Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/11/96COUNCIL APPROVED DEC 30 1996 TAPE #1426 UNAPPROVED DRAFT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES DECEMBER 11, 1996 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 11, 1996, at 5:30 P.M., with Council Vice President Richard Neville presiding. Council members present were Bob Winters, Carlos Montgomery, Sherril Huff- Menees, David Farr, Lon Overson, Cecil McConnell, and A1 Colvin. Council President John Law was absent. Also present were Ian Sievers, City Attorney and Acting City Clerk Paula Johnston. The meeting opened with the Pledge of Allegiance led by Council President Law and Invocation given by Councilman A1 Colvin. #0023 #0043 CONSENT AGENDA A. Minutes of Meeting - November 26, 1996 #AB96-278 B. Amended professional Services Contract For #AB96-279 Retained Counsel - Foster, Pepper & Shefelman M/S/C/U(Huff-Menees/Montgomery) to approve Consent Agenda as presented. CLAIMS/CHECK REGISTERS Vouchers audited and certified by the auditing officer as required by RCW 42.24.080, and those expense reimbursement claims certified as required by RCW 42.24.090, have been recorded on a listing that had been made available to the Council. M/S/C/U(Colvin/Montgomery) on December 11, 1996, the Council does approve for payment those vouchers included and further described as follows: 204176 through 204282 in the amount of $225,593.25. COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS Mr. Winters thanked those who attended the Christmas Tree lighting and arrival of Santa event on December 6. He extended special thanks to Carol Atkinson, Bremerton Main Street, Emily Moshay and Louis Soriano for their part in making that event such a success. On December 7 he artended a Pearl Harbor Survivors' ceremony at the Naval Hospital, which was very touching. He noted Mayor Horton's gave an excellent speech at that event. He wished his wife "Happy 3rd Anniversary", and a get well wish to his father and Council President John Law. Mr. Montgomery reported he attended the Pearl Harbor Survivors' TAPE #1426 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December 11, 1996 Page 2 of 35 event where Mayor gave an outstanding speech. On Saturday evening he took part in the Christmas festivities downtown and particularly enjoyed the Bremerton High School Band and Drill Team's performance. He was pleased to report that event drew a good turnout and experienced more favorable weather. Mr. Farr reported today he viewed the progress being made at the Admiral Theater and was amazed with the work being done, particularly the mural's that are being completed inside. Mr. Overson encouraged people to come downtown and take advantage of the special sales and celebration of the season at local businesses. Mr. McConnell reminded the public of the Open House meeting on the "replacement of the Manette Bridge on December 17, 5:30 - 8:00 P.M., at the Senior Center. Mr. Colvin encouraged residents of District #1 to attended the December 17th meeting on the replacement of the Manette Bridge. He congratulated Bob winters on his 3rd Wedding Anniversary. He thanked all those who sent get well wishes to his wife, Hazel, as she recovers from knee surgery. He regretted having missed the Christmas Tree lighting Ceremony. Mr. Neville announced the Agenda would be modified to take the public hearings, 10B and 10A, shortly after 6:00 P.M.. PUBLIC RECOGNITION John Thomas, Bremerton resident, stated he attended the first Open House being held on the replacement of the Manette Bridge. He thanked Mr. Lefcoski for opening his mind on other things that would impact a new two lane bridge. He hoped the City, County and State could get together to plan future projects in a more comprehensive way. Kal Leichtman, Bremerton resident, stated at a meeting in late October he asked a City official what the liability was for the past five years for accidents happening on planting strips; however she did not have an answer. About three weeks ago he asked the City Council to provide that information, in writing, along with the source of that information. To date, he has not received a response and once again he asked the City if there is little or no liability to stop any further movement to remove parking off of planting strips. George Coombs, Bremerton resident, thanked the previous Councils and present Council for giving Bremerton the best thing since sliced bread... the quiet on Park Avenue in the early morning now TAPE #1426 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December 11, 1996 Page 3 of 35 that Brem-Air disposal Inc., has moved out of that area. Doyle Detroit, Executive Director Westsound Community Access Television, announced WSCAT has taken over the management of the community bulletin board and changed it to a different kind of computer. Anyone wishing to place a notice on the community bulletin board can still drop them off at City Hall or mail them to P.O. Box 844, Bremerton, WA 98337. A special form is not required as long as they include a contact person and telephone number in case they have any questions. They do ask that the messages be non-commercial in nature and of general community interest. They would also like at least 7-days notice to place them on the bulletin board and the board will be updated twice weekly. Mr. Montgomery asked if the "time" would be placed back on the screen? Ms. Doyle stated the computer being used does not have that function, but later they may upgrade to one that does have that ability. Mr. Colvin asked where could the public obtain a copy of WSCAT's Policy Book? Ms. Doyle stated their Policy Book is available through the City Clerk's Office, The sun and The Reporter. Lastly, she invited everyone to attend their Open House at their new editing studio on December 14, 3-6 P.M., at the KITZ Radio Station building. Carol Atkinson, Bremerton Main Street Association, talked about the successful Christmas Tree lighting and arrival of Santa downtown on December 6, and thanked everyone involved with that event. She agreed with Mr. Farr, the Admiral Theater is beautiful. Emily Moshav commented on the beautiful window decorations at City Hall. She announced the Christmas In April program is in the process of seeking applications from people needing repairs to their homes. Applications are available at Mayor Horton's office, KCAP building at 1201 Park Avenue, or Home Builders' Association at 479-5778. She complimented the Swing City Committee on the very successful holiday event held downtown on December 7. Gems Hart, representing MADD, thanked those who support Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD). He alerted the public MADD is seeking reader boards to post their "don't drink and drive" message throughout the County over the period of December 14-21-1996. 7A - 10% PETITION/LETTER OF INTENT TO ANNEX THE AREA KNOWN AS THE OYSTER BAY AVENUE AREA, #AB96-280 The City of Bremerton holds a Letter of Intent to annex properties located in an area which is north of the sewer treatment plant, south of the Loxie Eagans interchange and east of Cottman Ave. The letter contains signatures representing in excess of 10-percent of the value of the land proposed for annexation and is in accordance with R.C.W. 35.13.125. TAPE #1426 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December 11, 1996 Page 4 of 35 #0887 The City Council is required to make certain determinations at this point in the annexation process. Three questions need to be answered: 1) will the City Council accept, reject or geographically modify the proposed annexation area? 2) Will the Council require the simultaneous adoption of a Comprehensive Plan or will they elect to use the administrative assignment of provisional zoning as allowed in the Bremerton Municipal Code (BMC 21.02.260)? 3) Will the Council require property owners of the annexing area to assume a proportional share of all or any portion of existing City indebtedness (i.e., outstanding bonds)? Terrie O'Neill, Municipal Services Coordinator, stated the Letter Of Intent to Annex represents a request to begin the annexation process, which is outlined by the State in RCW 35. Annexation is a lengthy activity that normally takes 3-6 months to complete. To begin the process, the Letter Of Intent To Annex must be filed with the City Clerk's Office and it must contain signatures of property owners representing 10% of the property in the area. In this case, the Letter Of Intent actually represents 69% of valuation of the identified properties. In order to annex the entire area represented in the map, another 6% would be required. The subject area is a portion of the Westhills neighborhood. Most of the Westhills neighborhood was annexed in the Haselwood and Westhills annexations over the past two years. The subject area will unify the remaining area of the neighborhood with adjacent residents. On the other side of the annexation area is SR3, which divides the neighborhood from the National Avenue area. Ms. O'Neill reviewed the three considerations, as identified in the summary statement, that must be determined by the City Council. Public comment - none. Mr. Colvin asked if he understood correction that the one-man-one- vote