Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/23/98 TAPE #1571 & #1572 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 23, 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, September 23, 1998, at 5:30 P.M., with Coundl President David Farr presiding. Council members present were Jim Reed, Carlos Montgomery, Carol Arends, Mike Shepherd, Lon Overson, John Law, Cecil McConnell, and Wayne Olsen. Also present were 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 Reverend Fred Garry of Summit Avenue Presbyterian Church. President Farr made the following announcements: (1) The City Council held a 15-minute Executive Session prior to the Council meeting, 5:00 - 5:15 P.M., to discuss "Labor Negotiations". (2) The City Council will hold a 20-minute Executive Session immediately following the Council meeting to discuss "Personnel". CONSENT AGENDA A. Minutes - September 2, 1998 #AB98-217 #0012 M/S/C/U(McConnell/Olsen) 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 #0146 MISICIU(Montgomery/Arends) On September 23, 1998, the Council does approve for payment those vouchers included and further described as follows: 223876 through 224071, 223867, and 223868 in the amount of $364,745.00; and Regular Payroll for the period ending September 15, 1998 in the amount of $771,558.39. COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS Mr. McConnell stated that he and Mr. Olson had a good tum out at the District 1 & 2 joint meeting held Thursday, September 17 1998. Bremerton Police Chief TAPE #1571 & #1572 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes September 23, 1998 Page 2 of 11 Paul Du Fresne, City Attorney Glenna Malanca, and Municipal Court Judge James Doctor gave an interesting and informative presentation. Mr. Law stated that Judy Johnson, Building & Development Permit Manager, gave an excellent presentation at the September 15 District 3 meeting on building, and the requirements to make changes in rebuilding. The next District 3 meeting will be October 20, 1998 at the senior center. Representatives from the Washington State Department of Transportation will be in attendance to discuss the Manette Bridge. Sketches of the new bridge will be available to see for the first time. Mr. Shepherd attended the two-day seminar on Downtown Improvement along with Mr. Montgomery and Mr. Law. He gathered great ideas that will be shared in the continuing of the Sinclair Landing Development as well as the peripheral areas of Bremerton, i.e. Charleston and Manette. On September 19th there was a District 5 picnic following a cleanup of Evergreen Park and shoreline around Smith Cove. There were 15-20 citizens participating in the cleanup activities, where 8 big bags of trash were gathered. Thirty five to 40 people artended the picnic part of the event. The next regular District meeting will be held in November. Mrs. Arends reminded everyone that the next Bremerton High School football game would be against Fife on Friday night at 7:00 P.M. She also commented that it was great to have 6th Street open again. Mr. Montgomery artended a very lively "Believe in Bremerton" meeting on September 15tb where the subject of home porting carriers in Bremerton was discussed. The public was invited to give their input on this subject either in writing, or by attending City Council meetings. That same evening he also artended a Bremerton Housing Authority board meeting. One of their greatest concerns is the sprinkler system in the Firs Building, which houses eldedy people. They are working with the Bremerton Fire Department to come up with an acceptable and affordable solution. Mr. Farr recently participated in a county wide earthquake drill. The scenario was that the mayor was unable to be reached, thus placing Mr. Farr in command for the first couple of hours. The eye-opening experience taught him how our community could virtually become an "island", cut off from everything, if such an event actually took place. MAYOR'S REPORT Mayor Horton spoke about the drills, including the Emmittsburg training, where City department heads are brought into the exercise concentrating on the event itself. Communications amongst us, as well as other county agencies, have come a long way in the past 2 to 3 years in getting ourselves prepared. Each TAPE #1571 & #1572 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes September 23, 1998 Page 3 of 11 employee has an earthquake packet in addition to a special "dig out kit" on every floor of every city building. For the next couple of years, the City will concentrate on the recovery phase involving the Council members and their districts. She encouraged each Councilman to coordinate with key people in their districts to do a rapid assessment of their district area, noting any key elements such as a bridge located in their respective district. She also stated there was a "Smile Mobile" coming to Bremerton. It is a fully equipped mobile dental clinic that will be at the Kitsap Community Health Center between October 13th - 23rd providing service to children 13 and under with limited family incomes. For more information, citizens can call 377-0053, ext. 356, 12:30 A.M. and 12:30 P.M. Lastly, VFW Post 239 honored Bremerton Police Captain Joe Hatfield for being the Legion Police Officer of the Year for Washington State. Mr. Buck King, Commander of the post, presented the award. PUBLIC RECOGNITION Donald L. Larson, President of Kitsap Diving Association, participated in the Sinclair Inlet cleanup. On the Bremerton side, there were approximately 18 volunteers who helped collect two dumpsters of debris. He also thanked all businesses that participated by donating various services. John Becker, Bremerton resident, suggested the City place signs at all entrances to the City stating that Bremerton is/was the "Number One City to Raise a Family", as listed by several magazines, building on the "Believe in Bremerton' theme. 