HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/16/2001 Business Meeting 82
CITY OF YAKIMA, WASHINGTON
BUSINESS MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
JANUARY 16, 2001 - 2:00 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS - 129 NORTH 2 STREET
1. ROLL CALL
Present:
Council: Mayor Mary Place, presiding, Council Members Clarence Barnett,
Henry Beauchamp, Lynn Buchanan, Larry Mattson, and Bernard
Sims
Staff: City Manager Zais, City Attorney Paolella and City Clerk Roberts
Absent: John Puccinelli
2. INVOCATION /PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Council Member Beauchamp gave an invocation, followed by the Pledge of
Allegiance led by Council Member Sims.
3. OPEN DISCUSSION FOR THE GOOD OF THE ORDER /SPECIAL
PRESENTATION
A. PROCLAMATIONS
Mayor Place presented a proclamation to Bettie Ingham honoring her for her
many years of service to Yakima County and our community. She extended best
wishes to Ms. Ingham as she retires as Yakima County Commissioner and
begins a new endeavor in the private sector.
4. CONSENT AGENDA
Mayor Place referred to the items placed on the Consent Agenda, questioning
whether there were any additions or deletions from either Council members or
citizens present. Item No. 18A was added to the agenda and placed on consent.
Item No. 15A was removed from the agenda. The City Clerk read the Consent
Agenda items as amended, including resolutions and ordinances by title. SIMS
MOVED AND BUCHANAN SECONDED TO ADOPT THE CONSENT AGENDA
AS READ. The motion carried by unanimous roll call vote; Puccinelli absent.
(Subsequent paragraphs preceded by an asterisk ( *) indicate items on the
Consent Agenda handled under one motion without further discussion.)
5. AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION
Curtis King, 711 South 24 Avenue, representing the Yakima School District
Election Committee, addressed the February 6, 2001 school levy election. He
explained this levy is to replace the existing one that runs out this year and is not
a new tax but a replacement. This levy is for three years and will be at the same
88 .
JANUARY 16, 2001
rate of $2.53 which is the lowest rate since 1981. He warned that if the levy is
not passed the school district will not get the equalization funds and would be
giving up almost $14 million. Council Member Beauchamp said that because
there won't be an opportunity to have a public hearing he wanted to go on record
stating he feels it is critically important that this levy be supported by the citizens
because education is critical for communities to grow. Council Member Mattson
and Mayor Place also spoke in support of the levy confirming they would be
voting for it.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
6. PUBLIC HEARING ON SCENIC RIDGE ANNEXATION (See Ordinance annexing
property)
Mayor Place recused herself from the discussion and the vote due to a personal
history with this area.
• Mayor Pro Tem Mattson opened the public hearing
Mayor Pro Tem Mattson explained the hearing process and opened the public
hearing.
•
Bruce Benson, Assistant Planner, gave the history of this annexation noting it has
an assessed valuation of $6,392,773 and has outside utility agreements for 81
of the assessed valuation. It consists of 46 tax parcels comprising approximately
25 acres.
No citizen stepped forward to speak in favor of the annexation.
Mrs. Diane Murphy, 6008 Scenic Drive, read a letter from her husband and
herself that stated their major concern with the annexation is road maintenance in
the winter.
Mayor Pro Tem Mattson closed the public hearing. The City Clerk read the
ordinance by title; BEAUCHAMP MOVED AND BUCHANAN SECONDED TO
PASS THE ORDINANCE. City Manager Zais stated the City understands the
concerns over snow removal and explained how they have upgraded snow
removal practices. Mayor Pro Tem Mattson recommended the City and County
formalize their agreement as to who pays for what coverage and clarify who will
be doing what snow removal. The question was called for a vote on the
motion. The motion carried by a 5 -0 roll call vote; Place recused; Puccinelli
absent.
ORDINANCE NO. 2001-2, AN ORDINANCE concerning annexation; enacting the
Scenic Ridge Annexation as approved by the BRB; maintaining the current zoning
of the area; providing for notice to the WUTC of the City's intent to provide
residential refuse collection and disposal service and for assumption of the City's
current indebtedness by properties in the Scenic Ridge Annexation as approved
by the BRB.
