Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/28/88 1 1 1989 TAPE ~599 UNAPPROVED DRAFT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES DECEMBER 28, 1988 The regular meeting of the City Council of the City o~ Bremerton was called to order in the City Council Chambers, 239 4Th Street, Bremerton, Washington, Wednesday, December 28, 1988, at 5:30 p.m., with Councll President Hank Walbel presiding. Council members present were Lon Overson, Shirley Marty Crutcher, Lynn Horton, Spencer Hornlng, C. R. "Tiny" Colllns, A1 Colvin, Morrie Dawklns, and Russ Johnson. Also present were City Attorney Ian Slevers and City Clerk Kathleen McCIusKey. The meeting opened with the Pledge o~ Allegiance led by Council President Hank Walbel and Invocation was given by Harrison Memorial Hospltal Chaplin Ben Belcher. CONSENT AGENDA A. Minutes o~ Meeting Held - December 14, 1988, ~AB88-301 M/S/C/U(Horning/Crutcher) to approve Consent Agenda as presented. CLAIMS/WARRANT REGISTEKS Vouchers audlted and certl~led Dy the auditing officer as required by RCW 42.~4.080, and those expense reimbursement claims certified as required by RCW 42.24.090, have been recorded on a listing whlch has been made available to the council. ~0032 M/S/C/U(Colvin/Dawkins) on December 28, 1988, the Councll does approve ~or payment those vouchers included and ~urther described as follows: 40532, 40538 through 40603 in the total amount of $114,696.58 COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS Mr. Johnson requested the City Attorney to look into the possibility that the Regional LiDrary Board may have acted inappropriately in leasing library owned property to a private enterprise. I~ inappropriate action had been taken by the llbrary board, then it would affect the land use declsion made by the Clty Councll and ~urther lnvest~gatlon should be made to make sure all actions are within the law. Mr. Colvin commended nls ~ellow Council members, Mayor Lobe, Department Heads and sta~ for their work in helplng to make 1988 a posltlve year. He wished everyone a Happy New Year and many more ~or the days to come. Mr. Dawkins noted the many holiday decorated home around Bremerton ano suggested that next year the Council Districts sponsor a home l~ghtlng contest. He volunteered to provide trophies ~or such an event. Mr. Collins noted D~strlct '/ shone more brightly with lots o~ ~ollday lights this year. He stated he ~elt 1~ the Library Board made a wrong decision in leasing land to private enterprise the City could not be held liable ~or their actions. He wished everyone a Happy New Year. Mr. Overson stated he was looking forward to 1989, however, he ~elt that more demands would be placed on C~ty staff and Clty Council as a group. He noted there are many events planned ~or the new year which will make the year very exciting and he wished everyone a Happy Holiday Season. Mr. Crutcher reported ~e would be working this week in his TAPE ~599 Clty Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December 28, 1988 Page 2 of 11 dlstrlct helping zndlvlduals who are ~n need. He wished everyone a Happy New Year and thanked Councilman Lynn Horton for her contributions, as the newest Council member, this past year. Mrs. Horton thanked fellow Council members for helping making th~s a memorable year. She thanked City staff for making her feel welcome during her first year on the Council and wished everyone a good New Year. Mr. Horning wished everyone a Happy Holiday and related a personal experience he had recently at Harrison Hospital and the kind and compassionate services g~ven Dy Chaplain Ben Belcher at that t~me. Mr. Waibel noted that th~s would be his last meeting for 1988 as Council President and thanked Iellow Council members and staff for making it an eventful year. PUBLIC RECOGNITION Cecil McConnell, President o~ BACON, expressed his concern that the City was allowing something to happen whlch was against previous Council action. He explained that construction work was underway for the day care center on L~brary leased land which was not in accordance with the cond~tlons stipulated by the C~ty Council at the time the Special Use Permit was granted. He requested the C~ty Council to look ~nto the matter. He had contacted the Clty's Englneerlng Department regardlng this matter and they informed him that the conditions previously approved were not safe and they approved a more safe access plan for the day care. Mr. NcConnell noted that the Engineer~ng Department was not aware of ~6 cond~tion which related to no parking slgnage across the street from the proposed day care. President Waibel directed the C~ty Attorney to look ~nto th~s situation. 