Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06252001CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SESSION OF JUNE 18, 2001 CONTINUED TO JUNE 25, 2001 The City Council of the City of Port Townsend met in continued session this twenty-fifth day of June, 2001, at 6:30 p.m. in the Port Townsend Council Chambers of City Hall, Mayor Geoff Masci presiding. ROLL CALL AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Councilmembers present at roll call were Allen Frank, Vem Garrison, Geoff Masci, Syd Lipton, Bill Wolcott and Alan Youse. Joe Finnie was excused. Staff members present were City Manager David Timmons, City Attorney John Watts, Public Works Director Ken Clow, Building & Community Development Director Jeff Randall, City Clerk Pam Kolacy. CHANGES TO THE AGENDA Mayor Masci noted that three items have been added t° the agenda under new business. There were no further changes to the agenda. Motion: Mr. Lipton moved to approve the agenda as amended Mr. Youse seconded The motion carried unanimously, 6-0, by voice vote. PRESIDING OFFICER'S REPORT Mr. Masci noted that the city web site is operating and provides a staff directory, current updated meetings schedule, council agendas, and several other items. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT Mr. Tirranons introduced Jeff Randall, BCD Director, to update the council on the Major Industrial Development (MID) draft permitting and review process. Mr. Randall noted that the Joint Growth Management Steering Committee (JGMSC) has requested city and county planning staffs to work on an MID draft permitting and review process which will be incorporated into a draft interlocal agreement. The JGMSC will meet again on July 12 to discuss the draft process. Mr. Timmons then reported that he has reached an agreement with OLYCAP to provide the city with a volunteer coordinator who will be located at the Community Center. Ongoing federal funding is anticipated and the coordinator will oversee recruitment, City Council Meeting (continued) Page 1 dune 25, 2001 processing, etc. of volunteers for city projects as well as working on special projects such as a citizen's academy on government. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC (items not on the agenda) Ted Shoulberg: asked for a reply to his letter of June 11 regarding the Tri-Area Water System transfer. Stated his opinion that withdrawal of the UDC appeal (later in agenda) is attached to the PUD sale. Brenda McMillan: asked for establishment of electronic funds transfer for payment of city utility bills. UNFINISHED BUSINESS ORDINANCE 2770 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND AMENDING CHAPTER 2.72 OF THE PORT TOWNSEND MUNICIPAL CODE - HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE - TO QUALIFY THE CITY FOR RECOGNITION AS A CERTIFIED LOCAL GOVERNMENT WITH THE STATE OFFICE OF ARCHEOLOGY AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION Mr. Randall presented the ordinance, stating that council's direction at the May 14 workshop, was for staff to prepare an ordinance qualifying the city as a Certified Local Government minus any expansion of the Special Valuation program. Public comment: None Mr. Masci noted his objection to the language in 2.72.020 (A), stating that that language had recently been struck from the Historic Preservation Committee code section at the specific direction of the council. Mr. Randall said that the language was taken from the model ordinance and that in order to meet state requirements, some sort of language defining members must be in the ordinance. Discussion about language amendments followed. Motion: Mr. Wolcott moved for adoption of Ordinance 2770 with a change to section 2. 72. 020 (A) which would read "The members of the HPC shall include but not be limited to members of history or preservation-related organizations such as historical societies, museums, heritage groups and neighborhood organizations and interested citizens, as well as members of professional bodies such as architects, historians, attorneys, realtors and financiers. Section 2. 72. 020 (B) would read" All members of the committee must have demonstrated interest in and/or knowledge of the historical or City Council Meeting (continued) Page 2 June 25, 2001 architectural development of the city." In addition, 2. 72. 060 (B) (4) wouM be amended so that the first word is "Recommend" rather than "Provide." Vote: The ordinance as amended carried unanimously, 6-0, by roll call vote. AMENDMENTS TO SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGES Mr. Watts introduced the issue, noting previous council discussion and motions. The issue has been remanded to the Public Works Committee, but that committee has not met since the last council meeting when this issue was discussed. Mr. Wolcott suggested that the issue be remanded to the Public Works Committee meeting on July 12. Mr. Garrison asked what issues around this particular issue are pertinent to the public utilities department except that the fees related to sewer and water fees. He noted that the discussion does not relate to infrastructure, but to fees. Mr. Lipton replied that fees must be considered within the larger picture of the systems supported by those fees and that the committee must evaluate the meaning of system development fees versus impact fees. There are different definitions and assumptions and the committee, council and public could benefit from education and discussion of the issues in conjunction with the establishment of fees. Mr. Frank noted a clarification that the system development charges are utility related and cannot in any case be used to defray general fund