2
84
JANUARY 16, 2001
7. CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING ON AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 12 IN
THE YAKIMA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS (Continued from 12/5/00)
O Mayor Place opened the public hearing
Mayor Place opened the public hearing that was continued from December 5,
2000.
Bill Hambleton, 615 S. 32" Avenue, said he understood the hearing is to cover
two different questions; reclassification of 32 Avenue and amendments to Title
12. He requested the two subjects not be co- mingled and recommended hearing
the 32 Avenue issues first, voting on them, and then going on to the Title 12
amendments. Mayor Place clarified that there would be no voting on either issue
today.
o K. Wendell Adams, City Engineer, gives staff report
Mr. Adams clarified that the reclassification of 32 Avenue is not part of Title 12
but is part of the Comprehensive Plan amendments. Although there is a modified
street development section in title 12, 12.06, which applies to any street. He
emphasized that this is just a draft and a final draft will be brought to the Council
at a later date with other Titles in the municipal code to resolve any conflicts. He
noted that Title 12.06, Streets, map V -1 is in the Comprehensive Plan and
designates principal arterial, minor arterial, and collector streets and establishes
their functional classifications. All other streets are classified as a new
classification, local residential access, so that it matches what's in the Comp Plan.
He clarified that 32 Avenue is classified as a minor arterial street from
Englewood to Nob Hill with a current required right of way at 80'. Mr. Adams said
the City has classifications of principal arterial, minor arterial, and collector arterial
that range from 100' of right of way to 80' of right of way with a pavement width
anywhere from 70' to 54'. Then it jumps down to the next classification of local
residential access street with a 50' right of way and 32' wide pavement. There is
a large gap between the collector arterial and the residential street classification.
He is proposing adding a fourth classification to the Title 12 amendments making
it possible to still maintain the Federal classification standards yet not have a
small residential street acting as an arterial. In the next section, 12.06.020, he
proposes taking out the business district access section, which is not used
anymore, and using neighborhood collector in its place having a 60' right of way
with a 36' pavement width. He noted at this point, though, that the Federal
Highways and the Department of Transportation are now setting a 40' standard
on pavement width. Therefore, he is recommending a 60' right of way to go along
with the 40' pavement width to allow room for telephone poles, fire hydrants,
water meters, being set behind the sidewalks instead of in the sidewalks.
9 The people speak
There were some questions from the audience asking for clarification on the
pavement widths and rights of way on the various classifications. In response to
some specific questions about widening 32 Avenue the Mayor and Council
members stated there are no plans to widen 32 Avenue at this time. Mr. Adams
3
8 5
JANUARY 16, 2001
clarified, again, that 32 Avenue is a separate issue and has nothing to do with
the Title 12 amendments except for the possibility that they could use the
modified street section to reclassify it. He again reminded the audience that it is
currently classified as a minor arterial.
Bill Fetzer, 10 North 32 Avenue, asked what impact right of way changes may
have to the value of their property if they were considering selling it. Would they
have to declare to a prospective buyer that he may lose X amount of feet off the
front of the property? Larry Peterson, Assistant City Attorney, responded that
they would find out from the existing deeds what the actual right of way width is,
then they would take into consideration the City standards.
Bill Hambleton, 615 South 32 Avenue, expressed his frustration that Title 12
• amendments aren't specifically about 32 Avenue. He referred to Title 12
development standards dated 11/24/98 as being the first time the City has had a
set of standards for the public to see. He said that set of standards was worked
on by a community task group. The task group ceased to exist and then there
was a hearing on November 24, 1998 with very little information. He said the 60'
neighborhood collector street classification was proposed by the City Engineer
after the public hearing was closed and has never had a public hearing. He was
informed that this public hearing covers that item. He asked why a 60' right of
way was needed in an established neighborhood residential street. He said if
there is to be a 60' classification, why not take the collector category and make it
a 60' right of way. Then there would be a 100', an 80', a 60', and a 50' for
residential. He feels the impact of a new classification of 60' in an established
neighborhood will destroy those neighborhoods; those classifications should be
used only in new raw land developments.
