HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/27/1978 Business Meeting 708
FEBRUARY 27, 1978
The City Council met in session on this date at 1:30 PM in the Conference
Room at City Hall, Yakima, Washington. Council members present were
Mayor Betty L. Edmondson, Henry Beauchamp, Don Hinman, Ralph Holbrook,
Jack Sparling and Gordon Wonder. Council member Nadine Walker absent
and excused.
Mayor Edmondson distributed a copy of the ANC membership survey to the
Council members which should be returned to ANC by March 17, 1978.
Mayor Edmondson reported that "Council On-the-Air" will be filmed at
KAPP-TV on Tuesday, March 7, 1978 at 9:45 AM, and requested two Council
members to volunteer to appear on the show with her. She stated that
last month's program had been cancelled. Council members Sparling and
Holbrook will appear on the program with Mayor Edmondson.
It was the general consensus of the Council to postpone the appointment
to the Housing Authority until Councilman Walker is present.
Council members briefly discussed the suggested dates for Council retreat
of April 14 and 15 and it was the general consensus that those dates are
good for those members present and to check with Councilman Walker upon
her return.
Councilman Wonder stated that he would be going to Washington D.C. to
the National League of Cities conference and wanted Council input on
transportation. Councilman Sparling stated the federal government has
done such a poor job so far and the City should have more involvement.
Councilman Holbrook stated that the money allocated would be better
spent if they would leave it to the local government to spend. Councilman
Beauchamp stated it necessary for the federal government to be involved
as the cities can't afford to improve the transit system. Mayor Edmondson
stated that she would prefer to receive the money from the federal
government and have the City determine how to spend it. Councilman
Wonder stated that frhe believes that the majority of the Council feels
that federal money should be obtained, but would prefer to have the
City spend it using their own methods.
Councilman Hinman stated that he would be attending the NLC Human Resources
Committee and asked for input also. Councilman Wonder stated the local
government should control the education system. Councilman Beauchamp
stated that the program grant approach works well if the community is
sensitive to its problems. Councilman Hinman stated he believes the
social services would be better administered at a local level, probably
the County. -
Council members next discussed their role as a Board of Equalization and
at time schedule they would like to follow for the hearing on the
L.I.D. No. 1001 assessment. Mayor Edmondson stated that as the Board of
Equalization, if we change the assessment roll on any parcel upward,
then notices will have to be mailed and a new hearing scheduled. She
stated that it is costing $10,000 a month for interest. City Manager
Eastman reported that the interest had been calculated into the assessment
roll until April 1. Councilman Hinman inquired if another hearing would
be required if FRS Funds were used to relievesome of the property
owners. Forrest Walls, the City's bond and LID attorney, stated that as
long as the amounts are decreased, another hearing would not be necessary.
Councilman Hinman inquired if there is a block that has not benefitted
by parking( could FRS Funds pick up the assessments. Mr. Walls replied
that it could as long as the rules are followed. Mr. Walls advised Council
to hear all the protests before making a determination on any parcel.
Councilman Wonder inquired what amount is substantial, when referring to
the assessment. Mt. Walls reported that it had not been ruled in the
Courts. After discussion of the time schedule, it was the general
consensus of the Council to determine at 5:30 PM whether the Council
should break for dinner and reconvene at 7:30 PM, and then adjourn about
10:00 PM. After discussion, it was the general consensus to continue
FEBRUARY 27, 1978
709
the meeting to 2:00 PM on Tuesday, February 28 should it be necessary.
Councilman Wonder stated that this may be inconvenient for some of the
attorneys because of the short notice. Councilman Beauchamp inquired if
those businesses withloff-street parking were given any credits. Larry
Wright, Principal Planner, stated that they get 300 sq. ft. credit per
stall. Assistant City Manager Zais gave a brief background of the CBD LID from
its inception in 1972 trough the formation of the DARC Committee, touching
on the Mall Garage, financing, and the assessment formula. He stated
that 53% of the total cost of the L.I.D. will be borne by the property
owners, and that figure is less than the 60% figure given originally.
He stated that there had been 22% objections to the creation of the LID
(based on property value).
