Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/30/97 TAPE #1514 CITY COUCIL MEETING MINUTES DECEMBER 30, 1997 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 December 30 1997, at 5:30 P.M., with Council President David Farr presiding. Council members present were Carlos Montgomery, Sherril Huff- Menees, Richard Neville, Lon Overson, John Law, Cedi McConnell, and Al Colvin. 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 Councilman Al Colvin. President Farr made the following announcements: 1. Council held a Study Session prior to the Council meeting to discuss general Council business; 2. Council will hold a Study Session Monday, January 5, 1998, from 5:30 to 7:30 P.M. to discuss 1) Economic Development Plan/City of Tacoma Presentation; 2) Discussion on Development of Fund 104 (Hotel/Motel Tax) Contracts; and 3) an Executive Session to discuss "Contract Negotiations"; and 3. Item 8B has been pulled from the Agenda tonight. CONSENT AGENDA A. Minutes of Meeting - December 17, 1997 #AB97-273 #0030 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 4224.080, 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. #0050 M/SICIU (Colvin/Montgomery) On December 30, 1997, the Council does approve for payment those vouchers included and further described as follows: Retiree Payroll in the amount of $98,533.74; and 215609 through 215723 in the amount of $215,493.24. TAPE #1514 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December 30, 1997 Page 2 of 15 COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS Mr. Montgomery. read a quote from a current book he is reading, "there is but one thing we know, and that is nothing forever, remains the same, there is always change..." Mrs. Huff-Menees stated this meeting would bring a close to her term as a Bremerton Councilman. She thanked the constituents of District #7 for allowing her to represent them for the last four years. It has been all that she has hoped it would be, and more. She has enjoyed the wonderful experience, and believes that the those on the Council have very well served the residents of the City of Bremerton. She has continuously been impressed and amazed by the degree of dedication, time, and energy that these people have put into their work. If she could make one request of the public, it would be to respect this process. She thanked her colleagues, the Mayor, and the staff of the City of Bremerton. Mr. Neville also expressed his thanks for his six years on Council, and stated that it has been a privilege to do this job, and has always tried to do it to the best of his ability. He leaves with a sense of pride in knowing that all the people who work for the City truly do a magnificent job. Mr. Overson stated this has been a good Council due to their participation and professional approach to the process. He further stated they would be missed, and wished them well. Mr. Law wished the departing Council members well, and to Mr. Colvin he expressed thanks for the good job he has done serving the residents of the City, and wished them "fair winds and following sea". Mr. McConnell wished the departing Councilmen a "bon voyage". He thanked them for their help, and stated it was through them that he learned the meaning of the term "agree to disagree". It has been a pleasure to work with this Council for the past two years. He then welcomed the four new Council members. Mr. Colvin stated he had a lot to say, but not much time. He thanked all of the Councilmen he has worked with for the past 12 years, he thinks highly of all of them, without exceptions. The experience for him has been wonderful, and he thanked all of the citizens of District 1 for electing him for 3 straight terms. He also thanked the Mayor for her cooperation through the years, and stated that she and the staff have served the City well. Mr. Farr presented outgoing Councilmen Al Colvin, Sherril Huff-Menees, Richard Neville, and Bob Winters plaques, honoring them for their significant contributions while serving on the Council. In addition, he thanked the residents and staff from Claremont East Retirement Apartments for their financial TAPE #1514 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December 30, 1997 Page 3 of 15 contribution to replace the Scotch broom at the northern end of the Warren Avenue Bridge. MAYOR'S REPORT Mayor Lynn Horton also thanked the outgoing Council members, and relayed a story about one of her first experiences, which conveyed how difficult this job can be. There will be issues where even after you do your best to make the best possible decision you can, with the information you are given, there still may be those who will feel you made the wrong decision. She knows that it is not an easy position, but she thanked Sherril, Richard, and Al for making her tenure much more pleasant, and her time on the City Council and as Mayor very special. She hopes the new Council members are as successful in their endeavors as these three have been. She wished everyone a happy New Year. PUBLIC RECOGNITION David Boynton, Bremerton resident and Vice-President