8A - APPROVAL OF THE SINCLAIR LANDING ASSOCIATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION DOCUMENT, #AB98-212 The Master Development Agreement (MDA) entered into by the parties effective March 18,1998, provides for the framework and timelines for the various obligations of the parties. On July 22, 1998, the Sinclair Landing Association delivered its evaluation of the Project Description (Development Program). This document is entitled Project Description, and a copy has been provided to members of the City Council. On August 4, 1998, a Study Session was held on this Description, along with some changes then proposed by the Commercial Group. Since the City is required to approve the Development Program within 60 days of receiving the report, review should occur at the earliest possible meeting. Paula Johnston pointed out changes made in the recommended motion. Virgil Elkington, owner of Rabboni's Bagels, stated he provided previous testimony about what was going to be done for businesses that will be displaced because of the Sinclair Landing project. He was concerned that them is no set plan of how those business owners will be helped, as he still hasn't received any written statement with a definitive answer. TAPE #1571 & #1572 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes September 23, 1998 Page 4 of 11 Mr. McConnell, said that in the Project Description book it says something about the City of Bremerton providing a letter of credit. He would really like to see that verbiage taken out. He stated there was an earlier agreement that Bremerton was not going to provide a letter of credit to fund the new municipal garage. He said the data in the report was extremely old and suggested they go over the document thoroughly prior to signing. Mr. Shepherd, asked if they were being asked to conditionally approve the project description they were originally provided with specific conditions (1-7). They were not approving the project description as an enforceable document but simply as the conceptual document for the basis of these conditions that are listed. The Commercial Group then has 30 days to come back with specifics. Glenna Malanca, City Attorney, said that it was fair to state that the project description before the council is outdated in unknown ways. We have a MDA whereby the City obligated to approve, even conditionally, the project description. She told the council members that their conditional approval set up a structure to get the information that you do require before you can actually approve a project. Additionally, the City Council may not want to waive any rights they have under the MDA. There are certain requirements now for the Commercial Group to come back and provide to you either under a time frame or their approval will not be complete until all those items have been back before the Council and approved by the Council. Mr. Law, reiterated that there were now 8 or 9 items now on the recommendation. He asked if specifics had to be listed on the recommendation now. Ms. Malanca, stated that the intention was that Item #1 covered that. The Council is to get an updated Development Program that would include that type of component. Mr. Reed, stated that he didn't think the Council needs to make this so "detailed that it holds the bar so high" that it doesn't give the Commercial Group any room to make a deal with their financiers. He said that he would like to see some kind of proposal for the displaced tenants on a prospectus. Mr. Montgomery, said that Item #1 spelled it out perfectly clear. He also stated that it was difficult for any private group to come out and say exactly what they are going to do until they get their funding lined up. Mr. Shepherd, asked for clarification of Item #2, regarding future tenant commitments as recommended by the City's Financial Analyst. He also asked if the Council would bind the Commercial Group to recommendations based upon the City's Financial Analyst. TAPE #1571 & #1572 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes September 23, 1998 Page 5 of 11 Ms. Malanca, stated that Item #2 had to do with the commitment regarding potential tenants. The update on the Commercial Group's effort to purchase necessary properties is intended to include displacement, for areas not intended to be condemned. The Commercial Group would not be bound to the City's recommendations. Mr. Overson stated that since what the Council was really doing was setting a new timeline for the development program, are they telling the Commercial Group to go develop a program or do they say bring the program back to us to review and/or