Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 04/18/19891324 I CALL TO ORDER SPECIAL MEETING CITY COUNCIL MEETING Port Angeles, Washington April 18, 1989 Mayor McPhee called the special meeting of the Port Angeles City Council to order at 6:30 P.M. The purpose of this special meeting was to interview candidates for the Planning Commission and Board of Adjustment. II INTERVIEWS WITH CANDIDATES FOR PLANNING COMMISSION AND BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Council interviewed the following candidates for the Planning Commission Board of Adjustment: Charles Kaufmann, Michael Derousie. Mayor McPhee adjourned the special meeting at 6:55 P.M. III CALL TO ORDER REGULAR MEETING Mayor McPhee called the regular meeting of the Port Angeles City Council to order at 7:05 P.M. IV ROLL CALL Members Present: Members Absent: Staff Present: Public Present: V PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE VII FINANCE and Mayor McPhee, Councilmen Hallett, Hordyk, Lemon, Sargent, Stamon. Councilman Gabriel. Manager Flodstrom, Attorney Knutson, Acting Clerk Headrick, 0. Miller, B. Myers, S. Hursh, S. Brodhun, L. Glenn, J. Pittis, D. Wolfe, G. Kenworthy, K. Ridout. L. Ross, T. Z. Santos, B. Anabel, S. Everett, McPherson, H. Berglund, R. French, D. P. Brewer, Blacklaw, R. Reidel, J. VanOss, C. Brown, C. Whidden, Derousie. The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was led by students of Al Gustafson's Home Room 6th graders, Stevens School: Christie Thom, Katie Galvin, Mike Abilla, Jonathan Martin, Brad Blesso, Troy Fox, Robert Jackson. VI APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF APRIL 4. 1989 F. J. M. Councilman Hordyk moved to accept and place on file the minutes of the April 4, 1089, meeting. Councilman Stamon seconded and the motion carried unanimously. 1. Reauest for payment of $2.094.59 to Riddell. Williams for Lesal Representation on WPPSS Issue Councilman Sargent moved to authorize payment of the April, 1989, Riddell, Williams bills in the total amount of $2,094.59 for legal representation on WPPSS issues. Councilman Stamon seconded. During discussion on the motion, Mayor McPhee questionad Attorney Knutson as to how much more the City will be spending on this issue and how much longer it will continue. Attorney Knutson explained that the majority of the future bills from Riddell, Williams will be for their efforts on behalf of the City to obtain reimbursement from insurance for most, if not all, of the amount that the City has paid into the WPPSS settlement. Attorney Knutson further explained that he is hoping for a quick resolution to that litiga- tion; however, that will depend on how the judge rules initially. The hearing on the fairness of the settlement that the City agreed to contribute to was held this week and the judge will make a ruling within the next 30 to 1325 CITY COUNCIL MEETING April 18, 1989 60 days. The City will then have a better idea if further effort from Riddell, Williams will be required. Following further discussion, Attorney Knutson also pointed out that future Riddell, Williams billings will be labeled "Confidential" and should be treated as such. On call for the question, the motion carried unanimously. 2. Consideration of Audit Committee's Recommendation on Medic I Ambulance Bid Councilman Stamon moved to concur with the recommendation of the Audit Committee and award the bid for a replacement Medic I unit to Collins Ambulance in the amount of $54,327. The motion was seconded by Councilman Hallett. Councilman Hordyk, a member of the Audit Committee, stated he does recommend purchase of this unit; however, he feels some items on the bid specifica- tions were extravagant. In answer to a question from Councilman Stamon, Fire Chief Glenn pointed out that Collins Ambulance was the lowest bidder and the unit was a Type III, diesel, which was the preference of the Paramedics. On call for the question, the motion carried unanimously. VIII CONSENT AGENDA Councilman Hordyk moved to accept the items listed under the Consent Agenda including (1) Request to surplus SMVA 69KV:4160/2400 volt power transformer; (2) Correspondence from the Washington State Liquor Control Board; (3) Vouchers of $249,463.93; and (4) Payroll of 4 -2 -89 in the amount of $233,440.78. The motion was seconded by Councilman Sargent. Following a brief discussion, the motion carried unanimously. IX ITEMS FROM THE COUNCIL /AUDIENCE TO BE CONSIDERED AND /OR PLACED ON THE AGENDA Douglas Hendel, Mercer Island, a partner in the Waterfront Associates, requested he be allowed to speak on Agenda Item 5, Report on Request From Waterfront Associates for Loan Increase. Hattie Berglund, 1834 West Seventh, thanked the Council and the Parks Department for work done on the Waterfront Trail and for cleaning up the beach. Councilman Sargent commented that the Kiwanis Club will be working on the