Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/26/98 AGENDABREMERTON CITY COUNCIL 239 4TH STREET BREMERTON, WA 98337 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA AUGUST 26, 1998 *** REVISED COPY *** CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION: 5:00 - 5:30 P.M. A. General Council Business CALL TO ORDER: 5:30 P.M. A. Pledge Of Allegiance B. Invocation 5. 6. 7. CONSENT AGENDA Items listed below have been distributed to Council members in advance for study and will be enacted by one motion. If separate discussion is desired on an item, it may be removed from the Consent Agenda and placed on the Regular Agenda at the request of a Council member. ¢~o¢¢,., #AB98-187 / A. Minutes -August 12, 1998 B. Puget Sound Energy Easements #AB98-188 ~ CLAIMS/CHECK REGISTERS COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS MAYOR'S REPORT PUBLIC RECOGNITION - (Comments Limited to 3 Minutes) o e RESOLUTIONS A. Resolution #2666 Amending The Lodging Tax Advisory Committee To Include Establishing Criteria For Applicants A. $R304 Transportation Improvement Project Asbestos Removal No. 1 -- Rescind Bid Award and Award to next Low Responsive Bidder #AB98-189 QUESTIONS FOR THE CITY COUNCIL AND MAYOR The 7/21 legal section of the Sun listed two small parcels owned by Sciepko & Lunde which were being put up for auction for lack of payment. QUESTIONS, 1. Has the sale of the Anderson Creek watershed land gone through, i.e. has the entire amount been produced by the buyer? What kind of protections has the City Council built imo the sale of the watershed land to Sciepko, to ensure that he won't cut and run? 2. Is the Council concerned about planned access to that industrial land, would these foreclosures affect the proposed uses by possibly preveming the northern, "primary access"? If the City's sale of the "surplus" utility land is not yet final, how can the City justify continuing this special deal with Mr. Sciepko when the original conditions, access and contiguity, may no longer be present? 3. How is the City proposing to provide water and sewer to the Port Blakely area? Are sewer extensions, south and north, provided in the Capital facilities portion of the City's plan? 4. What is the status of the City and County working out Memos of Understanding for the Urban Growth Area's, and what will the public process be within the City for those agreements? 5. One month ago, I asked questions regarding council pay and what the Mayor's proposal are to correct it. The Mayor answered these questions !and I'm requesting a copy of these answers in writing from the Mayor. 6. Based upon the answers that I have received it appears that everyone is in agreement that the council pay has been handled improperly and did not follow state law. Can the taxpayers of Bremerton expect to see a refund from Council Members for pay raises they should not have received if they would have followed state law. Or are laws only meant for the average citizens, not elected officials. 7. I read with interest in the Sun about the Mayor discussing the tight city budget at the council retreat. Since we do have a tight city budget, is the Mayor going to ~.o her automatic pay raise in 1999, and are we going to hold the line with department~s~ts, x,n2~ Del Knauss 139 Olympic Avenue Bremerton, WA 98312 360-377-4425 AGENDA BILL BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL 1. SUBJECT MINUTES - AUGUST 12, 1998 FOR AGENDA OF: ORIGINATING DEPT: ORIGINATOR: DATE SUBMITTED: Augu~ 26~ 1998 Qitv Coungil David Farr. President~ (comment on back if necessary) MINUTES TO BE DISTRIBUTED SEPARATELY. ENDORS F24ENT INFORMATION MAYOR A-oPROVED Bt~ COUNCIL PRESIDENT FOR SIIRM!TTAL: COUNCIL PRESIDENT ~-- 4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REOUiREPrENT FOR CO[~CIL ACTION: 8. RECOMMEN~,.A~ION: 9. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: ENFOR~ OFFICIAL: .EXPIRATION DATE: R~wViEW DATE: PUT.LED TABLED COUNCIL DIRECTIVE: 10. NOTICE OF ACTION APPROVED .DISAPPROVED ...DATE: AMENDED 11. AGENDA BI/.Y, NO: TAPE #1560, #1561, #1562 UNAPPROVED DRAFT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 12, 1998 The regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Bremerton was called to order in the City Council Chambers, 239 4th Street, Bremerton, Washington, Wednesday August 12, 1998, at 5:30 P.M., with Council President David Farr presiding. Council members present were Jim Reed, Carlos Montgomery, Carol Arends, Mike Shepherd, Lon Overson, John Law, Cecil McConnell, and Wayne Olsen. Also present were City Attorney Glenna Malanca and Deputy City Clerk Paula Johnston. The meeting opened with the Pledge of Allegiance led by Council President Farr and invocation given by Dr. David Butimore of Trinity Missionary Baptist Church. President Fan' made the following announcements: (1) The City Council held a Study Session prior to the Council meeting to discuss general Council business. (2) The City Council will hold a 30-minute Executive Session immediately following the City Council meeting, in the Council Conference Room. topic of discussion will be "Litigation." The CONSENT AGENDA A. Minutes - August 5, 1998 #AB98-177 #0034 M/S/C/U(McConnell/Montgomery) Motion to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. CLAIMS/CHECK REGISTERS Vouchers audited and certified by the auditing officer as required by RCW 42.24.080, and those expense reimbursement claims certified as required by RCW 42.24.090, have been recorded on a listing that had been made available to the Council. #0049 MISIClU(MontgomerylOIsenl) On August 12, 1998, the Council does approve for payment those vouchers included and further described as follows: 222508, and 222565 through 222767 in the amount of $811,053.37. COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS Mr. Mont.qomery reported he attended the "Believe In Bremerton" session on August 11, 1998, and was particularly impressed with the presentation made by the Parks Department. He noted there was not a large turnout; however, it may have been due to the summer weather. TAPE #1560, #1561, #1562 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 12, 1998 Page 2 of 24 Mrs. Arends announced the City would hold a public meeting on August 13, 1998, 6:30 P.M., at the Bruno Counseling Center located at the corner of 1~ Street and Callow Avenue. The topic of discussion at that meeting will be the traffic signal on Callow Avenue and the 1 '~ Street intersection. Mr. Shepherd stated it was good to be back after being gone a week on a trip to Washington D.C., which included both work and some pleasure. Dudng that time he met with Congressman Norm Dicks and Congressman White on Navy operations and how we can improve relationships in this area. He also visited the Arlington National Cemetery, which was an awe-inspiring experience. This week he met with representatives from the William H. Upton Masonic Lodge to discuss book donations to the Martin Luther King Jr. Library. Over the past month the District ~ neighborhood has been addressing some issues of crime and encouraging Block Watches. He repeated Police Chief Paul Du Fresne's comment that areas with Block Watches have the lowest rate of crime within the City of Bremerton, which was true in District #5. He complimented Admiral William Center and the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, including all the ships, for the increase support for Navy Shore Patrols. He emphasized those patrols are making a difference and the Bremerton residents appreciate that commitment to help out. Lastly, he was saddened at the recent passing of Tom Trudelle. Mr. Overson reported more businesses are moving into the downtown area.., the Coffee Oasis moved its business to Burwell Street. Those living on Washington Avenue north of the Manette Bridge should be aware of a program by the Utility Department to make some improvements in that area. He reported that some ex-Highland Avenue residents had tded to organize a Block Watch in their new location, but were unsuccessful due to lack of support from that city and their neighbors. He encouraged members of the public to get involved with a Block Watch Program and see how proactive the Bremerton Police Department is assisting them with that program. He announced Police Chief Paul Du Fresne has taken a proactive approach to the "Gun Buy Back Program" that Bremerton resident Larry Dickerson has funded. Mr. Law reminded everyone that the Manette Community Church and he will sponsor a Candidates Forum on September 6, 1998, 1:00 - 3:00 P.M. He announced there would not be a forum on Fluoridation as previously announced on August 18, 1998, due to a lack of contact from the group requesting that this meeting be held. He announced tonight at 7:00 P.M., the Perry Avenue Mall merchants are sponsoring a Karaoke Night. Mr. Farr noted he was remiss in his earlier announcement that the Executive Session following the Council meeting would be for a period of 30-minutes. He also reported the City Council held a Retreat on August 10, 1998, at Gold TAPE #1560, #1561, #1562 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 12, 1998 Page 3 of 24 Mountain Golf Course. Council's discussion included the possibility of holding some City Council meetings in a town meeting format, possibly at the Bremerton High School. He solicited input from the public on issues that they would be interested in and whether or not they support the idea of the town-meeting type Council meeting. MAYOR'S REPORT President Farr read a Proclamation proclaiming September 5-6, 1998, as Bremerton Blackberry Festival. Carol Atkinson, Executive Director of Bremerton Main Street Association, accepted the Proclamation. PUBLIC RECOGNITION Bremerton Police Chief Paul Du Fresne announced the Bremerton Police Department won the "Mayor's Choice" award for the most educational program at the Kids Day On The Boardwalk event. He congratulated Lynn Drake and other staff members from the Community Resource Division for putting together an educational program involving small cars and eggs and seatbelts and airbags. He reported this past weekend Bremerton Police Officers William Prouse, Daniel Fatt, Russell Holt, and John VanSantford, participated in the annual Courage Classic, a pistol shooting competition. As a team, the officers took First Place and were overall winners in every category of team competition. In addition, as individuals, they took 1st, 2nd, and 3rd place in four out of the five categories and 3rd and 4th in the fifth category. The competition has a prize of $1,500, which is then donated by the winning team to their favodte chadty. The Bremerton team donated $1,500 to the American Cancer Society. Chief Du Fresne was very proud of the teams achievements and that they selected such an outstanding chadty for their donation. Larry Dickerson, Bremerton resident, stated about a year ago he stood before the Council expressing concem that the community was losing a generation of young people. This year when the scholarships were announced at the Bremerton High School the accolades went out for dollars gamered by the students. However, several weeks later Robert Boddie of P.O.W.E.R. reported not one African-American student received an academic scholarship. Statistically that group of students should have received 13% of the awards granted. It concerned him that the African-American and disadvantaged students have been let down by all of us in the community. He believes not enough was done to encourage those students and show them that the educational opportunities were available and utilized. He emphasized the fact that it doesn't cost a cent to hug your child, read them a story, to participate in their Little League sports, attend their High School Concerts, to be a Mother, Father, brother, sister, uncle, a business leader, clerk, clergyman, etc. to support our children. The encouragement starts at home. We as a city need to come TAPE #1560, #1561, #1562 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 12, 1998 Page 4 of 24 together an discuss and put into effect programs of our own making and implement some solutions so that we can raise our children to be better prepared to compete in this world. Carol Atkinson, Bremerton Main Street Association, reported the Concert On The Boardwalk on August 7 was very successful; and during the intermission the USS Sacramento arrived. The next concert, on August 14, will feature Payday Daddy, which was voted the #1 band in West Sound in 1997-1998. She suggested people bdng chairs with them due to the limited seating available. Preparations are underway for the Blackberry Festival and they are almost sold- out of spaces for vendors. She noted a large contingent from Bremerton attended the USS Bridge commissioning, which took place in Seattle. Currently, she is pursuing the possibility of having the USS Bridge available for tours during the Blackberry Festival, but at this point she was not sure if the details could be worked out in time. The festival will also include a Golf Tournament at Gold Mountain, sponsored by the Lt. Governor and Strategies For Youth, on September 4, 1998. More information on that event can be obtained by calling the Bremerton Main Street Association. 