does not apply in this type of annexation. Ian Sievers, City Attorney, stated this is a petition method of annexation and the vote is made up of the property valuation. M/S/C/U(Montgomery/Huff-Menees) to accept the areas as proposed; require the simultaneous adoption of Comprehensive Plan and land use designations; and require the owners of real property in the annexation area to assume a proportional share of existing City indebtedness. TAPE #1426 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December 11, 1996 Page 5 of 35 10B - PUBLIC HEARING - SR3/SR304 BREMERTON FERRY TERMINAL TO GORST TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS RE-EVALUATION OF 8R304 ACCESS BETWEEN THE CHARLESTON DISTRICT AND DOWI~TOWN, #AB96-284 At the City Council meeting of November 26, 1996, a Resolution was passed establishing December 11, 1996, as a Public Hearing regarding the re-evaluation of SR304 alternative selected in August 1995 between the Charleston District and downtown as part of subject project. At the September Study Session, the City Council was advised that a community outreach would be initiated to determine if there was a consensus that the issue should be revised. A committee was selected by the Mayor and has had seven committee meetings as well as two public involvement meetings to gain knowledge of the issue and develop a consensus. At the City Council Study Session of November 20, 1996, the city Council was presented and discussed the committee recommendation, which is to modify the previous "do-nothing" alternative on Burwell Street to provide a three lane street, with two lanes toward downtown an one lane out of downtown. This agenda item establishes a public hearing before the City council to consider modification of the preferred alternative for the Burwell Street portion of the SR3/SR304 Bremerton Ferry terminal to Gorst Vicinity Transportation Improvement Project for inclusion in the Environmental Impact Statement. Randy Witt, City Engineer, stated this is a culmination of a long thoughtful process undertaken by the City. Towards the latter part of the summer, the question was put to the City Council "should they reconsider their decision to do nothing on Burwell Street as part of the SR3/304 Gorst to Bremerton connector project?" This question came about as a result of a Value Engineering process that was done on the project. The examination of that question was supported by both the City Council and the funding partners. The alternatives looked at in terms of the re-evaluation were what was in the Environmental Impact Statement itself previously, or variations that did not require the City to perform additional work in the Environmental Impact Statement. Staff recommended to the City Council that the re-evaluation go forward looking at the SR3/304 corridor from the Charleston area into the downtown area utilizing a committee of citizens and business owners from along the corridor and business owners. Mayor Horton appointed a citizen committee in November 1996. Other issues considered, aside from those brought forward in the Value Engineering Study, were parking issues, which was a major discussion at the time the first preferred alternative was selected over a year ago. As a result of the Value. Engineering and funding partners, another item was placed "on the table"...the ability to provide off-street parking to offset the on street parking that TAPE #1426 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December 11, 1996 Page 6 of 35 would be removed as part of the project. In addition, the Sinclair Landing project was discussed at length by the citizens committee even though is not an approved project, but something they wanted to consider as part of their deliberation. In addition, the ferry system is changing and again, in terms of a project perspective for the requirements of an EIS, it is also not an approved project, but seems to be sufficiently along in the planning stage that the committee wanted the information. At a September Study Session, the Council discussed the use of a citizens committee and the issues needing to be dealt with. The first committee meetings were held at the end of November and they were also supported by a fair compliment of staff... himself, Jeff Peacock, Parametrix, Inc., Mary Mcclure, McClure Research and Kara Rhodes, McClure Research. Mary McClure, Mcclure Research, stated she worked to facilitate the citizens committee that was appointed by Mayor Horton, set up and manned open houses, prepared questionnaires and all other efforts to gather understanding from the community about the project. The citizen committee was comprised of 10 members: Anita Park-Hill, a 6th Street resident; Brock Jackley, Callow Avenue business owner; Ruth Reese, downtown business owner; Rob Vincent, owner of Baskin- Robbins on 6th Street; Del Knauss, Olympic Avenue resident; Louise Sheldon, owner of McGavens' Bakery, Larry Sharp, owner Bremerton Grocery Outlet; Jim Fee, owner of AAAA Insurance; Carol Arends, Lafayette Avenue resident, and Ed Vanduzen, owner of Clifford's Auto Rebuild. These citizens were recruited through comments and requests for help on this project at the Charleston community meetings, Downtown Waterfront Task Force meetings and through a general call to the citizens through City Council announcements. The committee was given a hard task given the fact that last year there was such strong community feeling about the various alternatives on this section of the highway. The Committee was asked to hear and understand the issues related to changing access to the downtown, which were very technical and required hours of listening to transportation talk. They were then asked to: (1) look at the City Council's earlier decision and comment on that decision; (2) assuming they believed there was reason to change that recommendation, to make further recommendations about the specifics of access through the corridor into downtown. Mrs. McClure felt it was important to understand the level of effort that went into this task from the citizenry involved in this process. Very often when people attend a public meeting they are unable to really understand all the technical information that underlies whatever is being presented due to time constraints. Each member of the citizens committee was asked to commit enormous amounts of time over a short period to really understand the issue. As they debated the merits of the issues, they had a very strong understanding, within those 10 people, of all the implications; TAPE #1426 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December 11, 1996 Page 7 of 35 therefore, great store was placed in their recommendations. The committee met seven times for three hours each time over a 5-6 week period. Two of those meetings involved open houses for the community and every effort was made to make sure everyone in the neighborhood was aware of the public meetings. Notification was carried out through announcements at the Charleston Community meetings, five different newspaper articles describing the process and listing meeting dates, a flyer was distributed to every house and business along the corridor describing the community open houses, and a flyer was distributed announcing this public hearing. She felt comfortable that there was notice, input and information out to the community. During the process, a survey was distribute to people attending the open houses as well as members of the committee, and asked to fill it out concerning the several different possible recommendations. Each person filling out the survey was asked if they agreed or disagreed with each of the three basic alternatives for access into downtown. The first one was that Burwell Street remain as is even though peak hour traffic is expected to increase with downtown redevelopment and with changes over time. The survey data revealed 29 of the open house attendees agreed that Burwell Street should stay as it is and 20 disagreed. The committee was more sharply divided with 4 agreeing that Burwell should remain as it is and 5 disagreeing. The second option was that the City increase the capacity on Burwell Street by removing all on-street parking and adding new parking some where else within the neighborhood. The survey response to that question showed 28 of the people attending open houses, primarily business owners from the immediate neighborhood, agreed increasing capacity on Burwell was a good solution, but 30 disagreed and six committee members agreeing. The third option was that the City should create a one-way street system between the Charleston area and downtown, which would change Burwell into a one-way street heading into downtown and 6th Street into a one-way street heading out-of-town and then the one-way connections on Callow Avenue and Montgomery Avenue. The survey revealed 2-1 against that option by those in the community, but 7 of the committee members disagreed with that concept. Therefore, that was the basic findings in terms of support for the three different alternatives. The committee also had feedback from a couple of other aspects of the solutions: (1) that parking be removed from Callow Avenue in order to improve traffic flow, which