Trail decking this week -end. Parks Director Brodhun noted that the Public Works Department should take the credit for work done on the bridge railings for. the Trail. Councilman Hordyk requested that Item #14A be added to the Agenda, Parks Parking Lots. Mayor McPhee announced that on April 14th, his wife gave birth to a baby boy, named Ian Glen Francis McPhee. Mother and baby are doing fine! X LEGISLATION 1. Presentation of "One Thousand Cranes" Mobile (made by Franklin School 5th Graders) Mayor McPhee thanked the Franklin School 5th Graders for the "One Thousand Cranes" mobile which will hang in City Hall. The mobile is in memory of a Japanese girl who died in 1955 as a result of the bombing of Hiroshima. Mayor McPhee also read from a plaque that was given to him when he was presented with the mobile at Franklin School. The Council and staff then briefly discussed where the mobile should be displayed. Following the discussion, Councilman Stamon moved to gratefully accept this gift from the -2- 1326 CITY COUNCIL MEETING April 18, 1989 Franklin School 5th Graders and teachers, Mr. Gustafson and Mrs. Nelson, and extend to them on behalf of the citizens of Port Angeles the Council's sincere appreciation. Councilman Sargent seconded and the motion carried unanimously. 2. Presentation of Certificate of Appreciation to John Lacey for Service on Board of Adiustment Mayor McPhee read and presented a Certificate of Appreciation to John Lacey for his years of service on the City's Board of Adjustment. 2A. Proclamation Grange Week Mayor McPhee announced that the next item of business will be Agenda Item #15B Grange Week Proclamation, and read the proclamation proclaiming the week of April 23 29, 1989, as Grange Week. 3. Planning Commission Minutes of April 12. 1989 A. Request for Interpretation as to the Permissibility of a Shake and Shingle Manufacturing Operation in the Light Industrial, District Councilman Hallett moved to concur with the interpretation of the Planning Commission that a shake and shingle mill could be considered a Conditional Use in the LI District if the operation could be conditioned to comply with the purpose of the LI District. Councilman Stamon seconded and the motion carried unanimously. B. Resolution Setting Public Hearing for Street Vacation Recuest- Priest /Ziegler /Ouinn STV- 89(0211 Mayor McPhee read the Resolution by title, entitled RESOLUTION NO. 9 -89 A RESOLUTION of the City of Port Angeles amending Resolution No. 4 -89, and setting a hearing date for a petition to vacate a portion of Alder Street and alley in Block 133, Thomas W. Carter's Subdivision. Councilman Sargent moved to pass the Resolution as read by title, setting a public hearing date of May 16, 1989, and refer the matter to the Planning Commission for a hearing at their May 10th meeting. The motion was seconded by Councilman Stamon and passed unanimously. C. Acceptance of Minutes Councilman Hordyk moved to accept and place on file the Planning Commission minutes of April 12, 1989. The motion was secondedl by Councilman Lemon and carried. Councilman Stamon pointed out to the audience that the first two Planning Commission agenda items, Sea Farms of Washington Shoreline Management Permit, and the Tangedahl appeal of Retail Stand Decision, will not be considered by the Council because of various delays. 4. Resolution Setting Public Hearing for Street Vacation Reauest- Terminal Land Co. STV- 89(050)5, Mayor McPhee read the Resolution by title, entitled RESOLUTION NO. 10 -89 A RESOLUTION of the City of Port Angeles setting a hearing date for a petition to vacate a portion of the Caroline/ Victoria Alley east of Francis Street. -3- 1327 CITY COUNCIL MEETING April 18, 1989 Councilman Sargent moved to pass the Resolution as read by title, setting a public hearing date of May 16, 1989, and refer the matter to the Planning Commission for a hearing at their May 10th meeting. Councilman Stamon seconded the motion. In response to a question from Councilman Hallett, Acting Planning Director Miller explained that the signature on the street vacation petition was that of Paul Cronauer. On call for the question, the motion carried unanimously. 