The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About09/16/2008 08 Initiative 985 - Set Public Hearing DateBUSINESS OF THE CITY COUNCIL, YAKIMA, WASHINGTON AGENDA STATEMENT g Item No. For Meeting Of 9 I b 08 ITEM TITLE: Consideration of a motion to set date of public hearing on October 7, 2008 at 7:00pm to discuss Initiative 985.. SUBMITTED BY: Dave Zabell, Assistant City Manager CONTACT PERSON/TELEPHONE: Dave Zabell, Assistant City Manager, 575 -6040 SUMMARY EXPLANATION: Initiative 985, introduced earlier this year, has achieved the necessary signatures to qualify for the fall'08 ballot. If approved by the voters, this measure would open high- occupancy vehicle lanes to all traffic during specified hours, and reallocate certain, existing tax revenues to specified traffic projects intended to improve capacity. Initiative 985 author Mr. Tim Eyman has requested that the City Council conduct a public hearing to take public input on the proposal. Through prior action, the Yakima City Council has established a policy and process by which to determine whether the Council will conduct public hearings on specific ballot measures. At their August 8, 2008 meeting, the policy was further defined such that the City Council will not endorse ballot measures. This policy was approved on a 5 -2 vote of the Council and does not preclude members from moving for the endorsement of a ballot measure. Resolution Ordinance Other (Specify) X Contract Mail to (name and address): Phone: Funding Source No Cost APPROVED FOR SUBMITTAL: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends City Council set date for public hearing per RCW 42.17.130. BOARD /COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Rules and Procedures Committee previously recommended to not conduct a public hearing on this matter. COUNCIL ACTION: • RCW 42.17.130: Use of public office or agency facilifi��,s in campaigns — Prohibition = ... Page 1 of 1 •RCW 42.17.130 Use of public office or agency facilities in campy ?yns — Prohibitiori = Exceptions. No elective official nor any employee of his [or her] office nor any person appointed to or employed by any public office or agency may use or authorize the use of any of the facilities of a public office or agency, directly or indirectly, for the purpose of assisting a campaign for election of any person to any office or for the promotion of or opposition to any ballot proposition. Facilities of a public office or agency include, but are not limited to, use of stationery, postage, machines, and equipment, use of employees of the office or agency during working hours, vehicles, office space, publications of the office or agency, and clientele lists of persons served by the office or agency. However, this does not apply to the following activities: (1) Action taken at an open public meeting by members of an elected legislative body or by an elected board, council, or commission of a special purpose district including, but not limited to, fire districts, public hospital districts, library districts, park districts, port districts, public utility districts, school districts, sewer districts, and water districts, to express a collective decision, or to actually vote upon a motion, proposal, resolution, order, or ordinance, or to support or oppose a ballot proposition so long as (a) any required notice of the meeting includes the title and number of the ballot proposition, and (b) members of the legislative body, members of the board, council, or commission of the special purpose district, or members of the public are afforded an approximately equal opportunity for the expression of an opposing view; (2) A statement by an elected official in support of or in opposition to any ballot proposition at an open press conference or in response to a specific inquiry; (3) Activities which are part of the normal and regular conduct of the office or agency. [2006 c 215 § 2; 1979 ex.s. c 265 § 2; 1975 -76 2nd ex.s. c 112 § 6; 1973 c 1 § 13 (Initiative Measure No. 276, approved November 7, 1972).] Notes: Finding -- Intent -- 2006 c 215: "(1) The legislature finds that the public benefits from an open and inclusive discussion of proposed ballot measures by local elected leaders, and that for twenty -five years these discussions have included the opportunity for elected boards, councils, and commissions of special purpose districts to vote in open public meetings in order to express their support of, or opposition to, ballot propositions affecting their jurisdictions. (2) The legislature intends to affirm and clarify the state's long- standing policy of promoting informed public discussion and understanding of ballot propositions by allowing elected boards, councils, and commissions of special purpose districts to adopt resolutions supporting or opposing ballot propositions." [2006 c 215 § 1.] Disposition of violations before January 1, 1995: "Any violations occurring prior to January 1, 1995, of any of the following laws shall be disposed of as if chapter 154, Laws of 1994 were not enacted and such laws continued in full force and effect: RCW 42.17.130, chapter 42.18 RCW, chapter 42.21 RCW, and chapter 42.22 RCW. ".