Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/27/95TAPE #1322 UNAPPROVED DRAFT COUNCIL APPROVED OCT 18 1995 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 27, 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, September 27, 1995, at 5:30 P.M., with Council President Sherril Huff-Menees presiding. Council members present were Bob Winters, A1 Colvin, Morrie Dawkins, John Law, David Farr, Richard Neville, and Lon Overson. Council member Carlos Montgomery was absent. 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 Mr. Ken Friesen, Secondary Principal at King's West Secondary School. Deputy City Clerk Johnson announced a request from the Les Flower, applicant, has asked that Agenda item 10C -Appeal Of Planning Commission's Decision To Uphold The Denial Of A Short Plat Application be pulled off the Agenda pending his receipt of the City's new Street Standards one they are adopted. President Huff- Menees stated personally she is not in favor of delaying this item, but if Council is in favor, she recommended Mr. Fowler be responsible for advertising costs for a future hearing. Mr. Neville concurred with President Huff-Menees' recommendation and felt pulling the item off the Agenda at the last minutes was an injustice to the public. Following a general discussion, the decision whether or not to pull the item off the agenda was somewhat spit among Council members. The issue of "Council procedure" was raised by Councilman overson. President Huff-Menees questioned if any Council member objected to her request that the appellant pay for the advertising costs? Mr. Overson questioned if asking the appellant to pay for the advertising was legal and if two members of the Council that still wish to hear the issue at this meeting, it could be heard. Mr. Law requested that City Council members be polled: In favor of hearing Item 10B: Overson, Law, Dawkins, Huff-Menees Opposed: Motion fails. Neville, Farr, Colvin, Winters Mayor Hotton pointed out the City Council had set precedent on removing items off the Agenda when the appellant or applicant makes such a request. And, in the past the City has asked the #0311 #0346 TAPE #1322 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes September 27, 1995 Page 2 of 24 applicant/appellant to pay for advertising costs for future hearings. Mr. Law read into the record City Council's procedure for removing items from Council Agendas, which supported the discussion presented earlier by Mr. Overson. President Huff-Menees announced Council's consensus, following discussion, is to pull Agenda item 10B, and that the appellant will be asked to pay for the advertising cost for a future hearing. CONSENT AGENDA A. Minutes - September 6, 1995 #AB95-208 Be Bid Award Recommendation - Pothole Patcher Box, H.D. Industries #AB95-209 Mr. Law asked that a correction be made to the Minutes (Pg. 29), second line from the bottom should read: "Mr. Law stated he did not feel it sounded fair to Mr. Robinson." M/S/C/U(Neville/Farr) to approve the Consent Agenda as corrected. 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(Colvin/Dawkins) on September 27, 1995, the Council does approve for payment those vouchers included and further described as follows: 188133, 188154 through 188158, 18860 through 188405 in the amount of $452,653.02; and Retirees Payroll for the payroll period ending September 30, 1995, in the amount of $86,355.47. President Huff-Menees made the following announcements: (1) Executive Session immediately following this meeting to discuss "Real Estate Transaction", and "Personnel". (20 Join Study Session with the Bremerton Planning Commission on Monday, October 2, 6:00 - 9:00 P.M., at the Public Works Facility on Oyster Bay Avenue. Topic to be discussed are: Negotiation Consultant for the downtown revitalization project; Fleet Management; Street Design Standards. COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS Mr. Colvin announced on Saturday, September 30, 1:00 P.M., the citizens of District 1 are holding a dedication ceremony at Clif TAPE #1322 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes September 27, 1995 Page 3 of 24 McKenzie Basketball Court on Morrison Court. Mr. McKenzie was a citizen who unselfishly dedicated his life to the betterment of Bremerton's youth. The public is invited to attend this event. Mr. Farr reported he had a lunch meeting with a City fireman this week and had the opportunity to hear accounts of the Mayor's "duty day" with the Fire Department. Mr. Overson stated he was glad to see the program to keep the U.S.S. Missouri in Bremerton going so well. He was also pleased that the Mariners were doing so well. MAYOR'S REPORT Mayor Lynn Horton reported on her "Duty Day" with the Fire Department, which she found to be very interesting and truly went away with a greater sense of appreciation for the kinds of things firefighters are called upon to perform. Not only do they have a high degree of expertise from a technical standpoint, but they were absolutely marvelous with the people they assisted. She rode with them on all of their calls for the 24-hour period and enjoyed their culinary talents. Mayor Horton gave a update on Mary Sump, who was in an auto accident and covering from multiple broken bones and injuries. She thanked everyone in the Fire Department, especially Carole Heavener, for their efforts in organizing a food drive for Mary Sump and her four children. And, she expressed her thanks to everyone who has donated food or money for the Sump family. Mayor Horton read the following proclamations: (1) October 2-8, 1995, Voice Of Democracy Week; (2) October 6, 1995, as TONY ZAMPELLA DAY in the City of Bremerton, recognizing him for his contribution to people of the City of Bremerton. Tony Zampella stated he was proud to be first an American citizen and second that he operated his successful business in Bremerton, which was the first City he visited when he was in the Navy. He thanked everyone for honoring him with the proclamation. Mayor Horton announced an organization in the High School has been tasked with a beautification project and are now in the process of planting a garden somewhere on the High School grounds. They are requesting donations of spring flowering bulbs. Anyone wanting to make a donation toward this project can do so by bringing it to the High School Administration Office. PUBLIC RECOGNITION Bert Gegner, President of the Puget Rental Owners Association (PROA) thanked the City for helping their organization through some TAPE #1322 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes September 27, 1995 Page 4 of 24 of the new changes recently adopted by Council with passage of ordinances. They especially appreciated the City's assistance in dealing with Brem-Air on a recent issue. He presented a check in the amount of $500, which is the second half installment to the recreational vehicle that the City now uses as a mobile Police precinct. Mayor Horton thanked PROA for the donation and noted the mobile precinct has been well received in the community. It has been placed at numerous community functions and it is used when there are neighborhoods that need extra police presence and emphasis. Don Larson, President of Washington Scuba Alliance, pointed out a number of water events have been going on around the state throughout the month of September as part of Water Weeks. This past weekend his group went to Neah Bay and Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary where they received a mini grant from NOA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) and Water Weeks to dive in the sanctuary and document marine life. He urged people to let their legislators know about the sanctuary program and it needs their support. He announced on October 7 the People For Puget Sound will be have a tour of the proposed Northwest Straits Marine Sanctuary - San Juan Islands area. A tour boat will be leaving from Everett and landing at Friday Harbor. There will be specialist aboard that boat to talk about marine life. Information on that program can be obtained by calling 1'800- people-2. TCI Community Access has agreed to do an interview with Mr. Larson on October 5, at which time the video clip on the sinking of the H.M.S. McKenzie will be aired. 