Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/18/95TAPE #1327 UNAPPROVED DRAFT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES COUNCIL APPROVED NOV 8 1995 OCTOBER 18, 1995 #0044 #0060 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, October 18, 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, David Farr, Richard Neville, and fan Overson. Also present were City Attorney Ian Sievers and Deputy City Clerk Gil Johnson. The meeting opened with the Pledge of Allegiance led by Council President Huff-Menees and Invocation given by Pastor Rodgers of Central Kitsap Christian Church. CONSENT AGENDA A. Minutes - September 27, 1995 #AB95-229 B. Bid Award Recommendation For 106 Maple Trees #AB95-230 Julius Rosso Wholesale M/S/C/U(Neville/Farr) to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. CLAIMS/CHECK REGISTERS Vouchers audited and certified by the auditing officer as required by RCW 42.24.080, and those expense reimbursement claims certified as required by RCW 42.24.090, have been recorded on a listing that had been made available to the Council. M/S/C/U(Colvin/Dawkins) on October 18, 1995, the Council does approve for payment those vouchers included and further described as follows: 188805 through 188976 in the amount of $712,863.55; and Regular Payroll for the payroll period ending October 15, 1995, in the amount of $583,566.82. President Huff-Menees made the following announcement: (1) The City Council will hold an Executive Session immediately following this meeting, in the City Council Conference Room, to discuss "Claims Review". COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS Mr. Winters thanked all those who participated in the Kitsap Party on Saturday, which was a very fine and successful event. He congratulated all the agencies that will benefit from the over $80,000 raised from the event. He announced the next Kitsap Lake Neighborhood Association meeting will be October 19, 1995, at 6:30 P.M., in the Cascade Natural Gas building on Kitsap Way. TAPE #1327 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes October 18, 1995 Page 2 of 31 Mr. Dawkins commented on the criticism he has heard regarding the closures of the old Belfair Highway, but stated it is necessary for safety reasons due to the possibility of fallen trees. Mr. Law reported on October 17 District #3 held.a Neighborhood Meeting and had good attendance in spite of the Mariner's playoff game being televised. He stated the meeting was very informative and he always learns something new, and he appreciated all who came. He also thanked the "beat cop" and duty Sergeant for attending the meeting and giving update reports. Many comments were made from the public that they are seeing more policemen in their areas than ever before, and he appreciates that. Mr. Farr notified the public that applications for the "Christmas in April" program are now available. To be eligible for that program one must be a Kitsap County resident, own their home, and have a financial need. MAYOR'S REPORT Mayor Hotton announced the annual Senior Center Arts & Crafts Bazaar is scheduled for Friday, October 20, 1995, 11:00 A.M. - 5:30 P.M., and Saturday, October 21, 1995, 9:00 A.M. - 4:00 P.M., at the Sheridan Park Community Center. On October 13 Mayor Horton rode with a swing-shift Police Officer, and found it was a whole lot different from the grave-yard shifts she had ridden with previously. The swing shift ride was pretty quiet, but nonetheless she feels the Police Officers do a very good job. She has heard comments from the Police Officers themselves that they feel some of the proactive things the City is involved in have had positive affects, and they see a difference in the streets. PUBLIC RECOGNITION Alex Roos, Bremerton, expressed his thanks for the presentation made by the City, which included representatives from HUD. He felt it was very informative, and gave the public a chance to speak with the Mayor, Police Chief, and HUD officials about their concerns. He would like to see this type of thing continue on a regular basis. Also, he pointed out a recent newspaper article in The Sun about the City of Port Orchard having a "Clean-Up Week" the week of October 23, 1995, where they are picking up tree branches, small yard waste, etc., free of charge, and larger items for a nominal charge. He recommended the City of Bremerton also have this type of activity in the near future. He further suggested that since the parent company of Brem-Air is among the leading profit companies in their industry, according to the Wall Street Journal, it might behoove them to "give back to the City", by offering their services for free. TAPE #1327 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes October 18, 1995 Page 3 of 31 Mary Sump thanked everyone for the overwhelming response shown to her and her family while she was in the hospital recovering from a serious auto accident. She is still in awe at the generous support shown to her by so many people from the community. Mayor Norton commented that although Mary is making great progress, she still has a way to go, and if she or her family need assistance, someone will be there to help out. She also thanked her staff, and especially Carol Heavener in the Fire Department, for putting food/fund drive together. Ed Pietras, Knights of Columbus, announced the 13th Annual Italian Spaghetti Fest will be held October 29, 1995, 1:00 P.M. to 8:00 P.M., and will benefit the Olympic Peninsula Kidney Center, and will be held in the honor of patient Donna Thornton. He encouraged everyone to mark the date on their calendars. Tickets can be purchased by calling 479-9210, or obtained from him personally. Donald Larson, President of Washington Scuba Alliance & Kitsap Diving Association, presented and read into the record a letter from Leslie Vanigan from the Citizen Action Committee, which thanked the City for their support in the Sinclair Inlet Citizen Action Committee's Clean-Up and Marine Fair held September 9, 1995. The volunteers really appreciated the help with parking, and use of the boardwalk area. The efforts to clean up beaches could not continue without support from the community. He then presented a Certificate of Recognition from Aquatic World Awareness Responsibility & Education to Mayor Lynn Horton, and thanked her for all her help and support. Mayor Hotton stated she really thinks the City should be thanking Mr. Larson's organization. Mr. Larson also mentioned TCI had a program on shipwrecks for underwater parks called "Reefs of Steel" that will be repeated October 30, 1995, at 7:15 P.M., and he had a video tape available showing in a little bit more detail, just what has been accomplished for sinking ships. He also announced Kitsap Diving Association is having a meeting October 19, 1995, at 7:00 P.M., at the Department of Transportation Building off Highway 16 near the Mullenix Exit, and the public is invited to attend. Carol Atkinson, Bremerton Mainstreet Association, announced they are working on a Christmas program which will include Santa Clause coming to town to do the tree lighting. Details will be announced soon. 7A - CONFIRMATION OF CIVIL SERVICE OFFICER -- VIRGINIA SCHNEIDER, #AB95-231 An eligible register, as required by Civil Services Rules, has been established for the position of Civil Service Officer. Pursuant to BMC 2.49.10, the Mayor is seeking the confirmation of Ms. Virginia A. Schneider to the position. #0782 TAPE #1327 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes October 18, 1995 Page 4 of 31 Mayor Horton stated Ms. Schneider went through an assessment center, and scored very well. She has a strong background in the military, including work with civilians in the military setting, and also has a strong background in personnel and industrial relations, as well as some EEO outreach. Mayor Herton feels she will be a good addition to the City of Bremerton staff. M/S/C/U(Montgomery/Colvin) to confirm the appointment of Ms. Virginia A. Schneider as Civil Service Officer. 7B - PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH FAILURE ANALYSIS ASSOCIATE8 FOR REMEDIATION OF PROPERTIES ASSOCIATED WITH EXPANSION OF EVERGREEN PARK, ~AB95-232 During the construction of the outfall for the Warren Avenue CSO Reduction Project, contaminated soils were discovered and reported by the City to the State Department of Ecology. As a result, Ecology put the City on its list as a "Class 5 Site", requiring remediation of the property. Other waterfront properties associated with the expansion of Evergreen Park previously have been listed by Ecology, and also require remediation. Ecology is seeking remediation of listed contiguous properties in the Evergreen Park Expansion area as a single project. The services provided under this agreement will assist in negotiating financial participation and other responsibilities of property owners included in the remediation plan. Ecology has indicated implementation of this project would be eligible for grant assistance. The purpose of the professional services agreement is to determine the scope of the remediation plan and obtain agreement among property owners, the City, and Ecology regarding the implementation of the remediation project. Gene Sampley, Director of Public Works & Utilities, stated this project will be important in the process of further development of Evergreen Park in the Comprehensive Plan developed by the City. There are adjacent properties that will be included in the ultimate Park Plan. The Department of Ecology is seeking remediation of waterfront properties, in particular those which fit into a certain classification of remediation that would be of benefit to the public, and provide a limited exposure to any potential contamination. The Failure Analysis Associates are familiar with this type of activity, and the City has negotiated an agreement with them to take the City up to the point of final design. This agreement is before Council tonight. In addition, his department will authorize the work in phases, so that the City will be able to make determinations at key times during the project. The budget associated with this approval is limited to $75,000, which will take this up to Phase I, which is negotiating with property owners in the area for a joint agreement and a cooperative effort. In Phase II, they will negotiate an agreement and a scope of work for #0883 #0921 TAPE #1327 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes October 18, 1995 Page 5 of 31 the final clean-up, which will be incorporated into an agreement with the Department