HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 10/03/2000
r'
.
~pORTANGELES
WAS H I N G TON, U. S. A.
AGENDA
CITY C6~CIL MEETING
321 EASTFIFTII STREET
Octobe.r 3, 2000
REGULAR MEETING - 6:00 p.m.
A. CALL TO ORDER - Regul;u ~eeting (6:00 p.m.)
ROLL CALL -
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE -
CEREMONIAL MATTERS &
PROCI.tAMA TIONS ...
Appointlnent of Police Chief
B. WORK SESSION
Presentation by Terma Planners & Architects re:
Francis Street Park Prt,j&t . ..
.
'V{N.: . ,
C. LA T.iJ: ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON THIS OR FUTURE AGENDAS (By Council, Staffor f,yblic)
'AND PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ITEMS NOT ON AGENDA (This is the opportunity for members of
the public to speak to the City Council about anythihgnot on the agenda, please keep comments to 5-10
minutes.)
D. FINANCE
E. CONSENT AGENDA
City Council minutes of September 19, 2000 1,9
regular meeting and September 21 special meeting
Action
F. CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS
G. ORD~NANCES NOT REQUIRING PUBLIC
HEARINGS
H. RESOLUTIONS
R~solutionin support of business incubator and 13
Skills Center facility
Action
I. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
1. Position on Blue Ribbon Commission on 19
Transportation Study
2. Public Fireworks Display for High School 31
Homecoming
3. Financial Conditions Report for 2000 33
Action
Action
Action
.
NOTE: HEARING DEVICESAV AILf\PLEFQRTHOSE NEEDING ASSISTANCE.
MAYORTO;DETERMINE~'FIMEOF BREAK
October 3,2000 Port Angeles City Council Meeting
Page - 1
~2;_::~;~?S';;:f-,;:~~',:~iit~^ ,;'~:~-V:::'/'" ":fj~~~~',f;::)l~f ", . ;-",
J.' PUBCICMEETING17:00 P.M. or soon
thereafter)',."", - J ,'. ;. ! l
~t..., ~ ';J"J.> .j.~
Initiatj.ves 722 & 745 djscys~i9n, and resolution 37
~,~,'.'O--4':"",- -""y:" ~_ :"';':--"'" "'>',t, ,".~- ."",
'''-;/'-
K. PUBLIC HEARI~GS -OTHER
L. INFORMATION
I. . CityManag~r~~'~epprt'~(r~e'~J) v < '" .... ....
'PI" 'GoilttiiiSsidhMiD.Uies':?S';tember 13 2000 (}l e 59)
c:~~~~~lw$tY~F;krt~:f'~~2000'(P~ej67j!:." ......
':;:-' ,:':.. ,,':':::('-':--~;">-~;,," >:;-t.':- , '. ',f',':' ;.::>:_" -:__ .:, -';-_:";.-_::>_':~
M. EXECu:TIVE ~~~.~IQN /ft~.1J~f!ged andfletermine4.Jd9ifj4ttiJmey)
N. ADJOURNMENT
'L
G:\CNCL,P~GENriA\00-1~3...........:.i.."..'..'~.'.'."...!......
".\!t::,,;1
, ;'J"
.e
'.NOTE:,'.HEARIN,G,DEYI€ES7A "yAILABL~?!fO~T!lPSE~It~DINGASSISTA~CE
"'MAYOR,TOIDETERMlNE1TIMEOKlB"R:El(K. . 'i",..,.!..,,;,;
Octobef'3, 2000 )*}~()rtA.rigeles CityCowrCillMeeting ~~.,
.;(,.:i-'r,_:;;:, '~~~:':fP;;'"
, (~Page'- y
-",':, :-,-,)*
iU-
:i\"~\wt" j,~,.':,~~n;}\:io(1f.'~' ~J.<,{;;-;1'-~~'i~~ ~~1f1'~:
FORTANGELES
WAS H I N G TON, U. S. A.
CITY OF PORT ANGELES
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
I.
CALL TO ORDER - REGULAR MEETING:
II. ROLL CALL:
Members Present:
Mayor Doyle
Councilman Campbell
Councilmember Erickson
Councilman Hulett
Councilmember McKeown
Councilman Wiggins
Councilman Williams
Staff Present:
Manager Quinn
Attorney Knutson
Clerk Upton
B. Collins
G. Cutler
D. McKeen
T. Riepe
y. Ziomkowski
III.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
Led bY:~ (;;)~D
=t
~
V
J
-
October 3, 2000
ttfD- p. W\.. .
.~ .
. ?t^D-M.tt^-
1
CITY OF PORT ANGELES
· ~ORTANGELES
WAS H I N G TON, U. S. A.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Attendance Roster
DATE OF MEETING: October 3. 2000
LOCATION:
City Council Chambers
bL212.fh-{) fn 1) (Zf2 I ~
City of Port Angeles
FORTANGELES
WAS H , N G TON. U. S. A.
OrdinanceIResolution Distribution List
CitYCouncilMeetingOf~ - &J ~()DD
~ ) ~ ~..A 1:;)-"
O--<il / /-m
.J' "\" .a I ..." A .A J:~
r l~... , ....L
City Manager /
City Atty. (1) J/ J/
Planning
City Clerk ~ / ~./
Deputy Clerk 1/ 1 V
Personnel
Cust. Svcs.
Finance
Dir .IMgr.
Police Dept.
Fire Dept.
Light Dept.
Pub. Works (2)
Parks & Rec.
MRSC (1) 1 ./ 1 ./
PDN (Summary) - /
Extra Copies .1;M viI V~ ./
I TOTAL I I" ~
NOIfltHWA '811eNW.IIOlI
~
11.11
C'I
.
~
~
S~ ~:U$fU~ mod =K) AllI~
)IlWd lN~~~i1VM M3I1N VI
.
I
z
o
Sb
~~
Wi
ts~
~~B ~ -~
II
II
-,I
'I
I
I
I
"
I
Ii
II
II
I
,I,
I,
~ !
h. ".,
I l,
1
~, '.
I'
e
~
~~
!;
~
~~
.....;:.
W
!I
~
a
I I
z
g
~I
0;;;1
~i
.&M
""~ ""~.
~~
Q.....
~;
lit
I ---------~I
: I I :
t
t
=
~ ~
~
.
.
.
CALL TO ORDER-
REGULAR MEETING:
ROLL CALL:
PLEDGE OF
ALLEGIANCE:
CEREMONIAL
MATTERS/
PROCLAMATIONS:
WORK SESSION:
Bonneville Power
Administration Wholesale
Power Contract
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Port Angeles, Washington
September 19, 2000
Mayor Doyle called the regular meeting of the Port Angeles City Council to order at
6:00 p.m.
Members Present:
Mayor Doyle, Councilmembers Campbell, Erickson,
Wiggins, and Williams.
Councilmembers Hulett and McKeown.
Members Absent:
Staff Present:
Manager Quinn, Attorney Knutson, Clerk Upton, B.
Collins, G. Cutler, D. McKeen, T. Riepe, Y. Ziomkowski,
1. Abram, 1. Dunbar, S. McLain, G. Kenworthy, and T.
McCabe.
Public Present:
C. Weckesser, G. Gleason, 1. & E. Jones, and 1. Lee.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was led by Councilman Wiggins.
None.
1.
Bonneville Power Administration Wholesale Power Contract Presentation
Mayor Doyle opened the subject of contract negotiations with the Bonneville Power
Administration. Public Works & Utilities Director Cutler then introduced Larry
Dunbar, the City's new Power Resource Manager. Scott McLain, Deputy Director of
Power Systems, advised the Council that the new contract period for the power supply
would be October, 2001, to September, 2006. It is anticipated that the proposed
contract would be brought to the Council at one of its October meetings.
With the use of the overhead projector, Deputy Director McLain explained that the City
has historically purchased the majority of its power supply from the Bonneville Power
Administration. As a non-profit public utility, the City qualifies as a preference
customer, which means Port Angeles is entitled to purchase priority firm power at the
lowest firm power rate. Deputy Director McLain explained that, during the last rate
proceedings in 1996, the market prices were very low. The City took advantage of the
opportunity to purchase market priced power at a very low price. In addition, the City
chose to extend that power purchase two years into the 200 I - 2006 contract period.
Using a graph, Deputy Director McLain summarized the Port Angeles load and the
average purchase per year. The contract with Avista (formerly Washington Water
Power in Spokane) will enable the City to purchase power at a very inexpensive rate
which should save the City approximately $700,000 during that two-year period. The
City entered into an agreement in February of this year to provide Elwha replacement
power for Daishowa through the BP A.
Deputy Director McLain indicated the market prices have increased dramatically, and
they are no longer competitive with Bonneville, so the most economical supply would
be from Bonneville. He discussed the process involved in the contract negotiations with
Bonneville and how the rate case is set. In reviewing the contract issues, Deputy
Director McLain noted the City can choose a 5-year or a lO-year contract. If the City
were to enter into a 10-year contract, the City would be guaranteed the lowest PF rates
established in the 2007 rate case. However, the down side would be that the rate may
be higher than market rates at the time. If the City were to enter into a 5-year contract,
the City could purchase market resources, but the PF power received from Bonneville
- 1 -
1
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
September 19, 2000
WORK SESSION:
(Cont'd)
Bonneville Power
Administration Wholesale
Power Contract (Cont'd)
Olympic Air Pollution
Control Authority reo State
Imposed Bum Ban
2
may not be at the lowest rate. There may also be a tiered rate at the time. Deputy
Director McLain advised the Council that staff is recommending a 10-year contract in
order to preserve the City's long-term right to the lowest PF power. Issues such as the
WPSS bonds, which will begin to be paid off in 2014, will make Bonneville power
much less expensive. Another issue to be considered is that new power, which could
ease some of the lack of power in the northwest, is coming in higher than the Bonneville
rates. .
.
An additional issue for consideration is the conservation and renewables discount. To
encourage and support the development of conservation projects and renewable
resources, Bonneville is offering a discount of one-half percent mill per kilowatt hour
for all BP A purchases. Deputy Director McLain indicated this could amount to about
$300,000 per year. If the City were to take advantage of this discount, it would need
to reevaluate the conservation program which has been operating at a minimal level
most recently.
Deputy Director McLain advised the Council that environmentally preferred power may
be added to the power supply with very little advance notice. While it is usually more
expensive, some retail customers may prefer this type of power on the basis of
protecting the environment. Customers will be surveyed in this regard to determine if
there is sufficient support to purchase this product.
The Council was informed of the cost recovery adjustment clause, which is a temporary
upward adjustment to the rates instituted if the accumulated net revenues of Bonneville
fall below a certain level. This clause has been in most of the City's past contracts with
Bonneville, and its purpose is to assure payment to the Federal Treasury of loans taken
out to fmance Bonneville's capital projects. Although this clause has never been
triggered, Deputy Director McLain noted the clause may be used during the rate case.
Discussion followed, with questions being raised on the issue of environmentally
preferred power, the timeframe for fmal payments on the WPSS bonds, and the fact the
City will likely see an increase in rates given the pressure on salmon recovery. In
responding to an inquiry on the contract with Louisville Power & Gas, Deputy Director
McLain indicated the contract extends into 2003 and is a contract purchased by A vista.
He reiterated this report was for informational purposes, and that the contract will be
presented to the Council for consideration in October. Discussion was also held as to
the expected growth in the next seven years. Deputy Director McLain indicated the
City has factored in a 1/2% per year growth factor on the residential and commercial
side into the expected load.
.
2.
Presentation by Olympic Air Pollution Control Authority reo State Imposed
Burn Ban
Fire Chief McKeen introduced Mr. Craig Weckesser, Public Information Officer for the
Olympic Air Pollution Control Authority, who was present to inform the Council of the
permanent bum ban to be implemented as of January 1,2001. Chief McKeen indicated
the bum ban is a result of the 1991 Washington State Clean Air Act which was enacted
to curtail, if not reduce, the State's air pollution. The law requires that this permanent
bum ban be implemented on a phased approach, with the more urbanized and populated
areas being targeted as of January 1, 2001. Port Angeles, to include the Urban Growth
Area, is included in the ban as of that date. Chief McKeen indicated this ban will
impact those individuals who bum yard debris, as well as developers who bum debris
from land clearing.
Mr. Weckesser provided information relative to the OAPCA and informed the Council
that the Clean Air Act was passed in the interest of limiting outdoor burning to the
greatest extent possible in order to protect public health. The Olympic Air Pollution
Control Authority is responsible for implementation of the Act in this particular area.
Mr. Weckesser indicated it was his plan to share some effective ways of dealing with
the waste stream and to explore ways of partnering with organizations in the community
who can help in the public education process. The OAPCA, by working with various
fire departments, has produced a variety of educational materials for this purpose. Port
Angeles and its Urban Growth Area is one of five areas in the OAPCA jurisdiction in
which the bum ban will become effective the first of the year. Mr. Weckesser indicated
the OAPCA is working with each of the entities to identify the best process to inform
the citizens of ways to address the alternatives to outdoor burning. Mr. Weckesser
stressed the importance of partnering with the affected communities to achieve the goal
.
- 2 -
WORK SESSION:
(Cont'd)
.
Olympic Air Pollution
Control Authority reo State
Imposed Burn Ban
(Cont'd)
.
LATE ITEMS TO BE
PLACED ON THIS OR
FUTURE AGENDA:
.
:l~~,~-;v~,'~;~.";q?#f~,:g,~:~,~r:~~;:;i~_.;" ."' 'i~~~!;;?~s:~~~!t~l'
~. .< 'l;;
~" ~::",i/:~~t;-J:_'~
"~~
of educating the public on this issue.
With the use of the overhead pr9je~t~r and the assistance of Firefighter Jeff Abram, Mr.
Weckesser reviewed in detail the reasons for and the various components of the burn
ban. He also reviewed the types of fires that would still be allowed, as well as the types
of fires that would be allowed with a permit from the proper authority.
CITY COUNCil.. MEETING
September 19, 2000
Fire Chief McKeen informed the Council that the Fire Department plans to educate the
public on the specifics of the burn rules, as well as the alternatives to burning.
Information is being included in the next City newsletter, which is scheduled for
distribution in October. The City's web site includes a section on the open burning
rules and alternatives. Chief McKeen felt the burn ban would have a significant impact
on those industries involved in land clearing. Therefore, the Fire Department is
planning an open forum for the members of the Hoine Builders Association to be held
on October 24th at 5:30 p.m. A second forum will be held that same evening at 7:00
p.m. on the issue of burning yard debris.
In the ensuing discussion, Mr. Weckesser clarified that fire wood burned for home
heating would still be allowed, but he cautioned that the wood must be untreated.
Discussion was held on possible position changes by the Department of Natural
Resources on land clearing and burning in the rural areas. Mayor Doyle noted there
will be an increase in the amount of materials available for composting, and he felt the
City may need to prepare for such an increase as it pursues composting at the Landfill.
Manager Quinn inquired as to enforcement action that may be taken against violators,
and Mr. Weckesser indicated the OAPCA plans to work closely with local fire
departments on air quality issues; however, the ultimate enforcement responsibility rests
with the Olympic Air Pollution Control Authority. Brief discussion was held with
regard to how the OAPCA receives its funding, after which Mr. Weckesser was thanked
for his presentation.
Councilman Williams informed the Council of his attendance at a meeting of the
Clallam Transit Board of Directors at which time discussion was held on the matter of
the upcoming election on Initiative 745. Due to the negative consequences of this
initiative's passage, he inquired as to whether the City Council might wish to take a
position on the initiative. It was noted that Initiative 722 would also have a significant
impact and should be addressed as well. Attorney Knutson advised the Council that,
before any position could be taken by the Council, a notice must be provided to the
public giving them the opportunity to provide input on the subject, whether in support
or in opposition. After further discussion, it was agreed by consensus that the two
initiatives will be placed on the October 3 agenda and that appropriate notice will be
provided to seek public input from both sides of the issues. Staff was asked to prepare
a resolution opposing passage of the two initiatives.
Gary Gleason, a member of the Non-Motorized Committee, thanked the Council and
staff for the sidewalk work done on "I" Street, as well as the work being done on 8th
Street. Mr. Gleason noted the Council agenda item relative to grant applications for
Front and First Streets, which he indicated has been one of the committee's highest
priorities. He thanked Council for attention to non-motorized needs on this particular
project. Mr. Gleason noted another agenda item having to do with the project on
Lauridsen Boulevard, and he did not see any reference to bicycle lanes, striping, and
non-motorized transport, and he urged the City to make sure these items are included
in the project.
Mr. Gleason, as a follow-up to the last time he addressed the Council, contacted Clallam
Transit and has been placed on the mailing list as relates to the Gateway Project. Mr.
Gleason further stated that, on the matter of the Francis Street Park, he hasn't seen any
plans to include bike access or bicycle racks for the project. He again urged the City
Council to be certain the non-motorized needs are met. Mr. Gleason recently traveled
to Victoria where he noticed a water fountain that drained to a drinking place for dogs,
and then ultimately drained to water the plants. He suggested that as a future
consideration for use in Port Angeles.
At this time, due to illness and associated voice problems, Mayor Doyle asked
Councilman Wiggins to chair the meeting.
- 3 -
3
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
September 19. 2000
FINANCE:
Transportation
Enhancement Act TEA 21
Grant Applications
Grant Application for
Transportation
Improvement Board Funds
for Lauridsen Blvd.
Improvements
Southwood Service
Conversion Cost
Assistance
Award Waterline Projects
on "A" Street and Grant
A venue
4
1.
Transportation Enhancement Act TEA 21 Grant Applications
Councilman Wiggins reviewed the memorandum provided by Public Works & Utilities
Director Cutler who, in turn, reviewed for the Council information pertinent to the grant
applications. Director Cutler advised the Council the ftrst project for which grant funds
are requested is to construct curb, gutter and sidewalk on Front Street between Golf
Course Road and Ennis Street. The second project is to construct curb, gutter and
sidewalk on First Street between Golf Course Road and Ennis Street. Director Cutler
explained that both projects would include striping for bicycle lanes. In addition, he
summarized the City's match, which would include funds allocated for street trees in
the 200~ and 2001 budgets.
After limited discussion, Councilman Campbell moved to authorize the submission
of two TEA-21 enhancement grant applications in the amount of $200,000 each for
the installation of curb, gutter, sidewalk, landscaping and bicycle lanes on First
and Front Streets between Golf Course Road and Ennis Street and in addition, if
the grants are approved, authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement provided
that the grant amounts do not exceed $200,000 each. The motion was seconded by
Councilman Williams and carried unanimously.
.
2. Grant Application for Transportation Improvement Board Funds for
Lauridsen Boulevard Improvements
Councilman Wiggins reviewed the information submitted by Public Works & Utilities,
and Public Works & Utilities Director Cutler informed the Council that this project
would involve the widening of the bridge on Lauridsen Boulevard at Race Street. In
addition, it would also include the Lincoln/Lauridsen intersection, as well as an overlay
of Lauridsen Boulevard.
Director Cutler summarized for the Council the City's match to the grant funds.
Councilman Campbell inquired as to whether bike lanes would be made a part of this
project, and City Engineer Kenworthy responded that the bike lanes would be added as
part of the overlay portion of the project. Councilman Williams moved to authorize
the submission of an AlP grant application to the TIB in the amount of $2,303,000
for the widening of the bridge on Lauridsen Boulevard at Race Street, intersection
improvements at Lincoln Street, and sidewalk installation and paving on
Lauridsen Boulevard from Lincoln Street to Race Street and in addition, if the
grant is approved, authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement provided that the
grant amount does not exceed $2,303,000. The motion was seconded by
Councilmember Erickson and carried unanimously.
.
3. Southwood Service Conversion Cost Assistance
Councilman Wiggins reviewed the memorandum submitted by Public Works & Utilities
and asked Director Cutler for further input. Director Cutler described the nature of the
project in that it involves the conversion of overhead electrical services to underground.
Councilman Campbell noted that the City will greatly reduce maintenance costs of
rundown facilities in a difftcult area, so there is signiftcant beneftt to the City because
of this project. After further discussion, Councilman Williams moved to authorize
reimbursement of customer conversion costs at 90% of the lowest bid or actual
invoice cost, whichever is lower. The motion was seconded by Councilmember
Erickson and carried unanimously.
4. Award Waterline Projects on "A" Street and Grant Avenue
Councilman Wiggins reviewed the information submitted by Public Works & Utilities,
and Director Cutler informed the Council that these water mains were selected for
replacement by virtue of the numerous water leaks experienced. After limited
discussion, Mayor Doyle moved to award the Bid for "A" Street and Grant Avenue
water main improvements, Project 20-12, to Babbitt Construction, Inc., and
authorize the Mayor to sign the contract in the amount of $172,964.78, including
tax. The motion was seconded by Council member Erickson and carried
unanimously.
.