At 3:00 PM, the Council members moved into the Council Chambers for the
balance of the meeting, Mayor Edmondson presiding, Council members
Beauchamp, Hinman, Holbrook, Sparling and Wonder and City Manager Eastman
and City Attorney Andrews present on roll call. It was MOVED by Hinman,
seconded by Wonder to excuse Council member Nadine Walker from this
Council meeting: carried, Beauchamp, Edmondson, Hinman, Holbrook,
Sparling and Wonder voting aye by voice vote. Walker absent.
The Invocation was given by Councilman Beauchamp.
Mayor Edmondson referred to the its placed on the Consent Agenda,
questioning whether there were any additions or deletions from either
Council members or citizens present. Mayor Edmondson requested that
it #7 be removed. It was the general consensus of the Council that
item #7 be removed from the Consent Agenda, as requested. The City
Clerk then read the COnsent Agenda items, including Resolutions and
Ordinances by title. It was MOVED by Wonder, seconded by Holbrook that
the Consent Agenda, as read, be passed: carried, Beauchamp, sh. •.ndson,
Hinman, Holbrook, Sparling and Wonder voting aye on roll call. Walker
absent. (Subsequent paragraphs preceded by an asterisk (*) indicate
items on the Consent Agenda to be handled under one motion without
further discussion.)
It was MOVED by Wonder, seconded by Holbrook that approval of the minutes
of February 14, 1978, be postponed for one week: carried, Beauchamp,
Edmondson, Hinman, Holbrook, Sparling and Wonder voting aye by voice
vote. Walker absent.
Mauno Saari, representing the Yakima-Klickitat County Labor Council,
submitted a letter stating their dissatisfaction in the manner in which
Council recently filled a vacancy on the City Council, after he read it
aloud. Some of the questions he raised were: (1) why did Council go
into Executive Session with minutes not recorded? (2) who initiated the
motion of a secret session? (3) why weren't the candidates all interviewed?
and (4) were there an interviews at all and was the appointment of Mr.
Sparling a foregohe conclusion? He then introduced Doug Peters as the
Labor Council's attorney. Mr. Peters began his remarks by stating that
Jack Sparling is not a Yakima City Councilman, on the basis that the
action Council took ix appointing him was not legal. Mr. Peters stated
that the open public meeting law was passed so that all meetings of the
governing body of a public agency shall be open and public, and all
persons shall be permitted to attend any meeting the governing body
of a public agency, except as otherwise provided in this Chapter. (1t
42.30.030). He further stated that the City Council was in error in two
II/
regards: (1) an Exemitive Session should not have been held to replace.
the Council person; and, (2) a vote in Executive Session was improper.
He cited the Cathcart [Case ruled in Flordia, upon which Washington law
is based, regarding open meeting rights. He urged Council to recognize
the error and proceed to start over again in the selection process.
Fred Andrews, City Attorney, stated he was asked about the legality of
selecting a replacement candidate in Executive Session prior to the
Executive Session. He stated that after researching the matter, it was
his opinion that, from a legal standpoint, it would be appropriate for
the Council to meet in executive session for the purpose of determining
who was to be appointed to the Council. Mr. Andrews then reaffirmed
that decision stating that his opinion has not changed. He stated that
ROW 42.30.110 ,.regarding Executive Session, states that nothing contained
in this Chapter shall be construed to prevent a governing body from
holding Executive Sessions to consider matters effecting the national
... 110
FEBRUARY,27, 1978
security; selection or acquisition of real estate, where discussion in
a public meeting may tend to cause the real estate price to be raised;,
the appointment, employment, or dismissal of a public official or
employee; or to hear complaints or charges brought against an employee
or public official, unless a public hearing is requested. The governing
body may also exclude from any Executive Session during the time of
examination of a witness, any other witnesses. Mr. Andrews stated that
a Council member is a public official and therefore the appointment of a
Council member would be appropriate in an Executive Session. Councilman
Wonder questioned if any action the Council has taken with Jack Sparling
on the Council could be considered invalid. City Attorney Andrews
stated no, not for any charges based on the reason given tonight. Mr.