[1994 c 154 § 226.] • http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=42.17.130 9/11/2008 91' 09/16/08 COUNCIL BUSINESS_ MEETING AGENDA ITEM NO. 8 Talking Points I -985 and Initiatives Council Policy on Ballot Measures: April 1, 2008 - City Council adopted a policy on consideration of ballot measures as follows; • Council affirmed their past practice of considering requests from the public of the City Council's endorsement on ballot measures. • Council adopted the procedures for consideration of ballot measures as presented by the Council Rules and Procedures Committee. o 3 -step process ■ Requests to be reviewed by Rules /Procedures Committee ■ Committee to recommend to Council to hold or not hold a public hearing ■ Full Council to consider recommendation and vote to whether or not to conduct the requested public hearing Note: This adopted policy left open the option that Council may endorse or oppose a ballot measure. Rules and Procedures Recommendation I -985 At their August 8, 2008 meeting, the Rules and Procedures Committee considered I -985. On a 2 -1 recommendation, the Committee recommended that the City Council NOT hold a public hearing on the Initiative. I -985 Discussion 8/19 Council Meeting Item 4 B. a. was the consideration of the Rules and Procedures Committee recommendation on I -985. There was considerable discussion on the recommendation, ultimately two motions were considered: • Motion 1 To accept the Committee recommendation (failed 4 -3) • Motion 2 To hold a public hearing on I -985 (failed 4 -3) Motions to `hold ", and to "not hold" a public hearing on I -985 failed. Other Business 8/19 City Council Meeting: Under other business, the motion was made that the City Council will have public hearings on initiatives but that Council will not take a vote from each Council member. The verbatim motion was as follows: Coffey: 1 would like to make a motion that we will hear, how do I want to say that, we will have public hearings as far as initiatives, but we will not take a vote from each council member. Cawley: Second. Edler: Kathy has moved, Micah seconded that we hold public hearings but not take stands The motion was followed by considerable dialogue among the members, and passed by a 5 -2 vote. Analysis: The vote on initiatives under other business modifies Council's previously adopted policy as follows: Council will hold public hearings on initiatives Council will not vote to endorse or oppose an initiative In response to the City Council's motion to conduct public hearings on initiatives, a public hearing on I -985 has been tentatively set for October 7, 2008. 9/16/08 COUNCIL BUSINESS MEETING AGENDA ITEM NO. 8 'transcript of discussion on holding public hearings On ballot initiatives — Council Meeting 8/19/08 This is the last motion that was made regarding holding public hearings on initiatives: Coffey: (would like to make a motion that we will hear, how do I- want to say that, we will have public hearings as far as initiatives, but we will not take a vote from each council member. Cawley: Second." Ensey mumbled something unclear Edger: Kathy. has moved, Micah seconded that we hold public hearings but not take stands Coffey: We will not take stands or ask for the vote from each, Edler: not make recommendations Coffey: You got it Ensey: You said an issue that's... Coffey: Yeah, well, no, you said Everyone is speaking at the same time and it's difficult to decipher who is saying what Edler: Kathy do you have any more comments on that Coffey: I do, as I said earlier, I respect the feelings, but I feel that it's really not our place to get into this. I think that we can hear, we can hear the different philosophy and proposals but we don't need to, as a Council, take a position on it. Each one of us as Council members can certainly voice our opinion and I think that's sufficient. That's all. Cawley: I think it's important to hear issues, to let the public hear a lot of public testimony either way and for us, our Council, to as a body, a government body, keep our endorsement to ourselves personally and privately. So I'll respect that motion and vote in favor of it and hope it passes. McClure: I have a question, if the Council can limit anybody's desire to make a motion. Is it appropriate to say that if I wanted to make a motion to endorse this that I would no longer have that right? Cawley: I would ask the question, though, of when we did this previous process that we voted to endorse things as a Council and I voted against that so my right to not endorse things was counter -acted by Council's will to endorse things. McClure: Right, well the majority could always rule. But, again, you know, Cawley: I think you can make any motion you want. Coffey: Yeah McClure: At a Council meeting, but Again multiple voices and unable to discern who's saying what. Eider: But this move is that you don't take stances McClure: (I think) Right, exactly Lover: Now that I can say what I want, I think we're really picking the fly specks out of the pepper. I think if you look at the review of this, that's the exact motion I made and I appreciate you Coffey: Yes, of course, my pleasure Johnson: She's refined it a little bit Coffey: I just want to make sure before it moves any further and let Norm leave, did we clarify for everyone's satisfaction that it is City ballot or state ballot? T` 1 Transcript of discussion on holding public hearings On ballot initiatives — Council Meeting 8/19/08 going to be things that we absolutely are going to want to make a very strong declarative statement that we're for and we're kind of blanketing the whole thing. So, I think.. Johnson interrupted: But like Neil said we can bring it up Edler: Well, the motion is that we don't take McClure: That we can, and that's my question, can we make that motion that we can't endorse Lover: Let me comment on that, I believe by law, if you accept to have a public hearing, you can make a motion, not that I'll support it but McClure: That's what I thought too. Cawley: Quick point of clarification, that it comes down to a Council policy decision like the similar vote we took earlier that the Council says we have a policy to endorse things and now the Council's trying to move forward a policy that we as a council have a policy not to endorse things. That's what I think we're arguing Edler: Yeah, I think that's the wrong solution, but the'motion is on the table and I would ask for a roll call Vo #e: KC -yes, -DE -no, RE -yes, NJ -yes; BL -yes, NM -no, MC -yes Edler: The motion carries 5-2 This section ended at 8:51 p.m. K 9/16/08 COUNCIL BUSINESS MEETING AGENDA ITEM NO. 8 Transcript of discussion on holding public hearings On ballot initiatives — Council Meeting 8/19/08 This is the last motion that was made regarding holding public hearings on initiatives: Coffey: I would like to make a motion that we will hear, how do I want to say that, we w_ ill have public hearings as far as initiatives, but we will not take a vote from each council member. _ .. _ Cawley: Second. Ensey mumbled something. unclear Edger: Kathy has moved, Micah seconded that we hold public hearings: not take stands seconded _ _ Coffey: We will not take stands or ask for the vote from each, Edler: not make recommendations Coffey: You got it Ensey: You said an issue that's... Coffey: Yeah, well, no, you said Everyone is speaking at the same time and it's difficult to decipher who is saying what Edler: Kathy do you have any more comments on that Coffey: I do, as I said earlier, I respect the feelings, but I feel that it's really not our place to get into this. I think that we can hear, we can hear the different philosophy and proposals but we don't need to, as a Council, take a position on it. Each one of us as Council members can certainly.,voice our opinion and I think that's sufficient. That's all. Cawley: I think it's important to hear issues, to let the public hear a lot of public testimony either way and for us, our Council, to as a body, a government body, keep our endorsement to ourselves personally and privately. So I'll respect that motion and vote in favor of it and hope it passes. McClure: I have a question, if the Council can limit anybody's desire to make a motion. Is it appropriate to say that if I wanted to make a motion to endorse this that I would no longer have that right? Cawley: I would ask the question, though, of when we did this previous process that we voted to endorse things as a Council and I voted against that so my right to not endorse things was counter -acted by Council's will to endorse things. McClure: Right, well the majority could always rule. But, again, you know, Cawley: I think you can make any motion you want. Coffey: Yeah McClure: At a Council meeting, but Again multiple voices and unable to discern who's saying what. Edler: But this move is that you don't take stances McClure: (I think) Right, exactly Lover: Now that I can say what l want, I think we're really picking the fly specks out of the pepper. I think if you look at the review of this, that's the exact motion I made and I appreciate you Coffey: Yes, of course, my pleasure Johnson: She's refined it a little bit Coffey: I just want to make sure before it moves any further and let Norm leave, did we clarify for everyone's satisfaction that it is City ballot or state ballot? rc„ - ir Transcript of discussion on holding public hearings On ballot initiatives — Council Meeting 8/19/08 going to be things that we absolutely are going to want to make a very strong declarative statement that we're for and we're kind of blanketing the whole thing. So, I think.. Johnson interrupted: But like Neil said we can bring it up Edler: Well, the motion is that we don't take McClure: That we can, and that's my question, can we make that motion that we can't endorse Lover: Let me comment on that, I believe by law, if you accept to have a public hearing, you can make a motion, not that I'll support it but McClure: That's what I thought too. Cawley: Quick point of clarification, that it comes down to a Council policy decision like the similar vote we took earlier that the Council says we have a policy to endorse things and now the Council's trying to move forward a policy that we as a council have a policy not to endorse things. That's what I think we're arguing Edler: Yeah, I think that's the wrong solution, but the motion is on the table and