Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/15/95TAPE #1335 UNAPPROVED DRAFT COUNCIL APPROVED DEC 20, 1995 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTE8 NOVEMBER 15, 1995 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, November 15, 1995, at 5:30 P.M., with Council President Sherril Huff-Menees presiding. Council members present were Bob Winters, A1 Colvin, Morrie Dawkins, Carlos Montgomery, John Law, Richard Neville, and Lon Overson. Councilman David Farr was absent. Also present were City Attorney Ian Sievers and City Clerk Kathleen McCluskey. The meeting opened with the Pledge of Allegiance led by Council president Huff-Menees and Invocation given by Pastor Scott Huff of St. Luke's United Methodist Church. CONSENT AGENDA NONE #0017 CLAIMS/CHECK REGISTER8 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(Winters/Colvin) on November 15, 1995, the Council does approve for payment those vouchers included and further described as follows: 189522, 189523, 189528, 189530 through 189658 in the amount of $447,890.51. President Huff-Menees made the following announcements: (1) Change in City Council meeting date from November 22 to November 21 due to the Thanksgiving Day holiday. (2) City Council Executive Session scheduled for Tuesday, November 21, 1995, 5:00 -5:20 P.M., in the Council Conference Room. Topic to be discussed "Labor Negotiations". (3) City Council Study Session scheduled for Monday, November 20, 5:30 P.M., Budget Wrap Up. COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS Mr. Law announced District # will not held a Neighborhood Meeting on November 21 due to the change in date for the City Council meeting. The next District #3 meeting is scheduled for January 17, TAPE #1335 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes November 15, 1995 Page 2 of 23 1995. Mr. Dawkins extended a "welcome back" to Councilman Colvin. Mr. Colvin announced District #1 will not hold a District meeting in November. He wished everyone a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year. The next District #1 meeting is scheduled for January 20. He thanked the members of the City Council, Ebenezer AM&E Church, Sylvan Way Baptist Church, Harrison Hospital, Dr. Clemens, nurses on the second floor of Harrison Hospital, Mayor Horton, City staff members and a lots of members of the public for their concern during his most recent operation. During this same time, he and his wife Hazel celebrated their 49th Wedding Anniversary. Mr. Winters stated he was also happy to see Mr. Colvin return to "active duty' with the Council. To all the parents, big brothers and big sisters in the community the Westgate PeeWee organization is in need for involvement by parents and people within the neighborhoods to coach, referee and participate. Anyone needing more information can contact him at the Council office. He is looking forward to greeting the U.S. Abraham Lincoln as it arrives in Bremerton on Friday. MAYOR'S REPORT Mayor Horton added her "welcome back" to Councilman Colvin. The Mayor presented the following Proclamation: (1) November 12-18, 1995 as AMERICAN EDUCATION WEEK. Rachael Field, Bremerton Education Association President, accepted the Proclamation. Mayor Hotton presented Council President Huff-Menees with a Blue Ribbon Lapel Pin to help celebrate Education Week in the City of Bremerton. Mrs. Field announced if someone wished to purchase a Blue Ribbon Lapel Pin ($3.00) they could do so by calling her at the Bremerton Education Office 377-6168, or stop at one of the neighborhoods schools as PTA members will have them available at those locations. Mayor Hotton stated as a parent with a student in the Bremerton education system, she believes the Bremerton School District is a wonderful School District and that her daughter is getting a top quality education and she is proud to have that kind of education system in Bremerton. Mayor Hotton stated it came to her attention that an esteemed member of the Bremerton community is moving out of the area. Margaret Carey and her husband, now deceased, have been integral parts of this community and that it was most fitting to present her with a Certificate Of Achievement. The Certificate stated the following: "This certifies that Mrs. Margaret Carey has achieved the high standard of excellence for service to the community and is awarded this certificate by the City of Bremerton, Bremerton, WA this 15th day of November, 1995." Margaret Carey accepted the TAPE #1335 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes November 15, 1995 Page 3 of 23 certificate and thanked the Mayor and City Council for being honored in this way. Mr. C01vin noted that Margaret Carey encouraged him to run for public office and he thanked her for her support. He asked all District #1 people in the audience to please stand up and be acknowledged. Mayor Horton added that no only has Margaret and her husband Pat been good community people, but they have been front runners in the City's Parks Department. It has been though their efforts that we have the parks system we have today. A small park on the west side of Lions Field was dedicated to Pat Carey, which she felt was a fitting tribute. She wished Mrs. Carey well in her future move and those in Bremerton will miss her. PUBLIC RECOGNITION Gordy Byrd announced he would appreciate any help with his drive to collect 200 toys/stuffed animals for the KCAP Head Start Program. Donations can be dropped off at the KCAP office or he can be reached at 479-1449. He reminded everyone of the free Thanksgiving Dinner at the Neighborhood Christian Center on November 22, 5:30 - 7:30 P.M. David Della'rovers, 3300 Anderson Hill Road SW, explained his property backs up to the Anderson Creek Watershed and he is before Council speaking on behalf of the Association To Protect Anderson Creek. That organization was formed because they felt the City had already committed to surplusing and selling the Anderson Creek Watershed property and despite the pleas of many citizens to reconsider that issue, it was already a "done deal" . That group appealed the City's Comprehensive Plan and filed suit against the City claiming the sale of the property was not conducted properly. So, they were surprised to see the Anderson Creek Watershed property posted giving notice that "a Public Hearing would be held at the November 29. 1995, City Council meeting after 6:00 P.M., to consider the ratification of surplusing approximately 168 acres of land in the Anderson Creek Basin. And. if action by the City Council resulted in declaration of the property as surplus. it is proposed the property will be sold by negotiated sale to Ron Sciepko and Ellen Lunde with the condition that their property adjoining the watershed be annexed into the City." He recalled that in December of 1994, the City Council surplused 340 acres of the Anderson Hill Watershed and then through a negotiated sale process sold an option to Sciepko and Lunde. He asked if this second action was being done because the City found something that was done improperly that the sale needs to be reconsidered and if Council is approaching this new action with an open mind to consider the ratification, to take public comment, review the issue and make the decision; or is this some sort of technicality that the City is trying to meet to possibly nullify the lawsuit against the City, or is it already a "done deal"? It is their hope that by TAPE #1335 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes November 15, 1995 Page 4 of 23 holding a public hearing Council will listen to what is being said and approach it with an open mind without having a decision already made. He and his group will be attending that hearing to again address their issues and concerns. Carol Atkinson, Bremerton Main Street Association, reminded everyone that Santa will be coming to town on December 1, 5:30 P.M., on a City of Bremerton fire truck and Santa will turn on the Christmas tree lights along 4th Street, At that time children will receive a free candy cane and have their picture taken with Santa. Music at that event will be provided by the Bremerton High School Choral group. This event is sponsored by the Bremerton Main Street Association along with The Sun, Americorp and Bremerton Kiwanis Club. Don Larson, President Washington Scuba Alliance, reported on scuba diving activities he participated in on a trip to British Columbia. The charter boat services in that area have benefited considerably with the added underwater