Council Member Sims wanted to be sure Mr. Hambleton's issues were clear. He
said what is being recommended is for five classifications for streets within the
City; principal, minor, collectors, and residential streets. He understands
Mr. Hambleton to be saying he wouldn't like the neighborhood collector arterial,
would want that eliminated and have the next alternative be 50' right of way.
Mr. Hambleton responded that the 50' is an unclassified street and he
recommends four classifications; three of which match the Federal map, and an
unclassified one called residential. He said he couldn't find any federal
government or state government document that says what the right of way width
will be. These have always been local engineers'.determination. .
Walt Ranta, 5 S. 32 Avenue, asked if the reason the City wants the 60' is to
keep federal money. City Engineer Adams answered, no, any right of way would
keep the federal money as long as it fit the federal geometrics of the roadway
standards. The 60' is the City Engineer's recommendation. Mr. .Ranta asked, if
the 60' isn't just to keep the federal money, then what's wrong with the 50'? He
would like to keep it the way it is in front of his house, which is 32' from curb to
curb if it keeps the federal money coming in. He reiterated what he'd heard Mr.
Adams say earlier that 32 Avenue is a residential street just acting as an
arterial and that is the argument they have been trying to make.
4
86
JANUARY 16, 2001
Council Member Buchanan pointed out that the 32' curb to curb reference is
pavement and not right of way. He said right of way usually extends beyond.
Mr. Ranta said apparently there have been these determinations since 1958 that
the residents did not know about, nor did the City, and that it wasn't in the
disclosure on his realty documents. The residents would like the whole process
to back up and not make any change. Council Member Sims requested legal
clarification, asking if a person does a title search and gets a meets and bounds
or the survey and it does not show any right of way, could the land owner
assume then that there is no additional right of way that they are not aware of?
Larry Peterson, Assistant City Attorney, said a meets and bounds description
would usually be in the form of an area that goes to the center line of the street
and a right of way area. The big piece would be subject to the City's right of way
of 10, 20, 30, 40 feet. Usually this information is provided in a title report when
you buy the property. Council Member Sims then asked, if we decide to change
the designation of a street that would be wider than what the deed currently says,
then would it be up to the City to buy that property? Mr. Peterson clarified further
that the information shown in the title report and on the deed would be the actual
right of way owned by the City. In virtually all cases on 32 " Avenue there is very
little or no point at which the City actually has any legal right to 80' of right of way.
It is almost all Tess than 80'. If the City had a project that actually needed to
occupy 80' of right of way they would have to come and negotiate with every
landowner to obtain that right of way. Council Member Sims asked if the City
has, as it relates to 32 " Avenue, identified what they believe to be City -owned
properties and what they believed to be properties that had to be purchased?
The answer is, no, because there is no project identified for 32 Avenue.
Mr. Ranta asked about the "every eight blocks" theory of applying this 60' right of
way questioning whether the people who would be affected by this in the future
were aware of it. He emphasized that these changes have long range effects.
He submitted pictures depicting the impact of these various rights of way.
(Exhibit No. 4) Council Member Buchanan tried to bring the discussion back on
track pointing out that much of the discussion is being based on speculation
when this hearing is to work on Title 12 Amendments. He re emphasized that
what counts is what each landowner's deed says. Mr. Ranta stated he is on one
of the many streets that would be affected by the 60' right of way designation and
he is against it for his street. He stated he wants it to remain the way it is until he
was reminded it is currently at 80', then he changed it to 50'. Council Member
Sims restated for Mr. Ranta that his testimony is to exclude the neighborhood
collector designation that requires a 60' right of way.
Council Member Beauchamp suggested that, unless there was some compelling
reason to make this change, we should look for a way that meets the desires of
the citizens to keep their neighborhood basically the way it is. Council Member
Barnett agreed saying these people have been before the Regional Planning
Commission many times, this is their second time in front of Council and what
they want is apparent; it is important to try to accommodate them. Council
Member Buchanan stated that is what the City Engineer is trying to do by cutting
back on the width of the right of way as far as the City is concerned.
