HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/28/2003 Adjourned Meeting / Study Session 274
CITY OF YAKIMA, WASHINGTON
ADJOURNED MEETING /STUDY SESSION
OF THE CITY COUNCIL
JANUARY 28, 2003 - 7 :30 A.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS - CITY HALL
ROLL CALL
Present:
Council: Mayor Mary Place, presiding, Council Members Clarence Barnett,
Lynn Buchanan, Paul George, Larry Mattson, and John Puccinelli
Staff: City Manager Zais, City Attorney Paolella and City Clerk Roberts
Absent (excused): Council Member Bernard Sims
2. PRESENTATION OF UPDATED FUNDING OPTIONS FOR THE IRRIGATION
CAPITAL PROGRAM (CONTINUED FROM 1/21/03)
Council Member Barnett suggested that there be a refined fact sheet for the public
hearing. Council Member George suggested there also be a description of the
workings of a new water plant with the membrane filtration and the expandability of
that plant with its long -term effects on the City.
Dave Brown, Water /Irrigation Engineer, reviewed Alternative 2, to convert the 308 -
system to a drinking water system and rebuild all the other systems. He said that this
would be financed on the 15 -year pay -as- you -go plan for the non -308 system. They
anticipate this would be funded through Public Works Trust Fund loans and
projections use a conservative 1%,interest figure. Council Member Puccinelli asked if
there would be opportunities for grant money for Alternative #2. City Manager Zais
advised that block grant money is eligible for both Alternative #1 and #2 but Alternative
#2 is eligible for other grants as well that #1 is not.
Discussion continued on the rate structure and how there is some opportunity to bring
the cost down to 'h% interest. There is risk as there would be competition with other
city divisions for this money. The detailed information on the fact sheet for the
alternatives was reviewed. Council Member Buchanan expressed his opinion on the
issue with regard to money that has already been collected toward rebuilding the 308
system.
Suggestions were made as to what information needed to be brought to the public
hearing on irrigation. It was suggested that information show the average -lot owner
what could happen to their costs if we convert and where the connections are located.
There was conversation regarding making sure the lots are restored to their current
condition. Mr. Brown suggested they could take a video prior to work being started
and again after the work is completed to ensure the property is properly restored.
Details on slip lining versus pipe bursting were discussed.
275
•
ADJOURNED MEETING — JANUARY 28, 2003
Council Member Buchanan asked what will be done with the additional coverage
amount that is collected from the property owners. Tim Jensen, Treasury Services
Officer, explained that, typically, coverage is an annual calculation and once you are
done with the calculation for that year you move into the next year. Your rate structure
must allow for the remaining debt coverage to be in the bottom line at the end of the
year. Council Member Buchanan asked what would be done with the extra money
when the bonds are done, would it go back to the people? City Manager Zais said the
money would either be used to retire debt service early or for additional capital
improvements related to what the project requires in the future.
Further discussion covered the potential of using block grant funds to help lower
income groups with their irrigation bills, the need to translate the material for the public
hearing, and other information that could be provided to assist with understanding the
issue. Council Member Mattson emphasized the importance of pointing out that
Alternative #2 is about $128 more a year versus Alternative #1 at $393 a year, about a
307% difference.
It was stated that arrangements have been made for a second public hearing on
February 1 8 th at the Yakima Valley Museum at 6:30 p.m. Availability of translated
information and public notification was discussed. Council Member George reiterated
from the last meeting, that there would be an open house at 5:30 p.m. and staff and
materials will be available for review and questions.
Council took a brief break at 9:00 a.m.
9:00 A.M. - PUBLIC MEETING
The meeting reconvened at 9:10 a.m.; roll call was taken and all Council members were
present with the exception of Bernie Sims who was absent and excused.
3. CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF ROYAL YAKIMA
DEVELOPMENT, LLC. VS. CITY OF YAKIMA AND LYNN RAYMOND (SEE
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SETTLEMENT)
Ken Harper, legal counsel for the City, advised that there is a proposed settlement
agreement between the City and Royal Yakima Development. Lynn Raymond, a party
to the proposed litigation also has been apprised of the agreement. He said that, in its
simplest form, the agreement is intended to provide for settlement of the pending
Superior Court litigation in which the City's decision to reverse the Hearing Examiner's
decision is being challenged. By settling that lawsuit, the terms of the agreement
would allow the casino to be built in accordance with the Hearing Examiner's decision
together with additional conditions. The other part of the equation, in terms of what
the settlement agreement does, calls for Royal Yakima, by dismissing the lawsuit, to
also drop any damage claims that it might otherwise seek against the City for items
such as potential lost profits, cost of delay, potential construction delays, etc. In
summary, they get the casino with the additional conditions and the City gets the
lawsuit against them dismissed.
2
276
ADJOURNED MEETING — JANUARY 28, 2003
He referenced Exhibit A (page 8 of the agreement) listing the five specific additional
conditions. Initially, these conditions were not required by the Hearing Examiner nor
the City. Royal Yakima has indicated that these additional conditions would be
acceptable. The five conditions are:
1. Proposal to erect a six -foot view - obscuring fence along certain property lines of the
proposed parcel.
2. Signage limitation - the goal is to maintain reasonable standards for the casino and
prevent them from being a magnet for users . of the park.