was strongly disagreed with by both the community and the committee because of concern for the impact to businesses; (2) provide off-street parking in little neighborhood lots, which was disapproved of by the community, but the committee, after having an opportunity to think through and work on that idea, was evenly divided that it was a possible TAPE #1426 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December 11, 1996 Page 8 of 35 solution, but needed work. There were some concerns as to how it would actually work operationally, if people would be safe getting home, etc. They than asked what amenities were important if there was no on-street parking on Burwell and/or 6th Street and additional pavement was available. The response was: on-street parking 33 of those surveyed said it was very desirable or somewhat desirable; landscaping - 35 said it was very desirable or somewhat desirable; bicycle lanes - 26 supported them, but 26 also opposed them. So, they were left with the understanding that on-street parking and landscaping were both important although if you look at the committee's reaction you see that on-street parking received support from only three committee members as compared to landscaping that received eight committee members' support. There was a lot of discussion about having an attractive entry into the City and the survey numbers reflect that support. The figures also reflect that there wasn't an easy answer and there wasn't an answer that the committee all agreed on and felt they could support strongly to the Council as a recommendation. At the committee's last meeting, a compromise was presented that drew 9-1 support and endorsement. She believes there was a very strong feeling that the comprise solution was better than it is now, but didn't have all of the difficulties associated with making Burwell four lanes or the one-way couplet system seemed to have for the community. So, there was a strong coming together within the committee in a very short period of time. There was very strong acceptance that this proposal was a good way to solve the parking problem causing minimal difficulty to the neighborhood. Mr. Witt stated the issues they surveyed with the community and discussing in great detail with the committee, tended to focus on the alternatives that were presented in the EIS. A couple of other ideas floated up, but did not gain much support. The compromise proposes setting up three lanes of traffic on Burwell with two lanes eastbound into downtown and one lane westbound out-of-town. The acceptance of the comprise proposal showed the committee's strong feeling that something should be done on Burwell other than the proposed one-way couplet four lanes or three lanes one-way. To implement the compromise, the City would provide parking on one side of the street and keeping with the thoughts of the committee and the surveys, the development of landscaping and bulb outs at intersections. By removing parking on side of the street, the City would develop off-street parking, if appropriate and desirable by the communities, which he sees as a block-by-block working relationship with the neighborhoods. There is also a recognition that with two lanes of traffic inbound and one lane outbound the signal system on 6th Street is in need of some improvement due to heavier volume of traffic traveling westbound. Included in the scope of work presented in the EIS was signal interconnect work on 6th Street. One thing that is not on the overhead is in this TAPE #1426 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December 11, 1996 Page 9 of 35 scenario the intersection of Warren Avenue and Burwell Street also needs some modification; however, he was not sure, at this time, if that meant just moving curb lines or actually acquiring right-of- way. If it does require right-of-way, it will be a small amount. The next point of discussion will be the process that will be used from this point independent of Council's decision and will be presented by Jeff Peacock, Parametrix Inc.. Jeff Peacock, Parametrix Inc., stated under the federal process that this project is complying, the record of decision was actually written and approved in Washington, D.C., but has been on hold pending the outcome of the issue on Burwell Street. As soon as the decision is made, an appeal will be made to the Federal Highway Administration for the modification of the record of decision, which is the formal final action at the federal level to authorize the funding to move into the final design, right-of-way acquisition and construction of the project. At this point, they are in the latter stages of completing the very detailed Scope of Work for the final design and how the right-of-way acquisition process will unfold, which he expects will take place no later than in January. Shortly following that action, a right-of-way access hearing will be held, which is another required formal process whereby people affected by right-of-way takes or particularly with access control considerations will have an opportunity to view the details and have an opportunity to speak on the record about the appropriateness of such plans. Upon completion that hearing, the project can move ahead with the purchase of right-of-way, which he believes will happen fairly quickly, especially those properties where it will be a total take. He anticipates a little longer process for the areas where partial right-of-way acquisition is needed. With respect to a specific schedule, he remains optimistic that once the decision is made, we can get the improvements on Burwell Street construction in late fall of 1997, at the same time they will be acquiring right-of-way in the gateway area in the Callow/Wycoff section of the project and he believes construction on that section in 1998 and will continue into early 1999. The landscaping contract will be fairly sizeable and anticipates that will take place in 1998 and on into 1999. The last segment of the project will be that portion about the City Limits out to HWY 3/304 interchange. Funds are not totally in place for the construction of that section although a fairly good portion has been secured. He anticipates securing that funding over the next two years such that they will not interrupt the flow in momentum of construction and be into construction on HWY 304 outside of City Limits in 1999 and year 2000. That process is irrespective of Council's decision during this discussion. Mr. Witt explained the last part of that process is contingent upon city being successful in getting grant TAPE #1426 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December 11, 1996 Page 10 of 35 funding. In closing, staff recommends approval of the proposed modification to the preferred alternative, which he believes is a good compromise and accepted by the citizens committee. He also thanked the members of the committee for their dedicated effort dealing with this issue. Mr. Winters asked why the information contained in the survey was not included in Council's Agenda packet? He wanted to base his decision on the information presented and asked that copies be made and distributed to Council while the discussion was underway. Mr. Witt explained he would provide that information; however, initially it was felt the information was straight forward and could be presented during the hearing. Mrs. Huff-Menees pointed out this information was made available to the Council at an earlier Study Session where it was discussed. Mr. Overson stated he believed an important part of the consideration was what will be done to protect pedestrian traffic trying to cross Burwell, if the traffic flow is increased. He asked if there is intent to provide a traffic light at State Street, which is the busiest of the pedestrian crossing? Mr. Witt stated as part of this project, both before and after the committee recommendations, the State Street signal has not been provided from a need basis in terms of accidents. Mr. Overson stated he understood the interest in having fatal accidents happen before taking action, but he personally did not agree with that attitude in order to justify a traffic light. He believes that point needs to be addressed and was sure the City was on notice and liable, particularly if the recommended comprise is approved. Mr. McConne11 stated Mrs. McClure made a comment that the committee voted 9-1 on an issue; however, the information provided in the view graph shows only 9 people total. Mrs. Moolure explained questionnaires were received from only 9 of 10 committee members, but when it came to the actual vote on the compromise recommendation the vote was 9-1. Rob Vincent, business owner and member of the citizens committee, stated he personally as well as other members of the committee struggled over the issue put before them. They listened and discussed issues very thoroughly, particularly safety, lights, children, increasing traffic, off-street parking and at the same time tried to look at how to move forward and finding some way to have a "gateway". He did not support the one-way couplet proposal. When the comprise proposal was presented, he found it to be the clearest and easiest decision due to the fact it addressed the overall