expenses. Mr. Timmons noted that System Development Charges derive their basis from policy and the policy documents (water and sewer plans) are an integral part of capital planning. Mr. Garrison noted that staff was tasked with preparing a specific ordinance which came before the council on May 14 and deals with one very specific credit. Ordinance 2765 would allow monetary credits to be given against utility system development charges for new customers who extend water and/or sewer lines as part of a new development of three or fewer single family residences. Consensus: Mr. Frank suggested making the Public Works Committee meeting on July 12 a joint Public Works/Finance meeting to address both aspects of this proposal. Consensus was to schedule the joint meeting and remand the issue. Public Comment: Gordon Misselt: opposed to the ordinance, sees it as an attempt by builders and developers to have other citizens subsidize their projects. Opposed to any credit, believes affordable housing should be addressed in a different fashion. City Council Meeting (continued) Page 3 dune 25, 2001 Richard Talbot: agreed that the issue must be discussed in a larger context; how is the city planning to deal with the very large requirements of infrastructure. No matter what the amount of money involved, he added that this is not the time to be taking money out when more funding should be dedicated to the funds. He added that the ordinance is unclear about the basis for the regulation, neither is it clear on time frame. Ted Shoulberg: Public costs are not going away nor are they going down. The current law is fair and allows the system development charge to be waived if savings go directly to low income families. If there is intention to unravel previous policy, the public needs to participate in the change to all and policy documents. Pete Von Christierson: SDCs were originally established conservatively compared to the capacity needed to serve new customers and rates have not been reevaluated or increased since 1998 even though there has been huge inflation. Stated that this ordinance would compound the problem, added that the ordinance is not clear about why the action is being taken; he urged an evaluation of all possible system development charges. Ron Gregory: speaking as Director of Jefferson County Homebuilders Association. Provided a letter for the record. He stated that the tax appears to be based on the assumption that there would be no need for expanded systems if there weren't any development. He noted that outdated facilities must be expanded and replaced for the betterment of the community at large whether them is new development or not, and that the burden is unfairly borne by new development. Brenda McMillan': opposed the ordinance, new houses tend to be much larger and developers should pay for growth. Jim Carlson: favors the ordinance. Stated that it is a rare occasion when the builder is not called upon to improve the infrastructure; the city subsidizes owners in existing neighborhoods, and the new owner pays the most. Richard Berg: supports looking at a whole range of possible impact fees so the total amount paid by new customers is fair; SDCs seem to be the only thing that has been set up to collect part of the cost of growth, with nothing to address other services such as additional police, fire, parks, etc Affordable housing will be served only if the rule is applied exclusively to projects that meet that criteria. Jim Todd: opposes the amendment to SDC charges, stated it will result in higher utility rates for all. Dana Roberts: said the fundamental basis for this action is not established; urged holding off if the driver of the proposed ordinance is to affect the availability of affordable housing since this is only one of the cards on the table. Joe Campbell: developer of Lynnsfield development, has built 155 homes and developed 100 sites. He believes that system development charges for a single person City Council Meeting (continued) Page 4 dune 25, 2001 application is a good deal compared to the county, as there are no expenditures for wells, septic, etc. He would prefer a $2,000 reduction on the cost of each permit. Noted that Port Townsend is the county's urban growth center, has platted lots and there is a need to get affordable housing to more lots. He added that any reduction he received would be passed along to the consumer. PROPOSAL FOR HORSE-DRAWN CARRIAGE ORDINANCE BCD Director Jeff Randall noted that the council had directed staff to bring forth an ordinance, but it is not quite ready. Feedback from the Police Department has been delayed because the chief was out of town; he also wanted the proponents to look at the proposal. He noted that the ordinance will be before the council as soon as possible, particularly since there is a potential applicant. Mr. Lipton noted that a requirement for some kind of light and reflector should be included in the licensing requirements. Public comment: None NEW BUSINESS RESOLUTION 01-027 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND AUTHORIZING DEFENSE SERVICE TO CITY VOLUNTEER SALLY ROBBINS Mr. Watts stated that the resolution would allow the city to provide defense services Sally Robbins, who has been involved in legal actions arising from an incident that occurred related to her service on the Community Oriented Policing Advisory Board. Motion: Mr. Frank moved for adoption of Resolution 01-027. Mr. Garrison seconded Mr. Frank confirmed with Mr. Watts that this would not be a precedent setting vote, but that each case would be evaluated on its own merit. Mr. Youse stated that all citizens are really volunteers and people need to learn to