Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/19/97 AGENDABREMERTON CITY COUNCIL 239~4TH STREET BREMERTON, WA 98337 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA MARCH 19, 1997 CALL TO ORDER - 5:30 P.M. A. Pledge Of Allegiance B. Invocation 2. 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. A. Minutes of Meeting - March 5 1997 #AB97-058 3.CLAIMS/CHECK REGISTERS 4. COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS 5. MAYOR'S REPORT 6. PUBLIC RECOGNITION -- (Comments Limited to 3 Minutes) NEW BUSINESS A. Appointment of David Vannest To The Disability Action Committee RESOLUTIONS A. Resolution #2591 Establishing Abatement Process Fees B. Resolution #2592 To Adopt The 1996 Utility Land Management Plan #AB97-060 25 #AB97-061 ~1 AGENDA BILL BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL 1. SUBJECT: MINUTES - MARCH 5, 1997- FOR AGENDX OF: 3-19-97 ORIGINATING DEPT: City Council ORIGINATOR: David Farr, President DATE SUBMITTED: '3-12-97 2. CLSAR3~NCES: (comment on back if necessary) 3. ~XHIBITS: ENDORSEMENT__ INFORMATION MAYOR __ APPROVED BY COUNCIL P~SIDENT ~ORSUBMITTAL: COUNCIL PRESIDENT' ~ ~' 4. SD'M24A_RY .STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR~COUNCI~ ACTION: 8. RECO~iMENDATION: RESPONSIBLE OFFICI~: ENFORCEMENT OFFICI~: EXPIRATION DATEr REVIEW DATE: PULLED TABLED COUNCIL DIRECTIVE: 10. NOTICE OF ACTION APPROVED DISAPPROVED ~MENDED DATE:~ TAPE #1445 UNAPPROVED DRAFT CITY COUNCIL MEETINg MINUTES MARCH 5, 1997 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, March 5, 1997, at 5:30 P.M., with Council President David Farr presiding. Council members present were Bob Winters, Carlos Montgomery, Richard Neville, Lon Overson, John Law, Cecil McConnell, and A1 Colvin. Councilman Sherril Huff- Menees was absent. Also present were City Attorney Ian Sievers and Deputy City Clerk Paula Johnston. The meeting opened with the Pledge of Allegiance led by Council President Farr and Invocation given by Reverend Cleveland Williams of Ebenezer A.M.E. Church. #0035 #0059 President Farr made the following announcements: (1) Council held a Study Session immediately prior to the City Council meeting. The topic discussed was: Sinclair Landing Association Update. (2) Immediately following the City Council meeting, Council will hold an Executive Session to discuss "litigation". (3) Agenda Item 7C - Resolution #2587, approving emergency purchase of pump drive for CE-4 was added to the Agenda. CONSENT AGENDA A. Minutes of Meeting -- February 19, 1997 #AB97-046 M/S/C/U(Neville/Montgomery) 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. M/S/C/U(Colvin/Montgomery) on March 5, 1997, the Council does approve for payment those vouchers included and further described as follows: 206352 through 206615 in the amount of $413,26.98; and Regular Payroll for the period ending 2-28-97, in the amount of $784,223.36. COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS TAPE #1445 city Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 5, 1997 Page 2 of 20 Mr. Colvin pointed out "taxes" are on people minds these days and a constituent shared with him that they had cleaned up their yard and painted their house in an effort to beautify their residence and a few days later the Tax Assessor came by reassessed their home. She was not happy about having her property tax raised and knew of a place where people were taxed more for not keeping up their property and were given incentives for making improvements to their property. He was curious where such a place might be because he has never heard of such a tax. Mr. Law announced the next District #3 Neighborhood Meeting will be held March 18, 1997, 7:00 P.M., at the Senior Center. The theme of that meeting will be open to those in attendance and anyone wanting something brought up that requires resources or research should contact him at the City Council office (478-5280) or his residence (479-2723). Mr. Montqomez7 reported today he attended the Open House of the Harrison Hospital Annex, located on Lebo Boulevard. He came away from that event knowing that the health providers are getting more done for the public. Mr. Winters thanked all of the individuals applying for the Ad Hoc Citizens Advisory Committee on Telecommunications. As soon as the committee is formally announced, the members will be given booklets on how we intend to formulate an ordinance to present and educate the City Council. He extended a special "thank you" to Cap Demiero for putting together the Bill Ramsey Jazz Band, who are currently performing at the Melody Lane. He, along with approximately 65 other people, enjoyed being entertained by this band. He believes the downtown core will someday be similar to the Pioneer Square area with various kinds of entertainment. Mr. Fart reported many of the Council members were keeping Sherril Huff-Menees family in their thoughts and prayers and wished her the best. MAYORJS REPORT Mayor Lynn Horton reported on Saturday she attended the "Miss America" program at the Admiral Theater, hosted by the Literacy Council of Kitsap County. This was a fund raising event for the Literacy Council and an opportunity to highlight the importance of literacy. One static shared during the program was somewhere in the order of 90% of jail inmates that are on death row are illiterate. She hoped that anyone knowing someone with a reading disability or needing assistance to improve their reading ability to refer them to the Literacy Council, which is located in the West Bremerton branch of the Kitsap Regional Library on 5th Street. On Saturday afternoon she attended the Historical Museum's unveiling 3 TAPE #1445 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 5, 1997 Page 3 of 20 of their new stairway that incorporates inscribed granite blocks. She was pleased to announce the Smithsonian Museum is bringing a traveling exhibit to the Historical Museum in mid May and will run through June 1. The exhibits are products of America depicted in posters from the WWII era. Mayor Horton read the following Proclamation: 1) March 9-15, 1997 Dental Assistant Recognition Week. Crystal Wriqht, vice President of the Kitsap Dental Assistants Society, accepted the Proclamation. Mayor Horton noted the Health District recently put together demographic of Kitsap County and one of the things that has been identified as a need in the community, especially among lower income populations, is improved dental care. The City Council will be soon having a discussion on fluoridation and she felt it was important keeping on top of the issue because dental problems can lead to much more serious health problems. PUBLIC RECOGNITION Larry Dickerson, Bremerton resident, handed out samples of cat food, bread and apples and referenced the previous Council meeting where innuendoes were made about disease and epidemics spread by wild bird populations and dangerous raccoons. Following that meeting, he contacted the Kitsap County Health District and asked for statistics identifying the last case of rabies or any communicable disease passed on by raccoons and other wild animals. The response he received from the Health District was "0". In order to get such data on birds he contacted the Washington State Veterinarians and their response was "0" cases. Based on that information, he felt the issue of spreading disease by birds and wildlife should be stricken from the ordinance. In his opinion, members of the public have the civil courts process available to resolve neighborhood disputes as well as the Dispute Resolution Center, and if that doesn't work, the parties can pursue resolve through the Small Claims Court. He asked that the proposed ordinance be withdrawn. Reverend Scott Shaw, Pastor of the Bremerton Church of The Nazarene, thanked Mayor Horton for accepting their invitation to attend the March 23, 1997, 10.15 A.M., ribbon cutting of their new park, located at the corner of Sheridan Road and Robin. He invited members of the City Council and the public to attend this event. Also, on March 29, 11:00 AM - 4:00 P.M., the Church is putting on community event -SPRINGFEST, which will include games, rides, events, music, food, a fire truck, Police dogs, petting zoo and mini train. He emphasized everyone is invited to this event, which will also help celebrate the development of the park area for benefit of the church family and surrounding neighborhood. Carol Atkinson, Bremerton Main Street Association, announced the TAPE #1445 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 5, 1997 Page 4 of 20 upcoming St. Patrick's Day Parade on March 15, 11:00 AM, will assemble between 7th and Sth Street on Pacific Avenue. She encouraged participation in the parade, including children riding their bikes and tricycles. She also reminded everyone of the Art Party