3. Allows for the physical structure of the casino, as submitted to the City and the
Hearing Examiner, to be built. However, it puts a lid on any further expansion
without a public hearing.
4. Age restrictions — the City's legislative authority has clear limitations placed on it by
state law. This condition is not Council acting to legislate 21 -year old restrictions,
this is a matter of the settlement agreement between parties to contractually agree
to these terms. The concept behind this paragraph is simply to segregate the
gambling part of the casino from the liquor serving part. Liquor Control regulations
have a number of provisions on how that type of segregation is to be enforced and
the idea, as applied to the settlement agreement, is for a physical segregation of
the liquor service area from the casino area. If that is there, 18 -20 year olds will be
allowed in the gambling portion. If the segregation is not there, then anyone under
21 years old will not be allowed in the gambling area. There is also an obligation
on Royal Yakima's part to post signs in the facility that are intended to apprise
patrons of that restriction so it is easier to enforce.
5. No person under the age of 18 shall be allowed to enter or remain on the premises
after the hour of 9:00 p.m.
Mayor Place asked if Royal Yakima Development had accepted this agreement.
Mr. Harper advised that, at this point, he has received a statement of interest.
Council Member Mattson went on record saying that opening up settlement
agreements to public input is not typical but that Council has agreed to do this as part
of an effort to increase public involvement. He said there are those on the Council
and in the community, who would like to settle this and those who want to continue to
litigate and it's important that we disclose the consequences of either of those
choices.
Sandra Swanson, 6 South 6th Street, spoke about the importance of separating the
gambling from the dining area. The question of whether minors under 18 should be
allowed into the gambling facility was discussed with Mrs. Swanson stating she didn't
think they should be allowed in.
Lynn Raymond, 2302 -A West Viola, wanted to point out that the original draft of this
agreement limiting the casino to the existing site has been changed. They are going
to be allowed to add an addition that is over 3,000 square feet. She thinks the City is
capitulating to everything that Royal Yakima Development wanted. She wanted to go
on record for the Citizens for a Friendly Yakima that they want this to go to court. She
3
277
ADJOURNED MEETING — JANUARY 28, 2003
thinks if a judge saw where this started and how hard they have tried to prove that it is
incompatible, they would have a case. She's pleased with the moratorium and that
casino applicants have to go through a Class 3 review which, in essence, means they
have to prove compatibility. She stated disappointment that we are going to end up
with a casino across from Chesterley Park.
Tom Ellwood, owner of Oil Can Henry's at 3805 River Road, said his initial response
is he spent $30,000 to improve his building and to make it so the sign can be'seen
from 40 avenue. A six -foot high fence will block that view. He understands the
reason why the fence is there, and is torn over that. •
Council Member Puccinelli suggested that the City look at the gambling /food
separation issue in ordinances while we still can before other new casinos are built.
He's not convinced that the state addresses this well.
James Carmody, counsel for Royal Yakima Development, said this process is
awkward and he had wanted, to avoid the public process to negotiate the settlement. .
He said there are two points of ambiguity that they have asked for clarification on; the
first one had to do with the 6' high fence. He questioned whether that fence could be
combined with a burm. The 6' view obscuring capacity would be there but done in an
aesthetically different way. The second question had to do with the signage and he
said that Mr. Harper had answered that the signage on River Road would be
essentially what has been historically there. He said with those clarifications, they are
prepared to settle the case.
The burm /fence combination idea was discussed and it appears it is workable under
Standard C of sight screening.
GEORGE MOVED AND MATTSON SECONDED TO APPROVE THE PROPOSED
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. Council Member Puccinelli commented again that he
thinks we need to go back and address restaurants in casinos in our ordinances in
order to prepare for the next one. Council Member George explained that it was the
issue of compatibility that caused them to reverse the Hearing Examiner's
recommendation. Council Member Mattson said he's upset about this use at this
location too yet at the same time felt that if compatibility was our only defense the
chances in court are less than 50/50 and we don't want to spend a lot of additional
City money in court. The question was called for a vote on the motion. The
motion passed by 4 -2 roll call vote; George and Place voting nay; Sims absent.
RESOLUTION NO. 2003 -12 authorizing and directing the City Manager to execute a
settlement agreement between Royal Yakima Development, L.L.C., a Washington
limited liability company, and George Cameron and Janin Cameron, husband and wife
(collectively referred to hereinafter as "Royal Yakima "), and the City of Yakima,
Washington, a Washington municipal corporation.
Council Member Buchanan mentioned that he noticed more money was going to be
spent on a security camera at the Transit Center and said he would like to see what
kind of images we get from that camera before we spend the money. Council
Member George advised there is a Transit meeting on Thursday and that issue will be
discussed.
4
278
ADJOURNED MEETING - JANUARY 28, 2003
4. ADJOURNMENT
MATTSON MOVED AND BUCHANAN SECONDED TO ADJOURN THE
MEETING. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote; Sims absent. The
meeting adjourned at 10:00 a.m.
r
READ AND CERTIFIED ACCURATE BY: r — _
UNC / MBER D E
AUNCIL MEMBER DAT
ATTEST:
4-
CITY CLERK MARY PLACE, MAYOR
Minutes prepared by Linda Watkins. An audio and video ta • e of this meeting are available in the City Clerk's
Office
1
5