HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Meeting - Council - Minutes - 12/05/2000 Kent, Washington
December 5 , 2000
A special meeting of the Kent City Council was called to
order at 5 : 35 p.m. by Mayor Pro Tem Orr. Present :
Councilmembers Brotherton, Clark, Epperly, Orr, Woods and
Yingling, Chief Administrative Officer McFall, City
Attorney Lubovich, Fire Chief Angelo, Deputy Police Chief
Miller, Public Works Director Wickstrom, Parks, Recreation
and Community Services Director Hodgson, Employee Services
Director Viseth, and Finance Director Miller.
Approximately 20 people were at the meeting.
Filing a Petition for Injunctive Relief Regarding
Initiative 722 , McFall explained that I-722 limits the
increase in assessed values of property, limits an increase
on property tax collections, and deals with the validity of
taxes and fees established by cities . He noted that a
number of cities and counties have filed suit in Thurston
County Superior Court seeking both injunctive relief and
ultimately challenging the constitutionality of Initiative
722 , and that those cities and counties were recently
granted injunctive relief from the imposition of the
requirements of I-722 . McFall said that the City of Kent
has been seeking guidance, but that no one knows exactly
what the implications of the injunction might be . He
recommended authorizing the Mayor and City Attorney to
proceed to join in the petition for injunctive relief, on
the basis that at least the city would know where it stands
with respect to the implementation of I-722 while awaiting
the ultimate court decision.
Yingling said it is very difficult to begin implementing a
law, knowing that it may be shown to be unconstitutional in
the future. He was in favor of going forward with the
injunctive relief until the court' s decision is made .
Brotherton agreed. YINGLING MOVED to authorize the Mayor
or his designee, upon additional review by staff, to join
and intervene, if deemed in the City' s best interest, in
the pending Thurston County action and filing a petition
for an injunction against implementation and enforcement of
I-722 . Woods seconded.
McFall noted for Clark that some of the fees which were
passed and are potentially subject to refund include water
Special Council Meeting December 5, 2000
Page Two
rates, development fees, inspection fees, greens fees, and
recreation class fees . Orr spoke in favor of the motion,
noting that it is in the best interest of the City. It was
clarified that the intent is to limit it just to the
injunctive relief and not to join in any substantive
challenge to I-722 . The motion then carried.
2001 Property Tax Levy Ordinance. Orr noted that action
was just taken at the Operations Committee to reset the
levy rate from 2 . 61% to 2% . McFall explained that the City
needs to have the levy adopted and certified and to the
County Assessor' s Office no later than December 7th. He
recommended adoption of the 2001 property tax levy
ordinance.
YINGLING MOVED to adopt Ordinance No. 3532 establishing the
2001 tax levy and authorizing a 2% increase in the 2000
levy of property taxes for collection in the year 2001 .
Woods seconded. Yingling noted that it is not known how I-
722 will implement it' s 2% clause, and that property owners
may see more or less than a 2% increase. Orr thanked the
Operations Committee for making this change this afternoon.
Yingling' s motion then carried.
Ratification of Existing Rates and Fees. The City Attorney
noted that some fees and taxes were raised last year prior
to the passage of I-695, and that under the language of I-
722 all of those ordinances are potentially void as of
December 7th. He proposed that the City re-enact and re-
adopt those various fees and ratify the ordinances to
ensure that they remain in place after December 7th. He
noted that it can then be determined what will happen to
the matters as I-722 is processed through the courts .
Lubovich explained that the first proposed ordinance deals
with utility tax rates, the tax levy, and levy protection
and has a 5-day enactment period, and that the second
ordinance deals with other fees and rates, such as street
use permits, water rate fees, storm water charges, plan
approval , inspection fees, fireworks, and numerous
recreation fees, and has a 30-day enactment period. He
emphasized that adoption of the proposed ordinances would
protect the status quo.
Special Council Meeting December 5, 2000
Page Three
YINGLING MOVED to adopt Ordinance No. 3533 readopting,
reenacting, ratifying and confirming in all respects, the
taxes established in Ordinance Nos . 3489, 3493 and 3494 ,
effective as of the effective date of the taxes as set
forth in their respective ordinances, as if in full force
and effect from the date of original enactment, including
any subsequent amendments. Brotherton seconded.
McFall clarified for Clark that the City had adopted a
multi-year adjustment to the storm drainage fees and that
this is the second year. Clark opined that the City can't
just walk away from a project it is working on with other
governmental agencies . Epperly noted that she had voted
against some of the fees originally, including water rates,
and therefore she would not support the motion. The motion
to adopt Ordinance No. 3533 then carried with Epperly
opposed.
The City Attorney distributed copies of a schedule of the
rates and fees which were adopted as part of the budget
process last year, and requested that it be attached as
Exhibit C. YINGLING MOVED to adopt Ordinance No. 3534
readopting, reenacting, ratifying and confirming in all
respects, the rates and fees established in Ordinance Nos .
3471, 3486, 3487 , 3488 , 3490, 3491, and 3499, effective as
of the effective date of the rates and fees as set forth in
their respective ordinances, as if in full force and effect
from the date of original enactment, including any
subsequent amendments . Clark seconded and MOVED to amend
the motion by adding the proposed program fees and rate
changes from the 2000 preliminary budget as Exhibit C.
Yingling agreed to the friendly amendment . Clark said he
understood Epperly' s resistance regarding water rates but
that this was a one-time opportunity to join Tacoma in
their intertie project . The motion to adopt Ordinance No.
3534 as amended then carried with Epperly opposed. Orr
noted that Councilmember Woods has left the meeting, and
said that Woods had asked to be recorded as a yes vote.
Adiournment. CLARK MOVED to adjourn at 6 : 05 p.m. Epperly
seconded and the motion carried.
Brenda Jacobe CMC
City Clerk