need Del Knauss, Olympic Avenue resident and citizen committee member,. TAPE #1426 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December 11, 1996 Page 11 of 35 stated he strongly disagreed with the comprise proposal and was the only dissenting vote on the committee. The problem he had with the comprise recommendation was the fact not one member of the committee lives in the affected area. Another concern was how many actual City residents served as members on the citizen committee. To be fair and move forward with this project, he felt the need to get a group of people together that live in the affected area to review the issue. Carol Arends, Burwell/Lafayette Avenue resident and member of the citizens committee, stated it was true that she was not a Burwell resident that would lose parking; however, she feels she does represent people living on the hill in the Charleston and Capitol Hill area. She was not in favor of making Burwell and 6th Street one way streets because it would impact her part of the City and increase traffic on llth Street. The committee was only asked to discuss traffic on Burwell and 6th Street and the distances in between. She believed there was general agreement that Callow Avenue and Montgomery Avenue would remain as they are. She also believed the recommendation is the best compromise and realizes there is sacrifice to some of the residents on Burwell, just as their was sacrifice for people on 6th and llth Streets when they were widened. She doesn't know of a perfect solution considering the age of the City. Larry Sharp, citizens committee member, expressed his support of the comprise proposal. He emphasized there was no clear cut solution to the problem and his own personal conclusion was to make Burwell one-way into the City and leave everything else as is. However, the City Engineer pointed out that scenario would have overloaded 6th Street and caused problems with traffic signalization. He put his thoughts in writing for the last committee meeting because he was unable to attend and that was where the decisions were made. Brock Jackley, business owner and citizens committee member, stated he found the experience very interesting. He noted there was a lot of conflict within the committee dealing with this issue and was not an easy decision for anyone, but they did come to a joint conclusion that the proposed comprise was the best solution to deal with Burwell. He admitted he is not a resident of Bremerton, but does own three commercial properties and a business on Callow Avenue. The following individuals spoke in opposition to the proposed compromise option: Kal Leitchman, 205 High Avenue; Wilbur Pest, 1421 Burwell; Douglas Isetalo, 1616 Burwell; Clay Thompson, 1733 Burwell; Ron Pest, 1423 Burwell Street; Mary Jane Walters, 1607 Burwell; Ken Emil, resident between High and Hewitt; Lourdes TAPE #1426 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December 11, 1996 Page 12 of 35 Potter, 255 Broad Street; De1 Knauss, Olympic Avenue resident; Ed Pietras, 128 Bloomington; Joseph Chong Hye, 1225 Burwell; Kenneth Amo, 1718 & 1720 rental properties. The following comments were made by the above named individuals in opposition to the committee's recommendation: (1) where will people park if on-street parking is removed from Burwell? (2) Not fair to throw dozens of City residents to the wolves for the whims and fancies of people who don't live in the City. (3) Keep parking on Burwell as it is today. (4) NoBurwell resident was represented on the citizens committee. (5) If Burwell is changed into three lanes, the center lane should be made into a turn lane. (6) Do not want a freeway in front of their home. (7) Hardship on residents if parking on Burwell is eliminated or limited to one side. (8) Hardship on pedestrians trying to cross Burwell and/or residents parking on opposite side of street from their residence. (9) There are other options to consider. (10) Support for bump outs at intersections on Burwell, but oppose reducing on-street parking on Burwell. (11) The proposed plan is reckless and arrogant in that people most affected by the decision were not adequately informed. (12) Did not like the threat to the Council that if they didn't support the proposal it would be appealed in Washington D.C.. (13) Crosswalks need to be reinstailed in order to protect pedestrians crossing Burwell. (14) Alleys are in poor condition and do not provide adequate alternative parking to residents. (15) Did not hear anything about monetary compensation to homeowners in the affected area. (16) The Sinclair Landing Project is the main reason this recommendation is being proposed. (17) There was an accident on Burwell Street where a man was run over. (18) Sale of real estate in the affected area is impacted due to the already limited parking. (19) City Council should abide by its original decision to do nothing in this corridor until the traffic justifies a change. The re-evaluation is based only on assumptions for traffic in the year 2020 or building up to that year. (20) Question - will there be some kind of security for vehicles parked in the mid block pocket parking lots, for children and adults walking to their residences, access for the disabled, liability to the City if someone is hurt or robbed, maintenance for the lots and policing the lots to assure that only licensed residents are using the spaces? (21) Jim Leonard, State Area Engineer for the Federal Highway Administration and one of the principals signing the EIS received 250 letters signed by business owners, residents, customers and visitors to Bremerton voicing their strong opposition of the City Council modifying the original vote, which was to do nothing to this corridor. The letter also requested Mr. Leonard's Department and all other agencies involved in the process to force the City to abide by its original vote to do nothing to this corridor or have the City submit a new EIS. (22) The Burwell corridor does not have a traffic problem. (23) Without the TAPE #1426 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December 11, 1996 Page 13 of 35 residents' support, there will not be a revitalized downtown. (24) alleys in the affected area are in need of repair and removal of parking from planting strips compounds the parking problem. Randy McGreal stated he is working on the Sinclair Landing project to redevelop downtown Bremerton and one of those dreaded non- residents, but he feels he is part of the community in that he has sponsored downtown waterfront concerts and helped 35 basketball teams play this summer. He is interested in Bremerton's future and investing into the community and hopes to see Bremerton become the kind of place that we all hope that it will be. He believes this is a discussion of how to enhance the community along Burwell and accommodate the reality that Burwell is a major transportation corridor. Certainly, reinvigorating and increasing the tax base in downtown will help the entire City by taking off some of the tax burden that is now falling on the Bremerton homeowners. He agrees with all those living along Burwell that they should not be sacrificed for development of another part of the City. He sees this is an opportunity to help an area of the City that is struggling with economic revitalization by creating a quality corridor that would deliver people from outside the Bremerton community to downtown to shop. He congratulated the committee for the marvelous job they did taking on this task. He believes the compromise proposal is very creative and to not discount the landscaping and pocket parking lots mid block. He urged Council to give deep thought to the recommendation. TAPE #1427 (Note: some comments on this tape are listed under the "do not support comments.) William Gearllaoh, Carpenters' Local #1597, spoke in favor of the committee's recommendation. Jean Bachaud, 1855 Front Avenue, stated he believed it was not the responsibility of the City or other taxpayers to provide parking for residents along Burwell; however, he recognized that over time this has been provided and accepted. He supported providing enhanced traffic signalization to accommodate the twice daily rush hour traffic. Bill Schourup, 6581 Tracyton Blvd. NW, stated he liked the proposed plan and encouraged the City Council to support it. He agreed parking is a problem, but it becomes a bigger problem when it is given away. Other cities have sold on-street parking in front of residents homes for as much as $17,500 per parking stall. He believes if you put the proper price on parking, the problem of parking diminishes. Mr.Witt thanked everyone who took the time to attend this hearing. TAPE #1427 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December 11, 1996 Page 14 of 35 What is proposed is for the City to provide off-street parking for the residents by acquiring a lot or two as necessary on a block where the parking was removed. Currently, he is in the process of collecting data to determine how large those lots should be, available parking spaces at each residence, how many units require parking at each residence and how many parking spaces would be available on the street. The next step will be to meet with residents