Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10142002MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL SESSION OF OCTOBER 14, 2002 The City Council of the City of Port Townsend met in regular session this fourteenth day of October 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 Kees Kolff, Freida Fenn, Geoff Masci, Catharine Robinson, Michelle Sandoval and Joe Finnie. Mr. Youse was excused. Staff members present were City Manager David Timmons, City Attorney John Watts, Public Works Director Ken Clow, and Operations Manager Water-Fleet-Facilities Bob LaCroix. Legal Assistant Bobbie Usselman recorded the minutes. CHANGES TO THE AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. BUSINESS ITEMS RESOLUTION 02-048 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND, WASHINGTON AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN A SISTER CITY AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND AND THE CITY OF ICHIKAWA, JAPAN Mayor Kolff introdUced the resolution and related the history of the Sister City Program. He stated in 2001 Resolution 01-045 was passed authorizing the Mayor to sign a Sister City Agreement but that the Agreement had not yet been created. The Agreement has now been created for approval prior to the upcoming visit to Ichikawa, Japan. Because the Mayor and Deputy Mayor will be away from the city at the same time, Mayor Kolff indicated that a deputy mayor pro tem will be elected at the next council meeting. There was no public comment on this resolution. Motion: Ms. Fenn moved to adopt Resolution 02-048. Ms. Robinson seconded. Vote: the motion carried unanimously, 6-0, by voice vote. CONFIRMATION OF MAYOR APPOINTMENTS Mayor Kolff stated he failed to give two weeks' notice prior to proposing the appointments would like to withdraw his recommendation that appointments be made tonight. He stated appointments will be brought forward again in two weeks. City Council Special Business Meeting Page 1 October 14, 2002 PORT TOWNSEND WATER SERVICE AREA BOUNDARY DETERMINATION Public Works Director Ken Clow gave a presentation concerning the water service area boundary determination. He indicated this discussion is a continuation of two prior meetings, one of June 3, 2002, and a special meeting on June 6, 2002. This topic was taken to the General Government Committee that met on September 12, and the Committee is forwarding its recommendation to full council for approval. He stated the new water service area boundary was developed utilizing the following guidelines: 1) include those parcels currently served by the City water system; 2) include those parcels not currently served that would logically be served in the future (in-fill); and 3) include those areas necessary to complete (loop) the existing system to provide safe, reliable service. Mr. Clow described how to read the Proposed Water Service Area map included in the council packet. The map now includes Port Townsend Paper Mill in the water service area. The mill has no problem being included in the water service area map under the guidelines of their agreement with the City. The agreement states the mill is precluded from selling water to third party customers. There was further discussion conceming the different areas included in the proposed water service area, including zoning issues and future residences to be builtout. Projected water usage was estimated based upon current records of the Finance Department and estimates of future residences. It was also stated that current customers outside the city limits are included in the water service area. Mr. Clow stated an analysis of the areas to be added to the water service area was made to determine the projected water usage of the area, if fully developed based on adopted zoning/land use standards. Including estimated added demand, an estimated increase in water demand is 9%. He indicated that since the City's ability to provide water within the water service area is based on current zoning/land use standards, any changes to those standards would require the City to reevaluate its ability to service those areas under any new standards. Mayor Kolff stated the minutes from the General Government Committee meeting had been included in a prior packet but the minutes did not give specific details of discussions other than the Committee supported this map. Councilors asked questions related to different areas of the water service area map and future usage based on possible future buildouts, and the effect it will have on the City's water plan. Mr. Clow indicated the City has not authorized water additions outside our water service area for at least six years. Public Comment: City Council Special Business Meeting Page 2 October 14, 2002 Nancy Dorgan opposed action on the service area until the County Comprehensive Plan amendment process is completed. Allen Frank wanted to know if any Councilmember has had discussions having to do with real estate transactions, etc., regarding the water issue. Motion: Mr. Masci moved that the Council endorse the General Government Committee Recommendation with amendments to exclude area 3 and include the green hatched area. Seconded by Mr. Finnie. Mr. Masci, chair of the General Government Committee, stated the issue has been outstanding for over 14 months and staffhas clarified all questions; this is now a housekeeping issue which is long overdue. He stated that the committee studied the map in great detail, including descriptors of each area. Ms. Fenn wanted more details of the Committee discussion and suggested a workshop with the PUD; she stated there are many outstanding water issues and budgetary impacts to consider, including whether the city will run out of water. Ms. Robinson stated the water system plan is effective until 2004 and will then be reviewed. Mr. Finnie asked Mr. Watts his opinion whether recommended changes to the service area would sustain a challenge by the Western Washington Hearings Board that there is a lack of compelling reason to be making these changes. Mr. Watts commented the Coordinated