of Bremerton Main Street, stated that last week Carol Atkinson, Executive Director of Bremerton Main Street presented Al Colvin with a plaque to show their appreciation for his support. Tonight, he presented a plaque to Bob Winters in recognition of the support that he has also shown through the years. He wished the outgoing Councilmen good luck and best wishes, and welcomed the new members. Bob Winters thanked Mr. Boynton for the plaque, and also took this time to thank lan Sievers, City Attorney; and Mrs. Merilynn Erhart, City Council Legislative Assistant, for all of the help they provided to him during his years on the Council. Susan Brown, Bremerton resident, stated her opinion that the formal complaint she filed with the City Council involving two Council members was not addressed in the manner prescribed in the Bremerton Municipal Code. She feels strongly that changes need to be made to the City's Ethics Ordinance. Patricia Mathes, member of Westsound Cable Access, announced Bremerton has two community access centers. Westsound Cable Access is currently located on Pacific Avenue and open for business as a non-profit organization. 8A - GRANTS WRITER CONTRACT - JEFFRY YOUNG, #AB97-274 The attached Professional Services Agreement with Jeffry Young for grants writing services is for a period of one year at the rate of $1,250 per month. Kathleen McCluskey, Director of Administrative Services, explained Mr. Young would be replacing the City's previous Grants Writer, who left to take another position. Mr. Young has already stated work and has met with the Utilities representatives in order meet several grant deadlines in January. Public comment - none TAPE #1514 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December 30, 1997 Page 4 of 15 Mr. McConnell stated he was impressed with Mr. Young's resume and questioned how he could obtain an English version of the "You Can Quite Smoking" publication. Mr. Young stated that document is available through the Agency For Health Care Policy Research/Washington, D.C. #0801 M/S/C/U (Montgomery/Huff-Menees) Motion to approve Professional Service Contract with Jeffry young. 8C - BREMERTON KITSAP ACCESS TELEVISION - KITSAP COUNTY FUNDING AGREEMENT~ #AB97-276 On 8/1/97, the City assumed management of BKAT. This funding agreement provides for payment to the City from the County to provide Public access Services retroactive to 8/1/97. The County will forward 16 cents per customer pass through charge to the City for this purpose. Five cents of the pass through will be used to purchase equipment for County cablecast. The agreement is for a 17-month period 8/1/97 to 12/31/98. Kathleen McCluskey, Director of Administrative Services, pointed out in addition to the budget shown for 1998, there will be a $24,000 payment from Kitsap County to the City for August through December 1997. This particular agreement is for public access for management and capital. The City will manage for a period of 17 months and the intent of the contract is for the city to evaluate public access mid year 1998, to determine how it should be operated. She views this proposal as an interim agreement, which will be brought before the Kitsap County Commissioners in January 1998. The mid-year evaluation will come to the City Council. This proposal will keep public access going and it will also get Kitsap County public access up and running. Sheldon Parr, Vice Chair of Westsound Community Access TV, commented on Councilman Colvin's retirement and the fact he will be missed by residents of District #1. He referenced the Draft 1998 Budget in the documentation and questioned the statement: "TCI prepared $55,000 to the City to purchase new equipment." Mr. Parr stated that $55,000, according to the documentation, is in lieu of 31 months worth of .21 cent per month pass through money. He asked if this decision had already been made or was it a possibility or suggestion and if so, where did it originate? Garett Seick, Chairman of the Westsound Cable Access TV Board of Directors and Acting Director and Falcon Cable subscriber, stated he was curious about when the negotiations with Kitsap County began. After talking with County personnel, he was under the impression that no agreements or settlements had been made regarding potential contracts and any further action would take place after the first of the year. He was also curious as to who the points of contact were for the County and the City, and how Bremerton has funded Bremerton Kitsap Access Television since its inception in August 1997. He also wanted to TAPE #1514 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December 30, 1997 Page 5 of 15 know if any alternative had been presented to the City Council regarding pass through monies and the amount of funding needed, and what knowledgeable professionals were incorporated into the decision making process. He referenced the Agenda Bill, Section 5 - Impact on Non-Passage, which stated "The City will lack adequate funding to provide public access services." His response to that statement was that it was not true