of Ecology. At that time, a determination will be made whether it is in the City's best interest to proceed. He recommends that Council approve this agreement, and added that Ian Sievers has copies of a newly drafted agreement now that they have completed negotiations. Ian 8levers, City Attorney, stated the agreement has one change... an added paragraph to Section 7 "Insurance and Hold Harmless", which reflects some last minute negotiations. This is to assure the consultant that the City will hold the consultant harmless and indemnify the consultant, if the City does not use his work or recommendations, or use what is contrary to his recommendations. Mr. Law stated he is very highly in favor of this proposal, and is pleased the City is doing it; however, he questioned Mr. Sievers on the last sentence, of the third paragraph, in Section 3 "Compensation", where it talks about "...said services will only be performed, and compensated by the City after the City has directed such performance in writing", because the contract Council is signing for the full amount of $239,031.00, yet at this point Council is only obligating $75,000.00. Mr. 8ievers stated there was some discussion on that point, and it was decided that the department wanted Council to be aware of the full project cost, and approve that dollar amount now, with the assurance that the work would not progress automatically past Phase II. Mr. Overson stated that actually serves to the benefit of the City because it establishes the probable cost of future phases at this point and gives Council the responsiblity of identifying funding. M/S/C/U(Overson/Montgomery) to approve the professional services agreement with Failure Analysis Associates for professional services for the remediation of properties associated with the expansion of Evergreen Park and authorize the Mayor to execute the same, subject to City Administrative Policies and Procedures. M/S/C/U(Overson/Montgomery) Adjustment #95-36 providing Analysis Associates. City Council approves the Budget $75,000 for services of Failure 7C - TERMINATION OF CONTRACT -- BREMERTON WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT OPERATIONS/METCALF & EDDY AND CITY OF BREMERTON, ~AB95-233 On June 28, 1995, the City of Bremerton notified Metcalf & Eddy Services, Inc. (M&E), contract operator for the Bremerton Wastewater Treatment Facility, of the termination of the Contract Operations Agreement effective January 1, 1996. On September 27, 1995, the City Council approved the transition budget for $70,000 for the purchase of vehicles and tools, and the hiring of personnel during this transition period necessary to prepare for City TAPE #1327 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes October 18, 1995 Page 6 of 31 operation of the Wastewater Treatment Plant. Metcalf & Eddy Services, Inc. desires to terminate the Agreement at an earlier date, and the City has agreed with M&E to terminate the Agreement effective midnight of November 30, 1995 instead of December 31, 1995, as originally established. As a result of this earlier termination date, it is necessary to hire personnel as soon as possible to staff the Wastewater Treatment Plant as defined in the attached Proposed 1996 Organizational Chart. Gene Sampley, Public Works and Utilities Director, stated the description of this item contains all the information and the contractor has requested an earlier termination date. He urged Council to approve the proposal as presented. He pointed out a Budget Adjustment in the amount of $46,000 was included in order to provide for the staffing and a Budget Summary that outlines the previously approved $20,000 budget adjustment. All of the necessary funds are available through the balance of funds from the Wastewater Operating Fund and the contract balance that will not be paid to M&E as a result of this action. He requested Budget Adjustment 95-35 be included in Council's approval of this item. Public comment - none. Mr. Farr questioned if the City would have enough trained personnel by the end of November to take on operation of the wastewater treatment plant? Mr. Sampler stated he was confident they will have sufficient trained personnel at the plant to act as leads for the operation of the facility with other employees, who would support that activity. They are in the process of establishing Registers for each of the positions required at the first of the year. Mr. Farr asked if there would be a "turn over time" so that City personnel can observe operation of the plant while it is still under M&E's responsibility? Mr. Sampley stated it is their target to have the personnel approved in a prior agenda item and on board by November 16. At that time, they were looking at a six-week transition period; however, that has now changed to a two-week transition period. Mr. Colvin pointed out Mr. Sampley will have 11 new employees and questioned how many of those employees are presently aboard? Mr. Sampley stated none. Mr. Colvin asked the time frame for getting those employees trained to run the wastewater treatment plant? Mr. Sampler stated he held a meeting with all of the existing plant employees (currently working with M&E) to discuss the process of employment with the City. Each eligible employee will have had to #1185 TAPE #1327 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes October 18, 1995 Page 7 of 31 successfully pass through the Civil Service selection process. He is confident a certain number of those personnel will be eligible in that process; however, nothing could be guaranteed because of the nature of that process. The City currently has personnel in its employment that are very much aware of the operations of most of the facility. The contractor has encouraged the City to bring in people for training as soon as possible. M/S/C/U(Montgomery/Colvin) to approve that the Wastewater Treatment Plant Operations and Maintenance Agreement with Metcalf & Eddy Services, Inc. be terminated, effective midnight of November 30, 1995. In addition, to approve the employment of personnel to staff the treatment plant as defined in the 1996 Proposed Organizational Chart; land to include Budget Adjust 95-35. 7D - ADJUSTMENT TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH ABEYTA & ASSOCIATES FOR NEGOTIATING PROPERTY PURCHASES IN THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLAN BUFFER ZONE, #AB95-234 The current Professional Services Agreement with Abeyta & Associates, as shown in exhibit (1), is for an amount not to exceed $10,000.00. Ms. Abeyta's role as negotiator for the City in the procurement of properties in the WWTP Buffer Zone has proven effective and beneficial, and should be continued. The proposed amendment will continue the services of Abeyta & Associates throughout the remaining procurement process for an estimated amount not to exceed $35,000.00. Gene Sampley, Public Works and Utilities Director, explained Abeyta & Associates have been assisting the City in the acquisition of properties since mid summer, and in his opinion doing an outstanding job. It is the City's desire to continue that effort regardless of Council's decision on Agenda item 8B. Peter Myers, Oyster Bay area resident, stated he did not see the need for an in-between person to buy up property in his neighborhood. The residents are being offered below market value prices. He believed the process being used by Abeyta & Associates is to obtain property tax information from the County and then mailing out an offer to the resident. No one from Abetya & Associates has contacted him personally and he was only aware of one person that had been contacted directly via a cell phone. He did not support the City spending money for out-of-town people, who are not familiar with Mr. Myers neighborhood or their making effort to make in-person contacts. Mr. Colvin asked Mr. Sievers to respond to Mr. Myers' concern from a legal standpoint? Ian Sievers, City Attorney, stated it had to do with the scope of work the consultant was asked to perform and possibly Mr. Sampley could explain all of the activities being done TAPE #1327 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes October 18, 1995 Page 8 of 31 for the Utilities Department. Mr. Sampley stated he believed noticed had gone out to property owners and residents in the subject area soliciting responses from those interested in discussing possible real estate transactions with the City. There is one group of property owners that are members of litigation against the City, whose attorney requested the City deal directly with him. Therefore, there are a selective number of individuals that are not being contacted directly without their permission. He was not familiar with the names of those individuals or the consequences of that limitation at this point. The City has had several property owners request an opportunity to discuss the real estate issue with them. Mr. Winters expressed concern over Mr. Myers' statement and asked him if he had not received anything from the City, then how did he know the City was offering the assessed value plus $2,0007 Mr. Myers stated he had to run down that information and cited one offer of $37,000 for a two-bedroom house with hardwood floors. Mr. Winters stated he needed to see something in writing to be able to accept the kind of information Mr. Myers was presenting. David Johnson, member of the Oyster Bay Residents Council, stated one of the reasons he was late for this meeting was due to his receiving a telephone call from a Real Estate person from Silverdale and they related the same information as Mr. Myers' comment about the City's offer. He asked if the City Council members had received copies of how this Seattle Real Estate firm is acquiring properties. President Huff-Menees assured Mr. Johnson that Council has been provided reports on the contacts being made and any transactions resulting from those contacts. Mr. Neville stated under the Scope Of Services section it indicates a Status Report will be given weekly to Mr. Sampley. He asked if Mr. Sampley was receiving reports and if he was satisfied with the results? Mr. Sampler stated weekly reports have been submitted to him, which are quite detailed as far as the scope of discussion, number of contracts, progress made, future actions, etc. Mr. Winters stated Mr. Sampley has given him facts and that is why he asked Mr. Myers to provide some kind of written documentation in support of their comments regarding this issue. Mr. Overson stated amongst the requirements under the Scope of Service is the development