because water was available. The intent is to serve lots, as they are currently platted Mr. Timmons said the countywide plan would still restrict the City to provide service only one lot in. If the County rezoned, water would become one of the issues related to whether or not a change in zone would be appropriate. Mr. Masci said assuming the impact of 20 houses could be 100,000 gallons, how much revenue would be gained by these additional hook-ups and what would be the cost of generating this income. Mr. Clow said it would be roughly $40 a month per customer. The cost of developing the line would be the developer's responsibility. Mr. Clow talked about the advantages of having a secondlloop line down Jacob Miller that would provide some redundancy and a second feed to other areas such as Glen Cove. This is a line the City wants to see added whether or not the area west of Jacob Miller is served. Serving this property as in Option 2 would not provide this desired loop, but under Option 1, it might provide the incentive to extend the water line. Ms. Robinson pointed out language in Resolution 96-023 and asked what constitutes "a valid contractual right to City water service." Mr. Clow said he understands this as either an existing connection or someone who had specifically entered into an agreement with the City for a connection. Public Comment: Rich Stapf (on behalf of Patricia Miller) spoke in favor of Resolution 06-015. He and Mrs. Miller are neighbors. Under current zoning, she is permitted to build one residence. She has City water mains on each side of her property on Hastings and Jacob Miller. They are only asking for a water tap connection, not an extension. Her boundary line adjustment did not add to the total number of parcels along Jacob Miller. She is ready to apply for a building permit once water service is issued. He thanked City Staff for their work on this issue. He clarified that pursuant to Resolution 96-122, 50 ft. of frontage is the minimum. Ms. Sandoval pointed out that just because zoning is currently one in five or one in ten, smaller grand fathered lots might still be able to build. With an off-site water source, 12,500 square feet becomes the legal buildable size rather than one acre with a well. She has no problem with doing a loop system, nor with Ms. Miller having City Council Business Meeting Page 12 May 15, 2006 this water. She would rather do the necessary planning and policy work through a water system plan update than approving water piece meal. Ms. Robinson agreed with Ms. Sandoval that she does not like to go case by case, but would encourage the water system plan update process and review it within that context. Mr. Masci said having worked on the water service area map since 1999 and seeing this area change as a result of the City's sale of the Hadlock system, he prefers Option 1 and is anxious to get looping done. Changes to the Water Service Area map has been held hostage due to political views and Mrs. Miller has a need to be filled. Motion: Mr. Masci moved for approval of Resolution 06-015 (including Option 2), authorizing the Public Works Department to approve City water service (a single residential tap) to parcel 001054010, located on the west side of Jacob Miller Road south of Hastings Avenue. Mr. Benskin seconded. Mr. Walker said he does not see a blanket approval extending water service as serving the citizens. He is also looking for guidance on why this individual who is not a citizen of the City should have water service even though her neighbor does. Mr. Timmons explained that the map provided is the approved water service area of the City. Staff has proposed amendments, but they did not go forward because there was not clear direction without integrating it into the County's water system plan update. The grand fathered parcels are primarily on the north side of Hastings within the existing service area. The agreement does allow the City to serve the Jacob Miller boundary road. He estimates there are roughly ten parcels that would be subject to available service. Mrs. Medlicott said she believes the City should grant Mrs. Miller's request. Mr. Benskin agreed with Mrs. Medlicott and also believes Council should continue the broader policy discussion. Ms. Sandoval said she does not disagree with water service to this parcel, but as policymakers there is an obligation to look at the bigger picture and provide policy direction. If this is a 9-acre parcel, one in five is allowed. While the City is not obligated to serve additional lots that might come out of this, there should be clearer direction. Mr. Masci said he thinks the City needs customers and the redundant line. While the City could take two years and create policy, we could also create policy by taking action on the ground. There is a road named after these folks and this should account for something. This is a modest request. City Council Business Meeting Page 13 May 15, 2006 Mr. Walker said he is in favor of this motion and is unwilling to punish Mrs. Miller for getting the cart before the horse. Mr. Welch agreed the policy could be clearer. Ms. Robinson said there is policy and the policy is not to allow it. If Council desires to change policy, it should go through the process, not case by case. Vote: Motion carried, 5-2, by voice vote, with Ms. Robinson and Ms. Sandoval opposed. RESOLUTION 06-014 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF DOCUMENTS AND DISBURSEMENT OF FUNDS FOR A LOAN OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT LOAN TO JOHN GAIR AND KEVIN AMES, HIGH DIVIDE, LLC Ms. Sandoval said she had several of her questions answered during the break. She was curious where we are in terms of the lien rights. She understands the City is in third position. Mrs. Medlicott asked if there are any CDBG loans that have not ever been repaid. Mr. Watts said all block grant loans have been paid in full. Mrs. Medlicott moved to approve Resolution 06-014, authorizing the City to enter into a Community Redevelopment Block Grant Fund loan in the amount of $25,000 with High Divide, LLC, and John Gair and Kevin Ames, and authorizing the City Manager to sign appropriate loan documentation to close the transaction. Mr. Masci seconded. The motion carried unanimously, 7-0, by voice vote. PRESIDING OFFICER'S REPORT ADVISORY BOARD/ADVISORY COMMITTEE/COMMISSION APPOI NTMENTS Mayor Welch reviewed his recommended Advisory Board/Advisory Committee/Commission Appointments. Mr. Masci moved to accept the Mayor's recommendation and confirm the following appointments: Arts Commission Clifford Wood (position 5, term expires May 1,2009) DesiGn Review Advisory Committee Ian Keith (position 4, term expires May 1, 2009) City Council Business Meeting Page 14 May 15, 2006 Historic Preservation Committee Charles Paul (position 4, term expires May 1, 2009) Rosalind Russell (position 7, term expires May 1,2007) Park & Recreation Advisorv Board Patsy Caldwell (position 4, term expires May 1, 2009) Mr. Benskin seconded. The motion carried unanimously, 7-0, by voice vote. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT Staff would be bringing the scope of work, timeline and schedule for completion of the Transportation Plan once the scope of work and contract negotiations are complete. Two new appointments to the Library Board were Mark Decker and Julia Owen. The Public Works Committee has been cancelled for May 18. There will be an in-car video demonstration at the Public Safety Committee meeting tomorrow. Friday evening is the Sister City reception at Pope Marine Park. Mrs. Medlicott asked when Council expects to be in Council chambers. Mr. Timmons said there have been delays due to the architect and with the Historical Society fund raising. The architectural plans from the contractor are being presented to the Historical Society to ensure they can raise funds. Once work begins, there would be a four or five month time frame before completion. Ms. Sandoval said she participated today in an AWC policy resolution committee. ADJOURN There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10: 12 p.m. Minutes prepared by: Joanna Sanders Legal Assistant Attest: ~~OI~!J City Clerk City Council Business Meeting Page 15 May 15, 2006