- 4 -
Tree Trim Contract
Change Order
.
A ward Aerial Mapping
Contract for 2000
CONSENT AGENDA:
.
CITY COUNCIL
COMMITTEE
REPORTS:
.
5.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
September 19. 2000
Tree Trim
Change Order
Councilman Wiggins reviewed. tI1e memorandum submitted by Public Works &
Utilities. Director Cutler advised llie Council that additional tree trimming is necessary
in order to avoid winter storm related power outages. Councilman Campbell moved
to authorize the Mayor to sign the change order to Contract 20-1lincreasing the
not to exceed amount of the contract to $55,000, an increase of $25,000 for
additional tree. trimming. The motion was seconded by Councilman Williams and
carried unanimously.
6.
Award Aerial Mapping Contractfor 2000
Councilman Wiggins summarized the information provided by Public Works &
Utilities, and Director Cutler informed the Council that the last aerial mapping done for
the City was in 1995. He indicated the maps were in need of being updated, and it is
planned to extend the mapping to the Elwha River. Some of the costs will be singled
out and charged for reimbursement "to the Federal Government. City Engineer "'-
Kenworthy explained that it was originally planned to spend $50,000 for each update
to the maps every two years; however, in the interest of saving money, it was decided
to wait for the update until now. The maps prove to be extremely helpful in land use
issues. Manager Quinn also pointed out that the maps will be helpful in annexation
discussions. .
After further discussion, Councilman Williams moved to authorize the Mayor to
sign an agreement with David Smith & Associates in the amount of $108,596.00 to
provide aerial mapping 2000 services. The motion was seconded by Councilman
Campbell and carried unanimously.
Councilman Williams moved to accept the Consent Agenda, to include: 1) City
Council minutes of the September 5, 2000, regular meeting; and 2) Checklist -
September 13, 2000 - $758,095.44. The motion was seconded by Mayor Doyle and
carried unanimously.
Councilman Williams attended a meeting of the Peninsula Regional Transportation
Planning Organization, at which time discussion was held on the Blue Ribbon
Committee. The Committee passed on such issues as streets of local and statewide
significance; as well as routes that come into play when considering bridge expansion,
such. as the City's Lauridsen Boulevard bridge project. Planning Director Collins
interjected the City needs to become familiar with the recommendations of the Blue
Ribbon Commission on Transportation, as there is a question about timing and whether
or not the individual jurisdictions should be responding or whether the RTPO should
be responding. He referred to a letter from the Southwest RTPO, addressing less the
recommendations and more the needs of the Southwest RTPO. The Peninsula RTPO
is looking for individual cities and counties to formulate their own response, which the
City is in the process of doing at this point. Director Collins suggested the possibility
of a work session to consider the Blue Ribbon recommendations. He noted that the
main thrust of the recommendations would put more money towards congestion in areas
such as the Puget Sound area and make it more difficult for outlying and rural areas to
compete for funds.
Councilman Williams also attended Port Angeles Works!, a tour of the Carnegie
Library, and the Clallam Transit meeting.
Councilman Campbell attended a FairPoint Communications seminar, along with other
Councilmembers and staff. FairPoint conducted a useful seminar on a community
development project called BridgeWorks. Councilman Campbell felt this to be a tested,
successful process with some rather spectacular results. He noted that it requires a
different type of thinking and is an opportunity to build collaboration among those
committed to do so. BridgeWorks advocates what the City already has to create new
development opportunities in the community, and it can be used at any level in the
community. Councilman Campbell also attended the Port Angeles Works! Committee
meeting, at which time an update was received from DenRee Products on the E-nabled
Visions Tour. It is expected that the first report to the Council will be submitted by the
end of October. Councilman Campbell reported that the Olympic Air Pollution Control
Authority Board met and retired the Executive Director; Craig Weckesser was
appointed Interim Executive Director.
- 5 -
5
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
September 19, 2000
CITY COUNCIL
COMMITTEE
REPORTS: (Cont'd)
ORDINANCES NOT
REQUIRING PUBLIC
HEARINGS:
Hurricane Ridge Public
Development Authority
Agreement / Ordinance
6
Mayor Doyle attended the, ChamberNCB advertising campaign announcement,
welcomed the Story Tellers, and conducted a ribbon-cutting at the new Skipper's.
Councilmember Erickson had no report. Councilman Wiggins participated in the .
Economic Development Council Executive Committee meeting. The City Council has
been provided with a report on the upcoming budget year for the EDC, which reveals
that the EDC has lost some funding opportunities which will need to be made up
elsewhere. The Council will need to address whether the City will increase the funding
allocation to the EDC to help make up the shortfall. Councilman Wiggins reported that
the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee met and endorsed the concept of the Public
Development Authority, which will be considered later in the meeting.
Ordinances Not Requiring Public Hearings:
Hurricane Ridge Public Development Authority Agreement I Ordinance
Councilman Wiggins introduced the matter of the proposed Hurricane Ridge Public
Development Authority and asked Attorney Knutson for further input. Attorney
Knutson indicated the matter before the Council was a suggestion from the' Hurricane
Ridge Winter Sports Club to create a Public Development Authority for the primary
purpose of applying for the concession which is about to expire at the Hurricane Ridge
lodge. Attorney Knutson reviewed the documents in the Council packet and indicated
the Interlocal Agreement with the County would need to be adopted first in that the
County needs to delegate to the City Council the authority to create the PDA outside the
City limits. The County has approved and signed the Interlocal Agreement, which sets
forth the City's assumption of any liability that could accrue to the County for its
limited role in delegating to the City the authority to establish the PDA. Attorney
Knutson indicated the City's liability should be fairly limited in creating and overseeing
the PDA based on a provision in State law which states that any liability exposure is
limited to the assets of the Public Development Authority.
Attorney Knutson continued by stating the next step would be to consider the Ordinance
and the attached Charter and Bylaws. Most of the Ordinance deals with the process for
the City to oversee the PDA, particularly if there are any problems encountered. There
are several options that the City has with regard to dealing with its oversight
responsibility, including the possibility of terminating the Authority or merging it with
another public corporation. Attorney Knutson indicated the Ordinance tries to give the
Council flexibility depending on the types of things that might occur. The Ordinance
includes a ten-day provision for the Mayor to call the first meeting of the Board of
Directors after the Ordinance is adopted and the Charter put into effect. Attorney
Knutson suggested extending this time frame to thirty days in order to give the Council,
the School District, and the County time to nominate their representatives to the Board.
Attorney Knutson indicated this change is on Page 77 of the packet, Section 8. He
suggested another change to the Ordinance on Page 78, Item 9, where it states "...ofthis
chapter or its charter, which should be corrected to read, "... of this ordinance or its
charter" .
.
Attorney Knutson indicated Manager Quinn has been working closely with the
Hurricane Ridge Winter Sports Club and, at this time, Manager Quinn reviewed the
provision in the Ordinance for seven directors of which the Mayor is to nominate two.
Manager Quinn recommended that he and Councilman Wiggins be nominated to serve
on the Board.
Steve Oliver, representing the Hurricane Ridge Winter Sports Club, expressed
appreciation for the assistance and guidance from City staff throughout this process.
He further noted that the cooperation between the City and the County on this matter
has been outstanding. Mr. Oliver stated that, as a follow-up to an earlier pre,sentation
made to the Council, the creation of a Public Development Authority would enable the
Hurricane Ridge Winter Sports Club to provide an excellent opportunity for Port
Angeles as a gateway City to the National Park to benefit from the Hurricane Ridge
lodge and the magnificent scenery by hopefully broadening the base for tourism in the
community into the fall, winter, and spring seasons. He felt the lodge and the natural
beauty of the area would serve as a natural attraction.
Mr. Oliver felt that the creation and development of the PDA would allow them to
assure the community that an important recreational facility would continue to grow and
flourish. He clarified that much more is involved than alpine skiing. Mr. Oliver noted
that the Sports Club's vision is to maintain a relatively small, attractive family-oriented
.
- 6 -
.
.
.
ORDINANCES NOT
REQUIRING PUBLIC
HEARINGS:
(Cont'd)
Hurricane Ridge Public
Development Authority
Agreement / Ordinance
(Cont'd)
Break
RESOLUTIONS:
OTHER
CONSIDERATIONS:
INFORMATION:
ADJOURN TO
EXECUTIVE SESSION:
RETURN TO OPEN
SESSION:
,.i,.,~; Y:'~il;:fff!j;~:~~:~~i~:~:Tf;t\';~;r'mttr~:i.f::~t:'~~~[~~(~t]:~~,~#:~,'~i; ,
, ,- -'" .. '.
, .. .. CITY COUNCIL MEETING
;i;~~~Xi September 19, 2000
alpine skiing and snowboarding opportunity. However, there is much more to the
vision, as the Club would like to see lodge services expanded, that it remain open during
the fall, winter, and spring seasons, that they get road clearing to the point it is reliable
so that people from the commUnity;ahd outlying areas can rely on the road being open.
Mr. Oliver felt that a cooperative effort between the City, County, National Park, and
the Winter Sports Club should assure this goal will be accomplished. Mr. Oliver added .
other goals as relates to enhanced food and beverage services, a quality gift shop,
educational programs for youth and the traveling public, as well as expanded
recreational opportunities for cross country skiers, snow shoers, and hikers.
Discussion followed, with the Council inquiring as to the process utilized in applying
for concession rights. Mr. Oliver explained there will be a competitive selection
process, and he summarized the intent of new federal legislation to expand the number
of bidders for this type of concession. He reviewed for the Council other Public
Development Authorities, such as the Grays Harbor Maritime Museum & Lady
Washington, the Pike Place Market, and the Seattle Art Museum. The PDA would have
no taxing authority, but it does have the ability to issue tax exempt municipal bonds.
Councilman Campbell felt this proposal to be extremely exciting particularly with the
current focus on economic development.
After further discussion, Councilman Campbell moved to approve and authorize the
Mayor to sign the Interlocal Government Agreement with Clallam County for the
Creation and Operation of the Hurricane Ridge Public Development Authority.
The motion was seconded by Councilmember Erickson and carried unanimously.
Councilman Wiggins noted the suggested changes made to the Ordinance by Attorney
Knutson and read the Ordinance by title, entitled
ORDINANCE NO. 3061
AN ORDINANCE relating to the Hurricane Ridge National Park
Concession and creating the Hurricane Ridge Public
Development Authority; approving a charter and initial
bylaws therefor; establishing a Board of Directors to
govern the affairs of the Authority; providing how the
Authority shall conduct its affairs.
Mayor Doyle moved to adopt the Ordinance as corrected and as read by title. The
motion was seconded by Council member Erickson and carried unanimously.
The meeting was adjourned for a break at 8:05 p.m. and reconvened at 8:20 p.m.
Upon returning from the break, Mayor Doyle introduced the need to consider the
nomination of the City's representatives to the Hurricane Ridge Public Development
Authority Board of Directors. At this time, Mayor Doyle nominated Councilman
Wiggins and Manager Quinn. Attorney Knutson advised the Council that the matter of
confirming all seven nominees will be returned to the Council at its next meeting.
Resolutions: None.
Other Considerations: None.
City Manager's Report: Manager Quinn reminded the Council of its special meeting
scheduled for Thursday, September 21, at 5:30 p.m. to discuss the Carnegie Library and
the Gateway Project. In addition, Council was reminded of the City's Outstanding
Public Service luncheon also on Thursday, September 21.
Kudos were given to Finance Director Ziomkowski for a recent WFOA award. Director
Cutler spoke briefly on funding the City will be receiving as a reimbursement for the
Ennis and Tumwater slide repairs.
The meeting adjourned to Executive Session at 8:25 p.m. to discuss litigation and
potential litigation for 15 - 30 minutes.
The meeting returned to Open Session at approximately 9:00 p.m.
- 7 -
7
8
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
September 19,.2000
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
Becky 1. Upton, City Clerk
- 8 -
Larry Doyle, Mayor
.
.
.
.
.
.
CALL TO ORDER -
SPECIAL MEETING:
ROLL CALL:
Gateway Project
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING
Port Angeles, Washington
September 21, 2000
Mayor Doyle called the special meeting of the Port Angeles City Council to order at
5:30 p.m.
Members Present:
Mayor Doyle, CounciImembers Campbell, Erickson, Hulett,
Wiggins, and Williams.
Councilmember McKeown.
Members Absent:
Staff Present:
Manager Quinn, Attorney Knutson, Clerk Upton, B.
Collins, G. CutIer,T. Riepe, G. Kenworthy, and T. Smith.
A. Holzschuh and R. Gotham, Port Angeles Downtown
Association; S. Barnhart, Clallam Transit; D. Vange,
Ravenhurst; I. Bahbah, Merritt + Pardini; and A. Ramsey,
Peninsula Daily News.
Mayor Doyle informed those present that this meeting was held for the purpose of
discussing the Gateway Project and the Camegie Library. Introductions were made, and
Mayor Doyle then turned the meeting over to Manager Quinn.
Public Present:
Gateway Project: Manager Quinn indicated it was intended that this be an informal
discussion for the City Council which is open to the public. He provided a brief history
of the Gateway Project, starting with the discussions on the MultiModal Transportation
Center. The project is now at the point of moving to the next step, which is property
acquisition and then fmal design. The site identified for the project is Tidelands East,
and the Downtown Forward Executive Committee has been working toward creating
a master plan with applications submitted for Federal funding. One of the things that
has changed since the project's inception to the Gateway Project is the fact that there
are insufficient funds available to fmance an underground parking facility. This is an
item that must move to some other site and facility. In addition, the building has been
scaled down so that it is a much smaller facility to house the Transit operations.
Some of the basic concepts have been kept in place, such as the original goals: I) to
revitalize downtown Port Angeles; 2) to improve the traffic flow downtown; and 3) to
improve community relationships to invigorate and revitalize the downtown area into
the greater Port Angeles community. Some urban de!!ign objectives were established:
1) shrink the downtown core to make it more dense and more vibrant; 2) connect First
Street and Railroad Avenue with a linkage corridor; 3) capture the latent visitor market;
4) enhance the pedestrian environment to allow pedestrian plazas and visual
enticements; 5) welcome the ferry traffic; and 6) encourage a year-round downtown in
Port Angeles.
Manager Quinn noted that another objective is to define the role of Transit in the
downtown area. The Downtown Forward Executive Committee has drafted some other
objectives dealing with housing and a separate industrial truck route, but Manager
QuinnfeIt those objectives don't necessarily have a direct bearing on the Gateway
Project. As with any project, Manager Quinn felt the Gateway Project doesn't answer
each and every concern, and the purpose for this evening's discussion is to get the issues
of concern on the table. One of the issues identified has been the impact of having
Transit located in one central area in the downtown.
Imad Bahbah, Merritt + Pardini, discussed the process used in the area of partnering and
consensus building. There was an effort toward open dialogue in establishing the vision
for the project, which he felt was a very successful process. Mr. Bahbah showed a
drawing depicting the master plan for Gateway, as well as the preferred site plan agreed
upon by the stakeholders. This portion of the work had to be completed in order to get
past the environmental review. There are three elements on which the project can
- I -
9
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING
September 21, 2000
Gateway Project (Cont'd)
now move forward: land negotiations, creation of a positive public outreach program
for community involvement, and fme tuning the design.
Darrell Vange, Ravenhurst Development, indicated he has been involved in the project .
since the beginning, and it was his observation that the original vision is staying true.
He explained the vision from the Downtown Forward Executive Committee's point of
view, and he used the site plan to discuss in detail how the vision is being met. Mr.
Vange indicated a lot of time has been spent creating a positive impression for the
visitors arriving in Port Angeles, as well as a positive image for people coming off the
ferry .
On the matter of the Transit facility, Mr. Vange indicated the program could
accommodate up to 8 buses, but there are presently only a maximum of 6 buses at the
Oak Street property. The design has included increased capacity to meet future needs.
The buses stay in the facility for only 5 minutes out of every hour -- this is not a parking
lot for buses. Mr. Vange clarified this is basically a gathering place for people, and
every effort has been made to provide a distinction and mitigation between the walkway
and the driveway. Mr. Bahbah reminded the group of the various funding agencies
participating and pooling resources in the hope of seeing this project become a reality.
Mr. Vange noted that the Transit building could only accommodate Transit activities,
but another vision could include the Base Camp building. It was intended that the Base
Camp would be a visitor services core, with the hope of accommodating such non-profit
entities as the Chamber of Commerce, the Visitor & Convention Bureau, the Downtown
Association, the National Park, and those involved in economic development.
Economic Development Director Smith summarized the level of funds committed to the
project thus far, much of which is heavily laden with FT A funds. Because the Transit
would need a home for the center, the Downtown Forward group agreed to place the
facility in the downtown area in the vicinity of the conference center. Discussion
followed, and Mr. Smith noted that about $300,000 has been spent out of the funds
available. If the project is not pursued, then the funds must be returned.
Mr. Vange felt it to be very clear that an environment is being created for private
development to occur. He discussed the difficulties encountered in trying to create such .
an environment, noting that the group is trying to change the fundamental character of
the downtown so that other development can occur.
Discussion followed on the possible impacts of Initiative 745 if passed, the plans for
signage in the downtown core, as well as minor possible changes to the site plan as
relates to more opportunity for pedestrian traffic. Mayor Doyle noted that no matter
where the pedestrian walkways are placed, the pedestrians and the buses will cross paths
at some point. Roy Gotham indicated that whatever plan is pursued, it will be in place
for many years. It is, therefore, extremely important that the right thing be done,
particularly since the property involved is such prime property. Mr. Vange expressed
the opinion that the group is not precluding development. Mr. Gotham was uncertain
as to whether he would want buses next to his place of business, but Mr. Vange noted
the important role all Transits will play in the future. Mr. Smith reminded the group of
the original discussions pertinent to the MultiModal Center, at which time transportation
was considered to be a major player. At that tUf1e, the Downtown Forward Executive
Committee agreed to have buses in the downtown area in the vicinity of the conference
center.
Discussion followed concerning the location of the bus facility and previous
consideration to placing the bus facility on Tidelands West. Mr. Gotham expressed the
opinion that the property on Tidelands West is not as prime as the property to the east.
It was pointed out that the multimodal portion of the project also relates to tour buses,
taxicabs, and the like, and it was intended that as much activity as possible will be
generated.
Planning Director Collins indicated that a number of agencies are involved in this
project, and the Transit funding could be used to place the center in another location.
The primary interest in creating a public space in conjunction with the MultiModal
project was to bring people together in that particular location because of the proximity
to the water. Because of the combining of the funds, the project was able to be focused
on a public plaza concept with a more attractive connection to the waterfront.
Councilman Wiggins inquired as to whether another site should be considered, and
Director Collins expressed the opinion that his view of the facility was that it would be
very upscale.
.
10
- 2-
Gateway Project (Cont'd)
.
.
Break
Carnegie Building
.
'/'~'~~,!l~,;.\:g~'.t,,~,lli~;{1,'IJ,e'\':.#il~~M'.!;(;t,Ii~ !'
i ,,!, ,';.~,:,~,':~-"~}-(i\. i:'~_.:;; :J~-j-;: ':.< '~\:'~/I~.: \.i, Y'-~~-!_ "-~;i;';~'- ,,,':'~rr._~~:~.j!"',
;;',. .
.,:"::,\l;j p
.,;'\, ",j;'
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING
September 21, 2000
\.#;k~/iJ.~, , .
At Mr. Gotham's request, Mr. Vange addressed the matter ofa parkmg garage that had
been considered early on in the project. A location had been identified on Tidelands
West, but funding for such a facilio/has not been forthcoming. Mr. Vange felt there is
still a good opportunity to malCea'proposal for State funding for a parking garage on
Tidelands West. It has been agreed that the property on Tidelands East should be
preserved for other opportunities. Mr. Vange further discussed the project in terms of
parking, transportation, and the Oak Street property. He indicated he has been working
with Tim Smith in packaging an RFP for a modest conference ce~ter downtown.
Tim Smith cited the amount of private development that has taken place more recently
in the downtown area, an accomplishment which he felt could be attributed to the
Gateway Project and the surrounding discussions. Arla Holzschuh of the Port Angeles
Downtown Association indicated that, since 1997, 14 - 16 buildings have changed
ownership in the downtown and many are undergoing some type of rehabilitation. The
vacancy rate for rentable square footage is down to 3 1/2%.
Councilman Williams requested elevation views from various perspectives so that all
concerned can envision how the project will look. He also inquired as to whether there
is a willingness to redirect traffic on Railroad A venue, particularly that generated by the
ferry.
Mr. Vange stressed the project is in the pre-design phase in order to make certain the
appropriate locations have been selected, as well as to make certain that all questions
have been answered for the environmental exclusion. Once approvals have been
obtained from the Federal Government, then discussions with property owners can be
opened and work can commence on the fmal design. Mr. Smith felt the project is in
exactly the right phase to address and mitigate any concerns of the Downtown
Association.