of a project file that is identified to each property. He asked if that file will provide the facts, figures and history relative to the actual negotiations and final results,and if it will be open to review by City staff? Mr. 8ampley stated Mr. Overson was correct. Mr. Overson stated his only concern was the City has taken a $10,000 contract and TAPE #1327 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes October 18, 1995 Page 9 of 31 multiplied it 3 1/2 times with little or no discussion, which he felt was a big jump. Mr. Sampley stated during early discussions, Council indicated they felt the need to have someone independent represent the City and make direct contact with the residents/property owners that was in a neutral position as much as possible. The City solicited qualified applicants for this service and the subject firm was recommended to the City by the State Right-Of-Way Acquisition personnel based on the fact that firm is certified for doing this kind of work as well as being a certified Real Estate Sales Agent and having access to the Kitsap County Multiple Listing of properties available. Some individuals have asked that Ms. Abeyta provide information on homes in certain price ranges in the local area, which she attempted to do. Ms. Abeyta's original estimate was $35,000, which covered a certain number of contacts and activities for all the parcels in the area of concern. An agreement was reached with her to try the process with a lessor amount to see how things went. He believed things were going well and he understands there are many individuals that are not pleased with the overall program. But, in general, the bulk of the public have been pleased with the professionalism with which Ms. Abeyta has approached the matters and the individuals. Of those who are unhappy with the City, they are very clear in stating they are not happy with Ms. Abetya or appreciate her professional approach. He feels the amount of funding being requested is consistent with the original estimate. President Huff-Menees stated she wanted to restate several statements made by Mr. Sampley in a little different way since it also speaks to a few of the issues raised by Mr. Myers. First, the City Council did request an outside agency to make contact and address people directly, which came as a result from comments made by some of the public that given the sensitiveness of this issue, the City might be better served by having someone that is objective and someone from outside the area, who could make an objective assessment based on the information available. Although there may be some people here who did not want to speak with Ms. Abeyta, there were many people who were very happy to speak with her and will complete a successful real estate transaction. Again, it is one of those situations where the City tried to take a course of action that would be the most acceptable and certainly we have not been able to please everyone, but many have been satisfied with that course of action. Mr. Winters referenced page 100 in the Council packet and asked Mr. Sampley if this service would receive any commission? Mr. Sampley explained this service is being performed strictly on a per-hour basis, which covers all expenses incurred by the party, including labor; therefore no commissions are involved. #1890 TAPE #1327 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes October 18, 1995 Page 10 of 31 Mr. Colvin asked if the information regarding individual properties had been provided to the owners of those properties? Mr. Sampley stated to his knowledge all requests have been responded to. Mr. David Johnson was recently provided information on the most recent transactions and list of transitions and properties the City has acquired. He knows of no matters that are not sensitive to the litigation that currently are on going with the owners in that area. Mr. Colvin asked the City Attorney if information relating to each individual owner would be considered sensitive and not provided by to the property owner? Mr. Sievers stated he was not sure he understood Mr. Colvin's question; however, as Mr. Sampley stated the City has received a request from a number of people living in the subject area to not contact them directly, but provide the information through their attorney, which is what the City is doing. Whether or not that information is being passed on to the individual property owner is not a known factor. Mayor LYnn Hotton stated the aggregate of the property acquisitions so far have been very close if not right at market value, which is approximately 20% above the assessed valuation. Mr. Colvin re- emphasized his concern that the market value of properties in the subject area is not all that great and questioned how could they overcome deficiencies when trying to relocate to another area? Mr. Sampler stated for clarification that as of this date the City has not had any leverage other than the ability to negotiate and every transaction has been between seller and the City as a willing buyer. The action Council will consider later in this meeting may change that situation. M/S/C/U(Montgomery/Farr) to approve an amendment to the Professional Services Agreement between the City and Abeyta & Associates for an amount not to exceed $35,000.00, and authorize the Mayor to execute the same, subject to City Administrative Policies and Procedures. 7E - PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT WITH BONDO REMER, #AB95-235 Proposed contract is to develop advertising concept statements and boarded layouts for a campaign theme promoting the City of Bremerton. Mayor Lynn Hotton reminded Council that a Study Session was held with Bondo Remer a few months ago and the City did an initial contract with them outlining what the City might do if embarking on a Marketing Program. This contract is to begin development of that marketing concept and will include several different avenues. The subject contract and attached Budget Adjustment provide for the component that addresses the City's Hotel/Motel Tax, which is to promote tourism. As the City progresses along in the flushing out of a full marketing plan for the community, she will either include #2126 #2177 TAPE #1327 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes October 18, 1995 Page 11 of 31 it in the 1996 budget process or as a Budget Adjustment. An important component that will come to Council in late 1996 or early 1997 has to do with marketing the City's new 18-hole golf course. There is also another piece that she will address through the General Fund and be discussed as part of the Budget process. This is the actual development of the whole Marketing Program concept, not just what the City might do. Public comment - none. M/S/C(Montgomery/Winters) to approve professional services contract with Bondo Remer and Budget Adjustment in the amount of $10,000.00. Vote on Motion: In Favor: Winters, Neville, Farr, Montgomery, Dawkins, Colvin, Huff-Menees Abstain: Overson, Law Motion carried. 8A - ORDINANCE NO. 4531 (SECOND READING) APPROVING THE VACATION OF PORTIONS OF MONTGOMERY AVENUE. FARRAGUT STREET, COONTZ STREET, AND RODGERS STREET; THE ALLEY BOUNDED BY CALLOW AVENUE, MONTGOMERY AVENUE, FIRST STREET, AND FARRAGUT STREET; AND THE ALLEY BOUNDED BY WYCOFF AVENUE, CALLOW AVENUE, RODGERS STREET. AND FARRAGUT STREET, #XB95-227 l:~tblic comment - none. M/S/C/U(Farr/Overson) to pass Ordinance No. 4531 on second reading, approving the vacation of portions of Montgomery Avenue, Farragut Street, Coontz Street, Rodgers Street, the alley bounded by Callow Avenue, Montgomery Avenue, First Street, and Farragut Street, and the alley bounded by Wycoff Avenue, Callow Avenue, Rodgers Street, and Farragut Street. 8B - ORDINANCE (FIRST READING) AUTHORIZING CONDEMNATION OF PROPERTY FOR ODOR BUFFER NORTH OF THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT, #AB95-236 The proposed ordinance authorizes acquisition of the remaining properties in the area north of the City's Wastewater Treatment Plant for odor buffer. The area is bounded by the Treatment Plant, Oyster Bay Avenue, Highway 3, and the Werner Road interchange. The buffer will be established by removal of residences, or suitable encumbrances or occupancy restrictions placed on the properties; the particular controls will be determined following construction and performance of treatment plant improvements currently under contract. The immediate objective will be to terminate pending claims and prevent potential future claims from residents in the area. TAPE #1327 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes October 18, 1995 Page 12 of 31 The City will continue to negotiate purchases under procedures of municipal code 2.78.040-070 before filing a condemnation action against any of the parcels. The Mayor is authorized to execute purchase agreements on any of the parcels in lieu of condemnation. Sandra Pool read the following letter from the Oyster Bay Council: The Mayor appeared before the Citizens Involvement Committee to provide information regarding the article in the Bremerton Sun about condemnation near the sewage treatment plant. The Mayor stated the reasons for possible condemnation are an odor buffer zone and future expansion of the plant. She also said the City may rent out some homes and sell other property as commercial. Mayor Horton's concern about future lawsuits was another reason to consider condemnation. When she publicly proposed condemning the property near the sewage treatment plant, the residents in the affected area joined together to form the Oyster Bay Council. The purpose of this Council is to protect our interests and to reach an amicable solution to the problem. During previous meetings, the Oyster Bay Council has found some discrepancies regarding the possible condemnation plan. The following points outline our concerns: 1. The affected area, as we understand it, is from the sewage treatment plant to Werner Road and East of Oyster Bay. Considering the proximity to the plant, there are many other properties closer than Werner Road that are not included in the condemnation. 2. New homes are being built approximately three blocks from the plant. Why is the City allowing new homes to be built in an area that should also be condemned? 3. A large number of the West Hills Association members do not live in the condemnation area. This condemnation process will not prevent future lawsuits from this association. 