6A - BREMERTON/KITSAP COUNTY VISITOR & CONVENTION BUREAU PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGKEEM~NT, ~AB88-302 Attached ~s a copy of the 1988 contract with BVCB whlch allows Zor continuance ~n successlve one year ~ncrements at the option o= the C~ty. The Council recently approved 1~9 zund~ng in the amount of $45,000 for the Bureau. M/S/c/U(Colllns/Daw~lns) to approve contract with BVCB for the period January 1, 1989 to December 31, 1989, in the amount of $4b,000 annually. 6B - CHANGE OF CLASSIFICATION DESCRIPTION TO PERSONNEL DIRECTOR'S CONTRACT, ~AB88-303 The classification description for Personnel Director has changed as of November, 19~, and the exhibit to the Personnel Director's contract snould De updated to include thls new description as the exhibit to t~at original contract. Caroline Marshall, ~ersonnel umrector, explamned that the change to her contract included only the removal o~ those dutles and responslbll~tles relatlng to the Cmvll Service Secretary position, which had been previously approve~ Dy Council. M/S/C/U(Crutcher/Horton; to approve change oI classification description to wersonne£ Director's contract. 6C - EXCESSIVE L~AVE CARRYOVER, ~AB88-304 Two City employees nave accumulated and unused vacation hours whlch exceed the maximum allowed ~or carryover from one fiscal year to the next. Both situations result from unusual TAPE ~599 Clty Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December 28, 1988 Page 3 oX 11 circumstances. Caroline Marshall, Personnel Director, DrleZly explained that the two requests ~or carryover were at no ~ault oX the individuals. In the lnstance of Ray Otis, the Personnel Department was responsible ~or the delay in reporting and in the instance o~ Mr. Ratll~, the Police Department required him to work overtime as a 3aller, which kept him ~rom taking the necessary leave. She recommended approving both requests ~or carryover. Ray Otis, Parks Department, Cemetery Caretaker - On January 1, 1987, Mr. Otis' position was moved from the non-represented group to the group represented by Teamsters' Local 589. This change was not properly posted onto the vacation accrual system used by the Clty and as a result, none oX the vacatlon accrued by Mr. Otis slnce January 1, 1987 was re~lected in the Clty's leave balance controls. During 1988, the error was identified and corrected and Mr. Otis has been taking vacation leave as rapldly as possible. At the conclusion oX 198~, 16 hours oX excess leave accrual remain and will require Clty Council action to carry £orward to 1989. C%lnton R~tl~.~, Corrections O~Ilcer/Warrant Server - During the period preceding the closure of the Clty Jail, the Police Department was unable to grant any vacation leave. Mr. Ratli~'s ~ormer Correction O~icer posltlon has been eliminated ~rom the 1989 budget and he has accepted another pOSltlOn oX Warrant Server beginning in 1989. Subsequent to Jail closure on December 10, Mr. Ratll~ has been taklng as much vacatlon leave as possible. At the conclusion o~ 1988, 9 hours o~ excess leave accrual remain and will require Clty Councll approval to carry Iorward to Mr. Hornlnq stated ~e was normally opposed to thls type o~ carryover, however, since it was beyond the control of the individuals he would support the request. M/S/C/U(Colvln/Crutcher) to approve the carry over o~ 16 hours o~ excess unused vacation leave =or Mr. Ray Otls and 9 hours excess unused vacatlon leave ~or Mr. Clinton Katl~ ~rom ~iscal year 1988 with the provlszon excess leave is to be used no later than January 31, 1989. 