Andrews also reported that the City Council voted on a Resolution appointing
Mr. Sparling in an open meeting. Mayor Edmondson stated that there were
about 14 or 15 excellent applicants. She stated that Council had not
devised an interview process, but she informed those she had spoken with
that they could contact any or all Council members and have their friends
do likewise to promote their appointment. She stated that the selection
of a Council member was done in a positive manner although Council did
not want this discussed in open session. She stated that it would have
been difficult to discuss an applicant's strong and weak points in an
open session. Mayor Edmondson also stressed that Jack Sperling was not
chosen in advance. His application was received on the 19th of January
and considered along with all the others. Councilman Holbrook stated
that he had been against going into Executive Session, but did not have
any qualms about it after they went into Executive Session. He stated
that he did not interview anyone, but was open to talk to the applicants.
Councilman Wonder substantiated what Councilman Holbrook stated. He
reported that Mr. Sperling was unanimously appointed after his application
had been thoroughly discussed. Councilman Hinman stated that he is a
firm believer of open meetings, however, he could see no real public
service to discuss this in public. He reported he had taken Mr. Sparling
out for coffee, and he had also tried to contact all applicants. Councilman
Beauchamp stated that he had voted for Jack Sparling after they had
discussed all the applicants.
Larry Robinson, So. 6th Avenue, suggested that Council hold their Study
Session in the Council Chambers because of the lack of seating in the
Conference Roam. Mayor Edmondson reported that it was easier for the
Council to do their study session when they were seated around a table,
but they would take his suggestion under advisement. Councilman Wonder
reported that when it appeared overcrowded, the Council had moved into
the Council Chambers. .
Catherine Melfort, representing the Up and Ready Property Owners and
Concerned Citizens, read a prepared statement, dated February 27, 1978,
which she submitted. Information given in the statement was that the
people who live in the proposed UDAG area have rejected this proposal by
an 8 to 1 margin, and also several items were listed that they do desire.
Mayor Edmondson told Mrs. Melfort that she would be hearing from Council
on this matter.
*Having received a staff report, it was MOVED seconded by
by Wonder, second by
Holbrook to approve the outside utility request for Luther Jones for
water and sewer services for property located at 1705 So. Pleasant
Avenue: carried, Beauchamp, Edmondson, Hinman, Holbrook, Sparling and
Wonder voting aye on roll call. Walker absent.
*Having received a staff report, it was MOVED by Wonder, seconded by
Holbrook to-approve the outside utility request for Fred Hammerstad for
water and sewer services for property located at 1714 and 1716 So. 10th
Avenue: Beauchamp, Edmondson, Hinman, Holbrook, Sparling and Wonder
voting aye on roll call. Walker absent.
*It was MOVED by Wonder, seconded by Holbrook that Resolution No. D-
3859, authorizing payment Of $20.43 in settlement of a damage claim
filed by Ira Kendall, for damages incurred when the City sewer line
became clogged causing flooding into his basement, be passed: carried,
Beauchamp, Edmondson, Hinman, Holbrook, Sparling and Wonder voting aye
on roll call. Walker absent.
FEBRUARY 27, 1978 711
RESOLUTION NO. D-3859, A RESOLUTION authorizing payment of $20.43 to Ira
Kendall in settlement of a claim for damages filed with the City of
Yakima.
It was MOVED by Wonder, seconded by Holbrook that Resolution No. D-
3860, authorizing payMent of $185.40 to Robert M.Paul in settlement of
a damage claim when the City. sewer became clogged causing flooding to his
basement, be passed:, carried, Beauchamp, Edmondson, Hinman, Holbrook,
Sparling and Wonder voting aye on roll call. Walker absent.
RESOLUTION NO. D-3860, A RESOLUTION authorizing payment of $185.40 to
Robert M. Paul in settlement of a claim for damages filed with the City
of Yakima:
*It was j: by Wonder, seconded by Holbrook that Ordinance No. 2160,
II/
fixing the time of delinquency and providing for the issuance of bonds
for payment of an unpaid portion of L.I.D. No. 1007, West Chestnut
Avenue Sewer District; be passed: carried, Beauchamp, Edmondson, Hinman,
Holbrook, Sparling and Wonder voting aye on roll call. Walker absent.