In response to a question from Mayor Doyle, Mr. Vangeindicated it is important to
fully understand the process of property acquisition in view of the Federal involvement.
He reviewed the process, after which it was agreed the City Council will need to make
a decision in the near future. Manager Quinn agreed, noting that the concerns must be
addressed knowing full well that only a portion of the grand vision will be pursued at
this time. The project is being done to revitalize the downtown, and it is essential that
all parties work together to see the project come to fruition. Arla Holzschuh asked Mr.
Vange to review earlier discussions, at which time consideration was given to having
the entire project done on Tidelands West. She felt it would be helpful for everyone to
be, able to compare that possibility to what is being planned now. Mr. Smith
underscored the fact that the project is intended to not only attract new business but also
to support those businesses already in existence. The success of the project hinges on
supporting the current businesses. Councilman Campbell wanted to make certain there
would be no impediments for these types of meetings to move forward. Manager Quinn
indicated that discussions will be opened with property owners, and periodic progress
reports will be made as this effort proceeds. There will be an extensive public outreach
program initiated as well.
The meeting was recessed for a break at 7:05 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 7:15
p.m.
Carnegie Building: Manager Quinn opened discussion on the Carnegie Building by
summarizing a presentation made to the City Council in March, 2000, at which time the
Council was informed that renovation costs for the building could be estimated at
$900,000+ and restoration costs estimated at approximately $1.1 Million. At that time,
the Council decided to apply for a State grant to be used towards restoration; however,
the application was not successful. There is a two-year cycle involved in the grant
request, so the City would have to wait to seek grant funds and the building would
remain vacant.
The question must be addressed as to what the City would like to do with the building
and whether it stays in the public domain. Manager Quinn advised the Council that it
is staffs recommendation that the building remain a public facility, as it is adjacent to
property that is already in a public corridor, to include Bonney's Bakery and Veteran's
Park. Further, he felt the building could be supportive to the downtown area, plus it
would be in the City's best interest to preserve the heritage of the building. The best use
would be for the building to accommodate a public agency or a non-profit entity, such
as the Museum. Approximately $200,000 remains from the Library bond issue, and
Manager Quinn indicated he would attempt to gain funds out of the 2001 budget that
- 3 -
11
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING
September 21, 2000
Carnegie Building
(Cont'd)
would be available as a capital insertion for the Carnegie Building. In addition, other
agencies are being approached for funding assistance. With the present funds available
and other funding sources materializing, the City is approaching the necessary amount
needed to fmalize the project.
Manager Quinn informed the Council that the Historical Society has expressed an
interest in using the Carnegie Building as a museum annex. The City or the County
would be interested in purchasing the existing School Administration property and, with
the proceeds from that acquisition, the administration could move to the Lincoln School
site. The Historical Society could then use proceeds from the sale of the portion of
Lincoln School to move to the Carnegie site.
Manager Quinn summarized another possible scenario he envisioned in that the City
could spend the necessary funds to ftx the Carnegie Building, after which it could swap
the Carnegie property for the School District property, and the School Administration
could ultimately be housed in the Carnegie Building. This would result in a public use
for a public building. Further, Manager Quinn shared with the Council a possible
scenario whereby the Coho Ferry might be able to house the Customs Offtces, thereby
freeing up space in the Federal Building for the museum. Many of these thoughts have
not been shared with the agencies; however, Manager Quinn felt them worthy of
pursuit. The other alternative he noted would be to turn the Carnegie Building in to the
private sector for sale or for trade.
Discussion followed, and it was agreed by consensus that the City should not wait an
additional two years to submit a grant application but, rather, should proceed with work
on the Carnegie Building. It was agreed the exterior should be repaired in order to
generate more interest, and Manager Quinn felt it possible that sufftcient funds could
be set aside to also work on the interior of the building to bring it up to code.
In the discussion that ensued, Manager Quinn advised the Council that the County was
also interested in acquiring the School District property in the interest of expanding its
parking. To that end, Manager Quinn suggested the possibility of vacating a portion of
Fourth Street in order to meet both City and County needs. The City would like to
acquire the property for utilization with pool expansion. He also saw this as a
possibility for the two governments to work closely in a college campus-type approach.
Councilman Campbell felt it important for this historical building to be preserved in
some fashion, with seismic stabilization and ADA requirements incorporated.
Consideration was given to what type of restoration work could be done to the interior
of the building, particularly because the second floor doesn't lend itself to a private use.
It was further agreed that Manager Quinn should proceed with the pursuit of the
different scenarios, and that efforts should proceed toward the renovation of the
building.
In further considering the options, Planning Director Collins felt the Historical Society
has always wanted to maintain a presence in the downtown area, and the Carnegie
Building would be the most visible site. Manager Quinn advised the Council that it was
staffs goal to bring a proposal to the City Council in terms of needed funding before
the end of the year. Director Cutler, at the Council's request, reviewed the speciftcs of
the necessary work required on the building. Manager Quinn assured the Council there
may be other elements of the community who may want to provide fmancial support
for a project of this nature.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 7:55 p.m.
Becky 1. Upton, City Clerk
Larry Doyle, Mayor
12
- 4 -
.
.
.
;i1;~\t~~~;~~r~)~;j.!;~~r~~~,'k4"':::"~~'~f/'-~;1~~~,1!,~~t~;0{t-}~r~1f$t$\'
.
CITY COUNCIL MEMO
~ORTANGEtE.~
WAS H I N G TON, U. S. A.
DATE:
September 28,2000
To:
MAYOR DOYLE AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM:
Timothy J. Smith, Economic Development Director
SUBJECT:
Resolution support Business Incubator Network and Skills Center
.
Summary: Earlier this year, the City adopted an industry and business marketing strategy which
focuses economic development efforts towards the 'new economy', typified by the emerging high-
tech industry sector. The strategy stresses the importance of making sure that Port Angeles has the
infrastructure and education system necessary to support the growth and recruitment of the target
industry. The implementation program includes locating and developing a high-tech business
incubator which would include support services necessary to encourage the start-up and successful
growth oftechnology related enterprise, together with programs for high-tech workforce training and
development. Recently, proponents of the incubator partnership have met with representatives of
the Olympic Peninsula Skills Consortium and explored the potential for combining forces in a
comprehensive approach which would co-locate the incubator concept with a dedicated Skills
Center. The attached resolution has been developed to formally express the community partnership
in such an approach. Representatives of the proposed partnership will be on hand at Council's
meeting for a presentation of the project.
Recommendation: Staff recommends Council pass the attached resolution.
Back2round / Analysis: This last year, the City, working through the EDC , developed the Port
Angeles Marketing and Recruitment Strategy. The Strategy, as adopted by the City Council,
purposefully re-focuses our community's economic development efforts toward business and
industry development which emphasizes the 'new economy' typified by the emerging high-tech
industry sector. The strategy stresses the importance of having appropriate infrastructure and
educational systems which are necessary to successfully grow the target industry as well as prepare
and maintain the skilled workforce which serves that sector.
The marketing strategy identified four goals:
.
1. To invest in necessary telecommunications and related infrastructure to support and expand
technology related enterprises that have begun to emerge in Port Angeles.
2. To' develop a high-tech business incubator program and facility, termed the Technology
Innovation Center, bringing together technology-based business organizations and
entrepreneurs.
3. To build on and expand our existing workforce training programs in technology related
fields.
4. To implement a marketing campaign to attract new business and industry investment.
The proposed program is envisioned as having a three-year development period. During Phase I of
13
l
The proposed program is envisioned as having a three-year development period. During Phase I of
the initiative, the implementation elements include the location and development of an initial facility
that will serve as the Technology Innovation Center. The Center would be a business incubator
facility with support services necessary to encourage the start-up and successful growth of
technology related enterprise, together with facilities and programs for high-tech workforce training .
and development. The City Economic Development Office has been moving forward with the
planning necessary to develop the Technology Center through a broader, county-wide partnership
aimed at the creation of a "network" of incubators throughout the county in close partnership with
the EDC, Jamestown S Klallam Tribe and First Federal Savings and Loan.
Recently, proponents ofthe incubator'have met with representatives ofthe Olympic Peninsula Skills
Consortium. The development of a dedicated Skills Center Facility has been a goal of the
Consortium for sometime. Together, we have explored the potential for a combined, comprehensive
approach which would co-locate the incubator with a dedicated Skills Center. The attached
resolution has been developed to formally express the community partnership in such an approach.
Representatives of the proposed partnership will be on hand at Council's meeting for a presentation
of the project.
~.p;tC,..s:L -
Timothy J. S .th
Economic Development Director
.
.
14
.
. What needs to happen next?
When the feasibility study for the incubator network has been completed (mid-
October, 2000) and analyzed, a Business Plan will be written. The next step is to:
identify funding partners from within and outside the community. A partnership
between private businesses, the cities, the county, the tribes, private foundations and
federal funding sources will be necessary to raise the capital for the building,
improvements, staff, equipment, marketing and operations.
. When could an incubator be open?
Sometime before the summer of 200 I, the first Clallam County business incubator
could be open for clients.. .most likely in Forks, Port Angeles or Sequim.
. It's a terrific idea! What can I do to help?
· Give this brochure to anyone you know who is considering a new business
venture.. .anyone in the business start-up stage.. . anyone with a home-based
business... or anyone with a young business that's growing.
· Call 360-457-7793. That's the business incubator Clearinghouse at the
Clallam County Economic Development Council. Give them the
following information so the potential client can be contacted:
Contact name
Address
Phone number
e-mail
Business name
Nature of the business
Thank you very much
for your assistance and interest.
~......................
CJ1
.
.
.......................
Frequently asked questions
about the proposed
BUSINESS
INCUBATOR
NETWORK
for Clallam County
September 26, 2000
........................
~
0)
. What is a "business incubator"?
It's a special type of business assistance center. They began in the United States
about 25 years ago and also sometimes are called business "accelerators" or
"greenhouses" because they help start, grow and hatch new businesses in a
controlled and nurturing atmosphere.
Business incubators are support organizations for start-up and emerging businesses.
By providing business counseling, technical assistance, space, services and benefits,
young businesses who are clients of the incubators become and remain successful,
and that eventually creates jobs. And that is very good for the local economy!
. What kind of help do start-up businesses need?
Most new and small businesses are short on everything except the founder's
enthusiasm. Usually they're undercapitalized right from the beginning. The owners
lack $$$ to rent space, pay themselves a salary or hire staff, purchase equipment, buy
insurance, market their services or products aggressively, etc. You get the picture.
Besides a $$$ SHORTAGE, they also lack TIME to get essential training, network
or learn about their industry. They often work other jobs to support themselves and
their families while trying to get their new business up and running. Some statistics:
.
75% of everyone working in Washington State works for a company with
ten or less employees.
75% of all new businesses in the United States fail within their first 5 years.
75% of all new businesses open their doors without a written Business Plan.
80% of all new businesses graduated from business incubators are still
in business five years later.
.
.
.
. Who can become an incubator client?
· Someone with a good start-up business idea
· Someone already in a home-based business
· Someone working from a borrowed, rented or shared space he or she has
outgrown
· Someone who wants to improve his or her chance for success
. How does a business incubator help its clients?
Each incubator is designed to serve its community. An incubator in an agricultural
community might have a commercial kitchen for food product manufacturing, for
example. The benefits and services offered also will vary....but in general, these are
a few of the ways an incubator client is helped:
.
.
· Access to management training by professionals
· Shared clerical services
· Shared equipment (i.e. high-speed copiers, computers, digital cameras,
fax, etc.)
· Conference room, commissary or lunchroom
· Affordable flexible space rental
· Website management, videoconferencing, catalogues, trade shows
· Accounting, marketing, advertising assistance
· Group insurance, credit union
· Microenterprise loan funds
· Shared libraries, materials, labor pool
. What does a business incubator look like?
They come in all shapes and sizes. Some are downtown buildings that offer retail
space. Some have commercial kitchens for food producers. Some are in industrial
parks where light manufacturing is allowed. Others could be in special buildings
suited to high-technology, pharmaceuticals or software clients.
. How does a business become a client?
Although the details haven't been determined yet for Clallam County's business
incubator network, usually the process includes an interview, an application, a
written business plan, review by the incubator management or board, determination
of the business's space and equipment needs and other considerations.
. Why does Clallam County need this network?
No other facility in Clallam County currently provides the start-up, young, emerging
or expanding business with the "one-stop-shop" services and benefits a business
incubator offers. Although many excellent organizations exist in the county that are
dedicated to help businesses succeed... they would act in support of the incubators.
. Who supports this business incubator concept?
Many private citizens, business owners and public sector agencies and organizations
support this undertaking, including the Cities ofSequim, Port Angeles and Forks,
Clallam County, the Clallam County Economic Development Council, STMA, a
number of private businesses like First Federal Savings and Loan and the County's
three tribal nations.
.
""''t{:12'';f)r;''J1:,', ',ft ", " "'!~ .,i'
. RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Port Angeles,
Washington, in support of the county-wide development ofa business
incubator and skills center facility.
WHEREAS, the City of Port Angeles recognizes the importance of a county-wide,
community based economic development approach that focuses on the growth and expansion of both
the local workforce and the local business base; and
WHEREAS, the economic vitality of business and industry has a direct dependence
upon the level of available skills and education of the workforce; and
WHEREAS, the establishment of a business incubator program can have a direct impact
on a community's economic development through improved new business start-up and survival
rates, increased employment, and sales tax generation; and
.
WHEREAS, the design of typical business incubator facilities can accommodate and
benefit from having flexible housing support services for small firms, as well as flexible training
space for workforce education and development; and
WHEREAS, interagency collaboration in the development of a partnership between a
business incubator network and a dedicated skills center will strengthen county-wide cooperation
towards our community's economic development goals and can further exhibit the area's business
friendly attitude; and
WHEREAS, such a partnership will provide increased opportunities for placement
throughout Clallam County of diverse, new start-up firms supported by a well educated and skilled
workforce;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Port
Angeles as follows:
1. The City of Port Angeles supports the efforts of the Small Business Incubator Network
Committee and the Olympic Peninsula Skills Consortium to develop opportunities for
.
1-
17
a combined business incubator and skills center facility due to the cost efficiency and
complimentary nature between job skills education and entrepreneurial endeavors.
2. The Small Business Incubator Network Committee and the Olympic Peninsula Skills
Consortium are urged to proceed rapidly with the above-described concept.
3. The Small Business Incubator Network Committee and North Olympic Skills
Consortium are commended for recognizing that a business incubator program and a
dedicated skills center can have a positive impact on meeting our community's economic
development and workforce training goals.
4. The City of Port Angeles pledges its best efforts toward cooperating in the development
of a combined business incubator and skills center facility.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Port Angeles at a regular meeting of said
Council held on the day of ,2000.
.
MAYOR
.
ATTEST:
Becky J. Upton, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Craig D. Knutson, City Attorney
F:\ORDlNANCES&RESOLUTIONS\R2000-1 O. wpd
2-
.
18
" ',~ }" ,\, .'v,';"}",.:,,.-:
.
~ORr.ANGELES
WAS H I N G TON, U. S. A.
CITY COUNCIL MEMO
DATE:
October 3, 2000
To:
MAYOR DOYLE AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM:
Brad Collins, Planning Director
SUBJECT:
Position on Blue Ribbon Commission on. Transportation Study
Summary: The appointed Blue Ribbon Commission on Transportation (BRCT) has reviewed
the Washington State transportation needs and priorities and prepared draft recommendations for
public comment. The Association of Washington Cities (A WC) responded to the draft earlier and
our response was prepared to be supportive of A WC's comments and to add emphasis which
reflects our concerns regarding diversion of transportation funds and establishment of reliable and
adequate base funding for transportation.
.
Recommendation: That the mayor be authorized to sign the attached response to the draft
accords and 0 tions develo ed b the BRCT.
Back~round / Analysis: The Blue Ribbon Commission on Transportation (BRCT) was
created in 1998 by the Washington State Legislature and Governor Gary Locke to review the
transportation needs and priorities across the State and submit recommendations by December
2000. The BRCT has requested public comment on the draft accords and options developed
during the review over the past two years. A summary of the draft options prepared by the BRCT
is attached and a full copy is available in the Planning Department for review. The Association of
Washington Cities (A WC) has responded to the BRCT draft accords and a copyofthe A WC
comments is attached since our proposed response refers to their comments. To keep our response
short and to the point our response was prepared to be supportive of A WC's comments and to add
emphasis to those options which impact us the most, i.e. proposed funding allocations which
would favor the 1-5 corridor and establishment of reliable and adequate base funding for
maintenance, safety and preservation. The proposed draft response to BRCT is attached for
review and the Mayors signature.
.
N:\GOVliST A TE\BRCTCC. WPD
19
.
.
.
20
.
October 3, 2000
Mr. Doug Beighle, Chair
Blue Ribbon Commission on Transportation
411 University Street, Suite 1200
Seattle, WA 98101-2515
.
Dear Mr. Beighle:
The City of Port Angeles welcomes the opportunity to formally comment on the Blue
Ribbon Commission on Transportation (BRCT) Draft Accords and Options.
As a member of the Association of Washington Cities (AWC) we fully support their
comments of September 7, 2000 regarding the draft accords and options. We wish to
emphasize AWC's comments regarding Options 32-34, Allow regions to solve their
own transportation problems. Port Angeles is an active member of the Peninsula
Regional Transportation Organization (PRTPO) and supports the efficiencies of
regional planning. However we have concerns regarding regional funding implications
which may result in regions only being able to build what the region can fund itself.
This would favor funding for projects in the larger urban areas and heavily traveled
corridors while leaving smaller Cities and rural areas such as those within the PRTPO
without sufficient funding to meet our transportation needs. In addition we share
AWC's concerns and support regarding Options 46-56 to Make transportation fundinq
simpler and more flexible. Care should be exercised in revisions to formulas and
methods currently in use for redistribution of gas tax and other funds to make sure that
the larger urban areas and heavily traveled corridors do not benefit at the expense of
smaller Cities such as Port Angeles and rural areas. Reliable and predictable funding
is also of great concern to Port Angeles and we strongly support additional and more
flexible revenues to ensure proper a base for maintenance, safety, and preservation
funding. The City of Port Angeles has benefitted from the Transportation Improvement
Board and strongly supports continuation of the board.
We appreciate the BRCI's time and efforts in development of the options. We are
hopeful that our comments along with other smaller Cities and rural areas are
incorporated to ensure equity in the transportation future of our State.
Sincerely,
Larry Doyle
Mayor of Port Angeles
.
Copy: PRTPO N:\GOvnSTATE\BRCTCOM.wPD
21
)
Awe
1076 Franklin St. SE
01 ympia. WA 9R50 1-13olt)
(360) 753-4137. FAX 753-4896
\SSOCIATION OF WASHINGTON CITIES. INC.
b,+n,,1.-f /z-D.
~ ~/~tD
.
September 7, 2000
Mr. Doug Beighle, Chair
Blue Ribbon Commission on Transportation
411 University Street, Suite 1200
Seattle, WA 98101-2515
Dear Mr. Beighle,
The Association of Washington Cities (A WC) is pleased to have the opportunity to formally
comment on the Blue Ribbon Commission on Transportation Draft Accords and Options. A WC
would like to commend your effortS and endorses the themes and direction the Blue Ribbon
Commission has proposed. The attached document provides a summary response to the accords
and addresses some specific options.
We would like to thank the Blue Ribbon Commission for its balanced approach of
recommending administrative reforms while concurrently acknowledging that significant
revenue shortfalls exist at all levels of government. The S tate Legislature's 1999 Local
Government Infrastructure Study identified a conservative six-year $1.69 billion funding gap for
roads and bridges, with most of this gap occurring in cities. As noted in one of our presentations
to the Commission, the state gas tax and other federal and state pass through monies accounts for
less than one-third of city transportation revenues. Nearly forty percent of transportation
revenues are from local general fund revenues that must compete for basic city services. This
underscores our difficulty in addressing basic road preservation and concurrency requirements.
The approval of Initiative 695 has made our ability to pay for transportation even more difficult.
.
Cities need a menu of options to meet transportation needs. A combination of traditional
transportation revenues, new flexible transportation revenues, and regionally imposed taxes in
some areas of the state are all necessary mechanisms to fund transportation.
The Blue Ribbon Commission's leadership has provided both a public and private perspective on
how to sustain and improve our transportation system. Weare committed to working with you
as you finalize your recommendations. Awe will also work with the Governor and the State
Legislarure to make positive steps towards addressing administrative reform, and transportation
investments.
Sincerely,
~~ ~UL~'- ~
.
Stan Finkelstein
2 2A WC Executive Director
Cooperation for Better Communities
j"
s:i,:,;>.j"
The following document addresses the Blue Ribbon Commission on Transportation's proposed
. options. A WC has chosen to. respond to the accords and their respective options in summary form.
