HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/05/97
TAPE #1438
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
FEBRUARY 5, 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, February 5, 1997, at 5:30 P.M.,
with Council President David Farr presiding. Council members
present were Bob Winters, Carlos Montgomery, Sherril Huff-Menees,
Richard Neville, Lon Overson, John Law, Cecil McConnell, and Al
Colvin. Also present were City Attorney Ian Sievers and Acting
City Clerk Paula Johnston.
The meeting opened with the Pledge of Allegiance led by Council
President Farr and Invocation given by Reverend Cleveland Williams
of the Ebenezer A.M.E. Church.
President Farr made the following announcement:
(1) Council held an Executive Session to discuss "litigation" prior
to the Council meeting.
CONSENT AGENUA
A. Minutes -- January 22, 1997 #AB97-019
B. Minutes -- January 29, 1997 #AB97-020
#0064 M/S/C/U(Overson/Neville) 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.
#0089 M/S/C/U(Colvin/Montgomery) on February 5, 1997, the Council does
approve for payment those vouchers included and further described
as follows: 205577 through 205752 in the amount of $373,408.64; and
Regular Payroll for the period ending January 31, 1997, in the
amount of $869,774.37.
COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS
Mr. Winters thanked those who responded to his proposal to organize
a citizen telecommunications advisory committee. He will hold a
meeting on February 24, 7:30 P.M., in the City Council Chambers. He
extended an open invitation to interested citizens to attend that
meeting. Information on that meeting can be obtained by calling
the City Council Office 478-5280.
TAPE #1438
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
February 5, 1997
Page 2 of 32
Mr. Neville noted the recent removal of the fire training tower at
Evergreen Park.
Mr. Oversen referenced a recent newspaper article about crime in
the city, and pointed out the statistics were used in a way to
emphasize that conditions are not as bad as they seem. Also, he
was concerned about the apparent failure of local School Levies and
what messages the voters are sending to the School Boards and
School Administrators. He was hopeful that the School
Administrations would listen to that message and do whatever is
necessary in response to the public's position.
Mr. Law announced the next District #3 Neighborhood Meeting will be
held on February 18, 7:00 P.M., at the Senior Center.
Mr. Colvin congratulated Michael Powers, Marcus Whitman Wrestling
Coach, who refused to make a boy wrestle a girl. In his opinion,
there is room for old fashion common sense. He also extended
congratulations to those citizens that supported Mr. Powers
position on that issue. He congratulated Joanne Marez for the
article on Ed Sheldon, former CEO of the recently merged
Northwestern Bank. Mr. Colvin was glad to know that Mr. Sheldon
will continue to be active within the community. The next District
#1 Neighborhood Meeting will be held on February 20, 1997, 7:00
P.M., at the Sheridan Park Recreation Center. The topics of
discussion at that meeting will be: (1) replacement plantings for
the Scotch broom that was removed from the northwest side of the
Warren Avenue Bridge; (2) the City's proposal to remove parking
from planting strips and the responsiblity for sidewalk repair.
Mr. Colvin asked the City Attorney to state for the public's
benefit the Court case involving the City of Tacoma and their
attempt to make a property owner repair an abutting sidewalk, which
was appealed through Superior Court. Ian Sievers stated Mr. Colvin
referenced the Rivitt case that had to do with the City of Tacoma
trying to find the abutting property owner liable for a third
party's injuries created by a sidewalk defect. The Supreme Court
ruled that maintenance is the City's primary responsiblity and that
liability cannot be created or passed along by the City to the
abutting owner in that case and struck the Tacoma ordinance. The
City of Bremerton adopted a similar ordinance and in the very near
future the City Council will have a new ordinance before them that
will delete the liability of abutting owners for third party
injuries.
MAYOR'S REPORT
Mayor Lynn Horton referenced the crime statistics article in
today's "Sun" newspaper and pointed out part of the problem with
the statistics has to do with the fact that two years ago the
City's records management system was non-functioning. Until
recently, the City had not kept track of those statistics as
TAPE #1438
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
February 5, 1997
Page 3 of 32
reliably as they should have been. Additionally, the 911 calls for
Police services have actually reduced over the past two years. The
majority of the reports she reads reveal that most crime occur when
people are walking around at 2:00-3:00 AM going to a 7-11 store by
themselves, generally having imbibed a great deal of alcohol or
some other substance of their choice. The issue is much different
than the broad numbers indicate. She is concerned about some of
the statistics, but has been concentrating over the past year on
domestic violence, which have shown a decrease.
On Monday Mayor Horton, Council President Farr and councilman Law
met with several U.S. Navy representatives to talk about the
possible homeporting of a third vessel in Bremerton or somewhere
else. The newspaper report was accurate in stating that no one
from the City government attended an evening meeting; however, the
City was given an extensive briefing earlier that day. During that
meeting, many City concerns were identified, which were very broad
that included: housing, transportation, parking, crime statistics,
what the Navy could do to be of assistance to the City should the
homeporting come about and if not to alert them to the fact that
current homeporting does cause some difficulties and opportunities
within the community. She was cheered by the fact the Navy was
trying to go toward an area-wide Command to deal with all issues
that a community has to embark upon, such as the need to go through
someone in San Diego when the City negotiates utility rates with
the Navy; having to deal with someone in Poulsbo when property
acquisition issues come up. To deal with Puget Sound Naval
Shipyard (PSNS) or other military installations in the area the
City deals with PSNS or Admiral Center's office.
PUBLIC RECOGNITION
Kal Leitchman, Bremerton resident, thanked the City government for
providing the City Charter on the Internet. He referenced Charter
Article VII - Section 34 - Member Residency Requirements and B.M.C.
Chapter 2.11, which provides for membership on the Traffic Safety
Commission that included City staff and members of the public that
were not required to be residents of the City, and made the
following statement: "For hearing appeals of that nature there are
City employees whose salaries and tenure basically depend upon the
City government and he believes that is a conflict of interest.
Secondly, he believes people outside of the City do not have the
same feeling for parking in the neighborhoods as the residents."
He believes Council should take that into consideration when they
consider whether or not parking strips are places for people to
park their vehicles. Right now the City has the "stack" against the
people.
Larry Dickerson, Bremerton resident, stated on January 14, 1997,
"THE SUN" ran a letter to the editor about a City Police Officer,
TAPE #1438
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
February 5, 1997
Page 4 of 32
which he replied to based upon hundreds of hours of observing that
officer and other officers performing their duties. He referenced
an article in today's "SUN" as to crime statistics and pointed out
4% of the robberies only occurred to those areas where there were
no Blockwatch programs. About 4-5 months ago, he called his City
Council representative and asked that the Blockwatch Program be
promoted at every Council District Neighborhood meeting. He could
personally testify to the value of the Blockwatch program in his
neighborhood where residents gave input on drug dealing, convicted
felons, pimps/prostitutes, muggers, etc..
Tom Dorton, Bremerton resident, gave a salute and goodby to Kal
Leitchman, who is moving to the City of Everett. Mr. Dorton
complimented Mr. Leitchman on his military service and watchfulness
of City government during his many years as a resident of
Bremerton.
RoY McInnis, Bremerton resident, stated about three weeks ago he
promised Mr. Winters that he would seek out residents of Westpark
to come before the City Council and share their feelings about the
policing services provide in Westpark by City of Bremerton Police
Officers under contract with the Housing Authority. He was
disappointed that no one was able to attend this Council meeting;
however, he will continue that effort. He did conduct sort of a
"survey" of residents in Westpark and in most cases they are
impressed with the way their area has improved in the way of
safety; however, it is wintertime and people stay indoors more so
they will reserve their opinion until the summer months. He
announced the Sinclair Missionary Baptist Church will hold a
Military Day along with a Black History Program, which will include
a dinner, on February 16, 1:00 P.M. Members of the general public
are invited to attend that event.
Carol Atkinson, Bremerton Main Street Association, announced the
mural at 2nd Street and Washington Avenue is being completed.
Also, on April 26 the Westsound Arts Council is sponsoring an Art
Walk during the daytime followed by an elegant evening affair with
the Bremerton Symphony and Westsound Pops at the Admiral Theater.
Don Smith, Olympic Kennels, Belfair, WA., referenced Council's
recent action approving a contract with McDonald Farm Kennel
instead of renewing a contract with Mr. Smith. He handed out a 3-
page letter plus attachments stating his position on the issue of
Kenneling Services for the City of Bremerton's Animal Control
program.
Lorin M. Miller. Bremerton resident, stated over 38 years ago he
began parking his vehicle on the parking strips and he continued
that action until the Bremerton Police told him to stop parking on
TAPE #1438
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
February 5, 1997
Page 5 of 32
the planting strip. Since the Police made him park his truck on
the street rather than on the parking strip, it has been damaged
twice by vehicles traveling down Veneta Street, which is a wide
street. Apparently, the City believes the State is causing the
City to enforce the law to remove parking off of parking strips. He
did not know why the City did not declare the parking (planting)
strips go from sidewalk to sidewalk rather than curb to curb and
allow people to park on them, which he believes is a safer
condition.
