HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/02/96 AGENDABI~EMERTON CITY COLrNCIL
239 4TH STREET
BREMERTON, WA 98337
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
OCTOBER 2t 1996
CALL TO ORDER - 5:30 P.M.
A. Pledge Of Allegiance
B. Invocation
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 - September 4, 1996 AB96-222
3. CLAIMS/CHECK REGISTERS
4. COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS
5. MAYOR'S REPORT
6. PUBLIC RECOGNITION -- (Comments Limited to 3 Minutes)
NEW BUSINESS
A. Bid Award to Ace Paving Company For Sylvan
Way Street Improvements: Wheaton Way To
Olympus Drive
B. 10% Petition/Letter Of Intent To Annex The
Schultz Area
#AB96-224 ~Q. ~
ORDINANCES
A. Ordinance #4573 (Second Reading) Amending #AB96-220
B.M.C. Chapter 2.88, Disability Action Committee
1. SUBJECT:
AGENDA BILL
BREMERTON CiTY COUNCIL
MINUTES - SEPTE~fBER 4,- 1996
FOR AGEND~ OF: OCT. 2~ 1996
ORIGINATING DEPT: City Council
ORIGINATOR: 3ohn Law, President
DATE SUBMITTED: 9-23-96
2. C~NCE~: (comment on back
if necessary)
3. EXHIBITS:
oo oiL PR S O NT'C--
4. SUM~Y STATEMENT AND REOUIREMENT FOR'COUNCIL ACTION:
8. RECO594EN_DATION:
9 o
RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL:
ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL:
EXPIRATION DATE:
REVIEW DATE:
PULLED TABLED
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE:
10. NOTICE OF ACTION
APPROVED DISAPPROVED __
DATE:
11.
AM._NDmD
TAPE #1403
UNAPPROVED DRAFT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 4t 1996
#0010
#0032
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, September 4, 1996, at 5:30 P.M.,
with Council President John Law presiding. Council members present
were Bob Winters, Carlos Montgomery, Sherril Huff-Menees, David
Farr, Richard Neville, Lon Overson, Cecil McConnell, and A1 Colvin.
Also present were City Attorney Ian Sievers and City Clerk Kathleen
McCluskey.
The meeting opened with the Pledge of Allegiance led by Council
President Law and Invocation given by Reverend Cleveland Williams
of Ebenezer A.M.E. Church.
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Minutes - August 14, 1996
#AB96-188
B. Minutes - August 21, 1996
#AB96-189
C. Bid Award Recommendation Cardlock Fueling #AB96-190
and Fuels
M/S/C/(Neville/Montgomery) to approve Consent Agenda as presented.
Vote on motion: In Favor: Colvin, McConnell, Law, Overson,
Neville, Huff-Menees, Montgomery,
Winters
Abstain: Fart
Motion carried.
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 September 4, 1996, the Council does
approve for payment those vouchers included and further described
as follows: 201110 through 2011322 in the amount of $249,308.04.
COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS
Mr. Winters reminded District #9 residents that he will hold a
District neighborhood meeting on September 9, 7:00 P.M, where he
will give an update on the past year's actions. He thanked Terrie
O'Neill, Municipal Services Coordinator, for the Certificate of
Appreciation he received for his participation at
TAPE #1403
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
September 4, 1996
Page 2 of 24
Kids Day event on the Boardwalk.
Mr. Montqomer¥ commented on very successful events... Concerts On
The Dock and Blackberry Festival, and the fact none of them were
hindered by rainy weather.
Mrs. Huff-Menees congratulated Carol Atkinson, Bremerton Main
Street Association and all the volunteers, who put together the
Blackberry Festival, which was a wonderful event.
Mr. Fart stated it was good to be back after spending some time in
North Dakota. While there, he was struck by the absence of
"eyesore" type residences and after doing some research learned the
average income within that community is significantly less than the
average income in Bremerton. He drew the conclusion that eyesores
and rundown property aren't related to economic conditions of an
area. It made him hopeful that if we, as a community, put enough
effort into it, perhaps we could get the area around our community
cleaned up and have pride in our neighborhoods.
Mr. Neville announced a Neighborhood Information Network Meeting
encompassing Council Districts #4, #5 and #6 will be held on
September 10, 7:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers. The topic
of discussion at that meeting will be the Sinclair Landing Project.
Also, on September 10, 6:00 - 7:30 P.M., at the Olympic College
North Conference Room %140, the Engineering Department will hold a
meeting to discuss "removal of parking from planting strips" for
residents of the 1100 and 1200 block of McKenzie and the 800 block
of 12th Street and the 800 block of 10th Street.
Mr. Overson encouraged residents of District #4 to attend the
Information Network meeting on September 10. Regretfully, he was
unable to attend the Blackberry Festival, but he understood it was
a great festival. He extended a special WELCOME to his mother, who
is visiting this area.
Mr. McConnell announced the next District #2 Neighborhood meeting
will be held September 10, 6:00 P.M., at Fire Station #3. The
topic for that meeting will be the proposed changes to the City
Charter.
Mr. Colvin reported on August 28th he attended the Tuskegee
Airmen's convention in Seattle. He congratulated everyone
responsible for the very successful Blackberry Festival. He
reminded residents of District #1 that the next Neighborhood
meeting will be held September 19, with Mayor Lynn Horton as guest
speaker.
Mr. Law announced the Manette community will hold a Flea Market,
TAPE #1403
city Council Reg.
September 4, 1996
Page 3 of 24
Mtg. Minutes
hosted by the Manette Business District, on September 15. The
monthly meeting of District #3 will be held on September 17, 7:00
P.M., at the Senior Center. The guest speaker at that meeting will
be Police Chief Paul DuFresne.
MAYOR~8 REPORT
Mayor Lynn Horton handed out copies the first City of Bremerton
Community Newsletter, which will be mailed out in the current
Utility billing cycle. She will try to incorporate any suggestions
she receives from the citizens regarding the newsletter as space
allows. The newsletter will be published every other billing
cycle.
Today, Mayor Horton attended the regional Board meetings and one of
the topics at the Health District segment was a stop smoking
campaign involving a group of young people in Kitsap County, who
formed an organization...STAND (Stop Tobacco Addition Now DO IT).
Members of the group go into stores and try to purchase tobacco
products from the sales clerks. When the project was started two
years ago, 60% of the Bremerton businesses targeted sold tobacco
products to minors. In 1995 that percentage dropped to 17% and so
far in 1996 that percentage is 2%. County-wide overall the
percentage rate was 8% with North Kitsap having "0%".
Mayor Horton announced on September 23rd she and Carol Whitehead,
Bremerton School District Superintendent, will initiate the first
Community School Forum that will be held in each of the elementary
schools within the community. The intent of those meetings will be
an opportunity for parents/residents to voice their concerns about
school issues or community issues. She will be looking for
opportunities for partnership type projects with the School
District that can be funded out of Traffic Safety funds.
Mayor Horton was pleased to announce the opening of the Olympic
Course at Gold Mountain on September 13. She encouraged golfers to
take advantage of the opportunity to play a free round of golf on
September 13-14-15. And, she was pleased to report young people
are frequenting the newly installed Skate Board Park; and she
complemented the Parks Department for their effort in developing
the park.
PUBLIC RECOGNITION
Carol Atklnson, Bremerton Main Street Association, thanked the
Council for their kind remarks regarding the success of the
Blackberry Festival. She acknowledged the sponsors of the
festival...Parr Ford, Budweiser, The Sun, Power Aid, United
Airlines, McDonalds, Cascade Clear, Crime Stoppers, and she
extended a special thanks to the City of Bremerton and Port of
Bremerton. She was pleased to announce over 55,000 people attended
TAPE #1403
City Council Reg. Mtg.
September 4, 1996
Page 4 of 24
Minutes
the festival over the two day event. She also acknowledged the
many volunteers serving on the Festival Committee.
Ed Pietras, President Martin Luther King Scholarship Fund, reminded
everyone of the Constitutions Day Luncheon on September 15, 1:30
P.M., at the Bayview Inn.
7A - APPOINTMENT OF DEBR~ L. JACKSON TO THE COM~4UNITY DEVELOPMENT
#0898
BLOCK GRANT ADVISORY COMMITTEE, ~AB96-191
There are vacancies on the Community Development Block Grant
Advisory Committee. It is recommended that Debra L. Jackson be
appointed to fill one of the vacancies.
Mayor Lynn Horton noted Debra Jackson served a term on Bremerton's
Planning Commission and due to personal commitments was not able to
consider an additional term on the Commission. However, Debra
indicated she would be interested in serving on the Community
Development Block Grant Advisory Committee since it is a shorter
time commitment. Mayor Horton believes Debra will look at the
grant applications fairly and try to apply the established
policies; and she urged Council to confirm her appointment to the
committee.
Public comment - none.
Mr. Neville stated his support of Debra Jackson based on qualities
she has exhibited.., fairness, honesty, good judgement and common
sense.
M/S/C/U(Huff-Menees/Winters) to confirm the appointment of Debra
L. Jackson to the Community Development Block Grant Advisory
Committee.
7B - APPOINTMENT OF DRAKE EVANS TO THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK
GRANT ADVISORY COMMITTEE~ ~AB96-192
There are vacancies on the Community Development Block Grant
Advisory Committee. It is recommended that Drake Evans be
appointed to fill one of the vacancies.
Mayor Lynn Horton noted Mr. Evans has been activity within the
community and is a retired PSNS employee. He has been active in
the Puget Rental Operators Association and as such has had the
opportunity to come in contact with people within the community,
who are less fortunate, and whose needs are helped through the
City's Block Grant program. She urged Council's confirmation of
Mr. Drake to the Block Grant Advisory Committee.
Public comment - none.
#0960
TAPE #1403
city Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
September 4, 1996
Page 5 of 24
President Law stated based on his having known Mr. Evans for some
time, he lends his support to his appointment to the Block Grant
Advisory Committee.
Mr. Overson pointed out he also has worked with Mr. Evans through
the Naval Reserve, and as a Master Chief Petty Officer Mr. Drake
has been involved in some of the higher level boards and committee
in the Naval Reserve. Mr. Colvln pointed out Mr. Drake is also a
pilot with an instrument rating for Search & Rescue.
M/S/C/U(Colvin/McConnell) to confirm the appointment of Drake Evans
to the Community Development Block Grant Advisory Committee
7C - PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR SCOTT ALEXANDERt ~OLF
PROFESSIONAL ~OLD MOUNTAIN ~OLF COMPLEX, #AB96-193
A provision within the current Professional Services Agreement with
Scott Alexander, requires renegotiation of the agreement as a
result of the opening of the Olympic course at Gold Mountain. it
is the request, therefore, of the Gold Mountain Board of Directors
for Council to approve the attached revised agreement. This
agreement covers the time period 1997 through 2001 and provides
compensation at the rate of 10% of Greens fees revenue net of sales
tax.