5. Report on Request from Waterfront Associates for Loan Increase Douglas Hendel, Mercer Island, a partner in the Waterfront Associates, addressed the Council, and requested he be allowed to speak following the Audit Committee's report on the Associates' request to increase the first lien obligation on the Landing project. Mayor McPhee, a member of the Audit Committee, stated he disagreed with the three options suggested by staff; he suggested a fourth option, which would be no action by the Council. In his opinion, Waterfront Associates had not satisfied the requirements of a previous Council motion. Councilman Hordyk, also an Audit Committee member, concurred with Mayor McPhee in that Waterfront Associates had not provided the information requested by the Council. For example, the City has not received a CPA report, as requested. Councilman Hallett expressed his concern with the position taken by the Audit Committee, and pointed out that he had expected a written report. He had reviewed the documents submitted, and it was his opinion that the Council had received sufficient information to make a decision. He felt the Council should concur with the Associates' initial request; failure to do otherwise would be providing undue restrictions for them which could result in possible legal action against the City. He would not want to put the City in that position, nor lose control over the $400,000 grant. Councilman Stamon then moved to adjourn to an executive session to discuss potential litigation. The motion was seconded by Councilman Hallett. In speaking to her motion, Councilman Stamon questioned Attorney Knutson as to his March 30th Confidential Memo to the Council and whether it would be appropriate to discuss it in executive session or a public meeting. Following further discussion, Councilman Stamon withdrew her motion, with Councilman Hallett concurring. Councilman Stamon then read from Attorney Knutson's March 30th memo, which outlined the following recommendations to the Audit Committee: (1) The Audit Committee report to the Council that not all of the information required by the Council has been presented, but the City's position is in jeopardy, due to the initiation of foreclosure proceedings by the bank; and (2) the Audit Committee recommend to the Council that in order to protect the City's position, the $225,000 loan be approved, contingent upon $30,000 being deposited in the Revolving Loan Fund. Councilman Stamon pointed out that the City is not loaning an additional $225,000; rather, the City has been asked to take a second position on that particular issue. Attorney Knutson then stressed that his recommendation was not based on any weakness in the City's position on the question of unreasonably withholding its consent. A factor for the City to consider would be the possibility of litigation; however, he did not intend for his comments to be construed as the City having a weak position. Additionally, the Council must decide if they want to risk losing the $400,000 which is to become a basis for the Small Business Loan Fund. Councilman Stamon stated in her opinion, as the originator of the original motion of November 15, 1988, requesting the information from Waterfront Associates, she was satisfied that the partnership has made a good faith effort to try to comply with the intent of that motion. She reiterated that the City is in strong jeopardy of losing the $400,000 loan fund and she would not support any action by the Council which would jeopardize that fund. -4- 1328 CITY COUNCIL MEETING April 18, 1989 Attorney Knutson clarified that not all of the information the Council requested in their motion has been received, and he cannot say if there is enough information to determine exactly where the money has been spent on this project. In response to a question from Councilman Sargent, Manager Flodstrom informed the Council that staff had spoken to the bank and they had indicated they would be willing to proceed with the $225,000 loan under certain conditions which the Council could attach, those conditions being (A) limiting the ability of the partners to take monies from this loan; and (B) the City would immediately be paid, out of the loan, the amount presently owed it by the partnership, which is approximately $35,000. Councilman Stamon then moved that the Council authorize the Mayor or the appropriate City official to execute whatever documents are necessary to place the City in a second position on this $225,000 loan that has been requested, with the following conditions: (1) that we limit the use of the loan funds solely to the completion of the project of the Landing; and (2) that the City of Port Angeles is paid from the proceeds of the loan funds the amount of money that is currently owed to it, which is approximately $35,000. The motion was seconded by Councilman Hallett. Attorney Knutson clarified that the intent of the motion is that the City Council would be expressing its consent to the loan. Councilman Stamon concurred. Councilman Lemon spoke in opposition to the loan. He stated the informa- tion submitted is just "bits and pieces" of documents, and voiced several concerns regarding the information submitted. It was his feeling that the City was in a very good position at this time, and pointed out that Section 7 of the Partnership Agreement states: "The partnership will not, without prior written consent of the City, incur any other indebtedness for borrowed money, mortgages, assign, or otherwise encumber any of the assets of the partnership, nor sell or transfer any such assets