Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07151997 . . . PORT TOWNSEND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES STUDY SESSION ON PUBLIC FACILITIES JULY 15, 1997 7:00 PM The special study session of the Port Townsend City Council was called to order at 7:10 p.m. by Mayor Julie McCulloch. Council members present at roll call were Jean Camfield, Kate Jenks, Diane Perry Thompson, and Ian Keith. Ted Shoulberg arrived at 7:40. Staff members present were Police Chief Jim Newton, Public Works Director Bob Wheeler, and City Clerk Pam Kolacy. McCulloch explained that because of the infonnal nature of the meeting, members of the public could be recognized at any time during the discussion. Ms. Jenks presented a recap of the progress to date on this topic. She noted input by three different citizen committees who have all agreed on the need for a new police facility. The current series of meetings has been geared toward site criteria, site selection, and funding. She stated that at the prior workshop meeting, the number of sites was narrowed to about fifteen by applying the initial basic criteria; approximately 12 items have now been listed that would impact the location of a police station. Council members were asked to develop additional criteria for tonight's meeting and the Chief of Police was asked to rank the criteria in order to determine his idea of the importance of each to the police department. The original GIS map designated about 40 sites which were placed on the list by meeting the initial three criteria; vacant land, available land, land where a structure could be built. Mr. Carl Nomura asked what criteria had been used last time for de-selecting sites. Ms. Jenks mentioned location in a liquefaction zone, sites in or near an environmentally sensitive area, sites that were too remote to supply with infrastructure cost effectively, and which didn't contain 1.2 acres or more of raw land. She added that these were the criteria identified in the public safety space study. De-selection was done only on the basis of the criteria. She added that the last time sites had been studied, the goal was a combined police and fire facility, therefore the minimum size was 3.5 acres. David Vohs asked some questions regarding the necessity of consultants. It was pointed out that the consultants did not determine the need, rather the city detennined the need and directed the study toward that end. Ms. Perry Thompson stated that the city's goals include coming up with feasible, cost effective methods of making the selection. Mr. Keith noted that the 1.2 acre size is not absolute; however a smaller site may require stacking the building which will drive costs up and limit room for expansion. . . . Mr. Keith then presented a draft "decision tree" to stimulate the discussion about ways to approach the project. He asked for some agreement about the order of necessary decisions, i.e. site selection, funding options, order of decisions. Ms. Jenks stated she thought the council would arrive at some firm site alternatives before funding strategy was discussed. Ms. Camfield noted she feels comfortable with having site selection narrowed down, but is not comfortable with choosing a single site before other aspects of the project are discussed. Shirley Rudolph, local realtor, spoke in support ofthe Port Townsend Business Park as a site. She provided council with a letter and fact sheet about the park. Mr. Jenks then noted she would be comfortable with a "rough cut" but wanted public awareness of where the process was being left; she noted the necessity of evaluating the cost realities for those sites left on the list and stated she does not believe a funding strategy should be chosen until a cost is identified. Council member Shoulberg entered the meeting at 7:40. Mr. Keith suggested the council start with the decision of whether or not the funding issue will go to the voters. In his sample decision tree, that course of action would lead to two different sequences of events. Ms. Camfield said she would be comfortable with making that decision tonight. Ms. Jenks disagreed and said she would rather do it at a regular council meeting, although discussion could occur tonight. John Ebner, a member of the public facilities advisory committee, stated he would like to see site selection narrowed to five by applying additional criteria, and then would like to hear alternative funding strategies. Ms. Camfield suggested that the decision about whether or not to limit the project to a police facility or to add the library and/or City Hall should probably be made before the rest of the decisions. That way, there would be an indication of how much would be packaged together if going to the voters. There was discussion of when the SEP A determinations on sites should be made, with Ms. Jenks supporting SEP A near the beginning of the process as an information gathering tool. Mr. Keith noted that SEP A is a good tool, but also a time consuming process, and one which would slow down the timing. He noted that as far as the influence of cost on the selection ofthe site, he did some research at the tax assessor and found that the most expensive was about $300,000 and the cheapest was a city-owned site at no acquisition cost. If looking at an average of $200,000, a reasonable variation from this would not be a major part of the funding package. Port Townsend City Council July 15, 1997 (study session) Page 2 . . . Ms. Camfield noted that getting the potential sites down to six or so would provide some variety; doing SEP A immediately on six sites would be terribly time consuming and quite possibly a waste of time and money for the information that would be garnered. Ms. Perry Thompson also supported the SEP A process after a funding mechanism has been identified. Mr. Keith added that by the time the process is that far along, there will be considerable information and probably not many surprises uncovered by the SEP A process. Ms. Jenks asked for an explanation of whether voters would be presented with "most expensive" scenario and asked to fund that. Ms. Camfield noted that the de. selection process would no doubt eliminate those prospects that were obviously too expensive; those left would probably average out at pretty similar costs. Mr. Keith stated that as the number of sites is refined, the council will look in more and more detail at the implied costs, and when the short list is produced, there will not be a huge difference since cost will be an important criteria. Candace Cosier spoke about the importance of impact on neighborhoods; citizens value peace and open space. She asked if that would be considered in site selection process. Ms. Perry Thompson noted the very extensive public process and the desire of the city to determine all of those types of impacts. She also