and other alternatives were available. Mrs. McCluskey stated in response to the questions posed by Mr. Parr and Mr. Seick, the $55,000 was agreed to in the City's Franchise Agreement with TCI, which as approved by the City Council in October 1997. The City was fortunate that TCl was willing to front the money so that the City's equipment could be replaced. Council will soon be seeing the new equipment that will be acquired through a bid call. The City also conducted the bid call for the County for their equipment in the Commissioner's Chambers. Regarding negotiations with Kitsap County, there have not been any negotiations and she was not aware of staff meeting with the County Commissioners. The County did hold a public meeting/work session a week ago, which Mrs. McCluskey attended. At that meeting, they set an appointment to for her to meet with Commissioner Endresen only to discuss the contract. The County will hold two or three public meetings in In January to discuss this issue. The City allocated funds in the 1997 budget for public access, which is being used to fund Bremerton Kitsap Community Access as well as the non-pass though funding coming from TCI. When the backdated County funds are received, they will be used to cover costs that were not previously covered with the current staffing and no capital purchases or expansion of the program. She was not sure what was meant by other alternatives being considered. The City Council was presented with the program and contracts that the Administration believes the City should follow. At this point, no alternatives are being suggested and the recommendation is to enter into a one-year contract (17-months), but one-year forward and to decide after that point the future direction for public access. In reference to the statement that Kitsap County would be unable to provide public access services, they may not be unable, but it would take more funding than currently available. All of the equipment, except what was purchased earlier in the year by the County, belong to the City of Bremerton's public access and the studio at TCl is part of City of Bremerton public access, which was part of the negotiated contract, not part of the County. The intent of the contract is to merge what is owned by the City and the County, i.e. having one director, sharing equipment, etc. She believed it would be difficult, if not impossible, for the County to adequately provide public access without the use of a studio, channel and all of the equipment. The question as to the points of contact at the City and County, Ms. McCluskey is the City's representative, Bruce Stier of Bremerton Kitsap Access Television and Bill Parren and William Nogle for Kitsap County. These individuals were involved in putting together the County and City contract proposal. TAPE #1514 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December 30, 1997 Page 6 of 15 8D - BREMERTON KITSAP ACCESS TELEVISION - KITSAP COUNTY GOVERNMENTAL SERVICES AGREEMENT, #AB97-277 The County is purchasing Governmental Services specifically for the broadcast of County Commissioner meetings, Hearing Examiner meetings and Planning Commission. The scope of service developed by the BKAT Executive Director estimates a cost of $39,500 for these services. This is a fiat rate contract for a one-year period. Governmental Services requirements may change from year to year. Additional services shall be at the rate of $50.00 per hour. Kathleen McCluskey, Director of Administrative Services, explained this proposal is part "B" of the first contract for governmental services for a one-year period commencing January 1, 1998. Payment for the services will not commence until they are actually on line and programming, which she anticipates by March 1. The City concluded the bid process for new equipment to equip the County commissioner's Chambers and once installed County Commissioner meetings, Hearing Examiners meetings and Planning Commission meetings will be broadcast live with playback capabilities. The County will be producing a program titled "Inside Kitsap County". For those services they will pay $39,500.00 per year or an incremental portion depending on start date of the contract. Mrs. McCluskey noted the Commissioners want to expand their programming and have funding available to meet those costs. Public comment - none. Mr. Montgomery questioned for clarification if the County would be broadcasting live in March? Mrs. McCluskey explained if the interconnect between the County and Falcon Cable TV is not complete at that time it will not be a live broadcast, but rather recorded and played back. Once the interconnect is complete that programming will be live with playback during evening hours. Mr. McConnell questioned the hours (24) identified for broadcasting County Planning Commission meetings? Mrs. McCluskey explained the numbers are estimates, which will be re-evaluated at the end of the year. The assumption was one Planning Commission meeting per month for an average of 2-hours each. Mr. Law questioned how would potential conflict of