7A - CONTRACT EXTEN8ION WITH MEGANE. KALSEN, GRANTS WRITER, #AB97-
021
The city has contracted with M. E. Kalsen for grant writing
services since January 1995. This one year extension provides for
an annual cost of living increase of 3% to total $15,897.84 paid
for services provided during 1997. Also, a conditional clause has
been added whereby M. E. Kalsen may earn an additional $5,000
during 1997, if the Mayor directs her to apply for new grant
opportunities involving the Sinclair Land Project.
Kathleen McCluskey, Director of Administrative Services, stated Ms.
Kalsen has been writing grants for the City the past two years and
has worked will all departments of the City in a wide variety of
areas. She has been extremely successful in this endeavor and the
Administration is requesting that her contract be extended an
additional year, through December 31, 1997.
Megan Kalsen, Grants Writer, stated as the City's grant consultant
for 1996, she aided and provided the City funding opportunities of
over sixteen million dollars. This equates to approximately 23%
of the City's 1996 68.5 million dollar budget. The 16 million of
submitted opportunities include almost 11.5 million dollars of
external funding and just over 4.5 million dollars of City matching
funds and includes those items identified in the Agenda
documentation titled "Exhibit B"; and efforts for both rounds one
and two of the Kitsap Way construction project UATA funding. In
addition to the submitted projects she also contributed to on going
work for the City's portion of the Sinclair landing Association,
which costs have not yet been estimated, and the 1997 36-inch main
project that will cost over 4 million dollars. Also in 1996, two
projects were canceled before being submitted and others were not
attempted for lack of City match and lack of contract time.
So far the City has 10.5 million dollars for 66% of those
submittals accepted for funding with an additional $65,000 of
possible funding. She was pleased to report the City received more
Transportation Grant funding than any other applicant and the City
has a reputation...funding agencies are acquainted with the City
and they expect to have project submitted from the City. Also,
several projects had a second year of applying for funding so they
TAPE #1438
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
February 5, 1997
Page 6 of 32
were familiar to the rating panel and the projects that scored
higher than those submitted by the City were already funded in the
previous year. It also includes Economic Development
Administration money not yet allocated in the Federal budget. Upon
the funding agencies' approval, the City's receipt of these funds
should range from 1997 to 1998 funding cycle.
In 1997, Ms. Kalsen has already contributed to two applications for
1.9 million dollars, which include the Evergreen Park/Smith Cove
Remediation Project, Sylvan Way Sidewalk construction. She is also
working on leveraging funding for the City's portion of two other
large projects, which includes a UATA Application for the City's
portion of Werner Road and the street portion of the Westhills
Commercial District and the Congressional Demonstration Project
application for the SR3/SR304 Gorst-Bremerton project. Ms. Kalsen
concluded her remarks by giving an overview of the data listed on
"Exhibit B".
Mr. Winters stated he hoped a caveat could be added to the contract
at this time whereby Ms. Kalsen could provide grant writing
assistance in the area of telecommunications. He complimented Ms.
Kalsen on doing a "great job". Mrs. McCluskey stated Ms. Kalsen's
base contract provides that assistance without adding anything
additional. Mr. Winters stated he was suggesting adding a
financial incentive.
Public comment - none.
Mr. Neville complimented Ms. Kalsen on doing an outstanding job and
believes the City is lucky to have her expertise. On the issue of
an additional $5,000 for work on the Sinclair landing Project, he
questioned if it should have been worded "up to an additional
$5,000? Mrs. MccluskeV stated the understanding between Ms. Kalsen
and Mayor Horton was that work on Sinclair Landing grants may not
happen in 1997, or it may happen in one huge time allotment, or may
be spread out over a longer period of time. The intent is to have
$5,000 for her grant work on the Sinclair Landing project and how
it is paid would be determined by Mayor Horton based on the amount
of time required.
#1459 M/S/C/U(Overson/Winters) to accept the contract extension with M.
E. Kalsen, City's Grant Writer, and authorize the Mayor to extend
Contract 3605 for one year.
7B - PENDERGAST PARK ENTRANCE ROAD EASEMENT WITH THE WASHINGTON
STATE MILITARY DEPARTMENT, #AB97-022
As part of the Pendergast Park project, a roadway across Washington
State Military Department land was constructed with its knowledge
and consent.
TAPE #1438
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
February 5, 1997
Page 7 of 32
Easements for the roadway have been negotiated with the Military
Department. The easements are for two segments of the road, one
that goes toward the Pope Resources land holdings and can be
converted to public right-of-way at the City's request and the
other is the entrance to Pendergast Park, which will remain an
easement to the City. Consideration for the easement will be borne
by the Parks Department (improvements to Armory entrance) and Pope
Resources (fencing). Approval of the easements is recommended.
Randy Witt, City Engineer, explained obtaining the easement has
been a long process. The easements cover the roadway entrance into
Pendergast Regional Park with one to be converted to public right-
of-way to access the Pope Resources property. Pope Resources has
agreed to share the cost of initial construction of the road and
any improvements that may be required once they start using that
access to facilitate the development of that area.
Public comment - none.
#1564 M/S/C/U(Colvin/Huff-Menees) City Council authorizes and directs the
Mayor to execute the easements with the Washington State Military
Department for the access to Pendergast Park.
7C - WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT ODOR CONTROL PROJECT - AMENDMENT
NO. 10 WITH R. W. BECK FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, #AB97-023
The City has negotiated Amendment #10 to the Professional Services
Agreement with R. W. Beck for construction administration services
on the Wastewater Treatment Plant Odor Control Project. The
amendment is for a not-to-exceed amount of $44,600 and provides
services to the estimated date of project completion. The
additional construction management services are necessary because
of the extended project close-out, punch list completion, warrantee
issue and operation assistance required. Funds for these extended
services are anticipated to be available through liquidated damages
assessed against the contractor. The total amount of the agreement
with R. W. Beck inclusive of Amendment #10 is $2,148,145.87.
Sufficient funds exist in the project budget for this work.
Randy Witt, City Engineer, referenced the table on the first page
of the Amendment, which identifies where the actual task work has
been increased with the most significant portion being the Routine
Construction Management services (civil and mechanical and for
purposes of this contract electrical). Also, cost savings are
identified with construction meetings being canceled as the actual
contractor left the site. Mr. Witt foresees this being the last
amendment required for the project.
Public comment - none.
TAPE #1438
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
February 5, 1997
Page 8 of 32
Mr. Neville questioned for clarification the statement that "funds
for these extended services are anticipated to be available through
liquidated damages assessed against the contractor"; however, it is
also stated that "sufficient funds exist in the project for this
work." He questioned if the costs would be reimbursed into the
budget and is it known when the final determination of liquidated
damages will be made? Mr. Witt stated sufficient funds do exist in
the project budget; however, outside of that the Construction
Contract includes liquidated damages, which means if a contractor
goes beyond a certain period of time the City would assess
liquidated damages at a cost per day as an incentive to meet that
agreed upon date. The intent is to cover the City's additional
cost in having that contract go on beyond the time frame allotted.
He used the word "anticipated" because the liquidated damages have
not been negotiated and will be one of the last things the
contractor will want to conclude.
#1743 M/S/C(Neville/Huff-Menees) That the City Council authorize and
direct the Mayor to execute Amendment #10 to the Professional
Services Agreement with R. W. Beck for the Wastewater Treatment
Plant Odor Control Project.
Vote on motion: In Favor: Montgomery, Huff-Menees, Neville, Farr,
Overson, McConnell, Colvin, Law
Opposed: Winters
Motion carried.
7D - SR3/SR304 BREMERTON FERRY TERNINAL TO GORST TRKNSPORTATION
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT - CONSULTANT SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH
PARAMETRIX, INC., FOR DESIGN SERVICE8 ON THE SR304 TRANSPORTATION
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, #AB97-024
The Engineering Division has negotiated a Consultant Services
Agreement with Parametrix, Inc., to provide engineering design,
right-of-way assistance and environmental services on the SR304
Transportation Improvement Project. The City is the lead agency on
the SR304 portion of the SR3/SR304 Bremerton Ferry Terminal to
Gorst Vicinity Transportation Improvement Project. The not-to-
exceed amount of this agreement is $2,322,272.00.
Parametrix, Inc., was selected as the most qualified consultant
based upon its written proposal and oral interview. Five firms
responded to the advertised request for proposals. Four were
selected for interviews based on their proposal. The selection
committee was comprised of representatives of the Executive
Steering Committee, City of Bremerton, Kitsap County, Kitsap
Transit and Washington State Department Of Transportation.
The scope of work generally includes design services, right-of-way
establishment and acquisition support, public involvement,
TAPE #1438
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
February 5, 1997
Page 9 of 32
landscape design, environmental remediation, and project
management. It is anticipated that five contract packages will be
developed phasing construction of improvements over the next
several years.