Scott Alexander has been at Gold Mountain for over 10 years and has
been one of the key factors in the course's success. Over the last
4 years Gold Mountain has averaged 72,013 players per year.
Jim Spencer, Parks and Recreation Director, stated he believed Mr.
Alexander's management record at Gold Mountain Golf Course over the
past decade speaks for itself. He reviewed the following major
changes in the proposed agreement: (1) term of contract will carry
Mr. Alexander through the year 2001; (2) additional requirements
have been identified regarding PGA support. Mr. Alexander's
current contract calls for one PGA assistance, the new requirement
is 3. (3) Additional Marshalling. (4) Clarified requirements
relative to the City providing covered storage for the motorized
golf carts..the City will provide 4,000 sq. ft. of covered storage
space. (5) Current contract calls for Mr. Alexander to receive 14%
of the net green fee total and the proposed contract reduces that
amount to 10%. (6) In the area of percentage paid to the City
relative to golf cart rental and driving range fees, the proposed
contract will stipulates that the City will receive 6% and 8%
respectively for the cart rental and driving range fee.
Public comment - none.
Mr. Neville stated he has noticed a difference in the Gold Mountain
Golf Course since Scott Alexander took over its management. He
TAPE #1403
City Council Reg. Mtg.
September 4, 1996
Page 6 of 24
Minutes
emphasized Mr. Alexander is a true professional and has brought the
course up to a professional standard that is well recognized
throughout this community and the State. He believes the contract
is very fair, but more demands have been placed on Mr. Alexander as
well. Scott has shown that he is a true friend of the City of
Bremerton by accepting the negotiated requirements and the City
would be remiss if Council did not approve the contract.
Mr. Colvin questioned if an individual can use a privately owned
golf cart? Mr. Spencer stated yes; however, they must pay a cart
path fee. Mr. Winters asked what percentage of that fee goes to
the City? Mr. spencer stated that was part of the green fee
revenue with Mr. Alexander getting 10% of that total. Mr. Win%ers
stated he felt that Mr. Alexander's percentage should be retained
at 14% rather than the proposed 10% based on his successful
management of the golf course and the benefits derived by the City
from that level of quality service. He appreciated the fact that
the City would be receiving additional revenue from the golf cart
rental and driving range fees. He also acknowledged the
significant contribution John Alexander, Scott's brother, made to
the golf course as Golf Course Grounds Superintendent.
Mr. McConnell noted Scott Alexander has made the golf course a
paying proposition for the city and revenues derived from the
course are used to help fund the City's park program.
Mr. Fart referenced a newspaper article that identified Scott
Alexander as a partner in a proposed new golf course in the County.
He asked if that is the case were those considerations were
resolved to avoid any potential conflict of interest. Mr. Spencer
stated in his mind they have and the contract specifically states
Mr. Alexander will be the golf professional on a full time basis
and identifies the specific number of hours he is expected to be at
the course. Ian Sievers, City Attorney, noted the contract
stipulates 1,920 hours, which defines full time hours of service to
the course. If there is fault in the way he is performing his
duties, the City can terminate the contract, but he is expected to
put in full time regardless of any outside activities or interests.
#1350
Mrs. Huff-Menees stated she could not imagine the City could be
served any better than what has been received from Scott and his
staff through his leadership. She doubted there would be any
dissention over this contract and fully supports the proposal as
presented.
M/S/C/U(McConnell/Montgomery) to approve the Professional Services
Agreement.
TAPE #1403
City Council Reg.
September 4, 1996
Page 7 of 24
Mtg. Minutes
Soott Alexander, Golf Professional, thanked the Council for their
support and he looks forward to promoting the spectacular new golf
course.
Mayor Lynn Horton stated when she first came into office as Mayor
she announced to Parks staff members that she anticipated having a
new golf course developed and ready for play starting in 1996.
And, because of the hard word and dedication given by those staff
members her projection became a reality. Because of Scott's
involvement with the designer of the course, she believes it is
even better than it would have been. She also acknowledged the
professional attention of John Alexander, and the fact that the
city will miss having his expertise; however, the Assistant Greens
Superintendent is proposed to take his place and will carry on the
quality of work set in place by John.
7D - BID AWARD TO ACE PAVING COMPANY FOR 14TH STREET RECONSTRUCTION
- PARK AVENUE TO BHELDON BLVD. t ~AB96-194
Bids were opened for the 14TH Street Relocation Project on August
19, 1996. One bid was received for this project from Ace Paving
Company in the amount of $68,043.50. The Engineer's estimate for
this project was $68,000. Total project construction cost
including construction inspection, surveying, management and
contingency is $85,054.38. The action before the City Council is
approval of a contract for the construction of the 14TH Street
Relocation with Ace Paving Company.
Randy witt, City Engineer, stated 14th Street between Park Avenue
and Sheldon Blvd., will be the new entrance into Evergreen Park.
The Park Master Plan has been developed to show the street being
moved southerly through what use to be the Street Maintenance
facility. A traffic calming circle will be made as part of the
intersection into the park and a portion of the existing 14th
Street will be demolished and included into the landscaping.
Public comment - none.
Mr. Fart noted in the past there has been some criticism on the
variances between the Engineer's estimate and the bid. He asked if
there was an explanation for the difference of $43.53 on a $68,000
bid? Mr. Witt stated every once in awhile they do it right.
Mr. Neville commented on the improvements being made, especially
the demolition of the old quonset hut, and the fact it will become
a much more valuable and needed project. Relocation of 14th Street
is the beginning of a grand scheme for the expansion of Evergreen
Park.
Mr. Winters asked if the bid of $68,000 allowed for contingencies?
#1700
TAPE #1403
City Council Reg.
September 4, 1996
Page 8 of 24
Mtg. Minutes
Mr. Witt stated the bid contains a small amount of "force account
work". The actually contingencies are outside of the amount
awarded. The total construction costs are $85,000, which includes
a 10% contingency ($6,500), which will be used for change orders.
Mr. Overson asked the anticipated date of completion? Mr. Witt
stated he recalled the contract stipulates 30 working days and work
should begin within a couple of weeks. Mr. Overson emphasized this
proposal is just the relocation of 14th Street, not the
redevelopment of the area.
Mr. Colvin asked if the bid was a firm bid? Mr. Witt stated he did
not anticipate any surprises in this type of project.
M/S/C/U(Neville/Farr) the city Council approve a contract for
$68,043.50 with Ace Paving for construction of the 14TH Street
Relocation Project and authorize the Mayor to execute the same.
7E - WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT ODOR CONTROL PROJECT (V42152000)
AMENDMENTS NUMBER 8 AND 9 TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH
R. W. BECK, ~AB96-195
The City has negotiated amendments number 8 and 9 to the
Professional Services Agreement with R. W. Beck on the Wastewater
Treatment Plant Odor Control Project. Amendment #8 is a no cost
amendment, which modifies the method of compensation from salary
times a multiplier basis to a cost plus fixed fee basis. This
change will satisfy the Department of Ecology grant requirements.
Amendment #9 provides a budget allowance of $60,000 for additional
construction management and start up assistance. This is required
because of additional time required by the consultant to monitor
the contractor during completion of the project. Staff recommends
approval of both amendments.
Randy Witt, City Engineer, stated Amendment #8 changes how the City
is compensating the consultant engineer, who is handling the
contract management on the project. The City negotiated a contract
with them at a salary and multiplier basis, which is a typical
practice. The City received a grant for the dechlorination system
from the Department of Ecology that requires contracts for
consultants be on a cost plus fee basis. What that does from the
City's perspective is it breaks apart the multiplier to show the
overhead and profit separate from a lump sum number. The amendment
will not change the cost or scope of work.
Amendment No. 9 is the result of extending the contract time on the
project. The contractor is completing the project and expects to
have their equipment off site within 2-3 weeks, which is
significantly later than anticipated when the project was started.
Additional funding is required in order to keep the Project
#1870
TAPE #1403
city Council Reg.
September 4, 1996
Page 9 of 24
Mtg. Minutes
Management Team in place and working. At this point, it is assumed
the contractor will be done by the end of October and it also
assumes they will have full time inspections, which is also
generous. He is reasonably comfortable that he will not have to
come back and ask for additional money and time to compensate the
construction management during the project. Additionally, the
contractor is in a situation of liquidated damages that will allow
partial compensation for his extended time to the construction
management.
Public comment - none.
Mr. Overson asked if he understood correctly that even though we
are still wrestling the project, it was within budget. Mr. Witt
stated yes.
Mr. Mcconnell asked when Mr. Witt anticipated the project to be
completed? Mr. Witt stated he expects the contractor to be off
site within 2-3 weeks.
M/S/C/U(Montgomery/Winters) that the Mayor is authorized and
directed to execute amendments No. 8 and 9 to the Professional
Services Agreement with R. W. Beck for engineering services on the
Wastewater Treatment Plant Odor Control Project.
8A - ORDINANCE %4566 (SECOND READING) AUTHORIZING TW~ ISSUE OF
$342,421.31 LID BONDS AND ACCEPTING THE PURCHASE OFFER OF SEAFIRST
BANKt ~AB96-185
Rich Hanna, City Treasurer, distributed two handouts to the
Council, the first being an update of the Bond Ordinance that was
discussed at the previous Council meeting...being amended to
include the revised sizing of the bond issue. That change was
necessitated by a late pre-payment accepted from a property owner.
In addition, he provided the scale for the interest rates on the
various anticipated maturities of the bonds. It is expected they
will be repaid between now and the year 2009 in the amounts
indicated in the appropriate section as well as in the Purchase
Offer. The second handout is Seafirst's offer to purchase the
bonds, as described at the previous Council meeting. Of most
interest to the Council, in both documents, is the schedule of
expected maturities and the coupons associated with different
maturities of the bonds. He introduced Jane D. Towery, Vice
President Municipal Finance, Seafirst Bank. Jane Tower7 stated she
was pleased to be before Council to present the Purchase Offer to
buy the bonds of the City of Bremerton. Today, they concentrated
on marketing the bonds locally and will open it up system wise on
September 5. They were able to sell approximately 1/2 of the bonds
($150,000) and all but $20,000 of that was to individual investors.
The Bond market has been a little volatile lately, but she believes
#2125
#2225
#228
TAPE #1403
city Council Reg.
September 4, 1996
Page 10 of 24
Mtg. Minutes
the identified rates are very fair and considered to be low as far
as other comparable issues available. The average coupon on the
Bonds overall for 13 year issue, potentially out to a 15-year
issue, is 5.56% and that is considered to be very fair.