4. It is our understanding that there are no current plans to expand the sewage treatment plant. This would question the need for acquiring property at this time. In the spirit of cooperation and our desire to find a beneficial solution for all concerned, the Oyster Bay Council would like to propose the following alternative solutions: A. Wait and see if the current project will resolve the odor problem. There are many experts who agree this is the solution. TAPE #1327 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes October 18, 1995 Page 13 of 31 B. The residents are willing to discuss and consider the sale of odor easements to the City. We are a vital neighborhood representing a diverse cross section of citizens, many who are on fixed or low incomes. This is more than just a group of houses--these are our homes, and we would like to stay here. We are reasonable people and willing to work with the City to reach a viable solution." Ms. Pool stated she received a copy of a list of all the properties the City has acquired or in the process of acquiring. The City has acquired approximately 50% of the properties in that location and are targeting only the area east of Oyster Bay. Her home is located 1/2 block to the west of Oyster Bay and she is affected by the odor from the sewer treatment plant. The City has acquired approximately 10-11 properties west of Oyster Bay and she questioned if the City is not in the process of condemning that area then why acquiring those properties? She does not think a fair price has been offered. She has not been offered a price, but she did offer a price and she made the contact with the City nor has the firm hired by the City contacted her, except when her neighborhood talked with Mr. Lucas. She sent in a formto the City 11/2 years ago and didn't hear anything back until this past July. She and her fellow residents have a lot of concerns about the City's process and what they are doing. If the City is buying property based on assessed value as a residence and assuming you are going to turn it into commercial, they are also being deprived of receiving any of the benefits of selling it as a commercial property. Lynn Elliott, resident on West Oyster Bay, stated she is only one of two houses in her area that is not owned by the City. On several occasions she has brought her concerns before Council and not want to repeat them. However, her biggest concern had to do with what they were told at a previous Council meeting about receiving notification when the issue of condemnation came to a vote. The only reason that she and her other neighbors are at this meeting is because a member of the Citizens Involvement Committee received a letter and he notified all of the people affected. Had he not taken the time to do that, none of them would have known about this hearing. She does not subscribe to The Sun, she does watch TV news, but did not feel the notification process was handled fairly. Lovey Nichols, 1203 Bayview Drive, stated about three years ago she received a letter from the City's Risk Manager Peggy Lessor, indicating she wished to speak with Ms. Nichols, which she did. Ms. Lessor had a contract prepared ready for signature, but Ms. Nichols had no idea what it entailed and refused to sign the TAPE #1327 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes October 18, 1995 Page 14 of 31 document. At that time, Ms. Lessor did make an offer, which Ms. Nichols refused and indicated she did not want to sell her home to the City. Ms. Lessor stated to her that if you don't sell, we'll condemn the property. Ms. Nichols responded with a question - would Ms. Lessor sell her home, which she responded NO, and Ms. Nichols asked why not? Ms. Lessors's response was that she did not want to move. She then asked Ms. Lessor what made her think that she wanted to move? A few weeks later Ms. Nichols received a telephone call from the City Attorney Ian Sievers, stating he and another person wanted to personally purchase her home. She did not permit that to happen. She emphasized this problem should be remedied by mid February, no one has contacted her within the last six months except a developer from Bellevue. If anyone wants to purchase her home, she wants to be contacted personally, not through anyone else. Stacy Rose, 4310 E Street, stated not only will he nor any of his relative or friends be voting for the Mayor, who came up with this hair-brained idea. He and his relatives feel the Mayor and attorneys plan to steal his property and change it into commercial property and sell it for millions of dollars and invest those dollars in the sewer treatment plant. He believes such action is morally corrupt. He is a minority in a predominately people of color neighborhood and can't help but think if it was an all white neighborhood condemnation might not be an issue. He has read in the newspaper that negotiators have been successful in acquiring some of the properties. He was allowed to purchase his property even though the City knew they would take it away from him eventually and allowing him to invest $2,000 of his savings 11/2 years ago. No one has talked with him or sent him letters offering to purchase his home. He questioned why negotiate for properties when you can steal by condemnation? The newspaper articles also told him the Mayor was protecting the City from lawsuits from people who sued before. In the subject area only about 7-10% of the people were involved in the lawsuit and the others live on the other side of the freeway or on the other side of Oyster Bay Road, which brings him to another point...you people who live on the east side are next. The odor from the sewer treatment plant is not limited to just his neighborhood. He questioned why stop there - why not take homes and businesses north of Werner Road? He believes the right thing to do would be to relocate the actual homeowners and when the area is turned into commercial property, the previous property owners should receive a share of any profit. He urged the City Council members to vote "NO" for condemnation, or vote "YES" and buy all the people affected brand new houses. David Johnson, 4311 A Street, stated he hoped the Council members were listening to what they are saying during this hearing and have not already made a decision. He finds it rather symbolic that the TAPE #1327 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes October 18, 1995 Page 15 of 31 City would send out a notice to remove them from their land on the weekend of Columbus Day. He also found it very unprofessional for the City to notify the Citizens Involvement Committee that they have until October 18 to present alternatives to the condemnation proposal. As a ratepayer, he expects more from the City's professional staff when dealing with people's livelihoods. In his opinion, this only lends to the fact the City's intent has always been the elimination of this neighborhood by any means necessary. He wanted to know where were the notices the Council's chairperson said she would send to them regarding this public hearing? He believes the issue of condemnation has covered up the whole odor control project. He questioned as a result of the West Hills Consent Decree, has this group been notified and has there been any input on the progress of the project or how well the project will work?. And, is the City using any of the input received from that group regarding condemnation of properties? And, is the City prepared to provide funding for further litigation because the ratepayers have had enough of funding legal decisions. And, speaking of funding, how is the Public Works Department suppose to purchase homes using Bond money? He brings up that point because his group received a letter from the then Public Works Department when they requested as the Citizens Involvement Committee - where was the funding coming from to purchase homes, and the response they got back was the money was coming from Bonds. The City has already spent 13 million dollars to combat the odor problem. If the City had done the right thing when complaints were first lodged, this City would have spent a fraction of that money with the remainder being used for other needs within the City. Why would the City Council support an ordinance that will only add to this amount; 13 millions dollars is a lot of money to spend on an odor problem? How can the City remove them from their land and allow developers to build on lands closer to the plant than their properties? The Mayor stated the City could not guarantee 100% that the project would work 100% of the time. He realized the Mayor's position is powerful, but he did not think anyone would make that type of assertion about any thing man made and he would imagine the Courts are aware of that as well. The major complaint has always been duty and responsibility. In looking through the City Council Agenda packet he was unable to locate the SEPA Checklist and asked if one was available? Back in April of this year, he had filed an appeal against the SEPA Checklist and was told the appeal was frivolous and condemnation was something the City was just "tossing around". He was not allowed to speak at that hearing. His educational background includes Economics and environmental issues and he was very interested in the intent of the Checklist and SEPA process. He understands that the intent of the SEPA process is to create harmony. Had the Planning Commission not shared their responsibility when the Appeal was made on the condemnation, we would not be here today. The purpose of SEPA is TAPE #1327 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes October 18, 1995 Page 16 of 31 not to create a legal mine field. He hoped Council had not already made up their mind and would listen to those giving testimony during this hearing; and to vote "NO" on the request for condemnation. David Willjams stated as a member of the Citizens' Involvement Committee (CIC) he was asked to come to this hearing to express the opinion of the Committee on the property condemnation ordinance. The CIC for the wastewater treatment plant odor control project, was formed on September 1, 1994, by the initiative of the City of Bremerton Public Works and Utility Department in order to provide community input and feedback on the odor control project and to bring community concerns and issues to the City and get the response back to the community. The Committee is composed of seven members from the community area served by the sewer treatment plant collection system. One member of that committee resides in East Bremerton, four members reside in Central and West Bremerton, one member resides across Oyster Bay Road from the area