Staff recommends City Council approval of the Consultant Services
Agreement with Parametrix Inc., for design services on the SR304
Transportation Improvement Project.
Randy Witt, City Engineer, stated we are finally moving off the
Environmental Impact Statement and planning stage of the project
onto design and eventually into construction. As discussed in
Council Study Sessions and Committees, this contract has been
negotiated to cover design of the SR304 portion. A detailed Scope
Of Work is included as part of the agreement showing what the
consultant will do involving their tasks for project management,
community support and involvement, the actual design of the
packages, the preparation of the right-of-way drawings and right-
of-way support, and all design activities necessary to complete the
project. He pointed out this is not the City's standard consultant
services agreement, it is a Washington State Department Of
Transportation Agreement due to the fact there are Federal and
State funds involved with the project. He referenced a change that
was negotiated subsequent to publication of the Agenda
documentation that involves the personal liability insurance
requirements of the contract. He noted this change has not been
approved by the Washington State Department of Transportation
(WSDOT; however, he expects it will receive their approval and he
urged Council to approve the contract as presented. If WSDOT
chooses to do something different in that regard, he will bring the
issue back to Council.
Roy McInnis, Bremerton resident, asked if the City Council and City
staff were satisfied with the share of money the City will be
required to put into this project? Council President Farr pointed
out the City's portion of this proposal is $187,500. Mr. Witt
explained a number of funding agencies are involved and the City is
making well over $10.00 for every dollar put into the project. The
funding agencies are: City of Bremerton $187,500; Kitsap County
$187,500; Kitsap Transit $112,500; WSDOT $37,500; Washington State
Transportation Improvement Board (WSTIP) $1,122,272; Federal
ISTEA(STP) $675,000 He noted several grants are also involved in
this project.
Mr. Neville asked to have the 15 Tasks read into the record for the
public's benefit as identified in the contract. Mr. Witt gave a
brief overview of each of the following tasks: (1) Project
Administration; (2) Partnering; (3) Community Outreach; (4) Right-
Of-Way/Access Plans; (5) Design/Access Hearing; (6) Right-Of-Way
TAPE #1438
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
February 5, 1997
Page 10 of 32
Acquisition Support; (7) Utility Coordination; (8) Building
Demolition PS&E (Segment C); (9) Package #1 - Burwell Street From
Montgomery Avenue to Pacific Avenue; (10) Package #2 - Missouri
Gate Vicinity To Montgomery Avenue Vicinity; (11) Package #3 -
Landscaping - Missouri Gate Vicinity to First Street; (12) Package
#4 - SR3 I.C. To Approx. Missouri Gate Including Charleston Beach
Road; (13) Package #5 - Pacific/First/Washington One Way Couplet;
(14) Gorst to Bremerton Trail; (15) Building Demolition PS&E
(Segment B).
Mr. McConnell asked at what point of the project will Task #13 be
accomplished? Mr. Witt stated after the Transportation Plaza
decides what they want to do.
Mr. Winters questioned the "Salary Inflation Factor" beginning in
1996 when it is known this project is now into 1997 and completion
date is 1999, and if those factors would be excluded in 19967 Mr.
Witt explained they would begin in 1997. Jeff Peacock, Parametrix
Inc., explained it is a technicality dealing with when their salary
rates are adjusted. They do not adjust at the beginning of the
year, but rather during the course of the year. Currently, in
February 1997 they are operating with 1996 rates and will continue
to do so into April. Mr. Witt referenced Parametrix's Budget
Worksheet and noted the salary inflation factor has been accounted
for and budgeted. Mr. Winters asked the City Attorney if he was
comfortable with that data? Ian Sievers, City Attorney, pointed
out it was budgeted. Mr. Witt added this was probably an outgrowth
of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), which went on for
several years without a salary increase.
Mr. Law referenced Exhibit D-2 Consultant Fee Determination Summary
Sheet (Specific Rates Of Pay) Fee Schedule, and questioned if the
overhead for a $25.00 per hour person will be $45.00? Mr. Witt
stated yes, and the overhead rate is audited and must be approved
by the Washington State Department Of Transportation.
Mrs. Huff-Menees stated as a person who first served on the
Citizens Advisory Committee and Executive Steering Committee for
this project she is pleased too be at this point of approval for
design and management services. And, having worked with
Parametrix, Inc., during the early parts of this project, she
believes they are a good contractor.
Mr. Overson questioned if the selection process was a competitive
process? Mr. Witt stated it was competitive in selecting the most
qualified consultant, not a bid process. Mr. Oversonquestioned if
Mr. Witt felt a significant aspect of selecting Parametrix, Inc.,
was based on a belief or trust in a significant return to the
taxpayer of the benefit of their having been involved so far? Mr.
TAPE #1438
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
February 5, 1997
Page 11 of 32
Witt stated he believed that was one element; however they did have
to compete very strongly in representing themselves. He felt part
of their ability to compete well was their knowledge of the
project, but there is enough information and history available that
other consultants were interested and made very good presentations.
Mr. Overson stated based on his understanding of the data, the City
gets a great deal for its money because every project is a definite
result of the quality of engineering going into it.
#1686 M/S/C/U(Huff-Menees/Winters) That the Mayor be authorized and
directed to execute the Consultant Services Agreement with
Parametrix, Inc., for design services on the SR304 Transportation
Improvement Project.
Mr. Witt noted the Record of Decision is still being processed by
the Federal Highway Administration and it could be a month or more
before they sign, which means this project cannot be started until
that Record of Decision is signed.
8A - ORDINANCE (FIRST READING) DECLARING A NUISANCE FOR FREQUENT
CRIMINAL ACTIVITY AT A RESIDENCE AND ABATING THE NUISANCE, #AB97-
025
Using the drug house abatement statute as a model, this ordinance
expands the list of habitual criminal activity, which impacts and
degrades a neighborhood.
The residential unit may be vacated for up to one year for three
felony convictions or any combination of felonies, misdemeanors or
infractions totaling five in a one year period. The activity must
have a connection to the residence.
Mayor Horton stated this is the first of several issues that the
Administration has discussed with Council over the past 2-3 months.
These issues have been taken to the Puget Rental Operators
Association and overall some changes were made to one of the items,
but for the most part they are supportive of these issues. She
embarked upon these measures because for the past 2 1/2 years City
staff, Bremerton Housing Authority and Chico Towing have tried to
come up with ways to deal with some of the problem properties
within the City. This particular issue is one that will require
full and due notice to the property owners, just the way any other
abatement is presently handled. Additionally, discussions have
been held with rental operators about providing them with a listing
of CENCOM calls for service so that they can become aware if any of
their properties are showing up as problem sites so they can work
on resolving those issues. The City has made a commitment to the
rental operators to be more responsive to their needs, if they do
need to process evictions. In the past, the Police Department
felt it was a civil matter and shouldn't become involved. But, if
TAPE #1438
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
February 5, 1997
Page 12 of 32
there are problems that are causing degradation to neighborhoods
where residents feel unsafe due to the illegal activities, it is
incumbent upon the Police Department to become involved. This
issue involves people living in properties, who are convicted of a
number of misdemeanors and felonies. It will not be a situation
where we're dealing with people who are charged, but not proven
guilty. The City will rely on convictions that have been made on
various individuals. There are properties where people funnel in
and out of the Courts and basically hold a property hostage because
they feel they can do whatever they want whenever they want.
People have told her that they could not let their children play
outside in their own yard because of their fear of the illegal
activity taking place. People have been aroused in the early
morning hours because of noise and Police coming on site and some
of the properties have had incidents of shootings. This ordinance
is an attempt to deal with criminal activity of a dwelling place.
Police Chief Paul Du Fresne stated he would standby for any
questions.
The following individuals spoke in favor of the proposed ordinance:
Jack Lefcoski, Bremerton resident; Emily Moshay, Bremerton
resident; Morris Thompson, Bremerton resident; Sharon Richard,
Bremerton resident; Larry Dickerson, Bremerton resident,
TAPE #1439
The following comments were made in favor of the proposed ordinance
(1) Tired of these kinds of problems happening in neighborhoods.
(2) The changes made in the Park Avenue neighborhood have been
remarkable. (3) Support the proposal, but concerned as a rental
owner of being notified first of any problem with his property.
(4) A picture album was circulated to Council members documenting
criminal activity going on in a neighborhood starting in 1992 that
took years to clean up; however, criminal activity had been going
on several years prior to 1992. (5) Urged Council to give the
Administration and the Police all the tools available to rid
neighborhoods of illegal activity in order to make them safe for
residents. (6) A particular address on 4th Street was visited 85
times by the Police Department, but they did not have the authority
to kick out the people causing the problems. (7) The abatements
cannot be instituted unless citizens take the initiative and be the
eyes and ears to report illegal activity.