6D - AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF BREMERTON AND THE BREMERTON PATKOLMAN'S ASSOCIATION, ~AB88-305 Th~s amendment extends the Agreement between t~e City Bremerton Patrolman's Association from June 30, 198'7 through December 31, 1988 and provldes ~or the Iollowlng changes to t~e content of that agreement.: * A 5~ increase to wage rates e~fectlve December 16, 1988. * A cash payment o~ $700.00 in lieu oX retroactlvlty to be pald to all current employees on January 7, 1989. * Kemoval o~ ~our {~; provisions which are outdated and/or established committees no longer desired by the City or the Association. In addition, the City will withdraw an Unfalr Labor Practice complaint ~lled in July 1988 and the City and the Association w~ll cancel interest arbitration o~ ~l~teen {15; outstanding issues whlch were certified for arbitration by the Washington State Public Employment Relations Commission (PERC) in Aprll 1988. Caroline Marshall noted thls amendment brings t~e agreement current up to December 31, 1988, and then they will he bac~ at the bargaining table. TAPE ~599 Clty Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December 28, 1988 Page 4 of 11 Mr. Colvin questioned how would the amendment a~ect those patrolmen who have already retired? Mrs. Marshall stated retired members o~ the City's ~orce who are covered under the City's old retirement plan have their retirement contributions right along with any ~ncreases that are granted to the existing work force. The retirees will receive Doth the $700 In l~eu of retroactive and increase ~n wage. They receive a percentage o~ the total gross wages depending upon the number o~ years o~ service and when they were employed. Mr. Crutcher questioned how the "cost of l~vlng" increase works in th~s ~nstance? Kathleen McCluskey, City Clerk, stated the State grants an annual cost of living and the City pays the dlfference between the two, whichever ~s higher. M/S/C/U(Collins/Colvin) to approve the Amendment to the Agreement between City o~ Bremerton and the Bremerton Patrolman's Association. 7A - RESOLUTION ~2239, CHARGES TO THE PUBLIC FOR DOCUMENT REPRODUCTION, ~AB88-306 This resolution adds a new section to waive or reduce charges for pre-cop~ed or printed documents. At 10 cents per page, it can be very costly for a member o~ the public to obtain a copy of a lengthy document such as an ordinance or staff report. This allows the department to set a reasonable ~ee, not to exceed 10 cents per page, for multi-page documents based upon their actual costs to produce and need to be distributed to the publlc. Kathleen McCluskey, City Clerk, stated this ~tem came about due to the ~act that the Plannlng Department has a number of lengthy documents which are of interest to the publlc and this resolution would allow the department to provide documents to the public for what it cost the City to produce them. ~1048 M/S/C/U(Colvin/Hornlng) to approve Kesolutlon ~2239, ~lxlng the charges to the public for document reproduction. 8A - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - DOWNTOWN WATEKFKONT URBAN KENEWAL PLAN, ~AB88-267 The Bremerton Planning Commission has ~orwarded the proposed Downtown Waterfront Urban Renewal Plan to the City Council w~th a recommendation ~or approval. The plan establishes development, use, building, and other controls in the Pro3ect Area. It contains: 1. A Land/Water Use Plan: Designates Land/Water Use Areas, and establishes planning criteria, permitted uses and controls ~or each Use Area. It also contains general requirements ~or landscaping, parklng, vlew corridors, public art, etc. {P. 8-41} 2. Urban Renewal Provisions: Allows City to acquire, rehabilitate, and sell property and to compel property owners to repalr/rehab~l~tate (p.7). The Plan ~nciudes a property acqu~s~tlon map (p. 57) indicating the schedule for acquisition 3. implementation Proqram: Establishes two-phase implementation program (p. 48-49) Don Pratt, Director Community Development, briefly reviewed action belng requested and noted that once the plan is adopted it wlll become something more than 3ust a plan. Currently he has at least two sets of documents which he has been asked to preview TAPE ~599 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December 28, 1988 Page 5 of 11 relative to their permltablllty in the C~ty. One o~ the proposals is the f~shlng pier and breakwater/DOT and Horluck Transportation landing site at end of First Street Dock and the other is also the Department of Transportation - Shoreline Permit Application for new ferry slips. H~s response to them is contingent on Council's action on the proposed plan. How the Council adopts the plan wlll affect how they design the amenlties...whether or not there will be 14 for the