HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/10/98
TAPES #1580
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
NOVEMBER 10, 1998
The regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Bremerton was called to
order in the City Council Chambers, 239 4th Street, Bremerton, Washington,
Tuesday, November 10, 1998, at 5:30 P.M., with Council President David Farr
presiding. Council members present were Jim Reed, Carlos Montgomery, Carol
Arends, Mike Shepherd, Lon Overson, John Law, Cecil McConnell, and Wayne
Olsen. 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,
and invocation given by Council member Carol Arends.
President Farr made the following announcements:
(1) The City Council held a Study Session prior to the meeting tonight, to
discuss general Council Business;
(1) Following the Council meeting tonight, there will be a Study Session to
discuss the 1999/2000 Budget, in the Council Conference Room; and
(1) City Council will hold a 45-minute Executive Session on Thursday,
November 12, 4:45 P.M. in the Council Conference Room, followed by a
Study Session to discuss the 1999/2000 Budget.
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Minutes of Meeting - October 28, 1998 #AB98-249
#0034 M/S/C/U (McConnell/Montgomery) Motion to approve the Consent
Agenda as presented.
CLAIMS/CHECK REGISTERS
Vouchers audited and certified by the auditing officer as required by RCW
42.24.080, and those expense reimbursement claims certified as required by
RCW 42.24.090, have been recorded on a listing that had been made available
to the Council.
#0060 MISICIU (Montgomery/Arends) On November 10, 1998, the Council does
approve for payment those vouchers included and further described as follows:
225336 and 225374 through 225467 in the amount of $170,999.53; and Regular
Payroll in the amount of $914,785.82 for the period ending October 31, 1998.
COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS
Mrs. Arends provided a brief report on the Gateway project, and added it seems
to be moving along on schedule.
TAPE #1580
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
November 10, 1998
Page 2 of 7
Mr. Shepherd reported on a "Livable Communities Fair" he attended in Seattle
over the weekend. He also announced the next District 5 Neighborhood meeting
to be held Thursday, November 19, 1998 at 6:30 P.M. at the Memorial Lutheran
Church at 10th & Veneta. The Program will include a presentation on Block
Watch; an awards ceremony for Larry Dickerson; and a discussion on
Emergency Preparedness.
Mr. Overson reported on the United States Roller Hockey team, and reminded
the public that 6 of the 10-member team are from the Bremerton area. On
Sunday they defeated South Africa 11-1; on Monday they tied with England 3-3;
and this evening they are playing Angola.
Mr. Law thanked all the people who called him and sent cards showing concern
about his health this past week.
President Farr reported it was nice to be back after a recent trip to the
Washington Coast.
LEGISLATIVE ASSISTANT REPORT
A response was provided to a list of questions asked by Del Knauss at the
October 28, 1998 City Council meeting: 1) What is the cost for sidewalk
improvements, bulb outs and lights along Burwell Street? Approximately
$594,000, which also includes the cost of landscaping and storm drainage
adjustments required for the bulb outs. The total contract cost for the Burwell
Street improvements is currently $1,194,000. On this stage of work, all
construction costs, including construction management, are being paid for by a
combination of Federal Highway Administration and State Transportation
Improvement Board funds. There are no City Arterial Street Funds being used
for this stage of work. City funds will be used in future stages. 2) Will this
Council take steps to change the Council Rules & Procedures to stop Council
from taking action on initiative items that are on the ballot? Per the City Attorney,
RCW 42.17.130(1 ) permits elected legislative bodies to consider and vote upon
ballot propositions. The action of the Council must be structured as required by
that statute. The City Council is considering whether to address Council Rules
with clarifications and updates involving several of the provisions. The Council
would likely consider the Public Recognition Rule, and addressing ballot
propositions during a review. It is a policy decision for the Council to make. 3) Is
the parking lot behind City Hall supposed to be used for political campaigning
since it is City property? The response to this question assumes that the issue is
the presence of campaign signs in Council Member(s) private vehicles parked in
the City parking lot. Again, the relevant statute is RCW 42.17.130, which
prohibits any public official or public employee from using public facilities to
further a campaign or ballot issue. Since the signs are within the private property
of the Council member, there is no cost or involvement of the City, and the
TAPE #1580
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
November 10, 1998
Page 3 of 7
private vehicle is only temporarily in the City parking lot, it appears there is no
violation of the code. 4) Since the County is trying to find a way to set the
Commissioners pay and have rulings and advice from the Attorney General,
doesn't the Council feel they should get higher legal advice? The City has
reviewed the issues with Municipal Research on several occasions within the last
two years. The City has determined to alter its process in order to eliminate any
possible concern relating to the setting of the City Council's salaries. The City
believes the issue to be resolved. 5) When will the City know whether tax share
from the County is going to be severely low, and what steps are being taken to
cover any shortfall? The 1999~2000 preliminary budget shortfall has been made
up by a combination of reducing supplies and services as well as some minor
reduction in staffing which was achieved through attrition and not layoffs.