Chief Du Fresne explained the ordinance spells out the notification
process under Section .020 requiring the City to give proper notice
when an abatement action is begun. For the last four months the
Police Department has provided the Puget Rental Owners Association
detailed summaries of every written complaint that the Police have
TAPE #1439
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
February 5, 1997
Page 13 of 32
on properties listed throughout the City. That same information is
available to any member of the public. Also, the Police Department
recognizes that problems in a particular property or neighborhood
can crop up over night and with the restraints on the Police as far
as investigations and convictions, it may take them much longer to
rid the neighborhood of the problem. To wait for three full
convictions for felonies or five full convictions with appeals on
some of the misdemeanor cases is exceedingly long and the City is
committed not to wait that long before notifying the property
owners that they have a problem. He expects that going the full
course of this ordinance will happen infrequently, but having it
available to use will be critical.
Bill Camp, Bremerton resident raised the following issues: (1)
Prior notification of the six ordinances on the Agenda was not
adequate. (2) Concerned about criminals moving from one property
to another. (3) Will a person with three prior felony convictions
in one house, who moves to another house, start his record all over
again and accumulate three other priors? No wording in the
proposed ordinance that will preclude that from happening. (4) Are
we not expelling our problems into the County? (5) Concerned about
what appears to be turning landlords into Police Officers. Will
landlords in the City be required to include on their rental
applications a criminal background question? (6) Will all
landlords have ample access to the Police Department's criminal
files and if that access is granted would prospective renters
obtaining criminal information on their prospective landlords? (7)
How far do we want to stretch resources in the Police Department?
(8) Opposed to legislation being passed just for the sake of saying
"we did something".
Ian Sievers, City Attorney, stated in response to Mr. Camp's
accusation that the notification process was not adequate, the
standard notification process was used whereby the items are
published in the Agenda, listed on the Character Generator shown on
Cable Access Channel 12 and copies provided to Kitsap Regional
Library (east and west Bremerton branches). The issues have also
had lengthy review by the Council committees and those agenda are
posted and are open to the public; and the Administration did make
contact within the community regarding these issues.
Police Chief Du Fresne stated in response to Mr. Camp's question
about the possibility of displacing crime from one area to another,
he does not find that as large a concern as getting the individual
criminals out of the neighborhoods they have been plaguing. He
emphasized the proposed legislation will not immediately fix a
problem in a neighborhood where someone set up a crack house or
some other problem, it will take effort by the Police Department to
make the arrests and get the convictions; however, it will also
TAPE #1439
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
February 5, 1997
Page 14 of 32
take the cooperation of the individual property owners to recognize
that the Police Department will provide them the proper information
that they need so that they can use the tools that are already in
place. In the past the Police did may have felt their role was not
to be involved in civil actions - that can't be the case any more.
To not be involved and provide legitimate information to landlords
so they can take the right action doesn't serve the citizens of
Bremerton.
Mr. Sievers pointed out Mr. Camp was mistaken when he thought the
individual carried prior convictions around to additional
residences, it does not attach to the individual it attaches to the
real property to a particular location. If it was attached to an
individual, that would be an improper enhancement of penalty for
the last crime and the City must be consistent with State law.
This proposal is an abatement of a nuisance of real property and
addresses an irresponsible property ownership issue. Mr. Camp also
mentioned if a landlord was faced with a history of a number of
violations or convictions of past tenants would he then be required
to get a background check and check criminal history for a
prospective tenant; and he was concerned about placing a burden on
the Police Department's resources. City Administration would
suggest that a criminal background check be made a part of
screening potential tenants, if they experienced problems in the
past, and the Police Department does have a charge for that records
check process. As previously stated, the Bremerton Housing
authority does have access to that process, which is a matter of
public disclosure and anyone landlord can obtain that information.
Mr. Winters questioned the percentage of properties within the
community that would be subject to this kind of abatement? Chief
Paul Du Fresne stated in his opinion it would be a very
insignificant percent, but those particular properties without a
threat of abatement have no motivation to abide by legitimate
changes the Police Department wants for a particular property. Mr.
Winters stated he had personally experienced tenant problems and
did use the back up of the Police Department to stop illegal
behavior. He referenced Section 1.040(a)- Abatement Order-
Cancellation-Stay, and asked that it be read for the benefit of the
public. Mr. Sievers responded by reading Section 1,040(a) into the
record.
Mr. McConnell stated he supports the proposed ordinance, but
questioned what would happen if a landlord rented out his property
to a family that contained 4-5 people and all were involved with
distributing illegal drugs, were arrested at the same time and
convicted of their criminal activity and if fulfilled the 3-5
convictions? Chief Du Fresne stated yes, based on his
understanding of the ordinance. The ordinance was prepared
TAPE #1439
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
February 5, 1997
Page 15 of 32
specifically to address such a circumstance if the property owner
did not abate the property upon notification by the City. Mr.
Sievers explained under this ordinance each one of those
convictions had some nexus or impact on the neighborhood, so it is
accumulative even if it is over a short period of time. Under
Section 1.040(a), it is more likely that the landlord will have a
defense over a short period of time because it all happened one
night and he may not have knowledge of such activity. Mr. McOonnell
asked how the abatement worked under the new process and if the
property is closed down without a Court order? Chief Du Frenee
stated there is an incredible degree of due process because it is
based on conviction and convictions in the criminal court are so
much greater than in a civil matter or a straight abatement.
Subsequent to that is due process built in and the City's standard
appeals process for hearing the abatement itself. The property
owner needs to recognize that the City will not bring frivolous
convictions because the systems the City must work under make those
convictions difficult to obtain. Mr. Sievers stated as a practical
matter, this process will require the Police Department to notify
the landlord and show that they have been notified, with registered
or first class mail, of the history related to the property so that
he would not have the defense that he did not know of such a
condition existing at a specific property. Under State law, the
City has a drug abatement nuisance authority that allows abatements
similar to this for drug activity. As Chief Du Fresne mentioned,
prior to the order to abate going into effect, the person is given
the right to appeal before the Hearing Examiner and the abatement
is ordered pending the outcome of that appeal. Chief Du Frense
noted the City's success with notification of drug activity cases
has been very good and instances have been rare where the property
owner did not respond to such notification. Mr. McConnell
questioned if the reference to "burglary" is against tenants or is
it tenants committing a burglary? Chief Du Fresne stated it would
be a burglary committed by the tenant in or near a particular
property. Mr. McConnell questioned the City's liability if a
building was damaged during the year it was closed up due to
abatement proceedings? Mr. Sievers stated the City would be
vacating it for use as a residence or to be occupied. The safe
keeping of the building is still the property owner's
responsibility, i.e. shutting off gas, water and securing the
building. Mr. McConnell referenced Section l(b) .... "The adverse
impact associated with the conviction includes, but is not limited
to, unlawfullv manufactured, delivering, selling, storing or giving
away any controlled substances as defended in chapters 69.50, 69.41
and 69.52 R.C.W. oarrests or searches by law enforcement personnel;
police or fire response at premises or within 100 yards thereof,
commission any act which is an element of the offense". He
questioned who would be adversely impacted? Mr. Sievers explained
the adverse impact created by the criminal activity that lead to a
TAPE #1439
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
February 5, 1997
Page 16 of 32
conviction. Chief Du Fresne pointed out earlier testimony
identified criminal activity spreading out onto the street, which
adversely impacted a residential neighborhood.
Mr. Colvin requested an explanation of "abatement" and a time frame
of concern? Chief Du Fresne stated as he understands the
ordinance, once the Police Department is aware there are three
convictions at a property and he is aware the property owner has
been properly notified that there is a crime abatement problem at
that site, after the next crime conviction he can begin the action
of an abatement by sending out an abatement notice that grants a
14-day period of time for the property owner to make an appeal. If
an appeal is requested within that 14-day period, the abatement
stops until the appeal is heard, which is scheduled through the
City's regular appeal system. At the end of that appeal, if the
abatement is upheld by the appeals system, the deadline for that
property to be vacated would take place right after the conclusion
of the 14-day appeal time. Without an appeal, the abatement could
take place within 14-days of notification. Mr. Colvin questioned
for clarification the number of convictions required before an
abatement could be initiated? Chief Du Fresne explained someone
would have to be convicted five times for some crime listed in the
ordinance before an abatement process could begin. Mr. Colvin
stated he felt the conviction number should be three rather than
five. Mr. Sievers explained the number of convictions was set
after discussions with Captain Rogers regarding not setting the
threshold too low, but not making it too high where it would never
be implemented. The City will try the process and see how it works
and make adjustments as needed. Mr. Colvin questioned the length
of time a residence will be closed down under this abatement?
Chief Du Fresne explained it could be as long as one year. Mr.
Colvin stated he felt that might be unfair to future tenants that
may want to rent a property, who did not have a criminal record.
chief Du Fresne explained the responsibility is not on the
potential tenant, but on the property owner, whose responsibility
it is to rent to renters that do not have a criminal history. If
the property owner will make a good faith effort to stop criminals
living on that site, they can have use of their property. Mr.