7A - CONTRACT BID AWARD - CAMBRIAN SEWER REPLACEMENT/OLSEN'S LAND DEVELOPMENT INC., #AB95-210 Bids were opened for the Cambrian Sewer Replacement Project on August 7, 1995. Two bids for this project were received. The low bid from Olsen's Land Development was $123,294.21, including sales tax. The engineer's estimate for this project was $111,630.81 including sales tax. The action before the City Council is approval of a contract for construction of this project. Mark Souza, Senior Engineer, stated the project includes replacing 650 linear feet of concrete sanitary sewer. The City will replace the PVC pipe as well as three manholes. There have been three failures in the past five years and each resulted in repairs amounting to approximately $10,000. Public comment - none. Mr. Law stated since this item is a change from what was distributed in the Agenda packet there should be an explanation to the public. Mr. Souza explained two bids were received with #1083 TAPE #1322 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes September 27, 1995 Page 5 of 24 Olsen's Land Development Inc., being the low bidder; however, there was a problem with their insurance on another project within the City. The City's Risk Manager, Peggy Lessor, recommended the award be given to the Stan Palmer Construction, Inc, the second highest bidder, because the insurance problem had not been resolved with Olsen's. However, today the Risk Manager reported the insurance problem had been resolved satisfactory to the City's benefit and now it is recommended that the contract be awarded to Olsen's Land Development Inc., which would save the City approximately $12,000 over the second highest bidder. Mr. Farr asked if separation of stormwater would be part of that project? Mr. Souza stated no. Mr. Neville noted Mr. Souza had stated a savings of $12,000, but his calculations reflect a figure closer to $18,500, which is truly a substantial savings to the City. M/S/C/U(Neville/Farr) to approve a contract for $123,294.21 with Olsen's Land Development Inc., for construction of the Cambrian Avenue Sewer Replacement Project and authorize the Mayor to execute the same. 7B - TRANSITION BUDGET - 1995 BREMERTON WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT, #AB95-211 June 28, 1995, the City of Bremerton notified Metcalf & Eddy Services, Inc., contract operator for the Bremerton Wastewater Treatment Facility, of the termination of the Contract Operations Agreement effective January 1, 1996. A transition operations plan has been developed that provides for the initial staffing of the Wastewater Treatment Plant starting in November, 1995. The labor agreement between the City of Bremerton and Teamsters Local Union No. 589 has been amended and approved by the Union. This amendment and staffing plan must be approved by the City Council. This transition plan does not require an increase in the overall Wastewater Utility budget approved for the 1995 Fiscal Year. The Wastewater Utility anticipates a 1995 Year End balance of approximately $105,000. The attached Transition Budget for $70,000 provides for the purchase of vehicles, tools, and the hiring of personnel during this transition period necessary to prepare for City operation of the Wastewater Treatment Plant. John PoDpe, Wastewater Manager, pointed out the exempt Wastewater Treatment Plant Manager position was listed in the Management And Professional Staff Salary Schedule. TAPE #1322 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes September 27, 1995 Page 6 of 24 Bill Broughton, Attorney representing Professional Services Group (PSG), stated PSG purchased Metcalf & Eddy several months ago and is now the contractor/operator of the wastewater treatment plant. Tonight the City takes the first major step in a major policy transition for the City and that policy shift is one where they are committing $70,000 of ratepayer and taxpayers' money in an effort to take wastewater operation out of the private sector and bring it back into the governmental sector. This is a major decision and his and his client's concern is this decision is being made without the benefit of public hearings or Study Sessions or any sort of independent analysis of whether this is an advisable thing to do or not; and without any sort of real documentation to show that this major policy decision is really in the best interest of the citizens of Bremerton. The following historical information was given: when the wastewater treatment plant was being constructed, CH2M Hill as design engineers as well as staff and Mayor Dawkins, at that time, did an analysis whether in fact it made sense for the City to operate the plant or whether it made more sense to contract out to the private sector. At the same time, the City was in the process through a lawsuit over regaining control of Golf Mountain Golf Course and the same sort of analysis was going on there. So, Mayor Dawkins brought to Council an innovative idea - he said lets contract out these operations to the private sector, an analysis had been done and shown it makes more sense than managing it in- house; and the City Council members at that time, particularly Lon Overson, Russ Johnson, Jim Adrian and Spencer Horning, respectfully said "don't tell us Mayor, show us". As a result of that, there were a number of studies, hearings and Study Sessions, which were all documented, where it was conclusively shown that the City of Bremerton could not compete with the private sector in terms of running the wastewater treatment plant or in running Gold Mountain Golf Course. That was a very progressive step for the City to take and since that time there has been a movement through this country where cities, counties and other local governments have looked to the private sector for contracting out some governmental operations because they could be done cheaper and more effectively. As a locally as Bangor, a lot of contract operations have gone out because on "apples to apples comparison" it was shown the private sector could do it better. His concern and his client's concern is that this decision is being made without the same sort of analysis that was done way back in the early 1980's that resulted in the City saving hundreds of thousands of dollars on these operations. With all due respect to the Mayor, this is a decision the Council needs to look at very strongly because it was not easy that there was opposition to contracting out from the Civil Service Commission, Teamsters' Union TAPE #1322 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes September 27, 1995 Page 7 of 24 as well as other unions. And, there were a lot of long hard fights to make this move. If Council looks at the information compiled back at that time, they will see the City saved, over the period of the last 14-15 years, hundreds of thousands of dollars in making that policy move, which he believed was a brilliant move by the City at a time when the privatization movement was in its infancy in the United States. On two different occasions, Metcalf & Eddy won awards from the Department Of Ecology for its successful operation of the wastewater treatment plant. It is interesting that in the last three years there have been almost 100 cities that have done the same sort of analysis that they are asking Council to undertake, and have made the decision Bremerton made back in the early 1980's, which was "we can't do it as cheaply or effectively as the private sector"; and PSG now has 140 clients throughout the country for which it is doing contract wastewater operations. Last year the City of Indianapolis did its own