arts, whether or not there will De requlred covered walkways, what will impact on budget be, etc. Also, the City ls about to go to contract for the deslgn of a pathway, and adoption of the Urban Renewal Plan will dictate criteria to be incorporated lnto that design. Kay Wllson, Department Of Community Development, referenced a memorandum dated December 23, 1988 and attachment which included State Urban Renewal Law Requirements. She explained this was a br~e~ summary of requirements that State law lncludes for passage o~ an Urban Renewal Plan, which include: local governing body submits plan to Plannlng Comm~sslon; Planning Commission reviews and recommends conformity of plan with Comprehensive Plan; public hearing on Urban Renewal Plan with public notice required. She noted that the City has met all of the above requirements. Also included in the State requirements ls the list o~ ~lndlngs the Councll must f~nd in order to approve the Urban Renewal Plan: (a) The workable plan exists ~or making available adequate housing ~or persons displaced by the pro3ect. Ms. Wilson stated the Clty now has in place a Relocat/on Plan passed in connection with the Housing Assistance Plan, which wlll be used 1~ any property owners or businesses are displaced w~thin the Urban Renewal area. (h) The Urban Renewal Plan conforms to the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Wilson stated the adopted Comprehensive Plan ~ncludes speCl~lCally policies and ob3ectlves whlch relate to redevelopment of the waterfront and developing a plan to do so. So the Urban Renewal Plan is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. (c) The Urban Renewal Plan will af£ord maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound needs o~ the municipality as a whole, for the rehabilitation or redevelopment of the urban renewal area Dy private enterprise. Ms. Wilson noted there are a number o~ provisions in the Plan wnlcn encourage private enterprise, including the proposed provision that would place a two year hold before urban renewal powers would De invoked by the City. T~ls would provide a two year per~od in which they would not have to worry about condemnation or acquisition by the City but would De allowed to go ahead and develop their property in accordance with the plan without havlng to sign a property owners agreement with the City. (d) A sound and adequate financial program exists for the financing of the project. Ms. Wilson stated thls will be addressed in the recommendations to be presented. {e) The urban renewal pro3ect area is a blighted area. Ms. Wilson re~erenced a letter ~rom William B. Reems, Senior Certified Appraiser, dated December 21, 1988, ~n which Mr. Reems restates the validity o~ his findings in his report dated Oanuary 10, 1984, to current ~lndings as to the urban renewal area being categorized as "blighted". Ms. Wllson pointed out that some o~ the previously suggested changes to the Urban Renewal Plan may be in conflict and should be revlewed carefully prior to adoption. TAPE ~599 Clty Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December 28, 1988 Page 6 of 11 Geo£ry Hosea, 1544 Elmzabetn, stated he generally he was in favor of the plan, however, ne expressed concern that there was nothing in the plan addressing the confllct of passengers disembarking ~rom the ferries and the vehicles off loading from the £errles. Ms. Wilson explained staff included a recommendation in the plan to: (a; provlde ~or sheltered pedestrian connections between the ferry terminal and ferry boarding areas; (b) separate pedestrian from vehicular traffic using overpasses and/or enhanced crosswalks; (c) route traffic circulation so as to minimize conflicts between ferry users and local traffic. Jerry Soriano, 509 4th Street, questioned the area ~ncluded in the urban renewal area and whether or not ~t had Peen expanded? Ms. Wilson stated the present proposal has not changed - ~t starts at bth Street, comes down the west slde o~ Washington, including a triangular parcel on the west s~de of Washington and includes the ~arDor area. Mr. Sorzano quest~one~ ~Z the west sloe or Washington was included. Ms. Wilson noteo on the west sl~e ot Washington there would be a proposed Zonlng District overlay withln which there would be two requirements: (1) height requirements o~ the Urban Renewal Plan