Councilman Lemon was also concerned about a proposal to locate a hotel on the site and information received from the Department of Natural Resources that residential living within the Harbor line is prohibited. Additionally, nothing is confirmed regarding a restaurant tenant, which would be a major income source; the appraised value is based on commercial ventures of income and the building, as it exists now, is worthless because the income on commercial property has to be there to prove it is worth those kinds of monies. In regard to their MIA appraisal, their comparables are with Seattle and Everett projects, not Port Angeles projects. This is a highly speculative situation the City is getting involved in and the City is extending itself out further and further. Therefore, he is opposed to this request. Councilman Sargent asked what would be the alternative? On one hand, Councilman Lemon says the City would be losing money, and on the other hand, the Council could be jeopardizing the $400,000. Mayor McPhee then outlined what he felt were several inconsistencies and /or problems with the project over the past few months, and asked staff why there was no promissory note on the City's loan to the Landing project. He then requested copies of all the minutes and tapes, including executive session tapes, where the Landing and the City's loan were discussed, especially the meeting where it was decided no promissory note was required. As to the three options suggested by staff, Mayor McPhee challenged the first two. On option #1, the City does not approve the increase in the loan, the bank does the City could only agree to subordinate their loan position. Option #2, to deny the increase that decision also would be made by the bank, not the City. The City could only deny the subordination. It was Mayor McPhee's opinion that the Council had another option and that is to take no action. Councilman Hallett asked why there was no written report from the Audit Committee; stating he agreed with some of Councilman Lemon's points and also had some misgivings about the partnership itself and how viable it is; however, the real issue is what is in the community's best interest and the City's right to protect their investment in the Landing structure. He also felt the City should make the opportunity available to businesses which may -5- 1329 CITY COUNCIL MEETING April 18, 1989 be starting or could be enhanced by the revolving loan. In summary, Coun- cilman Hallett expressed his disappointment in the Audit Committee and their response to the Waterfront Associates request. Following a brief discussion with staff regarding whether any new documents had been received, Mr. Hendel, one of the Waterfront Associates partners, addressed the Council. Mr. Hendel pointed out that new documents have been submitted, one of which is a complete, itemized loan ledger from United Bank. This was in response to Mayor McPhee's request for a complete audit of the project from the start. Mr. Hendel contended that the partners had asked the Audit Committee and staff on numerous occasions exactly what information was needed, and the answers were always vague. If the partners knew what additional information the Council wanted, they would produce it or tell the Council they could not. Mr. Hendel also stated that monthly disbursement reports were sent to the City from United Bank since the project's inception. Because of the City's delay, the bank has withdrawn the loan commitment and any further bank action will depend on the City's decision regarding subordination to the increase. In conclusion, Mr. Hendel stated the partnership has provided all of the information requested by the Council and accordingly, the Council should approve the additional expenditure of funds by the bank. Following Mr. Hendel's comments, Councilman Lemon and Mayor McPhee questioned Mr. Hendel in regard to the loan commitment from the bank, the audit requested in the Council's motion, and the debt incurred without the Council's written agreement. Mayor McPhee, Councilman Stamon, and Mr. Hendel also discussed the figures on the itemized loan ledger from the Bank. During this discussion, Councilman Hallett objected that it was not the City's position to go through what was and was not spent by the partnership on the project that was not the issue. The issue being, is it in the community's best interest for the City to subordinate their intent to $225,000 so the project can continue. It was Councilman Hallett's opinion that the Council has received more than enough information and to do nothing would put the City in a very tenuous position. Mayor McPhee then stated he did not object to the partnership receiving a loan, even though, in his opinion, they have violated the agreement several times in the past by not coming to the Council first before any additional debt was incurred. At