Public comment - none.
Mr. Colvin asked if there was a minimum amount requirement to
purchase the bonds? Ms. Towery stated there is a $5,000 minimum.
M/S/C(Overson/Colvin) that Council pass Ordinance #4556, on second
reading.
Vote on motion:
Motion carried.
In Favor:
Abstain:
Colvin, Winters,
Menees, Neville,
Law
Farr
Montgomery, Huff-
Overson, McConnell,
8B - ORDINANCE #4567(SECONDREADING) TO AMENDTHE "ADMINISTRATION"
SECTION OF THE BREMERTON ZONING ORDINANCE, ~AB96-187
Ron Houqh, Planning Manager, stated since first reading of the
ordinance, staff found one correction. At first reading, Council
changed a portion of Type I Decisions giving a local appeal to the
Planning Commission and after that they had to go through the
document and change everything related to that action. One change
was missed, found on page 28, section (f) Decision & Appeal: (3)
should read: An administrative decision on a Site Plan be appealed
to Plannina Commission (the words "Superior Court" were deleted and
replaced with "Planning Commission).
Public comment - none.
M/S/C(Montgomery/Neville) the City Council pass Ordinance #4567,
on second reading.
M/S/C/F((McConnell/Overson) to amend the motion by removing the
*(s) under Type III Decisions under the column heading of Planning
Commission Public Meeting Recommend.
Mr. Colvin asked Mr. McConnell to give an explanation of the basis
of his motion. Mr. McConnell stated it would give a false
impression to the public attending the "meetings" held by the
Planning Commission and a decision would be made by the Co~u~ission;
and there is a remote possibility that by having it included it
could cause an appeal and challenge in as much as the 1724
regulation stipulates one Open Hearing and one Close Hearing. Even
though it is not a formal Open Hearing it could be construed by
people and possibly by the Court. And in as much as it will only
TAPE #1403
City Council Reg. Mtg.
September 4, 1996
Page 11 of 24
Minutes
be a "recommend", the people sitting on the Planning Commission are
unpaid volunteers and would be required to sit through a 3-5 hour
meetings to make just a consensus recommendation, not the kind of
recommendation they had made in the past because that would have
the tendency of make it look like a hearing.
Mr. Colvin asked Mr. Hough if he had a response to Mr. McConnell's
comment? Mr. ~ouqh stated this issue has received a great deal of
discussion by the Planning Commission and City Council. He had no
problem with the proposal to hold a public meeting that would
involve a recommendation to Council. Such a meeting would not have
to be widely advertised or inviting lots of people to testify. He
felt it was more of a legal issue. Ian Slevers, City Attorney,
stated he felt the discussion should focus on whether it is
valuable or not to have a hearing at the Planning Commission level.
He agreed with Mr. Hough that it can be clearly established that
the "public meeting" would not be the Open Record Hearing and is
more of an expanded study session with invited public comment. The
risk of that in itself being grounds for an appeal is small. The
City is trying to follow the legislation as far as definitions
being used and also with the expedited land use review process in
Superior Court we know quickly, within 30 days, whether it will be
appealed to Superior Court.
Mr. Overson stated there are various reasons for supporting that
and one he supports is that the intent of 1724 is to move along the
process smartly and probably the primary for supporting this
amendment is that it is highly recommended unanimously by the
Planning Commission.
Mr. Montqomer¥ disagreed with Mr. Overson, he believes the primary
objective of 1724 is the permit process, not the approval of the
Council. He doubted that anyone will go to court over a
recommendation by the Planning Commission, which he feels is a
false perception. As discussed last week, he believes the decision
to keep the Planning Commission in Type III Decisions is
appropriate; therefore, he will not support the amendment.
Mr. Farr questioned if the proposal, as published with the Type III
Decision recommendations coming from the Planning Commission, gives
the applicant an option to skip that process? Mr. ~ough stated he
believed the applicant would have that right. It is not mandatory
to attend the Planning Commission meeting and would be a kind of an
extension of the staff recommendation. The type of projects under
this designation are subdivisions, PUD's and fairly massive
projects that may benefit by further discussion on the design,
access, etc. Mr. Parr questioned if the applicant wished to not
participate in that "public meeting" based on the fact only a
recommendation would come from that kind of activity, could he push
TAPE #1403
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
September 4, 1996
Page 12 of 24
his application directly to the City Council for an Open Hearing?
Mr. Houqh responded yes.
Mr. Neville stated he would not support the amendment to the motion
because by not having the Planning Commission hold public meetings
and inform people of their rights we're doing an injustice to the
citizenry. He has always taken the Planning Commission's
recommendations very serious and he looks forward to getting their
recommendations even though they would not have the final decision
on Type III Decisions.
President Law stated he shared Mr. Neville's view until he gave it
deeper consideration and his concerns are as follows: (1) the
Planning Commission's recommendation was that the Open Hearing be
held by the City Council and that they not hold one; (2) he agreed
with Mr. Neville that the person naive to the procedures will be
fair game because if the individual has knowledgeable counsel they
will be able to buy an appeal that could torpedo any action by the
Planning Commission that Council thought was not a hearing and then
we would in affect be breaking the law. Mr. Colvlm raised a
questioned whether or not the City would be breaking a law and
asked the City Attorney to comment on that point. Mr. sievers
stated he did not believe the Council would be breaking the law.
He believes the City is obeying the letter of the law. In deed
1724 was intended to expedite and consolidate and part of that
process is to not have multiple recording hearings. The "public
meeting" before the Planning Commission would not be an open record
pre-decisional meeting, it would be voluntary and would not slow up
the process appreciatibly and it is allowed in the statute. He
believed a Court would have a difficult time trying to extend the
intent of 1724 to say that complying with this kind of hearing as
set for in the statute must be against the intent of the statute.
There is some risk the Court would second guess the wording in the
statute and say the intent was not to have invited public comment
twice. Mr. Colvin stated based on that reason he will not support
the amendment to the motion.
Mayor Horton stated she had an opportunity to meet with Senator
Sheldon and conveyed to her the depth of Council's unhappiness with
the Legislature's decision to move forward with this piece of
legislation. She also told her about Council's discussion about
keeping the Planning Commission in the loop and provide a function
as well by holding neighborhood meetings and then make a
recommendation to Council. Senator Sheldon's response was that she
had talked to one of the makers of the bill and that was the
thought they had when developing the bill...that some communities
were moving in the same direction to have the Planning Commission
hold neighborhood meetings. The City Attorney has indicated such
meetings are not illegal and from her perspective having the
TAPE
TAPE #1403
City Council Reg. Mtg.
September 4, 1996
Page 13 of 24
Minutes
Planning Commission hear issues at a neighborhood level informally
does a lot to bring both sides together. Having served on the City
Council for six years, it is far earlier to make a decision when
both parties come together and show their agreement on proposals.
She believes the Planning Commission can bring forward that common
sense position in an informal, less threatening position than the
city Council. If such a process doesn't work, the ordinance can be
amended by the City Council.
Mr. Montqomerv pointed out a case in point is the development of
the Harrison District Plan and the community involvement prior to
formal adoption by the city Council.
Mr. McConnell asked Larry Stone, Planning Commission member, to
state the Planning Commission's position on this issue? Larry
stone, Planning Commission member, stated their final motion on
this particular issue was unanimous that they hold no hearing and
the City Council hold the hearing. That was not in any way an
evaluation of what they felt was their relative competence or
incompetence, but rather a clarification if it would help Council
resolve the ponderous problems of 1724. His concern and he believed
the majority of the Planning Commission is not with the concept of
meetings, but they are to have some functional value, i.e., a
recommendation comes to the City Council. He questioned what form
would the recommendations come to the Council...simply letters from
seven members of the Commission or by a motion? If it is
transmitted by motion, it creates a formal process in an informal
situation. He asked how would the Commission become involved in a
development issue if someone appealed a land use proposal? He
expressed his confusion and pointed out the Commission is the
"creature of the Council" and they will do what they are tasked by
the city Council, but they do, as a body, have a reticence
proceeding with these "meetings". He is confused as to how to
proceed.
#1404
Vote on amended motion.
Motion failed.
In Favor:
Opposed:
Winters, Overson, McConnell,
Law
Montgomery, Huff-Menees, Farr,
Neville, Colvin
Vote on main motion:
Motion carried.
In Favor:
Opposed:
Montgomery, Huff-Menees, Farr,
Neville,, Colvin
Winters, Law, Overson, McConnell
8C - ORDINANCE (FIRST READING) AMENDING THE 1996 BUDGET (BUDGET
#0100
TAPE #1404
City Council Reg. Mtg.
September 4, 1996
Page 14 of 24
Minutes
ADJUSTMENTS ~96-13~ 96-15 THROUGH 96-26~ ~AB96-196
A number of actions have been taken by the City which need to be
incorporated into the Budget in order for the document to remain an
accurate projection of City financial activity.
Rich Hanna, city Treasurer, explained the proposed ordinance will
incorporate the approved Budget Adjustments Nos. 13-26, with the
single exception of Budget Adjustment No. 22, which has not
appeared as a separate item before Council prior to this
discussion. That particular Budget Adjustment was at such a low
amount it only needed the Mayor's approval.
Public comment - none.
M/S/C/U(Montgomery/Huff-Menees) to approve ordinance, on first
reading, amending the 1996 Budget.
8D ORDINANCE (FIRST READING) ACKNOWLEDGING A REVISED EMPLOYEE
EXPENSES REIMBURSEMENT POLICYt ~AB96-197
The current "Employee Expense Reimbursement" policy can only be
changed by City Council approval. There is a need to update and
revise the policy. Further, by repealing the existing ordinance
any future changes can be appropriately done by the Administration.
Jim Meith, Human Resources Manager, stated over the past 1/2 years
the Human Resource Department has been updating the entire
Personnel Policy and in that process discovered that the current
Employee Expense Policy had been approved by Ordinance action in
1992. In order to revises the policy, it requires Council action
and Council is being asked to repeal the ordinance that originally
approved the policy and at second reading of the ordinance to
approve a Resolution acknowledging that revision and instructing
the Auditor to periodically perform audits of how the policy is
being used. The new policy not only meets the format that is being
used, but it also address concerns that are not addressed in the
old policy, specifically it instructs that the employees for
reimbursement will use the most inexpensive way of transportation,
for example, if they had a choice between driving some place and
taking public transportation and they opted for a more expensive
way of travel, the City would only reimburse up to the least
expensive way. It also makes it clear on the per diem allowance
that receipts aren't needed and per diem will only apply to offset
lodging and meal expenses and it sets the per diem allowance and
basically talks about the verification and documentation that needs
to be completed by the employee in order to receive reimbursement.
