Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/14/98 TAPE #1569 SPECIAL MEETING CITY COUNCIL MINUTES SEPTEMBER 14, 1998 A Special Meeting of the City Council of the City of Bremerton was called to order in the City Council Chambers, 239 4th Street, Bremerton, Washington, Monday, September 14, 1998, at approximately 7:30 P.M., with Council President David Farr presiding. Coundl members present were Jim Reed, Carlos Montgomery, Carol Arends, Mike Shepherd, John Law, Cecil McConnell, and Wayne Olsen. City Council member Lon Overson was absent. Also present were City Attorney Glenna Malanca and Deputy City Clerk Paula Johnston. The meeting opened with the Pledge of Allegiance led by Council President Farr. President Farr made the following announcements: (1) The City Council held their regular Monthly Study Session prior to this Special Meeting, in the Council Chambers, 5:30 to 7:30 P.M., to discuss an Update on Electric Utility Deregulation with Don McDaniel, Area Manager of the Olympic Division of Puget Sound Energy; and a Gateway Landscaping Presentation by Randy Witt, City Engineer. Paula Johnston, Deputy City Clerk, read the following letters into the record: Dan Zimsen: "Regarding the fluoridation of City water, put it on the ballot! You are coming across like old-fashioned, win-at-any-price, power, politicians. Not the image you want to project. It will eventually get on the ballot. The longer it waits, the worse it gets. If this drags on until February, somebody will get an injunction to stop everything until after the election. Get on with business. Thank you." Gloria Lamb: "If it is true that you would like to dispel talk that the Council has been trying to block citizens from voting on the fluoride issue, then perhaps it would be more sincere sounding to put a stop on quotes such as Carlos Montgomery's comment, "Why should we go around changing the damn law to satisfy a small group of people who don't know what's going on in the world?" What a careless and crass statement to utter! You were quoted by the Sun on 9- 10-98. So much for good intentions! Intelligent human beings keep open minds and seek out new information! Have you not wondered why countries like Sweden, Japan, India, Denmark, Germany, Norway, Australia, New Zealand, Italy. France, and many more have removed fluoride from their systems and banned adding it to their water supplies? They found no correlation between fluoride and cavities. The only people who truly benefit from the widespread use of fluoride for "dental" purposes are the big industries that generate fluoride as a waste product. They not only solve their pollution problems, but make a handsome profit by selling their toxic residues to be eaten, drunk, and spread on teeth by an unsuspecting population governed by gullible officials." TAPE #1569 City Council Special Mtg. Minutes September 14, 1998 Page 2 of 7 Anna M. Laurie: I will not be able to attend your special meeting tonight as a prior commitment conflicts with the meeting time. However, I am hopeful that you will consider this letter in lieu of my live testimony as you consider the issue before you. The decision you face tonight is not about fluoride. It is about the functioning of our system of government and fundamental fairness. As I understand Mr. McConnell's motion, you will decide whether to allow an advisory ballot to be placed on the November ballot, regardless of the fact that the petition drive was unsuccessful in obtaining the requisite number of signatures to be certified. If Mr. McConnell's motion passes, the Bremerton City Council will be passing special legislation for a special interest group that has not proven it represents even 25% of your constituents. The message that special legislation sends to the rest of us is simple: 'Don't follow the rules, don't tell the truth, engage in threats and bullying, and the City Council will give in to your demands and give you special treatment. If you follow the rules, don't expect any favors from your local officials." I would like to review some of the history of this whole issue. First, the City Council almost unanimously passed the resolution to fluoridate the water supply in April 1997 after hours of public testimony and review of stacks of documents. No action was taken by the anti-fluoride groups to legally challenge this action or to start a petition drive until almost a year later. In the meantime, the City moved ahead with installation, and budgeted and spent those necessary funds, Then, late in the game, a lawsuit was started which claimed that the City Council's action was somehow "unlawful." The City defended this lawsuit and used resources of its legal department to rebut the allegations only to have the lawsuit voluntarily dismissed on the eve of trial, because there was nothing there to complain