and address issues such as security, inconvenience in terms of how far away the lot is from the residences, etc. From the information received through the surveys and committee discussions, there is a spit over whether or not the parking lots should be provided and such a decision needs to be made by those within a specific block. This issue has been discussed with the Federal Highway Administration in terms of completing the EIS with a general statement that the City is facilitating this discussion and it will allow reserving the ability to purchase and construct parking lots as deemed appropriate by the City Council. Several people brought up the issue that none of the citizen committee members lived on Burwell. Through the out reach of soliciting committee membership at public meetings, newspaper notification and contacting individuals, only Del Knauss was available in terms of selecting on Burwell Street. He emphasized Del Knauss represented the residents of Burwell Street very well even though he does not actually live on Burwell. The issue of increased speed of traffic was raised and is a good consideration, which can not be addressed through use of traffic calming devices such as speed bumps. However, the traffic bulb out proposed for intersections should give some relief, but it is an issue that goes back to enforcement and education in addition to how the traffic signals are timed. He emphasized increase traffic on the Burwell corridor will happen irrelevant of the City Council's decision and the question is how to handle that traffic. The committee wrestled with that issue and how the "to do nothing", "one-way couplet" and "four laned" were not considered a good fit to resolve the problem. The proposed compromise addresses the need to do something today that can help in the future. The committee also acknowledged the fact Burwell is a State Highway that has regional as well as city-wide considerations and goes beyond the residences along the corridor and the immediate area. The process of public notification was extraordinary efforts compared to what is often done for this type of project. Flyers were placed on every doorstep within the entire one-way couplet corridor informing people of the meetings and flyers were placed on every doorstep along Burwell informing them of this public hearing. Several notices were published in The Sun in addition to several news articles announcing the meetings. The citizen committee TAPE #1427 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December 11, 1996 Page 15 of 35 meetings were open to the public, which did draw in interested citizens from the affected areas. In response to the suggestion that the lanes on Burwell Street be switched for rush hour traffic, he believes it would be a difficult and confusing thing for the traveling public. In addition, he recalls the amplified opposition during the discussions having to do with the one-way couplet proposal. Del Knauss reported that Jim Leonard was sent in excess of 200 letters opposing any amendment to the original Council decision to "do nothing". Mr. Witt pointed out the letters sent were "form letters" with the signature on the bottom and in most cases no additional comments. The letter is clearly from the beginning of the process as it talks about one-way streets and removing parking on both sides of Burwell. He believes the compromise solution recommended by the committee and staff addresses the issues in that letter. Lastly, he emphasized the Value Engineering study that was done on the project is the driver of this reconsideration. As a point of clarification, he explained how the pocket parking lots would function using the residential parking permit process. Mary McClure stated in reference to the issue of Burwell Street representation on the citizens committee, she believes the impact on Burwell residents of losing parking on one side of the street was one of the key issues discussed over and over again. The committee was not unaware or unsympathetic. to that issue and was seen as a key thing that needed to be resolved. In terms of having worked with that committee so intensively, she recognized the clarity within that group to bring about a 9-1 vote on the compromise proposal. She has never seen a citizen group come to such a strong recommendation. Mr. Peacock explained the Federal Highway Administration began receiving letters from citizens before and as the committee began to convene and discuss this issue. That form letter addresses four lanes on Burwell Street and the one-way couplet. People signed those letters and forwarded them to the Federal Highway Administration prior to the compromise proposal being brought into the discussion, which he believes is an important point to recognize. Secondly, as the professional services person the City employed on this project, he strongly believes that the long term best interests of the City, as a whole, are best served by implementing this proposal. Mr. Colvin asked if the City is obligated to provide parking spaces on a State highway? Ian Sievers, City Attorney, stated no, it is TAPE #1427 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December 11, 1996 Page 17 of 35 was apprised that by narrowing the street it can slow down vehicular traffic, such as that experienced on Park Avenue. Mr. Witt stated yes, particularly more in residential areas, by making the driver more aware of their surroundings. Mr. Winters referenced recent discussions about the replacement of the Manette Bridge and its potential width, which was not based on accident statistics. He asked members of the audience to raise their hands if they agreed with the "do nothing" alternative as previously approved by the City Council. He then asked for a show of hands of those in the audience that agree with making a change as proposed during this discussion. The result of that poll was nearly even. Lastly, he asked if the off-street parking would be free to the residents in the affected area? Mr. Witt explained there would be no charge and would be built as part of the project and maintained by the City. And, there would be some type of "vehicle sticker" identification for those eligible to use the lots. Mr. Winters stated he strongly disagrees with the removal of crosswalks in areas where there is considerable pedestrian traffic and felt that should be readdressed for the protection of the citizens of Bremerton. Mr. McConne11 questioned who will have the responsiblity to maintain the off-street parking lots? Mr. Witt stated the City. Mr. McConnell asked if he understood correctly that one of the problems with increasing the traffic flow had to do with signalization? Mr. Witt stated vehicles should not be kept waiting at traffic signals because it causes air pollution and wastes gas; however, when he speaks to timing the signals and changing the flow of traffic it has to do with a vehicle going a specific speed limit and hitting the green light consistently. Mr. McConne11 stated he was surprised that no consideration or discussion was given to pedestrian crossing at State Street. He believes a traffic signal is justified at that location. He was also concerned about the make up of the committee and asked who chaired the committee? Mr. Witt stated the committee was facilitated by Mary McClure; however there was no chair. Mr. McConnell asked if he understood correctly that the committee almost fully supported "no action". Mr. Witt stated Mr. McConnell was correct, Mr. McConnell pointed out as soon as the threat of the one-way couplet proposal was removed, there was a switch over by the committee members. Mr. Witt stated he would not characterize it in that manner. Mr. McConne11 agreed that the City does not owe anyone on-street parking anywhere in the City. When he purchased his home he made sure that he had adequate space to address his parking needs. Mrs. MaClure stated with respect to the citizen committee's stance on the "do nothing" option, the last evening the committee met to form their recommendation the first thing they were asked to do was fill out the questionnaire. All but two of the committee members had questions about whether or not something should be done to the TAPE #1427 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December 11, 1996 Page 18 of 35 Burwell corridor. The two members that said they agreed somewhat clearly were not completely comfortable doing nothing on Burwell and through the corridor. You could either say five clearly disagreed with doing nothing and leaving it as is, or you can say that seven of the nine, who filled out the questionnaire, had questions and felt it was not the right answer to do nothing on Burwell. Therefore, she would not say it was overwhelmingly in the other direction. Mr. MaConnell questioned the diagram showing a bulbed out structure at the intersections. Mr. Witt explained the bulbed out structure shows the committee's recommendation to provide some kind of landscaping in the corridor. With the width of right-of-way (44 ft.), there isn't adequate width to move sidewalks and create planters and do plantings, so the thought was to carry a constant theme through the corridor by providing plantings at both the intersections