broadcasting between County and City programs be handled? Mrs. McCluskey stated regular schedules would be set up for the City and County in advance. If there is a conflict in special scheduling, then it will be first-come-first served. #1452 MISICIU(Huff-Menees/Montgomery) Motion to approve funding agreement with Kitsap County for BKAT services. TAPE #1514 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December 30, 1997 Page 7 of 15 9A - RESOLUTION #2641 RE-AUTHORIZING AN INTERFUND LOAN FROM THEWATER FUND TO THE WASTEWATER FUND~ #AB97-278 By Resolution No. 2574, the City Council authorized an inter-fund loan from the Water Fund to the Wastewater Fund. The size of the current loan was limited to $3 million and the term was limited to the end of the current year. It is requested that the term of the loan be extended to December 31, 1998 and that the size of the loan be increased to $4.5 million. Gene Sampley, Director of Public Works and Utilities, stated this resolution was previously authorized to accommodate some cash flow issues within the Wastewater Fund. It was originally projected that those cash flow issues would be resolved in 1997 and thus the initial resolution was to be terminated December 31, 1997. However, significant events, i.e. (1) negotiations with the U.S. Navy on new rates did not produce the cash that would help off-set some of the monies, but the City anticipates receiving those funds in the near future. (2) Surplus of property, which is an issue on Council's Agenda for this meeting, was projected to have occurred prior to the end of 1997. Public comment - none. Mr. Overson expressed concern that this issue had gone on for some time and he had reservations about financing through interfund loans. Mr. Sampley stated he agreed particularly on a long-term basis; however, he felt it was appropriate on a short-term situation. On things that makes this saleable is a recent Iow interest loan through the State Revolving Fund for Construction of a $4.5 million improvement to the City's water system in 1997. Because the fund will be repaid in 1998, he did not see the necessity to consider Bond financing or any other type of institutional financing when money is available internally. He views it as good business move. Mr. Overson pointed out generally interfund loans are a sign of a problem; however, it appears there is a solution within 1998. President Farr questioned of the $4.5 million approximately what percentage will be resolved when the Navy money is received and sale of the properties? Mr. Sampley stated the incremental amount of $1.5 million will be accommodated by receipt of the Navy's payment and $3 million will be offset by the sale of properties. President Farr pointed out the Resolution did include provision for interest at 5%. Mr. Sampley explained it was necessary to conduct this transaction in a businesslike manner and the Water Fund will receive market interest as though it was invested in any other type of investment. #1660 M/S/C/U (Montgomery/Huff-Menees) Motion to adopt Resolution #2641, authorizing an interfund loan from the Water Fund to the Wastewater Fund. 10A - ORDINANCE #4618 (SECOND READING) SETTING WATER AND WASTEWATER RATES, #AB97-271 TAP E #1514 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December 30, 1997 Page 8 of 15 Public comment - none. #1789 MISICIU (Montgomery/Colvin) to pass Ordinance #4618, on second reading, setting Utility rates. 10B - ORDINANCE #4619 (SECOND READING) AMENDING SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM DOCKS/PIERS IN OYSTER BAY CHANNEL, #AB97-272 lan Sievers, City Attorney, pointed out some minor corrections: (1) language under Section 3 was corrected to reflect the language that was used in the example draft, which was suggested during first reading of the ordinance. (2) Change to Section 4 - adding a sentence to take into account at least one SEPA appeal that has been filed on the threshold DNS and staying the transmittal of the final ordinance to the Department of Ecology for its consideration until that appeal process is resolved. The following individuals spoke in favor of the proposed ordinance: Susan Holland, So. Marine Drive resident; Kathleen Wright, Poulsbo resident; Bernard Holland, So. Marine Drive resident; Kathy Gallagher, Madrona Point Drive resident; Patrick Munns, Bremerton resident; Rick Verhelst, Oyster Bay resident. The following comments were made in support of the ordinance: (1) piers or docks would present safety and navigational hazard as well as a violation of public trust. I (2) Views will be destroyed; (3) property values will be adversely affected and make stretches of waterfront less desirable and harder to sell; (4) It was appropriate that this issue comes before the currently seated Council considering the fact several will be leaving at the end of the year. (5) Council's role is to balance the public good with private rights and to balance the private rights of individuals with the private rights of others. (6) Property rights mean different things to different people and the rights of those