scheduled for April 26, and tickets for this event must be purchased before March 31. Don Atkinson, KITZ, announced this evening the Bremerton Athletic Roundtable is hosting George Karl, Head Coach of the Seattle Sonics, as the main speaker. He reminded everyone of the KITZ Senior Fair at the Kitsap Mall on March 8 - 9. Del Knauss, Bremerton resident, stated about five months ago he asked several questions that were never answered by the Council; therefore, he will include some of them along with the following questions: (1) To date how much money has been spent by the government agencies involved in this downtown redevelopment study? (2) How much has been paid to McClure Research so far for being the Executive Director? (3) Has the City received any kind of ruling whether HUD money can be used for parts of this project? (4) If the project isn't developed, will Burwell remain the same or will we spend highway funds just because we have them? (5a) Bremerton's Police quota system - Why do you see radar traps at 5:30 AM on both sides of Callow Avenue? (5b) Doesn't the Mayor and the council think it's better for the officers to be seen patrolling the streets for traffic violations instead of setting up radar traps all over the town? (5c) Is the City's budget in such a tight squeeze that we need a two ticket quota to generate revenue? (5d) How many tickets for speeding were issued in the City for the year of 1996, broken down month-by-month? (5e) How many speeding tickets were issued so far in 1997, broken down by month? (5f) Does the Council and the Mayor understand what kind of message they're sending to the public and Navy personnel with a ticket quota? (6) Now that the City has passed a Graffiti Ordinance, will they be removing the graffiti like ugly yellow foot prints from downtown sidewalks? (7) Does the city intend to lower the garbage tax to comply with the way the current state law is written, or take a chance on being sued? 7A - DUI TASK FORCE AGREEMENT, #AB97-047 The County Prosecutors Office has revised this Agreement requires that it be re-approved for this year. and Lynn Drake, Traffic Safety Coordinator, referenced samples of materials she passed out to Council members that are given to youth and citizens on DUI education. She acknowledged Council approved this agreement in December 1996; however, since that time an appeal was made to Superior Court, which the plaintiff won and is now going to the State Supreme Court. As a result of that action, some TAPE #1445 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 5, 1997 Page 5 of 20 minor housekeeping type changes have been made to the agreement. She emphasized traffic fatalities in Kitsap county were down 40% in 1996 compared with 1995, which she attributes to DUI alcohol education in the County. She pointed out the Bremerton-Kitsap DUI Safety program is used as a model throughout the State and are the only task force in the state that conducts monthly emphasis enforcement patrols, which she also believes has made a difference. #0849 #0938 #0986 Public comment - none. Mr. Nmville asked if the agreement was for a term of two years? Ms. Drake stated yes. M/S/C/U(Neville/McConnell) to authorize the Mayor to execute the DUI Task Force Agreement. 7B - BID AWARD TO ACE PAVING COMPANY, INC. FOR ~OLD MOUNTAIN GOLF COURSE COMPLEX P~RKING ~REA EXPANSION PROJECTt ~AB97-048 Bids were opened on Thursday, February 20, 1997 for the Gold Mountain Golf Complex Parking Area Expansion Project. Eight (8) bids were received for this project (see attached Bid Opening List). The iow bidder was Ace Paving, Company, Inc. from Bremerton, WA for the base bid amount of $238,995.00. Total contract amount, including Washington State Sales Tax, is $258,354. Dan Miller, Project Manager, pointed out the need for two motions: (1) authorizing the award of the contract to Ace Paving; (2) approving the Budget Adjustment authorizing the expenditure of dollars from the Enterprise Fund 407 in the amount of $400,000 to support the parking area expansion and upcoming cart storage facility. Public comment - none. Mr. Overson acknowledged Mr. Miller provided additional information in the Agenda Bill documentation as requested by the Operations Committee. M/S/C/U(Colvin/McConnell) to approve to award this contract to Ace Paving Company, Inc. in the amount of $238,995.00, and to authorize the Mayor to execute the same, subject to Administrative Policies and Procedures. M/S/C/U(McConnell/Montgomery) to approve the attached Budget Adjustment that authorizes the expenditure of dollars from the Enterprise Fund 407 in the amount of $400,000 in support of the Parking Area Expansion ($310,000) and Cart Storage Facility ($90,000). (See attached Sources & Uses of Funds). #1097 TAPE #1445 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 5, 1997 Page 6 of 20 7C - RESOLUTION 2587, APPROVING EMERGENCY PURCHASE OF PUMP DRIV~ FOR CE-4t ~AB97-050 Despite continued efforts to troubleshoot problems with the control boards of the Variable Frequency Drive for pump assembly #1 at pump station CE-4, the drive has continued to fail. this leaves CE-4, located at the Boardwalk park, vulnerable to overflows to the downtown waterfront area since it leaves only one reliable VFD/pump assembly. The resolution waives bid procedures based on an emergency situation and allows purchase of a new drive for Allan Bradley drive $25,000 that will be compatible with equipment being installed in other pump stations. Pat Coxen, Wastewater Treatment Plant Manager, stated it has been determined that there has been increasing system failure. At this point in time, to repair the boards would cost just as much to purchase the new VFD. The VFD has been in service sine 1984, and Allan Bradley is no longer supporting this equipment as it is an older model. Repair parts are difficult to obtain and expensive to repair. He is requesting Allan Bradley be the sole source since the City is using that company for other pump station equipment, they are a local contractor and a source for spare parts. Public comment - none. M/S/C/U(Montgomery/Winters) to approve Resolution #2587, certifying an emergency, approving purchase of replacement pump drive assembly for Wastewater Pump Station CE-4 and waiving bid procedures. 8A - ORDINANCE NO. 4588 (SECOND READING) ~-MENDING TWR OFFICI~T. ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AND MAP BY ADOPTING AND APPLYING TWO NEW #1113 ZONES: "HEALTH CARE" AND "SHORELINE MIXED USE", #AB97-044 Public comment - none. M/S/C/U(Montgomery/Winters) to pass Ordinance No. 4588 on second reading, amending the Bremerton Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map to add the new "Health Care (HC)" and "Shoreline Mixed Use (SMU)" zones. 8B - ORDINANCE NO. 4589 (SECOND READING) ~NDING BREMERTON'8 OFFICIAL ZONING MAP FOR CONSISTENCY WITH TWO 1996 COMPReHENSIVe. #1141 PLAN AMENDMENTS, ~B97-045 Public comment - none. M/S/C/U(Montgomery/Colvin) to pass Ordinance No. 4589 on second reading, revising the Official Zoning Map of the City of Bremerton, Washington. TAPE #1445 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 5, 1997 Page 7 of 20 8C - ORDINANCE (FIRST READING) REVISIONS TO B~N~RTON MUNICIPAL CODE (BMC) CHAPTER 11 REGARDING HAZARDOUS CONDITIONS ON SIDEWALKS ~ WITHIN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY, ~AB97-049 Revisions to Chapter 11 of the Bremerton Municipal Code (BMC) are proposed to incorporate recent changes in State law regarding liability and establishment of the sidewalk minimum replacement criteria. Staff recommends approval of the ordinance. Randy Witt, City Engineer, stated this item modifies the existing sidewalk ordinance, which was last updated in 1971. The modifications address establishing a minimum criteria for what a hazardous condition is and what the liability and repair responsibility are for the City and the property owner. The modifications are a result of recent court cases from the Washington State Supreme Court as well as Legislative action passed in 1996. This proposal was heard extensively at the Traffic Safety Committee prior to their recommending approval. The existing ordinance generally recognizes that sidewalks are a benefit to the adjoining property owners and assigns the maintenance responsibility to them. The modifications under consideration generally preserve that kind of foundation for the ordinance, but it does accommodates new State law requirements as well as giving a better definition to the "criteria". The minimum criteria established in the existing ordinance are vague and use words such as "stub-toe" and "things that are in the way". As the enforcement official, Mr. Witt found it difficult to clearly describe a "stub toe" so that a person had a clear understanding of the condition. A number of