Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12092002CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL SESSION OF DECEMBER 9, 2002 The City Council of the City of Port Townsend met in special session this ninth day of December, 2002, at 6:30 p.m. in the Port Townsend Council Chambers of City Hall, Mayor Kees Kolff presiding. ROLL CALL AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Councilmembers present at roll call were Freida Fenn, Joe Finnie, Kees Kolff, Geoff Masci, Catharine Robinson, Michelle Sandoval, and Al Youse. Staff members present were City Manager David Timmons, City Attorney John Watts, Finance Director Michael Legarsky, Public Works Director Ken Clow, BCD Director Jeff Randall, and City Clerk Pam Kolacy. CHANGES TO THE AGENDA Consensus was to move Item X (Puget Sound Energy Ordinance) ahead on the agenda in deference to Mr. McDaniel's presence. PUBLIC COMMENT (non-agenda items) There was no general public comment. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the November 25 special business meeting and the December 2 regular meeting were approved with minor corrections. ORDINANCE 2820 AN ORDINANCE GRANTING PUGET SOUND ENERGY, INC., A WASHINGTON CORPORATION, THE RIGHT, PRIVILEGE, AUTHORITY AND FRANCHISE TO SET, ERECT, CONSTRUCT, SUPPORT, ATTACH, CONNECT AND STRETCH FACILITIES BETWEEN, MAINTAIN, REPAIR, REPLACE, ENLARGE, OPERATE AND USE FACILITIES IN, UPON, OVER, UNDER, ALONG, ACROSS AND THROUGH THE FRANCHISE AREA FOR PURPOSES OF TRANSMISSION, DISTRIBUTION AND SALE OF ENERGY FOR POWER, HEAT, LIGHT AND ANY OTHER PURPOSE Mr. Watts stated the first reading of the ordinance took place on October 21 and a workshop was held on November 25 to discuss the franchise further. The ordinance is presented for action by the council this evening. Ms. Sandoval stated she would like to have a letter signed by Mr. McDaniel in hand addressing the issues discussed at the last meeting before approving the ordinance. City Council Special Business Meeting Page 1 December 9, 2002 Mr. Watts stated an e-mail was included in the council packet in which Mr. McDaniel addressed the council's concerns raised at the workshop. An additional letter from Mr. McDaniel was received which was distributed prior to the meeting. Ms. Sandoval questioned Mr. McDaniel about the power conservation measures currently in place in Port Townsend. He replied that programs are currently in place and more will emerge in the next two months. As programs are approved by the Commission, he will update the council. Ms. Robinson asked whether the city would be charged for use of PSE poles for fiberoptics for a municipal purpose (page 7, section 13). Mr. Watts stated that the franchise states that as long as the fiberoptic is installed for a municipal purpose, there would be no charge to the city. Mr. Timmons added that the poles are subject to other regulations such as state safety regulations applicable to all users. Mr. McDaniel stated that PSE has just completed a street light inventory and if lights are to be removed from PSE wooden poles, they will be removed at no cost. He added that he is researching outage data but may not be able to provide a complete report; however starting in January the information requested will be tracked and reported. He added that PSE has filed with the WUTC a draft plan for least cost additional resources, in direct response to anticipated shortages in the next few years. He added that he will update the council as well as the City Manager when outages are reported (within a 2-3 hour period.) Public Comment None Motion: Mr. Masci moved for approval of Ordinance 2820. Mr. Youse seconded Ms. Sandoval stated that given the PSE citizen advisory group had recommended a Memorandum of Understanding, she would at least like to have a letter in hand from PSE addressing additional issues. Mr. Watts stated that if council adopts the ordinance, PSE has 30 days to accept it. The council may indicate that council's approval is subject to the information that Mr. McDaniel has provided in electronic form being provided in a letter at the time of PSE's acceptance of the agreement. Ms. Sandoval asked specifically for information on outreach for low income residents as well as how many citizens take advantage of low income programs. Motion to amend: Ms. Sandoval moved to amend the motion by adding that the council would like, within the next thirty-day period, the information both in terms of what has been already given in letter form and given verbally to be provided in writing by PSE and City Council Special Business Meeting Page 2 December 9, 2002 to accompany the franchise agreement. Ms. Fenn seconded After brief discussion and clarification, the motion carried unanimously, 7-0, by voice vote. Vote on main motion (adopt ordinance as amended): motion carried unanimously, 7-0, by roll call vote. Motion: Mr. Masci moved to task the City Manager to develop a timeline and process for exploring franchise-related issues that are not addressed in the franchise ordinance, including alternative service provider scenarios. Ms. Sandoval seconded. The motion carried unanimously, 7-0, by voice vote. ORDINANCE 2824 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND AMENDING CERTAIN SECTIONS