ORDINANCE NO. 2160, AN ORDINANCE fixing the time of delinquency of
installment of assessments levied for the payment of the cost and improvement
in Local Improvement District No. 1007, and, providing for the issuance
of bonds with coupons attached for the payment of the unpaid portion
thereof.
*A report from the Planning Commission having been received, it was
MOVED by Wonder, seconded by Holbrook that Resolution No. D-3861, fixing
a date of hearing for March 27, 1978, for vacation of a portion of an
alley requested on Petition No. 916, filed by Central Heating and Plumbing
Company, be passed: carried, Beauchamp, Edmondson, Hinman, Holbrook,
Sparling and Wonder voting aye on roll call. Walker absent.
RESOLUTION NO. D-3861, A RESOLUTION fixing the time and place for hearing
on the petition for vacation of an alley in the City of Yakima.
This being the time fixed for the hearing on the assessment roll for
L.I.D. No. 1001, Central Business District Improvements, it was MOVED by
Holbrook, seconded by Hinman that Council now convene as a Board of
Equalization to conduct a hearing on the assessment roll for L.I.D. No.
1001, CBD Improvements, to hear protests of assessments and to make a
determination on those protests: carried, Beauchamp, Edmondson, Hinman,
Holbrook, Sperling and Wonder voting aye by voice vote. Walker absent.
Forrest Walls, the City's bond and L.I.D. attorney, stated that the
Council, sitting as alBoard of Equalization, will hearthe protests
concerning the assessments and consider if the assessments substantially
exceed the value of the benefits received by the improvements to the
individual parcels. At the conclusion of the hearing of the ,protests,
the Council, as a Board of Equalization, will make determinations
whether to modify any assessment and will then confirm the roll. The
Council can take any action they wish, but if the assessment is raised,
the hearing notices must be sent again. Mayor Edmondson announced that
written protests filed with the City Clerk will be read into the record
unless the property owner is present to speak at this hearing. . Larry
Wright, Principal Planner, reviewed the cost for the L.I.D. - original
and final. Mt. Wright also reviewed the method used for calculating the
II/
assessment roll. He Stated there are three parts to the assessment
roll: (1) general improvement and assessment which has been evenly
distributed throughout the area at .4041 a sq. ft.; (2) general parking
benefit and distance benefit -- 100% on same block', 50% across the
street and 20% across the street plus one block away from parking lot;
(3) demand function -- 100% for highest traffic area, 70% for high
traffic area, 40% for 'moderate traffic area, and 10% for low traffic
area.
Leroy Miller, Seattle attorney representing the Bon Marche, items #98,
#100 and #125, stated that to spread assessment roll 3 and 4 to property
owners in the northwest quarter is unfair. Mr. Miller stated that
parking in the Mall Garage has not been diminished. He conceded that
there may be some auxiliaryv benefits, but there is no direct
benefit to the Bon Marche. Councilman Wonder asked if he would be in
FEBRUARY 27, 1978 712
favor of a program where the City would put in parking meters, and Mr.
Miller replied, "yes". Councilman Wonder clarified that Mr. Miller's
objection was against assessment roll 3 and 4.
Tam Hargis, speaking to items #94 and #97, objected to assessment roll 3
and 4, stating that the property owner should have received notice on
the boundary change. Under the original plan, the PBIA was to be used
for operation and maintenance and that figure included the Mall Garage.
There should have been a reduction of the PBIA when the Mall Garage was
excluded.
Jonathan Bresson, Pastor, Shiloh Christian Center, item #8, stated that
in 1974, his organization wrote a letter of objection and the response
he received back was that they would be exempt. Mayor Edmondson interjected
that the City does not have any written records to that effect. Mr.
Bresson stated that his organization is non-profit and that the assessment
would have to be paid by the Church members. He stated that Shiloh
Christian Center has not had any direct benefit from the L.I.D. He
also reported that they had not experienced any parking problems prior
to the the L.I.D. He requested Council to consider making a reduction
of their assessment, if they could not be exempted entirely.