designated for condemnation and one member resides within the proposed condemnation area. The CIC is unanimously opposed to approving the Condemnation Ordinance and strongly recommends that Council not approve the ordinance. He then provided a brief chronology of events related to the City's involvement in the City's acquisition of property in the area of the wastewater treatment plan: (1) September 1, 1995, CIC was formed and met for the first time. In preparation for the first public meeting being held by the CIC they requested City staff to provide information on the City's policy of acquiring property in the vicinity of the sewer treatment plant to make what the City called a "buffer zone". On September 26, 1994, the first public meeting was conducted by the CIC and at that meeting members of the audience asked if condemnation was planned for acquiring property in the so called "buffer zone". Eddy Chu, the then Public Works and Utility Director, stated condemnation was not a consideration by the City. On October 17, 1994, the CIC attended a City Council Study Session to provide Council members with questions and concerns including those of condemnation in a buffer zone that were raised during that public meeting. From October 1994 through January 1995, the Committee continued to request information on the City's property acquisition in the so called "buffer zone" in an attempt to answer questions and concerns that were raised during the public meeting. In January 1995, Mr. Chu was fired as head of the Public Works and Utilities Department. From January to February 1995, after reviewing information provided by City staff, the Committee continued to ask for specific information on the City's plan or guidelines for acquiring properties to create a "buffer zone". After receiving no response to that request, the Committee requested time on the Council's Study Session to present the information they had on the subject and to ask Council to request the information on the City's plan TAPE #1327 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes October 18, 1995 Page 17 of 31 for acquiring property in the buffer zone. On February 27, 1995, Mayor Horton requested a meeting with the CIC; and at that meeting Mayor Horton informed the Committee members that the decision had been made to acquire the remaining properties in Zone #1, as designed by the Consent Decree, by condemnation to provide for a buffer zone and protect the City from further lawsuits due to odor compliance. On March 13, 1995, the Committee held a second public meeting where Mayor Horton presented her plan to acquire property in the Zone #1 area by condemnation. Since that public meeting in March, the Council has heard on numerous occasions opinions and concerns by people most directly affected by the condemnation proposal. During this time, the CIC chose not to provide a definitive opinion or recommendation until a specific proposal was put forth by the City. In support of their recommendation to not approve the condemnation, the CIC presented 14 separate items or issues: (1) Why proceed with the condemnation now when in 2 1/2 months the issue may not be a concern once the odor control equipment is on line? (2) Why move forward with condemnation of only this specific area when over 80% of the people involved in the original odor lawsuit live in the areas outside of this one? (3) If condemnation proceeds, procedure does not reduce the City's liability to the majority of those involved in the original lawsuit, what is the purpose of this ordinance? (4) By passing this ordinance the City may be setting itself up for a lawsuit by admitting the odor control will not work even before its going into operation. (5) During the original odor lawsuit, many studies were conducted to provide documentation of specific areas, which were impacted by the odor from the sewer treatment plant. Where is this documentation now and does it show in relation to this area targeted for condemnation? (6) As a result of the original odor lawsuit the City entered into a Consent Decree with all the parties of the lawsuit. Pursuing this condemnation proposal gives the appears of a breech of faith by the City to that Consent Decree. Even if the City does proceed with the condemnation of these properties the requirements of the Consent Decree must still be met and the City does not escape any of its liability set forth in that Decree. (7) Passage of this ordinance gives the appears of using the odor control as an excuse to acquire property. TAPE #1327 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes October 18, 1995 Page 18 of 31 (8) Passage of this ordinance does not enhance the image of the City and in fact it tarnishes that image by giving the perception that the City cannot abide by contracts made in good faith. (9) Not only does passage of this ordinance do nothing to protect the City from future litigation, we believe that it provides the potential for many more lawsuits, which will tax the resources of the City even further. TAPE #1328 (10) Passage of this ordinance will require the re-evaluation of the embodiment environmental loss significance of the SEPA checklist submitted by the City earlier this year for the odor control project. At the time of the original submission of the SEPA checklist, an appeal was filed by one of the residents of the area for proposed condemnation based on the increase in scope of the odor control project relative to condemnation of property. That appeal was denied by the City on the basis that there was no formal proposal for condemnation, but with the stipulation that if condemnation procedures were evoked, the environmental impact study would have to be re-evaluated. Re-opening of this environmental impact study may even impact the on-going odor control project at the treatment plant. (11) Condemnation of property is usually considered as a last resort by government agencies, and generally reserved for either the removal of a public nuisance or the acquisition of property which is to be utilized for the public good. In this case, the "public nuisance" was one created by the City, and it appears that the acquisition of this property is not in the public interest as a protection against liability, but is rather being used as a vehicle to acquire property not currently in City jurisdiction, annex the property, then resell the property for profit. (12) It seems odd that the only area targeted for condemnation is property currently unincorporated, and principally owned by ethnic minorities, while properties which are within City limits, and much closer proximity to the treatment plant, and are not owned by ethnic minorities are not considered for condemnation. (13) The funding required for this condemnation is approximately 2.1 million dollars. The only way these funds can be re-paid to the City fund is through resale of the property for profit. With the 6 million being spent for odor control, and the 4.5 million dollars awarded to the original odor lawsuit, the total spent just on odor at the treatment plant is approaching 13 million dollars. We do not believe that this is approved expenditure of the City's resources. TAPE #1328 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes October 18, 1995 Page 19 of 31 (14) As to alternatives to condemnation, this condemnation ordinance provides no liability for the City from any percent of the original lawsuit litigants, we believe that it makes more sense to wait until the odor control equipment is operational, then re- evaluate the situation. If the odor control equipment is not effective, even though we, as a Citizen Involvement Committee, believe that it will be, the City might need that $2.1 million dollars for other action. Based on the preceding items and issues, the Citizen Involvement Committee wished to express their strongest recommendation that the Council NOT approve the condemnation ordinance. Rachel Ketchum, 4321 West "C" Street, Bremerton, asked Council if any of them would want or like a wastewater treatment plant built in front of their home, without the consideration of the residents. The City didn't ask any of the current residents their opinions, they just came and built the plant. She has been in her home for 36 years. All of sudden, she is going to have to move from her home. Her husband passed in 1983, and all her memories of him are in her home. She asked the members of Council if they would like this to happen to them? She said if not, then please don't do it to her. She wants her home, she does not want to leave. She also talked about the size of her home, and the view she has now, and said there is no way she could find anything comparable to it, with the price she has been offered by the City. John Larson, Broadway Avenue, Bremerton Resident, and Acting Chair- Person for the Citizen Involvement Committee, stated the opinions of the Committee expressed earlier were unanimous. Speaking to the residents of Bremerton, he wanted to point out to them that these people who have the threat of having their property condemned, are our neighbors. The Committee felt they had an obligation to help keep the City from getting sued, and that the $2.1 million could be better spent on fixing the wastewater treatment plant, not "snuffing" out a neighborhood. If the best use of that property is commercial, he feels they should decide, it is their land. If the City created the smell, they should clean up the mess, and not worry about someone suing them to MAKE them clean it up. Cecil McConne11, Almira Drive, Bremerton Resident, felt that the prior issue on the agenda was connected to this one, and sets up a "red flag". The cancellation of the sewer plant operation contract coupled with the condemnation procedure on adjoining property, tells him that possibly the odor control isn't going to work, and doesn't appear that the City is going to try and make it work. He feels if the court's direction is followed, to get rid of the odor, there would be no need for the City to condemn the property to TAPE #1328 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes October 18, 1995 Page 20 of 31 create a "buffer zone". He is not even sure that the City can condemn private property for resale anyway. In his opinion, it does not speak well for the City to enter into the Real Estate business, especially for a condemnation procedure. He would like to see the RCWthat authorizes such action. He knows that the City can condemn property for several reasons, but it has to be for the public good, not for resale. If the City