would apply; (2; pro3ects would have to go through Design Review Board. None of the other requirements would apply to this area. Tom Proteau, 400 Washington, questioned if the parcel of land located at 400 Washington was included in Mr. Reems' blight study? Ms. Wxlson noted that as explained in Mr. Reems' letter, the area has to be loo~ed at as a whole and even though there may be individual parcels withln the area which are not bllghted...but the area as a whole is pulled down by the presence o~ so many Dllghte~ properties. Ms. Wilson quoted from Mr. Reems' study: "condition - average physical condition, has adequate off street parking but with difficult access due to steepness on to Washington". Jerry Soriano, 509 4th Street, questioned in relationship to the triangular parcel - 1Z nothing is done during the two years after the Plan is adopted to develop thls site is there something in the plan whereby the C~ty will develop th~s property? And, how can a tenant o~ sucn a property make plans for the future? Ms. Wllson re~erenced page 57 oz the Urban Renewal Plan "Schedule o~ Land to be Acqulred by the City". The particular parcel on the south slde of 1st Street west o~ Washington, is designated ~or · mmediate acquisition. What would actually happen: the City would target those parcels designated =or immediate acquisition as the ~lrst parcels to deal with. Each property owner would be approached and requested to sign a Property Owners Agreement WhlCh wlll specify how the property owner wlll comply with the Plan, and if it ~s satisfactory to the City then both parties sign lt. It might say that the property owner agrees to redevelop ~t within a year or wlthln 10 years. It would be negotiated at that time and until such negotiations ta~e place the City could not tell any one property owner what the Property Owners Agreement will contain. In response to Mr. sorlano's second question - how to tell a tenant what m~ght happen ~n the ~uture - there ~s no way to give a ~e~nlte answer at th~s time. Mr. Soriano expressed concern that it will be near impossible to s~gn a lease ~or over two years or no one ~s going to want to slgn a lease for over two years because the future is not clear, anO apparently everything will h~nge on the Property Owners Agreement, and who ~n the C~ty would the property owner be dealing w~th. Ms. Wilson stated when the C~ty ~nvo~es the Urban Renewal powers it will have to name an authority who wlll handle this - the Clty Council could do it ltsel=, could appoint City Attorney or D~rector of Community Development or an outside agency. Whoever is appointed would De the one, acting on behalf TAPE ~599 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December 28, 1988 Page '/ of 11 o~ the City, to negotiate with the property owners. The final agreement must still be signed by the City Council once agreement between the parties has Peen reached. President Waibel questioned l~ the property owner has to wait 1/2/3 years before developing a Property Owners Agreement? Ms. Wilson stated if the Urban Renewal powers are not invoked there would not be an official urban renewal process in place for the Property Owner Agreement to take place. She state~ she did not know why the City couldn't negotiate an agreement as long as it is consistent with the Urban Renewal Plan. Ian Sievers, City Attorney, stated it would be a voluntary agreement and not part of a mandatory process. He stated the City Council could bind that type o£ agreement to remain in e~ect regardless o£ the later implementation. Mr. Johnson noted that the whole point oZ the plan was to nave the property owner develop the land or after a period of time 1~ they don't, the City will then become involved. Mr. Colvxn questioned should any o~ the property owners su~Ier adversely because o~ the plan, what recourse do they have? Mr. Sievers stated the City was doing everything legally so that they would not have a recourse again the City. If the ultimate stage o~ non-cooperation with the property owner is reached then condemnation can De instituted and public resources used to ~urther development. He also did not feel that the City could be Dlame~ Dy the property owner ~or holding them up or creating uncertain conditions so they can't enter into long term leases. Issac Soriano, 520 Burwel£, expressed concern over