Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/24/98 TAPE #1582 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 24, 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, Tuesday, November 24, 1998, at 5:30 P.M., with Council Vice-President Carlos Montgomery presiding. Council members present were Jim Reed, Carol Arends, Mike Shepherd, John Law, Cecil McConnell, and Wayne Olsen. Council President David Farr and Council member Lon Overson were absent. Also present were City Attorney Glenna Malanca and Deputy City Clerk Paula Johnston. The meeting opened with the Pledge of Allegiance led by Coundl Vice-President Montgomery, and invocation given by Reverend William Wambsganss of West Side Baptist Church. Vice-President Montgomery made the following announcements: (1) The City Council held a Study Session prior to the Council meeting to discuss general Council Business. (1) The City Council will hold a 45-minute Executive Session immediately following the meeting tonight to discuss "Personnel", in the Council Conference room. CONSENT AGENDA A. Purchase of Process Control System Equipment for #AB98-262 Wastewater Treatment Plant B. Interlocal Agreement (Renewal) for City of Port #AB98-263 Orchard for Traffic Signal Maintenance #0030 MISICIU (McConnell/Law) Motion to approve 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. #0060 M/S/C/U (Arends/McConnell) On November 24, 1998, the Council does approve for payment those vouchers included and further described as follows: 225757, 225758, and 225783 through 225952 in the amount of $667,662.82; and Retiree Payroll for the period ending November 30, 1998 in the amount of $111,699.64. COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS Mrs. Arends stated she has not received any reports of major damage from the storm. She also wished everyone a happy Thanksgiving. TAPE #1582 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes November 24, 1998 Page 2 of 7 Mr. Shepherd announced he was happy to be home after a recent trip to Ohio. He then provided a brief report on his recent District 5 meeting, and thanked all that participated. He was happy to report that there have been zero burglaries in the Block Watch areas of his district, which he attributed to active Block Watch programs. He encouraged citizens to do their holiday shopping in Bremerton. Mr. Law announced two new businesses in the Manotto area, "Manette Book & Coffee House", and "Larry & Kristi's Bakery'. Vice-President Montgomery gave a report on a recent experimental burning done on a few buildings on Wycoff Avenue painted with a special fire-retardant paint. A Company promoting the paint, which cost $50.00 per gallon, paid the cost for 100 gallons of paint for a total cost of $5,000. The fire was slowed a little bit, however, the paint does not replace a sprinkler system. He stressed that the paint only slows the burning of the building, and does not put the fire out. MAYORS REPORT Mayor Horton provided a follow-up report on the storm. She did not hear of any extensive damage, although there has been a torrential down pouring of rain. She wished everyone in the community a Happy Thanksgiving, and urged safe driving. PUBLIC RECOGNITION Susan Brown, Bremerton resident, asked the status of the Ethics Committee. She reminded the City that the deadline to pass the Ethics Law was set for the end of December, and was it yet available for review? 8A - BUDGET ADJUSTMENT FOR THE EQUIPMENT RENTAL RESERVE FUND AND STREET FUND, #AB98-264 This adjustment will correct the budget for the acquisition of computers from the Equipment Rental Reserve Fund for use in traffic signal maintenance. The original budget anticipated the computers to be a capital acquisition however prices on the equipment have decreased to the point that the computers do not exceed the City's $2,500 threshold for capitalization. Rich Hanna, City Treasurer, stated that the items were included in the original budget, but as capital acquisitions. Due to the price changes, those items should be treated as consumable supplies. because those items do not meet the capitalization threshold, which is at unit cost of $2,500 each. Public comment- none. #0500 M/S/C/U (Law/Arends) Motion to approve Budget Adjustment No. 98-32. 9A - ORDINANCE (FIRST READING) SETTING WATER AND WASTEWATER RATES, #AB98-265 TAPE #1582 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes November 24, 1998 Page 3 of 7 The proposed ordinance will increase the City's retail water and wastewater rates by an average of 3% effective January 1, 1999. Staff analysis indicates that this increase is necessary to allow the utility to meet the costs of current operations and to implement the capital improvements, which are mandated to meet environmental and water quality regulations. Rich Hanna, City Treasurer, stated that an average 3% increase would be applied to water and wastewater rates, and applied to fixed, rather than the volumetric portion, of the utility bills. For a City resident, the increase would be about $.25 per month for a single-family residence, with a sewer bill increase of about $.95 per month. For residents outside incorporated-Bremerton, the water bill would increase $.40 per month and the sewer bill would increase about $1.10 per month. Del Knauss, Bremerton resident, asked what the total increase has been since 1991. He also wanted to know why single-family homes pay the same rate as buildings with multiple units. He believes the rates should be per unit, so those single-family units are not subsidizing multiple units. Lastly, he felt this Resolution should have been placed on the Agenda at least a month ago, and not so close to the holiday season. John Thomas expressed his concerns about the rate increases. He suggested the City take Capital Expenditures out of sewer rates, and apply them to property taxes, which would allow the amount to be included as a federal income tax deduction. Roy Runyon