Invest for an efficient and effective transportation svstem.
Cities are already taking a series of steps to develop efficiencies and are committed to developing a
more efficient transportation system. We endorse corridor planning and better linkages between
transportation and land use. Corridor investments provide an effective tool for improving mobility
throughout cities, counties, and on a statewide basis. Projects completed or underway through the
City and County Corridor Congestion Relief programs, the Transportation Improvement Board, and
the Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board are examples of how cities have participated in the
corridor approach to transportation.
The Blue Ribbon Commission's recommendation to strengthen the link between land use and
transportation is timely. Many cities will be required to have a major update of their comprehensive
plans in 2002 and some are already beginning this process. As these comprehensive plans are
developed, cities will want. to work closely with the state to help assure the next 10 year plans
strengthen the nexus between transportation and land use. Ways to better emphasize the need for
transit service to employment centers and simplifying methods to measure concurrency will likely
be a major part of comprehensive plan updates.
Without new revenues, it is critical to acknowledge corridors investments or better land use linkages
will remain unmet in many cities.
.GUided Bv Goals. Measured bv Results
We would like to specifically address Option 7: No city street, county road, or state highway will be
in poor condition. As noted in the description of this option, a benchmark for local arterials should
be added as data becomes available. Cities continue to make preservation, maintenance, and safety
a top priority, which includes local arterials. We do support benchmarks that help identify the
status of our system, but we are concerned that any benchmark that does not acknowledge local
jurisdiction responsibilities for competing transportation and general fund needs creates an
unfunded mandate.
;Be Accountable and Efficient .
Washington's cities support the continuing need to be efficient and effectively monitor expenditures
on transportation. Benchmarking against a national mean or artificially capping administrative
costs may fall short of the real objective: measuring the costs associated with meeting the
transportation needs of the public. Our state has concurrency requirements, relatively strict
environmental standards, unique labor requirements, and is faced with geographical constraints that
must be taken into account.
As a responsible step forward, the Association supports partnering with the county and the state to
develop commonly understood definitions of administration. Current reporting to the State
Auditor's Office provides an excellent foundation for defining what should be defined as
administration versus what should be designated as operational costs that are associated with the
transportation system.
. In addition, the State Auditor's office will require comprehensive accounting changes in year 2002
for cities over 25,000 in population and counties with over 50,000 in population. These proposed
changes, which will be commonly known.as GASB 34, will require the inclusion oflong term
capital assets, including roads, bridges, and sidewalks. The intent is to include a charge for
2
23
depre::::ation. or :m ~xplanation about :he maintenance program that will prevent dere:-ior:nion :)f the
identified infrastructure. As the State Auditor's Office develops new accounting codes to address
this requirement, this is an oppomme time for all affected jurisdictions to repon on transoonation
administration, and such transponation infrastructure investments as preservation and m~intenance.
(Note: some cities under 25,000 in population will choose to repon under GASB 34.)'
.
Although GASB 34 will help provide a state perspective on how well larger cities are maintainimr
their infrastructure, a reporting gap remains for many smaller jurisdictions. We support augmenting
an existing state or local agency with technical staff that can develop pavement management
systems for our smaller jurisdictions. The intent would be to provide a snapshot of street conditions
on a periodic basis that could be included as part of a statewide inventory on the status of the
transpo.rtation system.
Takin~ Care of What We Have
The Association of Washington Cities supports a funding framework that will maintain the current
system and provides funding to improve the transportation system. Funding mechanisms will be
addressed in the last section of this response document.
A WC would like to specifically respond to Option 29b: Have counties assume jurisdiction and
funding of city streets in cities under 5,000. The A WC supportS fostering city and county
relationships, but objects to this mandatory requirement. This blanket policy would affect 178
cities, many of which successfully manage their transportation systems. In addition, many cities
already take advantage of existing laws that allow cities to develop interlocal agreements for
services with their respective county.
.
Be efficient
The proposed options under this accord have re-emphasized many long standing objectives of
reducing costs and increasing project delivery. Awe has supponed such efficiencies as partnering
with the private sector, and both the extension and broadening of design build opportunities for
other forms of infrastructure. One example of an efficiency improvement involves partnering with
the private sector. Developers are often required to build or modify specific streets within a limited
scope. If a city wants to include an additional component, such as a landscape median, the city is
required to go through a separate bid process. This separate bid process can result in project delays,
or a rebuild of the existing facility. Awe supports working on a mechanism to ensure the bid limit
. . I
process is protected while also allowing the flexibility to partner with the private sector on projects
that can reduce administrative costs and impacts to the traveling public.
Allow remons to solve their own transoortation oroblems
We support the proposal in Option 33 that states the intent of regional funding is "to simplify and
minimize smlctural redundancy rather than to add new (government) layers." A regional approach
must include cities, one or more counties, ports, and the state as part of the regional decision
making process. Our state's diverse population centers such as the cities in Puget Sound in
comparison to Colville in Stevens County underscores the need to allow regionalism to be self..
determined.
Existing law already addresses regional governance, planning, and mechanisms for the distribution
of regional funds. The next step is ensuring adequate revenue can be generated to fund regional
projects. As a package, the proposed regional options largely addresses this concern. We endorse
this in the context of providing one more flexible tool for funding transportation projects. \Ve
24 would emphasize that regional authority is not a substitute for a ".tewide tranSport.tion progr:nu.
3
.
,~~Pt;~~1'4t~1!1~~;/ i"~~~~~~ij~{~,W
y[ake tr::mSDortaUan fundiD!! simoler ana :Dare t1exibie
.The Blue Ribbon Commission has done an admirable job of identifying the complexities of
transportation funding, including the need to have unrestricted revenues. A WC shares the !roal of
providing a clear nexus between transportation revenues and where they are spent. Cities strongly
support the need for additional and more flexible revenues. and to look at ways to ensure a base
level of maintenance, safety, and preservation funding ~or all jurisdictions.
As noted in the section on regional governance, the proposed menu of revenue options are
supported as providing one or more tools for funding transportation projects.
We would like to address the proposals on grants and agency consolidations. Grant programs
should receive enough funding to meet their intended goal, or should be combined with other
similar programs or reinstated as a direct distribution. Direct grants that reduce administrative costs
and fully fund small projects are supported. An example of this is the WSDOT-Highways and
Local Programs' Small City Pavement Preservation Program. On large -scale projects, partnerships
are an important component of grant programs. This shows local commirment to projects, and
frequently allows multiple partners to pool enough funding to complete a project that has both local
and regional benefits.
Awe has historically benefited from the Transportation Improvement Board, and more recently,
from the Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board. Both agencies have a clear mission that
benefits cities and they are not subject to the many statewide trade-offs the Department of
Transportation is required to address. Cities strongly support continuation of the TIB and FMSm
. programs.
We strongly support the Blue Ribbon Commission's conclusion that the current gas tax revenues
are not keeping up with inflation and should have periodic increases. In addition, we appreciate the
Commission's conclusion that the current gas tax distribution formula appears to penalize cities.
Option 47 is a good starting point for discussion on this revenue source. However, additional
criteria are required to take into account demands on the transportation system. This could include
average daily traffic, lane miles, population served, and vehicle miles traveled. A WC is committed
to working with the legislature, state agencies, and counties on a better distribution mechanism for
the gas tax.
In conclusion
Our organization of 279 cities is a diverse one, and there is a diversity of opinion on which revenue
options, what revenue approach, and what mix of revenues makes the most sense. The most
important objective for A WC's membership is to ensure significant revenues will be part of any
transportation reform package. We also understand that a careful balance must be struck in
reforming our transportation system, our policies, and our funding structure. A WC's members have
worked hard to develop efficiencies, accountability, and in the case of some of the larger cities,
tracking and monitoring systems. As we have identified in our response to the proposed options,
we are committed to doing more. However, there must be a continuing recognition that cities are
facing significant revenue shortfalls. Weare committed to working with the Blue Ribbon
Commission. the Governor, and the Legislature as this process goes forward. We appreciate the
opporrunity to comment on your report.
.
-+
25
~
BLUE AIBBaN
COMMISSION ON
TRANSPORTATION
Summary of Draft Options
.
This highlights some of the 64 possible solutions to our transportation crisis developed by the Blue Ribbon
Commission on Transportation. The public is encouraged to review the options and provide comments by October
1. 2000. Final recommendations will be adopted in November. The full text of options is available on the lnternet
at www.brct.wa.gov or at any state government publication depository library.
. Address vehicle and freight traffic on the most heavily traveled routes through a mix of strategies. Conduct
computer analysis and seek public input to develop multiple solutions for high-traffic routes and corridors
throughout the state. Strategies include: new roadS, bridges, rail lines and transit services~ freeway on-ramp
metering~ traffic signal timing~ intersection improvements~ HOV and transit lanes~ park-and-ride lots;
telecommuting~ four-day work weeks~ flexible work hours~ and employer-paid transit passes. (Option 1)
. Give regions the authority to plan, fund and construct projects to fIX their own problems. Regions of the
state would be allowed to designate or create organizations to plan, fund and construct projects to meet their
unique transportation needs and goals. Regional organizations could be: counties~ groups of counties~ groups of
cities; transportation corridors~ regional transportation planning organizations~ metropolitan planning
organizations~ transit or transportation authorities~ or other newly created entities. (Options 32. 33 & 52)
. Establish transportation goals and benchmarks. Track progress on specific transportation goals and
benchmarks, and hold government officials accountable to achieving them. Goals include: zero percent of
roadways in poor conditlon~ all bridges will be seismically si1fe~ congestion and delay at or below national
average; vehicle miles traveled per capita will not increase~ non-auto share of commuter trips will increase~ fatal
accidents will decline; and air quality will meet federal standards. (Options 7-11. 14 & 15)
.
. Establish efficiency goals and benchmarks. Monitor government efficiency by developing specific goals and
measures. Goals include: efficiency of state, regional and local transportation agencies will be at the national
average in the short term and in the top 25% in the longer term~ and public transit operating costs will be at the
peer group median. (Options J 2. J 3 & J 8)
. Make maintenance and safety the top priorities for investment. Maintain the existing transportation
infrastructure at least to a uniform minimum standard across the state. Use cost-effective repaving schedules to
maintain and preserve roadways. Institute a uniform transportation data collection system for all areas to ensure
accurate and comparable information on traffic, pavement and bridge conditions. (Option 2)
. Use better and more durable materials for road construction. Advances in research are leading to stronger
pavement and concrete that can extend the life of roads, thus reducing maintenance and preservation costs.
Where it is cost effective, require a higher pavement standard in high-traffic areas. (Option 24)
. Phase in a studded tire ban to reduce roadway maintenance and replacement costs. Studies' show a typical
30,000-mile studded tire will destroy between one-half and three-quarters of a ton of asphalt during its useful
life. The cost of roadway replacement is at least $8-$15 per studded tire, and if pavement adjacent to the rutted
lane is also replaced, costs can soar to $40-$50 per studded tire. (Option 25)
. Ensure thadt ne':dde~ellodPmelnts are planned welwthl and have adequate ~ranspo~ation options: Reqinfrastruuire new .
business an resl entia eve opments to meet gro management requirements .lor transportation cture.
THE COMMISSION Will BE ACCEPTING PUBLIC COMMENTS
2 6BY MAil, FAX OR E-MAil UNTIL OCTOBER 1.
411 UNIVERSITY STREET SUITE 1200 SEATTLE, WA 98101
www.brct.wa.gov blueribbon@seattJe.econw.com Fax 206.442.4253
..
.
.
',"<<;c';_ ''''~-'''''-"'''''~''''.i'' .,.r'.-....,
'h\rl""hJ;""~;".'~i_'.1-'_;,-o,.r'"",,_:,
Summary of Draft Options-Page 2 of 2
it..
~
~
Provide incentives for 'smart growth' to combat suburban sprawl and create more compact developments that
are pedestrian-friendly, transit-oriented and less dependent on cars and roads. (Option 3)
Require a strict ordinance for utility cuts on roads and streets to reduce damage. Develop a model ordinance
for cities and counties to adopt, including provisions such as: expedited permitS for joint trenching; multi-year
waiting periods for companies not willing to joint trench; prohibiting work during peak traffic hours; and
required repaving of larger sections of affected roadways instead of minimal patching.. (Option. 26)
.
Provide adequate funding for maintenance, preservation and safety.at all levels of government. Provide
adequate funding for the basic operation and maintenance of roadways. public transit, ferries. passenger and
freight rail services, and trip reduction programs for state, regional and local governments. Funding would keep
pace with inflation. (Options 27-29)
.
Consider the use of managed competition for operations and maintenance functions. Seek private sector bids
for operations and maintenance activities, then compare to bids from public sector staff currently performing
these services. Award contract to the most competitive bid. Changes to existing state law would be required.
(Option 36)
.
Limit administrative and overhead costs of state, regional and local transportation agencies. Cap
administrative costs at 10% of an agency's budget for management, general services. planning, facilities and
training. Monitoring and reporting functions would be required. (Option 19)
.
Authorize and encourage jurisdictions to share resources. Consolidate overlapping functions; merge
departments; and share equipment. personnel, and other resources, such as technology and practices. Change
existing law to permit the sharing of resources among jurisdictions and eliminate restrictions. (Option 37)
Use the private sector to deliver projects and transportation services. Allow private companies to finance,
develop and operate transportation projects and services. The private sector can often provide cost-effective
facilities and services, as well as funding for large-scale projects when public funds are lacking. (Option 45)
.
Create optional regional revenue sources. Regions could select from different revenue options that are best
suited to their population, economy and transportation goals. Revenue options could include: charges for miles
driven; commuter parking tax on employers; tolls for use of congested roads with revenues used to construct new
roads and transit services; vehicle license fees; local option sales tax; local option gas tax; and tax increment
financing based on sales tax. (Options 34 & 51)
.
Keep funding sources predictable and at pace with the economy. Dedicate new reventies to transportation
improvements, including roads, ferries, freight, transit and trip reduction. Options include: authorizing an
increase in the state sales tax; authorizing a sales tax on the underlying price of gas; shifting sales tax revenues
generated by transportation-related sales from the general fund to transportation purposes; and increasing the
state gas tax periodically to meet needs for basic maintenance, preservation and safety. (Options 30 & 49)
.
Restructure WSDOT and the Transportation Commission. Changes could include: modifying the role of the
transportation commission or eliminating it; having the governor appoint the secretary of transportation or
electing the secretary; and increasing, decreasing or maintaining WSDOT's responsibilities over roads and
ferries. (Options 17 & 21-23)
Streamline the permitting process while still protecting the environment. Eliminate duplicate permitting
procedures and make better use of current environmental processes. Empower local governments with "certified
agency" status to make final decisions on permits and avoid multiple reviews. Coordinate mitigation across all
levels of governments. Allow regional organizations to approve EIS and GMA requirements.
(Options 57, 60, 62 & 63)
27
l
0/
ILIE RIIIO.
COMMISSION ON
TRANS P 0 R TAT lD N
J
Summary of Benchmarks and Indicators
.
Benchmarks
The only way.to gauge progress on transportation challenges is to set specific targets and track government
performance. The commission has outlined ground breaking measures that would establish transportation goals
and benchmarks and hold government officials accountable for achieving them.
Congestion and delay will be better than the national mean. Traffic congestion in Washington is among the
nation's worst, especially in the central Puget Sound area. For example, the Seattle-Everett metropolitan area
experienced 70 hours of average delay per driver in 1997 compared to the national average of 40 hours. The annual
cost to Washington drivers is 130 million lost hours and $2 billion in wasted time and resources. (Option 9)
Vehicle miles traveled per capita will not increase over current levels. In the last 20 years, Washington's
population has grown 40% while total vehicle miles traveled has grown 60%. However, the number of miles driven
per capita has held relatively steady at 9,000 miles per person per year since 1990. (Option 10)
The non-auto share of commuter trips by transit, bicycles, and other choices will increase. The trend from 1980
to 1990 was a declining. share of trips made by means other than autos. That trend will need to be reversed if growth
is to be accommodated in urban areas. (Option 11)
No city street, county road or state highway will be in poor condition. In 1971, about 30% of the state's .
highways were in poor condition, but through consistent funding, that figure declined to less than 10% by 1998. Data
on the condition of city and county roads are currently being collected. (Option 7)
No bridge will be structurally or seismically unsafe. The state has been actively pursuing a program to retrofit
bridges and structures identified by risk level. Over 300 bridges have been retrofitted at a cost of approximately $40
million. However, almost 1,000 bridges remain to be repaired in the two highest risk levels. (Option 8)
The administrative efficiency of all transportation agencies will be at the national average in the short term and
in the top 25% in'the longer term. Using federal government data, WSDOT ranks high in administrative costs
along with states such as California, New York and Illinois. Administrative costs for the state, counties and cities
grew considerably faster than inflation and outpaced spen~g on maintenance and constructio~. (Option 12)
Public transit operating costs will be at the peer group median. Washington's transit agencies have consistently
ranked high in operating costs compared to agencies of similar size around the country. Since Initiative 695, transit
revenues have been greatly reduced, resulting in cutbacks in administration, planning and customer service.
Eventually, there may be cuts in operations. (Option 13)
Indicators
The Commission has developed indicators for safety. air quality and freight mobility that need to be monitored to
assess the impact of our transportation system on these important issues.
Fatal accidents will continue to decline. (Option 14)
.
Air quality, carbon monoxide and ozone will be maintained at federal standards. (Option 15)
THE COMMISSION Will BE ACCEPTING PUBLIC COMMENTS
2 flY MAil. FAX OR E-MAil UNTil OCTOBER 1.
411 UNIVERSITY STREET SUITE 1200 SEATTLE. WA 98101
WIo'rW.brct.wa.gov blueribbon@seattIe.econw.com Fax 206.442.4253
Summary of Draft Options-Page 2 of 2
,\"ei'-"":;'>".'~'-'~"'i-;";!'"
'~'r">~:!',,!,:,~iy,)t~:J,:-i\<{ r.,,\>01ttr
~
I
.,
Growth in trade-related freight movement will be accommodated OD our transportation system. (Option 16)
.
.
.
29
,
,
.
.
.
30
FORTANGELES
. I .
W A,S H I N G T 0 N,U. S. A.
CITY COU NeIL
'October 3, 2000
Mr, DougHeighle, Chair
Blue Ribbon Commission on Transportation
, 411 University Street, Suite 1'200
Seattle,WA 98101-2515
, ,
'Dear Mr., Beighle: '
The City of Port Arigeleswelcomes the oppdrtunityto formally comrnenton the Blue
Ribbon Commissiqn on Transportation (BRCT) Draft Accords and Options.
. ,. '
,Asa member of the Association ofvyashington Cities (AWe) we fully SLJpporttheir
'commentsofSeptember 7,2000 regarding the draft accords and opti~ns. We wish to
,emphasizeAWG's comments regarding'Options 32-34, Allow regions to solve their ,,'
"own transportation problems. Port Angeles is an active member of the Peninsula
Regional Transportation Organization (PRTPO) and supports the efficiencies of."
regional planning.' However we have, . concern's regarding regionalJunding implications,
which may result inregions only being able to build what the, region can fund itself.
'This would favor funding for projects ih,thelarger urban areas and heavily traveled
corridors While le~:lVing smaller Cities and rural areas such as those within the PRTPO
without sufficient funding to meet our transportation needs. In addition we share
AWC'sconcerns anclsupport regardingOptions46-56 to Make transportation funding
'simpler and more flexible. Care should be exercised in rEwisionsto formulas arid ' '
methods currently in use for redistribution of gas tax and other funds to make sure that
the larger urban areas 'and heavily traveled corridors do nqt benefit atthe expensl:}of '
smaller Cities such as Port Angeles, and rLiral areas. Reliable and, predictable funding
is also of great concern toPort Angeles arid \file strongly support additional and more
flexible revenues to ensure a proper base for maintenance, safety, and preservation , '
funding: The City of Port Angeles has benefitted from the Transportation Improvement
Board and strongly supports continuation of the board. ' ' . .
, ,
We appreciate the BRCT's time and efforts in developmentof the options. Weare,
hopeful thatourcomments along with othersmaller Cities and ruralareas'are
incorporated to ensure equity.in the transportation future of our State.
Copy: PRTPO G:\EXCHANGE\PWKS\BRCTCOMWPD
EAST FIFTH ,STREET · p, O. BOX 1150 · PORT ANGELES, WA 98362-0217,
PHONE: 360-417-4500 · FAX: 360-417-4509 · TTY: 360-417-4645
E-MAIL: COUNCIL@CI.PORT-AN~ELES.WA.US
r
.
~ORTANGELES
WAS H I N G TON, U. S. A.