Elaine Rich, Johnson Glass Company, items #46 and #51, stated she objects
to the assessment for the parking when five parking stalls were removed
from in front of her business. Mrs. Rich stated that she was forced to
remodel her building and to purchase the lot next door to provide parking
for her customers.
Bryan Evenson, attorney representing the following: Tieton Hotel, item
#38; J. A. Sentz, item #39, Elaine Rich, item #46 and #51; Dave Wilson,
Sr., item #47; Keith Owen, item #48; Dragon Inn, item #53; Lucille
Gamache, item #77; Lester Watkins, item #78; Drew Johnson, item #79;
Lyle Pidgeon, item #80; Gilbert Lester, item #81; Duane Anderson, item
#82; Leone Sheppard, item #114; and Edwin Estabrook, item #50. Mr.
Evenson stated he would like to preserve the right of appeal to Superior
Court on behalf of his clients, which would require testimony as to the increased
valuation of their property. Mr. Evenson requested that the hearing on
his clients' assessments be postponed to a later date when he could get
some expert testimony and appraisals of the property. He indicated his
preliminary inquiries show that he can produce testimony that would
prove that the benefits, if any, have been insignificant to the property
owners. He stated that he would be willing to enter into a legal stipulation
that the property owners' testimony and the witnesses' testimony would
show the benefits of the improvements to their property wereinot
substantially in excess of their assessments and we would be able to
appeal this "de novo% which means that if they appeal to Superior
Court, they could begin their hearings from the beginning. City Attorney
Andrews stated he and Mr. Walls understand the offer made by Mr. Evenson
and suggest that it may be beneficial to the Council to discuss this in
an Executive Session. It was the general consensus of the Council to
discuss this later in Executive Session. Fred Halverson, Attorney,
stated that some of the people here representing themselves might be
prejudicing their claim to appeal if they don't submit testimony and
suggest that this offer should also be given to all the protestors. Mr.
Evenson stated that most of his clients businesses are located near
Block 32 and 52 and all are small, service oriented businesses with a
low profit margin. The amounts that his clients are assessed are grossly
unfair as far as the benefits they have received are concerned. It was
then MOVED by Wonder, seconded by Holbrook that Council go into Executive
Session to discuss possible litigation and then recess for dinner and
reconvene in the Council Chambers at 7:30 PM: carried, Beauchamp,
Edmondson, Hinman, Holbrook, Sparling and Wonder voting aye by voice
vote. Walker absent.
The Council reconvened after the recess, still sitting as a Board of
Equalization. Mayor Edmondson reported that as a result of the Executive
Session to consider the question approached by Mr. Bryan Evenson to
consider reading into the record the stipulation regarding expert testimony
on whether or not the assessments of his clients substantially exceed
the benefits derived from the L.I.D., Council made a determination that
FEBRUARY 27, 1978 713
now is the time of the hearing for the Board to receive the expert
testimony. Councilman Holbrook stated that he would like to say that
the decision was not unanimous. He was not in favor of the decision to
hear the testimony now as he did not see where it could serve the public
to deny the stipulation. Councilman Wonder stated this is an opportunity
to take a legalistic advantage of people who are not advised of the
legal status and does not believe we are being fair. Mr. Evenson stated
he would like Mr. Wright to give the manner the individual dollar amounts
were determined by the City staff to be commensurate with the added
value of their property. City Manager Eastman requested a staff caucus between
himself, Mt. Andrews, Mt. Walls and Mr. Wright, before Mt. Wright
attempts to answer that question. Councilman Wonder protested this
procedure; however, after City Manager Eastman stated that he questioned
the propriety.of Mr. Wright's trying to answer this question in light
of the decisions which have been made relating to the development of the
assessment rolls and his role in it, it was agreed by general consensus
of the Council to permit the caucus. Mayor Edmondson then read the
letter of protest received from John Mbore, item #135, protesting the
increase in his assessment. She also read the letter of protest received
fram the Yakima Mall Shopping Center Corporation, items #102, 103, 104
and 105, objecting because the assessments are not levied in proportion
to the benefits deriv0. Mr. Wright, relating to Mr. Evenson's question,
stated that the assessment and the equitability have been legislatively
established by the various Councils fram its inception and part of the
Council's function, sitting as a Board of Equalization, is to further
evaluate whether this has been accomplished as derived from the testimony
they will receive. Mr. Evenson stated that he understands the City,
this evening, is not Prepared or is unwilling to set forth the factual
basis of the correlation of these proposed assessments as contained in
the February 1978 pamphlet and the special benefits to the individual
lots of his clients. Mr. Evenson stated that this final assessment roll
is different fram the original which the people had consented to.