Water System Plan and City Water Plan do not specify a process for amending the map. This is the first step in the process governed by state law that says that ultimate determination of logical service boundaries for water is based on engineering guidelines and that the system goes through the WAT process. If Council wanted to, it could have a workshop, public hearing or whatever, but that could result in an action that would be considered by additional bodies. Mr. Finnie stated that we could adopt this map and the county could change the zoning and it would have to be reviewed again. Mr. Watts stated the City's establishment of a water service area subject to the county and state doesn't obligate the City to build infrastructure. If the county upzones, the City Engineer would need to review and respond. Ms. Sandoval asked about prescriptive easements as to water and Mr. Watts indicated prescriptive easements do not apply. She was also concerned about the hypothetical if the mill closed and zoning changed to residential, how would we provide for those residential units. Mr. Clow stated the mill uses 14 million gallons/day and the City uses 80,000 gallons/day. No one uses as much water as the mill. City Council Special Business Meeting Page 3 October 14, 2002 Vote: the motion failed, 3-3, by voice vote with, Finnie, Masci and Kolff in favor and Fenn, Sandoval and Robinson against. Ms. Sandoval stated she was not theoretically opposed but would like to see the descriptors Mr. Masci referred to earlier. She would also like to specify that if the City provides water service in the county, that the City has a voice during County discussions regarding zoning changes. Motion: Ms. Sandoval moved to bring this issue forward after further review and consider the proposal again in a couple of weeks. The motion died for lack of a second Motion: Ms. Fenn moved to take up this issue again in January after contacting the State Office of Community Development to provide information to the Council. The motion died for lack of a second Motion: Mr. Finnie moved to bring this issue back to Council in two weeks. Mr. Masci seconded Mayor Kolff suggested the motion be amended to come back in one month. There was no objection to the amendment. Vote: The motion carried 5-1, by voice vote, Fenn opposed RECESS Mayor Kolffcalled a recess for purposes of a break at 8:00 p.m. RECONVENE The meeting was reconvened at 8:10 p.m. RESOLUTION 02-046 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND WASHINGTON, AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO COMMUNICATE WITH THE U.N., SECRETARY GENERAL, PRESIDENT BUSH AND WASHINGTON STATE'S CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATION AND THE MAYORS OF HIROSHIMA AND NAGASAKI, JAPAN REGARDING PORT TOWNSEND'S SUPPORT FOR A BAN ON THE PRODUCTION AND USE OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS Ms. Fenn introduced this resolution giving background of her personal experiences as an activist for nuclear disarmament. She indicated she was taking Council time on this issue because it is an act of conscience and an act of leadership. Mayor Kolff stated Ms. Fenn's intention was taking this resolution to Hiroshima, not to Ichikawa. Public Comment: City Council Special Business Meeting Page 4 October 14, 2002 James Fritz: The idea of universal nuclear disarmament is a wonderful concept, but he opposes the call for worldwide disarmament unless a verifiable system is in place that guarantees everyone does away with weapons and there is no capability of building new weapons. Carl Anderson: Mr. Anderson spoke in opposition, noting that these issues seem to come from activists in this town who have more time than the average hard working citizen to attend meetings and write letters. He suggests the people who propose it put it on the ballot and see where the vote goes. Marilyn Muller: Ms. Muller spoke in favor of the resolution, noting that this council has recognized world issues by sister city programs. Leola Armstrong: spoke in opposition to the resolution, stating that the Council was elected to deal with the problems of Port Townsend, not to deal with world affairs. Don Fristoe: stated that police protection, fire protection, water, streets, sewers, libraries, parks, policies and zoning are the types of needs and services the Council was elected to deal with. As a taxpayer he urged the Council to confine their business to city issues. Tim Arthur: asked Council to stick to local issues, stated this is not the appropriate venue to voice these concerns and although he appreciates the need to voice such concerns, this is not the appropriate venue and passing the resolution will not improve the community. Joey Pipia: Believes Council should be looking at national and international issues, and supports this resolution. Allen Frank: Mr. Frank brings forward facts he found to dispute statements made by Ms. Fenn at the August 1 meeting concerning the protest at the Omaha SAC operations. He stated few among us are against peace but believes the Council should focus on parking, streets, jobs, and economy. Jerry Chawes: stated he is a WW II veteran, saw the aftermath of the bombings and believes it is the business of the Council. He has concerns about the naval magazine across the bay and supports the resolution. Michael Ridgeway: He urged the Council to vote against the resolution. He believes many more people would have died if troops had been sent into Japan; the bomb saved lives. He added this is a federal policy issue and believes the Council should take care of local business. Mayor Kolff stated he would have preferred to have more time within the community to discuss this issue. He suggested making the resolution more concise by eliminating "Whereas" clauses 2 through 6 and possibly adding the word "multi-lateral" before "ban"in the title and before "nuclear disarmament" in the Now Therefore paragraph. City Council Special Business Meeting Page 5 October 14, 2002 Ms. Robinson agrees we need to work for global disarmament, but stated that her