OF CHAPTER 20.04 OF THE PORT TOWNSEND MUNICIPAL CODE, PORT TOWNSEND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS AMENDMENT PROCESS. BCD Director Jeff Randall presented the staff report. He provided a comment letter from the State Department of Economic Development which was received after the last council discussion. Mr. Randall noted that Council had a first touch on the Ordinance on August 5 and referred the matter to the Community Development and Land Use Committee. On September 3, the Committee recommended proceeding with the adoption of the proposed process changes. After a second touch, Council referred the matter to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission did a thorough review including an open record public hearing on November 14 and has recommended adoption of the ordinance subject to a number of minor changes. The first reading of the ordinance before the council took place on December 2. Clarifying questions Ms. Fenn asked if site specific rezones involving two public entities could be treated as legislative matters, and asked if a new category could be created with clear process parameters for that category defined. Mr. Watts said that this issue was brought up at the Planning Commission, the concern being that rezones are considered quasi-judicial and are also the most frequent formal amendment; therefore the quasi-judicial designation cuts off contact among citizens and council members in regard to the project. He then explained that the "appearance of faimess" doctrine which is state law does not distinguish between land owned by public or private entities. Government purpose districts are considered "persons" under the law and entitled to a fair hearing under the doctrine. The decision must be based on the record and not on data heard or gathered by City Council Special Business Meeting Page 3 December 9, 2002 council members outside the public hearing process. He stated that a possible approach would be that if the rezone deals with more than a single piece of property or a single ownership, and if it is "area wide" then "area" is not defined in the appearance of fairness doctrine so the doctrine would not apply. He stated the current draft does allow for a process whereby an individual property owner applies for a rezone and if city staff believes the rezone application should consider additional property adjacent to the property being applied for, then staff can recommend that it be included as part of the rezone. The applicant's proposal, modified to include other property that might reasonably be considered as part of the application, would then be outside the quasi- judicial framework. Mr. Randall clarified that this can occur with suggested amendments in the new ordinance but there is no similar language addressing formal amendments or addressing the quasi-judicial status of a modified formal amendment proposal. Mr. Watts stated that quasi-judicial rules cannot be legislated out of state law, but the city can broaden the scope of an application so the quasi-judicial doctrine, for legitimate reasons, does not apply. He agreed with Mr. Randall that there should be flexibility on the part of the city to take a formal application and broaden its scope for good reasons, not simply to take it out of the quasi-judicial process, but because it may be good planning. Ms. Robinson asked whether in Phase 1 the Planning Commission would be doing the available lands inventory. Mr. Randall answered that it depends on the goals which are set for that year. He referred to page 4 table 035(b): "the scope of work for each 7 year update may vary depending on state mandates and local needs..." He stated that project is not included as being mandatory, but it is logical to have it scheduled on a regular basis. He also said it is difficult to predict what the conditions will be and what issues will be "hot" in any given cycle, so the section was done as a guideline. He added that in 2003 it will be useful to establish a framework and a land use inventory is an obvious step. Public comment None Motion: Ms. Fenn moved for adoption of Ordinance 2824. Mr. Youse seconded. Mr. Finnie asked Mr. Randall if the BCD Department will be able to perform the statement of work presented without additional staff. Mr. Randall answered that the result will be to reorganize the work rather than change it. The seven-year update probably creates more work; however the amendment is not creating the requirements, but trying to determine how to better manage the process. He added that his recommendation would not be to add staff for peak work loads but to allocate fi.