park facilities since January of this year. He reported the Navy is preparing to raise the 136 foot wood hulled minesweeper out of Sinclair Inlet. The Kitsap Diving Association will hold a meeting at the Keyport Dive Locker on November 16, 7:00 P.M. The public is welcome to attend that meeting and if someone needs additional information they can call him at 373-5367. Lastly, he again pointed out the trash can in from of the old J.C. Penny building is still missing a liner. He asked if the City was doing something about the green trash cans? President Huff-Menees stated it was her understanding that the Administration is looking into liners for those trash cans. Shirlev Green, owner of Merle Norman Shop on Pacific Avenue, stated she is a member of the Downtown Business Association and wished to report on their holiday events: December 7 - Treasure Hunt between 11:00 A.M. and 3:00 P.M.; December 16 - Musical Festival; Lighting of the Christmas tree, located in the little park at the south end of Pacific Avenue, which will be decorated by children from Crown Hill Elementary School, Olympic View Elementary School and Naval Avenue Elementary School. Santa will arrive downtown around 4:00 P.M.. Mayor Horton commented on the status of the trash cans - the lids purchased for the cans are either missing or fit poorly. Compounding the problem is the fact the liners will not lift out, and a search is on to find a non-metal liner that will not deteriorate and comes with a lid. She believes they have found such an item and staff members are seeking out the most cost effective source. 10A - PUBLIC HEARING ON 1996 BUDGET, #AR95-255 TAPE #1335 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes November 15, 1995 Page 5 of 23 As required by statute this is an opportunity for the public to comment on the proposed budget. Mayor Hotton explained this budget is a fairly status quo budget and she does not anticipate any major changes in the direction embarked upon over the past two years. She has included several parks projects, i.e. the beginning of the expansion of Evergreen Park; Roosevelt Field Replacement Plan - acquiring the Haddon School property and park improvements in District #6. Also included in the budget is some funding to stimulate development through a revolving infrastructure program, which she hopes will provide seed money for people interested in development in the City. A small amount of money in Real Estate Excise Tax has been designated for furthering the Admiral Theater project, which is close to fruition. The Budget does not look at shortening staffing levels, but there is some reallocation of staffing in the Utility area. She is pleased with the staff's approach to developing the budget and the fact they worked very collaborative and were willing to give up some things to gain others. One of the important elements the staff felt strongly about was an upgrade to the City's existing computer system that would be financed over a 5-year payoff plan. Roy McInnis questioned the percentage of increase between the 1995 and 1996 budgets? Rich Hanna, City Treasurer, explained the General Fund budget for 1996 as presented would increase by 4.08% over the 1995 budget. The budget for all funds of the City actually goes down and will be only 88% of the 1995 budget. The main reason for that decrease was primarily the reduced amount of capital projects carried out by the Utilities and some other funds within the City. Mr. McInnis stated he did not follow the over all City budget going down and if he remembered correctly there is quite a difference between the 1995 budget and the figures given for the 1996 budget. Mr. Overson pointed out the proposed 1996 budget is $67,801,000 and $76,721,000 for year 1995. Mayor HOEton pointed out in 1995 there were several Public Work's and Parks' capital projects, which include the sewer treatment plant upgrades, two major stormwater projects, beginning of golf course construction and completion of Pendergast Regional Sports Complex. There are fewer capital projects planned for 1996; therefore the over all budget is less than the prior year. The General Fund budget, which covers Police, Fire, Parks, and general administration will have a 4.08% increase and the bulk of that increase is due to salary increases and cost of living increases for supplies and services. Carol Atkinson, Bremerton Main Street Association, reminded Council Main Street makes an important contribution to the downtown Bremerton area by the many promotions they put on, such as Concerts TAPE #1335 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes November 15, 1995 Page 6 of 23 On The Boardwalk, Blackberry Festival, St. Patrick's event and Santa's arrival, etc. There are many other functions they carry out on a daily basis and are the only full time staff association that supports merchants and property owners. Main Street members and Board members care about the future of downtown Bremerton and feel it is essential that they are once again funded by the City. 7A - APPROVAL OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH ABKJ, INC. FOR RESERVOIR 14 STRUCTURAL EVALUATION, ~AB95-249 A professional services agreement has been negotiated withAndersen Bjornstad Kane Jacobs, Inc. (ABKJ) to provide a structural evaluation of Bremerton's Reservoir 14. The structural evaluation will include inspection, testing, and structural analysis of the existing reservoir, providing strengthening concepts for deficiencies, and evaluate roof slab for resurfacing and fencing options. ABKJ was selected from three firms which submitted proposals and statements of qualifications for this project. ABKJ, Inc., is qualified to perform the structural evaluation of Reservoir 14. The amount of the professional services agreement is$19,525. The action before the City Council is approval of the agreement. Gene Sampler, Public Works and Utilities Director, stated Reservoir 14 is located on 17th Street, just off of Perry Avenue in the Manette area. This reservoir is being rehabilitated and currently not functional because of its structural condition. One of the significant features of this proposal will be to evaluate the structural integrity, the condition of joints, etc., and the roof slab of the reservoir, which provides a surface that previously has been used as a tennis court. The intent is to rehabilitate that facility to include the tennis court facility once again subject to the results of this study. Public comment - none. Mr. Neville asked the capacity of the reservoir? Mr. Sampley stated the capacity is approximately one million gallons. Mr. Neville asked the number of people the reservoir will serve once it is functional? Mr. Sampler stated functionally it would serve the Manette area. He pointed out that there have been water deficiencies in Bremerton in spot areas and having this reservoir on line will supplement that storage capacity. Mr. Neville asked if having the reservoir non-functioning affected the flow of fire hydrants? Mr. Sampler stated he could not directly answer that question, but his initial reaction would be "no" and it is an over capacity issue rather than an initial on demand issue. Mr. Neville asked Mr. Sampley if there was an alternative plan if the reservoir was deemed unsafe and non-repairable? Mr. Samplev stated he believes the reservoir is repairable based on an initial TAPE #1335 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes November 15, 1995 Page 7 of 23 evaluation; however, the question is whether or not it will be functional as any other type of facility. The initial investigation indicate there is need for join rehabilitation, and some structural stabilization, but it is a matter of how much it will cost to make the repairs rather than whether or not the facility will be functional. The biggest question is whether or not the roof structure will sustain an active use as a recreational facility. Mr. Colvin questioned the amount of time the reservoir has been out of use? Mr. Sampley stated he did not know the exact number of years, but it was not in use in 1994. Mr. Law noted he and residents of the Manette area are pleased that the reservoir will be refurbished and the fact that the roof will be refurbished, baring unforeseen conditions, will be appreciated by the community. He did poll several people in that general location as to whether or not they were in favor of having tennis playing back in that area and their response was a great deal of enthusiasm. Mr. Sampley stated one commitment they are making is to clean up that area so that it is a friend to the neighborhood. #1433 M/S/C/U(Law/Montgomery) the City Council authorizes and directs the Mayor to execute the Professional Services Agreement with Andersen Bjornstad Kane Jacobs, Inc., in the amount of $19,525 to provide structural evaluation of Bremerton's Reservoir 14. 