responsibility to the electorate is to govern Port Townsend to the best of her ability. is not prepared to support the resolution tonight. She Mr. Masci spoke in opposition, stating he is tired of spending time arguing these idealist proposals. He said that the Council would do well to refocus on the City's essential needs. Mr. Finnie stated his categorical opposition to the resolution for philosophical and pragmatic reasons. He is tired of spending Monday nights on these issues, issues that were not on anyone's platform. He would like to bring the vote forward but would like to be released from any more global issues. Ms. Fenn stated it is apparent the resolution will not pass tonight. She stated she will bring it up as an advisory board issue for next year. While in Hiroshima she will visit the peace museum and at the office of the mayor will explore bringing educational information before Council prior to next time. No motion was made and no action is required. RESOLUTION 02-047 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND, WASHINGTON SUPPORTING OR OPPOSING STATE REFERENDUM BILL 51 Mr. Timmons introduced this resolution indicating the City was asked by the Association of Washington Cities (AWC) to consider positions regarding all referendums that have a direct effect on cities. R-51 is a transportation ballot. Two resolutions are including the packet, one for and one against. The funding for R-51 does not come directly to the City of Port Townsend, only to cities with populations over 10,000. However, some funding will be coming to Jefferson County. Mayor Kolff indicated there was no information against R-51 in the Council packet. Ms. Fenn sent an e-mail to all identifying websites and information for and against R-51. Ms. Sandoval and Ms. Robinson attended the R-51 forum and heard both the pros and cons of the issue. There is money available to smaller cities through a competitive application process. Mr. Masci suggested we allow public comment on R-51 before further discussion. Public Comment: Stephanie Bowman: Ms. Bowman, of the Seattle Chamber of Commerce, helped craft the proposal. She stated R-51 doesn't solve all of the problems but it is a compromise. She stated that Port Townsend will benefit directly by the provision for four new ferries. City Council Special Business Meeting Page 6 October 14, 2002 Allen Frank: He spoke in opposition to R-51, indicating that the $7.7 billion is just a down payment for what will cost between $35-38 billion. He added that additional tax increases would be inevitable. Mr. Masci noted that there are grants for transit, but believes R-51 is heavily weighted for the I-5 corridor. He questioned the percentage of funding that would come to this area. Ms. Sandoval indicated a similar question was asked at the forum. She said because we are a small population, the Puget Sound area is supporting us. There are funds coming for the Hwy. 104 projects, as well as ferries. Ms. Sandoval moved to adopt the resolution FOR R-51. Mr. Finnie seconded Mr. Masci spoke in favor of the resolution although he is concerned about sustainability of the funded projects. Ms. Fenn is concerned this is a partial funding for a long list of projects. She believes too much is going for highway expansion and not enough for mass transit. She will not support the resolution. Mr. Finnie believes it is reasonable to ask citizens to support tax increases to support transportation infrastructure although it seems that Port Townsend will not get proportional benefit. He will vote yes for the resolution. Ms. Sandoval believes she pays her fair share of taxes. She believes we benefit from living in a rural county and the county will receive $400,000 for the Hwy. 104 project. Ms. Robinson's concern about R-51 is that a large part of the money is bond money. She is supportive of transportation infrastructure, but will not support R-51. She believes individuals should make up their own minds, without the council taking a position. Mayor Kolff does not feel inclined to support R-51 regardless of how Port Townsend is affected. It does not fix the I-5 corridor problem and he doesn't believe it is worth the added benefit to us. Vote: Motion failed, 3-3, by voice vote, with Ms. Sandoval, Mr. Masci and Mr. Finnie in favor; Ms. Fenn, Mr. Kolff and Ms. Robinson opposed. 1-776 - LIMITING VEHICLE LICENSE FEES TO $30; 1-790 - CHANGING THE GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE FOR THE LEOFF PLAN 2 PENSION SYSTEM Mr. Timmons presented these initiatives for first touch only. Resolutions for and against along with background information will be brought forward on October 21. Public Comment: City Council Special Business Meeting Page 7 October 14, 2002 Allen Frank: Urged the ouncil to vote yes on 1-776, stating it is the only chance we have to stop the light rail project. Mayor Kolff stated that he attended the AWC regional meeting where 1-776 and 1-790 were discussed, and noted that elected officials were encouraged to bring these issues before their councils. He noted that 1-776 has a small financial impact on the City but 1- 790 has a big impact. Mr. Masci stated when he was mayor he was opposed to the council's adoption of a position on state initiatives. He added, however, that 1-790 does affect the City in a big way. Mayor Kolff moved 1-776 be brought before the next meeting. Mr. Masci seconded Ms, Fenn asked that the motion include consideration of 1-790 at the next meeting. Mr. Timmons stated 1-790 deals with the LEOFF 2 pension system. It would result in a large increase in the mandatory contributions from cities to the system and have a substantial effect on the city. There was no objection to amending the motion. There was no public comment. Vote: the motion (to bring forward both initiatives to the next special meeting) carried unanimously, 6-0, by voice vote. ADJOURN There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:54 p.m. Minutes taken by Bobbie Usselman, Legal Assistant Pamela Kolacy, CMC, City Clerk City Council Special Business Meeting Page 8 October 14, 2002