approval. He expressed concern that it was Commercial Groups project, not the City's, and hoped the City wasn't injecting itself where they shouldn't be. He felt the only concerns the City should have, is that the rights of the citizens and businesses are upheld; that a quality project is developed; and that City funds and resources are not excessively impaired. Ms. Malanca, said that this was just a review required under the MDA. Randy McGreal, Commercial Group, provided a brief history of this process. He stated the approval before Council today is due to the public/private partnership arrangement with agencies that did not have any other way to participate. Through this process, and through the MDA, these groups have a way to include their comments. President Farr referred to Item #2 and Item #3, and asked if City Council can expect to see a review with comments done by the Financial Analyst during the 30-day time period being set tonight? Mayor Horton stated that the work the Financial Analyst would be doing is predicated on when the City can get the numbers from the Commercial Group necessary for the Financial Analyst to review. Mr. McGreal stated that this is only a step in the process. He can provide figures, but he needs further conversations with the land owners to find out what prices they are setting for their land, and what conditions they are going to place on them for relocating some of those businesses. President Farr asked what amount of time was needed if they felt 30 days was not realistic. Mayor Horton stated that she and Mr. McGreal felt that 90 days was suffscient, but since that deadline falls near the holidays, it was decided that January 15, 1999 would be the best date. #2627 M/S/C(Montgomery/Arends) Motion to conditionally approve the Project Description document with the following conditions, all pursuant to Paragraph rm of the MDA. Proposed conditions are: (1) That the Commercial Group provide an updated Development Program to the City Council by January 15, 1999; TAPE #1571 & #1572 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes September 23, 1998 Page 6 of 11 (2) Future tenants commitments as recommended by the City's Finandal Analyst; (3) Response to reasonable inquiries and verification requests of the City's Financial Analyst; (4) Arrangements for sufficient Public Attractions; (5) Detailed construction estimates; and (6) Update on Commercial Group efforts to purchase necessary properties within the project; (7) Acceptable parking for Marina; (8) Item 1-7 are subject to further approval. This approval is not intended to waive any provisions contained in the Sinclair Landing MDA of March 1998. Vote on motion: In Favor: Law, Overson, Shepherd, Arends, Montgomery, Reed, McConnell, Farr Opposed: Olsen Motion passed. 8B - GORST L.I.D. FORMATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF FINANCING SANITARY SEWERS, #AB98-213 The Bremerton-Kitsap County Health District completed a sanitary survey of on- site septic systems in the Gorst area in May 1996. Based on the survey, the State Department of Health declared the Gorst area a severe public health hazard requiring the area to be served by sanitary sewers. A 1997 study for sewering Gorst and South Kitsap Industrial Properties, determined it to be cost- effective to provide sewer treatment at the Bremerton Wastewater Treatment Plant. The maximum monthly flows are projected to be less than 1% of the plant's design capacity. Kitsap County will provide all customer service, billing, and collection requirements with treatment provided as county customers under the existing Kitsap County Sewer District 1 service agreement. An effort is currently underway to form a utility local improvement district (ULID) for construction of the Gorst sewer system. A successful petition requires owners of 51% of the property by area within the service area to sign the petition. The City owns 2.3% of the properly within the service area and would benefit from sewer service. It is recommended that the City Council authorize the Mayor to support the establishment of the ULID for sewering Gorst by (a) signing the petition on behalf of the City and (b) providing a letter of availability to the County under the existing Sewer District 1 service agreement for treatment at the City's wastewater treatment plant. This recommendation is based on the ceunty's representation that the sewer system will be equivalent to a step system with solids managed by the county and effluent only delivered to the City's Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP). TAPE #1571 & #1572 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes September 23, 1998 Page 7 of 11 Gene Sampley, Bremerton Public Works & Utilities Director, discussed two separate issues involving the sewering of Gorst. One as a landowner and the other as a provider of the treatment of the effluent that would be needing treatment as a result of this project. Through an overhead presentation, Mr. Sampley showed the service area for this ULID. He stated that the method the City is utilizing is a step system. A step system is a system wherein the solids are retained on site similar to a septic tank and the effluent is collected and pumped to the Bremerton system for treatment. The county