7B - EXTENSION OF CONTRACT FOR BANKING SERVICE8 WITH SEAFIRST BANK, #AB95-250 The current contract for banking services is with Seafirst Bank and dates from October 1, 1992. The contract expired September 30, 1995. The contract was extended by letter agreement for an additional two months. Seafirst has an offer to extend the contract for a period of two years subject to the changes in pricing shown in Exhibit A. This represents a change in total cost of banking services of approximately 2.1% over a period of five years. Staff recommends approval of the contract extension. Rich Hanna, City Treasurer, stated the contract for banking services was let with Seafirst Bank in 1992 following a competitive bidding process throughout the three year and now three year and two months contract. He believes the City has been well served by Seafirst. Seafirst Bank does offer a full range of banking services and the City takes advantage of a wide range of those services. Proposed changes to the current pricing structure represent a change of 2.1% over the entire life of the contract. Public comment - none. #1546 #1643 TAPE #1335 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes November 15, 1995 Page 8 of 23 M/S/C/U(Neville/Montgomery) to authorize the Mayor to sign the extension of the contract with Seafirst Bank. 8~ -RESOLUTION NO. 2533, AMENDING FIRE DEPARTMENT FEES AND CHARGES FOR EMERGENCY AND NON-EMERGENCY SERVICES, #1~B95-251 A Resolution proposing to increase the fees for ambulance transportation. The last increase in the ambulance transport fee was in January 1993. The intent of the increase ius to have the increase amount of revenue be placed into the vehicle reserve fund for replacement of one vehicle in 1997. Currently the vehicles are not in the vehicle replacement fund and are purchased using capital funds. If 30% of ambulance transport fees are placed in the vehicle replacement fund, the vehicles would be funded for replacement every three years. A1 Duke, Assistant Fire Chief, referred to the information in the summary statement and the fact Medicare is proposing to freeze their reimbursement to providers for seven years, so the next increase would not be until the year 2002. Also, they have no way of replacing their vehicles at this time except to go through Capital funds and compete with other priority items of the City. They are asking to increase the fees to $200.00 per transport for City residents and $250.00 for non-residents, a BLS fee, which is currently not being charged when OlympicAmbulance is not available to transport BLS patients;, a charge of $5.00 per mile for everything over 10 miles. He noted City residents would not incur that fee, but occasionally they do transport patients to Seattle, which mandates hiring back people to cover that ambulance while it is out of the City. Public comment - none. Mr. Overson stated he normally opposes tagging of any funds for any kind of dedicated use, but it appears the Department has a good program and the funds will probably be sufficient to achieve the intent, and it will save the taxpayers considerable in the way of not having to be assessed to cover such costs. Based on that premise, he would support this proposal. Mr. Dawkins asked if this fee increase would be applied to the Fire rescue boat? Mr. Duke stated that fee is under a different fee category, which is still in affect. When people are rescued from the water a fee of $100.00 is charged City residents and $175.00 for non-City resident. M/S/C/U(Montgomery/Colvin) to pass Resolution No. 2533, amending Fire Department fees and charges for emergency and non-emergency services. TAPE #1335 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes November 15, 1995 Page 9 of 23 9h - ORDINANCE NO. 4533 (SECOND READING) AUTHORIZING CONDEMNATION OF PROPERTY FOR ODOR CONTROL BUFFER NORTH OF THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT, #AB95-236 Mayor Hotton stated President Huff-Menees asked for clarification as to how the condemnation area was chosen. Also, Council had requested the City do an out reach to the remaining properties to make offers, which will be reported on by Mr. Sampley. Gone Sampley, Public Works and Utilities Director, stated following the first reading of the Ordinance, approximately one month ago, they did make contact with all of the main property owners and did make offers on all properties. They notified each of the property owners by letter, dated October 15, informing them of this meeting. In addition, the City Attorney's office sent out a packet to the owners explaining the process of condemnation and the City did receive several calls in response to that information. City staff have continued to meet with the property owners that have been in contact with Abeyta & Associates. At this time, there are several offers still out and several properties are in closing, representing significant activity within the last four weeks. He believes they followed the requests made by Council. Ian Sievers, City Attorney, stated as to the question why the City selected the particular condemnation area it did, he referred to the first paragraph in the letter prepared for the property owners in that area. The first paragraph referred to the map and explained the City was involved in voluntary purchases in that area as well as other areas in close proximity to the sewer treatment plant. The letter went on to say: "the condemnation area chosen is that area designated for future industrial use by the City's Comprehensive Plan. Condemnation of all properties is an expense that has the greatest benefit in reducing future nuisance complaints where the City may affect a permanent buffer of uses which are compatible with the industrial nature of its treatment plant." The problem of acquiring additional or a broader condemnation areas is added expense of simply taking it out of any kind of productive use. In the proposed condemnation area, the City would use it for industrial purposes or convert it to compatible industrial uses. Other areas in close proximity are identified as residential in the future and are currently used as residential and acquiring those properties would not achieve a permanent compatibility if the properties were resold. The following individuals spoke in opposition to the proposed condemnation: David Willjams, Bremerton resident and member of the Citizens Involvement Committee (letter attached to minutes as Exhibit A; Rachel Ketchum, 4321 West Street; Lover Nichols, 1203 Bayview Drive; Martha Goodlow, resident of condemnation area; David Johnson, 4311 "E" Street; Charlotte Gerito, south Kitsap resident; Peter Meyers, 4317 "D" Street; Don Larson, 1338 Broadway and member of the Citizens Involvement Committee; Ricky Tats, 2316 "D" Street; TAPE #1335 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes November 15, 1995 Page 10 of 23 Helen Haven, Anderson Hill Road; Brian Lightbody, Oyster Bay area resident; Peggy Arkins, Old Belfair Road; Roy McInnis, 2711 Maple Avenue; Alice Egans; Floyd Kern, City resident; Ray Greido, Olalla; Deborah Chard, City resident; Following are questions and concerns raised by those giving testimony in opposition to the condemnation action: (1) when the City built the sewer treatment plant they never came to the residents to see if they approved or disapproved the plant being built in a residential area. (2) Why does the City Council think they want to give up their homes they have invested in all these years? (3) Why annex people in to a city that has become "dead" in the way of retail businesses? (4) How soon will the "buffer" be installed? (City Attorney's response - as soon as the City can aggregate the properties with condemnation the residential use will be converted at least within a 6-9 month period). (4) Is the City paying an industrial price for the properties? (City Attorney's response - the City is paying the fair market price). (5) Will the City sell the property at a higher price when they market it as industrial? (6) Why aren't the properties already acquired by the City not listed on the condemnation list and why are those properties being rented out? (6) If