~nds for consultant help; he stated this would be significantly less costly than hiring a staff person. City Council Special Business Meeting Page 4 December 9, 2002 Ms. Fenn asked whether over time this will save money; she said her perception is that the senior planner will be freed up during the years we don't do amendments and the same is true of the talent of the Planning Commission. She stated she believes this will have a positive budget impact over time. Mr. Randall stated he had some minor typos that will require corrections of the ordinance. He listed five. Motion to amend: Mr. Youse moved to include the housekeeping changes to the document presented by Mr. Randall. Ms. Sandoval seconded Motion carried, 7-0 by voice vote. Motion: Ms. Fenn proposed a friendly amendment to amend the ordinance by adding the following sentence on page 8, paragraph (d) at the end of the underlined sentence starting "amendments shall be docketed:" "Amendments may also add property or properties for consideration in any proposed rezone or other proposed action. " Ms. Sandoval seconded Mr. Masci spoke against the amendment noting that although it may go forward to simplify things it can also go backward to complicate things; it would introduce a new philosophy into the Comp Plan and that the rezoning could go either way, to more intensive use or less intensive use. He stated he is more comfortable with the text as originally proposed. Ms. Fenn noted that if the language were adopted, then both the original amendment and the alternative expanded amendment would be presented for docketing; the original amendment would not disappear, there would just be latitude to create another version that would have more area-wide significance. Mr. Finnie asked how this issue came up. Mr. Watts explained that it has happened twice; last year during a rezone, staff suggested adding additional property and the Council did consider rezoning property on upper Sims Way as an alternative to a proposed amendment. Another example would be if the Port as part of its Comprehensive Scheme submits a Comp Plan amendment for Pt. Hudson, is that a site specific area which would be processed as quasi-judicial or, if the City believed that whatever the Port was proposing might be good for Fleet Marine as well, then should the council or Planning Commission have the flexibility to add that or some other property. The text amendment would clarify that is a possible alternative. Ms. Robinson asked who would make the call on broadening the scope of an amendment. Mr. Watts stated that the Planning Commission could recommend it to the Council or the Council may choose to take that action. The Council could choose to make the addition even if not recommended by Planning Commission. City Council Special Business Meeting Page 5 December 9, 2002 Mr. Masci stated that he would like to have a Planning Commission recommendation after there has been more time for discussion. He noted the process can always be amended later. Motion: Ms. Fenn, seeing the proposed amendment would not be accepted as a "friendly" amendment, proposed to amend the ordinance by adding the following sentence on page 8, paragraph (d) at the end of the underlined sentence starting "amendments shall be docketeck " "Amendments may also add property or properties for consideration in any proposed rezone or other proposed action. The motion died for lack o fa second Mr. Watts stated that the City and the Port entered into a Memorandum of Understanding, the gist of which was that the Port had filed for a proposed Comp Plan amendment in advance of the Comprehensive Scheme process at the Port; they agreed to withdraw their proposed amendment but wanted a written agreement that they could resubmit their amendment regardless of any process changes which might occur for 2003. Motion to amend: Mr. Masci moved to amend the ordinance by adding a section stating that the ordinance does not affect the Memorandum of Understanding between the Port and the City. Ms. Robinson seconded This was accepted as a friendly amendment. In answer to council questions, Mr. Randall stated that any Comp Plan proposal timely submitted by the Port shall be submitted in 2003 pursuant to timelines currently set forth in the Port Townsend Municipal Code (May 1 rather than March 1). Ms. Sandoval stated that the staff will be working on the timeline of the Port and this will have an impact on their workload. Mr. Randall said the worst case is that one amendment lags behind the others. Vote: motion to adopt Ordinance 2824 as amended carried unanimously, 7-0, by roll call vote. ORDINANCE 2825 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING CERTAIN AMENDMENTS TO TEXT AND TABLES WITHIN CHAPTERS IV, LAND USE ELEMENT AND VII, CAPITAL FACILITIES & UTILITIES ELEMENT, VIII, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT, IX, GMA & CWPP CONSISTENCY AND CHAPTER X, GLOSSARY OF TERMS OF THE PORT TOWNSEND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (THE PLAN); ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE TEXT AND TABLES OF TITLE 17, ZONING, OF THE PORT TOWNSEND MUNICIPAL CODE (PTMC); IN ORDER TO BE CONSISTENT WITH, AND IMPLEMENT THE GOALS AND POLICIES CONTAINED WITHIN THE PLAN; ADOPTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE MAP CONTAINED WITHIN THE PLAN; ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP City Council Special Business Meeting Page 6 December 9, 2002 ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 17.12.030 PTMC IN ORDER TO BE CONSISTENT WITH, AND IMPLEMENT THE LAND USE MAP CONTAINED WITHIN THE PLAN DIRECTING THE BUILDING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT TO PREPARE REVISED COPIES OF THE PLAN INCORPORATING THE AMENDMENTS SET FORTH IN THIS ORDINANCE; DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO CODIFY THE AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 17 PTMC SET FORTH IN THIS ORDINANCE; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE; ALL IN A MANNER CONSISTENT WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF CHAPTER 20.04 PTMC AND THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1990, AS AMENDED (CHAPTER 36.70A RCW). Mr. Randall stated that the ordinance before council reflects the decision of the council on the eight suggested Comprehensive Plan amendments and the Pak formal amendment heard by the council on November 4 and November 12, 2002. The Ordinance reflects the Council's recommendations on the eight amendments. Ms. Robinson noted that two pages have discrepancies regarding density requirements. On page 13 and 23 the text states that for the R-IV zone, the density is up to 40 bedrooms or 20 units, and the table lists up to 40 bedrooms or 24 units. Mr. Randall stated he would clarify which was correct and make the change to ordinance before final adoption. Mr. Randall explained a note on page 30 stating the council may wish to consider a delayed effective date for the increased setback on garages as it will affect some potential building permits for dwellings being designed now. Public comment None Motion: Ms. Robinson moved for first reading of Ordinance 2825. Ms. Fenn seconded adding a friendly amendment to strike the note on page 30 regarding a delayed effective date for new garage setbacks. The motion carried unanimously, 7-0, by voice vote. GLEN COVE LAMIRD Mr. Watts stated that the Board of County Commissioners took action today which was not consistent with the tentative resolution of issues worked through by the City Council negotiating team and two members of the Board of County Commissioners which were set forth in the letter sent by the city to the BOCC. He stated the issue which was not consistent with the agreement was the decision by the County to require 30 foot buffers, rather than 40 foot buffers with a variance process for requested reductions. Ms. Fenn added that the County also wants to exclude driveways and parking lots from impervious surface calculations; in addition the County has indicated it does not consider land north of the LAMIRD boundary to be zoned residential, thereby being inconsistent with the city's position that the LAMIRD boundary is permanent. City Council Special Business Meeting Page 7 December 9, 2002 Public comment Jim Garrett: stated he had heard the discussion about impervious surface and it was somewhat vague as to what they approved but he believes it is consistent with the 2002 stormwater management plan where impervious can be designed with gravel meeting certain standards. Mr. Finnie stated he is more comfortable discussing the issue with at least one Commissioner present, particularly if we are to infer they went back on their agreements. He stated if the Council is going to produce an instrument of some sort, it might be good to invite the Commissioners to be present at that meeting so he can hear both sides of the discussion. Mr. Masci stated that it sounds like they were expanding the impervious surface definition to include new technology pursuant to low density principles from State Ecology. He added that part of the decision on reducing the buffer was to change the variance procedure. Motion: Ms. Sandoval moved to direct the City Manager and Council negotiating team to review and discuss issues with County staff and/or BOCC and report back to City Council. Ms. Robinson seconded Vote: motion carried 4-3, by voice vote, with Fenn, Youse and Masci opposed RECESS The Mayor called a short recess at 8:10 for the purpose of a break. RECONVENE The meeting reconvened at 8:20 p.m. ORDINANCE 2826 AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE BUDGET FOR THE CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND, WASHINGTON, FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2003 Mr. Timmons noted some new circumstances affecting the budget including a reduction of the L&I increased mandated by the state and greater than expected increases in medical insurance rates for union employees. He noted that a spending freeze has been imposed until the end of the year, with the City Manager approving all expenditures. He also noted that there are ongoing lobbying efforts to repeal of the business and occupational tax, which would have a $300,000 budget impact to the city. City Council Special Business Meeting Page 8 December 9, 2002 The latest list of committee recommendations was available in the packet, and includes a $100,000 transfer of funds from the General Fund to the Street Fund. There is no proposal to increase BCD staff except for making the senior planner a full time rather than .8 time position in 2003 and reducing the expenditure originally proposed for a Comp Plan consultant. The net savings is $30,000 from the last proposal. The 1-790 pension reserve issue has been dealt with by allocating half of the original amount estimated.. Mr. Timmons noted that the changes outlined would be amendments to the budget, including the transfer for funding from the General Fund to the Street Fund. Public comment Kate Dean. President of the Farmers Market Board. Spoke in favor of funding for the Farmers Market. Don White: Chair of the Arts Commission spoke in favor of the Finance Committee's recommendation for 2003 Arts Commission funding. Allen Frank: stated that budget decisions are about priorities and choices. He supports fully funding the street overlay program and an austere budget. He said he favors a maximum 1% tax increase, eliminating all funding for 1-790, eliminating funding for the Farmers Market and Jumping Mouse, eliminating $5,000 from the Arts Commission budget. Speaking in favor of funding the Farmers Market: John Gunning Phil Dinsmore Steven Boyd "Harve" Will O'Donnell Leola Armstrong spoke against funding for the Farmers Market. Motion: Ms. Sandoval moved for first reading of Ordinance 2826 along with the synopsis update dated December 9, with an ending fund balance of 6. 