8A - BID AWARD TO ACE PAVING COMPANY, INC. FOR BURWELI STREET IMPROVEMENTS FROM MONTGOMERY AVENUE TO PACIFIC AVENU E, #AB98-178 Bids were opened for the Burwell Street Improvements Project on August 3, 1998. This is the first phase of construction on the SR304 Transportation Improvement Project. One bid for this project was received. Ace Paving Company, Inc. was the lowest (only) responsive bidder with a bid of $1,194,509.90. The engineer's estimate for this project was $1,234,999.92. These street improvements will include an asphalt oveday, ornamental street lighting, concrete curbing, sidewalk and handicap ramps, signal modifications, intersection bulbouts, and landscaping. The action before the City Council is approval of a contract with Ace Paving Company, Inc. for the Burwell Street Improvements Project. Lynn Price, Project Manager for SR-304 Project, stated the estimated project start date is within two weeks for a 45-day construction period. It is anticipated work will be completed by middle to end of October except for some street lighting luminaries, which will be installed at a later date. Public comment - none. Mr. Shepherd asked if all of the necessary Permits had been secured for this project. Mr. Price stated yes. TAPE #1560, #1561, #1562 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 12, 1998 Page 5 of 24 Mr. McConnell questioned whether or not Burwell Street would be closed to traffic during this project. Mr. Price stated not totally; however, there is the option to close portions of the street up to two days as long as the contractor provides the City with an adequate City approved detour plan; with a maximum of six total days of closure. #0887 MISICIU(MontgomeryiShepherd) Motion to approve award of the Base Bid for $1,194,509.90 with Ace Paving Company, Inc. for the Burwell Street Improvements Project, and authorize the Mayor to execute the same. 9A- PUBLIC HEARING ON RESOLUTION NO. 2664~ REGARDING RECOVERY OF FEES FOR THE ABATEMENT OF THE PROPERTY LOCAl-ED AT 1745 N. CAMBRIAN AVENUE, #AB98-17g On May 5, 1998, the City removed garbage and debris from the property located at 1745 N. Cambrian Avenue, after the owner, Dixie L. Grace, failed to do so as ordered by the Building Official. The cost charged to the revolving abatement fund for this action totaled $1,314.30. Council must now decide if the fees are just and reasonable and how they should be collected. Judy Johnson, Building Official, provided the following chronological history of the City's actions: (1) October 1997 - City received a complaint about junk and garbage piling up in the rear yard, persons living in an RV and in a garage that was located in the rear of the yard. (2) October 10, 1997 - the City inspected the site and Mr. McDuffy admitted he was allowing people to live in the garage. The inspection also revealed a huge pile of rotting garbage and debds in the rear yard that included hulk vehicles. Mr. McDuffy knew that he needed to clean up the site and that the City would be posting an Abatement and Vacation Order on the house. (3) October 15, 1997 -The City posted the abatements. (4) November 7, 1997 - Dixie Graves, Executor of the Estate, who resides in North Carolina, called the City and explained she could not personally take care of the problem and asked if the City could do the work. (5) January 1998 - The RV had been removed, the occupants in the garage had vacated, but the garbage remained. (6) May 1998 - the Public Works Department cleaned up the garbage. (7) August 3, 1998 - City staff talked with Dixie Graves, who indicated the property had been put up for sale and Mr. McDuffy had vacated the premises and the house and site had been cleaned up. Public comment - none. Mr. MontRomery commented that he wished the City Council Chambers was equipped to display the photographs provided by Ms. Johnson so that the pubic could see the kind of conditions the City is having to clean up. TAPE #1560, #1561, #1562 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 12, 1998 Page 6 of 24 President Farr expressed his and other neighbors neighborhood, appreciation for getting the site cleaned up. eyesore. in that particular He agreed it was an #1046 MISICIU(ArendslMontgomery) Motion to adopt Resolution No. 2664, ordering the fees incurred for the abatement of garbage and debris located at 1745 N. Cambrian Avenue be collected as reasonable abatement costs and become a lien against the property. 9B - PUBLIC HEARING ON RESOLUTION NO. 2665, REGARDING RECOVERY OF FEES FOR THE ABATEMENT OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 230412306 '15TM STREET~ #AB98-180 On May 28, 1998, the City removed garbage, debds, fumiture, appliances, and auto parts from the property located at 2304/2306 15th Street, after the owner, Darrell Hatta, failed to do so as ordered by the Building Official. The cost charged to the revolving abatement fund for this action totaled $970.93. Council must now decide if the fees are just and reasonable and how they should be collected. Paula Johnston, Deputy City Clerk, read the following letter, dated August 12, 19981, into the record: "The City of Bremerton put out a notice to clean the property. I was cleaning the property when it was posted. The did their own clean up. I had six people helping and a three yard dumpster that had been emptied six times. Also, the City unplugged the phone from the house to the motor home and unplugged an extension cord from the house to the motor home that still had food in it that belonged to Judy. The City of Bremerton also boarded up a house that was being remodeled with permits. The City of Bremerton threw away an electric stove that would have gone back into the house after remodeling. In addition, they threw away lawn chairs, lawn mowers, doorframe with door, a pipe to hold the cyclone fence together. The City went underneath the house and threw away a car fender. This is all for now." Signed Darrell L. Hatta. Public comment - Bob Spence, contractor-doing work at the subject site, stated the dumpster that was on the site belonged to him and it was his understanding that the City filled it with debris and he is having to pay for removal of the debris. Much of the stuff neatly stacked in the yard had been placed there purposely, i.e. door frame, appliances, etc. He asked what the City's definition was for "junk." He believes much of what was taken by the City was usable. Judy Johnson, Building Official, provided the following chronology of events: (1) February 1998 - the City posted a Notice to Abate an Unsafe Condition and a Notice to Vacate after a fire occurred due to faulty wiring. The deadline for the TAPE #1560, #1561, #1562 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 12, 1998 Page 7 of 24 completion of the repairs was May 23, 1998. (2) May 8, 1998 - Ms. Johnson visited the site along with Janet Lunceford. At that time, they reminded Mrs. Hatta the deadline was approaching at the end of the month for the abatement order and the City would not extend the order for this particular project. (3) May 21, 1998 - another order was posted to remove additional debds, furniture, auto parts, garbage that were placed outside during the fire repair. (4) May 26, 1998 - the site was inspected and Mrs. Hatta was informed the City would return the following day to remove the garbage. (5) May 28, 1998 - City crew used a 10- yard dump truck to haul away the garbage and debris; and the house was boarded up to prevent entry because they had not completed the repairs to the structure. Ms. Johnson did not have personal knowledge that the Public Works Department used the dumpster; however, she did know that they used a 10-yard dump truck. The City's definition for "junk and debris" is found in the Municipal Code and she could provide Mr. Spence a copy if he desired that information. President Farr stated this property is in his District and is very visible to the public as they drive down past Ivy Green Cemetery on 15th Street. Dudng the 4- ~ years he has served on the Council he has answered numerous calls from angry residents in that neighborhood regarding the site being such an eyesore. He believes this may be a case where the City was too tolerant and he was glad to see it finally getting cleaned up. He thanked City staff for their good work. Mr. McConnell questioned the charge for plywood as shown on the supporting documentation. Ms. Johnson explained the designation "in" is an incremental number used by the Public Works Department. She agreed with Mr. McConnell that it probably amounted to 10 sheets of plywood. Mr, Law referenced a picture of an electric stove, sitting outside with vines growing around it and the fact that burner elements were missing. He would have also judged that appliance as "junk." Mr. Mont.qomery stated he had received numerous telephone calls from residents pleading why couldn't something be done to clean up that site. #1461 MISlCIU(MontgomerylMcConnell//) Motion to adopt Resolution No. 2665, ordedng the fees incurred for the abatement of garbage, debds, furniture, appliances, and auto parts located at 2304/2306 15~ Street be collected as reasonable abatement costs and become a lien against the property. 