would handle all the solids management and treat those at the central wastewater treatment plant owned by the county. The amount of impact to the plant is approximately .09 % of the volume and there is more than adequate capacity for that. However, we have considered the possibility of future sewering of the South Kitsap Industrial area of the Port of Bremerton and the Gorst community. If all those areas were to be sewered and routed to the Bremerton plant, it would require some serious evaluation of plant capacity. The maximum cost is approximately $105,000 based on area and associated to the City as a landowner. The revenues associated with this project are approximately $300,000 with monthly rates adding another $75,000 - $80,000. Mr. Sampley asked the Council to authorize the Mayor to sign on behalf of the city, the petition to establish the ULID. John Becker, Bremerton resident, asked if the Gorst sewer rate was going to be greater than, equal to, or less than what is being charged in Bremedon. Dan Osborn, District 6 resident, asked that since Bremerton sewer rates are based on water consumption, will the City of Bremerton be selling the water to those Gorst residents, and how will we know how much water they are putting in? He was apprehensive on whether it will fit in with a good sewer system that will eventually be needed in this area. TAPE #1572 Gene Sampley, stated that rates outside the corporate city limits are established by ordinance at 115% for sewer and 150% for water. So any county resident that is provided service from the city would be assessed at that additional rate. The revenues to the city are greater than would be otherwise received if they were in the city. A smaller line will be needed initially, with a new line with greater capacity later because you can't build a line large enough to carry all the potential flow from the area without causing some stagnant, odor and pumping problems. Mr. Montgomery, said it sounded like a pretty good deal. Mr. McConnell, asked if the estimated $105,600 is the amount it is going to cost Bremerton tax payers to hook on to the sewer. He also asked if the $300,000 connection fees went into Bremerton or to Port Orchard. He further stated that TAPE #1571 & #1572 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes September 23, 1996 Page 8 of 11 the City of Bremerton would make out pretty well on the income from the monthly rates. Mr. Sampley, stated that the $105,600 was the maximum amount that would be assessed against the City. He stated that the $300,000 connection fees were up front costs that go directly into the Bremerton sewer fund. Mr. Reid, asked what the other reasons are that you can't overbuild a sewer line due to the ability to pump it. Mr. Sarnpley, referred to two reason because of the size of the line and the system. Reason one: the original LID boundary was reduced to what is considered to be the severe health hazard area. They had initially a public health hazard area which was broader. Secondly, the method of construction, system design, is not a typical sewer system where you would have a pipe plumbed into a sewer line transmit the entire waste stream to the treatment plant. Mr. Overson, asked if the City was installing the sewer collection system. The asked how does the City rate getting the connect fees. He stated he thought the organization installing the system would get the connect fees because that's where the cost of connection goes. Asked from the owners standpoint the owner will pay #1, a fee to the City and #2, a fee for the installation and #3, a monthly fee? Stated that even though it is considered temporary that he didn't think so and asked how long it would last. Mr. Sampley, said there are two fees that we assess in an established system. One is the facility fee, which pays for the capacity at the treatment plant. The other fee is a front footage fee to pay for the facility that is in the ground at the location where it is to be installed. In this case the developer would pay all of the cost and therefore have no footage fees assessed because they are in the cost of construction. We always assess a facility fee against a project. He stated that the fees Mr. Overson stated were correct. Mr. Sampley stated it would last a considerable length of time, the same as other systems - 40 to 50 years. Mr. Montgomery, asked if the county would be collecting money from the consumer and they will be paying the City on a metered rate? Mr. Sampley, stated that the City would send one bill to the county and the county has a billing system for all their customers. The City has one customer and that's Kitsap County. #0357 MISICIU (Montgomery/Law) That the City Council authorize the Mayor to sign the ULID petition for sewering Gorst and provide a letter of availability to the TAPE #1571 & #1572 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes September 23, 1998 Page 9 of 11 County under the same terms and conditions as the existing Sewer District 1 service agreement for treatment at the City's wastewater treatment plant. 