stated he was adamantly opposed to the rate increase. He asked what Public Works has done to contain and reduce costs. He also expressed his concern at the lack of accountability, particularly concerning the $3 million spent defending the lawsuit brought by West Hills residents, and the additional money spent on appeals. Mr. Hanna stated he would need to do a little research to provide an answer about accumulative rate increases. He previously mentioned rate increases as they would apply to a single-family residence only as an example, but clarified that the increase would also apply to all other classes of customers. Regarding multiple structures, he pointed out they typically have larger meters, so pay a proportionately higher fixed rate, and will therefore see a larger increase over a single-family meter. In the case of wastewater, multiple family structures pay per unit. He explained that generally changes in water and wastewater rates have been done in the month of December, to be effective the beginning of the new year. This could be changed at the wishes of the Council. The Public Works Department goes through the same budget review process with the Mayor and the Council as all other departments of the City. During the reviews, a considerable level of scrutiny was applied to budgets submitted, and were rewritten a number of times in an attempt to control costs. Roy Mclnnis asked if public comment would still be taken at Second Reading of this ordinance. Vice-President Montgomery stated yes. TAPE #1582 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes November 24, 1998 Page 4 of 7 Mr. McConnell referred to the Assessment Fee Schedule on page 28 of the Agenda Packet (or page 6 of the ordinance), and questioned why Single-Family residences were paying a higher base charge than a duplex on 1 meter or a multiple family unit. In addition, for the past two years, he stated he has disagreed with the rate being assessed to the base charge, while the City has not raised the amount charged for water use. He stated the City should charge an additional cost to the larger users of water. Mr. Hanna pointed out that the Single Family base charge is a proposed rate of $7.35 per account, whereas the duplex and multi-family are at a base charge proposed rate of $5.85 per unit. He stated that studies conducted show that an average unit in a duplex or multi-family building will use approximately 70% of the water that the average single family residence will use. Mr. McConnell was not convinced of this. Mayor Horton stated that several years ago, direction was received by a consensus of the Council to base increases on the fixed portion rather than the volumetric portion due to fluctuations in usage throughout the year. Mr. Montgomery also objected to the fact that rental properties have a cheaper rate per unit than a single-family residence. #1160 M/SIC (Reed/McConnell) Motion not to approve the Ordinance increasing utility rates. Vote on motion: In Favor: Olsen, McConnell, Shepherd, Reed Oppose: Law, Arends, Montgomery Motion passed. Mayor Horton asked for budgetary direction from the Council to balance the Utility budget. She explained the increase in rates proposed tonight was not discretionary or to supplement cost overruns, but rather to pay for fees for programs mandated by the State, Federal, and Consent Decree. These projects are locked in, and the City has no discretion in dealing with them. However, if Council wanted to have a Study Session to discuss how the City charges, or the possibility of increasing the charges to multi-family units, she is open to that. Mr. Law asked how much time is needed to have this ordinance to take effect the first of the year? Mr. Hanna stated the passing of the ordinance on first reading would take place one week, with a second reading the following week. Publication would happen approximately two days after that, and then it would become effective 10 days from that date. Language is contained in the ordinance implementing the rate changes on January 1, 1999. Mr. Law stated there is still time to meet that date, and suggested that a study session be scheduled right away to discuss this issue. Carlos Montgomery asked the Council members who voted against passing the ordinance to be prepared to indicate to the City where the money will come from in the event of a shortfall. TAPE #1582 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes November 24, 1998 Page 5 of 7 Carol Arends asked Mr. Hanna for information, including specific numbers, showing the impact to the budget if this ordinance does not pass. Mayor Horton stated that she could show Council which projects would not be completed due to lack of money. She stated the Council must also keep in mind that the operation of the Wastewater Treatment Plant is pretty well fixed, and it must be kept in mind that if enough money is not put back into the system, there will be problems repeated as in the past. Mr. Shepherd felt that the Public Works Department and staff have vastly improved their services, and pointed out that the failure of this ordinance to pass was not intended to be a criticism of their operation. Mr. Reed agreed that Public Works and the Mayor have done a first-class job having an excellent Public Works system. However, he believed that the City had a negative reputation in terms of the 'ever-escalating" utility costs, which continue to go up, making this community non-viable for residential and commercial investment. He stated we need to "draw the line" and stop putting the burden on the ratepayer, and did not believe that continued rate increases are the only answer. Mayor Horton referred to a newspaper article printed a few days ago stating that utility and sewer rate increases, higher than those planned for the City of Bremerton, are planned for Central Kitsap, and these rates will continue to go up into the foreseeable future. She said to consider