analysis and found that by contracting out wastewater treatment plant operations they saved 43% from the cost they were paying to have government carry out the function. When the decision was made in the 1980's, there were Department Heads coming to the City Council saying "we can do this better and cheaper". It is always the mind set of the Department that "we can do it better than someone else", but when it is put to the economic test and brought in a hard close look at the economics, it just didn't pan out. The concern he has now is the City has Department Heads saying we can do this cheaper and better. He emphasized let's not take that on face value, at the very least bring in an independent person to take a hard look to see if this is a good move. If it does prove out, then the City Council has done its job as policy makers of the City. PSG would welcome that sort of competition, or alternatively do a request for bids and have the City be a bidder along with PSG and any other wastewater treatment plant operator and see if in fact it was something that made sense for the City of Bremerton..."don't tell us, show us". Even if Council goes ahead and approves the transition funding, it is not too late to take a look because mark his words years from now the Mayor and City Council will regret this decision because the numbers will tell you it is not going to work. The reason why there is a huge movement across the country to privatize is because they can do the service better and cheaper. He understands the wastewater treatment plant has been a real problem for the City, but it hasn't been because of operations. Frankly, they feel this is a big mistake because the rates will get higher and the problems will get worse. PSG is the best wastewater treatment operator in the world and they have experts in every division and department. There may have been problems with Metcalf and Eddy's operation in the past, maybe not, he is not here to debate that issue. His point is if Council is going to make a major policy move, make it TAPE #1322 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes September 27, 1995 Page 8 of 24 based upon proven, documented facts as to whether or not it makes sense. Mr. Law noted registers will be formed for Wastewater Treatment Plant Operator and for Operator Trainee. There will be trainees who will become operators. He questioned how does that person meld in and how do you handle the two lists? Mr. Poppe explained it gives existing City staff or a person with strong skills the opportunity to obtain the background for required certification. A person must have time on the job prior to being certified. Law asked if there would be a register for Operators? Mr. Poppe stated yes. Mr. Law asked for clarification as to how the system would work having two registers generating applications for the Operator position. Jim Meith, Human Resources Manager, explained if the position was determined filled, they would only create a register for an Operator Trainee if the Department felt they had a need or use for the Operator Trainee in what would be called an underfill capacity for that Operator position. In other words, if the Water Operator position was vacant and the Department decided they could fill it with a Trainee and use someone as a career development to transition into it there would not be an Operator in that slot - the position would be filled with the Trainee. With successful completion of training for that Trainee, as detailed in the amendment to the labor agreement, they would transition into the position as Operator. Mr. Law noted he felt Mr. Meith would have a challenge ahead of him. Mr. Meith explained by the amendment to the labor agreement, they have added to the Civil Service Rules the right for the Trainee upon successful completion to transition into that Operator position, but there would not be anyone already in the Operator position because the position would filled as a Trainee. Mr. Law stated then it will be someone's decision within management as to whether a Trainee will be brought into the position or an Operator will be selected off the Operators list. Mr. Meith stated Mr. Law was correct. Mayor Lynn Horton made the following statement regarding ,,contracting" verses "not contracting" services: as you will recall, prior to Mr. Broughton being the City's Attorney, the City Attorney function was contracted out. There was a decision sometime after that to have the position brought in-house and Mr. Broughton and then Mr. Sievers were hired to fill that position. Subsequently, a review was made of the full function and a decision made that there were a lot of parameters and reasons why the City, at this time, wanted to contract most of functions of the City Attorney's office to the private sector, excluding the City Attorney position. That action has been taken and it is working well for the City. At the same time, Council will be looking at a proposal to bring Fleet Maintenance in-house as opposed to contracting. This organization, just like the people we serve, TAPE #1322 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes September 27, 1995 Page 9 of 24 changes and if we are locked into doing something the way we have always done business, we are not serving our public well. There are a lot of reasons why the recommendation has come about to bring the wastewater treatment plant operations back in-house. There may well be a time in the future where the Administration brings back a recommendation that they now feel it is more prudent to contract out that service, but that would be because they weighed the options and feel it is in the best interest of the City and the organization to do so. She urged Council to keep in mind one of the things government gets hit for all the time is that we are slow to change and don't recognize the needs of the people the City serves. The City is not terminating the wastewater treatment plant contract for cause, but feel it will be more advantageous for the City to operate the treatment plant in-house. Mr. Overson stated Mr. Broughton's concerns need to be addressed. He has been led to believe that staff has thoroughly reviewed the issue and there is data from an outside evaluation. It has also been demonstration that this will be a level budgeted item for 1996, if not a cost saving. He asked mayor Horton if that was true? Mayor Morton explained they have looked at those things; however, they are not anticipating saving money, but directing money to more capital line items rather than from an operational standpoint. By bringing this function in-house, it will allow some of those dollars that are spent on profit margin for the private contractor to go into capital items, which are needed. The wastewater treatment plant facility is now 10 years old and a major upgrade is underway, but in the past the City has spent a minimal amount of dollars on capital. She believes both Mr. Sampley and Mr. Poppe concur that some of those resources need to be directed toward capital items. They have thoroughly looked at the organization and she has the utmost confidence in Gene Sampley's and John Poppe's ability to oversee management of the plant. Both of those individuals bring years of experience to this community and she is confident the Administration has done their "homework" and exhibited the reasons why management of the plant should be brought in-house. Mr. Colvin questioned if he understood correctly that the profit paid for the contractor would go back into the plant for plant improvements? He asked the City Attorney if comments could be made about the City having to make improvements to the treatment plant as the result of malfunction of the plant? Ian Sievers, City Attorney, explained the City has joined the operator in a lawsuit, which is a matter of public record. As the Mayor stated, that is not the reasons for termination of the contract. Mr. Poppe stated there