Colvin related an incident where he was a landlord and rented a
house to one person, but where a convicted felon was invited to
reside by the tenant. He was not aware of that situation until he
was notified by the FBI. Chief Du Fresne pointed out under that
circumstance if the proposed ordinance had been in effect Mr.
Colvin would not have been subject to abatement due to his not
having prior knowledge of the situation. Mayor Horton stated under
this ordinance even if a tenant has five convictions, the property
owner has due process to evict the tenant himself. The intent is
to have the property owner deal with the criminal activity problem
themselves and the Police Department will provide assistance if
TAPE #1439
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
February 5, 1997
Page 17 of 32
requested. However, if that property owner refuses to deal with
the problem, then the City will move forward with this abatement
process and the due course of law.
Mr. Overson stated there seems to be a presumption that people have
rights, and they do, but there have been situations where tenants
believe they are not dislodgeable. He wanted to know where within
the State's Landlord/Tenant Law does it give the people who own the
property the right or ability to do what the Mayor is
asking...evict their tenant? Mr. Sievers stated there are two ways
a landlord can deal with a troublesome tenant under this kind of
ordinance: (1) the Landlord/Tenant Act does allow grounds for
immediate termination of a tenancy creating public nuisance.
Cities, by State law, are given the power to define "public
nuisances", which is what is being done under the proposed
ordinance. The Landlord/Tenant Act would not be amended by this
legislation; however it was specifically amended by the Legislature
to include drug activity as grounds for abatement. (2) If a tenant
is causing repeated criminal problems and getting convicted, the
proposed ordinance can be used by the landlord to assist in
evicting the tenant by the City vacating the property. When the
drug activity statute was first promulgated in the late '80's a
number of landlords, particularly in larger cities, were eager to
have the Cities' assistance in abating those properties. Chief Du
Fresne noted when a landlord takes the tenant through the civil
courts because they are a nuisance, they will have the Police
Department and Police Department Reports and the strength of this
ordinance behind them.
President Farr thanked the Puget Rental Owners Association for
their input on this issue and the fact that they recognized this
would be a benefit to them and neighborhoods. He noted the only
ones to not benefit from the ordinance would be bad landlords and
bad tenants.
Mr. Neville questioned who serves as the City's Hearing Examiner?
Mr. Sievers stated the City's Municipal Court Judge. Mr. Neville
asked if this ordinance could be applied to someone residing in
their own property? Mr. Sievers stated yes.
Mr. Winters stated he felt the identified five convictions in this
ordinance were too many and should be reduced to three.
#1370 M/S/C/U(0verson/Montgomery) to approve Ordinance, on first reading,
declaring residences used by frequent offenders to be a public
nuisance and subject to abatement.
At 8:10 P.M., Councilman Montgomery left the City council Chambers.
TAPE #1439
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
February 5, 1997
Page 18 of 32
8B - ORDINANCE (FIRST READING) REGARDINGVEGETATION CONTROL, #AB97-
026
Several neighborhoods are impacted by properties with very heavy
overgrowth of vegetation. The proposed ordinance seeks to
reasonably regulate the height of inappropriately overgrown
vegetation.
Mayor LYnn Horton stated the Fire Department has the jurisdiction
to deal with overgrown vegetation if it is deemed to be a fire
hazard; however, if it is very green but just overgrown it causes
a blight in a neighborhood. The proposed ordinance would grant the
City the ability to deal with vegetation on an annual basis and not
just when it dries out and becomes a fire hazard. She believes
there is a concern that seniors or people unable to take care of
their property will be dealt with severely under this proposed
ordinance. She emphasized effort will be made to contact service
organizations to assist people, who are physically unable to deal
with an identified vegetation problem.
Elizabeth Buell, Bremerton resident, questioned if the property
owners are required to keep their vegetation cut down what about
the City's responsibility to keep the street ends cleared of
overgrown vegetation?
Bill Solie, Bremerton resident, asked if blackberry bushes come
under this legislation? He noted lots of people like to harvest
blackberries and in his particular neighborhood they act as a hedge
row between properties and make a good impenetrable barrier to
protect some parts of properties. There is approximately a mile
long stretch of blackberries along E. 30th Street, which he
believes should not be eliminated. He guestioned what constitutes
a noxious or poisonous plant? In his neighborhood, people have
left small patches of vegetation to grow up to various heights as
wildlife habitat.
Don Pratt, Director of Community Development, stated this ordinance
specifically exempts publicly owned properties, which would exempt
the City's property from being maintained in this manner. The
reason it appears that way is a budgetary issue, i.e., most City
properties are large areas of land, not in the middle of a
residential neighborhood, but on the ends or fringes of
neighborhoods, the same is true for similar types of school
properties. In response to Mr. Solie's guestions, the subject
ordinance proposes grasses and weeds to be kept at 12-inches of
height. If someone is cultivating blackberries and they are
maintained as a cultivated proper plant in a proper manner, it
would not be found to be a weed; and assuming they would remove the
dead canes and not be left in a bramble situation then it would not
be enforced. There are situations in the City that cause problems
TAPE #1439
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
February 5, 1997
Page 19 of 32
in neighborhoods where specifically blackberry bushes are overgrown
on one property and intrude on other properties. He believes it
depended on the determination by the enforcing person as to whether
the property has cultivated blackberries or other plants or had let
them grow unruly, and the unruly manner become weeds. The
ordinance does exempt large pieces of property, as defined as
15,000 sq. ft. or larger, provided 50 feet of the perimeter is
maintained in the controlled state. He expected that would provide
habitat for wildlife. He believed if wildlife was using habitat in
an area that was smaller than 15,000 sq. ft., they would be at
great risk. Typical habitat for wildlife is usually bigger than
15,000 sq. ft. Mr. Pratt believed the definition of poisonous or
noxious plants could be found in the dictionary. ian Sievers, City
Attorney, agreed that definitions could be found in the dictionary.
The question was raised could someone grow a poisonous plant...he
believes they cannot. There are a series of poisonous or noxious
plants listed, but that would not be interpreted as a closed list
of things that cannot be grown.
Dan Zimsen, Bremerton resident, pointed out lots of plants are
poisonous that are grown, such as sweet peas, holly, rhubarb. He
did not view a vacant lot covered with blackberries as a problem.
He was more concerned with a vacant lot being cleared of all
vegetation and becoming an eyesore as well as causing erosion
concerns. He lives fairly cost to Eastpark and over the years
there has been a considerable amount of foot traffic through
backyards of Jr. High and High School students, which in some
instances has been a security problem. He believes blackberry
bushes act as a natural barrier keeping unwanted visitors out of
other people's property. He appreciates the Mayor's concern for
elderly or disabled people and her commitment to find them help,
but another administration may not see that as a commitment and put
a severe hardship on people, who don't deserve it. He also sees
this as an opportunity for selective enforcement. He urged Council
to send the ordinance back to the administration for further
review.
Morris Thompson, Bremerton resident, stated he felt the intent of
the ordinance was good to enhance the residential beauty of
neighborhoods and to ask people to do simple things that they
should be doing whether homeowners or renters. He did have a
concern over the requirement that property owners remove vegetation
growing around poles and wires. It was his opinion that Puget
Power or the telephone company would not be required to remove
vegetation around wires, but it could put the property owner in a
hazardous situation.
Emily Moshay, Bremerton resident, stated she is concerned about
vacant property that is not maintained by the owner nor will they
TAPE #1439
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
February 5, 1997
Page 20 of 32
give permission to others to clean it up. There is an area in her
neighborhood where blackberry bushes have been removed, but they
are unclear as to the ownership of the area and she believes those
that cleared the area could be liable. She asked if it was
allowable for people to clean up an area if they did not own it?
Mr. Pratt stated in response to Mr. Zimsen's question about common
plants that are grown, he assumed if the plants were cultivated,
such as holly, which is only mildly hazardous, there would not be
any enforcement of the ordinance. In any ordinance that is adopted
it must be assumed that people administering the ordinances make
prudent and proper decisions on what to enforce and what not to
enforce. He believes everyone could agree that poison ivy, poison
hemlock, and poison oak are plants that no one wants growing in
public access areas. Mr. Zimsen expressed his opinion about a
vacant lot that was experiencing erosion. On the issue of selective
enforcement, there are lots of presumption of inside activity at
City Hall that does not occur. If a complaint is received and
properly filed, the City will send out someone to investigate and
in most cases the complainant is informed of the outcome of that
investigation. In answer to Mr. Thompson's question about
vegetation surrounding poles and wires, if the vegetation is on
private property his assumption is either the easement that put the
vegetation on private property would say who is responsible for
maintenance or he could assume the private property owner was
responsible instead of the Utility. In response to Ms. Moshay's
question about cleaning up areas within their neighborhood, the
city does not have the authority to allow individuals to go on
private property to clean up a problem; however, this ordinance
would allow the City to go on such a property and remove the
overgrown vegetation, if it met the definition of a problem.