his past experience in trying to develop the triangular parcel by bringing in Burger King to put in a new building/business and the difficulty in working with the city. He felt that emphasis should be focuse~ on other older more blighted buildings and not concentrate on a parcel wnlcn nas a tenant who is carrying on an active business. Mr. Pratt stated the issues bolls down to whether or not this particular piece of property is key to the Urban Renewal effort in the waterfront. A lot of the situations and issues addressed Dy the Sorlano's a~fect all the property owners on the waterfront. There is still one key issue .... do we need this piece o~ property to make the waterfront redevelopment work? The reason the property was included was because o~ redevelopment of the ferry terminal and it was the conceptual vlew that the ferry terminal would not work £or vehicular traffic with the intersection being configured as it is presently. The technical question as to whether or not that piece o~ property is needed has not been finalized by either the City or the State. If the triangular parcel is ~ncluded now it may make it easier to acquire ~or access to the ferry terminal if ~eslre~. The ultimate decision is up to the City Council whether or not to include it in the plan. Ms. Wilson noted under the Urban Renewal Plan a Relocation Plan Will De in e~ect. ~ the tenants sign a lease on any property in the pro3ect area and the C~ty determines it w~ll cause redevelopment o~ t~at parcel, t~en the Relocation Plan will make the City responsible to relocate those tenants. There w~ll De a cost to the City to implement a relocation plan. Mr. Johnson stated he hoped the City would never have to condemn any properties - that the property owners would undertake redevelopment on their own. He pointed out that the City had already taken steps to enhance the utilities in the waterfront area. In order to proceed with the plan adoption process, he suggested the Council direct staff to prepare an ordinance adopting the Urban Renewal Plan and to ~ollow up with amendments a~resslng various suggested changes. Mr. Overson stated he was not in ~avor o= adopting the plan as presente~ and ne was concerned that there was not a single TAPE ~599 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December 28, 1988 Page 8 oi 11 property owner coming before Council indicatxng their support of the plan. He questioned who is supporting the plan? He d~d not support the Program For The Arts section and cited better use of t~me, e~iort and money in putting in a sports area which would draw in large number of users. Mr. Crutcher pointed out the most important issue is to meet State Urban Renewal Laws that are required and urged Council to approve adoption o~ the plan. M/S/C/U(Johnson/Colllns} that City Council dlrect staf~ to prepare an Ordinance adopting the May 1988 draft copy o~ the Downtown Wateriront Urban Renewal Plan with the changes contained in Ms. Kay W~lson's memo dated December 23, 1988. AMENDMENTS TO MOTION Pro~ect Boundaries M/$/C(Hornlng/Colvln) an amendment to the motion to remove Project Boundaries {1) and (2) from Page A-1. Vote: In Favor: Crutcher, Horton, Horn~ng, Walbel, DawklnS, Colllns, Colvln, Johnson Oppose: Overson Page A-2, Design Review Board Mr. Johnson stated he dld not support the Deslgn Review Board being in the Shorelines Hearlng business or in any varlance or zoning Interpretations. He ielt the Design Review Board should relate to themes, designs, architecture, etc. President Waibel questioned if the suggested change to item 1 and 2 would conilict with pre-application plan revlew by the Board? (Item 6) Ms. Wilson noted no, the pre-application plan review would s~mply address design issues or those lssues whlch remain under the Design Review Board 3urlsd~ct~on. M/S/C/U(Johnson/Horton) an amendment to the motion to delete Des~ Review Board item Il) and change item (2) (Page A-2) to read: "The DRB review/approval functions lnclude: s~te plan approval; v~ew corridor requirements in exchange ~or additions to the pathway-park". Page A-3, Marina/North {MN) & South {MS) Areas Mr. Crutcher questioned why Mr. Homing was recommending deletlon of Item (2)? Mr Hornlng stated he ~elt covered moorages were unattractive and dld not want them on the Clty's waterfront. He noted there are lots o~ other opportunities ~n other marinas on the sound that have covered moorage. Mr. Collins questioned why not have a special review board to determine the style or materials of covered moorage rather than eliminate them entirely. Also, he pointed out there may be a need ~or llve aboard covered moorage. Mrs. Horton noted that possibly someone should consider developing the cove north o~ the proposed marina s~te ~or permanent type moorage and leave the downtown moorage as temporary moorage for visitors. ~30~3 M/S/C(Hornlng/Horton; an amendment to ~ne motlon under Marina/North & Marina/South (Page A-3) delete item (2). Vote: In Favor: Overson, Horton, Homing, Dawkins, COlVln, Johnson Oppose: Crutcher, Collins, Waibel ~APE ~600Page A-3, Zon~nq Ordinance Amendment ~0093 M/S/C/U(Johnson/Horning) an amendment to the motion to delete TAPE ~599 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December ~8, 1988 Page 9 of 11 item (4) under Zoning Ordinance Amendment (Page A-3). Page A-4, Incentives $0142 M/S/C/U(Johnson/COlllns} an amendment to the motion under Incentives to delete items (1), (2) and (3) and add: "that by March 31, 1989 an incentive plan would be developed as an attachment to the W/F Urban Renewal Plan that would not only address the Arts issue but would also address some of the financial and other ideas whlch might entice development. Page A-4, Land Acquisition M/S/C/U(Coll~ns/Johnson) as an amendment to the motion under Land Acquisition (Page A-b) delete item Paue A-4/D, Parklnq ~0082 M/S/C/U(Johnson/Collins) an amendment to the motion under Parking (Page A-4/A-5) delete 1rems (1), (2;, (3), (4) anO (b) and to develop a Parking and Circulation Plan to be Drought to the City Councll by April 30, 1989. Page A-5/6, Implementation Mr. Johnson questioned 1~ action ~or implementation o~ acquisition o~ non-compliant properties can De taken prior to the two years from time of adoptlon o~ the Urban Renewal Plan? Mr. Pratt stated ~ the City adopts the schedule that calls ~or Owner Development Agreement at the eno o~ a two year perlod and something happens before that period he could come before the Councll wlth a Plan amendment and within six weeks the plan could be amended. He felt six weeks was not too lengthy a time to wait for a large pro3ect. He reminded Council that the Mayor's position is in support o~ the two year perloO, as he considers the likelihood that there will be some pro3ect completion within the t~rst year anO that would allow the property owners to take some kind o~ action the following year. President Waibel noted for clar~lcat~on that 1~ ~tem (2) was eliminated under Implementation sectlon, amendments to the plan could speed that process up sufficient to move forwarO. Page A-5, Design Theme Mrs. Horton stated she did not support tieing the Clt~ and downtown area to a design theme. She ~elt that the architecture should be compatible w~th what ls currently in place. President Waibel pointed out that Mayor Lobe recommended a deslgn theme anO questioned ~f someone else would recommend a design theme. Mr. Pratt stated he recalled the Chamber Of Commerce and Flagship comments supporting a general design theme. The Mayor's recommendation was the consideration of a construction type theme - pacific northwest, contemporary, art deco or steel ~rame buildings. The specific entry as presented in the plan 01rects the requirement of a specific theme design 1~ adopted as wrltten. M/S/C/F(Horton/Johnson) an amendment to the motion to delete item (1) under Design Theme (Page A-5) and delete the Theme sectlon on page 39 of the Plan. Vote: Oppose: Overson, Crutcher, Collins, Dawklns, Colvln, Waibel, In Favor: Horton, Johnson, Homing MOtlOn FalleO. Page A-b/b, Implementation M/S/C/U(Collins/Colvin) an amendment to the motion unOer Implementation (Page A-6) delete item (2) and change wording of · tem Il) to read as follows: "an implementation schedule which calls Ior the Clty to commence acquls~tlon o~ non-compliant properties two years from adoption of the plan. Compliance would TAPE ~600 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December Page 10 of 11 be determined by the willingness of each property owner to sign an Owner-Participation Agreement comm~ttzng the owner to develop or pursue development of the property according to an agreed upon schedule. When