this point, Mr. Hendel protested, stating no one had demonstrated any violation of any agreement, and discussed with Mayor McPhee whether any debts have been incurred. Mayor McPhee then noted that he objects to the partnership pushing the City's security back further and if the bank feels this is a viable project, then they can lend the money and put it behind the City's loan. Mr. Hendel objected that this was not the issue the issue is compliance with the Council's motion and that matter should be resolved. Dave Edwards, Bellevue, representing Waterfront Associates, addressed the Council, stating he had tried to speak to Mayor McPhee on several occasions regarding the Landing and the Mayor would only refer him to the City Attorney, instead of informing him what additional information was necessary. Mayor McPhee stated it was his preference that Mr. Edwards and the partners speak only to staff and not individual Council members. Councilman Stamon commented this illustrates the problem some of the Council members have in that there is no written trail from the Audit Committee in terms of what discussions have been and what their recom- mendations are. She then re- stated her motion, to take a second position on the $225,000 with the two conditions, and pointed out that the bottom line is how the Council can best protect the City's interests. It was Councilman Stamon's opinion that if the City did not agree to subordinate and take a second position on this particular loan application, foreclosure may proceed, and she was certain that United Bank would not protect the City's interest; their interest is to protect the money they have invested and that is what the investment will be sold for. If that should happen, the Revolving Loan Fund and the $400,000 to help local businesses will not be available. Councilman Stamon felt very strongly that the best way to protect the City's interests would be to proceed and agree to subordinate, with the conditions as stated. -6- 1330 CITY COUNCIL MEETING April 18, 1989 Councilman Lemon reiterated his opposition to the motion because of the two liens he has knowledge of against Waterfront Associates; the documents on the title reports are of no use; a notarized statement saying Lamb has the only lien against the property; and no updated policy, which he would like to see. Councilman Lemon stated as a Councilmember, he had the right to investigate this matter in depth because the Council is exposing the City that much more. At this point in time, the revenues are not there to take care of the indebtedness; the revenues; i.e, the motel and restaurant, are very speculative, and in conclusion, he felt the City would be in a worse position if it agreed to subordinate. Councilman Sargent spoke in favor of the motion, stating the City is already in a second position and this would just add to the loan. If the project is not completed, the City will be in a difficult position and with the conditions attached to the motion, this is the best way to protect the City's interests. Mayor McPhee again outlined his concerns with the issue, and commented on several inconsistencies. In response to comments made by Councilman Lemon, Councilman Hallett pointed out that this entire project was speculative at its inception and whether it is speculative now is not the issue. The partnership has made a good faith effort to comply with the Council's intent and the City is not taking a step backward if they agree to subordinate. Councilman Stamon stated the intent of her motion in requiring the money to be used for completion of the project, she was referring to Item #8, which is the breakdown which had been proposed. On call for the question, the motion failed, with Councilmen Hallett, Sargent, and Stamon voting "Aye" and Mayor McPhee and Councilmen Hordyk and Lemon voting "No Councilman Stamon then moved to continue action on this item until a full Council is able to be present. Councilman Hallett seconded. The motion failed, with Councilmen Hallett, Sargent, and Stamon voting "Aye" and Mayor McPhee and Councilmen Hordyk and Lemon voting "No No further action was taken. 6. Consideration of Findings and Conclusions for Vincent Rezone Denial Prior to any discussion on this item, Councilman Hordyk announced he would abstain from discussion, since he was not present during the meeting when the initial rezone request was considered. Councilman Lemon then moved the Council concur with the amended Findings and Conclusions, as presented by Attorney Knutson, as follows: Findings: (1) Based on testimony presented at the January 3, 1989, public hearing on the rezone application, which testimony was in opposition to the proposed rezone, the City Council finds that the proposedstezone would have traffic and noise impacts on the surrounding residences; (2) Based on testimony at the public hearing, the City Council