9C - PUBLIC HEARING ON ORDINANCE {FIRST READING) AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 4365 - PROPOSAL: SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM AMENDMENTI LOCATION: OYSTER BAY CHANNEL, #AB98-181 TAPE #1560, #1561, #1562 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 12, 1998 Page 8 of 24 The Bremerton Shoreline Master Program (SMP) is developed under the authority of the Shoreline Management Act. The City develops the SMP, the Department of Ecology reviews and approves/denies the SMP, the State adopts the SMP as law, and both the City and State enforce it. The SMP goes into effect once the State adopts it. In August 1997, the City Council found serious concerns with the issue of permitting docks/piers within the channel between Ostrich and Oyster Bays. Therefore the Council passed Resolution No. 2621 instituting a moratorium on any dock/pier construction in the channel pending a review of the Shoreline Master Program. In May 1998 the Council passed Resolution No. 2650 extending the moratorium. The Planning Commission has completed its review of the pertinent portions of the SMP and has recommended that docks and piers be prohibited within the channel. This recommendation has been forwarded to the City Council. The Council must approve any requests for amendments to the SMP before it can be approved by the State. Paula Johnston, Deputy City Clerk, read the following letters into the record: "when I purchased my property in May of '97 at 1827 South Marine Ddve, on the channel of Oyster Bay there were no moratoriums. In April of '95, I received an organ transplant and with a shortened life expectancy it was always my dream to live on that parcel of water with family and friends spending as much time as possible. Since then you are trying to enforce a moratorium, which will stop anyone from heaving a dock or a float or any development of accessibility to the water. In your moratorium, you have allowed no flexibility or compromise. The amazing part to me is the lack of accountability of the City Council and City officials. When it's brought to the City Council's attention that the laws that currently exist are there to protect safety issues, i.e., the channel is a no-wake zone reducing speeds to 5 mph, it falls on deaf ears. I also find it ironic that the average selling home in our City is $100,000 and yet you discourage investors or potential property owners from investing in our City by constantly penalizing them and making it difficult for development. Since the time I've purchased to the date of completion I will have invested over $300,000. and, for investing this money in our community you are attempting to decrease my property value. I not only deserve but will be anxiously awaiting for a response regarding the safety issues on the channel, and to why these aren't being addressed," signed Richard Tarver - dated August 12, 1998 "We have a very real concern with regard to the banning of docks and piers in the channel between Ostrich and Oyster Bays. It seems as though our rights, as property owners, are not as important as those of the persons who think a ban TAPE #1560, #1561 ,~1562 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 12, 1998 Page 9 of 24 should go into effect. No one is forcing them to build a dock or pier. If the ban does go into effect then they have won - if the ban doesn't go into effect, they still win because they aren't being forced to build. It's a win/win situation for them. whereas, if the ban is put into effect, we lose our dghts. If the ban is not in effect, then we still have the right to apply for a permit and have our case decided on its own merits. The channel between Ostrich and Oyster Bays is not such a unique body of water. We've seen many other bodies of water with much more unique situations than ours. Have you been to La Conner, South Sound? Docks and piers should be looked at on a case-by-case basis and should not be banned. Common sense and compromise should dictate. When we bought our home, we were not told that our property rights were being threatened. There wasn't anything in our title insurance to indicate that we could be losing our property rights, and as a result of this, decreasing our property values. I'm sure we won't be receiving any break on our property taxes will we? Our legal description says we own the tidelands to the mean Iow-tide. Doesn't that give us some rights legally? Isn't our legal description correct? Were we given fraudulent information? No one with half a brain is going to build a dock or pier into the middle of the channel. Give us some credit for a change. It is not uncommon to have boats, concrete blocks, tires, etc. sunk into bodies of water, to create safe habitats for sea life. These are done by marine/fisheries persons. This is not considered a deterrent to the sea life. Why then would piers and docks do anything other than that? Look around and under existing swim platforms, there is an abundance of sea life present. It has been said that eggs have been found on the beach, and that is further evidence that building piers and docks would be harmful. The eggs are only there for a short time, in the whole scheme of things. Obviously, building would not be permitted during this time. As to the safety issue - dudng daylight hours there isn't any reason why boaters can't see the piers and docks. Water skiing, knee boarding, and tubing isn't permitted in the channel - that's what the bay is for. During the evening the docks would have their lights on. That is more than our swim platforms offer now. when are boaters going to be responsible, and accept the responsibility of boating? Should we ali be punished because of the few that don't care & don't feel that they have to care? Don't make a serious mistake by placing a ban on the docks, etc. Let's keep it the way it is written and decide by reviewing each application individually. Don't give in to the extremely vocal, and extremely rude few who seem to have an unlimited amount of time to flood the Council/Commission with negative views. Many of us work in Seattle and commute many hours a day. That is, of course, our choice. However, it makes it all but impossible to get to your offices before you close so that we can review file information. Attending meetings is also difficult. It makes it look like we don't care, but we do! We shouldn't have to pay to see the records either. We either have to leave work eady (and lose pay) or not able to see the records. This isn't right either. It seems unless you are a friend of persons in politics, your opinions TAPE #1560, #1561, #1562 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 12, 1998 Page 10 of 24 don't matter, and evidently property rights aren't important either. We simply are not as important as the "few" that make the most noise, or that have the connections necessary. We hope your rights, as a property owner, aren't taken away from you, like ours are going to be. Perhaps if they were, you'd have a better understanding of our concerns. Not everyone wants to build a dock or pier, so previous comments by Commission members that the channel will ~look like a marina", and that "it makes as much sense to put docks in the channel, as it would to put them in Chico Creek', are ridiculous - give us a break. We hope you really think about what you are about to do - next time it could be you!" Signed Steve & Chdsty Fancher, 1822 Madrona Pt. Dr., Bremerton, WA 98312 - dated August 10, 1998 "Our family has lived on a cove on Rocky Point for twenty-five years and often use the channel into Oyster Bay. The width of the channel has not changed in this time but the amount of water traffic has increased tremendously. People still swim, fish, float, and boat in the channel but now we are dealing with jet skis and much more powerful watercraft, which operate at much greater speeds. Water skiing is still experienced at the same speed it always has been but many boats go through this channel at speeds unheard of twenty-five years ago. The very boats that will be tied up to these new floats are the fastest boats on Puget Sound waters. People now have the option of mooring their boat on a buoy but must row out to retrieve it when they want to go boating. This method has always worked and is much safer than having the boat tied to a permanent structure. In an emergency situation, a boat can go around a float or buoy but not a pier. Since this channel is already limited in width, it does not make sense to make it smaller. You are in the position of preventing this from happening. We are not opposing individuals in their effort to make their boating more convenient, but are opposed to their idea because of safety issues and the precedent this would set.~ Signed Skip and Judy Duke, 3315 Matthews Drive SW, Bremerton, WA 98312- dated August 12, 1998. "Subject: Comments in support of the proposed amendment of the Bremerton Shoreline Master Program to prohibit all piers and docks on the channel between Oyster and Ostrich Hays. A look at environmental and related consequence of piers and docks constructed in the channel. The present utilization of the Channel by the Washington public owners and their guests, defined over countless years of use and common practice, include, but are not limited to the following activities: walking and hiking along the shores, photography, sketching, and nature appredation in general, swimming, drifting in tubes, air mattresses, etc., maintaining customs - (i.e. New years Day Boats, First Water Skier of Season), canoeing, kayaking, wind sailing, Christmas Boat Parades, fishing from shore and boat (i.e. casting, drifting and trolling), sail boating - under sail, PWC's operations (Personal Water Craft), water skiing, gathering (i.e., Sea Cucumbers, TAPE #1560, #1561, #1562 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 12, 1998 Page 11 of 24 Clams, Mussels, Oysters, and other "treasures", power boating - from kids in 10 foot runabouts to 40 plus foot Cruisers. (Note: 172 varied water users passed a single line of reference on the Channel on 4 July 1997 during the hours between 4:14 and 5:15 PM). The present USERS of the Channel include, but are not limited to the following: toddlers, kids, teenagers, adults, dogs, water fowl (i.e. Geese, Ducks, Cormorants), Avian predators (i.e. Eagles, Osprey, Kingfisher, Hawks), varied Avians (i.e. song birds, shore birds, Crows, Seagulls), water mammals (i.e. Seals, Otters), fish and other aquatic users inhabitants (i.e. starfish, sea cucumbers, sea snails, barnacles), aquatic vegetation (The fascination of the seashore and its creatures probably antedates civilization). The present Channel's physical environment: highest known tide- 14.5 feet; lowest known tide - minus 4+ feet; least channel width at very Iow tide - less than 25 feet; strongest water current along channel 4+ knots; water temperatures: winter damned cold; summer pretty warm on the outgoing tide near the surface, pretty cold at depth, channel width: approximately 320 to 490 feet per West Bremerton USGS Quadrangle Map. Weather effect on the Channel: Normal winds are from the North (fair weather) and South (foul weather). High winds create a white capped chop in the deeper waters of the channel. Prevailing wind directions coupled with the narrowness of the channel present a challenge to transiting the length of the channel under sail. The impact of piers/docks-protruding into the channel would: Reduce or eliminate pedestrian access for beach walking. Reduce the effective/available free water channel width, and thereby: confine a mix of vessels of different size and speed to a narrow navigable channel. Eliminate or reduce channel use by vessels under sail. Eliminate water skiing from the channel by virtue of "clearance" requirements (see comments below). Eliminate Channel use by Kayaks during windy weather. Endanger all users of the remaining constricted channel, placing the smaller and less maneuverable craft and bathers at dsk from boat traffic with greater speed and mass, and less unobstructed visibility. Create .the probability of pollution from long term moorage at the piers/docks. Place additional survival pressures on all the non-human inhabitants and users of the Channel. Existing Public Rights in the Riparian World, The Public Trust Doctrine: The establishment of piers and docks the length and size envisioned constitutes a substantial interference with the significant pdvate and public right of navigation. The right of navigation involves not only commercial transportation upon navigable waters, but also includes the incidental rights of fishing, boating, swimming, water-skiing, and other related recreational purposes. This dght was recognized for Washington State as being a fundamental right. It applies to the area over which water flows, even though intermittently. It is recognized that in situations of naturally varying water level, the respective rights of the public and the owners of the property periodically submerged by water, are dependent upon the level of the water. As the level increases, the rights of the public to use the water increase, since the area of water increases proportionately. The rights of TAPE #1560, #1561, #1562 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 12, 1998 Page 12 of 24 the landowners