immediate acquisition of non-compliant, property will measurably enhance the total area an immediate Owner- Part~clpatlon Agreement w~ll be initiated". Page A-5, Incentives & Financial Program Mr. Morning questioned i£ it was legal to "earmark new taxes received ~or x years" {item {2);. Mr. Sievers stated he did not ~eel that it would be legal to commit budgetary decisions for ~uture Councils. Mr. Johnson pointed out there should be something included in "incentives" plan such as tax revenues and these should be specified as well as negotiable. M/S/C/U{Hornlng/Horton) an amendment to the motlon under Incentives delete items (1) and (2) {Page A-6) but incorporated as part of the Incentive Plan scheduled ~or March 31, 1989 and under Financial Program item (2b) will be included in the Incentive Plan scheduled ~or March 31, 19~9. Fage A-~, F~nanclal Program Mr. Johnson questioned l~ a Financial Plan is really needed. Ms. Wilson stated she had received legal counsel from the Assistant City Attorney relating to the required State Urban Renewal Law finding that"a sound financial program exists ~or the financing of the pro3ect"- who ~elt that at the point the plan is adopte~ there needs to be some Financial Program place. Until the City Council adopts a Financial Plan which ls due March 31, something needs to be in place to meet that state law requirement. Mr. Johnson questioned with the exception of the condemnation cost hasn't the pUDllc sector about completed their work? Ms. Wllson stated that what thxs does ~s oescrlbe what the City has already done. She noted that the wordlng may be unclear and suggested changlng the wording to include: "as a prlorxty" lnstead of "as may De available" Mr. Pratt noted for clarification CDBG funds would be targeted "as may be available". He stated CDBG funds have specific areas oK allocation, i.e, administrative costs, low income benefxts, thereZore they cannot all be directed to a pro3ect such as the development of the waterfront. ~1075 M/S/C/U(Colvin/Dawkins) an amendment to the motion to change the wording under Financial Program item {la) to read as ~ollows: "a provision that during Phase I the City will target such CDBG ~unds and other grant/loan programs as a priority for construction of public ~acllltles {e.g., parks, utilities and street improvements) within the Pro3ect Area". Page A-'/, Land/Water Use Plan M/S/C/U{Overson/Horton) an amendment to the motion under Land/Water Use Plan (Exhibit "D"; to delete items {1) through {b) (Page A-'I) Page A-b, Public Art Program Mr. Overson expressed concern that the Public Art Program was too limiting as written and suggested that it be removed from the plan and given further study by the sta~I. Mr. Johnson stated hls support of leavlng something in the plan which identlKles beautification and/or art with a broad definition and concurred with the Mayor's recommendation. Mr. Collins expressed concern about settlng a specific percentage for art, however, he did support aesthetics should be of great concern. Mrs. Horton cautxoneo that unless something ls specifically stated that a portion of a pro3ect should go into either art or some sort of aesthetic enhancement nothlng will be done. TAPE ~600 Clty Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December 28, 1988 Page 11 oZ 11 M/S/C{Overson/Colvln) an amendment to the motion to pull from the plan (Chapter III Land/Water Use Plan) item #7A (page 39 of the Downtown Waterfront Urban Renewal Plan and under Public Art Program delete item (1) (Page A-5) and that concept be given to the staff to develop further and proposed to the Council in a separate document by mid year. Vote: In Favor: Overson, Horton, Horning, Colllns, Dawkins Colvln, Johnson Oppose: Wa~bel, Crutcher VOTE ON MAIN MOTION A unanimous vote was given on the main motxon. Issac SOrlano expressed concern that the City is in the worst shape it has ever been and strongly urged the City Council to talk wlth local businessmen and come up with some type of action to encourage new business opportunities in the downtown area. President Waibel stated most of the Councml members have talked with local business people and agree that something has to De done. Wlth no further business meeting ad3ourneO at 8:JO p.m. KATHLEEN L. MCCLUSKEY, CITY CLERK APPROVED cc: Normal Dlstr~butlon File/Vault