Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/11/98 TAPE #1524 CITY COUCIL MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 11, 1998 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, February 11, 1998, at 5:30 P.M., with Council President David Farr presiding. Council members present were Jim Reed, Carlos Montgomery, Carel Arends, Mike Shepherd, Lon Overson, John Law, Cecil McConnell, and Wayne Olsen. Also present were Assistant City Attorney Glenna Malanca and Deputy City Clerk Paula Johnston. The meeting opened with the Pledge of Allegiance led by Council President Farr and invocation given by retired Minister and Missionary Ray Streutker. President Farr made the following announcements: (1) The Council held a Study Session prior to the Council meeting to discuss general Council business. (:2) The Council held a 10-minute Executive Session during the pre-Council Study Session to discuss "Personnel". (3) The Council held a Study Session following the Executive Session to Discuss an issue relating to a neighborhood swimming pool. (4) The Executive Session on "Personnel' will be continued immediately following the City Council meeting. CONSENT AGENDA A. Minutes of Meeting - January 28, 1998 #AB98-018 #0045 M/S/C/U(McConnell/Montgomery) Motion 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 #0064 MISICIU(Montgomery/Arends) On February 11, 1998, the Council does approve for payment those vouchers included and further described as follows: 216772 through 216962 in the amount of $497,878.44. COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS Mr. Reed stated he was approached by several constituents, who do business In the Auto Center Way area, about the stormwater problem in that area. At the February 2, 1998 Council Study Session, he learned the Public Works and TAPE #1524 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes February 11, 1998 Page 2 of 9 utilities Department is addressing that problem. He looked forward to seeing that project started. Mr. Montgomery reported he attended the most recent meeting of the Bremerton School District where he learned that Bremerton student Brian Falstrom exhibited an extraordinary math ability at a very early age and has been attending Bremerton High School. He completed all the math available at the High School and is presently taking math courses at Olympic College and was recently tested placing him 2nd in the nation in Community Level math. At that same meeting, statistics were provided as to why school levy elections are so expensive. In order to raise $265.97 per student for every one-dollar tax per $1,000, the property owner is taxed $3.10 per $1,000. In Seattle, to raise $1,055.46 per $1,000 tax, property owners are only taxed $1.85 per $1,000. The main difference between those costs is valuation. He encouraged the public to write their legislators to tell them they are not satisfied with the current levy system. He did not believe reducing voting percentage from 60% down to 50% was the way to go. Mrs. Arends reported the sewer project in the Farragut and Charleston area is still ongoing; however weather permitting it should be completed soon. She thanked everyone for their patience with this project. Mr. Shepherd reported on February 4-5 he and Council members Carol Arends and Wayne Olsen, attended the Association of Washington Cities Legislative Conference in Olympia. During that event, he had an opportunity to meet with Senators Bob Oke and Betti Sheldon and Representatives Karen Schmidt, Paul Zellinsky and Peggy Lantz and discussed various issues, including funding transportation issues. He was fascinated with the process of making laws in Olympia. Several of his constituents and some from District #6 contacted him about their concerns of the redistdcting of the Bremerton School District, which affects the Crownhill Elementary School. A public information meeting was held on that issue on February 2 and a public hearing will be held February 19. He encouraged interested parties to contact the Bremerton School District in order give input on that issue. He announced his E-mail address is mikeshepherdsoundcom. net. Mr. Law welcomed a new Manette area business Clover Installations at 1113 Scott Avenue, which was opened Gerard Fitzpatrick. This business handles installation of satellite dishes, telephone and communication systems, and state- of-the-art fiber optic systems. He announced the next District #3 Neighborhood Meeting will be held February 17, 1998, 7:00 P.M., at the Senior Center. The program for that meeting will include an update by the State Engineer on the Design Team, who will design the new Manette Bridge, and Parks and TAPE #1524 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes February 11, 1998 Page 3 of 9 Recreation Director Jim Spencer will discuss the potential for a City park at E 17th Street and Ironside. Mr. McConnell stated tonight City Council members were on time to start the Council meeting; however, due to equipment failure broadcasting at 5:30 P.M., was delayed. He invited the resident of District #2 to join him in attending District #3's Neighborhood Meeting on February 17, 1998. He emphasized the issue of the new Manette Bridge affects all residents on the eastside. Mr. Olsen reminded everyone the next District #1 Neighborhood Meeting will be held February 19, 1998, 7:00 P.M., at the Sheridan Park Recreation Center, with Mayor Horton giving an update on the "state of the City". He emphasized all citizens are invited to attend that meeting. Mr. Farr noted in response to Mr. McConnell's comment, there is an Agenda item addressing the purchase of new TV broadcasting equipment for the City Council Chambers. MAYOR'S REPORT Mayor Lynn Horton congratulated the Senior Badminton Champions in their annual Senior/City staff tournament. Police Chief Du Fresne and Judy Johnson, Department of Community Development, are credited with