8%. Ms. Fenn seconded. Mr. Finnie spoke against the ordinance. His concerns are that the city has not addressed strategically the issue of street funding. He would like further cuts to the BCD budget and recommended eliminating the remaining 1-790 funding and identifying the $125,000 contingency as a placeholder for unanticipated funding needs. He advocated reduing the City Council Special Business Meeting Page 9 December 9, 2002 Arts Commission budget to $5050, citing the appropriation of 1% of capital project budgets to arts; stated he will not support the Farmers Market proposal citing the city's donation of space for the market for several years and the property tax relief already provided to growers within the city. He stated he cannot support financing small private entrepreneurs when looking at cutting department budgets and maintaining the current level of service. He stated if the council is not willing to make cuts and defer community support services, the voters will never support a vehicle which will provide extra revenue for funding streets. Mr. Masci stated he cannot support the budget in its current form. He stated he does not feel the council is addressing the funding of the essential service of streets rather than the elective services which come under discretionary funding. He stated that the Arts Commission budget was increased from $3500 per year to $6050 last year with the additional one-time funding of $5,000 for a special project. He also stated the adoption of the International Building Code is not a decision which must be made this year. He said the Farmers Market has received free space for many years and in the planning for the City Hall Annex, there is discussion of providing a permanent space. He also expressed concern that the County was not being asked for funds since the majority of the participants do not live in the city. He stated the city is not in a position to fund new projects with the exception of Jumping Mouse which has received funds in the past as Bergita House and serves needy children of the city. He added it is imperative we prioritize streets as an essential service. Mr. Youse expressed agreement with Mr. Finnie and Mr. Masci. He stated he does not agree that a levy lid lift should be proposed for street funding but if done, proceeds should be allocated for non-essential services and non-profits. Ms. Robinson stated she is pleased to see the final proposal eliminating a new staff position for BCD. She stated she believes the city needs some sort of placeholder for 1- 790, so the money could be transferred to the Street Fund if it is not needed when the issue is resolved at the state level. She stated she would like to maintain a fund balance of 8% and added that she understands that having a double digit fund balance helped our bond rating. She stated the city needs to be very accountable but must put something into street overlay. Ms. Sandoval stated she would have liked to wrestle with street funding this year, but also noted it has not been dealt with for several years. She added that transportation funding is down considerably (over $300,000) because of big cuts in state funding due to voter initiatives. She is worried that if the city provides funding for street overlay this year from fund balance, it will signal the citizens that the council can somehow find the money; she also stated she is uncomfortable taking the $100,000 from fund reserve because of the relationship to the City's bond rating. She added that if the council wishes to investigate cutting funding for non-profits, it should look at all of them rather than singling one out. She expressed unhappiness that the tiering infrastructure matching funds were deleted from the budget as the city is sorely in need of infrastructure. She City Council Special Business Meeting Page 10 December 9, 2002 stated that for the next year, the council must take a hard look at how the city will reach a level of sustainable funding. Ms. Fenn stated that the lost revenue sources have had a large impact on the city. She added there has been a deferral of street funding issues from other councils that is landing in the present council's lap. She said that balancing the budget means balancing many priorities; some people don't want street overlay projects funded, but would rather spend more on arts and non-profits. She believes the Council is charged to come up with something which preserves many of the amenities and services