A letter from Kristina and Gayle Harris was entered into the record as Exhibit No.
5. In the letter Mrs. Harris spoke against any change to 32 Avenue.
5
JANUARY 16, 2001
Tom Pleasants, 311 N 32 " submitted a letter with pictures attached (Exhibit
No. 3). He asked if the right of way really was 80'. Assistant City Attorney
Peterson clarified there is a difference between what is on the deeds and what
the City's standards are. The City standards provide for the City to pursue
additional right of way in the event of certain projects but his deed is probably
way under 80'. Mr. Pleasants said that if the 80' right of way was enforced, he
would be able to open his front door and stick his hand out and be in that right of
way. He suggested one way of increasing traffic flow would be turning them into
one way streets.
Derek LaFrambois, 606 S. 32 Avenue, speaking not as a resident but as a
Regional Planning Commissioner, said the discussion is going around and
around with no plans for the future. He said the Regional Planning Commission
is waiting for the final draft of Title 12 and that they have questioned the streets
section all along. He suggested that Title 12 needs to be looked at again, that it
is not clear and concise. He commented that Yakima is growing east to west and
if we look at getting traffic flowing east and west it should eliminate the traffic
problem going north and south.
Jim Baer, 3111 W. Yakima, Avenue, submitted a video for Council's review that
he recorded while driving down 32 Avenue (Exhibit No. 6). He asked, if he was
selling his house, what information would be necessary to disclose?
Mike Gempler, 8 N. 32 Avenue, asked for clarification as to whether there
could be a street with a 50' right of way and still maintain federal funding. City
Engineer Adams answered, yes. Mr. Gempler suggested such a designation be
created so that everyone could be happy. In response to Council's comments
that there isn't the money and, therefore, no current plans for 32 Avenue, he
said that was beside the point. He feels the City should have a vision for every
street and every neighborhood as to what it should look like and should include
the comments of the neighborhood residents. Without that, this remains a threat
to the residents that someday, when there is money, the road will be widened.
He said there needs to be more discussion on how to change the code to
accomplish the City's financial goals and the goals of the neighborhood.
Audrey Maier, 204 N. 32n Avenue, asked about an area on their narrow street
that she had heard was going to have multiple homes put in. She was informed
that project has been discontinued.
Bill Mcilvanie, 1009 S. 32 Avenue, said that the street presently handles all the
traffic it has and he would hate to see a major reconstruction.
Margaret Classen, 1019 S. 19 Avenue, does not want to see 32 Avenue
widened.
Robert Maier, 204 S: 32 Avenue, spoke about the current condition of 32
Avenue noting there was a ridge that had washed out that was 6" to 7" high and
could damage a car. That information will be supplied to the Streets Department.
6
88 .
JANUARY 16, 2001
Lynne Kittelson, 305 N. 9th Street, said she wanted to echo Mr. Gempler's
comments. She suggested the neighborhood needs to get together and take
control of their neighborhood and urged the Council to consider the entire
neighborhood when they consider these changes.
Arnold McBean, 13207 Barrett Road, said he travels 32 Avenue and thinks it
would be a shame to have it changed into a thoroughfare. He also said it would
be nice to eliminate the fears of the people that the City wants to widen it.
Bill Fetzer, 10 N. 32n Avenue, asked that since the City has no immediate plans
to do anything with that road, could they have that in black and white and then
they wouldn't have to continue worrying about it.