keeping the City staff team from being "skunked". PUBLIC RECOGNITION Roy Mclnnis, Bremerton resident, stated he was very aware of the stormwater problem in the Auto Center Way area for over 15 years and he was pleased to hear that the City would be addressing that problem in the not too distant future. Susan Brown, Bremerton resident, referenced a recent newspaper article in THE SUN in which Mr. Farr was quoted as saying "Public Recognition is nice to hear, but it is really not the main focus of the City Council". She asked Mr. Farr if that was an accurate quote? President Farr stated he was not sure if it was an exact quote, but fairly accurate. Mrs. Brown stated when she first started attending City Council meetings on October 22, 1997, she asked how to make changes in the law. The response she received, at that time, was attacking her for her motives. Three months later, after attending every City Council meetings during the Public Recognition portion, she finally received a response that should have been given out at the October 22, 1997, meeting. She received a letter stating the way to change laws is to submit recommended changes and time will be scheduled for the City Council to make a review. She has reviewed videotapes of those prior Council meetings for possible defense of herself against possible legal action by the City Attorney to monitor her statements during those meetings. Through that review, she observed how Council TAPE #1524 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes February 11, 1998 Page 4 of 9 members were responding as she was making her comments, i.e., uncomfortable, evasive, and talking with each other. Whenever she hears the terminology "City business" referring to the Agenda New Business items and Ordinances, she gets uncomfortable about the identity of the City. The City is made up of 38,000 people, not the bureaucracy in the buildings. City business is everything you do here and the Public Recognition portion is an essential part for the public to express their views on what is going on within the City. Over the past three months she has observed other people's frustration and being dismissed without getting information they requested. She did observe one person's problem being resolved at the time input was given. Mr. Montgomey stated Council meetings exist for the purpose of doing Council's business. There is a need to adhere to clearly defined rules and procedures. Rules and procedures don't prelude citizen input, courtesy, or sensitivity to public concerns and viewpoints. They respect all of these elements and the necessity to conduct business in an orderly, disciplined and productive manner. Two weeks ago he recommended that certain items be placed at the end of the meeting in order to take care of official City business first. Mr. McGonnell stated it was his understanding that Council members would not respond to questions during Public Recognition and would be responded to by the City Council President. President Farr stated the rule isn't that Council members couldn't respond, but the normal mode is to provide responses at a later time. Mr. Law stated when a Council member replies to comments by an individual, it does not reflect the entire Council's opinion. President Farr stated that was correct. Mr. Shepherd stated the discussion of communicating between elected officials, the public is vital and dynamic, and Council is working on this issue. He encouraged the public to E-mail and write letters to their Legislative representatives, attend Council District Neighborhood Meetings, and Council Study Sessions. As a new Council member, he has discovered there is some part of government going on every night of the week as well as during the daytime. 8A - BID AWARD RECOMMENDATION FOR VIDEO PRODUCTION EQUIPMENT, #AB98 - 018 Requests for bids were prepared, advertised, distributed, and received in accordance with accepted Call for Bid procedures for Video Production Equipment. The equipment will be used to upgrade City Council video production capability. Much of the current equipment was "used" when acquired by the City when Council meetings began telecasting and is obsolete. Some of the equipment is no longer in production, and can no longer be repaired. Process was begun in July 1997, that involved fieldtrips to Tacoma City Council Chambers and Pierce County Council Chambers to review their equipment. Two bids were received. Professional Video & Tape, Inc. submitted the low bid for the equipment and installation, in the amount of $55,864.38, including tax and installation. TAPE #1524 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes February 11, 1998 Page 5 of 9 Kathleen McCluskev, Director of Administrative Services, stated this was a timely item after failure of one of the cameras this evening and she suspected more failures could be expected, if action isn't taken to purchase much needed replacement equipment. The current equipment is 10 or more years old. During a recent Council Study Session Bob Neal answered questions regarding the differences in pricing between vendors, the quality of the equipment, which is a mid-quality not top of the line, and its placement within the Council Chambers. A 60-day window for equipment installation has been included. Roy Mclnnis, Bremerton resident, stated he was present when the current equipment was installed and City Council meetings were broadcast for the first time. He asked if the equipment in the Bid proposals would be new or would some of it be used? Elizabeth Buell, Bremerton resident, stated what happened this evening with equipment failure was a real example why the equipment needs to be replaced. Mrs. McCluskey stated in response to Mr. Mclnnis' question, all of the equipment will be new and vendor will install it. Mr. McConnell stated he agreed with Mrs. Buell regarding the good example why this new equipment is needed. It will not only allow Council meetings to get started on time, but will provide more clarity in the telecasting process. #0781 M/S/C/U (Montgomery/Olsen) Motion to accept the bid for video production equipment and installation from Professional Video & Tape, Inc., as to specifications and low bid received in the amount of $55,864.38. 