It also details what is reimbursable for mileage, airline tickets
and meals.
Public comment - none.
#0384
TAPE #1404
City Council Reg.
September 4, 1996
Page 15 of 24
Mtg. Minutes
Mr. Overson questioned the appropriateness of staff setting
whatever rates they want for reimbursement? Mr. Meith stated
reimbursement rates in the new policy talks about the rates being
reasonable and is in account for the area in question. The old
policy set rates, but it also stated that reimbursement for meals
will not exceed $26.30 per day in total unless the additional
expense incurred is deemed necessary, which basically negates the
rates. It has been his experience that having actual rates in a
policy as to meals and lodging allowances due to the great
variation between cities and localities is almost impossible to
enforce. He believes it is better to trust management staff and
the Mayor to monitor such costs. Mr. Overson stated he was looking
for a more artfully written ordinance as opposed to something that
basically eliminates Council's involvement in this issue. He sees
the Audit function becoming more significant in monitoring the
expenditures. Mr. Meith explained Council retains its budgetary
authority function.
Mr. Colvln asked who would determine what is a "reasonable cost"
and the "least expensive way"? Mr. Malth stated the "least
expensive way" would be a little easier to determine and used the
example of flying to the City of Spokane or driving a personal
vehicle. In regard to "reasonable costs" it is not precise and
Department Heads and Managers are asked to make good sound
decisions based on the facts presented. A reasonable cost for a
meal in Bremerton will be quite different than the cost of a meal
in downtown Seattle.
Mr. M¢Connell raised a point regarding future revisions to the
policy being provided to the City Council by the Mayor and whether
or not that action would be in writing. Mr. Meith stated he would
assume it would be in written form.
M/S/C(Neville/McConnell) to approve ordinance, on first reading,
repealing Section 3 of Ordinance #4374.
Vote on motion:
Motion carried.
In Favor:
Opposed:
Montgomery, Huff-Menees, Farr, Neville,
McConnell, Colvin, Law
Overson, Winters
9A - RESOLUTION ~2557 ACKNOWLEDGING A REVISED VEHICLE USE POLICY,
~E96-198
The current "Vehicle Use Policy" can only be changed by City
Council approval. There is a need to update and revise the policy.
Further, by repealing the existing resolution any future changes
can be appropriately done by the Administration.
Jim Meith, Human Resources, stated in 1990 a Resolution was passed
#0500
TAPE #1404
city Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
September 4, 1996
Page 16 of 24
approving the current city Vehicle Use Policy. That policy is in
need of being updated and Council is being asked to repeal the
currently in force Resolution and establish a new Resolution making
sure the intent of the Council for the use of City vehicles be
limited exclusively to those instances when it is necessary to
conduct City business, and also making sure it is not the intent of
the City Council that the use of City vehicles be considered a
benefit for an employee. The old policy specifically addressed the
classifications that were allowed to take vehicles home. Some of
those classifications no longer exist due to the reorganizations
that have taken place since 1990. It is also unrealistic to have
specific classifications identified because circumstances and
classifications change. The proposed policy is written such that
the Department Head would have to provide a written recommendation
to the Mayor and the proposed policy outlines what that
recommendation has to include i.e., the reasons for the request,
benefit to the City, cost savings analysis, potential and probable
consequences that would result if an employee does not bring a
vehicle home and any other pertinent information. It was felt that
was a more realistic policy other than to state a specific
classification. If the proposed policy is approved, they will then
look at Department Heads justifying all use of City vehicles.
Public comment - none.
Mr. Montqomery noted he believes all resolutions and ordinances
should have expiration dates because of changes taking place and
this issue was a good example of such changes.
M/S/C(Montgomery/Colvin) to approve Resolution No. 2557
acknowledging a revised Vehicle Use Policy and repeal Resolution
No. 2285, which will include an expiration date.
Mr. Overson stated the original resolution was passed as a check
and balance system and although the fact that staff did not care to
follow it is a different concern. If the proposed resolution is
passed, Council will be totally eliminated from the process and
suggested taking action to put it under the Auditor's function.
His main concern has to do with the elimination of Council
approval.
Mr. Colvin asked Mr. Meith to explain how Council was being
eliminated out of the process under the proposed resolution? Mr.
Meith stated it is basically an Administrative Policy and Council's
role is more within the budgetary control. Who takes a vehicle
home is based on the needs of the City and a management function
that is more appropriately at the Administration arm of the City.
Of course, if any Council member feels there is an abuse of any
policy or use of a City vehicle, it would be appropriate for them
TAPE #1404
City Council Reg. Mtg.
September 4, 1996
Page 17 of 24
Minutes
to go to the Mayor and/or Audit Committee and asked that the
Auditor look into the potential abuse. Mr. Colvin asked how was
that different from the current policy? Mr. Meith explained the
only difference was the currently policy contained language that
any changes to the policy was by Council approval and the proposed
resolution gives the Mayor authority to change the policy with
notification to the city Council.
Vote on motion:
In Favor:
Opposed:
Neville, Colvin, Montgomery,
Huff-Menees, Fart
Overson, McConnell, Law, Winters
Motion carried.
10A - PUBLIC HEARING - REVISIONS TO CITY CHARTER, ~AB96-199
The revised Charter removes redundant and inconsistent language,
updates the current language to reflect changes in State law, such
as the election of the Municipal Court Judge and clarifies a number
of ambiguous passages. A second emphasis is to remove the majority
of references to administrative organization, including position
titles and duties of officers and employees. A summary of
substantive changes is attached as a cover sheet to the draft.
The first hearing will provide an opportunity for public input and
incorporation of changes to the draft. A resolution referring the
revised Charter to the November general election will be considered
the following week.
Kathleen MoCluskey, City Clerk, read into the record the Summary Of
Charter Revisions:
Sec. 3: Definition section added.
Sec. 6: Judge is included as an elected official; One year
residency requirement added for elected officials.
Sec. 7: Sets a deadline for redistricting prior to election;
Council members displaced by redistricting are allowed to serve out
their terms.
Sec. 10: Allows for continuity of city government if several
vacancies occur at the same time.
Sec. 11: Council President will serve as Mayor Pro Tem to fill an
unanticipated need during the Mayor's absence.
Sec. 15: Procedures for shortening notice and effective dates on
emergency ordinances are clarified using State emergency
appropriations as a model.
TAPE #1404
city Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
September 4, 1996
Page 18 of 24
Sec. 18: Replaces Mayor on the Auditing Committee with an
additional citizen member.
Sec. 31: Reduces Civil Service Commissioner residency requirement
from three years to one year. Removes Police and Fire Chiefs from
civil Service.
Sec. 37: Removes restriction on exclusive franchises. Limits term
restrictions to franchises.
I&n Sievers, city Attorney, stated prior to getting into
substantive discussion on additional language or changes, he wanted
to point out several minor typographical corrections: page 8 of the
proposed Charter subsection (2) third line striking "the Council"
to be consistent with the format. Page 14 Sec. 14 first line
should read "All meetings of Council and City boards, commissions
and committees shall be open to the public except as excluded by
42.30 RCW or this Charter", (striking "and" between boards and
commissions). Page 22 - add the word "office" after appointive in
the first line; and correct the spelling of Marshal by deleting one
"1". And, under Section 21, second sentence shall read: "Council
employees who serve at the pleasure of the Council may only be
removed by a majority vote of Council sitting as a whole. Section
22 first sentence shall read: "Any officer or employee", before
entering upon the performance o~ his duties, may be ..... " Secton
24 first sentence insert the word "or" between the words committee
and commission and delete the words "or" and "department". Section
29 first line...the "d" in the word "declared" should not be struck
out. Page 28 Sec. 29, second sentence add the word "any" before
the word "special". And the third sentence of Sec. 29 should show
"state Law" stuck out prior to RCW 35.92.070; and the addition of
the word "need" prior to the word "only".
Council was provided a copy of the proposed Charter without the
amendatory format and he used that opportunity for one language
change requested by Councilman Overson on keeping an option open to
amend Council's salary through Initiative Ordinance, which allow
those salaries to be implemented immediately across the board. The
proposed change is in Section 8 (1) "The compensation and benefits
of the Mayor, Municipal Judge and Council members shall be fixed by
ordinance and may be revised from time to time, but any change in
Council members compensation shall not be applicable to Council
members serving the remainder of unexpired terms unless fixed by
ordinance and approved by the voters. He asked for Council's
direction if they wished to include the language change he
identified.
Mr. Montqomery stated he does not believe in fixing something that
isn't broken and he believed that items were being left out of the
TAPE #1404
City Council Reg.
September 4, 1996
Page 19 of 24
Mtg. Minutes
proposed charter. In reference to Section 8 - Compensation, he
firmly believes no elected official should ever get a salary
increase unless it is voted on by the citizens.
Mr. Colvin stated he does not believe the citizens have had
sufficient time study the proposed Charter and wanted to extend
them an opportunity to carefully review the document prior to
making comment.
Mr. Winters stated as Mayor Pro Tem he has had concerns with
Section 11 (1), the appointment of the Mayor Pro Tempore. He finds
not only do we have a Council President that sometimes is very
busy, but we have a Council Vice President and a Mayor Pro Tem, who
are elected by the members of the Council, based on who they feel
can best handle that position for what it requires. As an example,
when he was on vacation the chain of commend went down as far as
Councilman McConnell to represent the City; however, he did know
that the Mayor appointed him to represent the City as Mayor Pro Tem
or Deputy Mayor in a situation. That is why he believes Section 11
where one person takes on the responsiblity of two or three people
is not fair. He firmly believes there needs to be a change of
officers of the Council, but also each duty experienced by a
Council member. He continues to have a problem with this section.
Mr. colvln stated he could appreciate Mr. Winters' concern, but he
believes the duties of the position of Mayor Pro Tem should be
clearly defined and he did not see that Section 11 gave the Mayor
Pro Tem the authority granted to the Mayor. Mr. Winters stated
prior to his being sworn in as a City Council member, he asked the
City Attorney what his responsibility would be as a new Council
member. Mr. Sievers' response was for him to read the City
Charter, which he did. He found the definition of Mayor Pro Tem,
Council President and Vice President are defined in the current
City Charter. The proposed revised charter does not go into the
same depth as the current Charter. He asked Mr. Sievers if the
duties of the Mayor Pro Tem are as clearly defined in the proposed
Section as they are in the current City Charter? Mr. sievers
referenced Section 11(2) and quoted: "The Mayor Pro Tem shall
perform all the duties of the Mayor, except he may only remove
appointive officers subject to Council confirmation after the Mayor
as been absent for thirty consecutive days, at which time the Mayor
Pro Tempore may remove such persons subject to any applicable law,
rule or regulation relating to Civil Service, with the approval of
Council majority plus one." The Department head language in the
current Charter was replace with appointive offices because there
is no definition for Department Head, but he did not see that as a
significant change. He was not aware that the current Charter
contained more detail as to the role of the Mayor Pro Tem other
than he is the Mayor, under certain circumstances, and would carry
TAPE #1404
City Council Reg. Mtg.