finds that the proposed rezone would have a detrimental effect on the existing, quiet residential area in that commercial uses and apartment houses would be functionally inconsistent with the single family residential nature of the area; (3) Based on testimony at the public hearing, the City Council finds that the additional parking areas, both on- street and off street, required for an apartment house in the proposed rezone area would present additional traffic danger, particularly with regard to older and younger citizens; (4) Based on testimony at the public hearing, the City Council finds that granting the proposed rezone would inappropriately create a buffer strip of multi family residential buildings between commercial and single family residential buildings; (5) Based on the existing condition of San Juan Avenue, the City Council finds that San Juan Avenue is inadequate to handle the increased traffic impacts that would result from the proposed rezone; Conclusions: (1) The proposed rezone would be inconsistent with Comprehensive Plan Residential Policy 15, "High- density multi family areas should be located in areas of the community most suitable for high- density use, based on service, traffic demands, and public facilities. (2) The proposed rezone would be -7- 1331 CITY COUNCIL MEETING April 18, 1989 inconsistent with Comprehensive Plan Residential Policy 16, "Multi family areas should be located functionally close to arterials. (3) The proposed rezone would be inconsistent with Comprehensive Plan Residential Policy 17, "Multi family areas should not be used primarily as a buffer between land uses. (4) The proposed rezone would create significant impacts on the adjacent residential community and streets, would be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, would not be in the public interest, and should there- fore be denied. Councilman Sargent seconded. During discussion on the motion, Attorney Knutson outlined the revisions from the original findings which were in the Council's packet: Finding #6 has been deleted; Conclusion #3 is being replaced by a new Conclusion #2. The intent of these revisions was to make the Findings and Conclusions more consistent with Councilman Lemon's original motion to deny the rezone request. Councilmen Stamon and Hallett both voiced their opposition to the motion, as they both concurred with the recommendation of the Planning Commission to approve the rezone request, with the original findings. Following a brief summary of the situation by Mayor McPhee, the question was called and the motion carried, with Councilmen Hallett and Stamon voting "No and Councilman Hordyk abstaining. 7. Appointments to Fill the Vacancies on the Board of Adiustment. Planning Commission. and Parks. Recreation. Beautification Commission Following a poll of the Council by Acting Clerk Headrick, Roger Reidel was appointed by unanimous decision to the Park Board for one 4 -year term, expiring March 1, 1993. Acting Clerk Headrick polled the Council for the position of Planning Commissioner. Following two tie votes, with Councilmen Hallett, Sargent, and Stamon voting for Mr. Philpott, and Mayor McPhee and Councilmen Hordyk and Lemon voting for Mr. Derousie, Councilman Lemon suggested the Council delay the appointment to the Planning Commission position until such time as a full Council is present, and to ask Mr. Philpott to continue serving until such time. Following a poll of the Council for the positions on the Board of Adjust- ment, with each member choosing three candidates, Councilman Hallett voted for Messrs. Zenovic, Black, and Kaufman; Councilman Hordyk voted for Messrs. Hubbard, Zenovic, and Kaufman; and Councilmen Lemon, Sargent, Stamon, and Mayor McPhee voted for Messrs. Zenovic, Hubbard, and Kaufman. From the candidates selected, Messrs Zenovic and Kaufman were tied. The Council was polled to determine which would fill the 4 -year term. Councilmen Hallett, Hordyk, Sargent, and Mayor McPhee voted for Mr. Zenovic, and Councilmen Lemon and Stamon voted for Mr. Kaufman. Mr. Zenovic was appointed to fill the 4 -year term on the Board of Adjustment. Mr. Hubbard and Mr. Kaufman were appointed to fill unexpired terms through March 1, 1992. BREAK K Mayor McPhee recessed the meeting at 8:50 for a 10- minute break. The meeting reconvened at 9:00 P.M. 8. Recommendation of Real Estate Committee Not to Purchase Property- Valley Creek Ravine Councilman Stamon moved to concur with the recommendation of the Real Estate Committee and decline Mr. Konopaski's offer of property. Councilman Hallett seconded and the motion carried. Staff was directed to contact Mr. Konopaski and suggest that he have the property appraised and to realize some possible tax advantages by donating the property to the City or the County. 