wants to convert that property into an industrial park, he feels the City should first rezone the property, then let these people sell their property under the higher rezone, so they can benefit by a higher profit, which would then allow them to repurchase a decent home elsewhere. He urged Council to vote no on this condemnation. Tracv Wingo, Bremerton Resident, questioned what is the fair price for 30 years of living in a home? Is it the fair-market value, plus a percentage? Will that buy these people another home in another neighborhood? What will this odor "buffer zone" provide, and why is this only being considered north of the plant? The City denied the odor problem 10 years ago, when the plant was first built. The City has now agreed to fix the odor problem. If the City obtains the property, will the odor get to stay? What about the residents on the other side of the freeway? What about the residents who live elsewhere, but must drive by the plant everyday? He questioned the possibility of other residents, who are not having their property condemned, still being able to sue. He further questioned if the money needed for this condemnation procedure means another rate hike on sewer bills? He would like to know the Mayor's long-term plans for this condemned property. Cametta Harkins, Representative for Faith Temple Church of God in Christ, 4313 "D" Street, stated the church has been in this location since 1958, long before any of this current situation took place. She said the church would like to get a reasonable and fair price for their property, so they would be able to build another church on the east side. As some of the other speakers have stated, Council should put themselves in their shoes, and consider how they would like any of this to happen to them. She stated this church has been around longer than some members of Council have been on earth. She has seen a lot of changes in Bremerton, and now their property is very valuable because they are right next to a freeway exit. She urged Council to vote no on this condemnation. Peter Myers, Oyster Bay Area Resident, speaking on behalf of the Neighborhood Council, urged the Bremerton City Council to vote no on the condemnation. He said that the dictionary may have another definition for condemnation, but to those who live on the affected property, it means "getting booted out of your home". He has been in the neighborhood since the 1960's, and he remembers at the time the sewer plant was going to be built, no notice was given to the TAPE #1328 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes October 18, 1995 Page 21 of 31 neighbors even asking them if they wanted this treatment plant so close to their homes. Then the neighbors were invaded by the odor from the sewer plant. Now, they seem to have no say in this action being taken by the City either. They do not want to be uprooted from their homes, possibly becoming homeless. Many residents are senior citizens on fixed income. He feels they are being offered "dirt cheap" prices for their homes, well below the market value. Basically, he feels the City is saying, "take it or leave it, or get out anyway". He stated that a comment made earlier by Councilman Winters about the prices of the properties being unknown, was wrong. He said he had a list of prices, and most of the property prices are known. He further stated there are only two that are unknown. Sandra Pool stated the list Mr. Meyer's had was obtained from Mr. Lucas two days ago, and it is the most current list of all the purchases made in that area, and also those currently in process. She also spoke of seeing some people, she believes City staff members, taking pictures in front of her house, and when they saw her, they took off. She said this happened a few months ago, and they were taking pictures of the properties from Roosevelt, down toward the freeway. She almost called the police, because she was very uncomfortable with such actions. Mr. Neville asked for Mr. Sievers' interpretation of the Citizens Involvement Committee's 14 questions. Mr. 8ievers stated Mr. DiJulio, who is the attorney representing the City on some of the sewer treatment plant lawsuits, will address some of the specific questions. He did state however, that he was not one of the persons taking the pictures Ms. Pool spoke of. Also, he believes that Ms. Nichols, who spoke earlier, misunderstood a conversation they had a long time ago. He was not interested in her property, and does not know personally of anyone else who was interested. Regarding the SEPA issue, the City said the Environmental Review Process would be reviewed, if this project did come forward as a proposal. The scope of the project was reviewed by the responsible official in the Planning Department, and determined to be categorically exempt, at least all the parts of this project that we can contemplate now, which are acquisition of real property interests, possibly vacation of streets, possible annexation, and demolition of single family homes. There is no rezone or development that the City contemplates at this time, and that is the basis for the determination on the SEPA issue. Steve DiJulio, attorney, stated no redevelopment or planning can go forward without subsequent compliance with SEPA, and the requirements of the Growth Management Act. His firm has served as special counsel to the City of Bremerton for a number of decades, and most recently, assisted with the treatment plant litigation. TAPE #1328 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes October 18, 1995 Page 22 of 31 There is no way that he could be as articulate or persuasive when compared to people who are appearing in defense of their home. He feels that the intensity of these people can not be criticized. However, he did feel there are some factual issues that need to be addressed. The City of Bremerton has been subject to criticism for nearly 20 years with respect to the sewer treatment plant. When the City entered into Planning efforts with the County, and the various sewer districts with respect to the Sinclair Inlet plan, the decision was made to close the Manette Plant, and relocate at Oyster Bay. The City was criticized for this. The City has responded to problems that have arisen in the past, and addressed the claims brought forth. First, they faced action from the West Hills Association, and now are further defending other lawsuits by the group known as the Charleston Beach Association. The City has commenced their own litigation against the sewer treatment plant's designer, operator, and insurance company, seeking to recover. The City was sued for its inaction in the past, and is now being asked to further delay taking action at this time. The property acquisition program has been part of the City's planning with respect to the sewer treatment plant long before he personally became associated with this particular project. Property was acquired before the lawsuits were instituted back in the late 1980's, but as the case is in many such circumstances, "you do what you can do when the time is presented". The City of Bremerton dealt with issues as it could, and property acquisition fell behind some of the other efforts. As he understands it, and he has not been involved in the property acquisition effort to date, the City has delayed proceeding with condemnation in order to provide further opportunity for the community to respond, and has sought to proceed forward with negotiations in lieu of condemnation. Also, the City cannot institute condemnation proceedings unless and/or until formal offer is presented. The adoption of this ordinance neither precludes settlement, nor does it allow the City to proceed to actually file the condemnation case until a formal written offer, consistent with the Property Acquisition Guidelines of the State of Washington, are complied with. To answer the question "Why this particular area?", Mr. DiJulio stated that the area immediately north of the plant has been identified in the West Hills Association's own environmental documents as the area that is most significantly impacted by odor emissions from the treatment plant. This neighborhood must know, more than any of us, that the prevailing winds and the effective climate in that basin affect those in the bottom of the basin more significantly than those above it. That is just a fact of the geography of that area. The people who drive by that area on the freeway are also aware of this. These areas were identified TAPE #1328 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes October 18, 1995 Page 23 of 31 because the City is primarily concerned about the residential exposures. There are no standards other than the OSHA and WISHA standards regarding exposure to odors, except for the extended 24 hour exposures. In this case, those 24 hour exposures are found most frequently in the residential areas targeted. The reason for "Why now, and not later" is simply because further delay means further cost and expense to City of Bremerton rate- payers. This Council addressed that issue 18 months ago when it approved sewer rate increases and adopted a Comprehensive Plan that fully recognized that rates would be raised in the future. This is a long termproject, with long term expenses, and will be addressed for years to come. To further answer "Why this particular area, and not others", he stated that certain properties that also have the potential for significant impact from the odor, are being acquired voluntarily, and not under threat of condemnation. However, the City made the determination based on the risk calculation where it faces the greatest exposure to liability in the future, and is making a reasoned judgement based upon that factor. The City cannot afford to acquire all of the property that has, in the past, claimed to be affected by odor. The City determined that this was the area where the most particular problems, and the most particular exposure to liability occurred. The City's limitation to liability is a result of a settlement agreement which only takes the City through the end of 1995, and the City will be again subject to liability. Of course, the City is also exposed to current liability from claimants in the Charleston Beach Association claims, which contain some 200 plus additional claimants seeking compensation from the City for odor nuisances emitted from the sewer treatment plant. Another question was raised "If the City is confident in its efforts with regard to the odor control improvements that are currently being constructed, why acquire the