and mid block. Mr. McConnell asked if the proposed landscaping design might create a danger. especially at night? Mr. Witt stated any design would be evaluated to identify any risk that might be associated with such a structure. Mr. Overson complimented the committee members for undertaking such a difficult task as well as the staff members, who worked with the committee. He believes the results of the committee and staff working together have made his job easy. He supports the alternative as being right because of the expertise of Mrs. McClure, Randy Witt and Jeff Peacock and the effort put in by the committee. He also agreed that what is driving this option is the project starting out at the SR3/304 junction, which will encourage traffic to come into Bremerton and travel all the way through the City. At the time of the original presentation on the new entry into Bremerton, Burwell was proposed to be one-way and it went back to a "do nothing" concern when the one-way couplet was found so offensive to the public. He continues to have an aggregation over the non-action for crosswalks in the subject area; however he has discussed his position with Mr. Witt and in time hopes it will be resolved. One thing not brought up during this discussion is the Navy's new Montgomery gate and how it folds into this project. Witt stated the original EIS for this project does consider the Montgomery Gate. Mr. Overson stated he believed that might have some influence on the crosswalk consideration. He referenced a blinking red stop light at 6th and Venetta, which allows pedestrians to cross the street safely. He feels strong that a similar stop light should be installed at Burwell and State Street. Mrs. Huff-Menees stated she concurred with Mr. Overson's remarks and she also complimented the committee on taking on a difficult task. The committee was not only required to study a tremendous amount of information, but were also asked to circulate and talk with people attending the open houses in order to get a sense of TAPE #1427 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December 11, 1996 Page 19 of 35 what others within the community were feeling about the project. The committees' recommendation reflects that interaction with the public. She is compelled by the figures in the survey that show there wasn't a vast difference between the agree and somewhat disagree and disagree and strongly disagree. With respect to the issue of capacity of traffic on Burwell Street, removing on-street parking and adding new parking elsewhere was very close in the survey. She believes far more people do feel something needs to be done on Burwell. She was sorry for the disruption of what currently exists in the way of parking, but in the terms of what Mr. Montgomery has pointed out, we're offering the Burwell residents more with this proposal than residents on several other major thoroughfares, i.e., Callow Avenue, 6th Street. She lives on Cambrian Avenue and they are faced with parking challenges as well. Therefore, she supports the recommendation. Lastly, a few people have spoken of the fact that if the downtown revitalization project was an issue in making some of these considerations that somehow represents a sin. She wanted to go on record saying that does not represent a sin, and Council would be remiss if they did not look at all of the things that can be done to increase revenues and this revitalization offers an opportunity to fix the alleys and do some of the things that need addressing. Mr. Farr questioned if there was an approximate count of the affected houses, if on-street parking is removed, that have no other parking alternatives, i.e., driveway, etc.? Mr. explained he was in the process of surveying the area house-by- house to determine the number of houses on each block, how many have been divided into apartments, how many parking spaces are being used behind houses. Another piece of information required is how many parking spaces should each house require. Mr. Farr stated in his informal count he would estimate the number is relatively small when compared to how this affects the entire residents of the City (40,000) and people who commute to downtown businesses. Witt stated when he started counting the housing in units, it does change the parking needs; however, he did not see that there would be need to provide 40-50 spaces on any block. Mr. Farr stated then in most cases the shortfall will be picked up by providing the pocket parking lots. He asked if Council approves the compromise alternative, would it preclude ever going back to address the pedestrian situation at High Avenue and Burwell Street? Mr. Witt stated no, and safety issues along that corridor may be addressed at some time under a grant funded project. Mr. ~arr stated he cringes when members of the public criticize the Council that they have to stick with an earlier decision with no further consideration regardless of the reason for further review. He supported the "no action" proposal at the original discussion, but it was his understanding that if other things came up for consideration he would want to have an opportunity to review it. TAPE #1427 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December 11, 1996 Page 20 of 35 And, other things have come up to make this worthy of consideration, i.e. good outlook for passenger only ferry service, more certainty of the downtown redevelopment and the Value Engineering Study. Also, he based his original vote on the fact that staff did not have a strong recommendation against the "do nothing" option. He was personally aware that an individual purchased a home in the subject area, turned it into a rental property and paved the backyard in order to rent out parking spaces to shipyard commuters. Mr. Witt noted as they survey the area that kind of situation is very evident. Mr. Farr stated he has always maintained that the City needs to get a better dialog with the Puget Sound Naval shipyard addressing the fact they need to take on some responsibility to provide parking for shipyard employees. He urged his fellow Council members to take the long view and approve the proposal as presented. Acting President Neville asked Mr. Peacock to talk about level of service on Burwell. Mr. Peacock stated the level of service figures are for 2020 and include the projections with considerations for the addition of two fast ferries and the increased densities and trip generation associated with the Sinclair Landing Project as proposed in their P.U.D., which was submitted several weeks ago. Mr. Overson asked when will the corridor actually see the increased traffic and what percent difference are the figures from 1999 to 2000. Mr. Peacock stated he could state fairly confidently that with the assumption the two passenger only ferries will be in place within the next 5-7 years and that Sinclair landing, as proposed, is developed in 5-7 years, the traffic numbers will be very comparable to those presented. Actinq President Neville questioned if the figures presented reveal that the City's intersections will meet a level of service well past 2020, Mr. peacock stated with maximum buildout as projected in the city's Comprehensive Plan, the addition of two fast ferries and Sinclair Landing projects, by the year 2020 there will be congestion at some of the intersections. Mr. Neville pointed out the Gateway project involves funding from several agencies. He questioned what might be the response in the future for funding, if the City did not take advantage of funds available now? Mr. Peacock stated he would answer that based on his experience around the region. He believes there is a wonderful window of opportunity provided for the City of Bremerton to construction this project through access to a number of different funding sources because there is wide recognition throughout the region that the City of Bremerton can use some help. If that window closes because of direction from the City Council to not move forward and take advantage of the opportunity, those institutional memories will be around for as long as the individuals within those agencies are in a position to make decisions. He believes it would be an up hill battle for the City TAPE #1427 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December 11, 1996 Page 21 of 35 to find such a funding source in the future. Mr. Witt pointed out this project competes very well for the funding available. In additional, the Transportation Improvement Board is ready for a discussion on the funding for this project, which hopefully means they are thinking about increasing the funding that may or may not have to go through the competitive process. Mr. Peacock stated this window of opportunity is available now and allows the City to implement some of the ideas for pennys on the dollar and that kind of deal does not come around that often. Actin~ President Neville asked if the recommended motion also include: parking on one side of the street, provide off-street parking to offset the removed parking as appropriate, bulbed out intersections, provide landscaping and improve signal coordination on 6th Street and Warren Avenue, the Burwell intersection, State Street and Burwell and High