not only the burden placed upon the City by the State and Federal government, but also the fact that the community has environment concerns and a desire for quality drinking water. She stated she was open to any other ideas the Council may have to pay other dollars into the system. She pointed out one reason the City is able to keep the water rate so low is due to the 8500 acre water shed with a logging operation. Additionally, the City has a system in place to utilize the sludge, rather than paying costs to transport and dispose of it. Mr. McConnell wanted to know if it was possible to split the motion for the increase in water rates from the increase in wastewater rates; and could an ordinance be passed to become effective January 1, 1999, regardless of when Council actually did pass the ordinance? Mr. Hanna stated it would take an amendment to the motion from the Council to split the water and wastewater increases; and stated an effective ordinance would need to be in place on the date the new rates would change. For the rates to become effective on January 1, 1999, there would need to be time to follow the ordinance process, along with time to publicize the notice. As of today, there is still time to bring the ordinance back next week. 9B - ORDINANCE (FIRST READING) REDUCING THE B&O TAX ON GARBAGE AND REFUSE BUSINESS. #AB98-266 This ordinance will continue the process, which began in January of 1995, of gradually reducing the B&O tax on garbage and refuse businesses within the City to a level consistent with other utility tax rates. The intention is to reduce the tax rate by one percent each year until the rate is reduced to six percent. TAPE #1582 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes November 24, 1998 Page 6 of 7 Rich Hanna, City Treasurer, stated this is a continuing process, attempting to lower the tax rate that the City believes to be too high. The difficulty has been balancing the City's General Fund budget. This year's 1% decrease is a lowering of revenue to the General Fund of approximately $47,500, so incremental steps are being taken to lessen the effect over time. Public comment - none. Mr. Reed asked why the B&O tax is levied on the garbage and refuse business, and not the ratepayer, and why this business only. Mr. Hanna explained that the B&O tax is levied on the garbage and refuse business, who will in turn recover those costs through user rates. Mayor Horton explained the B&O tax on garbage applies to every user of garbage in the City. Brem-Air collects the tax, but it is a City tax. There is a direct correlation with the tax that appears on a rate payers bill, and the lower percentage should appear the next garbage bill. #1910 M/SIC (Reed/Shepherd) Motion to approve on first reading the Ordinance reducing B&O tax on garbage and refuse businesses. Vote on motion: In Favor: Law, Arends, Montgomery McConnell, Shepherd, Reed Abstain: Olsen Motion passed. 10A - PUBLIC HEARING AND RESOLUTION NO. 2680. APPEALING OF A SHORELINE VARIANCE - APPELLANT: PAUL SCHEYER; LOCATION: 922 SHORELINE DRIVE, #AB98-267 Council must decide if the appellant's arguments for denial of the Coutt's Shoreline Variance SLV 98-0002 justify rescinding the Planning Commission's decision of approval of October 20, 1998. John Holan, Planning Manager, provided a history of the process this issue has taken to date. Council Vice-President explained that this was a closed hearing in accordance with the provisions of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW 36.70(b).050), and read the Appearance of Fairness question: 1) If any Council member believes their participation would conflict with the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine, he/she should excuse himself/herself; and 2) If any member of the public believes any Council members should excuse themselves due to a conflict with the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine. Mr. Law notified the Council that he met the Coutt's at a neighborhood get-together for the first and only time, and did feel that this constituted a conflict of interest for him. TAPE #1582 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes November 24, 1998 Page 7 of 7 Mr. McConnell notified Council of a conversation he had with Mr. Paul Scheyer concerning the pros and cons of State Bill No. 1724, but did not discuss this particular issue. He stated he was not influenced either way. Vice President Montgomery notified Council that he received several calls from Mr. Scheyer, but not on this issue Mr. Reed stated that after a review of the proposal, it was fairly clear that the applicant does not have to put in all of his permits at one time as a consolidated application. He can apply only for the Shoreline Variance. He asked if specific "hardship issues" as stated in the application were provided. Mr. Holan verified that spedtic hardship issues were not provided, and also clarified that from a procedural standpoint, he has reviewed the RCW for compliance. The "hardship" issue is the arbitrary element to this process. Mr. McConnell referred to the comment in the application that the appellant "ignored the view corridor requirements of the Bremerton Shoreline", and asked if there has been a request for a building? Mr. Holan stated no, and verified that the "view corridor requirement" does not apply. Mr. Law made the observation that the Planning Commission unanimously approved this request; the neighbors adjacent to the proposed construction do not object; and the appellant is a resident of an area at least two to three miles away. Public comment was not taken due to this being a closed record hearing. #2240 MISICIU (Law/OIsen) Motion to pass Resolution No. 2680 affirming the Planning Commission's decision for a Shoreline Setback Variance. With no further business, meeting adjourned at 6:35 P.M. CARLOS MONTGOMERY, Council Vice-President City of Bremerton PJ/CM/Is C: Normal Distribution FileNault