is a good issue about costs and will the City save money, and if so, how much. That cannot be defined at TAPE #1322 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes September 27, 1995 Page 10 of 24 the present time due to the fact new systems going on line will have increased chemical costs and power costs. All of those costs have been identified and estimated by the engineer prior to construction. With the money saved by going in-house and not sending the profit elsewhere, new equipment will be purchased. Mayor Horton stated two years ago the City's consultant projected a need for a 25% increase in Utility fees in 1995, following the 30% rate increase in 1994, and a 10% increase in 1996. However, the City was able to pass by the projected 1995 increase and may be looking at a less than 10% increase for 1996. She credited City staff members and the fact the City has been successful in being awarded grants, and receiving low interest loans, which has aided in keeping costs down for the consumers. Mr. Law stated he and several other Council members were given tours of the sewer treatment plant system by Mr. Poppe. He has also learned to have a great deal of confidence in Mr. Poppe and his judgement, and having him represent the City gives him a very comfortable feeling. Mr. Farr echoed Mr. Law's compliments to Mr. Popppe and was one of those having the opportunity to tour and get educated on the sewer treatment plant system. He asked how many wastewater treatment plants in the area are operated in-house verses contracted out? Mr. Poppe explained in the State of Washington Vancouver, Washington is the next facility that is privately contractor operated and is similar in size to Bremerton. There are two other small facilities along the Columbia River, but the size of those facilities take up about one half the size of the City Council Chambers. Mr. Farr noted then all remaining sewer treatment plants are operated in-house by the Wastewater Utilities. Mr. Poppe stated yes. Mr. Farr stated this is not a decision Council is taking lightly and given the climate where the City is trying to keep costs to the citizens, he supports this action. Mr. Overson stated Mr. Broughton has a lot of background with this City and he was the City Attorney at the time the decision was made to contract out management of the wastewater treatment plant, and his observations need to be taken to heart by the staff and Council. The City has essentially been put on notice to make this work and recognize very quickly how well it is or is not working and do whatever modifications are necessary to make it work, including consideration for contracting out. He appreciates Mr. Broughton's comments as good solid advise offered freely. Vote on motion: Unanimous. Mayor Horton stated she appreciates Mr. Overson's comment and #2112 TAPE #1322 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes September 27, 1995 Page 11 of 24 assured Council that if a different route is determined, she would be back before them. She assured them this is not an ego contest, this is trying to produce the best product and best service for the Bremerton community at the lowest cost. M/S/C/U(Farr/Colvin) to approve the Transition Budget and Staffing Plan to enable the Department of Public Works and Utilities (Wastewater Utility) to provide initial staffing of the treatment plant during the transition period. 7C - EMPLOYEE BENEFITS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT - MELVIN R. SMITH, #AB95-212 The Insurance Benefits Committee, comprised of representatives of each city union, management, and the Mayor's office has selected Melvin R. Smith to evaluate, market, and negotiate our current benefit plans in the areas of medical, dental, and disability insurance. The Committee interviewed three firms, and selected Mr. Smith after review of references. The City has not had a professional review of our plans since 1990. The Committee proposes a 16 month contract, September 1, 1995 to December 31, 1996 at the rate of $1,875 per month. In addition to the above. Mr. Smith will provide on-going services working with employee committees, evaluating monthly insurance provider reports, accumulating, preparing and presenting utilization statistics, and monitoring the performance of the plans. Jim Meith, Human Resources Manager, pointed out one correction in the summary statement...the contract term is from October 1, 1995 to December 31, 1997. He pointed out the Insurance Benefit Committee is something that has been accepted by all the Unions and has representation from the Mayor's Office as well as the non- represented employees. The Insurance Benefit Committee unanimously adopted the recommendation to utilize part of the insurance reserve for this purpose. There is a great feeling that there is a need to have a professional look at the entire health insurance benefit package. And, it is an item that is very important to the employees and is important to the Administration and City Council from a cost standpoint. The contract contains a 30-day cancellation clause. If the contract goes for the full 30 months, the City will actually receive two cycles of benefit from Mr. Smith. This proposal compares quite favorably with what is happening in other areas, in fact the rate for Kitsap County, who also contracts with Mr. Smith, is $50,000 per year and the reference check from the Administrative Services Director in Kitsap County was the use of Mr. Smith has saved the County money in health insurance premiums, has provided education to the employee organizations and made the employees more willing to accept modifications in the benefit plans. He urged Council approving this item as presented. #2459 TAPE #1322 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes September 27, 1995 Page 12 of 24 Public comment - none. Mr. Overson noted this is somewhat an uncommon way of contracting for these kinds of services. He pointed out the following differences: a 30th month time frame and a monthly payment without what we sometimes see as a plan of action milestone where we would see so much expended for a certain product, then they would go to the next product, etc. He asked if there will be some kind of reoccurring report or response back to the City Council in order to have a sense that this individual is making products/doing good things as opposed to collecting the money and waiting until the end to present documentation? Mr. Meith stated Mr. Overson's point is well taken and when the Committee discussed this proposal they looked at the 30-day cancellation clause as a 30-day milestone where it can be evaluated. Discussions have been held with Mr. Smith about providing a report to Council in whatever format they would want to receive the information, such as a Study Session. Mr. Colvin raised a question regarding the consultant's fee? Mr. Meith explained the contract calls for a monthly fee of $1,875 for a period of 16 months with a 30-day cancellation notice. If the contract runs the full 16 months, the total contract will amount to about $30,000. The City received four bids and the Committee interviewed three of those bidders. It was determined that for the 16 month period this was the most economical way to go since the other contracts gave bids for simply going out to bid this year and at a cost of $18,000. Mr. Oolvin asked if this was a comparable method that other cities use? Mr. Meith stated other cities utilize an insurance broker; however, he was not sure if they were used on a monthly basis. Again, he assured Council if it was felt the City was not getting benefit out of the consultant services, the 30-day cancellation clause could be implemented. Mr. Law questioned if he understood correctly that the termination clause could be invoked for "cause"? He asked to have "convenience" defined verses "cause"? Ian Sievers, City Attorney, explained "convenience" would be "at will - without having to state a cause". M/S/C/U(Overson/Winters) to approve sixteen month contract with Melvin R. Smith for employee benefit consulting services in the amount of $1,875 per month. 