property?" Unfortunately, sewer plants emit odors. There will never be an "odor free" sewage treatment plant, not in light of current technology. The City has made a huge capital commitment to remedy the plant as much as it possibly can, and that remedy does not come with guarantees. The City is making every effort to provide future protection for the community by acquiring those areas where in the event the problem persists, liability will be diminished. No, condemnation will not prevent further lawsuits, but in the overall cost the City is facing in responding to the current claims, pursuing claims of its own against insurers and responsible parties, as well as dealing with the plant remediation, this is a plan with identified costs, for the project. Waiting and seeing how effective the odor control project will be is exactly what the City was criticized for doing some years ago. TAPE #1328 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes October 18, 1995 Page 24 of 31 In response to "Passage of this ordinance gives the appearance of using odor control as an excuse for acquiring property", odor control is the reason for acquiring the property, it is not an excuse. This is also not a "breach of faith" of the West Hills Association settlement. At the time of the negotiations with the West Hills Association, this Council made it very clear that it was going to continue to pursue voluntary acquisition of property in that area, and in the event voluntary acquisition did not succeed, condemnation would be considered. The settlement agreement with the West Hills Association spells this out specifically. Any member of that Association who is here tonight, knows they were advised of this at that time, some two years ago. Yes, what the City decides to do with the property in the future will require environmental evaluation, and the City will have to go through all proper processes with respect to any kind of development or redevelopment of that property. The property will be acquired for public purpose, the purpose of the City's sewer utility, and to protect the interest of the community. The issue with respect to the minority status of many of the residents in the Oyster Bay area is a serious concern to this Council. However, this is an issue that should have been addressed 15-20 years ago, at the time the decision was made to locate the plant at this facility, but the decision was made at that time. This Council is now addressing a problem that is not of their making, and if this is one of the unfortunate consequences that certain people are displaced as a result of this, that is one of the difficult decisions that an elected body has to make. He did want to comment with respect to the values that are being offered, it is his understanding that in evaluating the "fair- market value" of this property, the City is looking beyond this particular area for values so that the property is not being evaluated in light of the potential stigma associated with the treatment plant, but looking at comparable properties outside of the area in order to determine "fair-market value". The condemnation process gives the opportunity for the parties to appear before someone neutral, either a judge or a jury, and have them decide what the City is required to pay for that property. Condemnation is a process where both parties have equal opportunity to express their position, then have a neutral party decide what just compensation is to be paid. Replacement cost of property is justifiably an expectation of many people whose properties are acquired by government. It is a difficult concept, and one that is highly charged and emotional. It is a situation where property owners say "you buy me a piece of property that is the same as what I have now". The courts have rejected that concept time and time again. Just as it was suggested, the City is not in the Real Estate business, and cannot go out and buy property for everyone TAPE #1328 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes October 18, 1995 Page 25 of 31 who is displaced. Nevertheless, it is one of the issues raised, and replacement of property is not one of the issues that you deal with. However, the City is making available property that it is acquiring outside of this area, in Area 1, for continued residential sales. One of the issues that will be considered by the City in the implementation of this program is the movement of people from their residents in the condemnation area, to residents within the acquisition area. With respect to plans for expanding the treatment plant, it should be noted that the original plans, going back to the early 1980's, called for expansion north, into the area where property is being acquired. Obviously, the City has not grown, and the demand for plant expansion has not been required. One of the earlier plans for this plant showed a second bio tower north of the existing bio tower, and an additional pond area. While there is no present intent to expand the plant, plant expansion is part of the long term planning. Being proactive, means more conservative cost controls for the future. In response to "Why is the City being allowed to construct new homes in the area", the City can not prohibit the construction of new homes on private property, that is otherwise properly zoned for hat purpose. The City wants to encourage residential development in the neighborhoods that are designated as such, and because the area west of Oyster Bay Road is designated for residential neighborhood, that is one of the reasons for not proceeding for condemnation to the west of that road. Mr. Neville referred to Mr. DiJulio's response to question #10, about the SEPA checklist being opened again? Mr. DiJulio stated that SEPA is required for any action, and compliance with the environmental review laws is required. Certain actions or matters are not included within the definition of an "action", or are exempt from SEPA's review requirements. The acquisition or sale of property, is not subject to SEPA because that doesn't constitute an "action". The acquisition of the property does not affect the change-of-use or the occupancy, therefore there is no effect on the environment when one person owns the property versus another person owning the property. But in the event the City takes any action with respect to development or redevelopment of that area, such as a long term plan to demolish houses in that area, before the City were to take such a step, it would have to go through the SEPA process that is mandated by State law. Simply transferring ownership of property is not a SEPA review process. Lynn Elliott referred to a statement made by Mr. DiJulio that during the settlement of the West Hills Association lawsuit two years ago, the possibility of condemnation and the acquiring of TAPE #1328 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes October 18, 1995 Page 26 of 31 property was included. She stated that she has bought property in the area since then, and is very curious as to why she was allowed to buy property in an area where the City knew about the possibility of condemnation. Her property was on the market for over a year at below assessed value, and no offers were made. Mr. DiJulio stated there are two answers to the question "Why, when property was listed in the condemnation area was it not acquired earlier by the City": (1) the City was committed initially to getting the settlement agreement implemented, and getting the plant remediation efforts on line, such as hiring the consultants, getting the construction contract put together, and then let for bidding. So, the first effort the City engaged in was to implement the technical aspects of the settlement agreement. (2) the City delayed its acquisition in this area, just as the people are asking for today. The City wasn't initially motivated to get out and acquire that property. It has been a slow start, and it has been a long process. Mr. Colvin asked if Mr. DiJulio would agree that one of the reasons the City wants to buy that property is to prevent another possible lawsuit, because of odor? Mr. DiJulio responded the City will continue to be subject to the existing lawsuit regarding odor emissions from the plant, and there is nothing to preclude somebody in the future claiming damages as a result of odor from the plant, whether it is from the east of the freeway, to the west of Oyster Bay up on the hill, or further north on the other side of the arterial street. There is no way to preclude that, however, this action focuses on the particular area where the greatest exposure to such claims lies. Mr. C01vin referred to those citizens who would like to remain in their homes, not for the purpose of suing the City, but because it is their home. He questioned the possibility of a "holds harmless" agreement to the City, let them remain in their homes, and let them sign another agreement that once they move or sell, they will sell to the City? Mr. DiJulio stated Mr. Colvin raised two valid points. He can address the legal points, but not policy consideration. The legal point is, they have serious reservations and concerns about the ability of an individual to waive claims with respect to future owners of that property. This would be an on-going issue, and one of the reasons condemnation is being pursued, is because of the concern of the legitimacy of those kinds of waivers. On the policy issue, that is what this Council will decide what is in the best interest of the overall Bremerton community, and the sewer utility. Mr. Colvin stated he also understands that some of these people whose property is being considered for condemnation, did not even TAPE #1328 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes October 18, 1995 Page 27 of 31 participate in suing the City. Mr. DiJulio felt it was interesting that there is a higher percentage of people in this condemnation area that are part of the Phase II claim, than there were in the Phase I claim. Mr. Colvin asked if there was anyway his suggestion could be investigated as to the possibility of people signing waivers and remain in their homes? Mr. DiJulio stated that concept was investigated, and it was determined that it was not the best long-termprevention for future liability. He further stated that is why the Mayor is recommending this process, because it would be impossible to get hold-harmless agreements from everybody in the City. Mr. Colvin stated he wasn't talking about the whole City, just this targeted area. It seems to him that these people would be contacting