decrease, since they cannot use their property in such manner as to interfere with the expanded public rights. This position is documented in Wilbour v. Galla.qher found in Washington Supreme Court Reports. In Summation: The Prohibition of ALL piers and docks in the channel should be swiftly enacted; and the Channel thus protected against future assaults. This action will reflect the reality of the rights and wishes of the General Public overriding the rights and wishes of a few individuals. This is Democracy in action; and reflects the existing case law of limitations placed on personal rights in consideration of protecting the rights of the community at large." Signed Jack & Alicia Lackman, 1714 Madrona Point Drive, Bremerton, WA 98312 - dated July 31, 1998. "Subject: Amending the Bremerton Shoreline Master Program to Prohibit Docks and Piers in the Channel Between Oyster and Ostdch Bay. Once upon a time we had Ordinance 4619 which had been crafted to implement citizen's petition, in essence, to do the same job that is now before you for the second time. During the period in which the original Ordinance was drafted, numerous citizens closely monitored the process, verifying that everything was stated and processed correctly. Those citizens working with the City Attorney and the Director of Community Development could find no fault with either content or processing during that ordinance creation, nor did CTED or the Department of Ecology. Early this year, relatively new and inexperienced City Hall employees saw fit not only to question administration support or license to enable them to throw out Ordinance 4619, predicated on their own list of processing irregularities. A citizen's fee paid appeal of this action was never presented for headng despite the citizen's contention that the alleged processing irregularities claimed were erroneous and superficial. There was no citizen's day in court; due process denied. Those new employees however were able to express their own philosophies, at various times before the Council, stating in effect that all of the work done by the citizens, the Planning Commission, the former City Attorney, the former Director of DCD, and the City Council- had been unnecessary because, as they claimed, the existing wording in the Bremerton Shoreline Master Program was considered by them to be adequate in justifying refusal of permits for Pier/Docks on the channel. VVhy this sudden change? Those same new employees, dudng their pillage of Ordinance 4619, did not even find it necessary or desirable to contact the former Bremerton City Attorney, who had piloted the ordinance through the birth process. Such contact would have enabled them to validate their hasty 'facts' and assumptions. So, now you members of the City Council are again being called upon to reinvent history. We are seemingly powerless to turn back the clock in order to provide fair hearing of the process which led to the demise of Ordinance 4619 - and so - ladies and gentlemen of the Council - I would strongly suggest that you NOW make absolutely certain, in this current effort - that all the Is are dotted, all theTs are TAPE #1560, #1561, #1562 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 12, 1998 Page 13 of 24 crossed, all of the documentation already sent to other state and local agencies has been accurate in both fact and intent; and that each and every nuance of the governing procedures and regulations are scrupulously followed and enforced. There is something out there - that does not want this ordinance; and it will surely insinuate itself into the smallest error or omission hidden in this current process to corrupt it and again stdp the common Citizens of their ability to be heard and make a difference in their communities." Signed George Miller, P.O. Box 788 Bremerton, WA 98337 (not dated). Judy Johnson, Building Official, stated in response to a statement made in one of the letters read into the record about her possibly being inexperienced and the person that was trying to overthrow Ordinance #4619. It was actually a staff member who has 21 years experience, who pointed out the errors of the previous process. This is the first time that this particular City Council will have heard this particular issue (note four new Council members were seated January 1, 1998). The issue was presented to the prior Council, and as mentioned Ordinance ~4619 was repealed in February 1998, due to procedural errors. The City opened up the process again in May 1998 with a Planning Commission Public Headng. VVhen the ordinance was repealed, it was stated the City wanted to address the issue in an appropriate manner giving everyone the opportunity to speak and come forward with what the City was attempting to do to clarify the Shorelines Master Program to cladfy what already existed in the SMP, which prohibited piers and docks in entrances to bays and channels. In May, the Planning Commission took public testimony and with Resolution #9801 asked staff to review and cladfy the Shoreline Master Program to prohibit piers and docks in the OystedOstdch Bays channel. The next step after the Planning Commission headng was to send that information to the Department of Community Trade and Economic Development, which is a requirement and a copy was forwarded to the Department of Ecology for their review; and the City notified other State agencies that might have an interest in the issue. The City received approval comments from Department of Community Trade and Economic Development and additional clarifying language from the Department of Ecology, which has been added to the proposal before the Council. Ms. Johnson referenced Table 3-5 showing the area of the channel with the highlighted parcels being subject to the Regulation #10, prohibiting docks and piers in the channel between Oyster and Ostrich Bays. The language under Regulation #9 states "Piers and Docks are prohibited on the channel between Ostrich Bay and Oyster Bay as depicted in Figure 3-5. The new language adds, "No piers or floating docks will be permitted in the channel between Ostrich and TAPE #1560, #15611-#1562 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 12, 1998 Page 14 of 24 Oyster Bays. In conclusion, she would be available to answer questions or provide information as needed by the Council or members of the public. President Fan' pointed out although there were four new members on the City Council; they were seated dudng the February 1998 Council action repealing Ordinance #-4619. Stan Everett, Madrona Point Drive, (Opponent) asked for a definition of a floating dock as opposed to a raft. He pointed out the Madrona Point Drive addresses of 1452, 1454, and 1436, which happens to be located between 1452 and 1450, are not in the channel. He does not want his property rights eroded. Gerry Paret, Marine Drive, (Proponent) handed out copies of color photographs showing the channel area from several locations, a map showing the varying widths of the channel, and a letter from Bremerton Fire Chief Allison Duke III, expressing his concern relating to the width of the channel and the possibility of a boat stdking one of the docks due to darkness, and limited access for the fire boat to reach that area if responding to an emergency situation, she also provided a list of many forms of life that are dependent upon "Mother Nature," that would be deprived if their life subsistence would be adversely impacted. Additional concerns are: safety, reduction of the scoudng effect which presently keeps the channel and bay navigable, aesthetics, and Public Trust doctrine. Chuck Salmon, Madrona Pt. Drive, (Opponent) expressed concern over excessive regulation of personal property use, penalizing property owners along the channel for the acts of a few that drive their boats through the channel at excessive speeds. A process exists to deal with requests for piers or docks that could be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. He asked who defined what the channel is. He protested the inclusion of his property and his neighbor to the south of his property in this action. If his is included, then he believed four additional properties on the north side of the exit of the channel on the Marine Drive side should be included. Susan Holland, South Marine Drive, (Proponent) voiced her concern that this issue has resulted in a fight among neighbors that started several years ago. Her main concerns were safety/navigation hazard, violation of the Public trust, views will be destroyed, and property values reduced and will make the waterfront less desirable and harder to sell. Joe Walsa, Madrona Point Drive, (Opponent) expressed his concern that he would be losing his rights to apply for a permit for a pier or dock and have it approved or disapproved, it has been his observation that boats do slow down then they travel in the channel. TAPE #1560, #1561 ,~1562 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 12, 1998 Page 15 of 24 Kathy Galla.clher, Madrona Point Drive, (Proponent), stated the basic issue is safety and the fact the channel has not been accident free. Enforcement of speed limits for watercraft is realistically impractical. She raised an issue of appearance of fairness and objectivity by Councilman Jim Reed to vote on this issue, based on the fact that he is a property owner on Madrona Point Ddve, and a former applicant to construct a dock. Glenna Malanca, City Attorney, explained this action was not a quasi-judicial hearing and Mr. Reed is qualified and it is appropriate for him to vote on this matter. Maynard Hoffman, South Marine Drive, (Proponent), commented that people's property rights are restricted in various ways, by a majority rule, that limit what one wants to do with their property. Paul Halverson, Bremerton resident, stated he believes Councilman Jim Reed has a conflict of interest in this matter and should excuse himself from considering the proposed ordinance. Mr. Reed previously applied for a permit to build a dock in the Oyster Bay channel and although he has withdrawn his original application, he intends to submit a new application according to statements attributed to him by Julie McCormick, a report for The Sun, in the May 9~ edition of the newspaper. Ms. Malanca stated for clarification that City Council members are entitled to have feelings, opinions, platforms, and some of those in no way come into conflict with the appearance of fairness nor the conflict of interest issues. Some Council members may have been elected on those opinions. City Council members represent their constituents on vadous issues. She believes the direct financial benefit that is required on a "conflict of interest~ doctrine would not be present in this matter. Mr. Reed stated to gain financial benefit from a dock would take an increased investment and the investment would then quantify its being. By removing the land use dghts it would remove the financial value, which is the opposite of the Public Trust doctrine. There are several citizens within his district that are opposed to banning docks and piers and if he stepped down who would represent their interest. Ernest Garcia, S. Marine Drive, (Opponent), stated he would not support a 150 ft. dock, but felt it would be appropriate for someone to have a 20-30 ft. dock since it would not present a safety hazard. He questioned how much more government intervention must the public expect. John Sitton, South Madne Drive, (Proponent), stated times have changed and all environmental issues deal with the root cause that there are too many people. He believes we have to talk about individual's rights and compromises need to be made for the benefit of the community. TAPE #1560, #1561 ~ #1562 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 12, 1998 Page 16 of 24 Linda McClulland, Madrona Point Drive, (Opponent) emphasized there would not be a navigational hazard if docks or