cities were surveyed as to what kind of criteria they used and it ranged from sidewalk displacements 1/2 inch to~/2 inch. In working with the City Attorney, Risk Manager and Traffic Safety Committee, a criteria has been established that generally sits around 3/4 inch. He referenced a graphic drawing in the Agenda Bill documentation, which showed the misalignment of 3/4 inch or horizontal (opening) separation of 1 inch, if the surface has been roughed by spalling about 3/4 inch. In addition to those immediate criteria, it was recognized that sidewalks can tilt over and a criteria created of a raise over one inch over a distance of one foot or less. Meter boxes located in the sidewalk area were also addressed with the criteria being 3/4 inch. Ian Sievers, City Attorney, pointed out he provided Council with a copy of the City's current ordinance under B.M.C. Chapter 11.10, showing what is repealed and what is the state of the City's current ordinance. As Mr. Witt mentioned, the principle section of defining what is a defective condition has been a matter of sharpening and building in some precision of definition, particularly with stub toes, raises of slabs and grades of slabs. TAPE #1445 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 5, 1997 Page 8 of 20 Language has also been clarified on obstruction caused by foliage, based on the City's recent work with the Municipal Street Trees ordinance, which is now referred to specifically. There were several changes in State law. As a result of the Supreme Court case - Rivett v. Tacoma, which talks about liability to third parties injured on sidewalks, that case found that a Tacoma ordinance was unconstitutional where the city attempted to say an adjacent property owner was liable to third parties injured by defects in sidewalks. The City has virtually the same ordinance under Section .020, which is repealed in the proposed ordinance. The second, more minor change, was the change in cost allocation for repair of defects in sidewalks. The change in State law occurred in 1996. He considers that a minor change although the statute R.C.W. 35.69.020 up until 1996 assigned responsibility for repair of defects, or sidewalks that were unsafe, to adjacent property owners upon approval by the City Council. The City of Bremerton never enforced that where it was the city's responsibility or whether those sidewalks were damaged because of "strip parking". The proposed ordinance makes it clear that where the city has caused the damage, the cost of recovery or repair would not be from the adjoining owner. Normally, you'd be able to get the cost recovery from the adjoining owner where the City is responsibly, somewhat indirectly, by non-enforcement of an ordinance. But, that was the other change and is incorporated under Section 11.10.030. - Abatement. Once the defect exists, there is a full notice procedure, which is somewhat lacking in the City's current ordinance, to the property owner giving them notice the City found a defect under the ordinance, giving them an opportunity to schedule repair before they are found in violation. There are limitations under Section 3 of 11.10.020 whereby the City will not pursue abatement where it is the City's fault, or there is non-enforcement, or where City street trees cause the defect, i.e.., root heaving, etc. The penalty for violation, under the proposed ordinance, is a civil infraction, or there is, under .050 of the handout, a misdemeanor. So, we've decriminalized this violation. The proposed ordinance would repeal Section 11.08.010 REMOVAL OF SNOW AND ICE AND OBSTRUCTIONS - OBLIGATION OF ABUTTING OCCUPIER; however, language was left that an accumulation is a defect that the City wants the property owner to correct. That area of the law is very ambiguous. At the end of 1996, a new case came out and reviewed Washington Appellant cases and pointed out the courts had also been very confused about the proper rule to apply to accumulation of ice and snow. It said: the court has for many years applied a natural accumulations rule, which means that no one is liable if it is natural, but if it is a defect, such as a gutter causing an ice build up, then people could be liable. They abandoned that and changed directions so that now they will use the TAPE #1445 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 5, 1997 Page 9 of 20 traditional tort approach to ice and snow, which embodies concepts such as foreseeability of risk, etc. It is uncertain now whether or not cities can be held liable and whether ice and snow are now a defect even though it is a totally natural accumulation. There's one older Seattle case where it was said the City cannot be found to have constructive knowledge of a slippery condition for even six days after a snow fall because for all they know the property owner had been cleaning it according to their ordinance similar to this, requiring private owner to remove the ice and snow from sidewalks. It seemed to give the city an out by simply having this section in "defects" requiring property owners to be responsible for that duty. ]%n4¥ Parypa, Bremerton resident, read the following statement into the record: The present BMC, Section ll.10.010(b) does not define the 18 inch concrete surfaces placed adjacent to the sidewalk as part of the sidewalk. During the January 16 Safety Committee meeting, Mr. Witt stated the adjacent area was included as sidewalk. Ms. Goodell claimed them to be "planting" strips. It does make a difference as following comments will show. Section ll.10.010(e) Meter Boxes - what "other utility" boxes are we speaking of? Since this section speaks to right-of-way, it includes those in planting strips. I reported many so called depressed meters to the Mayor and Wayne Hamilton. As grass grows turf builds up; therefore, they appear to be depressed. Who is responsible? Next month will be two years that City officials knew of the problem. By this proposal, the property owner gets 10 working days to abate a hazard. (g) Ice and Snow - each time it snowed I moved the snow off the sidewalk and placed it on the "concrete surfaces adjacent to the 5- ft., sidewalk". If I continue, that is where it will be placed. Snow can be seen, but not black ice. This past winter on the morning of the second snow, while again removing snow, I slipped and fell on black ice that formed over night. Using sand on a down hill slope does not create a safe surface. Using salt could violate Ordinance #4553, Section 13.10.040 if a tree is planted within two feet of the curb. Seepage of the salt could kill the tree. What has changed since the highlighted portions of exhibit 1,2, and 3 (handed out by Mr. Parypa)? Has Rivett v. Tacoma been amended? (I) Should this be a lower case i, also in the last sentence, not struck out in agenda page 65? Defective handrail: the present BMC 11.10.030, to be repealed and replaced with a new 11.10.030 required a barrier along the outer margin of said sidewalk where the same is elevated more than two feet. The proposed change does not address this "elevation" requirement. If the elevation is more {0 TAPE #1445 city Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 5, 1997 Page 10 of 20 than the Risk Manager and Engineer feels comfortable with, reference should be made to who is responsible for installation of a barrier. Section 11.10.030 refers to Chapter 11.16. Many property owners, including me, have decorative basket of gold vegetation hanging over their bulkhead that do not extend beyond the eighteen inch concrete placed adjacent to the sidewalk. They do not prevent less use of a sidewalk than trees planted two feet from the curb. This section indicates damage costs for sidewalk reconstruction cannot be assessed under RCW 35.69.020 (see Exhibit 4). Most,if not all, damage to sidewalks fall under this provision. I am amazed the Attorney suggests the City has not failed to enforce no parking on sidewalks (see page 1 of Exhibit 5). On Council tape September 23, 1987, though the tape is not the best of quality, he proves his present statement to be false. No damage to sidewalks can be observed from Callow to Washington on Sixth or eleventh Street where vehicles were not allowed to park. Exhibit 6 is believable. Some parking on sidewalks continues on a daily basis. RCW 46.61.570(1) (ii) indicated in Exhibit 5, first page, was adopted by the City in January 1981. Aggressive enforcement of no parking on sidewalks did not begin until after June of 1994. Are those that claim immunity in accordance with RCW 35.69.020 taken at their word while those such as myself, that have never parke4 on the sidewalk abuttinq their property have to prove their case in court as Ms. Lesser indicated at the January 16th meeting? After the seventh sentence on Agenda page 67, the period