Bill Hambleton, 615 S 32 Avenue, distributed printed copies of his testimony
(Exhibit No. 9). He emphatically feels the Title 12 document should be referred
back to the original task group for them to complete the initial finalization of that
document. He again emphasized that the City Engineer introduced a new
classification after the public hearing period was closed. He said this new
classification would allow the City Engineer to reclassify any established
residential street, with Council's approval. Mr. Hambleton went on to suggest an
amendment to 12.05.010, Sidewalk Installation, that would change it to require
sidewalks on only one side in established residential neighborhoods. He then
questioned a portion of 12.06.70 which reads "Curb design shall be consistent
with the standards of the City Engineer", saying that is unclear and any standards
should be spelled out. Mr. Hambleton, again read from his submitted testimony
regarding 32 Avenue residents petitioning against it becoming a collector
arterial and stated that the City Council approved the requested action of the
citizens. He adamantly feels this request for reclassification should only be
considered pursuant to Title 12, Development Standards of 1998 and that no
consideration should be given to the proposed year 2000 amendments to Title
12. The residents' request is to bring the entire street under one classification,
that of Local Access Residential Street thereby bringing it into compliance with
the Federal and State classification maps.
Council Member Sims clarified that back in 1997, the Council responded to the
petitions by doing what was requested, reclassifying 32 Avenue as a minor
arterial. Now the citizens are coming back and saying the property is non -
saleable because of the minor arterial classification. Mr. Hambleton said the
reason for this was due to the lack of City standards until 1998.
City Engineer Adams clarified that a neighborhood collector having a 60' right of
way includes 40' of pavement, 6" on both sides of the curb, 5' of sidewalk with an
additional 2 %2' -3' behind those for utilities. He said if it went to a 50' right of way
it would consist of two 12' lanes of travel, one 8' parking on one side and maybe
a sidewalk on one side and then the utilities. This would become a fairly
substandard street with parking on one side only. Mr. Adams reiterated that the
City can call this street whatever they want and it will remain on the Federal
system as a minor arterial until it is changed.
7
JANUARY 16, 2001
89
Roger Arms, Highways and Program Engineer from the Department of
Transportation, said as it relates to 32 Avenue the minimum Federal standard is
two 12' lanes. If you add parking you have to add 8' of parking to each side, or 8'
on one side bringing it up to 40'. Therefore, you would still qualify with a 50'
width. He said the Feds are only concerned with the roadway width from curb to
curb, anything outside of that is a City standard.
Mayor Place closed the public hearing on the road classification standards
portion.
A letter from Bob Young of Central Washington Home Builders Association was
entered into the record (Exhibit No. 7). In the letter, the Association requested a
change in the code, 12.04.050, to require the City to supply the replacement pipe
for the wooden mains, and the labor to connect the new pipe. In addition, the
Association is requesting that the development community be given an
opportunity to review the Title 12 Procedures Manual before it is presented to
Council. A third issue is the plan review and inspection fees.
Lynne Kittelson, 305 N. 9 Street, requested that sidewalks not be reduced to
5'. She later added that a 5' sidewalk is acceptable if it has a buffer between it
and the street.
Pam Aylmer, 4708 Fechter Road, also requested that sidewalks not be reduced
to 5' and strongly urged the widest sidewalks possible with a buffer zone
between the street and the sidewalks. She would like to see sidewalks on both
sides of the street to encourage the public to walk. After a discussion about
whether road maintenance would be considered improving a road, Mrs. Aylmer
•
suggested that a definition of what improved means should be included.
Council Member Sims asked how the change in sidewalk width from 7' to 5'
came about, to which City Engineer Adams said that 60 inches is the minimum
Federal standard for sidewalks. He emphasized minimum means minimum and
that we can always go more.
Discussion ensued about the original committee that worked on Title 12 and how
they had not completed the document before the committee was disbanded. City
Engineer Adams explained that the document has been a "moving target"
because he has been incorporating the suggestions from each meeting. Council
Member Sims asked about the urgency of finalizing this document. Bill Cook,
Director of Community and Economic Development, pointed out that we are
trying to market our community and these are standards that people out of town
need to know for development planning.
Stan Shelton, P.O. Box 73, said he was on the original Title 12 Committee. He
described how the committee was set up and operated. He felt the committee
wasn't half done when the meetings ceased. His opinion is that Title 12 doesn't
have to apply to every street in town.
8
9 0
JANUARY 16, 2001
Arnold McBean, 13207 Barrett, complained that he has been unable to
complete a project of his on Jerome 'Avenue because of the way the rules are
right now.