1332 CITY COUNCIL MEETING April 18, 1989 9. Request Authorization for Mayor to Sign Pharmacy Contract with Jim's Pharmacy Councilman Hallett moved to authorize the Mayor to execute the contract with Jim's Pharmacy. Councilman Stamon seconded. Attorney Knutson made note that Mr. Cammack (Jim's Pharmacy) has agreed to the terms of the contract, providing two minor modifications are made: (1) Page 2, Article V B, "over- the counter products" be changed to read "over the- counter health related products (2) Page 3, Article VII, to insert the words after reasonable notification Councilman Hallett included the modifications as part of the motion. Councilman Stamon concurred. Mayor McPhee was opposed to the motion, as he did not believe this was in the City's best interest. Councilman Stamon rose to a point of order, stating the issue before the Council was to approve or disapprove the contract wording and not the bid award. She questioned who the authorized agent for the City was with regard to performing an audit. Manager Flodstrom stated at this time, Network Management, Inc., is the City's authorized agent. Attorney Knutson explained it was his interpretation with regard to the authorized agent of the City, "City" means the City Council would have to make that determination, as a whole. Mayor McPhee agreed with the inter- pretation. On call for the question, the motion carried, with Mayor McPhee and Councilman Lemon voting "No 10. Setting Date for Town Hall Meeting on "Youth Topics" Councilman Sargent moved to set a Town Meeting for youth topics at 7:00 P.M. in the Council Chamb seconded. Following a short discussion, Attorney Knutson Council with information regarding curfews. On call for the question, the motion carried. May 23, 1989, to discuss ers. Councilman Stamon stated he would provide 11. Consideration of Interlocal Governmental Cooperative Purchasing Agreement (State Bid) Councilman Hallett moved to authorize the Mayor to sign the agreement with the State of Washington for intergovernmental cooperative purchasing. Councilman Stamon seconded and the motion carried. 12. Report on Corporation Yard and Equipment Garage Remodel and Recommendation on How to Proceed Councilman Stamon moved to concur with the recommendation of the Public Works Department and Administrative Services to authorize the proceeding of the phased construction, utilizing the Small Works Roster. Councilman Hordyk seconded. Following some discussion, the question was called and the motion carried. 13. Consideration of Amendment to Lodging Excise Tax Ordinance (Hotel /Motel Tax) Mayor McPhee read the Ordinance by title, entitled CC 70 ORDINANCE NO. 2529 AN ORDINANCE of the City of Port Angeles, Washington, amending the City's lodging excise tax ordinance, Chapter 3.48 PAMC, and Ordinance No. 1854. Councilman Sargent moved to adopt the Ordinance as read by title. Councilman Hordyk seconded and the motion carried. 14. Consideration of Morse Creek Caretaker's Agreement 14A. Parking Lots Within City Parks 15. Proclamations 1333 CITY COUNCIL MEETING April 18, 1989 Councilman Stamon moved to authorize the Director of City Light and Director of Public Works to execute the Morse Creek Caretaker's Agreement with Troy Bowlin. Councilman Lemon seconded and the motion carried. Councilman Hordyk discussed with Council and staff the parking lot located on the west side of Erickson Playfield. He stated the City has failed to bring this lot up to the standards of the Code. Councilman Hordyk requested the Parks Department investigate the problems related to the gravel lot and report back to the Council. Councilman Stamon moved to accept the proclamations of Clean -up Fix -up Week, April 15 23, 1989; Commemoration of the 200th Anniversary of the First Presidential Inauguration, April 20, 1989; American Diabetes Association Bike Rider Plus Sunday, May 21, 1989; and Derby Days, September 2 10, 1989. Councilman Hallett seconded and the motion carried. XI CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS /LATE ITEMS Councilman Hallett thanked the efforts of Fire Marshal Becker for the work performed in the installation of fire detectors at the Housing Authority; Conservation Manager Hardy for her work putting together the BPA Conference; and Lisa Cochrun, PIO, for the informative memo provided regarding the AWC Conference she attended. Councilman Sargent made reference to the memo from Fire Marshal Becker regarding fireworks issues, stating the suggestions made were very good. She further requested this issue be placed on the agenda of the May 16th City Council meeting. XII ADJOURN TO EXECUTIVE SESSION Mayor McPhee recessed the meeting to executive session at 9:35 P.M. to discuss three items of litigation. The approximate time, 10 minutes. XIII RETURN TO OPEN SESSION The meeting returned to open session at 9:49 P.M. XIV ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at approximately 9:50 P.M. v %lei 1 c t o �z Acting Clerk Mayor -10-