should be deleted and the following should be added: - or the hazard was not caused or contributed to by the abutting property owner. (See second page of Exhibit 5), the highlighted portion is an exact quote of the Washington Supreme Courts ruling on Rivett v. Tacoma. Again, what has changed since December 5, 19967 If the City can stall for twenty five years in repairing damage caused by the City on Perry Avenue and East 17th Street, is not requiring removal of a hazard in ten working days out of line? By the time a contractor is hired and a permit is obtained, the ten days will be down the drain. Section 11.10.040 - the person who knows of a hazard should notify the City in writing of such and should indicate he did not cause the damage, if true. Certainly Engineering can determine if the property owner caused or contributed to the damage. If there is a conflict of minds, a hearing before Council might be in order. If no agreement can be reached, issue the abatement order. Both parties have court adjudication privileges. Back to 11.10.010(h): Assume an owner leaves for the weekend, but TAPE ~1445 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 5, 1997 Page 11 of 20 before the owner leaves there are no hazards on the sidewalk. While he is gone, someone parks on the sidewalk with a leaking transmission and someone slips and is injured, how can the City be notified fourteen days prior to the accident? NOTE: Exhibit 1 - Memorandum from Leila Mills, Assistant City Attorney to Councilman A1 Colvin, dated August 1, 1994. Exhibit 2 -Page 2 of City Council Meeting Minutes dated September 28, 1994. Exhibit 3 - Page 1 of Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Minutes dated September 25, 1996. Exhibit 4 - RCW 35.69.020(3). Exhibit 5 - letter to Andy Parypa from Ian Sievers, City Attorney, dated December 5, 1996, addressing "Parking On Planting Strips, Connection To Recent Legislation". Exhibit 6 - letter to "interested citizens" from Engineering dated January 31, 1997, addressing "Strip Parking". Eliza~et~ Buell, Bremerton resident, stated when the City first started putting up "no parking" signs on sidewalks they didn't go past 17th Street and High Avenue, she asked why she couldn't have one in her area. A City official came out to her property to determine the best location for such a sign, which they identified; however, when the sign was installed it was not placed as they had agreed. Therefore, lots of people do not see the sign and she believes if problems occur on her sidewalk, it is the City's fault. Mr. Witt stated Mr. Parypa was essential to staff in developing the proposed ordinance and his involvement is greatly appreciated. When this process was started, about three years ago, the intent was to bring before Council a clearer description of the minimum standards; however, a few days before the Rivett case was closed Mr. Parypa pointed out the City had bigger issues to address. In answer to the question regarding "other meter boxes", it could mean telephone vaults, gas company meters and junction boxes. Mr. Sievers stated on the issue of ice and snow, the liability issue is somewhat uncertain, but he believes the City is in a better position to create a duty to remove it. One thing changed from the current ordinance under (g) and that is you can now remove the accumulation onto the planting strip. He agreed there was a typographical error under (i), and should be the lower case. Mr. Witt questioned if the railing requirement was eliminated on purpose or if it was an oversight? Mr. Sievers stated if there was a drop off along the sidewalk, he did not know how a sidewalk could be built without a railing and if a railing was required at the time the property owner put in the sidewalk, then they would be responsible to maintain it. The City would not allow a new sidewalk to be built without a railing, which would require obtaining a Right-of-Way Permit. He had no problem putting that in the ordinance, but wasn't sure if it would be a problem. In TAPE #1445 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 5, 1997 Page 12 of 20 regard to sidewalk enforcement, he was not aware that the City had a program or plan not to enforce vehicles parking on sidewalks. The emphasis in the Rivett case was liability and it is important that some of the statements about the City being primarily responsible for sidewalks has to do with liability to persons injured or property damage in the right-of-way. That case did not address State laws that allows cities to recoup costs of correcting defects in sidewalks. It does get confusing when talking about primary responsiblity, but at in the Revitt case was in the context of court liability...liability for damages for injury and not for cost to repair the sidewalk. The Revitt case in that regard does not change and in fact it may get extended in the future, but as of now the State law does allow the City to pass through costs of remedying defects in sidewalks to abutting property owners. There is an L.I.D. process for large improvement areas to be passed along to the property owners, or the abatement included in the proposed ordinance. In 1996, when Mr. Parype argued before the Legislature in Olympia, there was another draft bill that removed any kind of maintenance or repair responsibility from the property owner; however, that bill was not passed. That is a right the City has that would resist Mr. Parypa's change to Secton .030, where he wants to add "or the hazard was not caused or contributed to by the abutting property owner" at the end of the first paragraph. Clearly, the City has that right, if we have that right under State law, and the normal deterioration of the sidewalk would not be caused by the property owner; therefore, the City would not be able to recover that cost against the property owners, if we limited ourselves in that manner in this ordinance; therefore, he would not favor that change. Mr. Witt stated in response to the concern identified at Perry Avenue and 17th Street, he recalled reviewing the site several years ago and if it has not been fixed by this time, he will again review the condition. In reference to the 10-day period for remedying a hazardous condition, he felt it was important to note that it is the City Engineer's prerogative to extend that time. The language for the notification procedure in the proposed ordinance is the same as in the Vegetation Notification System. He felt such extensions would be happening more on sidewalk work since it takes longer than clearing vegetation. He would not recommend changing the 10 day period. Mr. Sieve~s stated on the one liability or duty of requiring notification to the City, the property owner is in the best position to be aware of problems that develop on sidewalks. It is the City's belief that under the law, if we did bring them into a lawsuit where the City was sued for an injury on the sidewalk, they could be brought in for failure to notify the City. That requirement is being made known to the property owner through this TAPE #1445 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 5, 1997 Page 13 of 20 ordinance and it seems to be the consensus of other municipal entities that is still a liability that the Court would recognize. The 14 days is really intended to be a self-limitation on when we think we would join them in the action and seek contribution. He would review the ordinance prior to second reading to see if it could be more clearly stated. President F&rr asked if Mr. Sievers had any comment on Mr. Parypa's suggestion that there be a hearing before Council or hearings board for disputed issues prior to going to the full legal system, which he thought was a good suggestion? Mr. Sievers stated under the statute and what could be added to the ordinance is that any abatement cost that can be assessed the property owner has to come before Council. The City Council would pre-approve that cost and condition, and make a decision that if it's enough of a detriment to public safety that the owner should be responsible for the cost of repair. This is again RCW 35.69.020: "... the City Council of such city by resolution finds that the improvement of such portion of such street by the construction or reconstruction of a sidewalk thereon is necessary for the public safety and convenience, the duty, burden, and expense of constructinq or reconstructinq such sidewalk shall devolve upon the property directly abutting upon such portions; except as provided below", which are two exceptions where the City cannot pass along the cost. We would need to come back to Council for passage of a resolution, if the person doesn't comply and the Council, at that time, can make a determination whether there may be some sharing of costs with the City. Mr. Sievers