Bill Camp, Bremerton Resident, stated his objection over the lack
of prior notification to the public on this issue and his inability
to find any of the Agenda documentation at the Libraries. He
questioned whether or not property owners should be liable to
maintain planting strips when it is public right-of-way. He views
the proposed ordinance as a way to get rid of people that are
infirm, displaced or disenfranchised based on the fact they cannot
afford gas for a lawn mower to cut their lawns and vegetation. He
believed Council should take a stand and vote no on this issue
without a proper plan to address how people will be assisted if
they cannot physically or financially clean up their own vegetation
with the regularity that is dictated by the ordinance. His
experience with clearing blackberries taught him that blackberries
are a natural habitat for rodents; therefore he suggested that
possible they should be exempted from this ordinance. Some people
consider Scotch broom and heather as noxious plants. It concerned
him that people owning larger pieces of property will be exempted
TAPE #1439
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
February 5, 1997
Page 21 of 32
so long as they police the perimeter of their property; whereas the
poor people of the City with smaller properties may be in violation
of the law. He sees this as an opportunity for selective
enforcement rather than being uniformly applied to everyone. He
questioned if any other cities in the State are creating similar
ordinances and what kind of research did the Administration do
prior to submitting this ordinance to the City Council? He could
not recall any instances where front yards caught on fire due to
tall grasses. Due to his busy schedule, he prefers to let his
grass die back during the summer rather than water it and then be
required to keep it mowed. He sees this action as favoring the
Sinclair Landing Project. He asked if landlords will be penalized
under this law or will the renter be penalized or forced to be
evicted? He sees this action as a way to reduce potential renters
or property owners coming into the City.
Mr. Pratt explained the City looked at four ordinances from other
cities prior to drafting the proposed ordinance. He emphasized
this Administration is willing to do what we need to do for the
City and that is the basis for this legislation. Secondly, he
believes Mr. Camp miscast the reason for this ordinance...the
introduction given by Mayor Horton was that this is not a fire
hazard, but at other times of the year overgrown vegetation does
create problems. In response to the question will tenants be
penalized, the City holds landlords accountable for the state of
their property.
Emily Moshay stated she believes the Mayor proposal on this issue
is one of the most productive things happening in the City since
Ms. Moshay moved into the City. She also believes overgrown weeds
on property leads to crime and propagates crime. If people don't
like the rules and regulations in the City, then they should move
out of the City.
Mr. Camp stated crime is nothing more than a bi-product of a failed
social and economic policy.
Mayor Horton stated in reference to earlier comments regarding what
kind of research was done in developing the ordinances being
presented at this time, staff did contact other communities and did
use some of their ordinances in developing the City's proposal as
well as receiving input from the community. All of the ordinances
presented this evening are amendable and at some point in time she
may ask council to amend them in order that they can become a
better tool. Hundreds of complaints have been lodged with the City
over various conditions and situations where the City did not have
the tools to enforce the things that the people in neighborhoods
are requesting. She acknowledged enforcement is currently done on
a complaint basis.
TAPE #1439
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
February 5, 1997
Page 22 of 32
Mr. Winters pointed out Mr. Pratt stated the larger properties
identified in the ordinance are 15,000 sq. ft., or larger; however,
the ordinance reflects 13,000 sq. ft. He questioned which figure
was correct? It did not appear to him to be fair to ask the
citizens to not park on planting strips, but they would be required
to maintain them. He raised the question what will the City do if
large numbers of people request assistance from the City to meet
these requirements on their property? Mr. Pratt stated he believed
the real answer to that question was an understanding that this
city works mostly on the good will and good community that resides
in neighborhoods and not what City Hall can do for each and every
person. He is aware of a lot of work and effort that is undertaken
on a neighbor-by-neighbor basis where the City is never involved.
He challenged Mr. Camp's remarks in that we work better as a
community regardless of our formal structure and did not believe it
would become an epidemic situation. He would be greatly
surprised if City forces are required to perform such services more
than 2-3 times in a year. Mr. Winters stated a comment has been
made about who will actually do the measuring of the grass and
questioned how will we know when the grass is too high? Mr. Pratt
stated the City has been able to chart what happens to the
complaints filed and well over 35% of those complaints take care of
themselves without any City action. Secondly, in order for this to
be a constitutional law, the lawn has to be actually measured and
the people must be told at what point they violated the law. Once
a violation has been determined, by actually measuring the grass
and notifying the property owner, they will be given one week to
resolve the matter. If the grass measures 11.9 inches there would
be no violation.
Mayor Horton stated in response to the comment what will prevent
pitting neighbor against neighbor, she already deals with
neighborhood disputes and they are one of the most difficult issues
to handle. Depending on the severity of the situation, the
administration gets to the point where those involved are told that
unless it is a life or death issue the city will not respond. She
has even offered to pay for Dispute Resolution Mediation to deal
with some of these issues.
Mr. McConnell stated he does not support excluding publicly owned
properties and cited the situation behind his home where Scotch
broom was removed and blackberry bushes took over the 25-30 acres,
which encroach onto his property.
TAPE #1440
Mr. Colvin stated he would support this ordinance even though he
did not like all the assumptions. He wanted to make sure the
City's enforcement policy was fair and questioned for clarification
TAPE #1440
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
February 5, 1997
Page 23 of 32
if the City would respond on a complaint basis? Mr. Pratt stated
the City does not operate only on complaints. Where there is a
serious problem and is noticeable it is likely that City staff will
stop and make note of the problem and initiate enforcement. Mr.
Colvin questioned if someone files a complaint against their
neighbor can they remain anonymous? Mr. Sievers stated the.
complainant's name may be obtained through public disclosure of the
incident report unless that person claims anonymity, then the
Disclosure Act requires that the City preserve that anonymity. If
that person was required to testify for prosecution in Court, the
City can't promise anonymity or prosecute depending on what they
agreed to. Mr. Colvin stated he also felt the City should be
setting the example rather than being exempt. He will support this
proposal based on the fact it can be amended, if needed.
Mr. Law referenced Section 4.018 - Exemptions 1) Undeveloped
publicly owned properties including natural open space and
watershed lands. He was concerned that "publicly owned properties"
means not only City but also School District properties. He
related conditions existing behind the Middle School towards
Trenton Avenue where the School District promised to keep the
properties clean, which has not been the case. Mr. Pratt has
worked with the School to correct the problem, but it is an on
going hassle. Therefore, he suggested the motion include deleting
the words "properties including natural open space and"; thereby
making that section read: 1) Undeveloped publicly owned watershed
lands. This would also mean that public properties larger than
13,000 sq. ft., would be required to maintain the 50-foot
perimeter. Mr. McConnell suggested striking item 4 under Section 4.
He questioned if there were any privately owned properties 13,000
sq. ft. or larger in the City? Mr. Pratt stated yes there are
residentially zoned land in the City greater than 13,000 sq. ft.,
and there are other lands zoned otherwise that are significantly
greater than 13,000 sq. ft..
Mr. Overson supported Mr. Law's recommendation; however, he felt
there would be a real impact on the City if Council approves that
amendment. He believes item 4 under Section 4 needs to remain in
the ordinance.
#0223 M/S/C(McConnell/Huff-Menees) to approve Ordinance, on first
reading, declaring certain vegetation a public nuisance as a fire
hazard and a menace to public health, safety and welfare and
requiring its abatement; and amending B.M.C. 11.16; with the
modification under Section 4.018 to remove the words "properties
including natural open space and"; and to renumber Section 3 -
Effective Date to Section 5.
Vote on motion: In Favor: Huff-Menees, Colvin, Neville, Overson,
TAPE #1440
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
February 5, 1997
Page 24 of 32
Law McConnell, Farr
Opposed: Farr
Motion carried.
8C - ORDINANCE (FIRST READING) REGARDINGAMENDING ZONING ORDINANCE
TO RESTRICT NUMBER OF MOTOR VEHICLES, BOATS AND TRAILERS PARRED ON
RESIDENTIAL LOTS, #AB97-027
This proposal is part of the Neighborhood Enforcement Action Team
slate of ordinances. It proposes to limit the number of motor
vehicles, boats, and trailers parked on residential lots to five
(5). Motor vehicles, boats, and trailers parked in garages or
carports or parked on the street (motor vehicles only) are
excluded. The Planning Commission considered this proposal and was
unable to make a recommendation. All motions ended in tie votes
(only six members of the seven Commissioners participated).
Mayor Horton stated she has received many calls from residents
complaining about the number of vehicles that are basically camped
out on properties in neighborhoods. There is a situation in
District #6 where the number of vehicles in a particular driveway
can vary on a daily basis from 8-12. Present City Ordinances and
State law gives the City authority to remove vehicles if they are
deemed to be junk vehicles; however, there are very stringent
requirements on junk vehicles and it is difficult to conform all
vehicles that are creating a nuisance to be "junk vehicles".
Again, this is an attempt to hear the complaints of the residents
and provide the tools needed to address the problem.