who live on the channel to enjoy their property unencumbered by view of a dock are equally as important as property rights of those who may wish to build a dock. (7) To construct on or over public property is a privilege not a right. (8) The proposed ordinance is not about property rights, rather changing an environmental designation that is need to prevent inappropriate construction within a narrow constricted area. (9) Waterfront property owners have a responsibility to the public safety and good and docks lining the channel would not further this end. (10) The channel is not the right location for docks and piers. (11) Crippling water skiing accidents on Oyster Bay have involved structures around the bay and in the channel. Jim Reed, Madrona Point resident, requested that he be given 15 minutes to speak for those in opposition to the proposed ordinance. President Farr asked those in the audience, who were opposed to the proposed amendments, if they wished to have Mr. Reed speak for them and their position. Mr. Reed was granted the 15-minute time allotment. Mr. Reed stated the question that cries TAPE #1514 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December 30, 1997 Page 9 of 15 out mostly to him is why an amendment to the Shoreline Master Plan (SMP)? The existing document, under Section 11, clearly states that piers and floating docks shall be prohibited where navigation may be impaired significantly at entrances to bays, channels and covers. Of the 61 plus homes on the channel, possibly 16 homes at those entrances would be restricted from building such structures. The difference between 4-8 homes is where the boats travel in reference to the property. Section 11 - LOCATION states: "Piers and Docks shall project the minimum distance necessary to service the vessel and shall not create a hazard to navigation." He does not support banning all docks in the channel because some docks may propose a hazard to navigation, which has never been proven by the City. He pointed out no one has conducted a study to prove where boats travel, how they travel and what would be considered a hazard to navigation. The Army Corps of Engineers have studied two locations and have yet to release their findings because the permits are tied up in appeals. In regard to comments about public trust violation, as per conversation with the Shorelines Hearings Board, there have never been a perfected legal suit against the State for violating the public trust by granting a recreational dock. Reference has been made to the case of Wilber vs. Gallagher where there was a violation of public trust, which took place in Lake Chelan where an area at the end of the lake was filled in with dirt. He emphasized a 4-foot wide dock would not be a violation of the public trust and the State has the right to grant the approval as does the City and Department of Ecology and Army Corps of Engineers. If you apply that violation to public trust to a simple recreational dock, you must apply it to the City's waterfront boardwalk, the marina and the 200 marine slips in Port Orchard and new ferry terminal. He referenced a remark made by Councilman Neville about how the docks would be allowed to go to 5 feet deep at minus 2 tide and pointed out how inaccurate the City has provided information to the Council members. Mean Iow water is approximately half tide. Mr. Reed went into detail about tide calculations and the affect it would have within the subject area. He also pointed out the SMA encourages joint use docks over single use and his proposed dock was for four houses, which in affect would significantly reduce the number of potential docks. He acknowledged there is a speed problem created by boats using the channel even though a speed limit already exists in Kitsap County. He questioned why take away his property rights because the City refuses to even post the speed limit. He suggested speed limits be posted and installing a no-wake buoy at each end of the channel thereby reducing 99% of the speed problem. In regard to the reference to the Noah map, they are aerial photos and there never has been a site inspection or physically measured the channel. He emphasized if the amendments are approved they must meet the intent of the SMA of 1971. The subject area is not a critical area, but it is one of the most heavily developed piece of waterfront that includes sewage pump stations every quarter mile that consistently spill sewage into the bay, bulkheads everywhere and the east side is lined with septic tanks, shell fish cannot be eaten. Mr. Reed read various passages out of the 1971 SMA that addressed procedures. In conclusion, he did not believe that the Council TAPE #1514 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December 30, 1997 Page 10 of 15 was given all the information regarding hydrology, geography, topography, ecology, economics and other pertinent data as it relates to this issue. Bob Winters, Bremerton resident, stated he was speaking neither in favor or opposing the proposed amendments, but rather the position he took on the issue when he was seated as a City council member. As Councilman of District #9, he was asked by the Kitsap Lake Neighborhood Association constituency to vote no on the dock moratorium because the Kitsap Lake property owners purchased $200,000+ homes to have the right to apply and go through the process to build docks/piers. His decision at that time, not only listening to his constituents, but understanding the fact that all citizens in the City have property rights to do what they want to apply with the City under the SMA and they have equal right to be denied. Both sides understand one issue...you have the right to apply, the document is in place, and there are no docks in the channel at this point and apparently the document works. TAPE #1515 .