felt it would be good to clarify Section .030 at the very end when the City Engineer gives notice that failure to comply with the order may result in a citation pursuant to .050 and then add: "and may be subject to abatement under RCW 35.69.020." Mr. Witt explained how he sees this process functioning, both under the old way and under the new way. Prior to the Revitt case, the City would receive a notice of a sidewalk hazard, i.e. tripping hazard, he would send out an investigator to review the hazard to determine if it was within the City's criteria for a hazard. If it was, the property owner would be notified that they had two weeks to tell the City how they would remedy the problem. Under the new policy, the City would receive notice of the hazard, the City would then investigate to determine why the condition existed, i.e. tree root from a street tree, had the sidewalk deteriorated over time, is it an illegal driveway, or is it unclear. If it was determined that it was something the City would repair, a work order would be issued and City crews would carry out the work. If it was determined the property owner was responsible, a letter of notification would be sent. If the determination is not clear as to who is responsible, a letter would be sent that would probably include setting up a meeting to discuss the issue. In addition, prior to sending any letter of notification, his department will TAPE #1445 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 5, 1997 Page 14 of 20 have a file of letters received from people identifying certain conditions at specific locations. He believes some situations will involve cost sharing and policies covering those instances would be forthcoming. Mr. L&v asked Mr. Parypa to come back to the podium and comment on Mr. Witt's and Mr. Sievers' responses. Mr. Pax-pa asked the City Attorney to read from the second page of Exhibit 5, which was written December 5, 1996, in answer to him and Councilman colvin. That paragraph is a direct quote out of Rivett v. Tacoma, and he believes it does state that it is also clear that cities are legally responsible for the physical condition of public sidewalks and that an abutting owner is not legally responsible for the physical condition of a public sidewalk unless that property owner caused or contributes to that condition. Mr. Sievers acknowledged the referenced paragraph was from his letter dated December 5, 1996. He acknowledged that in that case the City is responsible for the physical condition and how that problem is corrected is the city's responsibility. The City controls the pedestrian use of rights-of-way, including sidewalks and gives permission to work or occupy right-of-way. However, there is State law that allows the City to recoup costs from property owners. Mr. Colvin stated he believed senior citizens are at a disadvantage because they do not take a ruler and measure their sidewalks. He asked if they should be considered at all? He favored arbitration before citing a property owner. He asked how many sidewalks have been determined to need repair? Mr. Witt stated he had not conduced a survey of sidewalks, but relies on complaints and comments from citizens about hazardous conditions that exist. The City does not receive many complaints from the property owners. At this time, he did not have the number of such complaints received by the city. Mr. Neville noted earlier comments were made that in order for a person to claim the City was responsible for a sidewalk hazard, they were required to write a letter to the City identifying the problem. However, it was stated during the Mayor's Report that 20% of the population is illiterate, which could present a problem. From what he was hearing, it was only up to Mr. Witt, as the City Engineer, to dispute a claim whether the property owner caused the problem or perhaps the City had caused the problem. Kr. Wit% stated he viewed himself as the first arbitrator through the letter notification process explaining the situation that it is the property owner's responsiblity for repair. Mr. Neville asked if he would take a phone call reporting a condition rather than requiring a letter? Mr. Witt explained he was responding to the letter of notification going to the property owner. If his office receives a call that identifies a hazardous condition, he will have it TAPE #1445 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 5, 1997 Page 15 of 20 investigated and then take the appropriate action. If the person wants to document that the City, through its actions or inactions, caused the condition, then he would like to have it in letter form so that it can be kept on file. Addressing the potential person that may be illiterate, his department can write a memo to be included in the file. Mr. Neville asked, according to 11.10.040 what would be the City's response if a person moved into their house in 1980 and realized their meter box was 1 ft. below the sidewalk and notified the City of the condition and asked that it be repaired by the City? Mr. Witt stated to take Mr. Neville's extreme example, he would have to wonder why the City had not been notified about the condition before because there was a reporting duty under the old ordinance. He would also look at why the meter box was so low...was it built incorrectly or had someone done something to make it low. Mr. Neville stated he believes Mr. Parypa and Mr. witt and his staff put in a lot of work into this proposal, but in his opinion it needs more refinement. #3175 M/S/C(Neville/Overson) to send the proposal back to staff and have them review it and tighten up on the sections Mr. Parypa brought forward and see if a section can be developed that directly spells out rather than a penalty it goes before a review board . TAPE #1446 McConnell asked if the property owners would be held responsible for the alley behind their residence? Mr. Wit~ stated he was not sure why alleys were included in the proposed ordinance. Mr Sievers stated alleys were included in the current ordinance. Mr. McConnell questioned the fairness about requiring repairs be made in 10 days by the property owner, yet the City was not required to complete the work in a specified time? If the repair work is the City's responsibility, he felt the City should have the same 10- period to correct the problem. He questioned the method of requiring citizens to measure the sidewalks, if it doesn't look quite flat to them? Mr. Witt explained if someone has a concern that it does not meet the ordinance, they can call the City and someone will visit the site. Mr. M~Connell asked if this proposal required citizens to pay for a permit to do the work to remedy the problem and if so, what is the cost? Mr. Witt explained a Right- Of-Way Permit would be needed to perform work in the right-of-way, at a cost of $10 - 25.00. President Fart stated he recently obtained a Right-Of-Way permit and there was no charge. Mr. McConnell stated he agreed with Mr. Overson's motion in order to allow Council to provide input. Mr. Winters asked what if a person purchases a property, moves in and is unaware of the City's ordinance and someone is injured, then the City responds that the property owner is responsible for the repair to the sidewalk as well as notifying the City that a problem TAPE #1446 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 5, 1997 Page 16 of 20 existed? Mr. Sievers stated when someone purchases property they are suppose to know the laws of the jurisdiction that affects the property. Mr. Montqomery stated almost every city in the country has an ordinance addressing this issue and he had no major objections to what is being proposed. However, in driving around Bremerton he found that most of the violators, who have a potential for busting up the sidewalks, are renters or the landlords that lets their tenants or delivery trucks park their vehicles in front yards or sidewalks. Regarding the removal of snow and ice from sidewalks, he believes the City needs to change the way snow is plowed on main arterials.., snow should be plowed from the curb to the middle of the road, not back up onto the sidewalk, or the property owner should not be held responsible. Mr. Colvin stated he did not feel there was sufficient evidence that Council needs to act on the proposed ordinance. He questioned the liability of the City when someone is injured as a result of a pothole in a street. Mr. Law asked that the City Attorney and Mr. Witt work with Mr. Parypa and give Council a layout of the proposed changes with the options identified by Mr. Parypa. He found requiring the abutting property owner to notify the City of a hazard condition 14 days prior to an injury occurring because of that condition was unrealistic ( Section 11.10.040). He felt that entire paragraph