The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2002-005 Utility Rate Advisory Board ORDINANCE NO. 2002- 05 - AN ORDINANCE relating to the utility rate advisory board; and repealing Chapter 1.90, "Utility Rate Advisory Board," in its entirety, consisting of Sections 1.90.010, 1.90.020, 1.90.030, 1.90.040, 1.90.050, 1.90.060 and 1.90.070, all of the City of Yakima Municipal Code. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY OF YAKIMA: Section 1. Chapter 1.90 of the City of Yakima Municipal Code, and consisting of Sections 1.90.010, 1.90.020, 1.90.030, 1.90.040, 1.90.050, 1.90.060 and 1.90.070, is repealed in its entirety. Section 2. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect 30 days after its passage, approval, and publication as provided by law and by the City Charter. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL, signed and approved this 15th day of January, 2002. M at-a ATTEST: ry Place, Mayor ACV City Clerk Publication Date: 1 - 18 - 2002 Effective Date: 2 - 17 - 2002 • (Ik{nrd /utility rate board repeal jan. 02 .pm BUSINESS OF THE CITY COUNCIL YAKIMA, WASHINGTON AGENDA STATEMENT ' Item No. * 3 For Meeting of January 15, 2002 ITEM TITLE: An ordinance relating to the establishment of a "Capital Improvements /Facilities Committee" (new YMC Chapter 1.38), and an ordinance repealing YMC Chapter 1.90 (law that authorized the Utility Rate Advisory Board). SUBMITTED BY: Dick Zais, City Manager Glenn Rice, Assistant City Manager CONTACT PERSON/TELEPHONE: Dick Zais, City Manager, 575 -6040 Glenn Rice, Assistant City Manager, 575 -6040 SUMMARY EXPLANATION: Pursuant to Council direction, during the 2002 Budget process in December, the first attached ordinance establishes new YMC Chapter 1.38 and authorizes creation of a Capital Improvements /Facilities Committee to act in an advisory capacity to the City Council concerning planning, development, and financing of City capital improvements and facilities. It is proposed that the committee consist of eleven members who are City residents, appointed by the City Council, with ex- officio members from the City Council and City Management. The Committee shall hold at least one meeting every three months to review issues and prepare recommendations regarding planning, development, and financing of City capital improvements and facilities. As a housekeeping measure, a second ordinance is also proposed that repeals YMC Chapter 1.90, which originally established the Utility Rate Advisory Board. No one is currently serving on the Board and the Board has not operated in a functioning capacity for many years. However, under YMC Chapter 1.90, the Board is authorized to advise the City Council concerning planning, development, and financing of capital improvements of the utilities owned by the City. This function would likely be in conflict with the duties of the new Capital Improvements /Facilities Committee. The repeal of YMC Chapter 1.90 is intended to avoid this potential conflict and to recognize the reality that the Board is no longer operational. Resolution Ordinance X Other (Specify) _ Contract Mail to (name and address): Funding Source APPROVED FOR SUBMITTAL City Manager STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Pass both ordinances BOARD /COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: COUNCIL ACTION: Ordinance passed. ORDINANCE NO. 2002 -04 Ordinance passed. ORDINANCE NO. 2002 -05 • 4. '11E.5- -1 Ral : PVISER VISE VICES 1 December 28, 2001 , OF WASHINGTON E i p ; w : .? e, � a 1 : C ' Ci ".. -) 1v 0 5th Az ue , Suite ?300 Mr. Paul McMurray . eattle..NA 98102 -11=- Assistant City Attorney of Yakima Phone 206i6z5-1300 200 S. 3` Street CITY " �� .� ra � :.. •s Fnx 206/ 625-1220 • � e- mad: :msefOnr5c.org Yakima, WA 98901 Web: zueozu. Richard Yukubousku Dear Paul: . Executive. Director Recently we discussed an issue concerning a citizen's advisory committee that the city Administration Robb Ashton may establish to assist with developing the capital improvement program for Yakima. A q, ier ari7}c Assistant This group would study possible capital projects and assist with recommendations for Marcie Klabuhcer prioritizing these projects. As a part of their respensibility, the committee would identify Con ini cer Holl Martin i possible funding sources for these projects. One funding source could be issuance of skton Publishing Sbcnnii, municipal bonds or other funding alternatives that might require voter approval in an Donita Mowers election. Exea:tn e Ass zsamt j • Sandra Vong Account:n :: The issue we discussed is whether the work of this committee could potentially violate Consultants the provisions of RCW 42.17.130. As you are aware, this statute prohibits a city from Ron Bartels allowing any of its facilities to be utilized to oppose or promote a ballot proposition. As I biic Policy &,Management indicated, in my opinion this prohibition would not affect the ability of the committee to JP car meet and discuss potential capital projects or funding options for these projects, even if Public 'sNororks lic ks Judith Cox some funding options would involve a vote of the people. This would include the ability Public Finance I to recommendations on funding options. At this pteliminary stage, there is no Lynne De :Merr•tt ballot proposition being considered and so there is no violation of RCW 42.17.130. The ;enicr Research Consultant Jim Doherty type of study and deliberations that would be the responsibility of the committee can be Legal i considered part of the normal and regular conduct of an agency in evaluating and making Connie Elliot policy decisions. Research Associate Sue Enger Planning There is at least one opinion from the Office of the Attorney General that supports this Pam James conclusion, AGO 1994 No. 20. This opinion involves a board of freeholders elected to Legal Consultant Byron Katsuyama ( draft and present a proposed city - county charter to the voters. The opinion concludes that Public Policy consultant this board may utilize public funds to do the preliminary work needed to prepare the Pat Mason charter, including soliciting and recording public opinion, drafting, deliberating, selecting Legal Bob Meinig options and submitting the charter to the county. These functions would be part of the Legal normal and regular conduct of the agency in preparing .a charter proposal for Paul Sullivan consideration by the voters and so would not violate RCW 42.17.130. This reasoning Legal would also seem to apply to preliminary work done by a committee in consideration of Thomas D..Sutberry Public Policy & Finance capital improvement projects, even if this might involve at some point a recommendation Carol Tobin to submit a funding option to the voters. Public Policy Library We also discussed at what point in the process the provisions of RCW 42.17.130 would_ Tim Davis become an issue. There is a definition of the term "ballot proposition" in RCW Yrn,atior, Svcs. Tecl � 42.17.020(3). However, this definition focuses- on ballot propositions which are initiated Library Ass stant , by petition of the people and indicates that it is an official ballot proposition from and Sarah Sodt after the time when the proposition has been initially -filed with the appropriate elections Lrirrnry Clerk officer prior to its circulation for signatures. This process does not apply to a city- Nicole Silver - Librar ssrstant ! initiated ballot proposition for voter approval of a bond measure. • Fred Ward • T. of LiJ 6- info. Svcs - Erica Zwick lr;ical Servica5 Lihranan 1 i v Mr. Paul McMurray V Page 2 In my opinion, it would seem reasonable that the ballot proposition becomes official from and after the time that the legislative body passes a formal resolution of intention for submittal to the county auditor requesting that the issue be placed on the ballot at an upcoming election. This must occur at least 45 days prior to the proposed election date. After that point, it would seem that the city could not expend any funds to support or oppose the ballot proposition except as authorized by RCS' 42.1 .130. I hope this opinion is of assistance to you. • Sincerely. Patrick Mason Senior Legal Consultant • • •