I lose my home and have to purchase another one in some area, I don't want payments, I want my home clear and free. (7) No one can make me leave my home and I will see you in court. (8) The City's sewer rate increase was not only due to the West Hills lawsuit settlement because part was due to the sewer plant upgrade projects. (9) If the City would have been responsible and taken action at the time the treatment plant odor problem became evident, there would have been no lawsuit, which was not the fault of the condemnation area residents. (10) An Environmental Justice Study was conducted by the Department Of Ecology in which the condemnation area is listed as one of the areas meets the criteria of being low income/minority neighborhood adjacent to an "air polluter. (11) Condemning houses will not solve the odor problem that people driving by the sewer treatment plant experience when traveling on Hwy. 3. (12) Will the City condemn Highway #3 as well? (13) Condemning a residential area is morally repugnant. (14) Boundary Review Board records show documentation dated August 3, 1993 (7B(8)(1) states "the site is not identified with an existing neiahborhood", and #9 goes on to state "the surrounding property is either fully developed or will continue to develop in an urban fashion". The presiding Boundary Review Board in 1984 had asked the City of Bremerton to come in an explain questions they had about gas and wastewater handling and sewer treatment processing. They decided to approve the application because they were satisfied that the City of Bremerton could manage any noxious fumes or flammable leaks. In 1991, because that Board was hearing complaints about the odor, the City was asked to have someone come and talk with them about what was to be TAPE #1335 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes November 15, 1995 Page 11 of 23 done to address the odors. The information provided upon that request, provided by the Ian Sievers, City Attorney, was that the odor was a temporary problem and the City would correct the odors. (15) The sewer treatment plant odors need to be condemned, not the people's houses. (16) Not any amount of money to the homeowners will keep this community that they currently live in intact, if they all have to relocate. (17) Neighbors can be a very important part of a solution. (18) The City should be accountable for its ownprojects and take in put from those people the City represents. (19) Many of the people that do live in the condemnation area do not want the cost of sewage treatment to include people losing their homes. Please seek a more positive solution, one that serves all of Bremerton residents well. (20) Where in the City can someone find a 2-bedroom home for $37,000, which was an offer made on a rental property? (21) Abeyta and Associates are not worth the money the City is paying them to make offers to purchase homes. (22) No one is taking into consideration the prorated rent for rental properties over the next 10 years. (23) The City is not taking into consideration how they have lowered the value of properties by pock marking their neighborhood with buy outs. (24) Safety of personal properties has become problem in neighborhood since the City began buying up homes and renting them out. TAPE #1336 (25) Before Council votes on this issue do they know the number of people they will be displacing from their homes? (26) The City's reason for purchasing the land is for industrial use, not for protecting the City from lawsuits. (27) A residential piece of property was inherited, which was fully paid for and the owner desires to keep. (28) The Association To ProtectAnderson Creek is fighting City plans that affect their neighborhood and members of that committee where lending their support to the proposed condemnation area neighborhood in their attempt to preserve their own homes and histories. (29) A neighborhood is being sacrificed for the City's political comfort. (30) Did not know that "public use" meant converting to commercial property. (31) The fact that people outside the condemnation area are against this action should be a "red flag" to the City Council that such action is not in the best interest of the citizens. (32) Will someone pay the same price to buy properties for industrial use as what it was sold for as residential property? (33) The action being taken by the City Council to approve condemnation of a specific area for the reasons given is illegal and out right wrong. (34) Residents of the condemnation area are devastated over the proposed action. (35) The sewer odor is not confined to the condemnation area, it does reach other areas of the City. (36) Litigation is not going to solve this problem. (37) Services were offered for some form of mediation or alternative dispute resolution as opposed to casting a vote on something that will turn the situation into litigation. (38) The City has become so rotten that people no longer want to TAPE #1336 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes November 15, 1995 Page 12 of 23 live in it. (39) Every resident in the City of Bremerton that pays a water/sewer bill to the City Treasurer's office has a right to sue the City for misappropriating their funds. (40) The City Administration is taking taxpayers money to upgrade, upkeep and maintain the public utility and then use those funds to condemn, take over and throw people out of their houses. (41) Will everyone in the City finally have the chance to say "no more" of this kind of action because it is a waste of time and what it comes to is to kick decent people out of their houses in an area outside the City limits. (42) If the City is using Bond funds to purchase properties in the condemnation area, they better "watch it". (43) It is believed that Chuck Hazelwood has some interest in this whole process. Mayor Hotton pointed out the action before the Council is to petition the Court for a condemnation order. If Council passes the subject ordinance, it does not condemn the property and only a Judge can issue such an order. Council's affirmative vote will allow that process to move forward. Secondly, considering the properties purchased thus far by the City through negotiated sales (a willing buyer and willing seller), the total in the aggregate of those properties the City has paid 24% over assessed value. The appraisal value is about 20% over assessed value. If the condemnation order moves forward, the City will continue to negotiate with property owners that are willing to sell their properties, and the City will not trigger the condemnation as long as we continue to work with the property owners for mutually agreeable sale prices. Additionally, the City has raw land properties on the west side of Oyster Bay that can be used to relocate some of the houses in the condemnation area if they are stable enough to move. The people the City will look at in those instances will be the hardship cases first. It is her hope that there will be very few instances of a Jury trial to address disposition of homes. The City does not have anyone "in the wings, such as Mr. Haselwood" that she has talked with about selling the properties acquired by the City in the condemnation area. Some of the properties will be reserved for future expansion of the sewer treatment plant area and some of the properties farther to the north of the expansion area will be used for a physical buffer. The remainder of the properties will be converted to non-residential usage. Lastly, if there is anyone in the condemnation area that feels they can "cut a better deal" with a developer that is also an option. If the condemnation order is approved, the City will not invoke that order until all other possibilities of amicable arrangements have been exhausted. Mr. Neville asked if there wasn't a process already in place where those people could join with the City looking for a developer? Mayor Hotton explained the City approached several of the property TAPE #1336 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes November 15, 1995 Page 13 of 23 owners and offered that either they could approach a developer or if they wanted the City could find a developer to work throughthat proposal so that the owners would not be dealing with the City. As a result of that suggestion, there was some discussion between some property owners and a couple Port Orchard developers; however, to her understanding nothing came of that effort. President Huff-Menees asked members of the audience to give the