9A - ORDINANCE (FIRST READING) REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 4619 AMENDING CITY OF BREMERTON SHORELINE MASTER PLAN (DOCK/PIERS), #AB98 - 020 The provisions of Ordinance No. 4619, adopted upon second reading on December 30, 1997, duplicate the provisions of Chapter Five of the Shoreline Master Plan, specifically Regulation No. 10 at Water Access and Moorage, which regulation mandates that piers and docks are to be prohibited where navigation may be significantly impaired at entrances to bays, channels, or coves. It is the City Attorney Office's opinion that this provision in the Shoreline Master Plan applies to the channel between Oyster and Ostrich Bays. The City Attorney's Office has determined that procedural deficiencies in the consideration process of this ordinance render its enforceability questionable. The proposed ordinance would repeal Ordinance No. 4619. TAPE #1524 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes February 11, 1998 Page 6 of 9 Glenna Malanca, Acting City Attorney, stated Judy Johnson of the Department of Community Development prepared a chart relating to the various procedural deficiencies of which the City Attorney's Office is concerned. Judy Johnson, Department of Community Development, stated the previous process was reviewed and found both the Master Shoreline Program and SEPA process had procedural errors. In the Master Shoreline Program process there are 12 primary requirements of which the City had six with some degree of non- compliance. One was complying with SEPA regulations not notifying the Department of Ecology and Department of Community and Economic Development (Olympia) 60-days prior to the ordinance, nor solicit comment from the Department of Ecology. Those are just three examples of requirements the City did not do in a proper Master Shoreline Program amendment process. On the SEPA process there were 11 specific requirements, four of which were not complied with completely, one being that the City Council approved the proposal before the DNS became final. After consulting with the City Attorney, it was decided the best approach would be to repeal Ordinance #461 9. Ms. Malanca pointed out there is a provision that is enforceable and at some point it would be good to go through the amending process again; however, in the interim it was her position that the Shoreline Master Plan Article 10 is enforceable. President Farr stated it was his understanding that there would be no need to ask the Appearance of Fairness/Conflict of Interest question on this issue. Ms. Malanca stated that was correct, this is a legislative process. Mayor Lynn Horton stated she held a lengthy conversation with Alice Shisel from the Department of Ecology and it was her opinion that the City had not complied totally with City policies and procedures dealing with this issue. Therefore, Ms. Shisel felt if the issue had gone to the Department of Ecology, it would have been sent back to the City. Based on that information, it is the Administration's intent if Ordinance #-4619 is repealed, to begin the process anew per the Shoreline Master Plan and Department of Ecology's requirements. Following that action, it would then be brought back to the City Council in the same direction as it was to the City Council that was seated in 1997. In that way, it will be codifed in the Shoreline Master Plan rather than simply relying on Administrative Policy. Elizabeth Buell, Bremerton resident, stated she was confused about what is being proposed and questioned if she understood correctly that process will start all over again? President Farr stated it has been brought to the City's attention that the prior action taken has been evaluated by the legal staff and found not to be appropriate. Action before Council is to reconsider that action. Mrs. Buell stated her objection to Mr. Reed being seated on this issue. TAPE #1524 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes February 11, 1998 Page 7 of 9 Paul Schier, Madrona Point Drive resident, stated he was opposed to repealing Ordinance #4619 for the following reasons: (1) two attorneys have given different opinions on this issue. (2) It doesn't hurt to have a redundant rule. (3) If Ordinance #-4619 is repealed, the old rule, under the "Void For Vagueness" scrutiny would not hold up. Of the three applications for docks, there were six SEPA processes with DNS saying it was ok to have a dock under the old rule, now there is one SEPA process that under the new City Attorney says docks are prohibited, which he believes has been obvious all along. The new rule under Ordinance #-4619 understands that no docks/piers would be allowed in the portion in the channel. The real problem with the vague Shorelines Master Plan is the fact that "navigation" is not defined. With that situation, the Director of Community Development could make up a rule on navigation or someone may say the Department of Ecology rules on what is navigation. He emphasized Council needs to follow SEPA to repeal Ordinance #4619 so that people are allowed to appeal that process. Roy Mclnnis, Bremerton resident, asked if he understood correctly there was something in Ordinance #4619 that was not right and needed to be repealed. He also wanted to know if the ordinance was not repealed and an issue came up could the City be sued? If that was the case, then he urged Council to take whatever action necessary to remedy that possibility. Mayor Horton restated her earlier comments as a point of clarification. She emphasized it isn't a case of the ordinance itself being flawed, but the