I would ask for a roll call Vote: KC -yes, DE -no, RE -yes; W--yes, BL -yes, NM -no, MC -yes; Edler: The motion carries 5 -2. ^ This section ended at 8:51 p.m. 2 Talking Points I -985 and Initiatives Council Policy on Ballot Measures: 09/16/08 COUNCIL BUSINESS MEETING 'AGENDA ITEM NO. 8 April 1, 2008 - City Council adopted a policy on consideration of ballot measures as follows; • Council affirmed their past practice of considering requests from the public of the City Council's endorsement on ballot measures. • Council adopted the procedures for consideration of ballot measures as presented by the Council Rules and Procedures Committee. o 3 -step process ■ Requests to be reviewed by Rules /Procedures Committee ■ Committee to recommend to Council to hold or not hold a public hearing ■ Full Council to consider recommendation and vote to whether or not to conduct the requested public hearing Note: This adopted policy left open the option that Council may endorse or oppose a ballot measure. Rules and Procedures Recommendation — I -985 At their August 8, 2008 meeting, the Rules and Procedures Committee considered I -985. On a 2 -1 recommendation, the Committee recommended that the City Council NOT hold a public hearing on the Initiative. I -985 Discussion 8/19 Council Meeting Item 4 B. a. was the consideration of the Rules and Procedures Committee recommendation on I -985. There was considerable discussion on the recommendation, ultimately two motions were considered: • Motion I To accept the Committee recommendation (failed 4 -3) • Motion 2 To hold a public hearing on I -985 (failed 4 -3) Motions to `hold ", and to "not hold" a public hearing on I -985 failed. Other Business 8/19 City Council Meeting: Under other business, the motion was made that the City Council will have public- hearings on initiatives but that Council will not take a vote from each Council member. The verbatim motion was as follows: Coffey: I would like to make a motion that we will hear, how do I want to say that, we will have public hearings as far as initiatives, but we will not take a vote from each council member. Cawley: Second. Edler: Kathy has moved, Micah seconded that we hold public hearings but not take stands The motion was followed by considerable dialogue among the members, and passed by a 5 -2 vote. Analysis: The vote on initiatives under other business modifies Council's previously adopted policy as follows: • Council will hold public hearings on initiatives • Council will not vote to endorse or oppose an initiative In response to the City Council's motion to conduct public hearings on initiatives, a public hearing on I -985 has been tentatively set for October 7, 2008. 1 -Jul July 25, 2008 ; 0 200: OF Y Pt AAfNifV� � �� Dear Mayor Edler and Councilpersons: I and the other commissioners on the Yakima Historic Preservation Commission are seeking your assistance with the potential loss of the Wilson Building, constructed in 1902. Specifically, we would request that the current fagade be removed to determine if the building does have historical integrity. Further, if it does have historical integrity and is eligible for listing on the Yakima Register of Historic Places, we ask that the Council and the present owner consider other options than demolition. The Wilson Building was constructed in 1902 by Mr. Wilson, a Scottish immigrant who was one of the early leaders of Yakima. When he first came to Yakima County, he logged in the area of Soda Springs, and subsequently farmed 1,000 acres in what is now West Valley. Wilson then began to participate in business ventures in the growing city of Yakima. One of those ventures was erecting the Wilson Building at a cost of $11,000 to serve the growing commercial needs of the citizens of the City. Wilson represents that great story of America: he immigrated to a new land, found success from a small beginning, and stayed to help his new city succeed. Our request is made for several reasons. First, the Wilson Building has remained a viable part of the downtown core for more than 100 years. Properties of this age should be carefully considered when they are proposed for replacement as we have lost many landmarks and much of the original core of the historic downtown. If this building retains its historic integrity beneath the present facade, it deserves to be evaluated for its significance since the building (new or old) will eventually become the property of the City. Second, Wilson was a founding father of our community and this building, if it retains the historical architectural features that can be seen in older photographs, may embody his contributions to the community. Third, a number of citizens have urged that we take the time to fully evaluate the building and, if its architectural features are retained beneath the current fagade, consider preservation options while ensuring that the needs of the Capitol Theater are met. .Finally, the charge given to our Commission is to find ways to retain our historic properties while meeting the needs of the 21st century. In this, we respectfully request your assistance. Sincerely, Scott Irons, Designer Vice- Chair, Yakima Historic Preservation Commission