CITY COUNCIL MEMO
DATE:
September 25,2000
To:
MAYOR DOYLE AND CITY COUNCIL
Dan McKeen, Fire Chief a ~ -
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Public Display of Fireworks Permit
Summary:
RCW 70.77.280 requires approval from the governing body for discharging fireworks on days other
than the 4th of July. The High School homecoming game has had a public fireworks display for the
past several years with no problems.
.
Recommendation:
The City of Port Angeles Fire Department recommends approval for Entertainment Fireworks, Inc.,
to conduct a public display of fireworks on the 13th day of October, 2000, at Civic Field for Port
Angeles High School homecoming game.
BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS:
The City of Port Angeles Fire Department has received a request from Entertainment Fireworks,
Inc., to conduct a public display of fireworks on October 13,2000. RCW 70.77.280 requires local
fire officials receiving a request to conduct a public display of fireworks, investigate whether the
character and location of the display proposed would be hazardous to property or dangerous to
persons. A report of findings and a recommendation for or against the issuance of the permit shall
then be forwarded to the governing body of the City. The governing body may grant or deny the
application and may place reasonable conditions on the permit.
The Fire Department has received a request from Entertainment Fireworks, Inc., and has the
following findings.
I. The company is currently licensed with the State Fire marshal's Office for discharging a
public display of fireworks.
.
2.
Employees of Entertainment Fireworks, Inc., have conducted public firework display shows
at Civic Field in Port Angeles in the past with no problems.
31
32
_n___ --------1
Mayor Doyle and City Coundl
Page 2
September 25, 2000
3. The company is bonded arid meets the requirements ofRCW 70.77.295.
4. The pyrotechnician in charge of discharging is state licensed.
5. Discharging of fireworks will comply with RCW 212-17 (Public Displays of Fireworks).
As a result of these findings, approval is recommended for Entertainment Fireworks, Inc., to conduct
a public display of fireworks on the 13th day of October, 2000, at Civic Field for Port Angeles High
School homecoming game.
DM/cw
.
.
.
.
CITVCOUNCIL MEMO
I~ORT ANGELES
WASHINGTON, U.S.A.
October 3,2000
To: Mayor Doyle and Councilmembers
From: Michael Quinn, City Manager I
Yvonne Ziomkowski, Finance Direct~t'l
Re: City's Financial Condition
The following reports demonstrate the City's financial condition for the year 2000 as compared to
the adopted budget. Provided are the City's actual and estimated year end revenue and expenditures
compared with the original budget. Since the detailed mid-year report was provided to the Council
on August 1, these reports are on summaries and show the major variances. Also provided for the
Council's information, are the possible steps which may be necessary to make budget amendments.
.
General Fund Summary
General Fund revenues,
budgeted at over $12.3
million, are estimated to
exceed budget by 1.8% or
$221,396. This is due to
increases in utility taxes
$90,863, telephone taxes
$97,728, a distribution
from the state in lieu of
Motor Vehicle tax in the
amount of $61,000, fines
and forfeitures $63,000,
and interest on
investments $21,500.
General Fund Revenue Summary
For the Year 2000
YearEnd
Estimate Budgeted
T ElXes
Intergovernmental
Licenses & Permits
Charges for Services
Fines and Forfeitures
Interest on Investments
Return on Investments (ROI)
Transfer-in from Other Funds
Miscellaneous Revenues
7.582.963
417.029
128.725
3.542.479
318.000
240.500
59.200
198.025
87.210
7.407.572
359.673
190.675
3.545.789
255.000
219.000
59.200
226.026
89.800
Total General Fund Revenue 12.574.131 12,352,735
Variances
$SS %
175.391 2.37
57.356 15.95
(61.950) (32.49)
(3.310) (0.09)
63.000 24.71
21.500 9.82
o 0.00
(28.001) (12.39)
(2.590) (2.88)
221,396 1. 79
The utility tax increase is attributed to the earlier than budgeted closure of Elwha Dam and selling
more electric power to Daishowa mill. The growing popularity of cellular phones accounts for the
increase in telephone taxes. An increase in prosecution and incarceration resulted in additional
revenue in fines and forfeitures category. However, the down side is that expenses associated with
j ail costs increased as well.
.
33
We will have a problem collecting licenses and pennits at the budgeted level. Building permits are
below last year's level and only 63% of budgeted permits have been issued. It is unlikely that this
level will increase next year.
The revenue trend for future years is quite disturbing. Weare estimating a decrease in sales tax
collections. There are restrictions for property tax increases. Utility taxes will not grow at the 2000
level since Daishowa's usage of
our electricity will stabilize. General Fund Expenditures by Department
Usage of cellular phones will
grow at slower rates, and
additionally, the State is
discontinuing financial
assistance to local governments
in lieu of lost MVET revenue.
.
Year End
Estimate
Budgeted
Variances
SSS %
Mayor & Council
City Manager
Community Services
City Attorney
Finance
Planning
Fire
Police
Parks & Recreation
Public Works
Reserved for delayed projects
Facility Maintenance
Transfer from reserves to other funds
Transfer of surplus to CIP Fund
Reserved for Future Initiatives
57.621
496.575
156.265
436.917
1.303.342
221.645
2.126.241
3.339.652
2.1 05.425
1.626.233
95.000
217.650
1.266.735
250.000
135.000
60.649
536.533
156.265
436.917
1.313.623
237.159
2.206.440
3.294.352
2.033.302
1.791.946
(2.626)
(37.956)
o
o
(10.461)
(15.314)
(60.199)
45.300
72.123
(70.715)
N/A
(5.696)
o
250.000
77.000
(4.66)
(7.07)
0.00
0.00
(0.60)
(6.46)
(3.63)
1.36
3.55
(3.95)
N/A
(2.55)
0.00
N/A
132.76
General Fund expenditures are
closely monitored and most
departments will be below
budget. Budget overruns in the
Parks & Recreation and Police
departments were attributed to
the Marine Life Center contract Total Expenditures
(which Council approved earlier
this year, but was not included in the original budget), vacation payouts for outgoing department
heads, and an increase in jail cost. Since we adopt the budget at fund levels, we do not need a budget
amendment for these items.
223.346
1.266. 735
o
56.000
13.862.701 13.641.471
221.230
1.62
Two projects budgeted in 2000 will be delayed to 2001.
.
There are a welcome sign ($60,000) and
dredging at the City
Pier ($35,000). The
amount of $95,000 is
reserved for these
projects.
General Fund Expenditures by Object
YearEnd
Estimate Budgeted
Variances
ISS %
Salaries and Benefits
Supplies
Charges for Services
Intergovernmental
Transfers to Other Funds
Capite1 Outlay
Reserved for delayed projects
Transfer from reserves to other funds
Transfer of surplus to CIP Fund
Reserved for Future Initiatives
\
8.730.284
430.746
t680.591
825.944
53.577
372.824
95.000
1,288.735
250.000
135.000
1.288.735
o
58.000
(0.99)
23.40
(0.42)
4.38
0.00
(37.41)
N/A
0.00
N/A
132.76
Total Expenditures
1.62
8.817.502
349.062
t687.633
791.281
53.577
595.681
(87.218)
81.684
(7.042)
34.663
o
(222.857)
95.000
o
250.000
nooo
13,862.701 13,641 A71
221,230
We recommend
increasing' the
contingency fund in
the amount of
$135,000, in the event
of possible refunding
of fees and charges
should Initiative 722
pass. In the event 1-
722 does not pass,
these funds could be
.
34
.,~,> '. ,
'1: l'?,::; '~.,' t~.';";';:'~;J1-1/":fi':~rr.~~;!
,~,~.}
~':fF"';
(-Lt;~tf~:
. used for capital projects.
We recommend amending General Fund - Fund Balance
the budget to transfer a YearEnd Variances
surplus from this year to Estimate Budgeted US %
the Capital Improvement Revenue 12.574.131 12.352.735 221.396 1.79
Fund III order to fund
capital projects. This Expenditures
* Operating 12.093.966 12.294.736 (200.770) (1.63)
practice is in compliance * Reserved for delayed projects 95.000 0 95.000 N/A
with City policies. The * Transfers from reserves 1.288. 735 1.288.735 0 0.00
estimated amount of this * Transfer of surplus to CIP Fund 250.000 0 250.000 N/A
* Reserved for future initiatives 135.000 58.000 nooo 132.76
transfer is $250,000, and Total Expenditures 13.862.701 13.641.471 221.230 1.62
we recommend the Revenue less Expenditures (1.288.570) (1.288.736) 166
Council consider
allocating this additional Beginning Fund Balance 3.036.663 3.036.663 (166)
CIP money to the Ending Fund Balance 1.748.093 1.747.927 166
Carnegie Building Project.
Estimated General Fund reserves or fund balance is $1,748,093. This includes budgeted transfers
to the Contingency Fund ($200,000), catching up with equipment replacement ($438,735), funding
capital improvement projects ($650,000), and the recommended transfer of surplus monies to the
CIP Fund ($250,000). This level of reserves represents approximately 13% of City's budget.
. Other Funds
The recommended budget amendments for other funds are related to new projects and programs
adopted by the Council during this year.
Lodging Tax Fund expenditures need to be amended by $29,260 as a result of Lodging Tax Advisory
Committee recommendations. We also recommend reserving $100,000 for the Convention Center
project.
Port Angeles Works Fund is responsible for funding a $60,000 contract with DenRee Productions
to implement the "E-nabled Vision Tour." Forty thousand dollars of this contract need to be
appropriated in 2000. The fund balance in this fund is approximately $315,000.
Real Estate Excise Tax #1 needs an additional appropriation of $56,022 for debt payment on the
PWTF loan forthe 8th Street Design. This loan was approved by the Council after the 2000 budget
was approved.
The $178,489 amendment in the PenCom Fund, which accounts for the consolidated dispatch
operation, is due to the purchase of a new computer system. This computer system was necessary
to improve emergency services and is funded by special revenue from E-911.
.
35
An increase in Recreational Activities Fund appropriations of $37,887 is an example of .
miscommunication during the bu4get process. The $28,000 grant from Lodging Tax Fund to support
recreational activities Was budgeted;in General Fund instead of in the Recreational Activities fund.
However, expenditures occurred in the Recreational Fund, but were not included in the budget.
An additional $1,000,000 appropriation in the Electric Utility Fund is due to additional power
purchases for Daishowa and an increase in utility taxes as a result of higher revenues. The increase
in revenue is estimated at approximately $1,500,000.
The landfill closure project in the Solid Waste Fund needs to be adjusted by $55,000. The more than
$1.4 million project is funded by reserves established for this purpose.
At this time, the City staff is approaching the very challenging task of balancing the 2001 budget.
The requests for funding are eight to ten percent higher while revenue growth is estimated at about
1.5 percent. Since revenue collection limits the spending level, balancing the growing cost of
providing services and mandatory requirements with growing demands and expectations from the
citizens is extremely difficult. Many employees have assumed additional duties in order to deal with
the workload left by the unfilled positions. With incorporating performance measures we will be
able to evaluate our services and if necessary eliminate the least desirable programs. We remain
optimistic in our ability to manage the City's financial condition; and we will continue to look for
opportunities whereby the budget becomes a vehicle of investment in our community's future.
.
.
36
~', '/?;'r:6~~';:,:;r:~~ ~~~~'5<::'i:::\~'":'; j \; . i:':.~; -~'i;~~~~'Wr:;0t.l' ".
.
CITY COUNCIL MEMO
FORTANGELES
WAS H I N G TON, U. S. A.
DATE:
Octo~er 3, 2000
~,
To:
MAYOR DOYLE AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM:
Mike Quinn, City Manager
SUBJECT:
Initiatives 722 and 745
Summary: At its meeting of September 19,2000, the City Council asked that Initiatives 722 and
745 be placed on the October 3 agenda for discussion as to the negative impacts on the City should
the Initiatives be passed. The Council agreed to seek input from the public on both sides of the
initiatives.
.
Recommendation: Ifthe Council desires to take a political stand on this issue, staffhas prepared
a Resolution expressing opposition to the Initiatives. However, we feel that this is an expected
reaction by the Council as perceived by the public, and the political impact is somewhat limited. It
is more important to stress the education of the public and the impact of these issues on the City's
future. This is the main benefit of the Council action.
Background / Analysis:
The official ballot titles ofInitiatives 722 and 745 are as follows:
Initiative 722: Shall certain 1999 tax and fee increases be nullified, vehicles exempted from property
taxes, and property tax increases (except new construction) limited to 2% annually?
Initiative 745: Shall 90% of transportation funds, including transit taxes, be spent for roads;
transportation agency performance audits required; and road construction and
maintenance be sales tax-exempt?
Initiative 722 is often referred to as the "Son of 695" in that it would declare null and void tax and
fee increases adopted without voter approval by state and local governments between July 2, 1999,
and December 31, 1999. Vehicles would be exempted from property taxes. The limit on property
tax increases, starting with the 1999 valuation level, would be the lower of 2% per year or the
inflation rate. A separate limit would apply to new construction, and maintenance improvements
would be exempt from tax.
.
On November 17, 1999, the City Council approved an increase in W ater/W astewater rates as a result
of a cost-of-service study that was being conducted parallel to the efforts to pass Initiative 695.
Water/Wastewater rates were increased in order to meet capital projects and bond requirements.
37
MAYOR DOYLE AND CITY COUNCIL
October 3,2000
Page Two
.
1-695 did not include utility rates; however, 1-722 does restrict utility rates.
The property tax increase approved by the City Council included only 1.4% of the Implicit Price
Deflector (IPD) when it could have been as high as 6% or more, if the City were to take advantage
of prior year's "banked" property taxes. It should be noted that several other Washington cities
increased property taxes at a significantly higher level. The City of Port Angeles has been diligent
in trying to keep taxes at a reasonable level while, at the same time, providing the expected level of
servIces.
The second quarter of 1 % of the Real Estate Excise Tax was levied in 1999 in order to meet street
project demands, such as the 8th Street reconstruction, Marine Drive, and the Airport Road
realignment. The City had the option oflevying this additional tax several years ago; however, the
City was committed to avoiding new and additional taxes as long as possible. The condition of the
streets, unfortunately, requires a great deal of capital spending.
Various City fees were raised to the minimum level for the City to at least recover 50% of its true
cost associated with that particular service. In addition, fees associated with building permits were
set at a level required in the 1997 Building Code. Other fees, such as for the cemetery, were raised .
only to the point to assure that the City would be competitive with the private sector.
Initiative 745 would require that 90% of state and local transportation funds, including local transit
taxes but excluding ferry and transit fares, be spent on road construction, improvement, and
maintenance. Road and lane construction and maintenance would be the top transportation priority.
Performance audits of transportation and public transit agencies would be required. Materials and
labor used in road construction or maintenance would be exempt from sales tax. Counties and cities
would update transportation plans.
Although the City government would not be greatly impacted by the loss of revenues should Initiative
745 pass, the Clallam Transit Authority would be significantly impacted which, ultimately, would
directly affect City residents using the Transit system.
The following documents are attached for Council's consideration:
. Report from Finance Director itemizing cost impacts to City of Port Angeles
. Draft Resolution expressing opposition to Initiatives 722 and 745
. Document from Association of Washington Cities
. Article excerpted from Municipal & Public Finance, submitted by Foster Pepper & Shefelman,
Attorneys at Law
. Information submitted by supporters of Initiatives 722 and 745
.
C:\OFFICE\ WPWIN\CMGR\initi722&745. wpd
38
\ciHm" ',;:.: ~,~. '\c\':~"'f\:\';~:"t .;',~;<"";,~,,,'!';; ';":;'!;.~~>.':,;:::;,::~ ;:;:I~
City of Port Angeles
Impact of Initiative 722
"'e following amounts are ~stimates of what the City ~ould be obligated to retur~ to customers if 1-722 is
. ~'opted: ,
Water and Wastewater Fund:
8% rate increase in 2000
Water
Wastewater
160,903
226,880
387,783
2,048
2,048
Increase to water system development charges from $883 to $1,025
Increase to wastewater system development charges from $642 to $745
Total WaterIWastewater Fund
387,783
General Fund:
8% utility taxes on water and wastewater increases
Water
Wastewater
12,872
18,150
31,023
Medic I charges:
Increased from $3.00 to $3.50
60,000
.her Charges:
* Building permits
* Planning fees
* NSF checks (from $15 to $20)
* Fire fees
* Cemetery
* Vern Burton Community Center
* Camping/Clubhouse
* Pool
10,000
3,000
500
2,000
15,000
2,500
500
10,000
43,500
Total General Fund
134,523
Real Estate Excise Tax:
Second quarter of one percent
100,000
Additional Costs:
* Manually calculating water and wastewater rebates for 7500 customers
an average of 5.5 min. for residential customers and 8.3 min. for commercial customers
Total - 884 hours at @ $24.91 each 22,020
* Calculating Medic I rebates for 10,000 customers - 250 hrs
6,228
* Building special reports for SFG software -15 hrs at $75
1,125
* Searching for other possible refunds; approximately 160 hours
. Cost of postage, checks, creating master files, etc. - 292 hours
Total Additional Cost
3,986
9,774
Total impact of 1.722
43,132
665,438
39
Property Tax Provision
Limiting property tax increases to the lesser of two percent or the implicit price deflator (IPO) will not
affect the City in 2000 and 2001 since the City increased property taxes by 1.4% in 2000 and is proposing
a 2% increase in 2001 (the IPO index for 2001 is estimated at 2.56%). However, this provision will greatly
effect the City's ability to raise property taxes in the future, especially as inflation has a growing trend.
.
Possible Action
The task of refunding taxes collected as a result of tax and fee increases would be administratively
intensive given the wide range of taxes, fees, and charges under the definition of taxes.
The definition of "tax" in Initiative 722 is not the same as in Initiative 695. For example, water,
wastewater, and other utility charges, including taxes, rates, and hook-up fees, are specifically
included in the 1-722 definition. .
Recommendations:
* Re-adopt taxes, charges, and fees which were adopted on November 21, 1999.that will be
declared null and void if Initiative 722 is approved.
Cities are currently able to increase taxes and fees due to the stay on the public vote
requirement that was put in place in March 2000 by the King County Superior Court decision on 1-695.
Of course, if 1-695 is found to be constitutional, tax and fee increases will have to be submitted
to a public vote.
* Plan to adopt the full property tax increase for which the City is entitled. If 1-722 passes, this
would be 2% (since IPO is over 2%).
* Set up a contingency fund for possible refunds due to 1-722.
.
Initiative 745
I don't think the City will be directly effected by this initiative. There is very little sales tax collected
by the City for road construction and probably would be off set with the savings on not paying
sales tax on city street projects.
The second provision, which requires 90% of transportation funds be spent on road construction and
maintenance, also does not effect the City. All of the City's transportation funding (gas taxes, grants, Real Esta
Excise Tax) is used for street projects. In fact, the City supports these projects by allocating additional funds,
such as property taxes. .
.
40
I
i/'~:',?;~' .~; ';'::",~.;_ '<;,::'.::f;(r\_t;~::-<.:';
.
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Port Angeles,
Washington, expressing opposition to Initiatives 722 and 745.
WHEREAS, Initiative 722 proposes to roll back taxes, fees, and charges adopted
between July 2, 1999 and December 31, 1999 and to limit property tax increases to the lesser of 2
percent or the implicit price deflator (IPD); and
WHEREAS, Initiative 722 could have a particularly adverse effect on the City of Port
.
Angeles, because Initiative 722 specifically applies to utility charges such as for water, sewer, solid
waste, and electric utilities, all of which types of utilities are owned and operated by the City of Port
Angeles; and
WHEREAS, Initiative 745 proposes to require that 90 percent of state and local
)
transportation spending be for road construction and maintenance and to exempt road construction
materials from sales and use tax; and
WHEREAS, analysis conducted by the City's Finance Director has indicated a loss of
approximately $665,438 to the City of Port Angeles in municipal revenues over the year 2000
udget period, which can be directly attributed to Initiative 722; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public meeting, after due public notice, regarding
consideration of the Council taking a position on the two initiatives, and allowed equal time for
expression of opposing views; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has carefully considered the implications and impacts of
-722 and 1-745 and believes the initiatives to be contrary to the best interests of the City of Port
geles and the services and programs provided to its residents and business community;
.
1-
41
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Port
Angeles, Washington as follows:
Section 1. The City Council of Port Angeles hereby takes an official position in
opposition to Initiatives 722 and 745, which will be voted on by the electorate at the November 7,
2000 election.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Port Angeles at a regular meeting of said
Council held on the day of October, 2000.
MAYOR
ecky J. Upton, City Clerk
PROVED AS TO FORM:
raig D. Knutson, City Attorney
:\ORDINANCES&RESOLUTIONS\R2000-II.wpd
.
2-
42
August 17. 2000
.
Initiatives 722 and 745 and the Budget Process
Many cities are beginning their annual budget process
and are looking for information on Initiatives 722 and
745's potential impacts on revenues in the next fiscal year.