8A - MOTION TO AMEND THE LODGING TAX ADVISORY COMMITTEE
MEMBERSHIP, #AB98-250
Resolution No. 2666, section 1 states "...in the event a member becomes
incapacitated...the member's organization may appoint a designee to
serve... until the City Council appoints a new member." Due to the passing of Mr.
Russell Nickerson, Mr. Lyle Nelson has been requested by the Bremerton Naval
Museum to represent their interests. Mr. Nelson has been serving in this
capacity since August 1998. It is recommended that the City Council appoint Mr.
Nelson to the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee by Motion.
Mrs. Arends, Chairman of the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee, stated that Mr.
Nickerson was a valued member of the Committee, and a very brave person who
continued to serve even when seriously ill. After his passing, Mr. Lyle Nelson
replaced him on the Committee, and has also done an excellent job. She
recommends Council pass this Resolution.
Mr. Law added that he has known Mr. Nelson for a number of years, and
believes he will be an asset to the Committee.
#0390 MISICIU (Montgomery/Arends) Motion to approve the appointment of Mr.
Lyle Nelson and amend the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee membership.
9A - ORDINANCE (FIRST READING) LEVYING PROPERTY TAXES FOR
COLLECTION IN 1999, #AB98-251
The City's property taxes are levied on an annual basis through passage of an
ordinance. The proposed ordinance will implement a general property tax levy at
the statutory rate limit and special levies for EMS and bond redemption at rates
previously authorized by the voters. The State Department of Revenue, via the
County Assessor's Office has provided the language of the ordinance, in order to
comply with the provisions of Referendum 47.
TAP E #1580
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
November 10, 1998
Page 4 of 7
Rich Hanna, City Treasurer, explained that this is the first of two ordinances
required under Referendum 47 to levy up to the 106 Levy Limit. With a passage
by a simple majority of Council, this ordinance levies up to the first threshold
limitation on the City's authority to levy property taxes, which is limited to 1998
property tax revenue, plus a percentage increase equal to the change in the
Implicit Price Deflator (IPD). This is a measure of inflation similar to the CPI, but
at a more conservative rate, which is .85 percent. Passage of this ordinance will
levy property taxes up to that limit.
Mr. McConnell was under the impression that the tax levy rate was going to be
the same as last year, so he questioned the .85 percent increase. Mr. Hanna
explained the limitation under Referendum 47 is not the only one of the limits that
State Law places upon the ability of the City to levy property taxes. The other
constraint is the State Statute placing an absolute limit on the maximum rate that
a City is allowed to levy, which for Bremerton, would be $3.325 per thousand
dollars of assessed valuation. Presently, the City is at that limit for 1998. The
new preliminary assessed value numbers received from the County Assessor
show that the assessed valuation for the City may actually go down.
Mr. Law asked if a person's property remained at the same assessed value,
there would not be any difference in the tax that individual would pay?. Mr.
Hanna stated that as far as what the City would levy, that was correct, but he
reiterated that the City is only one of a multitude of tax entities allowed to levy
property taxes.
Mr. Reed asked why the City was proposing this ordinance, and what would
happen in the event this ordinance does not pass? He also wanted to know if the
City was adding the increase because it is allowable or just because the City
wants to levy all it could? Mr. Hanna responded this ordinance is the Legislative
action, which levy's property taxes for 1999, and the City cannot tax without it.
The increase is being added because it is allowable, and the City wants to levy
all that it can, which is the way the ordinance is worded.
#0656 M/SIC (Montgomery/Arends) Motion to approve ordinance (first reading)
levying property taxes for collection in 1999.
Vote on Motion: In Favor: Arends, Montgomery, Shepherd, Overson, Law
McConnell, Olsen, Law, Farr
Oppose: Reed
Motion passed.
9B - ORDINANCE (FIRST READING) AUTHORIZING THE LEVY OF
PROPERTY TAXES AT A RATE IN EXCESS OF THE INCREASE IN THE
IMPLICIT PRICE DEFLATOR, #AB98-252
TAP E #1580
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
November 10, 1998
Page 5 of 7
The requirements of Referendum 47, passed by the voters of the State in 1997,
require that the City Council pass by super-majority a separate action stating
their intention to levy property taxes at a rate greater than the change in the
Implicit Price Deflator, IPD. For 1999 taxes, the change in the IPD is .85%. If this
ordinance is not passed by a vote of at least 6-3, the growth of future tax levies
will be limited by this rate of change.
Rich Hanna, City Treasurer, explained that this was the second of the two
ordinances required under Referendum 47 to levy up to the 106 percent Levy
Limit. He further explained that because the City is currently at the statutory
maximum for property tax levies, the effect of the passage or non-passage of this
ordinance on the 1999 property tax revenue is zero. The only advantage in
passing this ordinance is that the City will reserve that authority to "cover" the
balance of that 6% increase in some future year should the assessed valuation
begin to increase rapidly. In his opinion, this is not very likely to occur; however,
it is a decision to be made by the City Council.