7D - BUDGET ADJUSTMENT - HOTEL/MOTEL TAX FOR THE SAVE THE MISSOURI COMMITTEE, #AB95-213 The Save the Missouri Committee has requested a contribution from the City in the amount of $5,000 to fund their initial coordination efforts and other activities described in the attached documents. The Mayor is proposing to provide the committee with a contribution 2647 TAPE #1322 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes September 27, 1995 Page 13 of 24 from the City's Hotel/Motel Tax Fund. Public comment - none. Mr. Dawkins spoke in strong support of this request. Mr. Law stated he believes this is a win-win-situation for the City and that we should voice our appreciation to the other government agencies that have volunteered fund the cause. President Huff-Menees also expressed appreciation for the action taken by Kitsap County and Port Of B=emerton toward keeping the U.S.S. Missouri in Bremerton. She sees this request as a way the City can immediately help the campaign and create greater public awareness. Mr. Colvin stated in addition to comments made, he believes the entire continental United States should get behind this project, which would afford more citizens the opportunity to view the U.S.S. Missouri. Mr. Winters expressed his support of this proposal and felt $5,000 was a small amount considering the "big picture" of the project. M/S/C/U(Farr/Dawkins) to approve Budge Adjustment Request No. 95- 34, making a $5,000 contribution to the Save the Missouri Committee. 8A - ORDINANCE (FIRST READING) AMENDMENT TO GARBAGE AND REFUSE ABATEMENT PROVISIONS UNDER B.M.C. CHAPTER 6.04, #AB95-198 The proposed ordinance amends garbage and refuse provisions in BMC Chapter 6.04 to clarify landowner's responsibility for the abatement of refuse upon properties where owner may or may not be a resident. Ian Sievers, City Attorney, explained this item was before Council two weeks ago, at which time Council was asked to delay the item until the landlords' association had an opportunity to give input. Following a meeting with representatives from that association, at least one change was recommended under Section 6.04.040. That change was to clarify what kinds of materials can be left on the curb next to garbage cans. The current list was ambiguous and open ended, so a limitation of just "yard waste" was incorporated in that section. The remainder of the ordinance simply is intended to provide the landowner with as early a notice as possible that the City finds a problem with refuse on a property that is not being collected properly, since it will be the landowner ultimately that will have a lien against the property, if the City is forced to abate a refuse problem. TAPE #1322 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes September 27, 1995 Page 14 of 24 Deputy City Clerk Gil Johnson read the following letter into the record: I am a landlord with a duplex in east Bremerton, and wish to enter my objection to being required to pay a tenant garbage bill. They create the garbage, therefore it seems appropriate for them to get rid of it. When someone else pays the bill, tenants put everything they have, and all their friends garbage out for pickup on garbage day. There is thus no limit to the amount of the bill. The present system does not work very well, as people can move in and start service with no deposit required -no other utility service, such as power, gas and water permit this, and have fewer bad credit losses. Requiring tenants to post 2 months garbage bill as a deposit will go along way toward solving the collection problem. A landlord has little incentive under the present system to report the comings and goings of his tenants, as he get stuck with the bill if they use the service and do not pay. Landlords have no authority to enforce garbage collection laws., The City will get much better cooperation from landlords if the City will require a deposit before new tenants can move in, and aggressively pursues deadbeats who do not pay after the initial deposit is used up. There are public health laws that require the occupant of a dwelling to keep the place clean, and free of accumulated trash. This is a law with criminal penalties, and if it were enforced would force deadbeats to either remove accumulated garbage, or pay to have it done. Failure to obey such a health department order could result in a jail sentence. Something forceful must be done to clean up the city. Most tenants presently leave huge accumulations of garbage for landlords to clean up when they move, and paying the garbage bill for them does no good-they still accumulate garbage in amounts that attract rodents, etc. Loading this additional burden on the landlord will not solve the problem. Only a stiff deposit, and strict enforcement of the present laws have a chance to do it. If the City can not find the courage to solve the problem, then it should get out of the garbage business, and let the tenants solve it by doing what they will to avoid getting sick, with the urging of the health department. They cause the problem, let them solve it. Signed Richard Weld, 319 Yew Street, Bremerton, WA Bert Ge~ner, President -Puget Rental Owners Association (PROA), stated he appreciated the opportunity to have members of PROA comment proposed changes to the ordinance. He recognized this is a very sensitive subject for some landlords and with the #3003 TAPE #1322 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes September 27, 1995 Page 15 of 24 recommended change in wording is acceptable to the majority of the members of PROA. Mr. Overson noted the letter read into the record had an interesting point about a requiring a deposit before tenants could move in; however, he believed it was not legal to bar someone from moving into a residence until they paid a deposit. Mr. Sievers stated the proper form to address a utility deposit would be in negotiations on the City's hauling contract with Brem-Air Inc. He did not believe the City could unilaterally impose a requirement on Brem-Air to start requiring deposits. The letter did address the municipal solid waste hauling issue, not the City abatement issue that is included in this ordinance. He agreed it may be a practical problem if a tenant didn't post a deposit; however, the City still needs to have the garbage picked up and that service cannot be turned off because a deposit wasn't posted. M/S/C/U(Law/Dawkins) to approve ordinance on first reading, amending the garbage and refuse abatement provisions and amending Sections 6.04,040, 6.05,062, and 6.04.066 of the Bremerton Municipal Code. 8B - ORDINANCE (FIRST READING) UTILITY RATE ADJUSTMENT8 INCLUDING COMMERCIAL STORMWATER ACCOUNTS, #AB95-214 Retail Service Rates, General Facility Fees, and Front Footage Fees are not affected by this action. Ordinance No. 4442 amended rates and fees for wastewater and water service provided by the City. Ordinance 4496 amended stormwater rates and fees for commercial accounts and set utility rates and charges. The ordinance recommended herein adjusts certain rates and fees particularly for new development or special services, effective February 1, 1996 for wastewater, water, and stormwater customers, both commercial and residential, to be consistent with other CPI adjusted rates. The majority of the rates affected by this ordinance were established by Ordinance No. 4319 adopted April 10, 1991. The following is a listing of certain categories which are requested to be changed or added, and why the change is recommended: CATEGORY JUSTIFICATION - Water Inspection Fees - Wastewater Inspection Fees - Meter Test Fees - Office Services: Previously no charge. Added to recoup actual costs. Added categories which were not charged previously. Recoups actual costs. Updated to