offered by the city, not just the legal bottom line of what we are required to provide. She noted that $200,000 was spent on overlay for San Juan Avenue, a transportation project. She stated she will support the budget but will support is as someone who would prefer not to see the overlay in the budget now but would rather discuss the possible use of banked capacity of levy lid lift next year. She stated that Main Street, EDC have had city funding support for years and they support out and out development and assist specific businesses in addition to the LTAC money used for marketing businesses. She said she believes that agriculture is a key to economic development in our region and the Farmers Market encourages and aids agricultural enterprise. She added that supporting other agencies which attend to the crucial needs of the young will save money down the road in police and social agency costs. Mr. Kolff stated he would have preferred not to transfer money from the general fund to the street fund but would rather go to the voters and see how they feel; he stated that he believes non-profit funding is essential, and believes the budget presented is a reasonable compromise. He noted it is not what each would like to see ideally but feels the compromise addresses the issues in a reasonable manner. Mr. Finnie stated that he will vote against the budget because it does not send the message he wants to send to the community; he simply feels it is not austere enough. Mr. Youse stated that utilities are the most important service provided by the city and streets are particularly important. He added that street maintenance is a basic service and should have priority in funding decisions. Ms. Robinson stated she will reluctantly support the motion. Ms. Sandoval stated she believes this is an austere budget, would still like funding for tiering projects and is reluctant about the $100,000 for streets. Ms. Fenn stated that she would like the council to remember that human infrastructure is important as well as other infrastructure. Mr. Kolff again supported the budget as a reasonable compromise. Vote: the motion carried, 4-3, by voice vote, with Finnie, Masci and Youse opposed. City Council Special Business Meeting Page 11 December 9, 2002 ORDINANCE 2827 AN ORDINANCE FIXING AND ADOPTING 2003 PROPERTY TAX LEVIES Mr. Timmons recommended the Council consider a 1% levy as a minimum effort. He stated that taxes have not been raised for three years, and the modest increase would provide some funding to deal with the contingencies of the budget. Public Comment: A1 Frank stated he could support 1% or 0% but that any increase should be justified. He suggested the council do another advisory ballot in November when the cost is minimal. He asked why the city should be the exception to austerity and stated sustainable funding does not necessarily mean new taxes. Ms. Fenn stated that for the last four years, the City has not even adjusted for inflation so she believes this is a modest increase. Motion: Ms. Fenn moved for first reading of Ordinance 282 7fixing and adopting property tax levies in an amount of l % increase for both general and EMS levies. Mr. Youse said that he thinks property taxes could be reduced. He added that the amount of funding to non-profits shows how much extra money the city really has. Ms. Sandoval noted that the city has the third lowest taxes of all those in the comparable range and would still be low even if the banked capacity were used. She stated that with the huge tourist influx, city services really go to a population greater than 8,500. Just to keep up with the union contracts, small incremental increases are needed. Mr. Finnie stated he believes we should put back the 1-790 funds and would like to see the General Fund balance over $600,000. The amount raised by a 1% tax is modest but a step in the right direction for the fund balance and he will support it. Mr. Youse noted that county residents and tourists should pay their fair share of support for city services. Vote: motion carried, 5-2, with Masci and Youse opposed MODEL CITY BUSINESS AND OCCUPATION (BDO) TAX ORDINANCE Mr. Timmons noted that AWC and Washington cities which currently have provisions for business license taxes have been drafting a uniform model business license tax ordinance to address concerns raised by the business community concerning potential double taxation. This includes situations where sales of products from one manufacturer to another affiliated business in a neighboring city may create the potential for double taxation. There is also a variety of different businesses tax ordinances in the state and City Council Special Business Meeting Page 12 December 9, 2002 AWC and member cities have strongly encouraged all cities to adopt the uniform model to achieve uniformity which would reduce the burden on businesses. Motion: Mr. Youse moved to remand the issue to the Finance Committee. Ms. Sandoval seconded. Public comment None Vote: the motion carried unanimously, 7-0, by voice vote. ADJOURN There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:3 5 p.m. Attest: '~' ' ~'/t' 'k'~ z"~?i'Pamela Kolacy, cM"c~'~''' ~C.~ d.c .... ~ CitY Clerk City Council Special Business Meeting Page 13 December 9, 2002