( A portion of this tape was defective.) Mr. Montgomery stated he read the Shoreline Management Act of 1971 and quoted from Section 90.58.020 - Legislative Findings State Enunciated, Use Preference. He emphasized we are suppose to take care of the shorelines and manage them according to State Law. Nowhere has it been shown that either side has a scientific fact that it will or not affect ecology, the environment, or navigation. The moratorium deals primarily with three issues of navigational hazards, aesthetic value, and environmental impacts. The discussion of navigational hazards must be recognized as the channel water surface declines by about 40% with tidal changes. The aesthetic issue, as stated by the proponents is in the eye of the beholder. It is difficult to see how one or several docks would promote enhanced public interest. In the absence of specific science regarding the environmental affects of docks in the channel, it is a fantasy to believe that their introduction in the channel would in any way minimize adverse environmental impact rather than represent the introduction of undetermined adverse impact. He stressed Council must determine the best use of the shoreline and how it will be protected. #0299 M/S/C (Montgomery/Overson) Motion to pass Ordinance #-4619, on second reading, amending the City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program adopted by Ordinance #4365, to restrict docks and piers in the channel between Oyster Bay and Ostrich Bay. Mr. McConnell questioned when the tide is in does that water become the property of the owner of the tideland or is it public property? lan Sievers, City Attorney, stated it was probably inappropriate to use the term "property" in a total sense of all property rights either belong to the public or private upland owner. Property is seen in modern days as a bundle of property rights. What the public TAPE #1514 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December 30, 1997 Page 11 of 15 has is a set of property right uses that ebb and flow with the water both recreational and navigational uses and the public's right goes with the water. Mr. McConnell referenced Mr. Reed's comment that sewage was spilling into Oyster Bay, he believed it was common knowledge that tidal movement has a tendency to "cleanse" and area. It appears to him that pilings driven into the bottom of the channel would restrict that cleansing process and possibly cause a more adverse condition than currently exists. There are many instances where the public's right will override the rights of a private individual. He referenced a letter from the Suquamish Tribe, Fisheries Department, that says the Oyster Bay channel is within the usual and custom fishing area of the Suquamish Tribe and they support the Planning Commission's resolution to prohibit piers and docks because it would be an adverse impact on resources. Further, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife studied the area and discovered marine life that needs to be protected. They are also concerned above adverse impacts on other species of fish that would conflict with the installation of piers. He wished that a compromise could be reached, however, the only compromise he could envision was installing boat rails that would allow property owners to launch boats directly into the bay. President Farr thanked the individuals on both sides of this issue for the professional manner they displayed when speaking on this issue. He was hopeful that the professionalism they displayed during this discussion will carryover into their neighborhoods. He will continue to vote no on this issue and he was fairly sure there would be a good potential that the decision may be overturned later in the process. Mr. McConnell talked about compromise and he too feels there is some ability to compromise without prohibiting things. Mr. Overson stated Council decision to approve the amendments would not prohibit everything, only those things that are inappropriate as presented by the majority of the citizens living on that channel. There are still opportunities for people to enjoy the channel and use it from a recreational standpoint with or without boats. Mr. Law asked for the status on the appeal period that closed on December 26, 1997. Mr. Sievers stated the DNS that was issued with a 