reflect current costs. Deleted since use was so infrequent. TAPE #1322 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes September 27, 1995 Page 16 of 24 "W/O System Column" - Field Services - Stormwater Commercial Rates - Stormwater Plan Check Charges will be assessed on a case by case basis using actual costs of time and materials. Updated to reflect actual costs. See Note 1 below. Not previously charged. Added to recoup actual costs. The recommendation for the Council is to approve the new utility rates as proposed. Gene Sampley, Public Works And Utilities Director, emphasized the action before Council does not affect retail service rates, which are the monthly rates consumers pay for use of the resource. It also does not affect general facility or front footage fees, which are the significant elements of development improvements. This issue has been before Council in Study Session and as explained the adjustments are a result of calculating the actual cost incurred by staff to perform certain functions for development and special services. The retail rates will be addressed at a separate time. All of the matters before Council are incorporated in existing ordinances, except for stormwater plan review fees and inspection fees, which were not previously included. Several administrative clean up details are included and the proposed ordinance has those indicated by a red-line. TAPE #1323 Public comment - none. Mr. Overson pointed out the subject ordinance is somewhat different that what was originally presented to Council, and he appreciated Mr. Sampley being able to boil down the discussions into something very agreeable. Mr. Sampley stated he appreciated the input given by the City Council members. ME. Fare stated when the revised rate structure was presented one of the priority issues was to keep the City's fees in line with adjacent communities and Kitsap County, which has been accomplished. He felt strongly that type of consideration should be given to each rate structure in order to be competitive and offer services at no higher rate than adjacent communities. Mr. Law emphasized for the public's benefit, no change is being made to any rates on usage or monthly charges. Mr. Sampler pointed out we have adjusted rates that will go into affect February 1, 1996, included in this ordinance. The Stormwater Implement plan included a plan to have rates adjusted for those commercial TAPE #1323 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes September 27, 1995 Page 17 of 24 #0129 properties that did not have a Stormwater Management Plan in place or a proposal to the Department Of Public Works and Utilities for such a plan, that their rates would go to the full fee schedule effective January 1, 1996. He recommended that coincide with February 1, 1996, so that all rate adjustments are done at the same time and eliminate any confusion in the billing system, staff level or public level. Mr. Colvin asked if the proposed rates were commensurate with other cities to recover City costs? Mr. 8amDley stated yes, the primary concern is that the statutes require the Utility to recover its actual costs of providing service. Comparison studies have been made with neighboring entities and Kitsap County and find we are competitive, if not lower in many cases. M/S/C/U(Overson/Neville) to approve ordinance, on first reading, amending assessments, rates, and charges for municipal water, wastewater, and stormwater services; and amending Ordinance Nos. 4442 and 4496. 9A - RESOLUTION NO. 2528, 1996-2001 SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PLAN, #AB95-215 The Sic-Year Transportation Improvement Plan is prepared pursuant to RCW 35.77,010 and RCW 36.81.121. The Plan is updated annually and filed with the Secretary of Transportation, Department of Transportation Local Programs Office. It is intended as a planning tool for local, State, and Federal transportation funding entities. The attached plan has been prepared for City Council approval by Resolution, and will be submitted to Washington State Department of Transportation. Mark Souza, Senior Engineer, pointed out the major change to the plan from years past is that local projects have been put into one item. The reason for doing that is the State Department of Transportation does not fund local street projects; therefore, they are not interested in the City supplying that information. Local street projects will be prioritized with the new Pavement Management System and will be overlaid according to their rating. Public comment - none. Mr. Overson asked the price of the Major Investment Study identified as Priority #8? Mr. Souza explained the estimated price is $600,000. Mr. Overson questioned if he understood correction that the study would cover the area from Brownsville and Warren Avenue? He questioned the high cost for that study? Mr. Souza stated the study will encompass the entire corridor, which includes options for the corridor. Mr. Overson asked if a third bridge TAPE #1323 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes September 27, 1995 Page 18 of 24 #0385 would be part of that study? Mr. 8ouza stated yes. Mr. Overson asked if that would gain traffic count or level of service statements? Mr. Souza explained the idea of the project would be to prioritize the level of service, reduce what we have now, and find different methods of providing a better level of service. President Huff-Menees pointed out this portion of the Six Year Plan was also included in the Transportation of the Comprehensive plan and at that time the Study was discussed to include all the items addressed by Mr. Overson and Mr. Souza. Mr. Colvin raised a question about the total estimated cost of projects identified through that study? Mr. Souza stated he did not have a cost figure. Mr. Neville pointed out the impact of not passing this Plan on a yearly basis is quite substantial. Mr. Souza stated Mr. Neville was correct and would affect the funding of current projects or those planned for the future. Mr. Neville stated even though we may not agree totally with each of the priorities as set, but it is the plan that has to be submitted to the State to get any type of funding. Mr. Souza stated that was correct. Mr. Farr pointed out the Major Improvement Study is scheduled for 1997, and questioned the City's share of the $600,000 cost? Mr. Souza stated that would depend on how it was funded. The $600,000 would come from the Arterial Street Fund and hopefully its source would be State or Federal pools of money. The City does not have the $600,000 appropriated yet. Mr. Farr noted by including it in the plan, the City can start applying for grants and alternative funding methods. Mr. Souza clarified that if the project is not in the plan, the City cannot proceed with locating a funding source. Mr. Overson stated in the past the Six Year Plan has been presented in a little different format. This year the plan reflects eight items and the items that fell off the list totalled 250. Mr. 8ouza stated Mr. Overson was correct. Mr. Dawkins stated he received a call from a constituent about a new Warren Avenue Bridge; and questioned if that issue was addressed in this plan? Mr. Souza stated that would probably be included in the Major Investment Study, but there is not a specific item addressing that issue on the Plan. Mr. Dawkins asked if such an item might be included on the Six Year Plan sooner or later? Mr. Souza stated it may possibly be listed by 2005. M/S/C/U(Overson/Farr) to adopt Resolution No. 2528, approving the City's 1996-2001 Six Year Transportation Improvement Program, and direct the Mayor to forward the resolution and plan to the TAPE #1323 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes September 27, 1995 Page 19 of 24 Department of Transportation, Local Programs Office. 