process the City went through bringing the ordinance to Council was flawed. In the interim, the City's current Shoreline Master Plan probably would not withstand a serious appeal and that is the reason why this issue will be brought back to Council at a later date. She reminded Council and the public that a moratorium is currently in place and does not expire until April 1998. In the event a new process has not been completed at that time, she would most likely ask the City Council to approve an extension of the moratorium so that the process can be finalized. Mr. Law noted Council did have some concern when the ordinance was approved and he specifically asked for advice and was told twice by legal counsel that such action was legal even though there was an appeal in process. It appears they were poorly advised even though they asked questions. Mr. McConnell thanked Mayor Horton for repeating her earlier comments and as a result changed his position on this issue. He had assumed the moratorium went away at the time Ordinance #4619 was passed. He agreed that there was some ambiguity in the City's current Shoreline Master Plan, particularly the section that states "piers and docks are prohibited where navigation may be significantly impaired at entrances to bays, channels or coves". He interpreted TAPE #1524 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes February 11, 1998 Page 8 of 9 the subject channel to be an entrance into Oyster Bay, but if one goes by the black and white verbiage, docks and piers could only be restricted at the entrance (each end). He asked that a "significant impairment to navigation" be defined. Mayor Horton stated the Army Corps of Engineers would be asked to help answer that question. Mr. Overson stated he was interested in knowing why Ordinance #4619 was left in place until a replacement is provided. He believed Mr. Shier's comments were valid and concurred in his advice to keep Ordinance #-4619 as is. Mayor Horton stated it was her understanding, based on information from the Department of Ecology, that because the City did not comply with the process to the fullest extent it would not withstand an appeal. Additionally, she did not believe it was codified until it is approved through the Department of Ecology. Mr. Shepherd pointed out there is time involved with continuing the process for an ordinance that would later be rejected by the Department of Ecology. He sees that kind of action as a clear case of good money after bad. Mayor Horton explained if Council does not repeal this ordinance, time has been wasted in moving forward to correct the process. Mr. Reed stated Mayor Horton made it clear that the Administration would readdress the issue based on a ban of piers and docks in the channel. He pointed out this issue only affects a relatively equal number of landowners in Council Districts #8 and #9. He asked Mayor Horton to justify to the public a pier ban on property use rights or use privileges without attempting any type of mitigation to the safety issue preceding such action. There are safety problems that exist without any docks and piers whatsoever. He agreed with Ms. Malanca that the Shoreline Master Plan states if someone creates a hazard to navigation, a pier would not be approved. That would limit docks and piers in that area severely and limit them in length to quite a degree. He believed if the City proposed a No-Wake Zone in the Channel no one would lose their rights of property use ,and solve the existing safety problem. Mayor Horton stated people are not necessarily guaranteed what they think is the highest and best usage of their property. Secondly, she believed there are issues beyond simply the safety and speed issue. She expects there will be objections by some of the Tribal jurisdictions when they are consulted addressing disturbing the ecological conditions. Mr. Reed stated then you have to apply that thinking to the entire City and County. President Farr asked that the focus of discussion be brought back to the issue of whether or not to repeal Ordinance #4619. Mr. Reed agreed with President Farr; however, the Administration has made it clear that they will move forward with further action. He wants to see options put on the tabled pdor to just a flat ban of piers and docks. Mayor Horton stated the Administration will be talking with the Corps of Engineers, regional Tribes, Department of Ecology and will bdght forward a much broader picture than previously presented. TAPE #1524 City Council Reg, Mtg. Minutes February 11, 1998 Page 9 of 9 Mrs. Arends stated it was her understanding that the item on the Agenda was to repeal Ordinance #-4619 or leave it as is. However, it was been brought to Council's attention that it is flawed and needs to be repealed. Any other concerns on a new issue that may be brought up would be more properly addressed at another time. Mr. MontGomery stated he has been involved with this issue from the very beginning and most of the area affect is located in District #8, and he had been in contact with parties on both sides of the issue. He was the one who pushed the previous City Attorney to push this issue through as quickly as possible. If there is any blame to be made on getting bad advice, it should be directed toward him. His interpretation of the Plan was doing it right; however, he read it differently than the Department of Community Development. #1704 MISICIU(Shepherd/Law) Motion to approve Ordinance on first reading, repealing Ordinance No. 4619 amending the City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program restricting docks and piers in the channel between Oyster Bay and Ostrich Bay. President Farr thanked the TV camera crew for their services: Bruce Stier, Robert Neal, Eva Williamson, Leslie Bush, and Gretchen EIliott. With no further business meeting adjourned at 6:35 P.M. City of Bremerton PJ/DF/me cc: Normal Distribution FileNault