• Mayor Place closed the public hearing
There being no other citizen wishing to testify, Mayor Place closed the public
hearing.
MATTSON MOVED AND BUCHANAN SECONDED TO CHANGE OPTION B
OF 12.05.020 TO READ, EITHER A 7' WIDE SIDEWALK OR A 5' WIDE
SIDEWALK WITH A 2' BUFFER OR PLANTING STRIP. The motion carried by
a 5 -0 roll call vote, Barnett abstaining; Puccinelli absent.
MATTSON MOVED AND BUCHANAN SECONDED THAT IN 12.06.020 RIGHT
OF WAY UNDER NEIGHBORHOOD COLLECTOR (PAGE 9 OF 11) TO
CHANGE THE PAVEMENT WIDTH FROM 36' TO 40'. Council Member Sims
clarified that this motion only modifies this option. The motion carried by a 4 -0
roll call vote, Barnett and Beauchamp abstaining; Puccinelli absent.
MATTSON MOVED AND SIMS SECONDED TO AMEND FIGURE 1, DESIGN
AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS, TO REFLECT THE ABOVE TWO
MOTIONS. The motion carried with a 4 -0 roll call vote, Barnett and Beauchamp
abstaining; Puccinelli absent.
Council Member Barnett requested that in the first "WHEREAS" in the ordinance
that "and the joint Board" be deleted. He also suggested that the Legal
Department look into the definition of "improved" as it relates to sidewalks and
streets as well as the difference between reconstruction and maintenance.
BARNETT MOVED AND MATTSON SECONDED TO DIRECT STAFF TO
PREPARE A PRESENTATION TO COUNCIL WHICH INCLUDES A
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF INCONSISTENCIES BETWEEN PROPOSED
TITLE 12 LANGUAGE AND EXISTING REGULATIONS INCLUDED IN THE
YAKIMA MUNICIPAL CODE AND TO BRING BACK AN ORDINANCE TO
ADOPT ANY PROPOSED CHANGES TO TITLE 12 AND RESCIND
INCONSISTENT AND DUPLICATIVE LANGUAGE IN OTHER CODE
SECTIONS. The motion carried by a unanimous roll call vote; Puccinelli absent. •
A discussion followed in which Mrs. Aylmer raised a concern that could be an
instrument is being set up that could be used to change the work done on Title
12 without a public hearing. City Manager Zais said the public hearing portions
have been satisfied but it is still a matter of public action and public testimony
will be allowed in the next phase. Mrs. Aylmer stated concerns about the
process wanting to ensure that it provides for review by the public and not give
the Council carte blanche authority to amend work that citizens have done.
Council Member Sims said he voted yes on the motion with the belief that the
citizens will have access to staff recommendations that bring out the
inconsistencies between Title 12 and the Municipal Code. Council Member
Beauchamp expressed concern about the way this issue is being handled. He
empathized with the citizens who spoke about their concerns and wants to be
sure the process encourages people to speak out. He reminded Council to
9
91 fi,
JANUARY 16, 2001
listen with an honest ear and hear what is being said and not be too quick to say
it's not important. Council Member Mattson agreed with those comments but
also pointed out that the Council answers to the total population of the City, not
just the residents who live on any particular street. He said Council needs to
take a step back and acknowledge not only the people who live on the street but
everyone that lives in the City.
CITY MANAGER'S REPORTS
8. REVIEW OF PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTS REGARDING AMENDMENTS
TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Dan Valoff, Assistant City Planner, said they had reviewed the video tape of the
December 5th hearing and based on that review, other than the request to
reclassify 32 Avenue, Staff recommends adopting the Joint Board's
recommendation on year 2000 Comprehensive Plan amendments and defer the
reclassification of 32 Avenue until a city -wide traffic analysis is completed and
presented to the Council.
Council Member Barnett noted a problem caused by deferring any
reclassification decision of 32 Avenue; the people who appeared before the
Regional Planning Commission and the City Council will have to go through the
same process again. Mr. Valoff said that without this study any functional
classification change to the map would be done without enough information. The
traffic study would allow about a year to assimilate the information and then
involve the public. There are no land use projects planned for that area within
the next year.