10A - PUBLIC HEARING ON ORDINANCE (FIRST READING) VACATING PORTER STREET AND ALLEYS ADJOINING AND WITHIN BLOCKS 4 AND 7, PLAT OF PORT ORCHARD, #AB95-216 The City Council is being requested to vacate a portion of the undeveloped right-of-way of Porter Street and a portion of an adjoining alley, all within the block bounded by Constitution Avenue, Charleston Avenue, Farragut Street, and Prebble Street. These right-of-ways are subject to vacation by operation of law, and since no compensation can be charged the adjacent owners, the resolution method of vacation has been used to initiate this vacation. The proposed ordinance, if passed, will clear the title to the vacated right of way. President Huff-Menees asked the "Appearance Of Fairness/Conflict Of Interest" question with all Council members being seated. Deputy City Clerk Johnson read the following letters into the record: This letter is in response to the City of Bremerton Notice Of City Council Public Hearing set for Wednesday, September 27, 1995. The purpose of this hearing is the proposed vacation of streets and alleys within the block bounded by Constitution and Charleston Avenues. I formally protest this vacation for the following concerns identified below: 1, The public notice states that this vacation process will occur "without cost to the property owners." I find it extremely difficult to believe that half of adjoining alleys and undeveloped right-of-ways, added to my property, will be free of any and all tax assessment. It is my opinion that this increase in property lot size will, at some future time, result in an increase in property taxation by the City. Therefore, the statement "without cost to the property owners" is a misleading misrepresentation of the true financial impact of this proposed vacation. 2. The public notice states that "This process vacates portions of the streets and alleys to abutting properties, one-half to properties each side..." The definition of "one-half" is unclear and can be a disputable concept without legal clarification and delineation. On September 12, 1995, I contacted the Department Of Community Development (478-5275) and spoke with Mr. James Combs, who referred me to Mr. Jerry Thornburg. Mr. Thornburg stated that individual property owners who desire to know exactly where property lines will be established must hire private surveyors at TAPE #1323 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes September 27, 1995 Page 20 of 24 the owner's expense. Must property owners incur surveying expenses as a result of this City Council's pending decision? Must property owners incur potential legal costs to resolve property line disputes caused by the aftermath of this City Council's pending decision? The answer is NO! If the City vacates this land, it will become the City's responsibility to survey and identify all effected property lines for every homeowner impacted. The repercussions of property line disputes will most certainly occur and the City will be financially liable. 3. The Porter Street & Vicinity Vacation map provided with the public hearing notice is vague. No legend is provided that will clearly identify the exact right-of-ways or adjoining alleys being effected. Parking at my residence as well as two adjacent residences utilize a common alley running East-West and accessed only by Charleston Avenue. What effect will this vacation proposal have on this alley access? I respectfully object to this vacation proposal and I request that the Council members disapprove this action. The Bremerton City Council has understated the potential costs associated with this proposal. Signed James P. Pruitt, 3410 Preble Street, Bremerton WA 98312." "I wish to protest the vacation of Porter Street between Charleston and Constitution Avenues for the following reasons: 1. I own lots 3,4, 5 block 7 -plat of Port orchard Porter Street which is the middle property between Charleston and Constitution; having paid ever increasing taxes for many years. 2. This property has no access to either Charleston Constitution except by using the Porter St. right-of-way. or 3. The problem of access was brought to the attention of the City Director Of Community Development and Mr. Randy Witt, City Engineer, in October 1993. We received a letter from Mr. Witt dated November 9, 1993, in which he stated that the City would "allow a 15 foot wide access centered in Porter Street to the middle of the lot from either Charleston or Constitution Avenue. 4. If Porter Street is vacated this access would be illegal, as it would then cross private land without an easement. As you can see, vacation of Porter Street would render my property worthless. Unless the City can provide me with an easement to my property, I strongly protest the vacation of Porter Street. Signed Nancy Beckwith, Attorney In Fact, for Dorothy Goode. Jack Allingham, Planning Division, restated the purpose of this TAPE #1323 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes September 27, 1995 Page 21 of 24 hearing was vacation by operation Of law. In 1890 the State Legislature passed a law stating that right-of-ways within properties platted in unincorporated areas of the State that were not developed within a period of five years prior to 1904 automatically were to revert back to the adjoining properties. And, this public hearing, if the vacation is approved, will clear the title to what is technically already vacated public rights-of- way. The areas proposed to be vacated are the alleyway, which runs east and west between Constitution Avenue and Charleston Avenue in block 7, all of Porter Street running east and west abutting block 4 and block 7, between Constitution Avenue and Charleston Avenue the alleyway running north and south in block 4 and the alleyway abutting block 26 in block 4, all in the plat of Port Orchard, as recorded in Vol. 1, Pg. 96 & 97 of the Plats of Kitsap County, Washington. He referenced the map in the Agenda packet and noted the public notice for the hearing did not require that this map be provided; however, a legal description was provided. Nancy Beckwith stated she is representing her mother, Dorothy Goode, owner of Lots 3, 4 5. It was their feeling they could be the only injured parties in this process due to the fact they have no access and are on the inner part of Porter Street. They have talked with Mr. Allingham, Randy Witt, City Engineer and City Attorney Ian Sievers, about their access problem. She believes the City Attorney will present to Council a proposal for an easement so they will be able to access their property. Once that proposal is in writing, they would not have reason to protest this action. She emphasized how helpful and extremely professional the above named individuals have been in helping resolve the access issue. Jim Pruitt, 3410 Preble Street, apologized for the fact the letter read into the record from him was not current and he had subsequent conversations with Mr. Allingham on September 22. His concerns have to do with access through the alleyway and the fact the City's map was not totally correct and should have shown a prior vacation approved by the City in 1993. He appreciated the time given to him by Mr. Allingham and Mr. Thornburg, however, he wasn't really sure what precipitated this action. He pointed out an area where the property drops off drastically and questioned is the land that is not usable taxable? He revisited the issue of property boundaries and who must bear the burden of cost, and he continues to believe that is the City's responsibility. Ms. Beckwith stated they have talked to persons living at 503 Charleston Avenue and 3404 Porter Street, both of whom stated they had legal documents that a vacation of Porter Street was conducted in 1987. President Huff-Menees asked Mr. Allingham to address that point. Mr. Allingham stated he was presented with a map, as shown TAPE #1323 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes September 27, 1995 Page 22 of 24 on the view graph, from the Engineering Department and requested to initiate