This is preliminary analysis. Your jurisdiction may
have more up-to-date data or may want to consider
additional assumptions. Awe encourages your city to
share your estimates of impacts with Awe so we .
can provide updated information in future
publications.
This document is for information purposes only and
is not intended as an expression of support or opposition
to the initiatives.
Please note that, while AWC may not use resources
to support or oppose ballot measures due.to constraints
similar to those on cities and towns, A WC will continue to
provide cities and towns with factual information about the
impact of proposed initiatives.
Initiative 7 45
Anitiative 745 requires that 90 percent of transportation
~spending (including local transit taxes, but excluding
transit and ferry fares) be for road construction and
maintenance. Performance audits of governmental entities
providing transportation services would be required. In
addition, cities and counties would be required to update
transportation plans. Finally, road construction materials
would be exempt from sales and use tax.
Possible Municipal Action:
Consider adopting two budgets: one that assumes 1-745
passes, and one that assumes 1-745 fails.
Plan to update your city's comprehensive plan to reflect the
new priority for road construction and maintenance in
transportation funds.
Plan for a performance audit of transportation funds.
Currently, the State Auditor's Office does not audit
all cities every year. Under the initiative, performance
~dits of all transportation agencies, accounts and
1IIIIIffrograms, including city transportation funds, would be
required with a report to the legislature by December 31,
2001. The legislature would determine who pays for
auditor fees.
Make sure you understand what happened to your
transportation funding as a result of Initiative 695 and the
supplemental budget (EHB 2487).
Initiative 695 caused large changes in transportation
funding at the state and local levels. While some funding
was replaced in the supplemental budget, the funding is
not dedicated or ongoing in all cases. Cities should be
aware that the Initiative 745 impact estimates are
primarily based on 1998 data and do not take into account
all the 1-695 changes.
Analyze your transportation funding levels under a broad and
narrow definition.
The initiative directs the Legislature to approve a
plan for funding road construction and maintenance at 90
percent of transportation funding. As a result, the ultimate
definition of transportation funds and the sources from
which the 90 percent limit will be reached is in the hands
of the Legislature.
continued
Association of Washington Cities
1076 Franklin St. SE Olympia, WA 98501 (360) 753-4137
43
1-745 (continued)
r
Cities should be ready to comply with a mandate
under both possible definitions. For example, under a
broad definition of transportation funds, administrative
functions would be included, making it unnecessary to
spend more on roads to meet the threshold than with a
definition that excludes administrative functions.
At the same time, the Legislature could also choose
to reach the 90 percent level in the aggregate through
program cuts at the state level, resulting in no impacts to
cities and towns for this portion of the initiative.
Research whether your city would lose revenue if road
construction materials were exempt from sales and use tax.
Road construction materials would be exempt from
sales and use tax. According to preliminary estimates, this
translates to a net loss of $11 million per year to local
governments.
Understand the link between local sales tax on road
construction materials and federal payments of sales and use
taxes for federal road construction projects.
In a case challenging the requirement that the
federal government pay sales and use tax on materials for
federally funded projects, the requirement was upheld in
part on the notion that other purchasers of construction
services pay sales tax on the gross contract price,
including materials, labor, and overhead.
If other purchasers and construction services
received a complete sales tax exemption, the justification
for taxes on federal road construction projects would no .
longer exist and these payments may be subjec~ to .
challenge. Preliminary estimates indicate that the total
loss to state and local government would be
approximately $50 million annually if federal road
construction projects were no longer taxed.
Will there be legal challenges to the initiative?
Just as Initiative 695 wa~ challenged under the single
subject rule, it is possible that 1-745's drafting might be
subject to a similar challenge.
Cities may have to consider how this initiative
impacts their jurisdiction's revenues and consider
whether a portion of the budget should be set aside for
participation in a possible legal challenge should the
initiative be approved.
Consider the compound effects if other initiatives are
approved.
For example, Initiative 722 would result in decreased
revenues in the general fund from property tax revenues
and tax and fee increases adopted between July and .
December 1999. In addition, the sales tax exemption on
road construction materials may result in decreased sales
tax revenues.
At the same time, however, local control over
allocations of transportation funds would be limited by the
requirement that 90 percent of transportation funds be
dedicated to road construction and maintenance.
Initiative 722
Ihis initiative has six main provisions that propose to
roll back taxes, fees, and charges adopted between July
2, 1999, and December 31, 1999, exempt vehicles from
property taxes, and limit property tax increases.
Tax and fee increases adopted between July 2, 1999,
and December 31, 1999 would be null and void. Cities and
towns would be required to refund those taxes and fees.
Property taxes would be limited in two ways:
1. The portion of assessed property valuations (other
than new construction or manufacture) attributable to
44 increases in excess of the 1999 level plus annual
increases by the lesser of two percent or inflation
would be exempted from property taxes.
2. Increases in property tax levies would be limited to
two percent or the implicit price deflator (lPD).
Cities and towns would be limited to a two percent
increase of property taxes by supermajority vote of the
council based on a finding of substantial need.
Cities and towns would no longer be able to "bank"
unused property tax capacity.
While the initiative also exempts vehicles from
personal property taxes, this provision would have no
.
:~ft~:)i ,:t:~j':f.; r,h-!i';-C~"
effect. Vehicles were exempted from personal property
taxes by legislation last session.
"OSSible Municipal Action:
Consider adopting two budgets: one that assumes 1-722
prevails, and one that assumes 1-722 is not adopted.
Plan to refund taxes or fees adopted between July 2, 1999, and
December 31. 1999.
According to a survey of city responses to 1-695,
76% of cities who responded (133 of 175 cities) raised
taxes or fees in response to 1-695. The majority of
increases were property taxes, utility taxes, and
miscellaneous fees. The total number of tax increases is
likely to be larger. This survey did not track tax or fee
increases that were adopted for reasons other than in
response to 1-695.
The task of refunding taxes collected as a result of
tax increases would be administratively intensive given
the wide range of taxes, fees, and charges under the
definition of taxes. Cities may want to factor additional
administrative expense for potential refunds.
. The definition of "tax" in Initiative 722 is not the
same as in Initiative 695. For example water, sewer, and
other utility charges, including taxes, rates, and hook-up
fees are specifically included in the 1-722 definition. While
this is currently an issue in the Washington State
Supreme Court challenges to 1-695, the specific inclusion
of utilities is likely to again raise questions about the
definition as it applies to increases necessitated by bond
or other contractual obligations. If some of your utility
charges were increased in response to bond obligations,
you may wish to consult bond counsel about potential
liabilities.
It is possible that this provision might be subject to
several challenges. For example, the provision is
retroactive in application, and it might interfere with
existing contracts.
Consider re-adopting taxes or fees that will be declared null
and void if Initiative 722 is approved.
If the initiative passes, taxes and fees adopted
between July 2, 1999, and December 31, 1999 would be
tl and void. If your jurisdiction is dependent on a
articular revenue source, consider enacting another
increase to replace the revenues.
Note that cities and towns are currently able to
increase taxes and fees due to the stay on the public vote
requirement that was put in place in March 2000 by the
King County Superior Court decision on 1-695. By the
time your jurisdiction approves its budget, however, the
supreme court could have released its opinion on the .
appeal of that decision.
The parties representing the initiative also
submitted a motion to the court to lift the stay on the vote
requirement. The court could lift the stay on the vote
requirement before it releases its final opinion.
In addition, there are two possibilities when the
supreme court releases its decision:
.
If 1-695 is unconstitutional, you will be able to raise
taxes and fees without the public vote required by
1-695.
If 1-695 is found to be constitutional, tax and fee
increases will have to be submitted to a public vote.
.
Plan for decreased property tax revenues if you were planning
on raising your property tax rates more than 2%.
Jurisdictions under 10,000:
Under current law, jurisdictions under 10,000
population may increase property taxes by a factor of 6%.
However, jurisdictions at their maximum statutory rate
limits may not levy the full 6%. Under the initiative, these
jurisdictions would be limited to the lesser of 2% or the
Implicit Price Deflator (IPD). In 1998, the average
increase for the cities and towns with population of 10,000
or less was 5.23%
Jurisdictions over 10,000:
Current law allows jurisdictions over 10,000 in
population to increase property taxes by IPD. In addition,
these jurisdictions would be able to raise taxes above IPD
up to 6% through a determination of "substantial need" by
a super-majority vote of the council. Under the initiative,
these jurisdictions would be limited to the lesser of 2% or
IPD. The additional levy lift ability based on substantial
need would similarly be limited to 2%. In 1998, the
average increase for these jurisdictions was 3.32%.
The total impact to local jurisdictions (including
cities and counties) is estimated to range between $250 to
$300 million per year.
continued
45
1-722 (continued)
Consider taking the full property tax increase for which your
jurisdiction is entitled. If the initiative passes, this would be the
lesser of IPO Dr 2%. The ability to reserve Dr "bank'~ capacity
would be eliminated under the initiative.
Under current law, jurisdictions who did not take the
full property tax rate increase for which they were entitled
would be allowed to reserve the tax capacity for use in a
future year. The initiative would eliminate all banked
property tax capacity. If you did not take the full amount of
an entitled increase, you would lose that capacity in a
future year. If the initiative passes, the full amount for
which your jurisdiction would be entitled would be the
lesser of IPD or 2%.
Assessed Property Values
Under the initiative, growth in property assessed
values would be exempted from taxation to the extent it
exceeded 2% or IPD. If your jurisdiction's property values
have been growing at a rate in excess of that level, you
will not be able to tax the full assessed values of property
in your jurisdiction. Revenue forecasts should be adjusted
to reflect the difference in revenues.
Will there be legal challenges to the initiative?
Just as Initiative 695 was attacked under several
theories, 1-722's drafting will probably face similar
challenges.
Cities should examine how this initiative impacts
their jurisdiction's revenues. Consider whether a portion
of the budget should be set aside for participation in a
possible legal- challenge should the initiative be approved.
Is a stay on the refund of taxes Dr fees possible?
If a challenge is brought against Initiative 722, a stay
to this provision is one possible outcome while liti$!ation is
pending. While the stay on the public vote requirement
enforced the status quo, a stay on the refunds may
accomplish the same goal. However, a final decision would
be dependent on the facts of the case and the discretion of
the court.
Is a stay on the property tax limitations possible?
In this case, preserving the status quo might mean
~nforciilg the limitations during a court challenge. In
4~ion, there is precedent, Department of Revenue v.
Hoppe, 82 Wn.2d 549, that the limitations might take
effect this year, requiring a reassessment of property
values for the 2001 levy. (See the attached article
excerpted from The Courthouse Journal for more
information.)
.
Consider the compound effects if other initiatives are
approved.
Initiative 745, for example, would dedicate 90
percent of your transportation funds to road construction
and maintenance while your total revenues in your
jurisdiction's general fun9 may be decreased as a result of
the 1-722's property tax limitations and tax and fee
increase refunds. In addition, the sales tax exemption for
road construction materials under Initiative 745 may also
impact the amount of revenue available in your
jurisdiction's general fund.
Where to Go for More Research
AWC and MRSC will be providing initiative
updates on our websites and in our mailed
publications. A WC encourages you to share your
estimates of impacts for future publications.
Copies of council approved resolutions regarding
the initiatives should be sent to MRSC, 1200 5th
Avenue Suite 1300, Seattle, WA 98101, or e-mail
mrsc@rnrsc.org.
The Office of Financial Management website:
http://www.ofrn.wa.gov/initiatives/
2000initiatives.htm.
MRSC Budget Suggestions. The 2001 edition
includes a summary of potential initiative
impacts. It is available from MRSC (206) 625-
1300 or on the MRSC website: WW\\T.mrsc.org.
Local Government Finance Reporting System
available on the State Auditor's website:
www.sao.wa.gov.
The Department of Revenue website:
www.dor.wa.gov. Some helpful publications
include Property Tax Statistics 2000 and A
Homeowner's Guide to Property Taxes.
If you have any questions, please contact
Ashley Probart or Sheila Gall of AWC at (360)
753-4137, ashley.probart@awc.gen.wa.us or
sheila.gall@awc.gen.wa.us.
.
.
.
.
.
":~~""'l"<":,,,,,.,.:,
; ';- ~ ,:I;~,~[~;;_(:l~},~H,~'
Municipal
Public Finane
..
FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
~
NE\,y INITIATIVES POSE CHALLENGES FOR
VV ASHINGTON GOVERNIvIENTS
By MARC GREEI\OUGH
.
Two new initiatives. Initiative Measure No.
722 ("1-722") and Initiative Measure No.
745 (" 1-745") have been certified by the
Secretary of State for the November 7. 2000
general election. Both initiatives are
sponsored by Tim Eyman, primary sponsor
of 1-695. Similar to 1-695, both measures
present significant challenges to Washington
governments.
.....f~72.2.._._.-_..._....._.__........_....__..._---,...--...--.-.....--.-........-...- ......H_____.......__..__....._...._._
Official Ballot Measure Title:
Shall certain 1999 tax and fee increases be
nullified, vehicles exempted from property
taxes. and property tax increases (except new.
construction) limited to 2% annually?
Official Ballot Measure Summary:
This measure would declare null and void
tax and fee increases adopted without voter
approval by state and local governments
between July 2. 1999, and December 31.
1999. Vehicles would be exempted from
property taxes. The limit on property tax.
increases, starting with the 1999 valuation!
level. would be the lower of 2% per year or
the inflation rate. A separate limit would
apply to new construction, and maintenance,
improvements would be exempt from tax.!
.
The full text of 1-722 is available at!
www.secstate.wa.gov/inits/textli722.htm.
1-722 has been nicknamed" Son of 695" by
the initiative sponsors and is primarily
concerned with limiting taxes. If approved'
by the voters. 1-722 would:
· Repeal all "tax" increases adopted
from July 2. 1999, through December
31, 1999.
· Require that all such "tax" increases be
refunded.
· Exempt from payment all annual
individual property tax increases since 1999
greater than 2% or inflation. whichever is
less (except for new construction).
· Reduce the current 106% limit on
property tax increases to 102%.
· R~peal the levy capacity protection
statute.
Tax repeal and refund. 1-722 would repeal
any .. tax" increase adopted by any state or
local government entity between July 2. 1999.
and December 31. 1999 (i.e.. after the filing
of but prior to the effective date of 1-695).
The definition of .. tax" in 1-722 is as broad
as that in 1-695 but also specifically includes
"water, sewer and other utility charges." An
express exception is made for the price of
goods sold by state or local government
entities.
(',]; 1; "; ,t, :'. t "'.In jJ;;l,!.!.,
4- MnlD'<L
C =~""'N""
t_..~.~ 'i,:; U{~t. ;"f"
~ ,..: j.
U Tax" includes. but is not necessarily:
.limited to, sales and use taxes; property
. taxes; business and occupation taxes; fuel
taxes; impact fees; license fees; permit fees;!
water, sewer, and other utility charges,!
. including taxes, rates, and hook-up fees; and!
; any other excise tax, fee, or monetary charge
. imposed by the state. "Tax" does not include,
; higher education tuition; civil and criminal!
,fines and other charges collected in cases 011
restitution or violation of law or contract;:
. and the price of goods offered for sale by the'
state.
The Washington Supreme Court is expected
to rule later this year on the interpretation
and constitutionality of 1-695. Depending on
how the term U tax" in 1-695 is construed. the
tax repeal in 1-722 could be extremely broad.
It could include charges such as: dog licenses.
landing fees at municipal airports. solid
waste tipping fees. bus and ferry fares. medical
procedures at public hospitals. camping
permits, greens fees or lessons at public golf
courses. regulatory fees, tolls. local
improvement assessments. and taxes. Voter-
approved" tax" increases are exempted from
repeal.
1-722 would also require that the proceeds of
all "tax" increases enacted between
July 2. 1999 and December 31. 1999 be
refunded to the "taxpayer." In many
situations. it will be impossible for state and
local governments to locate "'taxpayers" (for
example. payers of sales taxes or transit fares) .
In other situations. it will be impractical
(identifying. calculating and refunding
increases that may amount to less than $1).
Some tax and utility rate increases may have
been expressly pledged to the payment of
contracts or bonds. In that case. the
jurisdiction required to repeal the tax or rate
increase and refund the proceeds may be
subject to a claim under the Washington and
United States Constitutions. which prevent
governmental impairment of contractual
obligations. However. the jurisdiction may
have to prove that it is actually incapable of
.
paying the contract or bonds before a court
would find the tax repeal and refund invalid.
2% individual property tax limit. Under current
law. property must be assessed at its true and
fair value. There is no limit on the amount an
. individual parcel of property may increase in
value. 1-722 would exempt individual
taxpayers from any liability to pay any annual
increase in property taxes attributable to any
increase in the value of property (other than
for new construction or manufacture) over its
1999 value. plus the lesser of 2% per year or
inflation. There is no provision for voter
approval to exceed the stated limits on
increases.
The Washington State Constitution requires
uniformity in taxes on the same class of
property. with all real estate considered one
class of property. However. the Constitution
also authorizes the Legislature to exempt
property from taxation. It is unclear Whether.
the Constitution permits the type of partial .
exemption provided in 1-722. which would
exempt "persons" from paying any excess
increases in taxes. The Washington Supreme
Court has noted that nearly all statutory tax
exemptions are defined by (1) some
characteristic of the property owner (Le.. low-
income. retired or disabled); (2) use of the
property (Le.. homes for the sick or aging); or
(3) to encourage a desired use of the property
(Le.. historical landmark or timber
preservation). Under this rationale. the Court
held a similar tax limitation provision in
Referendum 47 to be unconstitutional.
102% taxing district limit. Under current law.
the total dollar amount of regular property taxes
levied by an individual taxing district may not
exceed the amount of such taxes levied in the
highest of the three most recent years multiplied
by a "limit factor." (An adjustment is made to
account for taxes on new construction.
improvements and State-assessed property.)
The current "limit factor" is the greater of (1)
106% or (for taxing districts with more than
10.000 people) the lesser of 106% or 100%
plus inflation or (2) any amount up to 106%. if.
1.: .
.,~., .-' ...
'- 'L,{"".~ ,,'
.. .
.:.... I '--;' <.;
.
('O:JL-;ii."d
~.r ':'.:.."J
I . :; r~
approved by a majority plus one vote of the
governing body of the taxing district, upon a
finding of substantial need. 1-722 would
reduce this 106% limit to 102%.
IfI-695 is upheld by the WasWngton Supreme
Court, this provision will have little impact,
because State and local governments will be
required to seek voter approval for all tax
increases, whether or not those increases
exceed the "limit factor." . If 1-695 is struck
down, under 1-722 state and local governments
will face much stricter limitations on their
ability to increase necessary revenues or pass
along increases in costs, especially in years
where inflation exceeds 2%.
.
Levy capacity protection repeal. Under
current law (RCW 84.55.092), if a taxing
district chooses not to increase its property
tax levy in the amount permitted by the
applicable limit factor (the lesser of inflation
or 6%), the taxing districtin the future may
increase its levy in an amount greater than
the applicable limit factor, so long as the
increase does not exceed the amount that
would have been allowed had the taxing
district increased its levy in the amount
permitted each year. If, for example, (1) a
taxing district could have increased property
taxes 3% in 1999, but only increased them
2% and (2) can increase property taxes 3%
in 2000 but wants to increase them 4%, the
taxing district may be able to do so, as long
as the total increase does not exceed what the
property taxes would have been if the taxing
district increased property taxes 3% in 1999
and 3% in 2000. 1-722 repeals this capacity
protection. The result is to encourage taxing
districts to increase property taxes in the
maximum amount permitted each year,
because failure to do so results in a permanent
loss in future levy capacity.
.
,l:!-\'f!?~",.i,) J{.Lj,; i:i;-!'I,,:.t1i'" ,<i '*';~.,,,:~ ',).:.j;:~.7i:,i~:,~?:,jr;~";~~i} f:1'; :;
1-745
Official BaIlot Measure Title: i
Shall 90% of transportation funds, including i
transit taxes, be spent for roads;:
transportation agency performance audits'
required; and road construction and'
maintenance be sales tax-exempt?
Official Ballot Measure Summary: I
This measure would require that 90% of state I
and local' transportation funds, including i
local transit taxes but excluding ferry and:
transit fares, be spent on road construction, '
i improvement, and maintenance. Road and:
, lane construction and maintenance would be i
: the top transportation priority. Performance I
audits of transportation and public transit I
, agencies would be required. Materials and:
: labor used in road construction or'
i maintenance would be exempt from sales,
tax. Counties and cities would update!
transportation plans.
The full text of 1-745 is available atl
www.secstate.wa.gov/iniWtextli745htm.