Avenue and Burwell Street. Mr. Witt cautioned that the discussion was moving outside of the scope, both the committee's recommendation and the EIS, by asking that two signals on Burwell be added. Mr. Neville stated Council was not necessarily asking for signals, but that there be some review as it relates to pedestrian traffic. Mr. Witt stated irrelevant of Council's decision on this issue, the complements of the project is to provide a City street light system rather than Puget Power, in order to provide better lighting throughout the corridor. Acting President Neville asked Councilman Montgomery if he would agree to add to his motion those items just identified? And, having sat on the Council for five years, this is the one topic that he has received calls at his home from constituents. The majority of those calls were from residents along Burwell, who were adamantly opposed to the compromise proposal, but he feels that he would be short sighting himself and the City of Bremerton if he only represented those few people living along Burwell Street. He believes this project on a whole will represent the City in its best interest as well as the entire County, if not the entire State. Mr. Montgomery stated he would amended his motion to include the items identified by Mr. Neville, which was agreed to by Ms. Huff- Menees, who seconded the original motion. Vote on motion: motion carried. In Favor: Oppose: Montgomery, Huff-Menees, Farr, Overson, Neville, McConnell, Winters 10A - PUBLIC HEARING - WERNER ROAD ANNEXATION 75% PETITION; AND ORDINANCE (FIRST READING), #AB96-283 A legally sufficient petition, representing 75-percent of assessed value of all real property within a revised annexation area Werner Road Area, has been secured. This new area represents a portion of the area represented by the 20-percent petition. a public hearing TAPE #1427 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December 11, 1996 Page 22 of 35 shall be held before City Council in accordance with RCW 35.13.140. any interested persons may appear and voice either approval or disapproval for this annexation. Following the hearing, the Legislative body must approve the ordinance annexing the area and establishing land-use designations on the first reading and pass it on the second; or reject the annexation. Terrie O'Neill, Municipal Services Coordinator, stated proper annexation of areas adjacent to cities is crucial to establishing and maintaining urban order and effective government. Rapid development and population growth occurring around City boundaries is a frequent occurrence in all cities. This is the case because property is generally cheaper to obtain and development is less restrictive. However, so called "fringe" communities experience pressures that are common inside cities. Such problems are generally caused by the presence of concentrations of population, i.e. increased traffic on inadequate roads, increased police and fire protection demands, disorderly growth followed by property devaluation and improperly mixed uses. Those kinds of problems cross over into the City boundaries and become City problems as well. The lack of safe streets spreads congestion to the city such as that experienced in the Nollwood public housing development where a law enforcement officer intervened nearly every day in 1995. Fringe area growth produces a complex web of government jurisdictions that result in administrative confusion, inefficiency, duplication and excessive costs. Many urban communities become a tangle of competing services, lacking the ability to provide essential services and this is certainly the case in the Werner area where fire police, utilities and pubic works are all administered by separate agencies. The logical solution is annexation into the City inasmuch as the City completely encompasses the area and already provides a multitude of services either directly or indirectly. Annexation can preserve the area with other surrounding businesses, industrial and residential areas nearby as a unified whole. Annexation also enables this urban area to unite and represented within the core city to which Werner Road is already socially and economically related. City staff has evaluated the service demands, both existing and future, can be met by the City. The Boundary Review Board must decide if the annexation is appropriate in meeting the Growth Management Act, State Annexation statutes, service demands and City policy. TAPE #1427 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December 11, 1996 Page 23 of 35 If the annexation is effective by March of 1997, the tax revision would appear on the November 1997 tax statement for collection in 1998. Service enhancement would begin immediately. As Council is aware, during this phase of the annexation they are allowed to modify the geographic area to be annexed. There are two places where some of the property owners have voiced an objection and asked to be removed from the annexation. Those areas are at the top end, next to Tweed Street and the properties on the west side of Broad Street. When meetings were held with residents of those areas, the City's objective for annexation was to annex Werner Road down to the City limits. It was not anticipated to have a large enough petition to include any property north of Nollwood. Several times since those meetings City staff has postponed the annexation's completion due to many different variables. Since the meetings, support for the annexation has shifted away from the Werner Corridor and to the north due to the requests of specific property owners, the demand for mutual aid services, which are unfunded negotiations with District 12, and septic failures under the scrutiny of the Health District. Now, those area have been included in the annexation area. TAPE #1428 The Broad Street section has an unusually shaped lot that, if annexed without adjacent property, would be a violation of State statute. Two sites have failed septic systems, requiring them to hook to a sewer on a temporary basis. Additionally, there are no fire hydrants, and several fires have already occurred in the vicinity, with one house lost to fire last year. In the other area, the lot adjacent was included so that the City could incorporate Tweed Street because of the pending development proposal for the skirving site. Otherwise, the City would not have jurisdictional authority on the road and could not require improvements. Neighbors are concerned about impacts to traffic and the environment. If the site is developed, it is important for community safety to require and coordinate the improvement of the existing 15 ft. gravel road. If the property is annexed, the property owner would also be represented on the City Council in the development of the site. Considering all these reasons, Mrs. O'Neill believes including these sites for annexation is correct, and is only the first of what will most likely require four or more smaller annexations to eliminate this island of unincorporated area. If the areas do not come into the City now, they may end up coming in with the sewer LID proposed for later or they may refuse then as well. She also explained that if they choose not to support the annexation in the future, the City may not possess the leverage to bring them in. TAPE #1428 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December 11, 1996 Page 24 of 35 Acting President Neville asked the seated Council members if their participation would conflict with the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine? The response was no. He then asked if there was any member of the public who believed any Council member should excuse themselves? Again, the response was no. Ron Hough, Planning Manager, stated his role was to bring to Council the Planning Commission's recommendation as it related to the Long Range Comprehensive Plan designation and the zoning for these properties once they are annexed into the City. He pointed to a map, which showed the properties proposed for annexation, along with the surrounding areas. On November 8, 1995, Council considered a 10% petition to annex an area of about 137 acres, known as the Werner Road Annexation. Staff was directed to proceed toward annexation. On March 19, 1996, the Bremerton Planning Commission conducted a Public Hearing to consider the most appropriate Comprehensive Plan designations and zoning. After giving primary consideration to the City's Comprehensive Plan, it was decided that the Werner Road corridor would be designated "IP" (Industrial Park), and the rest of the "unincorporated island" as "LDR" (Low-Density Residential). The Kitsap County Comprehensive Plan was also considered, and they are proposing Urban Low (6-9 DU/Acre) and Light Industrial along parts of Werner Road. This is the same pattern of land use designations as the City's Comprehensive Plan. When the Planning Commission made their recommendations, they considered a number of factors including: levels of existing development; access; topography; utility availability; police and fire protection; Kitsap County "Interim Zoning"; surrounding plans and zoning in the City; and the City Comprehensive Plan. After all these considerations, the final recommendation