about. As the attorney for the petitioner, Randall Keyes admitted that the City Council had acted properly and so they folded their tents and went away. Unfortunately, the damage and cost was done. In addition to this frivolous lawsuit, the anti-fluoride group also sponsored a petition drive which gathered enough signatures to be certified but which was struck down by a Washington State Superior Court judge as containing improper language. The actual language of the petition did not follow the state-mandated law, and as such, the entire petition was tainted. The anti- fluoride group started over. Their second petition drive was done with some dispatch. Remember though, the time crunch was one of their own doing. They had over 15 months from April of 1997 to September of 1998 and still didn't get it right. The anti-fluoride group provided false information to the Sun as to the time frames involved in an apparent effort to create pressure for an expedited review of their petition. The tactic almost worked, but the most recent petition was not certified by the Kitsap County Auditor, as it did not have suffident number of qualified signatures. It wasn't even dose. The statements to the Sun was not their first mis-statement of the truth as can be seen from the various letters to the paper indicating that the cost of the fluoridation would be millions of dollars when the truth is that it will cost less than $300,000 according to the mayors own TAPE #1569 City Council Special Mtg. Minutes September 14, 1998 Page 3 of 7 numbers. During this entire time, the anti-fluoride group has also involved itself in threatening behavior, personal insults, and an assault on a community member. As Rod Johnson indicated last week to you, these kinds of behaviors have no place in a civilized community. He was right. Now, as a reward for their misbehavior and bullying tactics, the anti-fluoride group has somehow convinced five members of this Council to call an unprecedented special meeting to pass an unprecedented legislation putting the issue on the November ballot. The ballyhoo has been that the costs of a special election should not be foisted upon the City. If we examine the costs incurred by the City in responding to the frivolous lawsuit and in going ahead with the installation, the small cost of a special ballot seems minimal. Regardless of anyone's feelings on whether the water supply should be fluoridated, a more important issue is before you. How does government work? Is it the province of special interests and favoritism, or is it a system of rules and procedures that define the rights of al citizens. Will we have a government that "spot" zones for squeaky wheels and "spot" legislates for those who do not follow the rules? Only you can answer that question tonight." 2A- FLUORIDATION OF BREMERTON'S MUNICIPAL WATER SUPPLY; RESOLUTION NO. 2671 PLACING THE PROPOSITION TO FLUORIDATE THE WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON ON THE NOVEMBER 3, 1998 ELECTION, #AB98-209 In an effort to provide the opportunity to the qualified voters of the City to express their views on the proposed fluoridation of the City's water supply in an expeditious manner, City Council is to consider placing this issue on the November 3, 1998 election. Mr. McConnell asked for clarification on the meaning of an "advisory vote", why it is needed in the City, and what would happen to the initiative drive regardless of the outcome of the November election. Ms. Malanca, City Attorney, pointed out that the Special Meeting tonight is to hear the proposal for an "Advisory Election" to occur in November. The City Council is not authorized to delegate its legislative authority to the people; and the people do not give up their initiative powers, which are granted by the State. Only the people, through the presentation of a certified initiative petition, can bring a true initiative to a vote in this community. The City Council does have the authority to request an advisory vote of the people on an issue under consideration. The true initiative petition would not occur until February, regardless of what happens with the advisory vote. Karen Flynn, Kitsap County Auditor, provided approximated costs for a Fluodde Ballot Measure as follows: Total estimated election cost for the November Election is $220,000; Estimated portion for the City of Bremerton would be $8,000; Total estimated cost for the February Special Election would be $150,000; with an estimated portion for the City of Bremerton would be $11,000. TAP E #1569 City Council Special Mtg. Minutes September 14, 1998 Page 4 of 7 Another scenario in February, without the ballot measure from Kitsap County, the total estimated cost for the February Special Election would go down to $96,000; with the estimated portion for the City of Bremerton going up