was about 180 degrees out-of phase. To look at it that way is "your guilty until proven innocent". President Fart asked Mr. Parypa if he would be willing to provide further input on this issue? Mr. Parypa stated yes. Mr. Overson asked if the added words "undeveloped right-of-way" in Section 11.10.010 means that all specifications, (a) through (i), now apply to undeveloped right-of-way? Mr. Sievers stated yes. Mr. Overson asked if a 3/4 inch vertical difference (it says sidewalk block), would apply to an undeveloped right-of-way? Mr. Sievers stated no because that would be development of the right- of-way. Mr. Overson stated then nor would the 1 inch apply. In reference to accumulation of snow and ice on public sidewalk, he asked if that was included in the City's current ordinance? Mr. Sievers stated it is the same except the new language did not create a defect if the accumulation is on the planting strip. Mr. Overson stated he did not understand what applies to "undeveloped right-of-way". Mr. Sievers explained probably not many and mostly artificial improvements, probably on planting strips. Someone placing a large boulder in a planting strip could become a hazard. If a vehicle was coming down a steep hill and swerved into it, then TAPE #1446 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 5, 1997 Page 17 of 20 the City might consider that a defect because it is a hazard to traffic. Mr. Overson pointed out there are all kinds of boulders in planting strips throughout the City to keep people from parking on them. He asked if now the City is saying that cannot be done any longer? Mr. Sievers stated that is a difficult area and the cities have been found liable where private properties have created obstructions where the city had knowledge that vehicles have gone off the road and killed people. Mr. Overson asked how many of the 97 miles of sidewalks are undeveloped? Mr. Witt explained sidewalks are where there is concrete or asphalt surfaces. Mr. Overson asked what are the standards of the undeveloped areas? For example, there are locations where there are tiered gardens, regular gardens, boulders and rocks. He questioned if the ordinance should contain language describing the standard for undeveloped areas? Mr. Witt stated where an area is undeveloped, sidewalk standards would not apply because there is no sidewalk. The obstructions would probably apply, i.e., pedestrians do walk along roadway shoulder areas. The maintenance of fences and safety railing would probably apply if there was a steep embankment adjacent to the shoulder of the roadway. Mr. Overson stated based on Mr. witt's comments that addressed a large portion of this city, in his opinion, Mr. Witt could not defend himself in any situation because standards are undefined. He asked if Kitsap County had similar standards? Mr. Sievers stated he doubted they did since they did not have the same obligations. Mr. Overson stated it appears the State statute does not apply to the County. Mr. Slevers stated that was correct, the cost and responsibility statutes for sidewalks all refer just to cities. Mr. Overso~ posed the scenario where a person removes a sidewalk in front of his residence and it becomes undeveloped, and asked if that individual's property now has to meet the undeveloped standards? Mr. Witt stated he doubted the City would allow the sidewalk to be removed.. Mr. Overso~ pointed out Mr. Witt had stated the sidewalk belongs to the property owners and questioned why is the City involved at all? Mr. Witt stated the City would be notified because a Right-of-way Permit would be required before any work could begin. Mr. Overson asked why would Mr. Witt disallow that request? Mr. Witt stated if there were connecting sidewalks on both ends, it would be prudent upon the City to require the property owner to maintain that connection sidewalk. Mr. Overson questioned what if the individuals does not want the concrete sidewalk and wants to install a rock path? Mr. Witt stated at this time he would look at the site, deny the permit and if the sidewalk was in such a condition that it required repair, it would be evaluated and determined who would be responsible for the cost of repair, i.e., the property owner, the City, or sharing the cost. Mr. Slsvmrs stated assuming the policy ruling that a sidewalk was needed on only one side and the other side was in such bad condition that the owner is allowed to remove the damaged sidewalk TAPE #1446 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 5, 1997 Page 18 of 20 and put in some kind of plantings. He was aware of a situation where a person did a trip and fall in a depression just in the shoulder of the City next to the City's road and there was a liability issue with the City losing at a cost of $60,000. Again, where the City has the knowledge that pedestrians use an area for travel it doesn't necessarily have to be developed into a sidewalk. Mr. Overson pointed out in European cities it is very popular today to install non-sidewalk sidewalks, i.e. bricks that are open with grass growing between them, rocky pathways, etc. He questioned if an individual builds a home in the City of Bremerton, do they get the option to not build a sidewalk? Mr. Witt stated that would depend on the location of the property. If there is an area where there is no continuous sidewalk, the City will allow them to sign an agreement that is essentially a L.I.D. participation agreement in the event sidewalks are desired in that area by the community. Mr. Overson expressed concern that the City can force an individual to put in a sidewalk even if they don't want one and are required to provide maintenance and repair; and if someone is injured the property owner can be sued. Mr. Witt stated the City's Street Standards include a sidewalk. The requirement for building Permits go back to the Street Standards, hence the obligation to require sidewalks. Mr. Overson stated hence the problem with this ordinance. He feels the proposed ordinance should hold the City liable for the sidewalks and all that happens on the sidewalk because the City requires them. He asked if an individual could post a sign in front of their home that states the sidewalk is closed it could be hazardous to your health and please use the roadway or other side of the street? Mr. Witt pointed out that would be obstructing the public walkway for use by the public. Mr. Overson asked if the property owners' insurance company would cover public sidewalks? Mr. Slevers stated he suspected they would defend an owner under a Homeowners Policy. They may think they did not have much liability to third persons and would get out of a lawsuit fairly quick. Again, the liability of the third party is primarily the City's and it is the city's responsibility to get the defects corrected. Mr. Overson stated he would maintain that the way the State wrote this requirement encourages lawsuits and someone taking liability for a person injuring themselves rather than themselves, which is inappropriate. He feels the liability should be on the State with a minimum on the City, not on the property owner. He believes one of the specific reasons why Council members are elected is to avoid these things. What this tells a citizens of Bremerton, if the proposed ordinance passes, is the only way to escape the liability is to move out of the City and that is not the message he wants to send to the citizens. And, any state in the nation where they have significant snow and ice provides that if a person doesn't remove the snow and ice from the sidewalk then it is not a liability, but if it is removed and ice develops or someone trips, then they are liable. This proposal TAPE #1446 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 5, 1997 Page 19 of 20 does not provide that option. Mr. Sievers stated the property owner, like the City, must have constructive knowledge of the problem and it is primarily the City's job to get the situation corrected. The proposed ordinance excluded the first 14 days from the snow event before the property owner is directed to get any responsibility for not telling the City about the hazardous condition. It is not creating liability if someone does not go out in the middle of the night to shovel snow. Mr. Overson stressed the State standard says the property owner is liable, now Mr. Sievers is saying, by the way it is written, that there is now a process of implementation or application that provides due process so that the land owner is protected. He was not sure those protections were specified in the ordinance or even understood by the average layman or attorney reading of the law. Mr. Sievers stated the State statute that discusses liability for corrective measures doesn't talk about cleaning or removal of snow. Mr. Overson