Bill Camp, Bremerton resident, stated this particular ordinance is
still attached as an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, which would
not address pre-existing conditions. Therefore, all the good that
you want to do with this law is fantasy because it does not apply
to conditions that exist at this moment. This issue was argued
successfully before the Planning Commission, which resulted in
their being unable to make a recommendation to Council. He
believes the proposed ordinance will create more crime than is
resolved, if that is the issue. He believes current abatement laws
addressing junk vehicles are adequate. A suggestion was made to
the Planning Commission to exempt junk vehicles under this proposed
ordinance. He believes the way to resolve having five or more
vehicles on a property, as explained in the ordinance, is to park
them on the street. He sees that solution adding to the
possibility of more crime due to vandalizing of parked vehicles.
He described the kinds of larger homes found in the northern part
of District #1, with some of them including caboose rooms for in-
laws and could generate the need for multiple vehicles at one
residence. He questioned what will happen if the City removes all
parking from planting strips and streets are too narrow to allow
on-street parking? He finds the ordinance to be vague in defining
TAPE #1440
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
February 5, 1997
Page 25 of 32
a "motor vehicle". He questioned the enforcement procedure and who
will be responsible for counting the vehicles or decide which
vehicles should be parked on the street? He believes the proposed
law would lead to backbiting in neighborhoods.
Mrs. Huff-Memees called for a point of order requesting Mr. Camp
summarize his comments. Mr. Camp asked Mrs. Huff-Menees to quote
the law or regulation that there is a time limit on the public
speaking portion of a public hearing on a proposed ordinance. Mrs.
Huff-Menees pointed out that request was made at the beginning of
the Council meeting.
Bill Solie, Bremerton resident, stated residents of the State of
Washington pay some of the highest licensing fees in the country.
He manages an auto repair shop in Bremerton and he and others have
collector and classic automobiles that they have spent many years
and lots of money to restore. Many people have older homes, which
may have been designed to house Model-A size vehicles, which are
not adequate to store the newer models. Many people use their
garages for other uses, i.e. hobbies, family rooms etc.. He
questioned what would a carport do for hiding the appearance of a
vehicle? Some of his customers have five children and own eight
vehicles, which are 10-years old or newer. As a citizens of
Bremerton, he pays more for his cable service and receives less,
pays huge sewer fees, pays more for garbage service than other
areas of Kitsap County and this proposal is adding one more thing.
He understands the desire to get rid of unsightly vehicles, but if
they are legally registered in the State and the taxes have been
paid and are road worthy, then he believes it is their right to
keep any number of them on their property. Now, the City may want
to consider having a policy of being able to prove these vehicles
are in fact road worthy. He hoped Council would take into
consideration that he doubted anyone thinking up this ordinance was
in fact in violation of it and thereby what is good for them is
good for everyone else. He also asked Council to take into
consideration there are many families in large homes that cannot
afford to built more garages and put more vehicles inside of cover.
Dan Zimsen, Bremerton Resident, stated on principle he objected to
a claimant of laws that are susceptible to selective enforcement.
He believes this ordinance penalizes a portion of Council's
constituency that is veryunder represented at this meeting...large
families, multi-generational family, multi-family dwellings,
military personnel. Things such as boats, trailers, automobiles,
backhoes, etc., for a large growing family are healthy because it
keeps kids interested in something else. Not everyone has the same
sets of values or sets of problems to solve. Retired people don't
have a problem dreaming up activities to keep their kids involved
and maybe they don't need all kinds of vehicles. On issues like
TAPE #1440
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
February 5, 1997
Page 26 of 32
this where there is a big affect on a large segment of the
population he hoped the City council or Mayor would make an effort
to get it out to the public in a manner that will get the attention
of the general public.
Morris Thompson, Bremerton resident, stated he does not support
junk vehicles; however, he has a neighbor that has 8-9 vehicles and
on a good day they will violate this proposed law. He sees the
overflow of vehicles coming out onto the streets, which can create
a problem for traffic on narrow streets.
Mr. Overson stated he agreed with the previous speakers. He
believes staff wants to do what ever it takes to get rid of junk
vehicles, but they don't want the trouble this ordinance will bring
them and they don't want to reek the havoc and unhappiness on the
citizens of Bremerton that this ordinance would provide.
Mr. McConnell stated he disagreed with the proposed ordinance, but
not for the reasons given by the prior speakers. He believed if
the ordinance was approved, people would house vehicles in their
garages, carports and then move other vehicles out onto the street.
He did not want his street to become a parking lot.
Mr. Neville stated he could not support the proposal as presented.
He acknowledged the City has many small lots, but there are also
large lots, which generally have larger houses and greater family
members. His neighborhood is impacted by Olympic College students
and his street is full most of the time; however, he has the
ability to park in his own back yard where he also keeps his
recreation vehicles. He found it difficult to come up with one
number to apply City-wide. He believes this issue needs more
public involvement to get their ideas and recommendations. He
found the concept to be good, one that the City could look to in
the future, but he could not support the 5-vehicle limit without
true input from all of the involved public.
Mr. Winters stated he agreed with Councilman Neville and he did see
the good faith effort put forth by staff, but some things do not
apply. One of his neighbors, who owns a business in Bremerton, has
three family vehicles and three business vehicles that are kept at
their residence. Those three business vehicles make money for the
City, create B&O Tax, and the owners work hard and are doing a good
job in the City. He believes every block has certain needs, just
like the parking issue.
President Farr stated he agreed with some of the comments made by
the prior speakers. In regards to car collectors, he doubted the
restriction would affect them due to the fact most likely collector
vehicles would be garaged or stored in rented storage due to the
TAPE #1440
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
February 5, 1997
Page 27 of 32
amount of financial investment they involve. As far as the comment
that this issue has not been heard by the public, it has been
before the Planning Commissions and people did give input for the
Commission's consideration. He understands the principle behind
this proposed ordinance and a property owner in his District is
probably part of the reason this ordinance was initiated. When
people move into the City one of the things they expect as a
benefit from the City is to protect their property values by
keeping blight away. He believes the number of vehicles was well
thought out.
Mr. Colvin stated he supports remanding this issue back based on
the following reasons: (1) no provisions for temporaryparking; (2)
size of a lot not considered; (3) forces people to park on the
street, which are already too narrow.
Mrs. Huff-Menees stated this is not a junk vehicle issue to her,
this is an issue of consideration, property values and the entire
effort the City is after, which is to clean up the appearance of
our City and neighborhoods. Council has heard testimony from
residents complaining about motor homes, boats, etc., being parked
on their streets. She believes this ordinance is part of a whole
package of issues that we have to be willing to deal with. She
also believes Council needs to be willing to take on this issue at
some time and enforce it. She felt 5-vehicles was a reasonable
number, but for others it does not.
Mr. McOonnell asked if the number of allowed vehicles on a City lot
been less than five? Mr. Pratt stated there has been no previous
ordinance adopted regulating this issue.
Mayor Horton stated she will not bring this issue back, at least in
the short term, without clear direction from the council. If
Council believes this ordinance has merit, she would like them to
select a number that would be acceptable. Her direction from this
point will be to forward complaints to the Council from individuals
about the number of vehicles on a property in their neighborhood.
Mr. Neville stated since the issue of parking on planting strips
will be going city-wide, he suggested dovetailing this issue into
that discussion and ask the residents how many vehicles they feel
should be allowed on their property. Mayor Morton stated that
could be attempted, but she was not sure it would be successful.
Mr. Overson stated we Americans still have some rights and maybe
one of those is owning more than a few vehicles and parking at
their residence.
TAPE #1440
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
February 5, 1997
Page 28 of 32
Mr. Colvin asked if pre-existing conditions were taken into
consideration in this ordinance? Mr. Sievers stated the public
would have vested rights, if the ordinance was approved.
#1125 M/S/C(Overson/Law) that this ordinance not be approved and the
subject be remanded back to staff to come up with a solution that
addresses the problem of vehicles.
Vote on motion: In Favor: Winters, Neville, Overson, Law,
colvin
Opposed: McConnell, Huff-Menees, Farr
Motion carried.
8D - ORDINANCE (FIR8TREADING) AMENDMENT OF HOU8ING CODE, #AB97-028
The current Housing Code has several characteristics which cause
its use to be inefficient and ineffective in some cases:
1) The code is not cross-referenced to the model Building Code.
2) The code does not invoke an enforcement process.
Council is requested to replace the current Housing Code with the
current International Conference of Building Officials Model
Housing Code, which is coordinated and cross-referenced with the
ICBO Building and Dangerous Building Codes. Additionally, the
Administration proposes to assign determination of inadequate
garbage and rubbish facilities to the Building Official rather than
the Health Official as proposed in the model code.