to $16,000. She concluded her report by providing her experience with ballot measures, and requests for special treatment. She explained that there is set-forward in law, a method for providing citizens the opportunity to vote. When there are pressures to change the process for one reason or another, there is the danger of mistakes being made, as well as the possibility of lawsuits from citizens on "the other side" of a measure claiming that the Auditor did not follow the letter of the law. Due to these, and many other possible complications, it is her advice, as well as the advice from attorney's who work for the County, that the law must be followed according to the mandate of the people. It was also pointed out that an advisory ballot in November still leaves the measure to be decided again in February if the citizens decide they want that. Mr. MontGomery stated that the report provided by Ms. Flynn answered many of his questions. He concluded that if $8,000 was going to be paid in November for an advisory vote, and the required signatures were still obtained, a second vote would happen in February anyway, and the City would then have to pay an additional $11,000. Rod Johnson, Acting President for Citizens for Safe Water, thanked the City Council for their concerns regarding this manner. He stated his group wants to do what is "right" and not what is "popular." They want to vote on a proposed ordinance, not an advisory vote, and only want to vote once, not twice on the same matter. Signatures are still being gathered, and will be ready to turn in by the end of the week. It will save the taxpayers money to wait until February. Noray Larson stated she has been a hygienist for 50 years, and also provided her input as to the positive affects of fluoride. She also pointed out to those gathering signatures, that they must only get signatures from registered voters. E.L. Sturdivant, Bremerton resident, felt the City had nothing to lose by placing this issue on an Advisory Ballot. He also suggested the idea of making fluoride available for free, at the dentist office, for those who wanted it, rather than putting it in the water and subjecting everyone to it whether they wanted it or not. John Becker asked what the Council was going to do with the results of an Advisory vote. Ms. Malanca stated that from a legal standpoint, Council is not bound by this Advisory vote, since it is only advisory input for the Council to consider. She further stated that only the people have initiative power, and the City Council cannot delegate their legislative authority to the people. Only the people can bring a true initiative to a vote. The City Council can request input with an Advisory vote. TAPE #1569 City Council Special Mtg. Minutes September 14, 1998 Page 5 of 7 Rod Johnson felt that if it comes down to choosing between the Advisory vote or the Initiative vote, they would rather see the Initiative process go forward, which would be the will of the people, and save taxpayers money. Elizabeth Buell felt it would save the City money to put the issue on the ballot in February. Ruth Natividad stated it would cause more confusion to put this to the ballot twice, and favored seeing it only in February. Moll Dietz brought up the issue of citizens who have City water but will not be able to vote on the issue due to not living within the City limits. Ms. Malanca stated that those citizens are able to provide input as a water utility customer only, since State law will prevent them from voting on the issue. Jim Hopkins wanted clarification on the deadlines discussed by Ms. Flynn. Ms. Malanca stated the correct number of signatures not only has to be gathered and turned in, they also have to be filed with the petition and certified with the County. This process could not all be accomplished by the deadline on Friday to get the Initiative on the November ballot. Paul Drnievic felt an Advisory vote would be futile, and not cost effective. He also requested more details of the "assault" referred to in Anna Laurie's letter. Mr. Montgomery wanted to clarify that in a previous meeting he did not call Mr. Drnjevic a "liar, he simply wanted to know where Mr. Drnjevic got the quote he was mistakenly attributing to Mr. Montgomery. Earl Nelson asked if the Advisory vote passes, would Council follow the wishes of the people. Ms, Malanca felt it was not appropriate for Council to comment on how they might vote on an issue until it was presented to them. Virgil Elkington referred to a class he took a few years ago where he thoroughly studied the fluoride issue. Statistically, he found that when the fluoride issue was put to a vote of the people, it was voted out 75% of the time. When it was to be decided by City officials, they voted it in. He suggested the City purchase fluoride pills, instead of using