September 4, 1996
Page 20 of 24
Minutes
out the duties as Mayor when stepping into that office.
Mr. Montqomez7 stated the reference to "he" is used throughout the
document and to be political correct "he" should be changed to
"he/she" or delete the "he". Mr. ~eville pointed out that issue
was covered under Definitions of Genders, Section 3(1).
Mr. Montqomer~ requested the Council be provided a smooth copy of
the proposed Charter that would include the recommended changes for
the September llth Council Agenda.
Mr. Colvin asked when would the public have an opportunity to view
a copy of the revised Charter that included all of the recommended
changes? K&thleen M¢Cluske¥ stated as soon as the changes are
made, within a day or two, the City will provide copies to the Main
Library and the downtown branch of the library. Mr. Colvin
questioned how long would the public have to review the revised
proposed charter? Ms. McCluske¥ noted until September llth.
Mr. Colvin asked if there was a legal requirement as to when the
public should have an opportunity to review a "smooth" copy of the
proposed charter? Mr. Sievers stated this process before Council
is to give the Council as much input as possible for them to make
their recommendation. The citizens will have the opportunity to
approve the proposed Charter through the ballot, which must be
published four times (weekly) in the mandatory formate, which will
show changes from the current Charter.
Mr. Montgomery asked if it would be possible to place the proposed
revised Charter on the Internet through the Kitsap Regional
Library? Ms. Mc~luskey stated yes.
Mr. Fart asked the percentage of votes needed to approve the ballot
measure? Mr. sievers stated by simple majority. Mr. F&rr asked
what would be the affect if the proposed revised Charter was not
approved by the voters? Mr. sievers stated obviously some of the
inconsistences brought about through State law changes would take
precedent over the City's Charter.
Mr. Montgomery pointed out Section 8 was left off the Charter
Revision Summary. Mr. Slevers explained the information he
provided earlier on Section 8 could be added to the Summary either
as a motion at this meeting or at the Council meeting on September
11. Presi4ent Law stated he had the impression that Council was
comfortable with the language in the Section 8 handout. Mr.
Mcconnell and Mr. Montqomer¥ stated they each preferred their own
version of Section 8 over Mr. Sievers' version. President Law
stated Section 8 will be covered as a voting item after public
input has been taken.
TAPE #1404
city Council Reg. Mtg.
September 4, 1996
Page 21 of' 24
Minutes
Andy PazTpe, Bremerton resident, referenced Article II Section 5
and recommended changing the title to read:"Officers - Election -
and (strike out and) Term of (strike out of) and add the word
Qualifications (underlining Qualifications). He explained the
reason for underlining the word Qualifications is because it would
be a new word to both Charters. Under the same section, he also
asked Council to consider adding wording after the word
"Washington" (inserted and underlined) "no person shall be eliqible
for the position of Council member while holdinq any other Dublic
office; or is an emDloyee of the City." The reason for that
suggested wording is that Section 12 of the Charter does state the
Council has the power to fix the compensation of City officers and
employees. If the Council has that authority then he did not feel
is was appropriate for an employee to be seated as a City Council
member. He also did not feel it was appropriate for the City to do
business with an entity where a Bremerton City employee held an
elected office.
Mr. Parypa recommended that the Fire Chief and Police Chief not be
excluded from Civil Service because in his mind there is the
possibility as well as past history where the Mayor asked that
city/State regulations not be enforced. He viewed such action as
detrimental to the City. He recalled a few years ago the City paid
dearly to get rid of a Police Chief; however, that was not because
of Civil Service.
The proposed Charter requires citizenship for elected people. No
where in the proposed Charter does it stipulate citizenship other
than the civil Service section. And in no other commission, board
or committee did it require that they be citizens. Also, Mr.
Parypa recommended the age requirement for boards, committee and
commissions should be at least electorate age. He questioned if a
minor is serving on a board, committee or commission and there is
a tortious claim against the City over something the minor said,
what could be the repercussion?
Larry Stone, Bremerton resident, stated he was reminded of the fact
that the holy Bible has been interpreted over 50 times and the
United States Constitution has been amended more than 20 times. He
found it gratifying to stand before Council, after 3 1/2 years when
the idea of improving the Charter came about. He acknowledged that
the proposed revised Charter is not perfect. He and Mr. Parypa
discussed thoroughly the issue of keeping the Police and Fire
Chiefs under civil Service; however he was not sure he agreed with
Mr. Parypa on that issue based on his experience in other areas.
He does believe Mr. Parypa had other valid points that deserve
discussion by the City Council. However, he urged Council to give
the proposed Charter serious consideration, which he felt was
worthy of their consideration.
#2984
TAPE #1404
City Council Reg. Mtg.
September 4, 1996
Page 22 of 24
Minutes
President Law expressed special thanks to Mr. Parypa and Mr. Stone
for their effort in developing the proposed revised Charter.
M/S/C(McConnell/Huff-Menees) to have the proposed revised Charter
corrected, per the recommended changes by Mr. Sievers, for
presentation to the public at the September llth.
Vote on motion: In Favor: Winters, Huff-Menees, Farr, Neville,
McConnell, Colvin, Law
Opposed:
Motion carried.
Montgomery
Mr. M~connell recommended the following wording for Section 8 -
Compensation - "The compensation and benefits of the Mayor and
Municipal Judqe shall be fixed by ordinance and may be revised from
time to time. Council's salary shall be set by a Commission
appointed by the Mayor." He also recommended the following title
for a new section "Sale Of Watershed Prohibited - Nothinq in this
Charter shall be construed to permit the City of Bremerton to sell
all or any portion of any of the real property it now owns or may
hereafter acquire for water su~Dl¥ PurPoses. more qenerally known
as watershed, whether or not currently used for water supply
purposes unless a question of such proposed sale shall have been
first submitted to the qualified electorate of the City at a
General or Special Election called for that purpose and consented
to by 60% majority vote of said electors." Mr. ~eville asked if
that recommendation included the timber on of the watershed land?
Mr. M¢Connell stated no.
Mr. M¢Connell also recommended the following new section: Disposal
of Utility Properties -The City shall not sell, lease or dispose of
any Utility system or parts thereof essential to the continued
effective Utility service unless and until such disposal is
approved by a majority plus one of the Council."
Mr. Fart stated he could support some of the proposed changes, but
he could see some possibilities where it will be tough to get to a
whole document without submitting some of the proposed changes to
the individual proposal being voted on by the Council. President
Law stated he is asking that every proposed change identified
during this discussion be documented and made part of the Agenda
Bill for the September 11 Council Agenda packet. Mr. Fart asked
when it comes to individual proposals where they are vastly
different will Council get a chance to try to influence which one
goes into the proposal that is approved and presented to the
voters? President Law stated Council will have to vote on each
change. Ms. McCluske¥ asked President Law if he wished each
proposal to be submitted separately from the body of the document.
President Law stated yes. Mr. Montgomez7 asked that his
TAPE #1404
City Council Reg. Mtg.
September 4, 1996
Page 23 of 24
Minutes
recommendation for Section 8 also be included as follows:
Compensation for the City Council, Mayor and Municipal Judge will
only be approved by the voters"
Mr. F&rr referenced the recommendations by Mr. Parypa and noted one
of the changes involved qualifications to City Council included two
distinct criteria, one of which sounded acceptable and one he did
not agree with. He asked Mr. Sievers for a legal definition of
"public office" in response to Mr. Parypa's recommendation that
City Council members could not hold any other public office. Mr.
sievers stated he could distinguish "public office" from employee,
but Mr. Parypa is including both. Mr. Farr stated in his
particular case the prohibition against the City employee serving
on the Council might be reasonable, but by including "public
office" it could preclude one from serving on the Kitsap Planning
Council or board. Mrs. Huff-Menees asked Mr. Parypa to clarify if
he was talking about elected office? She also needed clarification
in terms of how that compares to the statute on Election Law,
because she is aware that Election statutes do address the ability
to hold more than one public office. Mr. Pary~& stated when he
spoke of "public office" he was speaking about any elected public
offices. For example, there was recently a case where a person was
holding a public elected office in Bremerton and that same person
was running for State Legislature. If that person would have been
elected as a State Legislator, that person wanted to hold down both
of those jobs at the same time.
Mr. Winters referenced the Sinclair Landing Association (SLA) and
noted Bremerton's Mayor is elected as is Councilman Huff-Menees,
but one of them is elected to the SLA board. Mrs. Huff-Menees
pointed out neither of them were elected to the SLA board. Mr.
winters stated he needed to know if that would apply since it was
not publicly elected although it could be within its organization?
Mr. McConnell stated it would not be a public officer.
Mr. Colvin asked if that means that no Council member, under Mr.
Parypa's proposal, could be elected to the School Board? Mr.
Sievers stated that was correct. Mr. Colvin asked if currently
they could be elected to the School Board? Mr. Slevers stated he
did not see it as a conflict. Mr. Colvin asked if was legal to set
such a restriction? Mr. sievers stated he believed Council could
set the qualifications in the Charter for running for City Council,
and doubted it would run afoul of any fundamental rights for the
person running for office, it would be just an established
qualification.. There is a common law of conflict of offices and
he will check the statutes to see if there is something more
specific for elected offices. He noted there is a lot of case law
precedent disqualifying various positions in elected offices and
holding office and being an employee of the same constituency. Mr.
TAPE #1404
city Council Reg.
September 4, 1996
Page 24 of 24
Mtg. Minutes
Farr asked that the issue of "employee" and "elected office" be
addressed separately.
Mr. Winters asked that Section 11 - Mayor Pro Tem, remain the same
as the current Charter.
Presi4ent Law reminded Council members and the public that this is
the first of two hearings and the public is invited to read the
document that will be prepared that will have the proposed document
as discussed plus all of the alternatives/recommendations presented
to the Council, which will be a separate document following the
proposed Charter.
President Law thanked the following TV camera crew members: Erin
Daniels, Valery Daniels, Stephanie James and Martin Strohs.
With no further business meeting adjourned at 10:00 P.M..