stressed the importance of judging the reality of impacts, i.e. how much disturbance would really come from location of the police facility and noted this will be hashed out -ànd discussed thoroughly as the number of possible sites is narrowed. She added that neighborhood representatives were vocal the last time around and she expects that will happen again. She also noted that whether or not the land is actually available will be a big issue. Kathleen Jackson asked which of the sites are city owned properties. Mayor McCulloch noted that the only one is the golf course property. Ms. Jackson expressed her feeling that a site already owned by the city would be most appealing to voters. Mr. Keith noted that the fact of ownership is one consideration, and cost to develop is another major considerations. It is possible that a city owned site would be very costly to develop. Mr. Nomura asked whether the city may be able to use some properties to trade for more suitable sites. Ms. McCulloch noted that most of city owned parcels don't meet criteria. Mr. Shoulberg then stated that the only decision he is comfortable with making tonight is getting on with narrowing the number of sites. Ms. Perry Thompson then questioned whether the criteria had been established and refined enough to begin that de-selection. Ms. Jenks also noted that a survey of city owned properties had been done in conjunction with the original public facilities study. Ms. Camfield added that part of that discussion had centered Port Townsend City Council Page 3 July 15, 1997 (study session) . . . around the possibility of trading already owned property for a suitable building site. Ms. Perry Thompson stated that she would like to make a decision on process before the end of the meeting. Chief Newton then noted he has prioritized the criteria list, and that of the 12 listed, the first 6 are the most crucial to the department. Mayor McCulloch asked if, as she heard, the council wished to finalize site selection criteria, narrow the number of sites to six, and discuss the decision process starting with the decision tree. Mr. Shoulberg replied that he will not vote on anything tonight. Ms. McCulloch asked whether an informal vote would be acceptable. Mr. Keith then moved that the council move ahead with refining site selection criteria. Ms. Jenks seconded. There being no further discussion, the motion carried by voice vote. Chief Newton's identified his priorities as follows, noting that the first six are the most critical to the department:: Away from earthquake/flood hazards Ease for public to find and visible Community acceptance two egress points available minimal slope impact on surrounding uses impact of surrounding uses environmentally clean soils site available good soils utilities available zoning appropriate Ms. Jenks then read the list from the January meeting and asked if any of those should be added. Ms. Perry Thompson noted that several of those criteria applied to the combined facility. Ms. Jenks then listed additional criteria suggested by citizens, including land available without eminent domain process necessary, land located in commercially zoned area, and limiting the site to publicly owned land. Ms. Rudolph added possibility for expansion, and Mr. Ebner suggested that the site be large enough to accommodate for a 20 year plan. Mr. Shoulberg noted that eliminated any possibility of condemnation procedure changes the process because sites can not be looked at in total objectivity; you must limit choices to those with a willing seller. He stated that this changes the perspective ofthe whole game. He said this is a strong policy decision which should be made by the council at a regular meeting. Port Townsend City Council July 15, 1997 (study session) Page 4 . . . Mr. Keith agreed that it would add a lengthy research aspect to the site selection. Ms. Jenks noted this would be another factor impeding timing. Discussion and speculation followed about which ofthe remaining sites were available for sale. Ms. Jenks suggested the Ms. Rudolph be asked to prepare a more detailed report with information about various sections of the Port Townsend Business Park. Mr. Keith commented on the desirability of having a list ofthe properties with sizes attached. The time approaching 9:00 pm, the proposed end time of the meeting, Mayor McCulloch asked what the council would like to do. Ms. Jenks suggested working until 9:30 to get the criteria in order. Ms. Jenks noted criteria brought forward by the public 1) located in commercially zoned area 2) obtainable without eminent domain process 3) publicly owned 4) possibility for expansion 5) size and assessed value. (i.e., measure of acquisition cost) Mr. Shoulberg again noted that the eminent domain or condemnation is a significant policy issue that should be referred to discussion at the next regular council. After discussion, the following draft site selection criteria were chosen: Not located in a known geologic seismic hazard zone Easy for public to find/ visible Community acceptance Two egress points available Cost of developed site ready to build as determined by site characteristics, including but not limited to: -- infrastructure available -- minimal slope -- good soils -- environmentally "clean" (soils, flood plain, wetland) -- purchase price Room for possibility of future expansion Impact on surrounding uses Impact of surrounding uses Site available Zoning appropriate Port Townsend City Council Page 5 July 15, 1997 (study session) . . . Ms. Jenks then moved to remove Site 4 from consideration because some citizens were present objecting to it. Ms. Camfield noted the importance of equal process for all citizens; that the process must be completely objective, with no perception of arbitrary actions that are not based on site selection criteria applied equally to all considered sites. It is not sensible to remove any site only because a group of neighbors comes in to express their displeasure. That would have to be done for alL She emphasized that sites left cannot be taken out of context. The motion died for lack of a second. Mr. Keith noted that last week some sites were eliminated readily because they obviously did not meet even the basic criteria. This site has not risen to the height oftotal impossibility. Citizens present again stressed their opposition to disturbing the land near their homes for a police facility; they also urged the coWlcil to make their best effort to come to a decision on siting as quickly as possible. The next study session was set for Tuesday, July 22, from 7-9 p.m. It was also agreed that council will discuss and approve a decision making process at the next council meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m. Q~ dXk ~ Pamela Kolacy ð' City Clerk Port Townsend City Council Page 6 July 15, 1997 (study session)