their own attorneys. Mr. Dijulio stated they are represented by legal counsel in the Charleston Beach Association, who have advised the City not to discuss this matter with their clients without their authorization. Mr. DiJulio's firmhas dealt with the attorney representing Charleston Beach Association, and also with individual property owners. This was done only as agreed upon by the property owners. Mr. Colvin mentioned a formbeing circulated regarding the assessed values being offered for properties. He asked if the citizens have been apprised of this? Mr. DiJulio stated that is unknown to him, as he has not been involved in the property acquisition program. Mr. Colvin asked if the information was confidential? Mr. Sievers stated no, it is all public information. The offers being made by the City are not confidential. He further stated that since the City has become more active in this process, there is a very detailed file on all negotiations and all offers made on the properties in the subject area. Mr. Colvin asked if the citizens have been notified of possible condemnation? Mr. 8ievers stated no, the consultant who was hired to negotiate voluntary sales has not been authorized to do so. This is just now being brought before Council tonight. Mr. Colvin stated he heard it said tonight, that if a property owner doesn't sell, their property will be condemned. Mr. Sievers stated only if Council passes the proposed ordinance, otherwise, the City will not go forward with condemnation. Member of the Public, wanted to know, since most of the affected properties were in the County, shouldn't this issue go to them? And then to Olympia? And then to the Supreme Court? President Huff-Menees wanted to clarify, as stated earlier in terms of the process that would take place this evening, there was an opportunity given for citizens to make public comments and ask questions. Mr. DiJulio listened to all of the comments, and has answered nearly every questioned asked this evening. Further questions or comments will not be heard from the public at this TAPE #1328 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes October 18, 1995 Page 28 of 31 time. Mr. DiJulio stated the property owners are entitled to have their trial in the County, where the property is located, if the matter goes to condemnation. If there is a disagreement with any of the decisions made from that trial, the appeal procedures are available. Mr. Farr stated it troubles him to hear of the charges made that the City is trying to make money off this property, that the City is going to receive a windfall profit by turning this property into commercial, then selling it. In the past, concerns were presented to the Administration, and it is his understanding that an effort had been made, and been completed, where the City offered assistance to the property owners if they wished to form a group by themselves and present their property, as a whole, to a developer, and they themselves would be allowed to reap any benefits. He feels that every effort has been made by the City to accommodate the property owners. Mayor Hotton stated she did meet with a contingency of the property owners, and approached them with the possibility of them securing a private developer or someone in real estate so that they could directly negotiate themselves. The City was willing to partner with them, or not. The Mayor and Gene Sampley, Director of Public Works, met with two people the group had selected. During that meeting, the City outlined their concerns and also their goals. The two people were never heard from again after that initial meeting. Mr. Sampley made several attempts to contact them, and to the best of her howledge, they either did not respond back, or if they did, there was no position formulated by the residents. The Mayor wanted to assure everyone that based on the numbers she has received from the City Treasurer, the City will not be making a windfall profit from this arrangement. It will take a number of years for the City to recoup money the City must invest in this property acquisition. She wanted it to be very clear and understood that there will be no profit margin made by the City of Bremerton. Mr. Colvin wanted to apologize to a family he spoke with last week. Apparently he misinformed them that their name was on a list for condemnation. Their name is on a list, but not the list of houses targeted for condemnation. Mr. Overson stated this is a tough issue, just as tough as the decision was to raise utility rates to pay for lawsuits. However, he trusts that anyone out there who listened to Mr. DiJulio, must recognize basically what the Council has to do for the long term, and legal good of this community. Mr. DiJulio, along with other professionals, looked at this situation for a number of years. They have thoroughly reviewed all aspects, and are making their TAPE #1328 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes October 18, 1995 Page 29 of 31 recommendations based on date. Regarding comments made earlier by Mr. McConnell about families having to move from their homes, Mr. Overson agreed with him. As Council members, just like anyone else, they would not want to have this happen to them. But he trusts that any legislator who is in a position of responsibility, must have the understanding to do what they must do. He told a personal story of having to relocate his father from his farm he had been on for years, and the situation started out bad, but worked out best in the long run. He believes that can happen here, and also trusts that the City will work with the property owners to take care of their concerns as best as they can. He also trusts that the Council will do what they must. Mr. Law stated at this point, he may be voting "No", and wanted to explain why. First, he respects Mr. DiJulio, Mr. Sampley. Mr. Sievers, and the Mayor. However, he also respects the Citizen Involvement Committee, who have given the Council good advice. He feels the City has questionable procedures, and has had some questionable representation and advice. Council was cautioned that they "dallied" too long the last time, but when they waited last time, it was because the City said there was no odor. The City is now admitting there has been an odor, and the objective is to get rid of that odor. He feels it is his job to protect the rate payer, and thinks the City is opening a legal "flood gate". He would like his concerns regarding the procedure and representation to the owners reviewed, and augmented, and then brought back to Council at a later date. Mr. C01vin stated he would vote "No" at this time, because he does not feel the affected citizens have been sufficiently informed. He feels the City should look into this further, and hopefully come up with a solution that would be more amicable. He understands they will not be able to please everyone, no matter what they do; however, he wants the best solution for all concerned. Just because someone thinks Council is doing something right for the City, Council should not "put their thumb on the little people" who may not be able to help themselves. Mr. Winters told of growing up in Navy Yard City, and how he was there before the highway was built and before the sewage treatment plant was put in. After the treatment plant was there, his parents decided to move because of odors from the plant. He knows of people he grew up with, who are proud of the fact they receive thousands of dollars because they sued the City. He loves the City of Bremerton, and is tired of people suing it. He is also tired of paying rate hikes due to past litigation, and that is his concern. He is voting "Yes", because he feels people have to stop suing the City. #2183 #2322 TAPE #1328 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes October 18, 1995 Page 30 of 31 Mr. Parr wanted to know if this first reading is approved tonight, is there time to address some of the concerns just raised by Mr. Law before second reading of the ordinance? Mr. Sievers stated he would like to find out Mr. Law's specific concerns. Council procedures allow up to one month delay for second reading of an ordinance, and feels that is plenty of time to address the concerns brought forth. Council would simply make the motion to delay the second reading a month or less. Mr. Farr wanted to know the implications for delaying this issue. Gene Sampler, Utility & Public Works Director, stated he did not feel there were any significant consequences in delaying this action in the period of time talked about. He felt it would also give them the opportunity to speak with any property owner who wanted to talk to them about their particular parcel. He invited anyone to contact them with any concern. Mr. Farr urged citizens to make a good-faith effort to contact City staff to resolve any and all concerns during this time. Mr. Law stated he will vote "Yes" at this time, knowing he has the option to vote "No" in four weeks. Also, he will be happy to convey his specific concerns. He wants to feel comfortable in knowing that all citizens have had every opportunity available to them to be heard, and contacted personally. He also urged anyone who has not yet been contacted, to call the City. Mr. Colvin stated he will maintain his "No" vote, because voting "Yes" does not preclude the City from being sued. M/S/C(Farr/Law) amended motion to delay the second reading until November 15, 1995. Vote on Motion: In Favor: Neville, Farr, Law, Montgomery, Dawkins, Winters, Overson, Huff- Menees No: Colvin Motioned carried. M/S/C(Overson/Montgomery) original motion to approve ordinance on first reading, authorizing the purchase of properties from the utility fund through condemnation for the purpose of establishing a buffer area north of the Wastewater Treatment Plant. Vote on Motion: In Favor: Farr, Law, Montgomery, Dawkins, Overson, Neville, Huff-Menees No: Colvin, Winters TAPE #1328 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes October 18, 1995 Page 31 of 31 Motioned carried. With no further business meeting adjourned at 8:05 P.M. KATHLEEN L. McCLUSKEY, City Clerk SHERRIL HUFF-MENEES, Council President City of Bremerton KLM/SH-M/me cc: Normal Distribution File/Vault M/S/C/U(/) to approve ordinance on first reading, authorizing the purchase of properties from the utility fund through condemnation for the purpose of establishing a buffer area north of the Wastewater Treatment Plant. With no further business meeting adjourned at KATHLEEN L. McC~City Clerk City of Bremerton ~c KLM/SH-M/me cc: Normal Distribution File/Vault