the $8,000 for an Advisory vote, and then hand out the pills only to those individuals who want fluoride. Lauralee Hanson felt it did not make sense to vote on this issue as advisory only, and that it would be more responsible and fair to wait until February. Norma Smith wanted clarification about citizens who receive their water from the City of Bremerton, but do not live within the City limits. Ms. Malanca stated that TAPE #1569 City Council Special Mtg. Minutes September 14, 1998 Page 6 of 7 citizens in the same situation can communicate their wishes to the Council, and can get involved gathering signatures, or assisting in that process, but will not be able to vote on the issue according to State law. Susan Brown stated she supported what Mr. McConnell was trying to accomplish, but now that it has been explained that this is only an Advisory vote, she did not feel that the Coundl could be trusted to follow the wishes of that vote. Gloria Lamb felt the petition vote in February was the only way to go. Charlie Brown stated Mr. Montgomery owes the City of Bremerton an apology. Mr. McConnell stated when he initiated this process for a Special Meeting, he was not informed that the City Coundl only had the authority for an Advisory vote. If he had known, he probably wouldn't have went through the effort. However, he was glad to see the citizens come down and say don't waste the City's money, because that is what he was trying to accomplish anyway. He referred to the number of citizens who came on a regular basis to the City Council meetings, asking to vote on this issue, and who gave the impression they did not want to wait until February. He appreciated the turnout of citizens tonight, and agreed with the citizens that the $8,000 for an Advisory vote would be a waste of money. Mr. Law agreed with Mr. McConnell, and felt that as long as the ctizens who spoke here tonight were comfortable with waiting until February, that was fine with him. He just wanted to make sure the public had the opportunity to vote. He made the observation that maybe the other proposal to be heard tonight would not have been presented if this Special Meeting had not been called. Mrs. Arends stated that she has never had a problem with the people voting on this issue, and felt it was entirely appropriate. Her concern with an Advisory vote was the possibility of a 50-50 outcome, and no matter what Council did, it probably wouldn't please a majority of the people. She favored the vote in February because it was a vote of the people, and even if one side won by only 1 vote, it would be legal and binding, and be the "law of the land". Mr. Shepherd stated that he appreciated the turnout of citizens tonight, and complimented both Mr. McConnell and Mr. Farr for their proposals. He thanked the citizens for the clear direction they have provided Council. Mr. Reed reminded citizens that not all of the present Councilmen were on the City Council when the fluoride issue was first proposed. He further stated that regardless of his own personal views on fluoddation, he always felt the dtizens who are affected by the issue should have the right to vote. He also felt there TAPE #1569 City Council Special Mtg. Minutes September 14, 1998 Page 7 of 7 were two very important things happening tonight, one was to get the fluoride issue on the ballot, whether in November or February. Secondly, his dislike for the assumed "heavy-handed, we-know-better attitude of politicians, and pointed out that two long-term City Councilmen took action to listen to the citizens, and be more sensitive to their desires, and their intent should be commended. Mr. Montgornery repeated his comment quoted in the Sun by Tim Christy, "Why should we go around changing the damn law to satisfy a small group of people who don't know what in the world is going on", and he stands by it. He expressed how important it was for citizens to come to Council meetings and voice their opinions. Mr. McConnell wanted to clarify that he was not trying to change a law. Ms. Malanca concurred with that. No Motion was made. 2A - FLUORIDATION OF BREMERTON'S MUNICIPAL WATER SUPPLY: MOTION TO CEASE THE IMPLEMENTATION OF FLUORIDATION. #AB98- 210 Due to the strong public interest in fluoridation of the City's water distribution system, cease implementation of fluoridation until a February 1999 Special Election initiative vote of the people can be obtained. Public comment - none. #2932 MISICIU(Arends/McConnell) Motion to cease the implementation of fluoridation if and until a special election results from initiative petition on this issue. President Farr thanked Robert Neal, Director and Production Coordinator, and the TV camera crew for their services. With no further business meeting adjourned at 8:45 P.M. City of Bremerton PJ/DF/Is C: Normal Distribution FileNault