1- 745 has been nicknamed the
"Transportation Improvement Initiative" by
the initiative sponsors and is primarily
concerned with directing transportation
spending to road construction, improvement
and maintenance~ If approved by the voters,
1-745 would:
· Require the Legislature to adopt legislation
that requires at least 90% of transportation
funds to be spent on (1) construction of new
roads, (2) new lanes on existing roads,
(3) improvements to the traffic carrying
capacity of roads and (4) maintenance of
roads.
· Eliminate sales and use tax on materi~ls
and labor used to construct or maintain
roads.
.:;.:!.'.:-:'
.:::::.. /~N
i ~',.:,:
l. - i -.., ,~
'. ,. ii::, u.; f j'~:.:;~; ~::
90% spending requirement. 1-745 would
require the Legislature to account for all
transportation funding in the State (at both
the state and local level) and ensure that 90%
of those funds are spent on roads. According
to a preliminary su'rvey conducted by the State
Department of Transportation , depending on
whether a broad or narrow definition of
"roads" is used. currently approximately
60% to 80% of all transportation funding is
spent on roads.
1-745 does not indicate how the Legislature
is to implement its requirements. The
Legislature may require each local
government to ensure that 90% of its
transportation funds are spent on roads. Such
a requirement may not be a problem for cities
that provide no transit services, but would be
extremely problematic for governments such
as counties that provide regional transit for
cities and unincorporated areas. The
Legislature could require that the balance be
achieved at the county level, which would
essentially give counties veto power over any
city spending on transportation. If, for
example, a county had achieved the 90%
benchmark, it could prevent a city from
implementing even a voter-approve? source
of transit funding.
The Legislature could also require that the
balance be achieved at the statewide level.
which would essentially remove all local
control over transportation spending and give
the State veto power over local governments.
Using the same example, if the State had
achieved the 90% benchmark, it could
prevent the implementation of a voter-
approved source of transit funding. If
additional funds were spent by a local
government on roads, it is unclear who would
be permitted to incrementally increase
transportation spending on non-road purposes.
The definition of "transportation funds" is
vague and may include transportation fees
collected by institutions of higher education
under RCW 288.130, transportation impact
fees under chapter RCW 39.92, alternative
transportation (for example, bicycles, under
RCW 47.04.190), state and local motor pools
(for example, under RCW 43.19.560) and
transportation of prisoners (for example,
under RCW 72.68.020). If so. every dollar
.
spent on such purposes must be matched
by nine dollars spent on roads. If nine
dollars is not spent, the amount on such
purposes mUst be cut accordingly.
"Transportation funds" are government
. funds spent for transportation pwposes and
include the transportation fund, the
highway fund, public transit and ferry
capital accounts and reserves, local
government transportation accounts, public
transportation authorities, transportation
benefit districts and the HOV account.
"Transportation funds" exclude federal
funds required to be spent on other than
road pwposes, transportation vehicle funds
for school districts, funds used by airports.
funds used by port districts and public ferry:
and public transit fares.
Road construction sales and use tax.
1-745 would eliminate sales and use tax on
materials and labor used to construct or
maintain roads. It is unclear what impact
this would have on State and local
governments. While there will be savings
to some governments engaged in road
construction, other entities will lose tax
revenue.
.
What's Next?
The options available to deal with the
potential enactment ofl-722 and 1-745 vary
from jurisdiction to jurisdiction depending
on the particular circumstances involved.
Government officials should consult their
financial advisors and attorneys with
respect to their particular situations.
At a minimum, governments should:
· Determine the extent of rates, charges,
and non voted taxes adopted between
July 2, 1999 and December 31, 1999, and
evaluate the impact of a repeal and refund
of those" taxes. ..
· Evaluate prospective property tax rates
assuming they may increase at a maximum
of 2% per year over 1999 levels (plus new
construction and manufacture).
· Plan budget adjustments assuming the
passage ofl-722 and 1-745.
.
,. ; ~:!!!:.
x
I -- . . I~
.".
1..."'722 !~ ;\.1) ;
"1 "j '.J
.... -
J"ltU=': 1,-.,.." ;'''. .,. ).
,.._..1. .,"lA' ,.'r..... "
State law prohibits the use of public money or
facilities (including employee work -time) to support
or oppose ballot propositions. However, state law
permits distribution of objective information about
a ballot proposition to the extent that distributing
such information falls within the scope of the duties
of a particular department or office. For example,
elected and appointed officials could answer
questions about the potential impact that 1-722 and
1-745 would have on their government.
In addition, at an open public meeting, members of
';'~~~tW<~h~~f?i"..:t:~':~~'\~~~~;~~;
the governing body of a government may take
a collective position on an initiative or vote
on a resolution supporting or opposing 1-722
or 1-745. Any applicable meeting notice must
include the number and title of the initiative,
and both positions must be given
approximately the same opportunity to be
heard. Government officials should consult
with their legal counselor the Public Disclosure
Commission if they have questions regarding
campaign~ for or against initiative
measures. 121
SUPREI\1E COURT DECISION IDENTlrIES RISK TO LOCAL
GOVERNMENT OF FAILING TO MEET GRO\NTl-f
MANAGEMENT HEARINGS BOARD DEADLINE
13v l\\:'DREVv S. L;J.JE
The Washington Supreme Court recently decided that,
where a local government's development regulation
eoes not comply with the Growth Management
M GMA") , Chapter 36.70A RCVV, is remanded
by a Growth Management Hearings Board
("GMHB"), and the local government misses the
GMHB's deadline for compliance, that development
regulation is no longer in effect, even though the
GMHB did not make a determination of invalidity.
In Association of Rwal Residents v. Kitsap County,
Docket No. 68027-2 (Wash. July 20, 2(00), the Court
was asked to determine what land use regulations
applied to a proposed development. To appreciate
the Court's analysis, it is necessary to understand the
chronology of events, set out below:
· October 4,1993
County identifies interim urban growth area (IUGA) ,
pursuant to the GMA
· June 3.1994
GMHB determines the IUGA does not comply with
the GMA and remands to County for revision by
October 3, 1994
· October 3. 1994
County does not revise its IDGA by the GMHB
line
ecember 15,1994
Developers submit Planned Unit Development (PUD)
and preliminary plat application
· December 29. 1994
County amends IDGA
Finding that the County's IDGA did not comply
with the GMA, the GMHB remanded it and set
a deadline for the County to revise its IDGA.
When the GMHB made this decision in 1994,
the Legislature had not yet granted the GMHB
authority to invalidate local enactments. See
Laws of 1995, ch. 347, 3 110. Without a
determination of invalidity, the IDGA remained
in effect after the GMHB remand.
However, when the County missed the GMHB's
deadline, the Court stated that the IDGA was
no longer in effect. Because the IDGA was no
longer in effect, the Court concluded that the
preliminary plat and PUD applications had to
vest to the zoning that pre-existed the IDGA.
The Court rejected the argument that the project
did not vest because a PUD application was a
request for a rezone, holding that. a preliminary
plat application coupled with a PUD proposal
creates a vested right to have the entire
application, including the PUD, considered
under the ordinances in effect at the time of
filing. "
The Court's analysis creates a scenario in which
failure of a local government to meet a GMHB
remand deadline could result in vesting based
on ordinances in effect prior to a local
government's GMA actions. ~
'.t:~'~f~~':{, ~ .
~-, -'. - "...- __' i ..' . "':."
~~O~?~~r;~~:~S:2;
slxmomhs have cqllabOrated
anvaI1ol!~ ;egalpro)~is: ....
"'1l''''''~'
&Pt.:!l(K.ffl.'tSOi.
.'ILalsI /:001
FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC
ATTORNEYS
AT LAW
~
IIII THIRD
-AVENUE
SUITE 3400
SEATT~E
WASHINCTON
98101-3299
A WORD OF CAUTION
The recent changes to the legal requirements for ballot titles illustrate the importance of
consulting with your bond counsel before using a . form" from a previous financing to
prepare a document for a new deal. Not only do laws change. but the requirements also
may differ from one financing to another. Also. please consult with us before making
changes to documents (such as bond resolutions and ordinances) that we have prepared
and provided to you. Even a seemingly minor change could create a problem for the
financing. In both cases. a quick phone call could prevent future difficulties.
EDITOR'S COl'vlIvlENT
Municipal & Public Finance News is a
periodic publication of Foster Pepper &
Shefelman PLLC and should not be
construed as legal advice or legal opinion
on any specific facts or circumstances.
The contents are intended for general
information purposes only. and you are
urged to consult your own lawyer
concerning your own situation and any
specific legal questions you may have.
Karen j. Boyle. Editor
206-447-8997
boylk@foster.com
MUNICIPAL & PuaLlC FINANCE ArroRNEYS
Brad Berg
206-447-8970
bergb@foster.com
Karen Boyle
(206) 447-8997
boylk@foster.com
Grover Cleveland
206-447-4692
clevg@foster.com
Steve Dilullo
206-447-8971
dijup@foster.com
Marc Greenough
206-447-2874
greem@foster.com
52
Joseph Levesque
907-222-7110
levej@foster.com
George Mack
206-447-8961
mackg@foster.com
Jim McNeill
509-777 -1602
mcnej@foster.com
Jeff Nave
509-777-1601
navej@foster.com
Peter Partnow
907 -222-7108
partp@foster.com
Susan Reeves
907-222-7109
reevs@foster.com
Hugh Spitzer
206-447-8965
spith@foster.com
Bill Tonkin
206-447-8967
tonkw@foster.com
Lee Voorhees
206-447-8968
voorl@foster.com
Deborah Winter
206-447-8976
wintd@foster.com
.
OUR WEB SITE.
www.foster.com
THiS Pt.;Bt.lc",n~~:s ?~i:<lTE.1>
-D~ REeve: !:'f; :l"'rto:~
YES
722
:', ';", .;'h.i;;:~
Son ,of 695 Initiative 1-722
We can'tlet'the politician$getaway with it
Official Ballot Title: Shall certain 1999 tax and fee iricrea~s be nullified. ~'l:liic1es exempted from
property taxes. and propenytaxiQcreases (except new ~onstruction) limited to 2% annually?
. . ,
; "
Why is 1-722 necessary?
What does 1-722 do?
Why did you invalidate
tai increases starting on
July 2....?
Didn't 1-695 require
voter approval for
property tax increases?
Can tbe government
handle the loss of
revenue from 1-722?
Besides protecting
taxpayen from tbe
politicians' reaction to
1-695, does 1-722 help
our property tax
roblem?
What is the politicians'
alternative?
I Politicians didn't get the message from Initiative 695. As you know, starting
i January 1, 2000, I..69~ requiredvoter approval for any tl[lx increase. But in the
, final months of 1999, politicians acted like cl1coholics, going' for one last "bender,"
jamming through every tax and fee increase humanly possible. We can't the poli-
ticians get away with it! If these tax increases are truly necessary, reintroduce
them and let the voters decide.
, Invalidates all unfair tax & fee increases adopted without voter approval from
July 2nd, 1999 through December 31 st, 1999 ..
, Exempts vehicles from property taxes
~ Limits property~aX INCREASES to a maximum 2% per year, starting with
your January 1, 1999 property tax assessment
, Exempts maintenance replacements (painting, siding, roofing, etc.) from prop-
erty taxes
On July 2nd, 1999, the Initiative 695 campaign handed in 514,141 signatures, the
second highest number of signatures in state history. From that point on, politi-
cians were "on notice" that the people didn't want more of their money taken
without being asked first. Politicians didn't listen - so we need 1-722 to show
them we weren't kiddin when we assed 1-695.
Initiative 695 requires voter approval for property tax RATE increases, but we
need Son of 695 Initiative 1-722 to make sure property tax assessors don't go hog
wild and stick your vehicle on the property tax rolls or suddenly decide that the
value of your property just increased dramatically in order to bring in more tax
revenue than they should. 1-722 prevents these tax assessors from getting around
1-695's tax increase rotections.
When it comes to "lost revenue," the politicians can't whine - 1-722 doesn't take
any more money away from the government than they had in 1999. We simply
limit property tax INCREASES to a fair 2% annual cap, starting with your Janu-
ary 1, 1999 property tax aSsessment. La addition, the government will continue to
receive tax revenue from new construction - and if they need more, they can ask
the voters ennission under the rovisions of 1-695.
Property taxes are out-of-control - property taxes double every 7 to 9 years.
Family incomes and senior citizens' incomes can never keep pace with the prop-
erty tax increases regularly imposed by the state. With 1-722, homes will be more
affordable and our families and our elderly will no longer be forced to sell their
homes because of skyrocketing property tax bills! We need 1-722 to cap property
taxes.
Politicians will NEVER limit taxes - 1-722 defuses the Property Tax Time Bomb
in a reasonable wa - limitin increases to a fair 2% annual ca .
Paid for by Pennanent Offense . PO Box 1641 . Mukilteo . WA . 98275
Ph: 425-493-8707 . FAX: 425-493-1027 . www.i-695.org. email: info@I-695.org
53
.
-
~~
.
54
..
.
Answer .o.
Although most of the state transpo"on fund comes from Our incredibly high gas tax (which the "
Washington State Constitution reqUires be, spent 1 O()O~ for roads), politic}Cins hav~,chos~n to spend
less than 50% from that fund on increasing road capatity. 'Why? Some time ago, politicians '
decided to go with a social engineering'strat8gy: stop building roads and let traffic get worse to
force people out of their vehicles. Since 1986, the state has built only 47 miles of new roads while
our population has skyrocketed. Has their strategy worked? No way - Washington has the 3rd
worst traffic congestion in the nation and our roads are falling apart. The politicians' horrible
strategy has created the current traffic messl Considering how many BILLIONS of dollars
vehicle owners pay in taxes EVERY YEAR and how long the politicians' strategy has failed, isn't it
PAST TIME we a different strate ? 1.745 solves the traffic roblem WITHOUT raisin taxes. !
). 1-745 makes road construction and road maintenance the state's top transportation priority
(right now, the DOT puts them as the lowest priority - abSOlutely screwy!)
> Requires 90% of transportation funds be spent on road construction'& maintenance. The i
remaining 1 0% of our taxes will be spent on the 3% to 5% of the public who need or choose :
alternatives like public transit On addition to this 10% taxpayer subsidy, 1-745 allows all tax I
revenues generated from true user fees, like bus fares, to go to their budgets as well) I
). Requires performance audits on all transportation agencies and programs '
). Ensures all funds generated from the Puget Sound RT A be spent on projects within the
RT A district
). Exempts road materials & labor from sales tax (opens up more funds for roads)
). NO CHANGE WHATSOEVER IN HOV/CARPOOL LANE POLICY (a previous version of ,:
this initiative, 1-711, made HOV/carpoollanes available to a1I,vehicJes - this version of the
Traffic Improvement Initiative, 1-745, has dropped that provision -1-745 DOES NOT change
HOV/c ooIlane oli at all .
According to a recent study, if the state added just 4% to our roadway lane miles, we could reduce
traffic congestion by 25%. By using our existing transportation dollars more effectively, we can
and must say.NOto the politicians' demands for MASSIVE tax increases. This reduction in
cong~tion wiHimprove our quality of life by giving commuters ij'.oie time at rlOille with their families
and reducing air ponution. /JJr quality will obviously improve due to smoother, faster-flowing traffic.
The only way we're going to learn how to get the biggest bang for our transportation buck is to
mandate top-to-botlDm performance audits on every transportation agency, program, and account
For years now, our state auditor has been blocked from conducting this common sense task _
Initiative 745 is the only way to break through this stagnant legislative logjam.
Politicians are using a stacked Blue Ribbon Commission to hide their predictable -solution-:
MASSIVE tax increases. We already pay BILLIONS of dollars in taxes for transportation EVERY
YEAR. The taxpayers should not give politicians another dime until they prove they're spending our
existing tax dollars as effectively as possible. 1.745 ensures effective spending by mandating
performance audits and requiring more of our existing transportation funds be spent where the
eo Ie want on roads. Remember, 1.745 solves the traffic roblem WITHOUT raisin taxes.
Paid by the Traffic Improvement Initiative 1-745. PO Box 1641 . Mukilteo . WA. 98275
Dh. ...,~ ,fn'2 0.,0., ~ 1';''' v. A.,e An't 1 n.,., · ..--.: ene.._ .. ..-..:'. :..,...t;;\T enAli ('.ro 55
· .. li6c...,-..'Y.."1-n"" ., .'....". ..,...............UL., . .........'.....1...... . r...,.... .........'....7...
YES
745
Question ...
Why is 1-745 necessary
- don't we already
spend most our
transportation funds on
roads?
What does 1-745, the
Traffic Improvement
Initiative do?
Will increasing road
capacity (road
construction and lane
extensions) really make.
traffic flow better?
Why does 1-745 require
complete performance
audits?
What is the politicians'
alternative?
"'-1:;~~'?~,~jit~~'~'~4~~_;,<r:~)'~~~~~
Traffic Improvement Initiative 1-745
Let's just solve the traffic problem WITHOUT raising taxes
1-745 &lot Tile: Shall 90% 6f transportation funds. inc1udln8transit ~es.. be:spent for r~: tl'al]spof1atlon
agency perfurmance audits required; and Toad construction and,maint.enance be sales taX..e.xempt'~ .
.
o ve Tra Ie
ro em
Without Raising Taxes
.
-
.
56
.,;t"\;,'1':{L~:i~.;.t;~"~'1~P)k..)t:~;:; ; f ':~~~'~.~"!i\:\~~~;1 \
.
~ORTANGELES
WAS H I N G TO N, U. s. A.
CITY COUNCIL MEMO
CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
October 3, 2000
Board of Adjustment Meeting Monday, October 2 7:00 p.m.
Mike on KONP Tuesday, October 3 1 :00 p.m.
City Council Meeting Tuesday, October 3 6:00 p.m.
Gateway Committee Meeting Thursday, October 5 8:15 a.rn.
Utility Advisory Committee Meeting Monday, October 9 3:00 p.m.
P.A. Works! Meeting Tuesday, October 10 10:00 a.m.
Real Estate Committee Meeting Tuesday, October 10 4:00 p.m.
Law Enforcement Advisory Committee Meeting Wednesday, October 11 6:30 p.rn.
Planning Commission Meeting Wednesday, October 11 7:00 p.m.
City Council Meeting Tuesday, October 17 6:00 p.m.
Parks, Recreation & Beautification Commission Meeting Thursday, October 19 7:00 p.m.
Downtown Forward Advisory Committee Monday, October 23 7:00 a.m.
A WC Regional Meeting - Poulsbo Tuesday, October 24 6:00 p.m.
Council Budget committee Meeting Tuesday, October 24 TBA
Plamring Commission Meeting Wednesday, October 25 7:00 p.m.
Council Budget Committee Meeting Thursday, October 26 TBA
Council Budget Committee Meeting Monday, October 30 TBA
Gateway Committee Meeting
Board of Adjustment Meeting
Monday, November 6
Tuesday, November 7
Tuesday, November 7
Wednesday, November 8
7:00 p.m.
1 :00 p.rn.
6:00 p.m.
6:30 p.m.
City Council Meeting
Law Enforcement Advisory Committee Meeting
.
.
.
58
.
.
.
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
Port Angeles, Washington 98362
-September 13, 2000
7:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Members Present:
Bob Philpott, Linda Nutter, Fred Norton, Fred Hewins,
Bob King, and Chuck Schramm
Members Absent:
Mary Craver
Staff Present:
Debra Barnes and Jeff Abram
Public Present:
Rick Umbarger, Steve Oliver, Robert Beausoleil
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Commissioner King moved to approve the August 23, 2000 meeting minutes as
presented with minor corrections on Pages 1 and 7. The motion was seconded by
Commissioner Schramm and passed 3-0 with Commissioners Philpot, Nutter and
Hewins abstaining due to their absence at the August 23rd meeting.
CONTINUED BUSINESS
Conditional Use Permit CUP 00-05 - Beausoleil, 514 West Eighth Street. Staff provided
an overview of the status of the review and decision on this application. The staff report
included 13 conditions of approval, 19 findings of fact and 10 conclusions of law in support
of the application as Exhibit A2. Also included as Exhibit B3 was the applicant's suggested
wording of the conditions. Staff pointed out the differences between the two suggested list
of conditions and mentioned that the Commission may want to re-visit Conclusions of law
H and I, depending on the wording of the conditions chosen by the Commission.
The Commission asked several questions of the applicant. Steve Oliver, representing the
applicant, responded that he had worked with the Planning Director to develop the list of
conditions that focused on the size of the materials that would be brought to the site, and not
the source of these materials. The applicant added condition #14 to further ad~ess this
issue. Mr. Beausoleil also responded that the customers to the site would enter into' the office
and not the rear ofthe building where materials were processed, including cutting, and also
discussed the definition of bulky and heavy.
The Commission discussed these issues including revisions to conditions #1, 3, and 5 and
also new conditions # 14 and 15. The Commission also discussed changes to Conclusion #H.