piers were built. She does not want her property dght taken away. She did not believe the figures on the map presented were correct. Tim Olson, Rocky Point Rd., (Proponent), asked the City Council for assurance from the Department of Community Development and the City's Legal staff that all procedures had been followed propedy and that all time lines were met. Don HolE, Madrona Point Drive, (Opponent), referenced a Real Estate Property Disclosure form that was previously provided to the Council members, and noted one question: "Are there any covenants, conditions or restrictions that will affect the property? It needs to be known that all 61 property owners that are affected by this ban must state or check the box "yes" on that form and must pass on to any new potential purchaser the ban of docks or piers. It is out of the ordinary to have a ban on docks on the waterfront. On the issue of compromise, he does not view going from the possibility of a 150-ft. dock a year ago to "0" is a compromise. He believes Oyster Bay has been singled out and that Mud Bay is much narrower with numerous docks, but has not even been brought up in this discussion. Melinda Halverson, Bremerton resident, (Proponent), asked if it is determined later that Mr. Reed does have a conflict of interest, what happens to the whole process, i.e. is it derailed, grounds for challenge by either side, or must it all be started over. President Farr stated that issue had been addressed by the City Attorney at previous discussions and dudng this discussion. Elizabeth Buell, Bremerton resident, (Proponent), stated her opposition to allowing docks and piers based on the issue of safety. She also felt Mr. Reed should step down from voting on this issue. Cindy .Delma, South Marine Drive, (Proponent), expressed her concern over the safety of people using the beach and channel. Joel Baxter, Madrona Point Drive, (Opponent), expressed concern over the way people have been polarized over this issue. He believes there is a reasonable area of compromise somewhere in this issue that is neither against nor for. Bernard Holland, South Marine Drive, (Proponent), stated he believed an "appearance of faimess" has been compromised by Mr. Reed. In the Department of Community Development packet it states that within the channel the existence of two small docks, one grandfathered and one built under an exemption, however, no exemption or City permit was applied for to build that TAPE #1560, #1561, #1562 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 12, 1998 Page 17 of 24 dock. It appears that the Councilman has been granted preferential treatment with an exemption retroactively. To construct on or over the public's property is a privilege, not a right. The proposed ordinance is not about property rights, but changing an environmental designation, a designation needed to prevent inappropriate construction in a narrow constricted area, much the same as zoning to prohibit commercial buildings in a residential areas. So should piers and docks within Oyster Bay and Ostrich Bay Channel be zoned inappropriate? The City of Bremerton, exclusive of tide lands, is a shoreline of statewide significance, which means that waterway belongs to everyone within this state, not just the residents of Madrona Point Drive and Madne Drive. He emphasized the SMP states that any decision should result in long term over short-term benefit. Richard Wright, Poulsbo resident, (Proponent), emphasized the fact the State of Washington has mandated that unique parcels be construed as unique parcels and the channel is a unique parcel. It is the narrowest body of water that enters into a bay within the State. The question deals with what the facts are regarding the subject channel, the laws as written, and the amendment as written to shore up the law more than what it already identifies. Ms. Johnson made the following responses to the questions or issues raised by the public: (1) Mr. Everett's question - definition of a "float" - The Shoreline Master Plan (page 529) states "A floating dock is a platform built over the water attached to the shore or a fixed pier by a loosely coupled ramp intended for use as a loading place for marine transport or recreational purposes. A recreational float is an anchored floating platform for water dependent recreational activities, such as swimming, and divinq." Mr. Everett also questioned as to the language whether a floating dock was a recreational float. She did not believe that was what the proposed ordinance was alluding to. (2) Mr. Salmon's question - on the inclusion of property at a perpendicular line on Madne Ddve down south of Madrona Point Drive. Ms. Johnson used a location map to clarify the location of specific properties. (3) Question - who defined the "channel" - That was defined on August 6, 1997, when the moratorium first came into effect. At that time, the former Director of Community Development Donald Pratt stated these will be the properties in question based on information from plat maps that they were the most applicable to the ordinance. Staff could support not including those properties that were not perpendicular to the bottom of the channel, including Mr. Green's property; however, that action would have to come from the City Council as a modification to what is being proposed. (4) Question - where will it all end? - Ms. Johnson could not predict the final outcome. (5) Question - the appearance of fairness issue regarding Mr. Reed -which had already been addressed by the City Attorney. (6) Linda McClulland's question - navigational hazards at Iow tide, property rights, map origins. The map included in the TAPE #1560, #1561 ,~1562 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 12, 1998 Page 18 of 24 Agenda Packet was from the NOAH (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Department of Commerce, and was taken at a mean ~ower Iow water tide and the soundings were in feet and the 1983 North American Datum World Geodetic System 1984. (7) Mr. Olson's question - did the City follow the procedures and policies - Ms. Johnson expressed her assurance that every procedure and policy has been checked and rechecked, followed through and the notices met all requirements, not only the WAC requirements, but the Shoreline Master Plan requirements, the R.C.Ws, B.M.Cs, etc., and the City is in strict compliance with the requirements for the amendment of the Shoreline Master Plan. (8) Question - reasonable area of compromise - that was the intent of the Planning Commission's public hearing process and notification process. (9) Several legal questions were raised, which were responded to by the City Attorney. (10) A member of the audience asked about the "exemption" granted on the two docks. Ms. Johnson explained she was not working for the City at the time those cases were processed; however, her research revealed that the State of Washington allows a $2,500.00 exception from permit requirements. It is a State allowance that was adopted by the City; however, it does not exempt anyone from the rules of the Shoreline Master Plan, only from the substantial development permit requirements. However, it appears that exemption was given as if it did not have to comply with all of the SMP rules. Since the staff members that made that decision are no longer available, she could not give an exact reason why that happened. Ms, Malanca .pointed out to the Council that their options are to adopt, reject or modify the proposal. President Fart stated he has consistently voted against prohibition of docks and piers. He believes it is dangerous to set a precedent and that the issue of safety can be abated through enforcement of the law. He believes people are being penalized on the shore because of actions by a few people in the water. Without the safety issue, one of the most frequently heard issues was the aesethetic value and he believed it could spread to any shoreline within the City. If this ordinance is passed and it passes through the Department of Ecology, which he doubted, there will be other groups of people living on the shoreline that will want to prohibit their neighbors from erecting docks; and if they are refused they'll come back and point out the action taken by the Council addressing channel between Oyster and Ostrich Bays. He believes the system has failed and that there must be a compromise. Just because he was opposed to the prohibition of docks, it does not mean that he wants to see that channel choked with docks. He supports prohibiting docks that intrude on navigational waters. He believes the total ban of docks and piers is grossly unfair and unnecessary and if he were a property owner and his right to build was taken away he would be enraged and would probably seek legal recourse to rectify it. He urged his fellow Council members to find some way to reach a compromise. TAPE ¢1560, ¢1561 ,~1562 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 12, 1998 Page 19 of 24 Mr. Overson stated taking the opposing view; Council has received important and significant input demonstrating that the majority of the people support badng the installation of piers and docks. He believes the action before Council is clarifying the ultimate intent of the SMP. People are already limited with what they can do with their own property based on their location, other people's interests, ecology, etc.; therefore we should appreciate what can be done with one's property. Mr. Olsen stated he disagreed with President Fares position, and he believed no one has any more rights than he has. His mother lived on waterfront over 45 years and her rights had been slowly taken away, i.e. bulkheads could not be built where desired, etc. Just because someone purchases waterfront does not mean they are privileged. As an owner of a building in downtown Bremerton with a machine shop, he could not locate another shop on that same site today, even if the current facility was destroyed by fire, because the City decided that it was to be rezoned. Because of the City's action, he believes he lost value in that property. He asked Ms. Johnson when the SMP Use Policy and Regulation ¢10 were implemented. Ms. Johnson explained Item ¢10 language was in the originally adopted Shoreline Master Plan in 1977. The underlined addition is just prohibiting pierS and docks in the Oyster/Ostrich Bays channel. Mr. Olsen stated he did not see that anything was being changed, just a point of clarification. He was very disappointed in the way that people have treated one another over this issue, and anyone should have the right to say whether or not they want a dock someday and not be ridiculed by someone else with an opposing opinion. Mr. McConnell stated he hoped the action before the City Council would set a precedent, not only for future Councils but also for State Legislators, and County Commissioners to protect unique areas that service the entire population. Any restriction has to have certain limits. He did not think a reasonable compromise would allow any piers or docks in the subject channel. He also disagreed with the concept that adjacent properties had property rights on navigable water, they belong to everyone within the United States. Mr. Reed asked Ms. Johnson to explain what was unclear about Regulation ¢10. Ms. Johnson stated she could not explain what that unclarity might be to Mr. Reed, but she believed the addition of the words "in the Oyster/Ostrich Bays channel gave clarity to that particular statement because persons may interpret the entrance as only the northern most parcel or the southern most parcel and not necessarily looking at the channel as an entrance into Oyster or Ostrich Bays. Mr. Reed challenged that it defines bays, channels, and coves as specific to each of their defined characteristics. He stated for the record that it seemed obviously clear what the document is intended to do. Ms. Johnson stated navigational