Mayor Horton stated amending the Housing code has to do with the
fact several years ago the Bremerton Housing code was passed and
was a compromise that was worked out with Puget Rental Operators
Association and what resulted was a Housing Code with no
enforcement capabilities. The issue has again been worked through
the Puget Sound Rental Operators and wording has been included so
that some of the issues can be addressed to give latitude with the
Code Enforcement Board, such as setbacks, ceiling heights, and
things that do not create an unfit living condition. The intent of
this amendment is to create habitable living conditions and a way
to provide quality housing units in the community with the
capability of enforcement.
Public comment - None
Mr. Winters asked if this item was discussed before the Planning
Commission? Don Pratt, Director of community Development, stated
no, the Planning Commission is required to make recommendations on
zoning Code, but not the Housing or Building Code.
#1800 M/S/C/U(McConnell/Huff-Menees) to approve Ordinance, on first
reading, adopting the Uniform Housing Code, repealing the Bremerton
Housing Code and amending Chapter 17.04 of the Bremerton Municipal
Code.
TAPE #1440
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
February 5, 1997
Page 29 of 32
8E - ORDINANCE (FIRST READING) RECOVERY OF DIRECT COSTS OF
ABATEMENT ACTIONS, #AB97-029
This ordinance is part of the Neighborhood Enforcement Action Team
agenda. The ordinance allows the City to recover more of the cost
to remedy code violations than is currently allowed. The City
currently recovers only direct construction or demolition costs.
This proposal allow the City to recover indirect costs such as
Title Reports, legal counsel, and staff time to undertake
abatements. If the ordinance is approved, a Resolution
establishing fees will be brought to Council.
Mayor Lynn Horton stated this issue has been heard on multiple
occasions when the Administration brought abatement issues before
Council. At those times, Council has indicated there should be a
greater expansion of the abatement cost to cover a greater portion
of the expense. The proposed ordinance is an attempt to cover a
greater percentage of the costs incurred. There are some
enforcements that do not get to the final abatement phase because
the owner grudgingly complies only to find out 3-6 months later the
City has to go back and readdress the same condition. This is an
attempt to get a greater handle on the abatement costs and the
philosophy is if people are causing the problem in an inordinate
amount then the rest of the taxpayers should not bear that burden.
Dan Zimsen, Bremerton resident, stated he believes that recovering
indirect expenses should be done with great caution because it
could do an injustice to someone that does not deserve it. The
cost of bureaucratic inefficiencies are inherent in all government
agencies.
Bob Tulp, Public Works Operations Manager, stated currently the
City does not make money on abatements. He disagreed that the
citizens or the rest of the community should have to pay. If
people have the proper time to clean up the abatements and they
have chosen not to, then they need to be responsible for all of
those costs.
Emily Moshay echoed Mr. Tulp's comments and from her past
experience in helping to clean up properties, as a volunteer, she
feels the City should recover all costs incurred.
Mr. Winters questioned how many abatements were carried out in
1996? Mr. Pratt stated 78 completed actions. Mr. Winters
questioned if the abatement process required the City to obtain
Title Reports or have someone go to the Court House and look up the
records? Mr. Pratt stated when the City enters a property and
taken steps to correct the problem the City is legally required to
review the Title Report so that all property owners and lien
holders are legally advised that the City is about to taken an
TAPE #1440
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
February 5, 1997
Page 30 of 32
action on their property. Mr. Winters stated he assumed Mr. Pratt
had an actual number of the exact cost of staff hours and time so
that Council can relate this to the public as to the exact dollars
for legal services and staff time for 78 abatements. He questioned
the dollar amount the City can recover - 50,000, 100,000 or 2,000?
Mr. Pratt stated he will be proposing to Council a flat fee rather
than having to account line item costs. If this ordinance is
adopted, a Resolution establishing a fee of $200.00 for abatements
that are initiated for which the City does not have to take action,
and a flat rate of $400.00 will be proposed for those abatements
where the City does take action and will be added to the action
costs. He believes it would be recovering about 1/3 of the total
internal costs for the City. Mr. Winters questioned the actual
dollar amount for 19967 Mr. Pratt stated he believed it would be
between $1,000 - 1,200.00 per action.
Mr. Law stated this action is long overdue and he believes it is
being fair to the taxpayers and urged Council's swift approval.
Mrs. Huff-Menees agreed with Mr. Law and pointed out an important
issue is abatements only take place after there has been
considerable effort on the City's part, administratively, to deal
with the problems and try to get the property owner to resolve
them. And, if they go beyond that point, then the owners need to
be held accountable for those costs.
Mr. Overson pointed out some of this effort is the staff doing
their job and should be considered what the taxpayers money hires
the 300+ employees to do.
#2245 M/S/C/U(Colvin/Overson) to approve Ordinance, on first reading,
amending Section 901 of Abatement of Dangerous Buildings (1994)
Code to allow recovery of indirect abatement costs.
8F - ORDINANCE (FIRST READING) DECLARING GRAFFITI A NUISANCE AND
ESTABLI8HING ABATEMENT PROCEDURE8, #AB97-030
This ordinance declares any writing or graphic, which defaces
structures and other surfaces, to be a public nuisance, which is a
blight on surrounding properties.
This ordinance allows abatement by the City if the owner fails to
act after notice is given.
Mayor Lynn Horton stated this issue is brought to Council because
in a limited number of cases property owners refused to remove
graffiti or refuse the City access on the property to remove it.
She believes those individuals may have good intentions as to not
wanting mismatched paint on their property to blank out the
graffiti, but good intentions don't always bring results. With
TAPE #1440
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
February 5, 1997
Page 31 of 32
graffiti, whether it is gang driven or just vandalism, it is still
a message to gangs identifying their turf or a way of communicating
between gangs. If those conditions are allowed to remain, it
spawns more and encourages gang activities.
Public comment - none.
Mr. Colvin asked what authority does the City have to go on private
property without the owner's permission? Ian Sievers, City
Attorney, stated after the due process procedure of notification
and a chance to go before the Hearing Examiner, the City can go on
private property and correct the situation. Mr. Colvin questioned
if a court order was required? Mr. Sievers stated no, it is a
self-enforcement summary process.
Mr. Neville asked if there is a cost for the Appeal process? Mr.
Sievers stated the standard filing fee for a hearing is $50.00.
Mr. Neville asked if someone did not want the graffiti covered with
paint could they request some other form of removal? Bob Tulp,
Public works Operations Manager, stated other options are
available, such as sandblasting, solvents, etc.. Mr. Neville
stated if the owner did not want to do the work himself, is it
possible for him to ask the City to do the work? Mr. Tulp stated
yes.
Mr. Law stressed the point that quite often the graffiti is gang
symbols and are used to mark their territory and it is imperative
that those symbols be removed as quickly as possible before it
becomes an established item.
Mr. Tulp stated this ordinance will take care of the exception and
the City has a no-tolerance policy for any type of graffiti.
#2415 M/S/C/U(McConnell/Winters) To approve Ordinance, on first reading,
declaring the presence of graffiti a public nuisance and requiring
its abatement.
9A - PUBLIC HEARING - RESOLUTION #2584, REGARDING RECOVERY OF FEES
FOR THE ABATEMENT OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 108 N. CAMBRIAN
AVENUE, #AB97-032
During the months of November and December 1996, the City
contracted with Martin Builders, Inc., to demolish the house and
remove the debris from the property located at 108 N. Cambrian
Avenue, after the owners, William and Elizabeth Smokoff, failed to
do so as ordered by the Building Official. The cost charged to the
revolving abatement fund for this action totaled $16,630.36.
Council must now decide if the fees are just and reasonable and how
they should be collected.
President Farr asked the "Appearance of Fairness and Conflict Of
TAPE #1440
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
February 5, 1997
Page 32 of 32
Interest" question with all Council members present being seated.
Judy Johnson, Building Department, stated this project started
around the first part of May, 1996, with the abatement starting in
November and concluding after the Christmas holidays. This project
took a number of months of working with the homeowner; however, the
City ultimately had to carry out the abatement.
Public comment - none.
Mrs. Huff/Menees asked if the property was inhabited? Ms. Johnson
stated yes.
Mr. Winters questioned if the City staff fee reimbursement applied
to this abatement charge? Don Pratt, Department Of Community
Development, explained the City does not have a law in affect today
that allows recovery of any staff time in this project. The prior
action taken by Council will be in affect in 30-days and will allow
the City to collect such a charge. Mr. Winters stated once the
Ordinance is in affect will a time card be started for each
abatement that will show the costs incurred by the City? Mr. Pratt
stated no, what will be proposed to Council is a flat fee to cover
Administrative costs.
#2915 M/S/C/U(McConnell/Colvin) To approve Resolution #2584, and order
that the fees incurred for the abatement of the house and debris
located at 108 N. Cambrian Avenue be collected as reasonable
abatement costs and become a lien against the property.
President Farr thanked the TV camera crew for their services: Rob
Rupe, James Noble Jr., Jamie Campbell
With no further business meeting adjourned at 10:15 P.M..
KATHLREN L. McCLUSKEY, City Clerk
DAVID D. FARR, Council President
City of Bremerton
KLM/DDF/me
cc: Normal Distribution
File/Vault