KATHLEEN L. McCLUSKEY, City Clerk
JOHN E. LAW, Council President
City of Bremerton
KLM/JL/me
cc: Normal Distribution
File/Vault
AGENDA BILL
BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL
1. SUBJECT:
Sylvan Way Street Improvements: Wheaton Way to
Olympus Drive
Bid Award
FOR AGENDA OF: October 2. 1996
ORIGINATiNG DEPT: Public Works/Utilities
ORIGINATOR R, Witt. Ci_ty Engineer
DATE SUBMITTED: September 25. 1996
2. ~: (comment on back i~'~ .,o
Director, Public Works/Utilities Iff" ~/,/~,
City Attomey
City Treasurer
Council Budget & Finance Committee
Operations Committee
Purchasing Agent
3. EXHIBITS
1. Vicinity Map
ENDORSE.M~ NT~__INFORb/4ATION APPROVED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENy O~S~U MITTAL: ~
MAYORr'a~, t~_. 7Jr~:~q-- COUNCIL PRESIDEN,~,,~~---~'~--~
4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REOUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION:
Bids were opened for the Sylvan Way Street Improvement Project on August 26, 1996. One bid was received for
this project from Ace Paving Company, Inc. in the amount of $231,514.55. The Engineer's estimate for this
project was $221,365.22. Total project construction cost including construction inspection, surveying,
management and contingency is $265,666. The action before the City Council is approval of a contract for the
construction of the Sylvan Way Street Improvements with Ace Paving Company, Inc..
8. RECOMMENDATION:
The City Council approve a contract for $231,514.55 with Ace Paving Company, Inc. for construction of the
Sylvan Way Street Improvement Project and authorize the Mayor to execute the same.
9. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL:
ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL:
EXPIRATION DATE:
REVIEW DATE:
Director Public Works & Utilities
Director Public Works & Utilities
10. NOTICE OF ACTION
PULLED TABLED APPROVED DISAPPROVED
AMENDED
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE
DATE:
11. AGENDA BILL NO: 6~?0 - ,2'--~3
2. CLEARANCE COMMENTS:
5. IMPACT ON NON-PASSAGE:
The street improvements for Sylvan Way will not be performed at this time.
6. IMPACT ON STAFFING. BUDGETS. FACILITIES. EOUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCES:
Staffing: 400 hours for inspection, project management and surveying.
Budget
Construction of this project is funded through two sources.
1.) Washington Department of Transportation had allocated $158,000 to the City when the road
was surplused to the City. Part of these funds were used for design, $32,279 and the remaining
mount $125,721 will be used for construction. 2.) Arterial Street Fund, the remaining balance
for construction $139,945 will come from this fund.
Facilities/Equipment:
No impact.
7. RESEARCH SOURCES
96999
I :~~<~l ¢} '"_~ Nk[Clemens. Stt
~ ' 's 's I
~~_~ NE Cheryl SL
Hollis St. ~"
~ radley i
~ Hope St.
N7 ~o~d ~ J I. ~ I SI lv~ ~d.
C
o o ~ NE C~dy St
0
~ Z
~ L NE Virgini~ St. ~ o
Bell Pmrk~ Dr.
¢~ E Sls~ St NE Wyomh
SCALE Cl~ OF BREMERTON SYLVAN WAY
HORIZ, N.T.S. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORK8
& UTILITIES ~7 STREET IMPROVEMENT8
PLOT ENGINEERING DIVISION ~/4~ VICINITY MAP
DRAWING NO. DRAWN BY: S. JANKOWSKI DESIGN BY: CHECKED BY:. SHE~
SYLVANV. DWG DATE q-~-~ DATE DATE 1 OF 1
AGENDA BILL
BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL
1. Subject: 10% Petition/Letter of Intent to
Annex the Schultz Area.
2. Clearances: (Coq~nn back if needed)
City nttome~~r~ ,
City Treasurer: -~--- Fx- X/ ,
Director, DCD: (--.)~-4O& c~:W~.,.,
Operations Committee ~//~z~,~
END O RSEMENT .~I3I~IFO10~I~TIO3~
Mayor: ~?~ ~ ~
FOR AGENDA OF: Oct. 2, 1996
ORIGINATING DEPT: Executive
ORIGINATOR: T. O'Neillq~
DATE SUBMITTED: Sept. 25, 1996
3. Exhibits:
· Letter of Intent
* Certification
· Staff Information
APPROVED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
FOR
Council President:
4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION:
The City of Bremerton has been presented with a Letter oflntent to annex from Donald C. Schultz,
owner &properties located between Kitsap Way and Norlhlake Way. The request is submitted in accordance
with ILC.W. 35.13.125 to commence annexation proceedings of the site. The petition is signed by property
owners in excess often percent of the value of the land proposed for annexation as required by said statute.
The City Council is to determine the outcome &the following three issues: One, will the city accept,
reject, or geographically modify the proposed annexation area; two, will the Council require the simultaneous
adoption of a comprehensive plan or elect to use the administrative assJ~ment of provisional zoning as
allowed in the Bremerton Municipal Code (BMC 21.02.260); and, finally, will the Council require tax payers
of the area to assume a proportional share of all or any portion of existing city indebtedness ~ i.e. outstanding
bonds).
8. RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Ci~ Council:
1. Accept the annexation area as proposed;
2. Require the applicants to undergo a pre-annexation hearing to determine the appropriate
comprehensive plan and land use designations; and
3. Require the owners of real property in the annexation area to assume a proportional share of existing
city indebtedness.
9. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL:
ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL:
EXPIRATION DATE:
REVIEW DATE:
10. NOTICE OF ACTION:
PULLED: [] TABLED: [] APPROVED:[] DISAPPROVED: [] AMENDED:m
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE:
DATE:
2. CI.lqARANCE COMMENTS:
5. IMPACT ON NON-PASSAGE:
Thc City Council is obligated to hold a meeting with thc initiating parties to make determinations
about the acceptance of the annexation. The decision of the Council to accept or reject the proposed
annexation is entirely within the Council's discretion. By accepting the proposed annexation, the council is
not committing itseff to ultimately annexing the territory proposed when a sufficient petition is presented to
it. The decision to accept merely allows the annexation to go forward procedurally. If the Council rejects the
proposed annexation, the initiating parties have no r~ght of appeal (R. C. W. 35.13.177 and 178).
6. IMPACT ON STAFFING, BUDGETS, FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT OR OTHER
RE SOURCE S:
See Municipal Services Staff Report.
7. RESEARCH SOURCES:
"Annexation Handbook." Municipal Research & Services Center of Washington. June 1995 (51).
"Implementation, Consistency and Concurrence: Annexation Policies." Bremerton Comprehensive
Plan (April 5, 1995.) Feb. 1996. Chapter K, Sec. 4 Urban Growth Policies, Sub-section D (10).
"Zoning: Zoning Upon Annexation." Bremerton Municioal Code (1996). Mar. 1996 (661).
Excerpt from Annexation Poficies:
According to city policies established for annexation, the City of Bremerton considers annexation as a means
of meeting community needs. The following objectives are the framework for measuring specific annexation
requests.
Objective A:
The city will utilize uniform criteria in evaluating annexations.
· Short-and long-term community impacts on levels of service and projected revenues
and expenditures for services will be evaluated.
· Only annexations which do not diminish the current levels of service over the long-
term will be accepted.
Objective B: The city will consider annexation areas best meeting the growth goals and polices of
the city and region.
Objective C: The city will consider annexation areas which preserve established neighborhoods
and community identities.
Certification of Letter of Intent
I, Kathleen McCluskey, City Clerk for the City of Bremerton, do hereby certif~ that I have
received today a Letter of Intent supported by owners of not less than ten percent of the value of
the property for which annexation is petitioned, according to the assessed valuation for general
taxation puposes as required in R.W. 35.13.125.
The assessed valuation of these parcels, according to the Kitsap County Tax Assessors official
record, is $159,990.00.
The assessed valuation of property represented by signatures is $137,130.00
These signatures therefore constitute at least the required 10%, which figure would be
$15,999.00.
SIGNED AND SEALED this~
city Clerk
~: ,.~ .~, C~t'of,l:h-emenon
day of September, 1996.
RECEIVED
OFFICE OF CiTY CLERK
~ S1GN&TURE
July 1, 1996
The Honorable Mayor and Bremerton City Council
The City of Bremerton
239 Fourth Street
Bremerton WA 98337
Dear Legislators:
Let this letter serve as an official Letter of Intent to Commence Annexation
Proceedings from the undersigned for the area legally described on the attached
Exhibit "A", into the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Bremerton.
The undersigned does represent ownership of not less than ten percent (10%) in
value, according to Kitsap County's estimate of the assessed valuation for general
taxation purposes.
It is requested that the city Council of the City of Bremerton set a date not later than
sixty (60) days after the filing of this request for a meeting with the undersigned to
determine:
1. Whether the City Coundl will accept a 75% petition for annexation; and
2. Whether the City Coundl will require adoption of a comprehensive plan and
zoning for the proposed area under RCW 35.13.177 and 35.13.178 or application of
land use designation for newly annexed property set forth in Bremerton Munidpal
Code 21.02.260; and
3. Whether the City Coundl will require the assumption of a proportional share
of existing City indebtedness by the area to be annexed.
This Notice and any other Notices containing identical text material and additional
signatures are intended by the undersigned to be presented and considered as one
Notice of Intent.
Petioner's Signature,
Zal 7 ~W/~'~
ANNEXATION D~SCRIPTION FOR HURLEY HIGGS
PARCELS AT NORT~ LAKE WAY AND KITSAP WAY.
BY GERRY THORNBURGH AND CHECKED BY N~D LEVER.
AND DONALD SCHULTZ
18 SEPTEMBER 1996.
That portion of the Northeast quarter of the Southwest quarter
and of Govt. Lot 2, Sec. 8, T24N, R1E, WM, and that portion of
Kitsap Lake Summer Homes as recorded in Vol. 3, Pg. 94 of Plats,
Records of Kitsap County Washington described as follows;
Beginning at the Southwest corner of the North 10 acres of said
Govt. Lot 2; thence North 30 ft to the north margin of North Lake
Way (Formerly State Bwy and Lake View Dr); thence East along said
North margin 368 ft to the TPOB; thence North 440 £t more or less
to the Southwesterly margin of State Hwy 21; thence Southerly
along said margin to its intersection with the Northerly margin
of said North Lake Way: thence Westerly along the Northerly
margin of said North Lake Way to the TPOB.
1.82 Acres
Schultz ~,nnexation
Exhibit B: A~s~or Map
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
ORIGINAL TRACT (Reference: S.W.D. Auditor's No. 1109750)
That Portion of the Northeast quarter of the Southwest quarter and of
Government Lot 2, Section 8, Township 24 North, Range I East, W.M., in
Kitsap County, Washington, described as follows:
BEGrNNING at the Southwest comer of the North 10 acres of said Government
Lot 2; thence North 30 feet to the North margin of state highway; thence East
along the North Margin of state Highway, 368 feet to the tree point of beglnnlng
of the tract herein described; thence continuing East along said highway, 184
feet; thence North 180 feet, more or less to the Southwesterly margin of State
Highway No. 21; thence Northerly along said highway, 300 feet, more or less,
to a point bearing North from the tree point of beginning; thence South'440 feet,
more or less, to the point of beginning.