14-day comment period was not withdrawn or amended in any way so it became final on December 26, and the Council is free to take action on this non-project item. The one appeal that was discussed about specific appeal to that DNS would be heard about January 21, 1998, because a notice period is needed on the appeal itself. Mr. Law asked if that appeal was by a proponent or opponent? Mr. Sievers stated he assumed an opponent of the DNS thinks there should be more complete discussion and possibly an ElS produced on this non-project action. Mr. Law questioned the person hearing that appeal? Mr. Sievers stated it would come before Council possibly on January 21. TAPE #1514 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December 30, 1997 Page 12 of 15 Mr. Neville stated he did not understand how President Farr could not see that a compromise was when you look at the total impact on the entire City if not the entire County. Kitsap County is second only to San Juan County for shorelines in the State and nowhere has it been shown that there is another unique situation as this that enters from one bay into another through a narrow channel. As a youth and adult he has utilized the area for water skiing and believes that docks in that channel would be and will always be a deterrent to the public good now and well into the future. Mrs. Huff-Menees stated this is an instance where not everyone will be happy with the decision made by the City Council. Last week, following Council's vote on first reading of the ordinance, a constituent told those voting in favor that they should be ashamed of themselves. She is not ashamed of that vote. Council reviewed volumes of information, dozens of letters, read State law and City ordinances, etc., having to do with this issue and then listened to constituents on both sides of the issue. Her sons enjoy water skiing on Oyster Bay, she has personally observed boats racing in and out of Oyster Bay, and she too wished there was more speed enforcement actions taking place. She believes the issue is a matter of safety and protecting the public in a very broad sense. She will continue to vote in favor of the ordinance Vote on Motion: In Favor: Montgomery, Huff-Menees, Neville, Overson, Law, McConnell, Opposed: David Farr Motion carried. 11A - ORDINANCE (FIRST READING) VACATING UNOPENED STREETS IN PLAT OF PORT ORCHARD AND PLAT OF CHARLESTON BY OPERATION OF LAW, #AB97-279 The ordinance vacates by operation of law of a portion of the alley abutting Lafayette north of Porter to allow property maintenance by the abutting owner. This alley was included in a 1994 survey of unopened rights-of-way subject to vacation by operation of law. All other right-of-way fragments in the vicinity subject to vacation by operation of law are proposed for vacation by this ordinance to encourage private maintenance and development, return property to the tax roles, and save administrative processing of repeated requests in the future. These vacations are outside the acquisition area for the SE 304 Transportation Improvement Project. TAPE #1516 lan Sievers, City Attorney, explained this vacation came as a request of a property owner, who was having some difficulty maintaining one of the alleys subject to this ordinance. This action will clarify ownership and the property owners abutting these particular rights-of-ways already actually own the property TAPE #1514 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December 30, 1997 Page 13 of 15 and it is simply a matter of clearing title so that the owners can put the property to a higher and better use and the City escapes any liability or maintenance and it returns them to the tax rolls. Mr. McConnell asked if the subject areas were currently streets or undeveloped rights-of-way? Mr. Sievers stated they have never been developed since being platted, which occurred at the turn of the century. Mr. McConnell questioned whether or not the City would ever want to connect Hartford Avenue straight through as street? Mr. Sievers stated the difficulty with that is even though the City may want to acquire it for right-of-way or circulation, it would have to actually go through a Condemnation as if the platting did not exist because there was an automatic reversion on these very old plats after 5-years of platting, if they were not developed. It is shown on the Auditor's Map, but not on the tax roll; however, it is actually not the City's property to use as right-of-way. President Farr referenced the portion on the map in the Agenda packet that was off the bottom of the page where Lafayette Street parallels Summit Avenue and questioned whether or not access could be made to a couple of lots on Summit Avenue allowing them to be buildable with that access. Mr. Sievers stated none of Lafayette Street was crosshatched on the map, which means it is not subject to the vacation, but there are some alleys entering onto Lafayette that are included in the vacation. #0166 MISICIU (Huff-Menees/Montgomery) Motion to approve ordinance, on first reading, vacating portions of Porter Street, Hartford Avenue, Farragut Street and alleys within Blocks 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14 and 15, all within the Plat of Port Orchard. 