Elizabeth Buell asked for clarification on the definition of the "Implicit Price
Deflator". Mr. Hanna stated that it is a measure of inflation, similar to the
Consumer Price Index. He explained the affect of this ordinance is to increase
the property tax revenue to the City from the current .85% increase over the 1998
revenue level (:which is approximately $4 million) to a maximum of a 6% increase
over the 1998 revenue to the City.
Mr. McConnell asked which year this tax levy would apply, and would it be
reserved for a one-time use, or used each and every year. In order to help
explain what would happen, if the City passed both ordinances this year, Mr.
Hanna gave a hypothetical example. If in the year 2000, the City's assessed
valuation increased by 20% over 1999, the City would be constrained by the
change in the IPD, with the passage of the first ordinance, but could increase the
property tax revenue to the City up to a maximum of 6% with the passage of the
second ordinance. There would be an additional 6% carried forward from 1999
that the City was not able to use, and could now use at the Council's discretion.
However, if the ordinance does not pass, the City would be able to increase
property tax revenue up to 6% over 1999, but no further.
Mr. Law asked if this only goes back two years, or is this 106% accumulative
back to 1985. Mr. Hanna explained that the statute says "... of the highest
amount of regular property taxes that could have been lawfully levied in the City
in any year since 1985", but in practical terms, 1998 was the City's largest
allowable levy in that time span. It is a one-time 6%. Mr. Overson felt that the
Treasurer would not propose this ordinance if it was not in the best interest to the
City, but also noted that City Council passes the actual levy amount, not the rate,
each year. This ordinance is not changing anything currently, but simply
TAPE #1580
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
November 10, 1998
Page 6 of 7
provides the authority to change it, if it would benefit the City.
#1315 M/SIC (Montgomery/Overson) Motion to approve ordinance (first reading)
limiting the City's levy increase to 106% of the 1998 levy.
Vote on Motion: In Favor: Shepherd, Arends, Montgomery, Overson, Farr
Oppose: Reed, Olsen, McConnell, and Law
Motion failed.
10A - PUBLIC HEARINGS ON ORDINANCE ('FIRST READING) FOR
SHERIDAN HEIGHTS ANNEXATION 75% PETITION, #AB98-253
A legally sufficient petition, representing 75-percent of assessed value of real
property within the Sheridan Heights area, has been secured. The area
proposed to be annexed has been modified by staff to represent not only an area
represented by sufficient signatures, but an area that complies with the state
requirements for annexation. A public hearing shall be held before City Council,
in accordance with RCW 35.13.140. Any interested persons may appear and
voice either approval or disapproval for this annexation.
Following the hearing the Legislative body must approve the ordinance annexing
the area as proposed and establishing land-use designations on the first reading
and pass it on the second reading; or reject the annexation.
Terrie O'Neill, Municipal Services Coordinator, stated approximately 400 people
live in the 80 acres that make up this area, which contains dense population, as
well as opportunities for development within the City.
Larry Branch and E.L. Sturdivant were in attendance at the meeting, and
spoke in favor of the annexation. Christopher & Susan Bell sent an e-mail
voicing their support. Janice Smith lives adjacent to the proposed annexation
area, and felt strongly that her area should be included.
Mr. Reed asked what dictates the boundaries for an annexation. Ms. O'Neill
explained that there is a list of criteria contained in the State statute, which define
what can and cannot be annexed. In addition, there must be 75% of the
assessed value based on the County. For now, this was the largest petition area
that could be done while keeping in compliance with the State.
#1733 M/S/C/U (Montgomery/OIsen) Motion to approve ordinance (first reading)
annexing the area known as Sheridan Heights and fixing the effective date of
annexation.
10B - PUBLIC HEARINGS ON ORDINANCE (FIRST READING) FOR CAMP
McKEAN ANNEXATION 75% PETITION. #AB98-254
TAPE #1580
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
November 10, 1998
Page 7 of 7
A legally sufficient petition, representing 75-percent of assessed value of real
property within the Camp McKean area, has been secured. A public hearing
shall be held before City Council, in accordance with RCW 35.13.140. Any
interested persons may appear and voice approval or disapproval for this
annexation.
Following the hearing the Legislative body must approve the ordinance annexing
the area as proposed and establishing land-use designations on the first reading
and pass it on the second reading; or reject the annexation.
Terrie O'Neill, Municipal Services Coordinator, stated the Department of the
Navy owns this area. She explained the difference between this annexation and
the previous annexation, is that this is going to be by "default zone", which
means that zoning has been assigned administratively and there will be a review
in 60 days. This is because the use will remain the same, which is a park and
recreation facility.
(Councilman John Law left the Council Meeting at 6:15 P.M.)
#1900 MISICIU (Montgomery/Overson) Motion to approve ordinance (first
reading) annexing the area known as Camp McKean and fixing the effective date
of annexation.
With no further business, meeting adjourned at 6:25 P.M.
City of Bremerton
PJ/DF/Is
cc: Normal Distribution
FileNault