hazards were addressed and the original intent of the Planning TAPE #1560, #1561 ,-~1562 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 12, 1998 Page 20 of 24 Commission creation of why it was necessary to prohibit piers and docks in the channel was that it could be a cumulative affect of navigational hazards. They were looking how piers and docks are allowed in the SMP, which is to the 5-ft. and would project out to 150-ft. + or - out into the channel. Mr. Reed stated they were basing their intent to alter the SMP as it stands, not to cladfy it so that no navigational hazards could be placed in the channel based on the cumulative effect. Ms. Johnson stated she could not speak to the intent of the Planning Commission and was just trying to clarify what she understood their intent to be. Mr. Reed asked why is this issue being addressed - who asked the City (DCD) to initiate such a proposal, and where is the documentation that would support such an initiation. He referenced the issue of retrofitting apartment buildings with sprinklers and the fact there is extensive documentation, even deaths that would quantify the necessity for such action. He asked where is the supporting documentation that would identify who initiated this issue and if there is none, who personally asked that this issue be initiated. Ms. Johnson stated she was not part of the original initiation of this particular language change to the SMP that was handled by Mr. Pratt, Director of the Department of Community Development. She was aware that there were a number of questions and issues raised that go back past 1996 regarding persons who were concerned about potential hazards to navigation, aesthetic values, environmental impacts, and other issues that were brought to the Director's attention. VVhen that particular subject was broached to the Planning Commission, it was agreed at that time that a full review was needed. In 1997, following several public headngs and written testimony, it appeared there were issues that needed to be addressed and was used by the Planning Commission to make language changes. As to an exact person or issue, she believed it was an accumulation of a number of people bringing it to the Director's attention that it was an area of concern. Mr. Reed asked if Ms. Johnson was aware of any information on file as to navigational imparity to such a proposed structure in the channel. Ms. Johnson reported she had several conversations with the Department of Ecology, Army Corps of Engineers, Harbor Masters, and various knowledgeable people on issues of navigation hazards. From those conversations, came a wide range of definitions for what would be considered a navigational hazard. One definition was "that a natural hazard is present in any body of water such as currents, unseen obstacles, etc.," all of which are navigational hazards. It is the degree, magnitude, and type of hazard created by a dock, and depending on a whole wide variety of factors that could lead to the specific issue being discussed at this time. Mr. Reed stated based on that broad possibility of "maybe" we are proposing to remove property rights from 62 homeowners. Ms. Johnson stated her understanding and interpretation of a "taking" is when the government appropriates land for its own use or regulates land so that it has no use to the owner. Banning piers and docks does not deprive the owner all the use of their land so does not qualify as a "taking". There is no dght to have a dock; a TAPE #1560, #1561 ,-~1562 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 12, 1998 Page 21 of 24 property owner may do whatever does not violate the land use stipulations imposed by local government. Those regulations, in turn, must be reasonable. A local government may prohibit certain uses or structures when it is convinced the prohibition is related to the health, safety, and welfare of the public, and it has certain duties to protect the shoreline under the Shoreline Master Plan. The issue of having the right to have a dock is a big issue, it just doesn't appear one would have the dght if it impedes on the health, safety or welfare of the general public. Mr. Reed asked if there was proof that one would impede the health, safety, and welfare of the public. Ms. Johnson stated no. Mr, Reed asked if the SMP applied to every platted waterfront piece of property in the City as well as a manual ~,ery relative to and crafted with the same RCWs apply to every piece of platted waterfront in the State of Washington. Ms. Johnson stated she could not speak to every platted piece of property in the State of Washington. However, there are different regulations and requirements for different bodies of water inside the City of Bremerton. Each specific body of water has been called out and noted inside the SMP for its specific issues relative to that particular body of land as it adjoins the body of water. Mr. Reed pointed out the State mandated the RCW to the City of Bremerton that by 1977 they would take the guidelines of the Shoreline Management Act of 1971 and craft a Shorelines Masters Program, thereby implying that you cannot impose less than the allowing documentation in this matter. Ms. Johnson agreed that the basic guidelines were mandated by the State that each jurisdiction that had authority would write their own rules and regulations. It also allows for an amendment process. Mr. Reed acknowledged there is a process for altering the SMP, but once it has been proposed to the State and it has been accepted, you have to provide development rights according to the SMP to every platted piece of property in the City of Bremerton. Now, the City is going through the amendment process, according to the rules and .the RCW to remove existing water dependent construction development rights with no criteria or supporting documentation or any proof whatsoever that the SMP has failed as written. Ms. Johnson stated she did not believe one could draw that conclusion based on the way Mr. Reed phrased his question. What she believes has happened is that additional information has come to light that says additional clarification is needed to this specific area of the SMP. M.r. McOonnell called for a "Point Of Order' that Mr. Reed's discussion with Ms. Johnson concerning RCWs was not germane to the proposed issue. President Fart acknowledged the public was given approximately two hours of testimony and that Mr. Reed had the same right to ask his questions. Mr. Reed stated he hoped he made it clear to Mr. Olsen that this document does reflect the development rights to every platted piece of waterfront in the City. Mrs. Buell made a statement to the effect about "what if." He found it difficult to legislate and to remove existing water dependent construction rights on homeowners on "what if." TAPE #1560, #1561 ;~1562 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 12, 1998 Page 22 of 24 TAPE #1562 Mr. Reed did not believe that the pictures provided by Mrs. Peret were a good representation of the entirety of the conditions that exist. The maps supplied in both the City's documentation and Mrs. Peret's documentation were taken from aerial photographs and were taken for reference only, not navigational or survey issues. As a Councilman, he was disturbed that the City had on file a survey conducted by Parametrix, Inc., who the City widely employees for hundreds of thousands of dollars annually, and the owner was recently appointed to the Bremerton Housing Authority. Lastly, Ms. Johnson stated that the action was to clarify an existing limitation on docks and piers. He pointed out the only disallowance for docks and piers anywhere is either a hazard to navigation or a significant hazard to navigation. The amendment is not clarifying that issue since it is already clear. The amendment would add another use regulation restriction, then there would be three: (1) navigation, (2) significant navigation, (3) no docks due to the fact that it is in this body of water. Mr. Shepherd related recently he and his wife made a personal inspection of the subject channel via kayak and at no time were they concerned of their safety even though several boats traversed the channel at the same time. He was concerned about how neighbors have disagreed over this issue and the fact that they have not worked out their issues in a reasonable manner. Instead, it appears they used City staff, the Planning Commission, and hearings to try to reach a resolution. He believes the process is fundamentally flawed because there has not been a cooperative effort by the neighbors to come up with a responsible mechanism for using the channel. He also believes that the map showing the properties included under this restriction was also flawed. #0234 MISIF(ShepherdlReed) Motion to take this issue for a 6-month pedod and that it be remanded back to the neighborhood, who could, form an association, negotiate, and correct these deficiencies. Vote on motion: Motion failed. In Favor: Opposed: Shepherd, Farr, Reed Arends, Montgomery, Olsen, McConnell, Law, Overson #025? M/S/C(Overson/Montgomery) Motion to approve ordinance (first reading) amending the City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program, adopted by Ordinance 4365, to restdct docks and piers in the channel between Oyster Bay and Ostrich Bay. TAPE #1560, #1561, #1562 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 12, 1998 Page 23 of 24 Mr. Montaornerv pointed out Council's action on this item is a change, and there isn't anyone who hasn't had their property rights taken away from them because they are not permitted to build wherever they want. Mr. Law stated as a reminder to City Council members and members of the public, Ms. Johnson represents the Planning Commission and it was their recommendation that this was forwarded to the City Council. As she is asked questions relating to this issue, she answered them as a representative of the Commission, not on a personal basis. He acknowledged that there may be a couple of lots that may need to be reviewed to determine whether or not they should be included; however, he did not believe that action should be taken during this discussion. President Fart asked if Mr. Law was directing staff to look at those and bring that issue back to the City Council. Mr. Law stated that would be appropriate. Ms. Malanca stated in regard to the issue of properties included in the map relating to the most southerly three-properties on the west and the southerly portion of what is called the Green property on the east side, two sentences ..."Piers and Docks will not be permitted in the event they may significantly impair navigation" and" that piers and docks are to be prohibited in the channel" would conflict. If Council waits to deal with that issue then they would have to go through the entire amendment process. Council has the ability, at this time, to adopt, modify, or reject this proposal. Council could ask that this issue be reviewed by staff between first and second reading of the ordinance. President Farr asked if the maker of the motion wished to add that "staff review" prior second reading of the ordinance. Mr. Overson stated yes. He viewed Figure 3- 5 is probably the contentious document, Restriction #10 needs to be focused, and the 3-5 figure modified. Mr. Montgomery, having seconded that motion also agreed to the addition of a "staff review." He asked Ms. Malanca if she saw any thing else that needed to be corrected at this time. Ms. Malanca stated she had reviewed the materials presented for Council's review and she concurs with representations of all of them. Vote on motion: Motion carried. In Favor: Opposed: Arends, Montgomery, Olsen, McConnell, Law, Overson, and Shepherd Farr, Reed TAPE #1560, #1561 ,"~1562 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 12, 1998 Page 24 of 24 With no further business meeting adjourned at 8:58 P.M. PAULA JOHNSTON, Deputy City Clerk DAVID FARR, City Council President City of Bremerton P J/DF/me C: Normal Distribution FileNault AGENDA BILL BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL 1. SUBJECT: FOR AGENDA OF: August 26, 1998 Puget Sound Energy Easements ORIGINATING DEPT: Public Works & Utilities ORIGINATOR: \FL. Fowler, Eng Tech IIf~ DATE SUBMITTED:\ August 17, 1998 2. CI,EARANCES: (Commenton back~c~)~ 3. E~H-I~ITS.' Director PW&U ~-~- ~ .