SHORT SUBDIVISION TRACTS
LOT A
That portion of the Northeast quarter of the Southwest quarter and of
Government Lot 2, Section 8, Township 24 North, Range 1 East, W.M., in
Kitsap County, Washington, described as follows:
BEGINNING at the Southwest comer of the North 10 acres of said Government
Lot 2; thence North 30 feet to the North margin of state highway; thence East
along the North Margin of state Highway, 368 feet to the true point of beginning
of the tract herein described; thence continuing East along said highway, 184
feet; thence North 180 feet, more or less to the Southwesterly margin of State
Highway No. 21; thence Northerly along said highway, 300 feet, more or less,
to a point bearing North from the mae point of beginning; thence South 440 feet,
more or less, to the point of beginning; EXCEPT the South 260.00 feet.
Together With an Easement for utilities over, under and across the West 15 feet
of the South 260.00 feet of the following described parcel:
BEGINNING at the Southwest comer of the North 10 acres of Government Lot
2, Section 8, Township 24 North, Range 1 East, W.M.; thence North 30 feet to
the North margin of state highway; thence East along the North Margin of state
Highway, a distance of 368 feet to the true point of beginning; thence continuing
East along said highway, 184 feet; thence North 180 feet, more or less to the
Southwesterly margin of State Highway No. 21; thence Northerly along said
highway, 300 feet, more or less, to a point bearing North from the true point of
beginning; thence South 440 feet, more or less, to the point of beginrfing;
Kitsap County, Washington.
LOT B
The North 145.00 feet of the South 260.00 feet of the following described
parcel:
BEGINNING at the Southwest comer of the North 10 acres of Government Lot
2, Section 8, Township 24 North, Range 1 East, W.M.; thence North 30 feet to
the North margin of state highway; thence East along the North Margin of state
Highway, a distance of 368 feet to the true point of begimfing; thence continuing
East along said highway, 184 feet; thence North 180 feet, more or less to the
Southwesterly margin of State Highway No. 21; thence Northerly along said
highway, 300 feet, more or less, to a point bearing North from the true point of
beginning; thence South 440 feet, more or less, to the point of beginning;
Kitsap County, Washington.
Subject to and together with an Easement for utilities over, under and across the
West 15 feet of the South 260.00 feet of the following described parcel:
BEGINNING at the Southwest comer of the North 10 acres of Government Lot
2, Section 8, Township 24 North, Range 1 East, W.M.; thence North 30 feet to
the North margin of state highway; thence East along the North Margin of state
Highway, a distance of 368 feet to the mae point of beginning; thence continuing
East along said highway, 184 feet; thence North 180 feet, more or less to the
Southwesterly margin of State Highway No. 21; thence Northerly along said
highway, 300 feet, more or less, to a point bearing North from the true point of
beginning; thence South 440 feet, more or less, to the point of beginning;
Kitsap County, Washington.
Together with an Easement for utilities over, under and across the West 15 feet
of the South 115.00 feet of the following described parcel:
BEGINNING at the Southwest comer of the North 10 acres of Government Lot
2, Section 8, Township 24 North, Range 1 East, W.M.; thence North 30 feet to
the North margin of state highway; thence East along the North Margin of state
Highway, a distance of 368 feet to the tree point of beginning; thence continuing
East along said highway, 184 feet; thence North 180 feet, more or less to the
Southwesterly margin of State Highway No. 21; thence Northerly along said
highway, 300 feet, more or less, to a point beating North from the tree point of
beginning; thence South 440 feet, more or less, to the point of beginning;
EXCEPT the West 92.00 feet;
Kitsap County, Washington.
LOT C
The West 92.00 feet of the South 115.00 feet of the following described parcel:
BEGINNING at the Southwest comer of the North 10 acres of Government Lot
2, Section 8, Township 24 North, Range 1 East, W.M.; thence North 30 feet to
the North margin of state highway; thence East along the North Margin of state
Highway, a distance of 368 feet to the true point of beginning; thence continuing
East along said highway, 184 feet; thence North 180 feet, more or less to the
Southwesterly margin of State Highway No. 21; thence Northerly along said
highway, 300 feet, more or less, to a point beating North from the true point of
beginning; thence South 440 feet, more or less, to the point of beginning;
KJtsap County, Washington.
Subject to and together with an Easement for utilities over, under and across the
West 15 feet thereof.
LOT D
The South 115.00 feet of the following described parcel:
BEGINNING at the Southwest comer of the North 10 acres of Governrnent Lot
2, Section 8, Township 24 North, Range 1 East, W.M.; thence North 30 feet to
the North margin of state highway; thence East along the North Margin of state
Highway, a distance of 368 feet to the true point of beginning; thence continuing
East along said highway, 184 feet; thence North 180 feet, more or less to the
Southwesterly margin'of State Highway No. 21; thence Northerly along said
highway, 300 feet, more or less, to a point beating North from the true point of
beginning; thence South 440 feet, more or less, to the point of beginning;
EXCEPT the West 92.00 feet;
Kitsap County, Washington.
Subject to and together with an Easement for utilities over, under and across the
West 15 feet thereof.
STAFF REPORT: ANNEXATION
Sehultz Annexation
Prepared by Terrie O'Neill, Municip~J Services Coordinator
September 1996
On October 15, 1901, thrcc hundred, sixty acres of land were incorporated to
form the Town of Bremerton. Today, nearly 100-years later, Bremerton is a large
regional city of 16,570 acres. Annexation is the process by which the city has grown.
Cities use annexation to expand their boundaries and to provide land for development.
As Bremerton faces the turning of the century, many new venues for revitalization are
on the horizon, but resources and services are finite. State statute charges the City
Council to decide what the best future opportunities for growth are. This report is
provided to give the City Council necessary data for the evaluation of a request from a
property owner to annex to the City of Bremerton.
Section 1: A Review of City Policy on Annexation:
The City of Bremerton seeks to annex areas that will enhance future econmic
conditions for citizens. According to polices adopted for annexation by City Council,
the city views annexation a means of meeting community needs. This includes both the
service and capital needs for the applicant and the existing needs of current city
residents. To evaluate the suitability of a site proposed for annexation, short- and
long-term community impacts on all residents should be studied. The area should be
able to provide the resources necessary to accommodate their own service and capital
needs. Only annexations that do not diminish the current level of services, over a
reasonable time, should be accepted.
Section Z Services to the Proposed Area
On September 1996, department directors were asked to describe possible
impacts of this proposal to the city. All comments were consistent with staff's
recommendation to approve the Letter of Intent to annex as proposed. Staff noted the
following remarks:
Schultz Annexation
September 1996
Annexation: Schultz T. 0 'Neill/September 1996
Emergency Services:
· We received no comment from fire.
· Police do not anticipate an increase in service demand - Chief Paul Du Fresne.
Parks and Recreation:
· No impact to the Parks Depa~ hatent - Jim Spencer, Parks Director
Public Works and Utilities:
· No negative impact on streets - Mark Souza, Engineering
· No comment received from utilities.
The Deparhaent of Commlllllty Development:
· The area is within the Urban Growth Boundary for the City of Bremerton.
- Ron Hough, Long Range Planning Manager
Section 3: Surrounding Areas
Dale Clary contacted the city to have his sites annexed to the city. The Clary
properties are on Kitsap Way, across the street from the Schultz site. A representative
from the Building Department and the Mayor's Office visited the proposed annexation
site. Serious code enforcement issues are the reason the Clary site was eliminated from
the annexation proposal. The Building Depa,tment representative offered the
following description and comments on the site:
"On the day of [the city staffs] visit, we counted at least forty-five
vehicles, as well as several mobile homes in various states of disrepair.
Heavy equipment had been on the site for so long, in the same position,
that blackberry vines were growing through them. A tractor trailer filled
with tires, an airplane body, deteriorated outbuildings, and a house that
appeared to be filled with debris were noted. The number of vehicles
present there caused us to raise the question of contamination from
leaking oil, antifreeze or other hazardous materials in the soils.
[Although, Mr. Clary is now proposing development for his site], serious
concerns persist regarding follow-through on promises to clean up the
site."
Schultz Annexation
September 1996
2
Annexation: Schult~ T. 0 'Neill/September 1996
Section 4: Area Data
Area 1.82 acres
Roads No roadways or undeveloped right of way
Population Estimated three
Growth Area The area is within the urban growth boundary.
County Land Use RM-5
Residential, one home per 5 acres.
County Comp. Plan None in place.
City Comp. Plan None
City Land Use (zone) None
Section 5: Services to the Area
The annexation area is at the end of a long business corridor on Kitsap Way. In
this area, Kitsap Way traffic can turn left and go down Northlake Way to Kitsap Lake.
Other traffic turns to the north, toward Chico at the "Y" intersection. This site is
between Northlake and Kitsap Way. The owner of the site is developing residential
buildings on his subdivided lots there.
Utilities Water; Sewer; Storm; Electricity; Natural Gas;
Telephone; Cable (Falcon).
Transportation Hourly bus service; taxi services are available.
Streets Northlake Way is within the city limits. Kitsap Way is
part of the city up to the "Y," where it turns to Kitsap
County.
City streets are cleared in hazardous weather.
Fire Services Special Fire District 12 currently serve the area. The
service has volunteer firefighters and contracts
paramedic service from Silverdale Fire District 1.
Schultz Annexation
September 1996 3
Annexation: Schultz T. 0 'Neill/September 1996
Law Enforcement Services The Kitsap County Sheriffs office currently serves the
area.
Other Special Districts Several special districts serve the area. This annexation
does not affect them. Those districts are:
· the Bremerton School District;
· the Bremerton Port District;
· the Kitsap Regional Library; and
· the Public Utility District.
· The area would remain as part of Kitsap County,
although it would be in the city too.
Section 6: Revenues
Upon annexation, several taxing changes will be set in motion. However, most
changes will take months to finally take effect. The following summarizes tax revenues
that the area would generate:
· Property Taxes beginning in February 1998, if annexation is complete by 3/1/97.
· Utility taxes based usage of 6- to 18-percent.
· Permit fees from land use development.
· State shared revenues, which is based on population, would begin the quarter
following the census.
· Business and Occupations taxes would be collected from home occupations, if
present.
Section 7: Staff Recommendations
The annexation process is lengthy. With no appeals, the process takes from three
to six months to complete. If the annexation is permitted to proceed, the city will
schedule appropriate actions to process the annexation. The annexation will come back
to Council in a public hearing before finalization.