Commissioner Philpott made a recommendation to approve CUP 00-05, with 15 conditions,
59
Planning Commission Minutes
September 13.2000
Page 2
19 findings of fact and 10 conclusions of law. Commissioner Norton seconded the motion
which passed 4-1-1 with Commissioner Nutter voting no and Commissioner King abstaining
due to his absence at the July public hearing. Commissioner Nutter noted that her reason for
dissent related to allowing industrial uses in a neighborhood zone.
.
Conditions, Findings, and Conclusions
for approval of CUP 00-05
Conditions:
1. The approval is for only a neighborhood nonferrous recycling center and not for a ferrous
metals salvage and recycling use that handles heavy or bulky materials.
2. The recycle materials shall be contained and handled completely within the building.
3. The recycle materials handled at this site shall include only small household items such as
aluminum cans and shall not include any heavy, bulky, or ferrous items such as appliances, .
any vehicle bodies or parts, or any hazardous materials or substances.
4. The neighborhood recycling center shall encourage residents to recycle on a regular basis by
making it convenient to sell items such as aluminum cans which can be easily recycled for
profit and shall educate people, particularly children, on the importance of recycling.
5.
All metal sorting and cutting activity shall take place inside the building.
.
6. No excessive noise shall be generated such as would violate City noise ordinances.
7. Hours of operation shall be limited from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday.
8. Signage shall be erected per the City's sign regulations.
9. Traffic shall enter and leave the site east bound on 8th St.
10. The applicant shall comply with all applicable City ordinances, including signage laws, noise
ordinances, parking requirements, etc.
11. No hazardous waste or moderate risk waste will be handled or discharged at this site.
12. No recycle materials shall be stored outside of the building at any time, and inventory shall
be removed from the facility before the storage capacity of the shop building on site
(approximately 800 square feet) is exceeded.
13. Employee parking shall be restricted to the west side of the building.
14.
All recycling materials shall be brought to or removed from the site by foot or a vehicle with
a capacity of one (1) ton or less.
.
60
.
.
.
'i'!W~ '~~~r:':i~"~!;~" ~l' ~h'~~,,:~ ~.1?'f,~-;;~1JI'4\::~f;?J'T ~r~:~
Planning Commission Minutes
Page 3
15.
No mechanical devices other than hand trucks or non-motorized pallet jacks shall be used
for the loading, moving or unloading of materials.
Findings:
The following findings are based on the information provided in the July 26, 2000, August
23, and September 13, 2000 Staff Reports for CUP 00-05, including all of the attachments.
Consideration was also given to the corrpnents and information presented during the July 26,
2000, public hearing, and the Planning Commission's discussion and deliberation.
Consequently, the City of Port Angeles Planning Commission hereby finds:
1. The applicant Robert Beausoleil applied for a conditional use permit to continue a metals
recycling use in the Commercial Neighborhood (CN) Zone. The application and a petition
supporting the facility are provided as Attachment B to the July 26, 2000, Staff Report for
CUP 00-05.
2. The applicant describes the facility as a nonferrous metals recycling facility where all
materials are kept inside the 1400 square foot building and do not include hazardous wastes
or auto hulks.
3. The project use is located at 514 W. 8th Street.
4.
Salvage and recycling buildings are a conditional use in the Commercial Arterial (CA) Zone,
which is one of the two most intensive commercial zones, but are not a use specifically
allowed in the Commercial Neighborhood (CN) Zone, which is one of the two least intensive
commercial zones.
5. Robert's Metals recycling use has been operating since early this year in violation of the
Zoning Code, and this application is in response to the City's enforcement action
(Attachment C). The City has previously enforced other use zoning violations at this
location.
6. The site's Comprehensive Plan land use designation is Commercial.
7. The City's Comprehensive Plan's Land Use Element Goal A, Policy AI, Goal D, Policy Dl,
Goal E, and Policies E3 and E8 were determined to be the most relevant to the proposal.
8. The purpose ofthe CN Zone is: This is a commercial zone intended to create and preserve
areas for businesses which are of the type providing goods and services for the day-to-day
needs of the surrounding residential neighborhood. Businesses in this zone shall occur on
sites no larger than one acre and shall be located and designed to encourage both pedestrian
and vehicle access and to be compatible with adjacent residential neighborhoods.
9.
Section 17.08.020.C of the Port Angeles Municipal Code (PAMC) describes the definition
of a Conditional Use Permit: The definition of a conditional use permit is a limited
61
Planning Commission Minutes
Page 4
permission to locate a particular use at a particular location, and which limited permission .
is required to modify the controls stipulated by the Zoning regulations in such degree as to
assure that the particular use shall not prove detrimental to surrounding properties, shall
not be in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan, and shall not be contrary to the public
interest.
10. Section 17.96.050 of the Zoning Code describes the purpose of a conditional use permit and
the reasons for denying a conditional use permit are stated: The purpose of a Conditional
Use Permit shall be to assure that the maximum degree of compatibility between uses shall
be attained. The purpose of these regulations shall be maintained with respect to the
particular use of the particular site and in consideration of other existing and potential uses
within the general area in which such use is to be located. The Planning Commission may
grant said (Conditional Use) permits which are consistent and compatible with the purpose
of the zone in which the use is located, consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and not
contrary to the public use and interest. The Planning Commission may refuse to issue a
Conditional Use Permit if the characteristics of the intended use as related to the specific
proposed site are such as would defeat the purpose of these Zoning Regulations by
introducing incompatible, detrimental, or hazardous conditions.
n.
The proposed use is located in an established residential neighborhood and neighborhood
shopping district. It is in close proximity to existing single family residences across the 8/9
alley to the south of the subject site and a neighborhood convenience store across 8th Street.
12.
The City's State Environmental Policy Act Responsible Official issued a Determination of
Non-Significance for the project on July 21,2000.
.
13. The public comment period ran from June 13,2000, to June 28, 2000.
14. Petitions and public comment at the public hearing were received in support of the proposed
neighborhood recycling center.
15. The Public Works Department had the following comments:
A. Submittal of an on-site parking lot design, conforming to City standards. Parking lot
to consist of asphalted or concrete with curb stops for each parking stall. See
attached standard detail.
B. Submit industrial wastewater pre-treatment questionnaire and disclosure form.
C. Backing into unloading area from 8th Street will be prohibited.
16. The Fire Department commented that the recycling center shall comply with the Uniform
Fire Code and is subject to annual life safety fire inspections by the Port Angeles Fire
Department.
.
62
.
.
.
;;~ ,i~~~,~'t~,,,,: "'\:':~'~"''-'fi~':-~;:,:J -<i,,_ ~H1;~:~;0Wq1:f0:<'i\':~~~_F
. ,- . . .,. -
Pl~nning Commission Minutes
Page 5
17.
The Planning Department had the following .comments:
A. A recycling facility is an.. industrial use that requires. 1 parking spaces for each 3
employees with a minimum often spaces to be provided on site. There is one
employee with the possibility of another one or two employees in the future, and
eight parking spaces are provided on site.
B. The sign for the business is not in compliance with City standards.
IS. A letter from Ward S. Dunscomb and a second petition in support of the proposal were
received at the July 26, 2000, public hearing.
19. The applicant's representative proposed conditions that are provided in Attachment B2 of
the staffs September 13, 2000 report.
Conclusions:
The following conclusions are based on the information provided in the July 26, 2000,
August 23, and September 13, 2000, Staff Reports for CUP 00-05, including all of the
attachments. Consideration was also given to the comments and information presented
during the July 26,2000, public hearing, and the Planning Commission's discussion and
deliberation. Consequently, the City of Port Angeles Planning Commission hereby
concludes:
A.
A CN neighborhood recycling center can be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the
purpose of the CN Zone. The desired urban design 'of the City is to create and maintain
residential neighborhoods, neighborhood shopping areas, community shopping areas,
regional commercial areas, industrial areas, and open space areas. The central idea in
creating land use districts and zones for specified uses is to reduce potential land use
conflicts and to provide some certainty for property owners about uses that may be permitted
to locate near each other and how.
B.
In this circumstance, Sth Street is a neighborhood shopping area surrounded by an established
residential neighborhood that is predominantly single family. Introducing a new use that
serves the residential district in a neighborhood. shopping area would be consistent the
purposes of both the CN Zone and the surrounding single family residential neighborhood.
c.
It may be possible for this particular use at this particular location to keep the use small and
inside the building so that there are few impacts on surrounding uses. However, it will also
be necessary to restrict aspects of this proposed use and proposals by other similar uses
which may also demonstrate little compatibility with neighborhood shopping and residential
uses.
D.
The characteristics of the intended use as related to the specific proposed site are such as
would defeat the purpose ofthese Zoning Regulations by introducing incompatible
63
Planning Commission Minutes
Page 6
conditions of a more intensive commercial and industrial conditional use into a .
neighborhood shopping and single family residential area.
E. The applicant is willing to distinguish between a neighborhood recycling facility for small
household items and an industrial salvage facility for heavy, bulky metal items.
F. A principal idea in this CUP approval is to encourage residents to recycle on a regular basis
by making it convenient to sell items such as aluminum cans which can be easily recycled
for profit. .
G. Another reason for Planning Commission approval is to educate people, particularly
children, on the importance of recycling.
H. The conditions suggested by the applicant's representative and by staff are intended to
establish a difference between neighborhood recycling facilities and industrial salvage
facilities with the latter being inappropriate in a residential district or Commercial
Neighborhood Zone.
I. An industrial metals salvage and recycling business is a use that can have significant adverse
environmental impacts and is not suitable for a location close to residential uses.
J.
Granting the applicant approval as an "other conditional use" for a neighborhood recycling
center would not set a precedent for an industrial salvage facility of other uses which may
be incompatible also being permitted in the CN Zone.
.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. Conditional Use Permit - CUP 00-07 - Burst Wireless, 176 South Chase Street.
Staff provided a brief overview of the status of the project. Staff stated that the required
environmental review and analysis is not yet completed on the proposal. Staff added that we
are uncertain if the review will be completed in time for the next meeting but recommended
that the hearing be continued to the September 27, 2000 meeting. Commissioner King
moved to continue the public hearing to September 27, 2000 at 7 P.M. Commissioner
Schramm seconded the motion which passed 6-0. Commissioner Schramm asked that a
status report on the current cell tower moratorium invoked by Clallam County be provided
at that meeting.
2. Conditional Use Permit - CUP 00-08 - Mike Breen, 402 East Eighth Street.
Staff noted that the status of this permit is the same as CUP 00-07. Commissioner King
moved to continue the public hearing to the September 27th meeting; Commissioner
Norton seconded which passed 6-0. .
64
.
.
.
,"~ ~;p-,r)_W"~'J;~i .:" .,:;,,'. ,.- . ':' :'7: I '" ;'~~':Y"-~',~'V\l;:';bIV,:i':ff1\;;l'''';.!';,y!f"1f
Planning Commission Minutes
Page 7
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC
None.
STAFF REPORTS
Staff mentioned that the agenda item for Sept. 27th would be discussion on neighborhood
planning should the public hearings not be held. Staff added that there are no new
applications submitted that require public hearings in the near future.
REPORTS OF COMMISSION MEMBERS
There were no reports.
ADJOURNMENT
Chair Hewins adjourned the meeting at 8:15 p.m.
i;~> ~
Fred Hewins, Chair
Brad Collins, Secretary
PREPARED BY: D. Barnes
65
.
.
.
66
. . .
---------------------.---.-----....------------i-~-'=-~hl,._~M_ CQV-!iTYJ:I~MAN UtiEL TER R~PORLf OJLTJ-I E MQ_NItLQE AMQU=r 200QJ______I__________
..--~-----_--------~.-~~n~Jeb--+!...M~ARL I~~~~~ ~~ N~ ~IDeC iYTD
PA ACO S C ; f 8 I or 1,,1 ill +~~""==t=- --- --=i--------...
___.___..._____.....___..__l@Y__._jlts_____._._..____..--.-.-.tj-------l!,'---------J-----i---_--1_9i1,___~81____?4 --U4-- 1~, _ 0+' -4 113
PA ACO Gift Cats '01,::-1 01 ----- --- ----- j------ ----- -----.
--......--.-.....--..-.-..------..-.---.--.--------.---. -1------ Ot. .. 1~ 01 0 ~o --O~ 0, =t --I -I. 1
PA Citizen Stra Cats --- J----yr------"2T------8 - 9 16,----.-. 3 ---~-- I -- -- 1---- ,------t-----
-PAcfiIzen-sur{ca-ts-------------r--2 3l-----61--------6,-----#.-----f~--21 ----If-!--1lr------ ------r-------i----+-~~-.
-----------.-..-.----------.------.-.--..-----t----.---1 -----~--~------ 3 ---3_----:-1- 3 i_I ' 2, I. __L ,11 8
S/O T k C -,- 41' ., II -- --- ----t----T-----T-------
-~~~--l~~-L~L~t-~j~~'~l~ I 11 ~ 17S
S/O Truck Surr Cats 11 61 11 O' 1--- 1 -----, ------t-------I----- I -----1------------
-se---ulm-ACO.lncomin---.------------------or---- 01---121 61 ---~---- ~t----{-+----~-r._-_1 --t-----t-------t---i{3-
lo;.er-EIWha--incom. rn.g.----..-----.-----.-.-----~---'.-or-or--~ ---+-----or--~-------r--E------::--t--. -;--------+--------~.
-couni-PUblrc-stra--c~ts-----t--.---.----2t--2j------ii--.---6 ----.--sT-------,-2r-----'3t-2Qt---------- ,-. T-------t---+---"-",--Q-
~~~~~~~~~~f~ ~ll--=tJ --~~i ~t-=- f ~ ~~t
~ Mated. C3tS--------------I-------l-1T.' -------6r----~fr-------10l--1-~.. .-------f7i-~l--37T--=t-----..--r.- --'-. --f-----T--1-3~i".
Aai7RToe:its --------r-----l1-------zt--o~~,----------rr--o- + ---r----+--,----s
EA_6tiz~m6c~_=_~--=1= o~-=-- l~=-1C..--t =-~ - -11--- ~ , -- l~ ~ ~o
~~.g~i1T!J.~IQ-~E.!.~_-.-------- --------~_i_-----.Q~----~ o,-.9.L----Qr---+-~------+-- !__________
~!t~=~---==*=-~==~=~- JI::=jf=-Jt-t- -tt =---+-=F~ ~
~f~~~~tt~t-1J!~~-t=-~~--Jf t-~ ~-f i -1 ~f
--~---L-~~--tl---~~f ----+-- r---r--+--------
~~~~==t=--=-i=-1t=t-=-~PL --+~-=-1_~=- ~-i=-~~~
~~gm.~.===t~L-L-~-=h=--=t=--~I==k=-~=-4-==+=-~::
-~T.~tJ.-r.-~~i.~~.!6~[i~.ts~===~===-t-.~=1:=-~-= ?j:---:- _~..i=-l~T-= 34~.- .------+--- =~. ~j=-8~:.
E~~:~{ftL3_31~t+-jfr=~~!ft=-~t i -~---~ui!
~~~~&~--==i=__3t~c~51t - ~jt~4-1fi-lg~L%- {t6~~-
l~~~:~~r:A!imaiS~ - ;f:-=-~~~ ~i---it=- ~ f=--=+--t 01 =t=~I
~~rtC~~b:h:~~~IS-. -j-i1---lt-~- ~- ~~I -1t-----r----j _ i - f-- 4:
LAj!'~M AnimaJi_=- -:j--_~4~r- _ 0,- - 'TI~I ! ---=1---~ 1..f:
CO~ND' OTIiER ANIMA~__-r- 61 8L_-U-. 4 ~----%------4---1J_-.Jll-----+-----j----L------t-_-2 Q
eq. ACO Other Animals ! 01 01 1 ! 01 01 1 i 11 01 i I ! i 2.......
...----..---...-.-..----.-........---..-.-.--.-..---..-...----..----------JIJ:lMJ,A!oL~II!T~~NE St/gJ" TE~ !!j;PO_8T F01LT!:lE MONTH p9F :tUlIUSC 2000l i
J a n b M I A M - - --, .-----1-----+-------
.PA-ACO"Stra---oo-------------------- i-----------i-8+f~-23+-~L-~--P- r1l1--~-Y-rl) UJL-::flY 1-1 Al!.q I Se Q-~---l-N O~-t-P~-~- 'J'TIL____
"j~!\lACQ_~iIT~~~~~=~~===~=~L==-::-:9t~==----Qj=__=_-.----ot=- ~t~:-=- ~ i _ _:~t-i_ =---gt-I-------g-r----j---------c-r---------t------1ii ----..---.-
PA Citizen Stra D 5 i 31 8i 6 . r-- i - --,-----.-t---.-.~--..--r-------t--.-.----r-.--.._--.---.-.--.---
PA.Ciiizerl.-s-urfi5o~-----------..--i----------f4-r--------jt-----T~--------~i------~I------~-----1! 1 4_1 -------+---i--------t-----.--+-----------.
s76Yruck-st,:a---D~-S-----------.j------.-l.71----19t-----------~T-------JJ-,-----l-~-I---4--.J-1i--~+---------i-----~---.---.-.-.--t------+-----:--
--------.---------___ _ __._lL_ I 2 5 1 6 I 6 . 111 .
- JY.'__... -...------.---1.---.----..--..---.T------.-..--~---------...--r---..-----.r-.--.----.-:1. _ ! 1 9., 111' !
5/0 TruckSurr Do s . 101 6' 3: I- ~~---- --------- ------~------r------ ---------1----------------
]eciiiirri:tiCQ ,nco-mi~~i--.-------r--------. -3r-----:i1------ii----- ~ 1 -----tl-------tt-----#.-----~t---------J'---.-.-----i-------t---------t-.----.---.----
Lower Elwha-'ncomin ---------1.----.-n-3r------6r------Ot---------61--------31-----Q+---l-----r-.---.-.- i -...-.-----...J------r-.-----.----'------.---.
-cou-nty-p.ubiic--stray--~o---s------r---;--:---9T------6'-----------s-r------Ol------t!----4-t-------ro ---.----.1-1---------1------.-- 1----.------i----.----1---------------
Coun!ypiJi;iicsUrr Do-~----r-2iiI~--f6t-----f9t~2' r-----T9t--~"181 ~-' -~. -.--f-.--------!--.---:--~----
55 Iettat-shefier-l9l---T-191~7!141--f5132~gr_ 3r -+--1-----I---:-r--
-cf9A~iea--------.-------------r----1-61------91----.---12t---6t--------g!---11-1-~3t--.1~ ---:i--..'----.L------ .------
~~~~=~~~t-==-If=$=~T~~-C -w-1--~~-----~-=t:-+-~i~
~~=*!~1*ti-#~f~f-~l~~
.-LA.-- s. -PfS-DO--......-.~--.-..----...---.-----.---..--. --'--------12-r---.-----8-1.--------61----- IJ-. ---%---~---ll~- ----r=-----~,-r----
AOO----~------r----4t------21___at- , '--zr-z+------f---ot----- --1-=-----+------,------
I~~~==:tl#=J=-~~f=+--=-,11= 2~f-- =~t -= -~--j-~. -==~l==~=4~=---=..
-iAS..~A---~------------.------------j--.---.-tt-------or--------lr=-----'-V------ot---.----lr-----l-r------~----- - !------t-----r--
__._._ __. I ___ __ _... .,
-.A:ccfoo. iA ~------ --.---.---------.--Or----- 2 r--.---- 0 ----~. -----ll----.~Ot-----TI----o+----- -----t-------1----1---------
-----...--.....~-.--..---...-------.---..-.---.L--.--..----l----"~~~-~- -==+-+-+ ---
~~~:~-=F:t=il==~~~--ir=+=-' g~T Ai=+--l-=T-=--~i~-~=
-PA-'c~e-n---uirani~e--5o-s--r-------;-t.----------oi---.----~------or--------or---o~r------E---.-~-..----.i---.---t.._-----..
couni-----ua~-ntin-e-Do--S~---r-------Tt-------Ot_-- 1--------2+------0------2-1--.-- 1 --------z-----------------------+---------r---------T-..--------
.---.---.!Y-.Q!------...----'!L.--1------f--------,.-- -~~-~-t-- -J- --,-----+-------,-.
~~~<!Qm--t---- ~t-----1 -----1r--!t-' ~~ gt-~---+----r---i----.--~----._--.------
~1.~1~==~~1~iFqJ.= w=~~lF1t- ~1=gr. - 11 ~ g-!.: -lr~T
:TQ!~DQ~ !iOli~-----==:t-~~+=~-_J1_-4 ~4=- ij-~-r--'---o~Qt=__b~
f~t~1.-~~~.P.liT~ts-j:..andiea---.lj-r------Z-~-r----J-2-/---.----Z1t----2 ~-~---- 1 ~i------ftt--- 3 J I 01------Q.~.._~---- 0 I--~~-~-
.
.
.