same respect to Council's time to make comment and ask questions as was shown to the individuals speaking earlier on this issue. If a member of the City Council has a question or wishes additional information from a member of the audience, they will be called forward to speak. Otherwise, public comment is now closed and further comment limited to Council and staff members. Mr. Colvin stated for clarification that the City is not "throwing anyone out on to the street". Mayor Hotton assured Council effort will be made to work with all of the property owners to achieve some kind of amicable arrangement. Mr. Overson asked if the City had considered all alternatives? Mayor Hotton stated all that could be identified. Mr. Overson asked the Mayor if she could assure Council that condemnation action is the only solution to the problem? Mayor Hotton stated she could not guarantee anything, but believed it was the best solution they have determined. This action taken on the part of the Administration is her function and the City was given a recommendation by legal counsel that the City move forward with the condemnation order. She in turn is forwarding that information on to Council for their decision. The only thing she asked Council is that they make a decision at the end of the discussion. If Council decided to postpone action on the item until a later date, she would not be the person bringing it back. Mr. Overson noted the City knows that there is a big continuing problem that the City staff have been working on for a long time. Although the public has not seen the activities and effort by the staff, the amount of work has been incredible for a number of years. Mr. Colvin asked if the City was concerned about those affected adversely? He was also concerned about what would happen for people, who had their homes free and clear, having to face "house payments" and most likely higher property taxes? Mayor Hotton stated yes the City cares about the impact on the residents in the condemnation area. She believes that in the case of most hardship cases the City could find comparable property on the west side of Oyster Bay Road and make a trade for the two sites. Additionally, she believes the values of the properties purchased by the City were looked at with comparable properties outside of the condemnation area. If there are hardship cases and nothing else TAPE #1336 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes November 15, 1995 Page 14 of 23 works, the City can look at some sort of grant process, which would be up to the City Council as well as possibly setting relocation costs. Mr. Colvin noted one of the reasons the City is buying up the property is in case the odor problem is not corrected and getting sued has an adverse affect on the entire City. He did not hear one resident living in the condemnation area say they were willing to sign an Odor Easement Agreement. Mayor Horton explained the properties already purchased by the City will have Odor Easements placed on them. Mr. Colvin asked the number of residents in the condemnation area indicating their willingness to sign an Odor Easement? Mayor Horton stated no one has approached her singly about an Odor Easement. Mr. Sampler stated he was unsure if anyone had offered such an option. Mr. Colvin asked David Johnson to come to the podium. Mr. Johnson stated the issue of an odor easement has come up at public meetings and with the Citizens' Involvement Committee. He questioned why should people renting City-owned properties be allowed to be subjected to the "odor" when the City says the current residents can't stay in their homes? Mayor Hotton explained the City has applied odor easement to the properties purchased by the City and the rental situation is only temporary until a final determination is been made for the entire area. President Huff-Menees stated previously a comment was made to her and Councilman Law that "if we just listen to our hearts we know what to do with this issue"; and certainly this issue does affect one's heart tremendously. She stressed that speaking solely for herself there has not been a more difficult issue for her to address in her time on the City Council, but her responsibility goes beyond just "using her heart", her responsibility has to do with a very broad concern, not for a single group of people in a certain area. The City Council has studied this issue and requested every bit of information that staff could possibly provide. Many of the Council members have attended every Citizens' Involvement Committee meeting as available in order to further enlighten themselves to be aware of where the City was progressing on making corrections to the wastewater system. The comment that this action is for commercial gain or profit only is wrong. There is not one member of the City Council that would make this decision based on that premise. A statement was made that this is a complex issue and indeed it is. It affects some very human issues, responsibilities of the City and our future as a City, how we go forth with this sewer treatment plant and the corrections as well as future plans, the City's issues with respect to lawsuits that are ongoing, the West Hills suit was settled; however there is another suit that is ongoing. What is at stake is protecting the City for the future against millions of dollars that have already resulted in rate hikes and millions dollars worth of fixes to the wastewater treatment plant. We can't go back and address where the #1453 TAPE #1336 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes November 15, 1995 Page 15 of 23 plant was located or how it was designed/built, but we do have the responsibility of looking at the future and making the decisions that affect the greatest number of people. She is very concerned about the adverse affect the proposed action will have against the people living in the condemnation area. Her personal recommendation would be to offer relocation assistance and relocation dollars, which is a matter Council will take up if a vote is given to go forward with the condemnation action; therefore she will vote in support of the condemnation action. She takes exception to some of the comments made during this hearing with respect to why Council would consider taking this action. Mr. Law stated he is in favor of the condemnation, but he did not agree with the boundaries, which would be the reason behind a negative vote from him. He emphasized such action is an awesome responsibility and something no one wants to do. Mr. Dawkins stated when this form of government came into office in 1983, the sewer treatment plant was in full construction with design work concluded prior to that time. M/S/C(Montgomery/Neville) to pass Ordinance No. 4533 on second reading. Mr. Colvin stated he voted "yes" on the first reading of the ordinance and he is prepared to vote in favor a second time, but he has some reservations that some people will get hurt. He does have confidence in the Mayor and what she stated that there will be some way to help the hardship cases, but for the most part he supports the condemnation because he believes the citizens of Bremerton as a whole might find themselves in another lawsuit similar to a previous lawsuit. Mr. Meville added three years ago the subject areas was designed as Industrial in the City's Comprehensive Plan and it has been known from that point on that the future of the subject area would not continue as residential. This process has gone smoother than a lot of others and other changes will be happening in Bremerton as we further develop the downtown area and areas like Smith Cove. It is never easy, but this is how cities grow. Also, on the issue of relocation the letter sent out to the people stated the City or its consultants will assist owner occupants or tenants in locating and negotiating replacement housing. These services will include assessing the needs of displaced persons, providing current and continuing information on available housing and sale prices and information on State, Federal and local programs that are available to assist such displaced persons and provide technical assistance in making applications. The City Council is looking out for all citizens of Bremerton and it is never easy when it "steps in your TAPE #1336 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes November 15, 1995 Page 16 of 23 own back yard" and every time Council makes a decision it affects someone. Vote on motion: Motion carried. In Favor: Opposed: Abstain: Dawkins, Overson, Neville, Montgomery Huff-Menees Winters, Law Colvin 9B - ORDINANCE (FIRST READING) AMENDMENT TO CITY FIRE CODE AND ADOPTING THE 1994 UNIFORM FIRE CODE UNDER BMC CHAPTER 18.02, AND 18.08, #AB95-252 The proposed ordinance adopts the 1994 Uniform Fire Code and makes amendments to the existing Ordinance Title 18 of the B.M.C. Scott Rappleye, Fire Marshal's Office, stated everythree years the State adopts a new Fire Code and along with that Kitsap County has adopted a number of changes to their ordinance and several things are being amended to B.M.C. Title 18, to be in concurrence with the County. The City would like to be the leader in life safety, but it is important for contractors to have the same type of ordinances and requirements whether it be in the County or any of the cities in this area. In an effort to obtain that parity with other jurisdictions, the Fire Department is recommending implementation of a lot of the changes that the County has made into the City's ordinance. A lot of what was addressed by the County had to do with Street Standards, which the City will not have to address since new City standards were recently adopted. He urged Council to adopt the new 1994 Fire Code along with the amended changes in B.M.C. Title 18. He emphasized this information has been presented to community groups, Kitsap County Fire Chiefs Committee, Kitsap County Home Builders Association, Kitsap County Public Works Department and alarm industry representatives. Public comment - none. Mr. Nevi118 asked that the statements under Impact Of Non-Passage and Impact On Staffing Budgets, Facilities, Equipment Or Other Resources be read into the record. Mr. Rappleve stated as follows: Impact Of Non-Passage...The City Fire Code will not coincide with the 1994 editions to the Uniform Fire Code and will not be up to date with State and County Fire Codes. Fire Losses will increase, more building and possibly lives lost due to smoke and fire. Jobs, taxes, B&O and other revenues will be lost unless buildings are protected with early warning or extinguishing systems. Firefighting will become more dangerous to our firefighters. Impacts on staffing. etc... Without fire prevention and life safety systems in buildings, there will be a need for more firefighters, fire stations and fighting equipment. Overhead costs will rise and #1856 #1992 TAPE #1336 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes November 15, 1995 Page 17 of 23 the call volume will increase. M/S/C/(Neville/Montgomery) to approve Ordinance, on first reading, adopting the 1994 Uniform Fire Code to ensure public safety in all structures, amending Title 18 of the Bremerton Municipal Code. Vote on Motion: Motion carried. In Favor: Abstain: Colvin, Overson, Neville, Law, Montgomery, Dawkins, Huff-Menees Winters 9C - ORDINANCE (FIRST READING) REDUCING THE B&O TAX ON GKRBAGE/~D REFUSE BUSINESS, #AB95-253 This ordinance will continue the process begun in January of 1995 of gradually reducing the B&O Tax on garbage and refuse businesses within the City to a level consistent with utility tax rates. The intention is to reduce the tax rate by one percent each year. Mayor Hotton pointed out this was a continuation of ramping down the utility tax. Comments have been made that recycling should be paying its way and she believes this action is an indication that recycling within the community is "paying our way". She views the ramped down tax as a rebate back to the garbage ratepayers for embarking on the recycling program. Public comment - none. Mr. Neville noted the documentation presented stated the intention is to reduce the utility tax by 1% each year. He wanted to know how many years out into the future was the Mayor expecting to continue making that reduction? Mayor Hotton stated the intent is to bring it down to the 8% range. Mr. Colvin asked the number of businesses this proposal would affect? Mayor Hotton explained it would cover all commercial and residential accounts within the City. Kathleen McCluskey, City Clerk, explained it would affect 3-4 businesses, who impose this tax on behalf of the City, but multiple levels of ratepayers. M/S/C/U(Montgomery/Overson) to approve Ordinance, on first reading, relating to occupation tax for the garbage/refuse business, and amending Chapter 5.02 of the Bremerton Municipal Code. 9D - ORDINANCE (FIRST READING) DECLARINGAN AREA OF URBAN BLIGHT IN THE VICINITY OF RO8ERS ROAD, ~AB95-254 The proposed ordinance adopts recommendations approved by the Planning Commission for the area along Rodgets Street between Kean Street and Auto Center Way in the 1993 South Auto Center Industrial TAPE #1336 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes November 15, 1995 Page 18 of 23 District Enhancement Program. This area is characterized by conditions of urban blight, including accumulation of refuse and debris, numerous junk vehicles, inappropriate mix of land uses, unlawful land uses and dysfunctional platting of lots and right-of- way. The finance plan funds cleanup, lot consolidation and essential right-of-way acquisition. Properties subject to abatement actions may be required if voluntary compliance is not forthcoming to better assure return of costs of property improvements to the demolition fund. If properties are acquired, non conforming structures, which do not have economic utility for industrial use, will be razed and the properties resold. Financing for additional widening and improvement of Rodgers to industrial street standards is dependent upon a successful LID. Don Pratt, Director Of Community Development, stated the definition of "blight" is a condition that impairs growth or halts prosperity. The legal definition of "blight" in Washington State identifies blighted areas as those characterized by accumulations of rubbish and debris, inappropriate land uses, faulty platting and bad circulation of traffic. If these conditions are found to be true, the law assumes that the surrounding properties are probably damaged by this blight and gives the local jurisdiction authority to remedy the situation in a lawful and equitable manner. He will present evidence of the following: (1) that blighted conditions are present at the west end of Rodgers Street; (2) that a plan has been developed and reviewed by the Planning Commission to remedy this blight; (3) that surrounding properties have been severely damaged by the blighting conditions that have been allowed to continue. The conditions present are: accumulation of junk vehicles, debris and rubbish in an extreme manner. There are illegal and inappropriate land uses on the west end of Rodgers Street. There is an inadequate platting and poor circulation pattern in the area, and there is a faulty lot configuration in terms of accessibility and size. Mr. Pratt presented slides that reflected the conditions just described. Mr. Pratt provided a view graph and explained that the properties shown in the slides as those collecting debris are parcels 12 and 16. He displayed the actual plat map showing Rodgers Street terminates at a point and does not come through to Kean Street. There is a small piece of land under City ownership; however it does not line up with Rodgers Street. This is what he terms a TAPE #1336 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes November 15, 1995 Page 19 of 23 faulty plat and poor circulation patterns thereby constituting blight. It is important that traffic be allowed to circulate in order to improve the commerce of the area. There are development opportunities along this road, but if it were to be developed as a cul-de-sac the accessibility for both economic purposes and public services purposes is severely curtailed. A remedy would be to some how find a road through to Kean Street and with the slum and blight determination it would allow the City to move forward with such a project. In 1992 the City staff prepared an Urban Renewal Plan for this area, which was reviewed by the Planning Commission, who in turn recommended its approval. Included in the plan was a discussion on slum and blight with a remedy for the area. That plan was brought before both Council committees and at that time several things were found that Council members did not like i.e.,: (1) originally Rodgers Street would be made a through street and Kean Street would extend all the way out to Werner Road in order to remedy one of the problems they identified. They found the debris problems, circulation problems, slum and blight areas as well