The Council makes three decisions during this step of the process. City staff has
evaluated the impacts of the annexation and provides the following comments on each
point
$chultz Annexation 4
September 1996
~lnnexation: Schultz T. 0 '3[eilb'September 1996
Will the City of Bremerton accept, reject or geographically modify the
proposed annexation area as proposed?
The area is proposed consists of two owner sites. Initially, the
Clary and other adjacent lands were considered for inclusion. We have
removed these areas. The Clary property has code enforcement issues the
magnitude of the "Kean Street" site. The potential liability to the city to
clean up this lot is the basis for the decision to exclude his lots. Mr. Clary
has been advised that we have excluded his property and we have
explained to Mr. Clary that he has the right to make a request for
inclusion directly to Council during this 10% process.
Will the City Council require the simultaneous adoption of a comprehensive
plan or elect to use the administrative assignment of provisional zoning as
allowed in the Bremerton Municipal Code (BMC 21.02.260)?
The city staff recommends that the annexation be processed
through preannexation zoning. This requires staff to bring the issue to the
Planning Commission before to returning to Council for the 75% petition.
In this way, the property owners will know what their land-use
designations in the city would be, before annexing.
Will the City Council require property owners to assume a proportional share
of the existing city indebtedness?
Historically, all annexation areas have assumed the burden of a
proportional share of existing city indebtedness. The state has left this
decision to Council because the new residents have not voted on these
taxation measures. In the city, outstanding bonded indebtedness equates
to 0.2117 cents per $1,000. assessed (1996). These bonds were issued to
pay for emergency equipment that may be used for services to this area.
Because these purchases were necessary in the provision of services, past
Council decisions have supported the taxing of new residents for the
bonds.
Schultz Annexation
September 1996
Annexation: Schultz T. 0 'Neill/September 1996
Staff recommends that 1.) The area be accepted as proposed without
modification; 2.) That staff be directed to arrange a preannexation zoning to determine
land-use designations prior to annexation; and 3.) The area should be required to
assume a proportionate share of existing city indebtedness.
Schultz Annexation
September 1996
6
Annexation: $chultz T. 0 'Neill/September 1996
Addendum
Annexation Process: 75% Petition Method
Five methods exist to annex properties into first class cities. Of the five, the 75%
petition method is, by far, the most frequently used method according to the Municipal
Research & Services Center of Washington. This is logical because it is the only method
that allows the annexation decision to rest with those most affected, the tax payer. This
method requires 75% of ownership, based on tax assessed value, to support the
annexation measure.
Annexation via the seventy-five percent process is less cumbersome and
expensive than other methods. Statutes authorizing annexation by this method can be
found in R.C.W 35.13.130. The following outlines steps taken to process annexation by
this method:
Letter of Intent, certified by the City Clerk, is evaluated by City Council.
A 75-percent petition is collected.
Zoning issues are taken to the Planning Commission.
A 75-percent petition is presented to City Council in a public hearing.
An application to the Kitsap County Boundary Review Board is made.
A 45-day review conducted by the Review Board.
If no hearing is requested by an affected special district or 5-percent of
citizens residing inside the affected area, the annexation is automatically
approved by the Boundary Review Board.
The annexation takes effect on the effective date of the City Council
Ordinance or the Boundary Review Board decision, whichever is last.
A census of the area is performed within 30-days of annexing.
Sehultz Annexation
September 1996
AGENDA BILL
1 · SUBJECT: ~ ~- ~]
An ordinance'amending Chapter
2.88, Disability Action
Committee, of the Bremerton
Municipal Code.
BP~EMERTON CITY COUNCIL
FOR AGENDA OF: Sept. 25, 1996
ORIGINATING DEPT: Human Resources
ORIGINATOR: Jim Meith
DATE SUBMITTED: Sept. 11, 1996
2. CLEAR~/~CES: (Comment on back if necessary)
CITY ATTORNEY
3. EXHIBITS:
Existing chapter and
proposed ordinance.
4. SUMMARY STAT~.~.WT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL A'~TION:
There is a need to revise the terminology used in the current Chapter and give
greater flexibility in selecting members for the committee. Also, the requirement
to meet once a month has proved unrealistic. These changes are recommended by the
Disability Action committee.
M~t~ion tc a~pro%~--on--flz~t r~=~i~x~ pass~'~hsecond reading.~.
amending Chapter 2.88, Disability Action Committee, of the Bremerton
Municipal Code.
RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Mayor
ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: Human Resources Manager
EXPIRATION DATE= Ongoing
REVIEW DATE: Ongoing
10. NOTICE OF ACTION
PULLED [] TABLED [] APPROVED [] DISAPPROVED [] AMENDED [] DATE:
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE:
11. AGENDA BILL NO.:
(OVER)
8A
2 · CLEARANCE COMMENTS:
5. IMPACT OF NON-PASSAGE:
The committee may not be able to
effective.
function at full strength and would be less
6. IMPACT ON STAFFING, BUDGETS, FACILITIESt EQUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCES:
None.
7. RESEARCH SOURCES:
ORDINANCE NO. 0z--~,~
AN ORDINANCE reorganizing the Disability Action Committee which
will assist the City of Bremerton's implementation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990.
THE CITY OF BREMERTON DOES HEREBY ORDAIN:
Section 1. Amendment. Chapter 2.88.020 of the Bremerton Municipal Code is
amended to read as follows:
2.88.020 MEMBERSHIP AND TERMS OF OFFICE.
(a) The Committee shall consist of seven (7) members:
(1) The May
or shall
(i)
the members of the committee. At least two members shall be persons with
a disability. Members may reside outside the CRV if solicitation procedures
fail to generate a qualified candidate who resides in the City.
Section 2. Amendment. Chapter 2.88.070 of the Bremerton Municipal Code is
amended to read as follows:
2.88.070 MEETINGS. The Committee shall establish a regular meeting day
and time and shall meet at least once every m.~rXk quarter. All meetings
of the Committee shall be held in accordance of the city and state
law regarding public meetings.
Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective ten (10) days
from passage and publication.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Bremerton this
,1996.
APPROVED TffIS
JOHN E. LAW, Council President
day of ,1996.
day of
LYNN HORTON, M~or
ATTEST:
KATHLEEN McCLUSKEY
City Clerk
agency shall be made ~ ,rty to the proceeding.
declare the challengco-~ule invalid only if it
eiolates constitutional provisions or exceeds
agency by City Charter, ordinance or
was without compliance with
procedures ired by this chapter and
ordinance, shall not
because it was ed without
rulemaking pro a
rule was filed with the
comply with those
substantially prejudice
review of the
of the rule under
the rule, and
the
of all documents
applicable
The
or
rulemaking
applicable
invalid solely
with applicable
year of the date the
if the agency attempted to
its failure to do so did not
of the parties. Judicial
li to an examination
provisions authorizing
to demonstrate
cedures. The
judgment may be rendered er or not the
has first requested the agency upon the
of the rule in question. (Ord. 3960 §9,
CHAtrrER 2.88
DISABILITY ACTION COM]VIITrEE
Sections:
2.88.010
2.88.020
2.88.030
2.88.040
2.88.050
2.88.060
Established.
Membership and terms of office.
Salaries and personal expenses.
Officers.
Duties and responsibilities.
Compliance with code of ethics.
2.88.070 Meetings.
2.88.080 Removal of members.
2.88.090 Vacancies.
2.88.010 ESTABLISHED. There is ~tablished a Disability
Action Committee which will act solely as an advisory group to
the City Council a_nd the Mayor. (Ord. 4390 §1 (in part), 1992).
122-39
2.$8.020 MEMBERSHIP AND TEF ; OF OFFICE.
(a) The Committee shall consist of s~,en (?) members:
(1) The Mayor shall appoint members to the
Committee as follows:
i. Two members shall be differently abled and
one shall represent an advocacy group for the
disabled. These members may reside outside
the City if solicitation procedures fail to
generate a qualified candidate who resides in
the City;
ii. Four resident members shall represent the
community at large.
(2) Two members shall initially be appointed for a term
of one year, two members for a term of two years,
and three members for a term of three years. The
members .shall hold office until their successors are
appointed. Successors of all members shall be
appointed for terms of three years each. (Ord. 4390
§1 ('m part), 1992).
2.88.030 SALARIES AND PERSONAL EXPENSES. The
members of the Committee shall receive no salaries or other
remuneration for their services in such capacity and shall not be
entitled to personal expenses incurred by them in the discharge
of their official duties, except to the extent and purposes and
mountS such expense is first authorized and approved in
advance by the Mayor. (Ord. 4390 §1 (in part), 1992).
2.88.040 OFFICERS. The Committee shall elect a chair
person and secretary by a simple majority of the members. The
vacancy ia any position of any officer of the Committee shall be
~led by a vote of a simple majority. (Ord. 4390 §1 (in part),
1992).
2.88.050 DUTIES AND 1LESPONSIB[LITIES. The
Committee shall have the following specific functions:
(a) The Committee will be the appeal body for the ADA
grievance procedure as set forth in Resolution No. 2409. Upon
review of the grievance, the Committee shall render a written
advisory decision to the complainant and the Mayor pursuant to
the grievance procedure. Any grievances brought to the
122-40
Committee shall be directed eo the ADA Coordinator for initial
review.
(b) Recommend appropriate modifications to City services,
policies and practices to help implement the ADA.
(c) Shall report to the ADA Coordinator concerns brought
to it by individuals regarding possible non-compliance with the
ADA, and the Committee will thereupon make advisory
suggestions as to any action to be taken. (Ord. 4390 §1 (in
part), 1992).
2.88.060 COMPLIANCE WITH CODE OF ETHICS. The
Committee shall comply with the City Code of Ethics ordinance
codified as Chapter 2.96. (Ord. 4390 §1 (in part), 1992).
2.88.070 MEETINGS. The Committee shall establish a
regular meeting day and time and shall meet at least once every
month. All meetings of the Committee shall be held in
accordance of the city and state law regarding public meetings.
(Ord. 4390 §1 (in part), 1992).
2.88.080 REMOVAL OF MEMBERS. Members of the
Committee shall serve at the pleasure of the Mayor. A member
shall not be absent more than three consecutive meetings. After
the absence from three consecutive meetings, the remaining
members of the Committee shall vote to retain or recommend
to the Mayor that the absentee member be relieved of his duties
on the Committee. (Ord. 4390 §1 (in part), 1992).
2.88.090 VACANCIES. Vacancies shall be filled in
accordance with Section 2.88.020for the unexpired term of the
member affected. If a vacancy exists for more than ninety (90)
days, the City Council may appoint a member to fill the vacancy.
(Ord. 4390 §1 (in part), 1992).
122-41