pointed out he was referring to Section 11.10.020. Sievers explained Mr. Overson was referring to the City's present ordinance, not State law, which was being repealed in the proposed ordinance. The City's current ordinance is pretty extreme and the City is trying to move in a less onerous direction. Mr. Ovmrson stated he had several very knowledgeable people read the proposed ordinance and they did not understand the due process outlined by Mr. Sievers. Mr. Slevers stated he believed that was one of the points that needed to be expressly set out in a Council resolution process for approving cost. Even though that is in the statute, he thought more needed to be done than to incorporate it by reference as well as the Department's review. Mr. McConnell asked if there is a 1/4" stub-toe on a sidewalk and the owner wished to repair it himself, can they do the work or are they required to get a contractor? Mr. Witt stated the property owner can perform the work. Mr. McConnell asked how much time would Council have to give input to staff on this issue? Presi4ent Fart asked that Council submit their questions to Council's Legislative Assistant for forwarding to Mr. Witt. He felt one-week was enough time for Council to submit their input. Mr. Overson stated recommended increasing the sidewalk steep from 3/4" to 2" and the broken or cracked sidewalks having more than 4" horizontal opening, which he believed was legal. Mr. Sievers stated the City is not guided by a Model Traffic Code and the recommended changes are based on the City Engineer's surveys, experience and expertise. Mr. Witt stated he felt it was more in terms of what is defendable. He would not recommend Mr. Overson's suggested change. Vote on motion: In Favor: Winters, Neville, Overson, Law, McConnell, Colvin, Farr TAPE #1446 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 5, 1997 Page 20 of 20 Motion carried. Opposed: Montgomery Prmsident Fart thanked the TV camera crew for their services: Rob Rupe, James Noble Jr., and Jamie Campbell. With no further business meeting adjourned at 7:35 P.M. KATHLEEN L. McCLUSKEY, City Clerk DAVID D. FARR, Council President city of Bremerton KLM/DDF/me cc: Normal Distribution File/Vault SUBJECT: Appointment to the Disability Action Committee. AGENDA BILL BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL FOR AGENDA OF: March 19, 1997 ORIGINATING DEPT.: Executive ORIGINATOR: Mayor Lynn Horton DATE SUBMITTED: March 13, 1997 2 .CLEARANCES: 3. EXHIBITS: (comment on back if necessary). Application for Appointment. ENDORSEMENT/J~ INFORMAT ION 7] APPROVED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FOR SUBMITTAL: COUNCIL PRESIDENT: 4. S~Y STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION: There is a vacancy of the Disability Action Committee. It is recommended the vacancy be filled by Mr. David Vannest. 8. RECOMMENDATION: Motion to confirm the appointment of Mr. David Vannest to the Disability Action Committee. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: EXPIRATION DATE: REVIEW DATE: PULLED [] TABLED [] APPROVEDO COUNCIL DIRECTIVE: DISAPPROVED[] AMENDED[] DATE: o: 7-O5 2. CLEARANCE COMMENTS: IMPACT ON NON-PASSAGE: Less than full membership on the Committee. IMPACT ON STAFFING, BUDGETS, FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCES: N/A RESEARCH SOURCES: N/A CITY OF BREMERTON APPLICATION FOR CITY BOARDS/COMMISSIONS/COMMITTEE NOTE: As an applicant for a City Board, Commission or Committee, your name, address, and telephone number will be available to the press and public. You will be contacted before any action is taken on your appointment. (Please type or print clearly) HOME ADDRESS: /.2~ ~ ~/~,~-~!. L,~ c~e~ ~. ~ occu T,O : PHONE: ~ 7~ - 2~> '_?~-' (H) (w) //- PROFESSIONAL/COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES: ! LOCAL REFERENCES (name & phone number): lAM () Is this If yes, INTERESTED IN SERVING ON (please check one or more): Disability Action Committee ( ) Civil Service Commission(18 yrs. & older) ( ) Urban Forest Committee ( ) Cable Communications Advisory Committee ( ) Community Development Block Grant Advisory Committee YouTh Council Safe Streets' Steering Committee Citizen's Commission on Council Salaries Planning Commission (18 yrs. & older) Parks & Recreation Commission Ethics Commission Parking Advisory Board Solid Waste Management Bremerton Housing Authority Board of Appeui~, Hou~ing/Buildi~9 Code~ Special Committees as needed an applic'a~ion for reappointment? how many years have you served on this commission/committee? PLEASE RETURN TO: Mayor's Office 239' 4th Street Bremerton, WA 98337 Signature Applications be reviewed periodically to determine continued availability. Additional pertinent information may be put on back. AGENIDA B]i_L BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL 5 SUBJECT: Resolution Establishing Abatement Process Fees FOR AGENDA OF: ,3 - l~ - 97 ORIGINATING DEPT.: Dept. of Comm. Dev. ORIGINATOR: D. Pratt DATE SUBMITTED: March 4, 1997 2. CLEARANCES: (Comment on back if necessary) Dir. of Comttq. Dev.: ~ ~ City Attorney: City Treasurer: ~--~ ' , ~'%~ Fi~SC~AL~ BUDGET COMMITTEE ~.'0~E~TIONS COMMITTEE ENDORSEMENT .~¢ INFORMATION MAYOR ~,~ '/~ . '~,/~ 3. EXHIBITS: A. Resolution No.~O5 q I establishing abatement, fees. B. Ordinance 4586 (Section 1 .c.) establishing abatement process fees. APPROVED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT F,OR SUBMITTAL: COUNCIL PRESIDENT (~z~ ~' ~. 4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION: Ordinance No. 4586 established the City's authority to assess "administrative costs incidental to abatement as set by council resolution." Resolution No. __ establishes the administrative fee allowed by the ordinance. This fee represents 75% of the abatement administrative costs as estimated by staff. 8. RECOMMENDATION: I move that City Council adopts Resolution No. ~,.,~"~'[. 9. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: J. Johnson .fl~ilFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: J. Johnson EXPIRATION DATE: Dec 31, 1997 REVIEW DATE: Dec 31, 1997 PULLED TABLED 10. NOTICE OFACTION APPROVED DISAPPROVED AME-'8~ DATE · 11. AGENDA BILL NO.: 6~"~_. ~ 2. CLEARANCE COMMENTS: 5. IMPACT OF NON-PASSAGE: The City will be authorized to collect administrative abatement fees but will have no fees in place. 6. IMPACT ON STAFFING, BUDGETS, FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCES: Recovery of administrative abatement fees will increaserevenues,'-'~-"--'- ........ '-';" ..... bo ....... *"'~ +~' ..... ~' ~""~"'"* dj for 7. RESEARCH SOURCES: agbill5.doc RESOLUTION REGARDING ESTABLISHMENT OF FEES FOR THE ABATEMENT PROCESS WITHIN THE DANGEROUS BUILDING CODE WHEREAS, Community Development fees are established by resolution by the City Council; and, WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted by Ordinance # the ability for the City to recover indirect fees incurred during the abatement process; and, WHEREAS, the Department of Community Development estimates that the average abatement project which is initiated and completed by the City requires twenty eight (28) hours of staff time in addition to the direct physical construction/destruction costs; and that the estimated total staff costs (exclusive of office overhead) are: $775.50; and, WHEREAS, the City believes that a 75% level of cost recovery is essential so that general funds are not used to absorb costs caused by people who violate city ordinances; and, WHEREAS, these abatement fees will only be assessed after property owners have failed to comply with an abatement order; BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL that the following fees for abatement actions will be assessed: 1. $600.00 and direct services and supply costs. AND BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that this fee shall be adjusted annually for the previous year's cost of living index unless otherwise adjusted by the City Council. Passed by City Council of the City of Bremerton this 1997. day of , DAVID FARR Council President CCRES.2]2 ORDINANCE NO.~ An ordinance amending regulations of unfit buildings and premises including abatement and recovery of abatement costs; and amending BMC 17.04.065. Whereas, Chapter 35.80 RCW includes abatement and priority liens for costs associated with abatement of unfit structures and premises which are more inclusive than the Uniform Code For the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings, and should be adopted by the City; now therefore The City of Bremerton Does Ordain: Section 1. Amendment. Section 17.04.065 of the Bremerton Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: .065 AMENDMENTS TO THE DBC. (a) DBC Sec. 102.1 Purpose shall be amended to read as follows.' 