1lB - ORDINANCE (FIRST READING) VACATING D, E, F, G, AND H STREETS WEST OF $R$, AND BAYVlEW BE'FWEEN C AND E STREETS, #AB97-280 The ordinance vacates D, E, F, G, and H Streets west of SR 3 and Bayview Avenue between C and E Streets. The City is owner of all property abutting these rights-of-way. lan Sievers, City Attorney, stated as Council is aware the City had a condemnation program in the subject area and the City now has acquired all properties that abut these streets subject to vacation in the proposed ordinance. The City's future use and the zoning do not contemplate the need for these residential access streets in the future; therefore, they are not needed for future traffic circulation. Utility easements are reserved in the ordinance. Tom Yeager, friend of Lovey Nichols, stated he was not sure which streets would be eliminated and questioned if this action would adversely affect Ms. Nichols accessing her property? Mr. Sievers stated the City is not vacating TAPE #1514 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December 30, 1997 Page 14 of 15 Oyster Bay Avenue or C Street abutting the residence Ms. Nichols now occupies. Mr. Yeager questioned the City's intent for the subject area, i.e. development and streets? Mr. Overson stated that did not pertain to this issue. #0293 MISIClU (Huff-Menees/Montgomery) Motion to approve ordinance, on first reading, vacating portions of D, E, F, G and H Streets west of SR 3 and east of Oyster Bay Avenue, and Bayview Avenue between C Street and E Street. 11C- DECLARATION OF SURPLUS PROPERTY WITHIN BLOCKS 14, 20~ 21, 22, 23, 25 AND 28, PLAT OF BREMERTON HEIGHTS, #AB97-281 Title to the parcels in the area north of "C" Street to Wemer Road and west of SR 3 to Oyster Bay Avenue were acquired through negotiated sale and condemnation under Ordinance No. 4533 as part of the City's recent treatment plant odor mitigation program. This acquisition was intended to establish a nonresidential buffer in an area most likely to be impacted by the treatment plant and to acquire property for future plant expansion. The property south of "C" Street is reserved for plant expansion. It is proposed that the balance of property, as described in Exhibit "A" and depicted in the attached vicinity map, be surplused as a single parcel, and Requests for Proposal be solicited, which best meet the following criteria: 1) Compatibility of proposed use with the industrial impacts of the City treatment plant; 2) maximization of disposition proceeds to reimburse the wastewater utility; 3) maximization of long term property, sales and B&O Tax revenue; and 4) strengthening of the Bremerton business environment. Offers will be evaluated and presented to Council for approval of a purchase and sale agreement with the best bidder. Gene Sampley, Director of Public works and Utilities, stated this item was presented to the City Council in a Study Session on December 15, 1997, at which time the City's consultant Ben Pollock presented his evaluation of the properties and the potential for the City to convert the use of this property to commercial. It is the recommendation of the consultant and staff's that this property be surplused and that it be appraised as a single parcel, after the prior Council action to vacate streets makes this a single parcel of property and that request for proposals be solicited and evaluated. Admiral Ross, Cottman Avenue resident, stated he is the only person living on Cottman Avenue between Werner Road and Roosevelt and he was concerned about access to his property. President Farr explained Mr. Ross' concern was not part of this discussion. Mr. Overson pointed out this discussion should answer Mr. Yearger's early question. TAPE #1514 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December 30, 1997 Page 15 of 15 Mr. McConnell asked if the 90% of appraised value would cover all the costs associated with the City's acquisition of the subject properties? Mr. Sampley stated that would not be known until the appraisals are made; however, it was his suspicion that it would not. It was anticipated that there would be a certain investment from the Utility for an equivalency of an insurance premium against odor litigation and the original analysis had an approximate $500,000 value. The cost that the City did incur would be covered through the sale of the property and possible tax incremental financing back to the Utility based on the proposals submitted. #0485 MISICIU (Montgomery/Colvin) Motion to declaring the property described in Exhibit "A" as surplus, directing the Mayor to have prepared appraisal, and Request for Proposals for sale by sealed proposals to that bidder best meeting the above criteria of sale and offering not less than 90% of appraised value. With no further business meeting adjourned at 7:54 P.M. PAULA JOHNSTON, Deputy D"A-~ FA~,,vOity\~C°uncil President City of Bremerton P J/DF/me C: Normal Distribution FileJault