as a serious drainage problem that resulted in some heavy flooding. Included in this plan was a capital expenditure budget, which Council found to be too expensive and the source of funding was not identified. Since that time, several things have happened in the neighborhood: (1) the area fronting on Kean Street and Werner Road has been redeveloped privately and is no longer exhibiting conditions of slum and blight. The debris and inappropriate land uses have been removed and the circulation pattern has been improved with Monroe Street entering onto Kean Street in a proper manner and there is no further need for urban renewal action in that neighborhood. The drainage that plagued the area has been significantly improved. On of the property owners on Rodgers Street took the City at its word that it would get serious about improving the area, the site was cleared and by clearing the site a large row of Popular trees were removed. It appears the roots of the Popular trees had interfered with the drainage system and that caused a major contribution to the flooding in the area. In addition, some of the new development that has occurred in the neighborhood has put in place drainage systems that have not remedied the problem but have significantly diminished the problem. Whereas before he was telling Council there was a $425,000 capital expenditure to improve the drainage system, which contributed to the blight, but since that issue has diminished the cost is significantly less. The issues being brought before Council at this time remains only with the west end of Rodgers Street where the slum and blight condition is identified on a couple of properties, a debris condition, poorly platted lots and a street not reaching through. One additional change is an abatement line of credit, which Council TAPE #1336 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes November 15, 1995 Page 20 of 23 approved in 1994. The funding source is no longer a significant problem in that the City has a $500,000 line of credit to provide capital providing the uses made of it yield returns to the City in the future. Additional testimony will be given regarding damage that has been received by the surrounding properties caused by the blight that has been allowed to continue on the properties in the subject area. In closing, Mr. Pratt wanted Council to consider how the process works - the action at this time is not to condemn anyone's property, but rather to establish the authority and process prior to a condemnation action by the Court. Before any condemnation takes place, the City must negotiate a reasonable period of time for the properties in the area to accomplish the remedies that Council identifies within the ordinance. If these remedies are not accomplished by the private property owner and the City is required to make those remedies, the City will acquire the property by paying fair market value, and pay relocation costs, if necessary. He strongly recommended that Council approve the ordinance on first reading, which allows the administration to establish the schedules and agreements necessary for removing the blighting conditions in the area. Failure to take this step towards remedying these problems will probably result in an increased taxpayer cost to clean up the problems later. And, it will probably result in continued loss of revenue because of the damage caused by the blighting conditions that we, as a local government have allowed to continue. The following question has been raised: "why is the City resulting to slum and blight and why don't we resort to an enforcement lien against the property like what has been done to other properties?" When the City places a lien against a property because of an abatement, the City does not automatically go to the top of the list of lien holders, but must wait in line behind other lien holders before being able to recover any taxpayer funds that have been expended to clean up that property. On some properties if they are sold at a tax sale, the City will recover its money. In some of the properties in this neighborhood there are lien holders against the property ahead of the City that if they were paid off first, the City would never see the money invested in the clean up. If the City uses a slum and blight remedy, the local government automatically jumps ahead of the other lien holders and the City would recover its investment before the other lien holders. It is for that reason that the City has not gone forward with enforcement liens, but turning to the slum and blight remedy. Peter Meyers asked how would the proposed action affect the Sinclair Missionary Baptist Church? Mr. Pratt explained the church has been left out of the slum and blights determination area and no TAPE #1336 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes November 15, 1995 Page 21 of 23 action is proposed against the church. He estimates the churches property value will significantly increase if the adjoining property were remedied. Bill Mahan, President of Paratransit Services, pointed out the location of a piece of property adjacent to Mr. Burley's property that has been cleared and prepared for development, which is owned by Paratransit Services. When that site was purchased, the intent was to join it with the DSHS building, located above the church. Paratransit Services retained Steve Alstrum, with Western Pacific Properties, to assist them with their acquisition of property in that area. Mr. Alstrum also represents other property owners, who are attempting to develop their property. Mr. Alstrumhas brought to their property a number of prospective clients; however, every time that site is shown by Mr. Alstrum the potential client walks away from it because of the blighted conditions on the Burley property. Paratransit Services finally had to chain off the front of their property so that Mr. Burley would not continue to dump auto parts, hulks, etc., onto their property. Mr. Burley is in constant battle with other property owners and Mr. Alstrum indicated to them that he has had a number of properties along Rodgets Street that he has been trying to sell, but has been unsuccessful due to the slum and blight within that area. Rodgers · Street will never be developed the way it should be until the Burley property is cleaned up and as long as it is not cleaned up their organization is losing revenue. TAPE #1337 The last potential client that toured the site was a State office looking for a new building and they could meet all the necessary requirements for such a site; however, because of the adjoining property conditions they stated they were "not interested". This is not something that is just talk...they have lost revenues, which they will continue to lose as long as it remains in its current messy condition. He urged Council to approve the ordinance as presented. Paratransit Services supported the City's EDA grant application and they support the LID and believe that area is excellent for investment and the City will come out ahead with added revenue generated from property tax and new development. But, nothing can go forward until this area is cleaned up. Mr. Colvin asked the City Attorney if the City could do anything legal about the blight? Ian Sievers, City Attorney, stated as Mr. Pratt explained the City does not have to go to this ultimate extreme action in many cases. Normally, the clean up of properties is minor and the City can expect to be repaid by filing a lien or collection against the owner. In this case, the project is so extensive on Lots 11, 12 and 16 that after looking at the Title report the City realized the property was so incumbered that there would be no hope in getting the abatement funds returned to the TAPE #1337 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes November 15, 1995 Page 22 of 23 City. The urban blight process, which this ordinance begins, does as an ultimate hammer allow the City to condemn the property if compliance is not achieved. Once that process has begun, any improvements, including clean up of the property, are not reflected in the ultimate purchase price the City must pay under condemnation. Dave Barcelone, 4701 Kean Street, stated the City has don a lot to improve the Auto Center Way area, but Mr. Burley's site must be cleaned up before getting anyone else to go further. He applauded the City on their prior actions, but it is his hope that more can be done. Mr. Winters stated since Mr. Barcelone's business is located on the corner of