Bill Hambleton, 615 S. 32 Avenue, restated his position that 32 Avenue was
originally submitted under Title 12 standards of 1998 and therefore should be
acted upon under that regulation. He emphasized that any changes made in the
future to Title 12 should have no bearing on this request; he feels that to do so
would be illegal.
Council Member Mattson agreed with Mr. Hambleton that a decision on the 32
Avenue reclassification should not be delayed and would like to see a resolution
on 32 Avenue.
BUCHANAN MOVED AND SIMS SECONDED TO ADOPT THE JOINT
BOARD'S RECOMMENDATION ON THE YEAR 2000 COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN AMENDMENTS AND DEFER THE RECLASSIFICATION OF 32
AVENUE UNTIL A CITY -WIDE TRAFFIC ANALYSIS IS COMPLETED AND
PRESENTED TO COUNCIL AND DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE
APPROPRIATE LEGISLATION. Council Member Barnett asked Mr. Hambleton
if he had any objection to deferring the 32 Avenue decision. Mr. Hambleton
replied that he had no objection. The question was called for a vote on the
motion. The motion carried by a 4 -2 roll call vote, Beauchamp and Mattson
voting nay; Puccinelli absent. Council Member Mattson explained he is in favor
across the board with the Comprehensive Plan amendments but voted no as he
is not in favor of deferring the reclassification of 32 Avenue.
10
92
JANUARY 16, 2001
*9. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH BERGER/ABAM FOR
GRADE SEPARATION STUDY
RESOLUTION NO. R- 2001 -5, A RESOLUTION authorizing and directing the
City Manager of the City of Yakima to execute an agreement with
BERGER /ABAM, an engineering consulting firm, for consultant services to
analyze the feasibility of separating the rail and vehicle traffic.
*10. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION TRANSFERRING FUNDS FROM FIRE
DISTRICT 12 RELATING TO THE SOUTH 40 AVENUE ANNEXATION
RESOLUTION NO. R- 2001 -6, A RESOLUTION relating to fire protection and
annexation and finding that the Nob Hill /South 40 Avenue Annexation will
impose a significant increase in the fire suppression responsibilities of the City,
with a corresponding reduction in fire suppression responsibilities by the fire
protection district, and initiating the RCW 35.02.205 process for transfer of fire
protection assets paid for by annexed properties.
*11. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PROPERTY DONATIONS
AND AUTHORIZING ACQUISITION OF CERTAIN PARCELS OF LAND FOR
FUTURE PARK DEVELOPMENT AT KIWANIS PARK
RESOLUTION NO. R- 2001 -7, A RESOLUTION authorizing and directing the
City Manager to accept donations of certain real estate parcels and to purchase
other real estate parcels, all for the Sports Complex Project in the vicinity of
Kiwanis Park.
*12. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING OF CONTRACT WITH
FLOYD AND SNIDER, INC. FOR REMEDIATION CONSULTING SERVICES
RELATING TO DEVELOPMENT OF KISSELL PARK
RESOLUTION NO. R- 2001 -8, A RESOLUTION authorizing and directing the
City Manager and the City Clerk of the City of Yakima to execute a Professional
Services Contract with Floyd and Snider, Inc. for Kissel Park Remediation and
Development Activities.
*13. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTIONAUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF
CONTRACT WITH THE YAKIMA VALLEY BASKETBALL OFFICIALS
ASSOCIATION FOR OFFICIATING SERVICES
RESOLUTION NO. R- 2001 -9, A RESOLUTION authorizing and directing the
City Manager to execute a professional services agreement with the Yakima
Valley Basketball Officials Association for the purpose of obtaining officiating
services for the organized basketball program of the City of Yakima.
11
JANUARY 16, 2001
93
*14. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF
INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATIVE PURCHASING AGREEMENT WITH
YAKIMA COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT NO. 11, BROADWAY
RESOLUTION NO. R- 2001 -10, A RESOLUTION authorizing the execution of an
Intergovernmental Cooperative Purchasing Agreement with Yakima County Fire
District No. 11, Broadway.
15. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTIONS RELATING TO ENFORCEMENT OF
CLEARVIEW VIOLATIONS AT:
A. 802 SOUTH 22 AVENUE
The clearview problem on this property has been resolved. Item removed from
the agenda.
*B. 423 S. 50 AVENUE
RESOLUTION NO. R- 2001 -11, A RESOLUTION authorizing enforcement of
intersection clear view violation at 423 South 50th Avenue, as described in
Yakima Municipal Code 8.80.040.
*16. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SALE OF SURPLUS
FIRE DEPARTMENT PUMPER TRUCK TO FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT #9
RESOLUTION NO. R- 2001 -12, A RESOLUTION authorizing the sale of a 1975
Ford pumper truck to Yakima County Fire Protection District #9.
ORDINANCES
*17. CONSIDERATION OF LEGISLATION RELATING TO DOWNTOWN
RESIGNALIZATION PROJECT:
A. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF CONTRACT FOR
CONSULTING SERVICES WITH NORTHWEST SIGNAL TRAFFIC
ENGINEERING, INC.
RESOLUTION NO. R- 2001 -13, A RESOLUTION authorizing and directing the
City Manager and the City Clerk of the City of Yakima to execute a Professional
Services Contract with Northwest Signal (NWS) Traffic Engineering to prepare
plans, specifications and necessary to develop construction bids for the
upgrading of the 40 intersections within the Yakima CBD fixed time system.
12
94
JANUARY 16, 2001
B. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2001 BUDGET AND
APPROPRIATING FUNDS FOR THE DOWNTOWN RESIGNALIZATION
PROJECT (NO ACTION REQUIRED THIS MEETING; SECOND READING SCHEDULED
2/6/00)
An ordinance amending the 2001 budget and appropriating funds for the
Downtown Resignalization Project was read by title only and laid on the table until
February 6, 2001 for a second reading.
18. OTHER BUSINESS
O INFORMATION ITEMS
Items of information provided to Council were: Flyer on Martin Luther King, Jr.
celebration events; Letter from U.S. Bureau of Reclamation regarding Potential Yakima
River Basin Water Enhancement Project funding — Groundwater Level Monitoring. 1/4/01;
House of Representatives Standing Committees — 57th Legislature — 2001; Report on
Damage Claims Filed during the Month of December 2000; Planning Division Assignments
Pending Report as of January 16, 2001; Minutes of the December 4, 2000 Parks and
Recreation Commission meeting; YVCOG Newsletter. January 2001; and Article from
January 2, 2001 The Washington Post, "When Convicts Return."
19. EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING LITIGATION
MATTSON MOVED, AND SIMS SECONDED TO MOVE INTO EXECUTIVE
SESSION FOR APPROXIMATELY 15 MINUTES WITH ADJOURNMENT TO
JANUARY 23, 2001 AT 7:30 A.M. AND THEN TO FEBRUARY 6, 2001 AT 2:00
P.M. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote; Puccinelli absent.
20. ADJOURNMENT TO JANUARY 23, 2001 AT 7:30 A.M. AT THE POLICE
STATION /LEGAL CENTER FOR STUDY SESSION ON COST OF SERVICE
STUDY FOR DOMESTIC WATER, THEN TO FEBRUARY 6, 2001 AT 7:30 A.M. AT
THE POLICE STATION /LEGAL CENTER FOR DISCUSSION ON ANNEXATION
Following the conclusion of the Executive Session, the meeting adjourned at 5:35
p.m.
READ AND CERTIFIED ACCURATE BY: Y Gi _ ' 4,DATE
1�/7_ey
�s UNCIL MBE'
/ h
,11.i Ira 1.,...'� . � � -.
COUNCI ' BER 'DATE
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK MARY PLACE, MAYOR
Minutes prepared by Linda Watkins and Karen Roberts. An audio and video tape of this meeting are
available in the City Clerk's Office
13