Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 09/13/2006 e CALL TO ORDER- SPECIAL MEETING: ROLL CALL: PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Consideration of Initiatives e 5957 CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING Port Angeles, Washington September 13, 2006 Deputy Mayor Williams called the special meeting of the Port Angeles City Council to order at 3:04 p.m. Members Present: Mayor Rogers (via speaker phone), Deputy Mayor Williams, Councilmembers Braun, Headrick, Munro, Petersen and Wharton. Members Absent: None. Staff Present: Manager Madsen, Attorney Bloor, Clerk Upton, G. Cutler, T. Pierce, G. Kenworthy, and S. Sperr. Public Present: R. Smith, K. Doerge, V. Flake, P. Shaw, H. Cannon, A. Mathewson, P. Lamoureux. L. Lohr, L. & V. Sproat, R. Marschall, P. Walker, C. & E. Reid, T. Jennings, F. & K. Wollen, P. & J. Christopher, and T. Locke. All others present in the audience failed to sign the roster. The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was led by Councilmember Braun. Consideration of Initiatives: After introduction by Manager Madsen, Attorney Bloor used PowerPoint slides to present information on two initiative petitions submitted to the City. One petition, titled "Water Additives Safety Act", was submitted by a group called Protect Our Waters. The other petition, titled "Medical Independence Act", was submitted by a group called Our Water - Our Choice. Attorney Bloor discussed the general initiative process, as well as the details of each petition as they relate to State law requirements. He noted that the power of initiative is the right of the voters to directly initiate legislation by petition. However, initiatives in cities are different than statewide initiatives. The subject matter of initiatives in cities is more limited in that the issues are subject to initiative only if they are legislative acts (not administrative), actions granted to the voters by the State Legislature, or ordinances that the City Council can adopt. Attorney Bloor provided an in-depth review of the legal issues before the Council on the two initiatives, emphasizing that this is not about fluoridation but, rather, it is about the validity of the initiatives. He reviewed options before the Council, indicating that both the City and its citizens have a stake in ensuring that the requirements of the law are met with respect to the initiatives. It is important for all concerned that a determination be made with regard to the validity of the initiatives. Because requests had been made by individuals wanting to address the Council, Deputy Mayor Williams opened the floor for limited public comment. Ann Mathewson, 1923 W. 6th Street, felt that if a public vote on fluoride had been allowed, then this group wouldn't be before the Council with the initiatives. She indicated the powers of initiative and referendum are now in place for any citizen to - 1 - 5958 CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING September 13, 2006 Consideration of Initiatives (Cont'd) challenge a Council decision. Ms. Mathewson related the number of signatures on the petitions, expressing the public's desire to vote. Roger Pearce, Law Firm ofF oster Pepper, representing the Washington Dental Service Foundation, appreciated the concern expressed about safe drinking water. However, he felt this meeting had to do with the initiatives procedurally, as these particular initiatives have a number of substantive procedural issues that must be addressed. - He also felt the issue relates to whether the initiatives go to administrative or legislative action, and felt it would be appropriate for the Council to authorize declaratory judgment action. e Joleen Christopher, 119 E. 2nd Street, acknowledged this is a very difficult situation, and she directed questions to Attorney Bloor. She observed that, while obtaining signatures, many residents wanted to sign the petitions because they were unhappy with how the water system was being managed at this time. She indicated the citizens expect the Council to make some changes. Richard Smith, 82 Island View Road, indicated he is a County resident drinking P . U.D. water. He appreciated everyone being calm and measured, and he was in agreement this is not a fluoridation issue but one about the rights of the citizens. He felt the property right issue was not about the citizens owning the water, but it was directed more to the quality and quantity of the water system. He felt it is every individual's personal choice and decision as to their medical care; the City Council should not involve, itself in playing doctor. Darlene Schanfald, 481 Holgerson Road, Sequim, cited a situation in another yv ashington city where a public vote had been taken on fluoridation. Also, another city returned gift funds to the Washington Dental Service Foundation because oflong-term financial impacts. Ms. Schanfald indicated that many people are allergic to fluoride, so they can no longer use the water. The water tastes different. She stated this is about medication and about stopping that kind of action. She also addressed the matter of retrofitting homes through reverse osmosis. Keith Wollen, 3203 South Maple Street, asked if it would be an administrative action if the Council were to put other substances in the water, such as tranquilizers or arsenic. Attorney Bloor responded that additives to drinking water are extensively and closely regulated by State and Federal laws, and a surprising number of additives can be added to water for a number of reasons. However, the State requires that operators be certified, and they must comply with all regulations. The City would not be permitted to add those things to the water. Tom Locke, County Health Officer, 267 Pike Place, Sequim, indicated that public water systems are heavily regulated at the Federal and State levels, and they are designed to use the very best science to be sure drinking water is safe. He added that water is never pure, as there are over 40 different chemicals to treat water and make it safe. He expressed concern with the initiatives in that they turn the Federal and State system on its head by inserting the Food & Drug Administration into process. The FDA is not presently involved, particularly because fluoride is not considered to be a medication or a drug. Lynn Lohr, 1114 E. 4th Street, indicated the community is amid some very serious ethical issues, and she indicated her upbringing dictated that people should be fair and equal and should show love. When some people cannot take something such as fluoride, then we should be respectful of their needs. She indicated that her mouth broke out after eating in a local restaurant, and she was concerned that a technicality _ could stop the process. ., Paul Christopher, 119 E. 2nd Street, felt that people want to vote on the issue, and the - 2- e e ,... """"''''.':'' ~-',., .1 CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING September 13,2006 5959 Consideration of Initiatives (Cont'd) Council, if it truly represents the people, should help them write the initiatives properly so they can be put on the ballot. Discussion followed, and Councilmember Munro moved to direct staff to proceed with declaratory judgment action and not forward the petitions to the County Auditor for certification. The motion was seconded by Councilmember Braun. Attorney Bloor responded to questions posed on the options before the Council and subsequent legal issues. He provided clarification that the declaratory judgment action was intended to determine whether the initiatives are within the scope of the initiative powers. A vote was taken on the motion, which carried 6 - 0, with Councilmember Wharton abstaining. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 5:12 p.m. - 3 -