Kean and Werner Road has anyone expressed to him their concern for a traffic light at that corner? Mr. Baroelone pointed out if Rodgers Road is put through to Kean Street it will alleviate some of the traffic problems without putting in a traffic light at Kean and Werner Road. Mr. Winters asked if Mr. Barcelone had witnessed any accidents at that corner? Mr. Barcelone stated no, not during his four months at that location. Kathleen McCluskey, City Clerk, read into the record two letters in support of this action from: North Coast Electric Company, 206 Katy Penman Boulevard; and Burt Pearce Bremerton Chrysler, 4525 Auto Center Way. Mr. Neville asked if the City already owned lot 16A? Mr. Pratt stated yes. Mr. Sievers explained it appears there will be an uneconomic remnant, and condemnation law requires that the City also acquire uneconomic remanents, so it appears that if the City acquires that right-of-way it will end up also owning lot 16B. The action plan calls for aggregating those two fragments with parcel 16. Parcel 16 will be given the opportunity to buy those two pieces at market price, which should be a real bonus. If that is not possible, then the City will acquire lot 16. Mr. Neville questioned the width of Rodgers Street and how wide will it become when developed? Mr. Pratt explained the street has not been designed and when it is it will be designed based on the City's new road standards. Mr. Neville asked if the owner of lot 16 will have the option to purchase the extra parcel? Mr. Pratt explained Council's action does not include any action on how wide the street should be or improving Rodgers Street from 11 up through 5. Mr. Neville stated it seemed to him if considerations were being made for parcel 16 on "A" and "B" then Council should consider the back side of the property as well. Mr. Pratt stated Mr. Neville was correct, but widening Rodgers Street will be a difficult issue and he anticipates some fairly extensive negotiations over which side of the street the additional property will come from. However, the TAPE #1337 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes November 15, 1995 Page 23 of 23 first discussion needs to be whether that street should be widened. #0309 M/S/C/U(Colvin/Winters) to approve Ordinance, on first reading, declaring an urban blight area in the vicinity of Rodgers Street, adopting an urban renewal plan for the area and authorizing the City's power of eminent domain to implement the plan. With no further business meeting adjourned at 9:02 P.M. ~N L. McCLUSKEY, ~ SHERRIL HUFF-MENE City of Bremer~~ KLM/SH-M/me cc: Normal Distribution File/Vault EXHIBIT "A" DAVID WILLIAMS, MEMBER OF THE CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT COMMITTEE FOR THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT UPGRADE PROJ. First, I would like to thank the council members who attended the public meeting held by the Citizens Involvement Committee last Monday evening; Council President Huff-Menees, Councilman Law and Councilman Neville. The members of the committee sincerely appreciate your presence at these meetings. I would like to present to the council the questions in relation to the condemnation ordinance before you tonight which were asked by members of the public at that meeting: 1. Where is the money coming from to purchase these properties through condemnation? 2. If the City is hurting for funding, why expend these funds for the purchase of these properties?. 3. Why condemn this property now? 4. Why can't the City relocate the people who are to be displaced by this condemnation? While I realize that several of these questions have already been asked at the first reading of this ordinance, I felt duty bound to present the questions as they were asked at the public meeting. I would also like to respond to several of the statements made following the public comment at the first reading of the ordinance; Mr. DiJulio, acting as counsel for the City, stated, in response to the question "Why this particular area?" - "that the area immediately north of the plant has been identified in the West Hil!'s Association's own environmental documents as the area that is most significantly impacted by odor emissions from the plant". I submit that the area identified in the condemnation ordinance is a nonion of the area which was identified as the most significantly impacted by odor (which has come to be known as "zone 1 ") in the environmental documents related to the odor lawsuits. The question the committee raised at the first reading and raises again tonight is why target this specific area which is not all of the area most significantly impacted by odor (zone 1). Mr. DiJulio also stated" These areas were identified because the City is primarily concerned about residential exposures." and that" those 24 hour exposures are found most frequently in the residential areas targeted." Again we ask, why target this neighborhood when there are other portions of the, so called, zone 1 which are just as frequently exposed to odors. In response to the question "Why now and not later" Mr. DiJulio stated "simply because further delay means further cost and expense to the City ofBremerton ratepayers. This Council addressed that issue 18 months ago when it approved sewer rate increases and adopted a Comprehensive Plan that rates would be raised in the future. This is a long term project, with long term expenses, and will be addressed for years to come." We ask for clarification of the explanation that past and future rate increases are related to the condemnation proceedings and for clarification of Mr. DiJulio's use of the term "long term project". Is he referring to the condemnation ordinance or the odor control project? In a further answer to the question" Why this particular area, and not others?" Mr. DiJulio stated that "the City made the determination based on the risk calculation EXHIBIT "A" exempt from SEPA' s review requirements" while that statement, taking in comext, may be true, I would like to quote to you from the "Standard Handbook of Environmental Engineering" the definition of the various types of environmental impact. "With environmental impacts defined as changes in any component of the biophysical or socioeconomic environment, an impact may be positive, negative, or it may have both beneficial and detrimental aspects simultaneously. Impacts may be classified as direct, indirect, or cumulative." Indirect impacts are defined as "caused by an action but are usually, either (1) later in time or (2) further removed in distance. Cumulative impacts are defined as" one which relates from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonable foreseeable filmre actions regardless of what agency or person undertakes such other action. Cumulative impacts might result from individually minor or innocuous actions which may be collectively significant when taking place over a long period of time." While Mr. DiJulio is undoubtedly correct in his statement that a change in property ownership does not constitute an "action", he has also directly tied the condemnation procedure to the odor control project, which therefore has had an invalid SEPA checklist submitted with an erroneous finding of no significant impact for the project. Now, I am not a lawyer, however I am a Registered Environmental Manager with the National Registry of Environmental Professionals and based on the information that I just provided you I can assure you any lawyer would have a heyday in court. The point of all this is - lawyers can and probably will argue these poims in a court of law for months or even years at the expense of the City and that means at the expense of all of us, the residents of the City and no matter what the outcome, the only ones who will win will be the lawyers. In conclusion, I would like to reiterate the recommendation of the Citizens Involvement Committee, in that we find that this proposal is ill-conceived and ill-advised and will not reduce the liability of the City with regard to odor, but rather will vastly increase the potential for further litigation against the City. We therefore, again, provide the Council with our strongest recommendation that you do not approve this ordinance. And finally to Councilman Winters I would like to say that I too love the City of Bremerton, and I am also tired of paying for litigation against the City, but until the City acts with responsibility to its residents and those that neighbor it's borders, the lawsuits will not stop.