102.1 Purpose. It is the purpose of this code to provide a just, equitable and practicable method, to be cumulative with and in addition to any other remedy provided by the Building code, Housing Code or otherwise available by law, whereby buildings or structures which from any cause endanger the life, limb, health, morals, property, safety or welfare of the general public or their occupants may be required to be repaired, vacated or demolished. It is hereby found that there exists within the City dwellings which are unfit for human habitation, and buildings structures, and premises or portions thereof which are unfit for other uses due to dilapidation, disrepair, structural defects, defects increasing the h~z~rds of fire_ accidents, or other calamities, inadequate ventilation and uncleanliness, inadeo, uat~ light or sanitary_ facilities, inadequate drainage, overcrowding, or due to other conditions which are, inimical to the health and welfare of the residents of this City. The purpose of this code is not to create or otherwise establish or designate any particular class or group of persons who will or should be especially protected or benefited by the terms of this code. (b) DBC Sec. 302 is amended to read as follows: 302- ~,,_,~,~,~,,_,o'-' ' ~ ~'~'°~ ~,~,~,~,,~ IJNFIT B~D~O$ ~ P~$E$ For the pu~ose of this code, any building, ~ structure or premises which has any or all of the conditions or defects hereinafter described shall be deemed to be ~ an u~t building or premises, provided that such conditions or defects efist to the extent that the life, health, prope~y or safety of the public or its occupants are endangered: 15. Whenever any buildin~ ~ structure or premises, --~-- ~ or ,,,~,,~ ~ ~ used for d~-elling purposes,because of inadequate maintenance, dilapidation, decay, damage, faulW construction or a~angement, inadequate light, air or sa~tation facilities, accumulation of DBCODE.ORD - Disk 2 - 11/i 2/96 garbage or refuse, or otherwise, is determined by the building officer to be unsanitary, unfit for human habitation or in such a condition that is likely to cause sickness or disease to the occupants, occupants of neighboring dwellings or other residents of the city. When a structure or premises is declared unfit under this subsection, repair as used in the DBC shall include removal of the condition. (c) Section 901 - Account of Expense, filing of Report is amended to read as follows: The director of public works shall keep an itemized account of the expense incurred by this jurisdiction in the repair or demolition of any building or premised done pursuant to the provisions of Section 701.3, Item 3, of this code. the cost of vacation and closing a building under 403 and the administrative costs incidental to abatement as set by council resolution. Upon the completion of the work or repair, removal or demolition, said director shall prepare and file with the clerk of this jurisdiction a report specifying the work done, the itemized and total cost of the work including administrative charge, a description of the real property upon which the building or structure or condition .is or was located, and the names and addresses of the persons entitled to notice pursuant to Section 401.3. APPROVED by the City Council of the City ofBremerton this~ay ofh,~.,~ 997. PASSED by the City Council of the City ofBremerton thi~~ day of~~.~ 997. DAVID FARR, Council President APPROVED this \c3~ day of'-~_~ ,1997. ATTEST: L~HO~R,~-oN~, Mayor KATHLEEN McCLUSKI~Y, City Clerk DBCODE.ORD - Disk 2 - I 1/12/96 EFT COTlVE DATE CRDtNAN'CE AGENDA BILL BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: RESOLUTION.~TO ADOPT THE 1996 UTILITY LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR AGENDA OF: March 19,1997 ORIGINATING DEPT: Public Works & Util ORIGINATOR: Bill McKinney, For. Mngr/j~.%. DATE SUBMITTED: February 12,1997 2. CLEARANCES: (Comment on back 3. EXHIBITS: if necess~/r~ D~rector, PW & Util.~_~ C'ty Treasurer City Attorney Admin. Serv. Dir. City Council S. tudy Session October 1996 Volumes 1 & 2 ULMP Resolution # 259Q- ENDORSEMENT [~ INFORMATION [ ] MAYOR ~-~ ~. ~ APPROVED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FOR SUBMITTAL: 4. SU~94ARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION: The December 1996 Utility Land Management Plan updates the existing 1986 Land Management Plan. As with the 1986 Plan, the update addresses maintaining the Union River surface water supply in compliance with Department of Health (Please see page 2 for continuation) 5. RECO~94ENDATION: That the City Council adopt Resolution RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Public Works Dir. ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: Forestry Manager EXPIRATION DATE: N/A REVIEW DATE: N/A PULLED C] TABLED [] COUNCIL DIRECTIVE: 10. NOTICE OF ACTION APPROVED [ ] DISAPPROVED [ ] AMENDED [ ] 11. 2. CLEARANCE COMMENTS: 4. SU~94A/~Y STATEMENT AND BEQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION - Continuation regulations for unfiltered sources under the Surface Water Treatment Rule (SWTR). Volume II of the 1996 Plan includes a timber inventory summary from the computer data base developed within the project scope; a computer based geographic information system (GIS) was developed for all Water Utility forest lands; forest health issues are addressed also in Volume II. The Utility Land Management Plan will provide a rational long term approach for land and forest management policies and practices within the constraints of water quality. An Advisory Committee assisted in the Plan development process. This project was brought to the October 21, 1996 Council Study Session. IMPACT ON NON-PASSAGE: Non-adoption of policies and procedures designed to maintain the Water Utility's filtration exemption with Washington State Dept. of Health. 7. IMPACT ON STA~FFING, BUDGETS, FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT AND OTHER RESOURCES: Staffing: N/A Budget: N/A Facilities/Equipment: N/A 8. RESEA/~CH SOURCES: Forestry Manager. 33- Resolution No. A RESOLUTION adopting the documents entitled "Utility Land Management Plan" and "Forest Management Plan" as policies of the City of Bremerton and as an addendum to the City's Water Supply Plan required by WAC 246-290-100 and authorizing the City's Director of Public Works and Utilities to take the necessary steps to implement the two Plans. WHEREAS, the City of Bremerton owns and operates a municipal water supply system which is designed to meet the existing and future needs of the City of Bremerton and its water customers; and WHEREAS, it is required by the Washington State Department of Health and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that the drinking water quality delivered to the customer meets specific water quality criteria and that the sources of supply be provided with the appropriate level of treatment and the watershed be managed to minimize the introduction of contamination into the supply; and WHEREAS, the Bremerton Water Utility relies upon a Watershed Management Program to protect the quality of water and minimize the need for water filtration or other costly treatment techniques to meet the State and Federal drinking water criteria; and WHEREAS, the City of Bremerton authorized the update of the 1986 Utility Land Management Plan and Forest Management Plan with the specific objective of updating policies, procedures, and implementation program to help ensure that the quality of water delivered to the City's customers meet State and Federal requirements. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON That we find Volume I--Utility Land Management Plan and Volume II--Forest Land Management Plan (collectively the Plans) consistent with the goals and objectives of the City of Bremerton and do hereby adopt the Plans as official policy and programs of the City of Bremerton as an integral part of the City's Water System Plan for the management of the water supply. That the Mayor of Bremerton, Lynn Horton, is authorized to submit the Plans to the Department of Health for review and approval as the o City's Management Plan for protecting water quality and controlling activities on the municipal watershed lands. That Director of Public Works and Utilities (Director) is hereby authorized to implement the recommendations and programs outlined in the Plans. That the Director be further instructed to continue to monitor the changing requirements of the State and Federal drinking water laws and to anticipate potential changes that may affect the management program of the City of Bremerton such that the cost of providing public water supply to the City's customers is minimized. PASSED on this __day of ,,1997. CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL BY: David Farr, President RECOMMEND APPROVAL Lynn S. Horton, Mayor