the proceedings of this right-of-way vacation. To the best of his knowledge the testimony given by Mr. Pruitt and Ms. Beckwith could be correct. Ian 8ievers explained the subject map is a part of several cells requested by his department from the Engineering Department in order to identify all of the vacations by operation of law and were grouped together by very old plats. But, the survey was only completed within the past 11/2 years and some City maps do now reflect where streets and alleys have been vacated. There may have been an oversight, but in any case it would just duplicate the vacation. Denise Anderson, Preble Street (block 4), stated part of the alley that is proposed for vacation is her driveway. She did speak with the City Attorney about easements and property rights and the fact she had been using the alley for her access for 10 years. She wanted to be assured that if the vacation was approved she would not lose the right to cross her neighbor's property. She was looking to the City to assist her in obtaining an easement. She wasn't sure it was necessary to vacate that section of the alley. Bob Wheeler, South Charleston, stated he is in favor of the vacation. President Huff-Menees asked the City Attorney to speak to the easement issue. Mr. Sievers stated there are two problems: (1) the Goods property is landlocked and the City is recommending to Council that the City sell her a 15 foot easement for access over the City's portion of vacated Porter Street. That proposal was discussed with Mayor Horton and the Director of Community Development and will soon be brought before the Council committees. The reason the City can sell the easement over vacated portions of Porter Street was not because the City owns the right-of-way, but because the City fortuitous owned the lot that abuts that right-of- way so the lot immediately to the east is owned by the City. That means the City owns the abutting right-of-way now, regardless if is vacated or not, and the City can sell that easement. He is recommending that action, which would allow the Goods property to be developed, and is the shortest outlet to the street. As he pointed out in his memorandum, private owners have a right of condemnation in circumstances where their parcels are landlocked. He believes there is a good possibility that a landowner that is landlocked could exercise condemnation against the City where they are holding the property for no particular public purpose. He did not want to get into litigation and felt selling the easement was in the best interest of the City. (2) Denise Anderson's property is accessed by her using the alley by her property and he simply explained that if she has used it for 10 years she undoubtedly has TAPE #1323 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes September 27, 1995 Page 23 of 24 a prescriptive right to continue using it as a driveway. He suggested Ms. Anderson consult her own attorney, but the City cannot give her an easement by virtue of this plat of right-of-way because the City does not own it even though it exists as a paper plat. He believes she can continue to use the access and the ordinance Council's addressing specifically mentions that private easements within these right-of-ways are not affected by the City's vacation action. In reference to comments made by Mr. Pruitt, the City does not survey street vacations where the City is paid for the vacation and on most of those the cost would be prohibitive considering the 1/2 fair market value the City receives as compensation. The 1/2 is defined by law - adjacent owners actually own the property to the middle of rights-of-way with an overlying public easement for access. When that overlying easement for access is vacated, their fee goes to the middle of right-of-way. Mr. Colvin asked if he understood correctly the City would not receive any money for the vacated property? Mr. Slevers explained the City cannot charge for the typical scenario under the state Statute because we don't own anything there. Mr. Colvin asked wouldn't that increase the value of the abutting property owners after the vacation? Mr. Sievers stated he believed it would increase it in that it clarifies a clouded title and would add value to the property. It removes confusion for taxing purposes and even City departments. Most importantly, that property will be taxed. Mr. Colvin raised the issue of a prior vacation of Porter Street? Mr. Slevers stated that was news to he and Mr. Allingham and they were relying on the Engineering Department to provide the correct information on what is there and what needs to be vacated. Mr. Overson referenced a sentence in Mr. Sievers' memorandum: "If any private parcels without private easement appear to be landlocked by the vacation .... ", he exclaimed that was not true because they are already landlocked because the City does not have any rights on it and should not have built any streets on that location. Mr. Sievers pointed out streets were not built at that location and when the survey was conducted by the Engineering Department that was one of the fact issues they pursued... whether the street was developed within five years after the plat was filed. The Engineering Department looked at current aerial photos to verify no development had taken place, which confirmed the fact no development had taken place in 100 years. That non-development can be attributed somewhat to the topography. At the turn of the century, the paper plats were simply created without any regard for the topography of land and given the precise geometry of these lots and streets you'd think we lived in Kansas; and they were filed. It was actually a flaw in the State statute in that dedication wasn't through the delivery process used in counties and cities now TAPE #1323 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes September 27, 1995 Page 24 of 24 #1186 to accept lots and streets. The flaw was that there was no way to clear up the property records or remove the paper plat that continues to exist in the County directory. Mr. Overson noted the City did conduct a survey and thereby obtained the legal description. If that legal description is used by the owners of the property, they can identify their boundaries. Mr. Sievers stressed that function is left up to the property owner. Mr. Farr stated he was still confused over whether or not the City determined there was no development on the section that has been used as a driveway. Mr. Sievers started it may have been clearly established that the use was for a private driveway since there are no City records showing development of public facilities at that site. He pointed out the bottom alley is only half labeled as subject to operation of law and the rest reflects it is the City's and properly accepted right-of-way. Mr. Farr stated but the bottom line is the property owner currently using that alleyway as a driveway will be able to continue that access. Mr. Sievers stated he believes Ms. Anderson can continue to use the access she has established. Mr. Law questioned if he understood correctly that the City does not have the authority to grant that easement? Mr. Sievers stated if that portion was taken out of this action to vacate, it does not mean she has a legal right to use that access and must be established through civil action if challenged. President Huff-Menees pointed out Section 2 of the ordinance, with respect to reservation of easement, states that the vacation will have no affect on public utility easements or private easements, which have been established within rights-of-ways subject to this vacation ordinance. M/S/C/U(Overson/Winters) to approve ordinance on first reading, vacating Porter Street and alleys adjoining and within Blocks 4 and 7, Plat of Port Orchard. With no further business meeting adjourned at 7:56 P.M. KA~ City Clerk City of B~~E~il President KLM/SH-M/me cc: Normal Distribution File/Vault