8C - BID AWARD FOR SR304 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, ASBESTOS REMOVAL NO. 2, #AB98-214 Bids were opened for the SR304 Transportation Improvement Project, Asbestos Removal No. 2 on September 21, 1998. This is the second phase for the removal and disposal of asbestos in structures located within the SR304 Transportation Improvement Project. This contract will remove and dispose of asbestos for 21 separate structures occupying public right-of-way. Four bids for this project were received. Northwest Abatement Services, Inc., was the lowest responsive bidder with a bid of $46,159.79. The Engineer's estimate for this project was $55,911. The action before the City Council is approval of a contract with Northwest Abate Services, Inc. or Crown Delta Environmental, Inc., the next lowest responsive bidder, at $46,581.38, in the event Northwest Abatement Services, Inc. is unable to execute the contract. Additionally, in accordance with BMC 2.76.500 (b)(2) staff requests that the City Council provide the Mayor with additional change order authority for a total contract amount not to exceed $90,000. This additional authority will allow for the expedient removal of unanticipated asbestos discovered during the abatement process and will allow for the abatement of additional structures within the project limits. Lynn Price, SR304 Project Manager, added that there are 12 to 16 additional structures anticipated to have asbestos testing over the course of this contract. Public comment - none. #0566 MISICIU (Shepherd/Reed) Motion to (a) Authorize the Mayor to enter into a contract with Northwest Abatement Services, Inc. for $46,159.79 on the SR304 Transportation Improvement Project, Asbestos Removal No. 2; and should Northwest Abatement Services, Inc. be unable to execute the contract, enter into a contract with Crown Delta Environmental Inc. for $46,581.38; and (b) That the Mayor is authorized to execute change orders on the SR304 Asbestos Removal No. 2 contract for a total amount not to exceed $90,000. 9A - PUBLIC HEARING ON RESOLUTION #2672, REGARDING RECOVERY OF FEES FOR THE ABATEMENT OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1903 W. KITSAP LAKE LANE, #AB98-215 Beginning in January of 1998, the City of Bremerton removed furniture, clothing, auto parts, appliances, garbage and debris from the property located at 1903 W. Kitsap Lake Lane after the owner, Patricia Hoxer and the tenants failed to do so as ordered by the Building Official. Work was stopped before completion due to the weather and inability to use heavy equipment for the removal of these materials. In June, the house was ordered vacated, more material was removed, TAPE #1571 & #1572 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes September 23, 1998 Page 10 of 11 and the house was boarded against entry. Council must now decide if the fees incurred for this action are just, and how they should be collected. Judy Johnson, Permit Manager, stated the first complaint received on this property was September of 1997. The raason for the high expense of this abatement was necessary because most of the items had to be removed by hand due to an identified septic system. Public comment - none. #0740 MISICIU (Montgomery/Shepherd) Motion to pass Resolution No. 2672, ordering that the fees incurred for the abatement of garbage, debris, auto parts, furniture, and clothing; and for securing the house located at 1903 W. Kitsap Lake Lane be collected as reasonable abatement costs and become a lien against the property. 9B - PUBLIC HEARING ON RESOLUTION #2673. REGARDING RECOVERY OF FEES FOR THE REMOVAL OF VEGETATION ON THE LISTED PROPERTIES. #AB98-216, Ordinance No. 4584 declares that it is unlawful and a nuisance to allow, continue, or maintain grass and weeds exceeding twelve (12) inches in height, shrubs, brush, vines or trees which constitute a fire hazard or provide a harborage for rats, rodents or horticultural pests, or noxious and poisonous plants. The listed properties are currently in violation of the ordinance and pursuant to Section 9.14 of the Bremerton Municipal Code, Council is asked to approve the removal of the nuisance vegetation on the property and collection of the costs incurred by personal judgement against the owner and a lien against the property. Judy Johnson, Permit Manager, announced five weed abatement listings to remove from the attached list: #11 (2510 Fir); #13 (313 S. Hartford); #22 (1522 Snyder Avenue); #26 (1121 Veneta); and #28 (2400 BIk. N. Wyceff). She then asked for approval for Community Service workers to provide labor to cleanup the rest. Monte Bejeault, #16 (636 N. Montgomery), asked for a list of what he needed to remove from his properly to avoid needing the abatement done by the City. Mrs. Arends noted that most of the addresses listed were from out of town, and questioned if the majority were rentals. Ms. Johnson stated yes. To clarify this process, she stated Council was only being asked to approve the work being done, not to collect fees at this time. That will be done at another time. TAPE #1571 & #1572 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes September 23, 1998 Page 11 of 11 #i023 M/S/C/U (Montgomery/Shepherd) Motion to pass Resolution No. 2673, ordering that the nuisance vegetation on the properties identified by the attached listing be removed by the City. With no further business meeting adjourned at 6:53 P.M. City of Bremerton PJ/DF/Ib/ls C: Normal Distribution File/Vault