Paul Larson, representing Brooks Larson, item #90 and #91 reported that
the use of the property has changed considerably from the inception of
the L.I.D. He stated that his building (formerly the Draper Building)
houses low traffic businesses and the lot next to them has been converted
to serve as their parking lot. He stated they object to the parking
assessment and also reported that he was unable to compute the formula
to arrive at the 83 per sq. ft. assessment. Mr. Wright inquired if he
was using a 10 key calculator, and,stated if he had not, that was probably
his problem. He stated he would compute Mr. Larson's assessment using
the calculator in his office and would came back with the figures.
Jay Sentz, item #39, Owner of the property on which KAPP-TV and Howard's
Auto Supply are situated, inquired if the Council, sitting as a Board
of Equalization, has the power to reduce the assessment. Upon an affirmative
answer from Mr. Walls, Mr. Sentz stated that he did not have enough time
to get the expert appraisal and asked if being a CPA, would his testimony
be considered expert. Mt. Sentz then gave information on the valuation
of his property based on fair market value, comparable sales approach
and replacement costs. He stated he objects to the parking benefit and
distance benefit assessment. He stated that it is unfair that Second
street is not consideed a barrier as far as his parking and distance
benefits are concerned.
Keith Owen, 132 So. 2nd Street, item #48, stated that before the L.I.D.
II/
there were 54 parking spots in his block, now there are only 39. He
stated that not only does he have parking for his business, but he
rents out 15 parking spaces. He also stated that he had gequested_many times
to be excluded from the L.I.D. He stated there were so many changes
made, that we are hardly dealing with the same L.I.D. Mr. Owen stated
he did not understand Why he should pay for parking benefits when he
isn't receiving any.
Larry Wright then explained the figures and the formula used to calculate
mr. TArson's assessment.
Mrs. Lyle'Warming, item #52, objected to the assessment on her property,
stating that there used to be a parking place in front of her business
and now there is none.' She stated that the nearest parking lot is 1-1/2
blocks away.
Mr. Fred Halverson, attorney representing Tieton Hotel, Inc., item #38;
Benny Kwong, item #45, #53 and #54, and himself, item #76, inquired what
•
714
FEBRUARY 27, 1978
the opinion was that was given to the Board of Equalization by Mr. Walls
and Mr. Andrews. Mayor Edmondson stated that information was given to
them in Executive Session and Council then made a decision. Councilman
Wonder reported that legal counsel stated the best posture was to deny
the request. Mr. Halverson, speaking on behalf of the Dragon Inn, items
#45, #53 and #54, stated that parking is provided for their patrons. He
stated that the Dragon Inn receives no benefit from the L.I.D. He also
reported that he has personal knowledge of the valuation of those properties
because he had helped to negotiate the purchase of those properties and
therefore feels that he is an expert appraiser. He reported that Mr.
Kwong objects to the parking assessment as not only does he provide parking
for his patrons during the evening hours, but his lot is available for
use by the public during the day when his business is not open. It was
determined by Mr. Wright that Mr. Kwong was given parking credits for 24
stalls.
It was MOVED by Sparling, seconded by Hinman that the Council, as a
Board of Equalization, continue this hearing to reconvene at 2:00 PM on
Tuesday, February 28, 1978 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, and
there being no further business to come before the Council, to adjourn
this meeting at 10:05 PM: carried, Beauchamp, Edmondson, Hinman, Holbrook,
Sparling and Wonder voting aye by voce vote. Walker absent.
READ AND CERTIFIED ACCURATE BY .'.;
COUNCILMAN
\ 041 /723
C
ArrEST:
I p
CITY o AtNAYOR
Ar
1