~ · Proposed Easements (2) City Attorney (_~' )~,,//t~~----~-~- ~, · Drawings of Area(2) City Treasurer ~y~ ~. ~ Operations Committee Fiscal & Budget Coma "'~-~v~, .... ~- ' n~ d'o~rJ'e',~ 'F /4 2)~.~/ ENI~)RSEMENT ~K INFORMATION APPROVED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FOR SUBMITTAL: COUNCH~ PRESIDENT 4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION: Puget Sound Energy has a transmission main and an anchor line that runs over the property north of the WWTP which has been surplused by the Council. They are asking for easements on this property for maintenance of the transmission main and the anchored overhead line. Puget Sound Energy has offered to pay $2,370.00 for these easemems. 8. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the easemem as written and authorize the Mayor to sign. 9. RESPONSIBI,E OFFICIAL: ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: EXPIRATION DATE: REVIEW DATE: PUIJ,EI~ TABI,EI~ COUNOL DIRECTIVE: 10. NOTICE OF ACTION APPROVED DISAPPROVED AMENDED DATE: ll. AGENDA BIIJ, NO: q~- / ~8 2. CI~E~aRANCE COMMENTS: - 5. IMPACT ON NON-PASSAGE: Puget Sound Energy will lose ability to maintain this transmission main and this could impact adversely during inclement weather. 6. IMPACT ON STAFFING, BUDGETS, FACII,1TIES~ EQUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCES: NONE 7. RESFAsRCH SOURCES: {~70122_1 .ab} FILED FOR RECORD AT REr''' lEST OF: PUGET SOUND ENERGY _. 6522 Kitsap Way Bremerton, WA 98312 EASEMENT REFERENCE #: 9754061 GRANTOR: CITY OF BREMERTON GRANTEE:. PUGET SOUND ENERGY, INC. SHORT LEGAL: SW 22-24-1E ASSESSOR'S PROPERTY TAX PARCEL: 4502-025-028-0000, 4502-025-029-0009, 4502-025-031-0005, 4502-025-032-0004, 4502-025-034-0002 For and in consideration of One Dollar ($1.00) and other valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, CITY OF BREMERTON, a municipal corporation, ('Grantor" herein), hereby grants, conveys and warrants to PUGET SOUND ENERGY, INC., a Washington Corporation ("Grantee" herein), for the purposes hereinafter set fodh, a perpetual easement over, across and under the following described real property (the "Property" herein) in KITSAP COUNTY, Washington: THAT PORTION OF VACATED "D" STREET WHICH WOULD ATTACH BY OPERATION OF LAW TO LOTS 28 THROUGH 34, ALL IN BLOCK 25, BREMERTON HEIGHTS, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT RECORDED IN VOLUME 3 OF PLATS, PAGE 4'1, RECORDS OF KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SITUATE IN THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER, SECTION 22, TOWNSHIP 24 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST. Except as may be otherwise set forth herein Grantee's rights shall be exercised upon that portion of the Properly (the "Easement Area" herein) described as follows: THE NORTH TEN (10) FEET OF THE WEST 210 FEET OF VACATED PORTION "D" STREET. 1. Purpose. Grantee shall have the right to construct, maintain, repair, replace, improve, remove, enlarge and use guy wires, anchor poles and anchors over, on and / or under the Easement Area together with all necessary or convenient appurtenances thereto. 2. Access. Grantee shall have the dght of access to the Easement Area over and across the Property to enable Grantee to exercise its rights hereunder, provided, that Grantee shall compensate Grantor for any damage to the Property caused by the exercise of said dght of access. 3. Grantor's Use of Easement Area. Grantor reserves the fight to use the Easement Area for any purpose not inconsistent with the rights herein granted, provided, that Grantor shall not construct or maintain any building or other structure on the Easement Area and Grantor shall do no blasting within 300 feet of Grantee's facilities without Grantee's pdor written consent. 4. Successors and Assigns. Grantee shall have the dght to assign, apportion or otherwise transfer any or all of its fights, benefits, privileges and interests adsing in and under this easement. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the rights and obligations of the parties shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon their respective successors and assigns. DATED this day of ,1998. GRANTOR: CITY OF BREMERTON, a municipal corporation, BY: ATTEST: BY: STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ' ) SS COUNTY OF ) On this day personally appeared before me to me known to be the MAYOR of CITY OF BREMERTON, a municipal corporation,, the corporation that executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said corporation, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that they authorized to execute the said instrument. GIVEN under my hand and official seal this day of 1998. Notary Seal Here Pdnt Name: Notary Public in and for the State of Washington Residing at My appointment expires FILED FOR RECORD AT REQUEST OF: Puget Sound Energy Real Estate Department - 6522 Kitsap Way Bremerton, WA 98312 PUGET ~ SOUND ENERGY EASEMENT REFERENCE #: GRANTOR: CITY OF BREMERTON GRANTEE: PUGET SOUND ENERGY, INC. SHORT LEGAL: SW 22-24-1E ASSESSOR'S PROPERTY TAX PARCEL: 4502 020 009 0004, 4502 020 007 0006, 4502 020 003 0000, 4502 020 001 0002 For and in consideration of One Dollar ($1.00) and other valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, CITY OF BREMERTON, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ("Grantor" heroin), hereby conveys and warrants to PUGET SOUND ENERGY, a Washington Corporation ("Grantee" herein), for the purposes heroinafter set forth; a perpetual easement over, under, along, across and through the following described real property (the "Property" heroin) in KITSAP COUNTY, Washington: LOTS I THROUGH 8, THAT PORTION OF LOTS 9 AND 10 LYING WESTERLY OF A LINE DRAWN PARALLEL WITH AND 90 FEET WESTERLY THEREFROM WHEN MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES AND/OR RADIALLY FROM THE DC-2 LINE OF SR 3 MP 35.84 TO MP 36.76 SINCLAIR INLET TO ARSENAL WAY, AND LOTS 26 AND 27, , EXCEPT THAT PORTION THEREOF DESCRIBED IN DECLARATION OF TAKING USA RECORDED UNDER AUDITOR FILE NO. 363591 AND EXCEPT THAT PORTION THEREOF CONVEYED TO THE STATE OF WASHINGTON BY INSTRUMENT RECORDED UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NO.. 1009169 ALL IN BLOCK 20, BREMERTON HEIGHTS, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT RECORDED IN VOLUME 3 OF PLATS, PAGE 41, RECORDS OF KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON; AND THAT PORTION OF VACATED "H" STREET WHICH WOULD ATTACHED BY OPERATION OF LAW TO SAID PARCELS. Except as may be otherwise set forth herein Grantee's rights shall be exercised upon that portion of the Property (the "Easement Area" herein) described as follows: d_'cc"_fi~_'c~ :--. THE NORTH TWENTY (20) FEET OF SAID LOTS AND THE SOUTH THIRTY (30) FEET OF VACATED PORTION OF "H" STREET. 1. Purpose. Grantee shall have the right to construct, operate, maintain, repair, replace, improve, remove, enlarge and use one or more electric transmission and/or distribution systems over and/or under the Easement Area, together with all necessary or convenient appurtenances thereto, which may include but are not limited to the following: bo Overhead facilities. Poles and/or towers with crossarms, braces, guys and anchors; electdc transmission and distribution lines; fiber optic cable, communication and signal lines; transformers and street lights. Underground facilities. Underground conduits, cables, vaults, manholes, switches and transformers; semi-buried or ground mounted facilities such as pads, transformers and switches; fiber optic cable, communication and signal lines. ~ / Following the initial construction of all or a portion of its systems, Grantee may, from time to time, construct such additional facilities as it may require for its systems. 2. Acces;. Grantee shall have the dght of access to the Easement Area over and across the Property to enable Grantee to exemise its dghts hereunder. Grantee shall repair or reasonably compensate Grantor for any damage to the Property, including damage to roads, crops, driveways and fences caused by the exercise of such dght of access. 3, Easement Aras Clearing and Malnteaanee. Grantee shall have the dght to cut, remove and dispose of any and all brash, trees and other vegetation presently existing upon the Easement Area. Grantee shall also have the dght to conlrol, on a continuing basis end by any prudent and reasonable means, the establishment and growth of bush, trees and other vegetation upon the Easement Area which could, in the opinion of Grantee, interfere with the exemise of Grantee's dghts herein or create a hazard to Grantee's systems. 4. Trees Outside Easement Area. Grantee shall have the dght to cut, trim, remove and dispose of any trees located on the Property outside the Easement Area which could, in Grantee's sole judgment, interfere with or create a hazard to Grantee's systems, Grantee shall, pfior to the exemise of such fight, identify such trees and make a reasonable effort to give Grantor prior notice that such trees will be cut, trimmed, removed or disposed of (except that Grantee shall have no obligation to identify such trees or give Grantor such pdor notice when trees are cut, tdmmed, removed or otherwise disposed of in response to emergency conditions). Grantor shall be entitled to no compensation for trees cut, trimmed, removed or disposed of except for the actual market value of merchantable timber (if any) cut and removed from the Preperfy by Grantee. $. Grantor's Use of Easement Area. Grantor reserves the right to use the Easement Area for any purpose not inconsistent with the rights herein granted, provided, that Grantor shall not construct or maintain any building, structure or other object on the Easement Area, and Grantor shall do no blasting within 300 feet of Grantee's systems without Grantee's pdor written consent. 6. )n~temnlty. Gran~ee agrees to indemnify Granlor ~rem and against ~3bj.lify incurred by Grantor as a resu~! of Grantee's negligence in the exercise of the fights herein granted to Grantee, but nothing herein shall require Grantee to indemnify Grantor for that po~on of any such liability attributable to the negligence of Grantor or the negligence of others. 7. Abandonment. The fights herein granted shall continue until such time as Grantee ceases to use the Easement Ama for a period of five (5) successive years, in which event this easement shall temfinate and all rights hereunder shall revert to Grantor, provided, that no abandonment shall be deemed to have occurred by reason of Grantee's failure to initially install its systems on the Easement Area within any period of time from the date hereof. 8. Successors and Assigns. Grantee shall have the fight to assign, apportion or otherwise transfer any or all of Its rights, benefits, privileges and interests arising in and under this easement. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the fights and obligations of the parties shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon their respective successors and assigns. Dated this day of ,19 __ GRANTOR: BY: CITY OF BREMERTON ATTEST: BY: STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) COUNTY OF ) SS On this day of ,19. , before me the undersigned, a notary public in and for the State of Washington, duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared to me known to be the of CITY OF BREMERTON, the Municipal Corporation that executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged the same to be the free and voluntar7 act and deed of said municipal corporation, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that is authorized to execute the said instrument. Witness my hand and official seal hereto affixed the day and year In this certificate above written. Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, Residing at My commission expires CI1-Y PROF;EtR'1'Y '1'0 BE SUt~F)LUSED 9 tf' RECEIVED FROM 3604785818 AGENDA BILL BREMERTON CLTY COUNCIL StUS CT'# Zg& Resolution Amending the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee to include Establishing Criteria for Applicants FOR AGENDA OF: August 26, 1998 ORIGINATING DEPT: Legal _~/ i - ORIGINATOR: Glenna Malanca,~,''/~ City Attorney D/%TE SUBMZTTED: August 19, 1998 2. CLEARANCES: ¢Co_mment on back if necessary) 3. EXHIBITS: Resolution No. Council Study Sessions (JOUNC t L tOMMtTTEES g C//,/ ENDORSEMENT ~ TION [ ] INFO,MA APPROVED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENff.~ FOR SUBMITTAL: 4. ~. ~TAT~MEN~ AN~ 9~.QUIgW.~_.NT FOR ~ ACTION The attached Resolution repeals Resolution #2663 by establishing criteria for applicants requesting Hotel/Motel Lodging Tax funds. The Lodging Tax Committee is recommending the inclusion of these criteria to ensure that the City Council is p~ovi~ed necessary informatio~ pmiom to dist~ibutio~ of Tax funds. The Committee also believes that the suggested information will enable the CiEy Council to more effectively direct the use of the Tax funds to meet the City Council's objectives. This-ne~st includes app=oval of the attached pmocedur, es ior applications and the review process for the Committee and City Council. 8. RECOMMENDATION: Recorx/ Motion: pp ove J _&K establishi ng criteria for appLLcants. Appmove Pnocedume as &ttaahed f~r ap?]4catiQ~ and ne=iew pmocess of Hotel/Motel Tax Revenues. 9. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: EXPIRATION DATE: REVIEW DATE: 10. NOTICE OF ACTION PULLE~ [] TABLEI1 [] ARRRGVED [1 ULSAP_RRO~D. [] AMENDE/3 [] DAT~ COUNCIL DIRECTIVE: 2. CLEARANCE COMMENTS: 5. IMPACT OF NON-PASSAGE: Less information a~ailable to City Council at T_he time of decision. 6. IMPACT ON STAFFING, BUDGETS, FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCES: None. 7. RESEARCH SOURCES: ADVISORY1.AB - Agenda Disk - 8/18/98 /! A RESOLUTION of the City Council of Bremerton, repealing Resolution No. 2663 in its entirety and creatinga new resolution to establish a Lodging Tax Advisory Committee, appointing members thereto and setting criteria for application and review by City Council and the.Committee. WI-1-E. REAS, the City of Bremerton curremly levies a lodging tax purvjant, to Chapter 67.28 RCW; and WlqF,~, the State Le~slature passed SSB 5867, enacted as Chapter 452, Laws of 1997, which modified or repealed some previous lodging tax authority, but also added new lodging tax authority; and WI--IF. REAS, SSB 5867 required that, in cities with a population over 5,000. any new imposition of a lodging tax enacted under Chapter 67.28 RCW be first submitted for consideration to a lodging tax advisory committee not less than 45 days in advance of final action on the lodging tax by the City; and WI-tF.~,.SSB 5867 was effective on July 27, 1997; and WHEREAS, SSB 5867 replaced the current lodging tax authority with a new statutory sdaeme;and WI-~.~, to insure continued authorization for the imposition of the lodging tax, the City created a Lodging Tax Advisory Committee by Resolution No. 2626; now, therefore BE IT RESOLVEI) BY Tl~. BRE~ERTON CITY COUNCIL TIIAT Section 1. The membership of the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee shall continue to consist of at least five members appointedby the City Council_ Inthe event a member becomes incapacitated or is otherwise unable to serve, the member's organization may appoint a designee to serve in the member's stead until the City Council appoints a new member_ One memher shall be an elected official of the City who shall serve as chair, two members shall be representatives of businesses required to collect the tax, and two members shall be persons involved in activities authorized to be funded by revenue received fi.om the tax. The City Council will review the membership on an annual basis and make challges as appropriate. Section 2_ Specific individuals were initially appointed to serve as members of the City of Bremerton Lodging Tax Advisory Committee. The City Council has determined that specific individuals in addition to designated entities and positions allow for appropriate representation and necessary flexibility for change. The following representation is appointed to the Bremerton Lodging Tax Advisory Committee: ADVtSC~Y1.RES - R~solutior~ -- ~/~2/98 Bremerton Lodging Tax Advisory Committee Membership Category Aooointee Elected Official of the City: Carol Arends City Council Member Representatives of businesses required to collect the tax'_ Yong_Kang Owner/General Manager Oyster Bay Inn Rowena Jongeward Co-Manager Midway Inn Renee Kehl President Kjt~ap Lodging_Association Persons involved in activities authorized to be funded: Grant Griffin Executive Director Vi.4tnr & Convention_Bureau Wayne Junge Executive Director Bremerton Area Chamber of Commerce Russell Nickerson Board Member Bremerton Naval Museum Section 3. The following criteria must be met~ually and included in applications by all appli~mta arid recipients or ally_ use, or fli.qh~rmement.q~ 6fflxe I~td/MotetLo~axfunds and any reserve created with Tax funds: A_ Maintain and l~resent a Business Plan to the CiW Council. The Plan must include an itemized annual budget with line items indicating where and how Tax funds willbe expended to enhance the tourism trade within the City_ of Bremerton. All of the requesting organization's sources of income shall also be reflected in the budget, and shall be given weight during the reviewing pr~ocess. B. The Business Plan_shall_also include an on-going action plan to collect funds by ch01-, ging admission, advertisement sales, grants, organizational memberships, private donations, or ADVISORY1.RES - Resolution - 8/12/98 other means that would contribute to the increasing independence of the requesting organization. C. Any statutorily required proposal fi.om the City Council to the Committee shall be dated and submitted in writing. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Bremerton this __ day of__,1998. DAVID-D. FARR Council President ~DVIBORY1.RE$ - Reao%utior~- 8/~2198 HOTEL, MOTEL LODGING TAX APPLICATION AND RE_VIEW PR.OCEJ3URES The following procedures have been approved by the Bremerton City Council in its effort to establish a fair and expediem process to evaluate the potential recipients of Hotel/Motel Tax funds. All applications shall be submitted to the City Clerk's Office, 239 - 4th Street, Bremerton, Washington 98337, no later than August 15 of the calendar year preceding distribution. C~g 2000, tke Ci,3' ~;-wdg~e prgzz,:::ing ~ ,~ AlL applications shall be submitted on the City's Application form, and be signed by an authorized representative of the Applicant. 2. Within ten (10) days after the deadline for submission of applications, the Lodging Tax committee will be provided all information submitted by the applicants for review. Ear purposes of RCW 67.28.1815~ the current year's allocations of the fund will be considered to be the City Council's proposal to the Committee. The.Lod~n~Tax Committee_ shall submit its recommendation to the City Council for distribution or use of Hotel/Motel Tax funds no later than October 20. A copy vdll_immediateAy be providedto the Mayor. The Committee's comments shall include an analysis of the extent to which the applieant.q will accommodate activities for tourist or increase touri.qm and the extent to which the proposal will affect the long term stability of the Hotel/Motel Tax_ limck The Committee may make recommendations for the use of the Hotel/Motel Tax revenue. Any false statement made hy an applicant during the application and review process shall be cause for termination of consideration of distribution. Any~funds distributed based, upon reliance of the mi.q~atement may be_ required to be refunded to the-City if requested by the City Council. 6_ Any fimd.q disbursed_ tO applie~ant~ are based upon projections of_ revenuea from th6 Hotel/Motel'Tax. In the event of shortfall of actual receipts, disbursements shall be adjusted in the final quarter on a pro rata basis among all recipients. AGENDA BILL BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: SR304 Transportation Improvement Project Asbestos Removal No. 1- Rescind bid award and award to next low responsive bidder FOR AGENDA OF: ORIGINATING DEPT: ORIGINATOR: DATE SUBMITTED: 2. CLEARANCES: (comment on back_fi~,~e~)? ..~ 3. EXHIBITS Director, Public Works/Utilities f ~)'/~ .~, A. Bid tabulation City Attomey k~ (~J~,~.. ~k~,.'~ B. Location map City Treasurer ~ 3_,- -~ ~ x¢.. Purchasing Supervisor Council Budget & Finance Committ~'~; Operations Committee ENDORSEMENT INFORMATION MAYOR August 26, 1998 PW&U Engineering Div. Randy Witt, City Engineeq August 25, 1998 ,~O*O*N APPROVED BY COUNCIL ~,~I~I~SIDE~ITI~R~MI~UBMITi'AL: COUNCIL PRESIDENT '~,~X,~:~'~ .~.~ 4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION: The Asbestos Removal No. 1 contract was awarded to New Environment Contractors on August 19, 1998. This is the first phase for the removal and disposal of asbestos in structures located within the SR304 Transportation Improvement Project. This contract will remove and dispose of asbestos fi.om six separate structures occupying public right-of-way. New Environment Contractors has informed staff that it may be unable to secure a performance bond for the work and therefore unable to execute the contract. The City needs to be able to rescind the contract with New Environmental Contractors and award it to the next lowest responsive bidder as shown on the attached bid tabulation. If necessary, staff requests the authority to enter into a contract with the next lowest responsive bidder in the event New Environment Contractors is unable to execute the contract. The action before the City Council is to authorize the Mayor to rescind the contract with New Environment Contractors, award the contract to the next lowest responsive bidder if necessary. 8. RECOMMENDATION: The City Council authorizes the Mayor to rescind the contract with New Environment Contractors and enter into a contract with the next lowest responsive bidder should New Environmental Contractors be unable to execute the contract. 9. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Director Pub Wks & Util ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: Director Pub Wks & Util EXPIRATION DATE: REVIEW DATE: 10. NOTICE OF ACTION PULLED TABLED APPROVED DISAPPROVED AMENDED COUNCIL DIRECTIVE DATE: 11. AGENDA BILL NO: ~./""//7~) BID TABULATION TOTALS City of Bremerton SR 304 - Asbestos Removal No. 1 August, 1998 EN(~'iNEER'S NETM ENVIR. CROWN DELTA ' LONG ESTIMATE CONTRACTORS ENVIRONMENTA SERVICES '" BID ITEM UNIT EST. AMOUNT ,~MOUNT AMOU'~T ' AMOUNT QUANT. I A~bestos Retrieval ~ 215 First Street L.S. I " $36,030.00 $14,995.6~ $26,144.00 $22,062.60 2" ASbestos Removal - 103 S. Callow Avenue' L.S. I I . $7,060-00. $6,383.30 $4,830.00 $7,879.50 - 3 Asbestos Removal - 107 S. Callow Avenue L.S. i $10,720.00 $8,242.62 $ I 1,000.00 $10,70 I..:70 4 Asbestos Removal - 109 S. C'allow Avenue L.S. ! $4,22?.00 $2,567.37 $3,459.00 $6,303.60 ; 5 Asbestos Removal - ! 13-1/2 s. Callow Avenue L.S. i $250.00 $162.15 $137.00 $20.60 ' 6' Asbestos Removal - 215 S. Wycoff Avenue ' . L.$. , I $2,10i).00 $1,486.37 $2,594.00 $1,596.50 7 Sampling and Testing ESTIMATE. ~ ESTIMATE $ 1,000.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00. $ 1,000.00 8 Credits / Debits Minor Changes CALC. ' cALc. $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 ..... TOTAL ESTIMATE $61,381.00 $34,838.4,1 $49,165.00 $49,565.50 Page I