live together and get along. Vote: The motion carried 5-1, with Mr. Youse opposed UNIFORM DEVELOPMENT CODE APPEAL WITHDRAWAL Mr. Timmons introduced the issue. The city filed an appeal to the Growth Management Hearing Board challenging provisions of the COunty's Unified Development Code relating to the location of batch plants and TO seawater intrusion. Discussions have since occurred between the city and county and the City Manager recommends that the UDC City Council Meeting (continued) Page 5 dune 25, 2001 appeal be withdrawn subject to a settlement agreement with the county for the county to serve as the "repository" of water collected with respect to wells. Mr. Watts elaborated on the agenda bill summary statement, adding that certain issues which were unclear have been clarified during city/county discussions Public comment: Collette Kostelec: representing Shine Community Action Council and Olympic Environmental Council, noting the two groups filed a similar appeal; the county has presented the same arguments to her clients and it appears that some city staff agree with the county but the opinion is not shared by her clients and they continue to pursue stricter standards. An additional 90 day extension for the settlement of the appeal has been granted so there is no great urgency for the city to withdraw from their appeal at this time. She added that a meeting will be held on Wednesday to discuss the issue of seawater intrusion and it may be advantageous for city representatives to attend. Ted Shoulberg: Stated it is sad to see the unraveling of the protection of the groundwater aquifer which was result of hard work by many. Assuming the city keeps the Tri-Area system, the city will be purveyors of last resort and in the event of seawater intrusion on Marrowstone, will be required by the Department of Health to extend the line from Indian Island all around Marrowstone. He urged the council to hold off on the decision until there has been more time for consideration of a major change in policy development. Wayne King: PUD Commissioner: stated that dropping the appeal troubles him and the PUD; noted that if the reason for dropping appeal is to save money, the PUD will then have to pay attorneys for their own appeal. Stated that the city still owes the PUD money for the Kah Tai property. Dana Roberts: submits written comments, noted that dropping the City's appeal of the county plan to do with saline intrusion could prove to be an un-wisely early assessment; urged continuation of the City's appeal. Mr. Frank asked to add a discussion item to the agenda regarding the purchase of the PUD property as item 10(D). Mr. Frank asked Mr. Timmons to address the issue of urgency in regard to withdrawing the appeal. Mr. Timmons stated that the urgency has been mitigated by the 90-day extension, however the county wants to deal with other issues. He stated that there may be more effective ways to deal with seawater intrusion matter, but it is necessary to work in partnership with the county and the appeal would not necessarily result in that outcome. City Council Meeting (continued) Page 6 dune 25, 2001 Mr. Youse stated that if the council were to delay action, some would have the opportunity to attend the informational meeting. Motion: Mr. Youse moved to postpone action on the UDC appeal for 60 days. Mr. Garrison seconded Vote: The motion carried unanimously, 6-0, by voice vote. THIRD PARTY REVIEW OF COUNCIL MEMBER AND CITY MANAGER DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS Mr. Garrison and Mr. Wolcott recused themselves and left the meeting as they both have permits pending under the system. Mr. Timmons discussed the implementation of an administrative requirement that permit applications for private projects of council members or the city manager be reviewed by an outside party rather than city staff. He noted that the procedure was introduced to avoid any actual or appearance of fairness or conflict of interest issues in connection with private projects undertaken by these parties, and to avoid the perception that any special treatment (favorable or unfavorable) was received based on the relationship with the city. Councilmember Youse raised a question about whether the policy was fair and should be continued; a discussion with council had been planned to review the system. Public comment: Ted Shoulberg: commended the process and asked about the extra cost involved. Mr. Timmons noted that anything billed by a third party review for what would ordinarily be done without charge by city staff would be covered by the city. Mr. Frank asked if a list of city employees who would be affected could be made by the City Manager. Mr. Timmons will share a written policy statement with the council. Mr. Youse asked if any further problems were anticipated. Mr. Timmons replied that the logistics and communications have been worked out, and a reviewer has been selected who will be there for us. PURCHASE OF KAH TAI PROPERTY FROM PUBLIC UTLITY DISTRICT Mr. Timmons noted that the city has just been notified by the PUD that a property transaction for land adjacent to Kah Tai Park has not been completed. A preliminary search of the record appears to show an initial payment by the city and a grant application submitted for the balance; however, it is not clear that the grant was funded or whether the transaction was completed. Mr. Frank asked that a complete history of the transaction be made available. City Council Meeting (continued) Page 7 dune 25, 2001 ADJOURN There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m. Attest: Pamela Kolacy, CMC City Clerk City Council Meeting (continued) Page 8 June 25, 2001