is for the Comprehensive Plan designations to remain as shown on the adopted City Comprehensive Plan with Industrial Park (IP) along both sides of the Werner Road Corridor; Multiple- Family Residential (MF) on the Knollwood development; and Single-Family Residential (SF-3) in all other areas. Mr. Colvin pointed out that with this annexation, there would be two "Broad Streets" in Bremerton. Mr. Hough stated he was aware of that, but they are on different sides of town. The following individuals spoke in opposition to the proposed annexation: Butch Duke and Opal Duke, 5820 Harlow Drive; Tim Thompson, 5815 Harlow Drive; Lenus Bethune, 203 Broad Street; Paula Moore, 5605 Werner Road; Virginia Fitzwater, 205 Broad Street; John Morgan, 131 Broad Street; Cheri Thompson, 5815 Harlow Drive; Elizabeth Banks, 3114 S Norman Street, Seattle (owns property on TAPE #1428 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December 11, 1996 Page 25 of 35 Ida Street); Don Cole, 115 Broad Street; Christi McNeil, 5827 Harlow Drive; Juli Ostwald, 235 Broad Street; Joy Faigh, 105 Broad Street; Ann Morgan, 131 Broad Street West; Gerrie Prinqle, 133 Broad Street; and Mike Hudson, 107 Broad Street NW. The following comments were made by the above named individuals in opposition to the Commission's recommendations: (1) Questioned claims made about being mandated by State statute to use straight lines when possible, but final map shows a lot of "zigs and zags"; (2) Concern about not wanting to assume the City's past and present indebtedness; (3) Representation appears to be in favor of land developers with money, rather than long-time property owners; (4) Concerned that the City merely posted notices, rather than sending out individual notices to all property owners; (5) Map used by City does not accurately represent the property lines at Tweed Lane; (6) Concern that promises for better fire and police protection are false, especially those whose property will be in the City, but their actual street address will appear to be County; (7) If road is developed for land developer, will the City consider it a secondary road, or will it maintain the road and plow snow in winter? (8) Concern about Tweed Street being used as access to the new development due to the lay-out of the road, and a very sharp corner; (9) Concerns about the habitat and wildlife that live in the area such as deer, pheasants, eagles, ducks and geese; (10) Environmental concerns for the salmon creek and particularly the wetlands; (11) Affects on the water table if there is more development because of all the water that already comes off the hillside, and repair costs already incurred; (12) Opposed to paying City taxes and other increased costs; (13) Fear of U.L.I.D. assessment and costs, without getting the sewer; (14) Concern about increased crime, especially in Knollwood development; (15) Concern about losing benefit of rural area with ability to have livestock and horses; (16) Inconsiderate of those who purposely moved out of the City and chose to live in the County; (17) Concerns about increased traffic; (18) Frustrations by non-resident property owners about having to now deal with the City in addition to the County, concerning development of their property; (19) Questions about why only some of the property is being annexed, and either all of required property should be annexed, or none at all; and (20) Fears of creating more confusion, particularly from 911 operators who ask if you are City or County on emergency calls. LulU Potter, 255 Broad Street, stated she was in favor of the annexation due to hopes of having the extreme septic problems on her property resolved. William E. Schourup, 6581 Tracyton Blvd. NW, Bremerton, owns property at Ida & Werner, stated his support of the annexation because he feels there is not adequate fire service to the area. TAPE #1428 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December 11, 1996 Page 26 of 35 Also, he does not feel there has been adequate response from the County in the past to local drug problems. Michael Mancock, P.O. Box 1428, Silverdale, owns property in affected area, and supports the annexation. His reasons include (1) This is not a "rural" area, but an "urban growth" area, and it has been dictated by the State that growth happen in "urban growth" areas; (2) This is an area of County property completely surrounded by City property, creating an "island"; (3) No one representing the County showed up to oppose this annexation; and (4) feels annexation is inevitable, the only question is "when", and at least now, the citizens can decide on it. He feels the greatest failure of the Growth Management Act are the loopholes, and this hearing for annexation shouldn't even be taking place. The Growth Management Act should have provided automatic annexation for property in cases where unincorporated "islands" are completely surrounded by incorporated land. Mrs. O,Neill responded under the Growth Management Act this is in the Urban Growth Boundary and it is a County "island". For all the reasons she stated previously, this whole area should come into the City according to her mandate. The City is only allowed to take what property can be pulled together in a petition that represents 75% of the assessed valuation. This annexation area is represented by 75.4% petition. It will probably take three to four annexations before the confusion is ended. Fire District 12 and Kitsap County both agree with the City of Bremerton that the confusion is because there are too many boundaries. The annexation is working to eliminate the confusion of these boundaries. Mrs. Moore's property was included because it represented 75.4% of the petition. Regarding livestock, the City has adopted the very same ordinances as the County to allow livestock, and if you currently own livestock, and then are annexed into the City, you are "grandfathered" under any County clauses. There is confusion with Cencom calls, and maps have been distributed to the Fire Department. Upon completion of the annexation, the Police and Fire Department will go through and update each address card individually. If Broad Street is annexed into the City, the Department of Public Works and the Fire Department have already surveyed the area, and determined where to install fire hydrants. Regarding the Knollwood development, the City of Bremerton met with the Kitsap County Housing Authority to talk about the crime rate and annexation. Since those conversations, the Police Department has been in contact with a newly appointed on-site manager at the development, and discussed various programs available for which the City Police Department is noted for. Mrs. O'Neill provided an view graph showing the taxes that would change in 1998 upon annexation into the City. She pointed out as TAPE #1428 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December 11, 1996 Page 27 of 35 City residents they would no longer pay County Road Tax or County Fire Tax, but would pay the County General Fund and County Fire Bond. She used the example of a property value of $100,000 the owner would pay $11.16 more per year in property taxes. In reference to the issue of septic system problems in the annexation area, the City does have the area included in its Sewer Comprehensive Plan and within the five year Comprehensive Plan there are plans for a pump station at the end of Harlow for a gravity flow sewer service to that area. In order for the annexation area to be sewered it would take over 60 percent of area would have to support a L.I.D. Lulu Potter has been granted a special connection to a sewer line that is normally not available due to the severity of her septic system problem. In regard to providing public notice, the State Statute requires that 10 days prior to a hearing three signs must be posted in the affected area, which was done. Notification was also given in The Sun and notices were sent to every property owner in the area using addresses from the County Assessors records. She did have two notices returned undelivered. A comment was made that the decision boiled down to the eight votes of the Council, which needed to be corrected in that Council decides whether or not to accept the annexation area. The area already has a legal petition that represents 75% of the property based on is value. That means that the property owners in the subject area have approved the annexation. Mr. Hough stated the subject area is an urban area and not a rural area. It is designed urban by the County and zoned for urban densities by the County and whether or not it develops under the County's or City's jurisdiction the same types of considerations will have to be made, i.e., traffic, water run off, sewer, road improvements, etc.., which are not part of an annexation. No development is being considered under this annexation. The notification process was thoroughly reviewed by Mrs. O'Neill, which did meet State requirements. If people question what they do with their property, that information can be obtained by their reviewing the Zoning Code either in the City or County. Mr. Winters asked Mrs. O'Neill to respond to Mr. Duke's comments that there was miscommunications in a phone call. M~s. O,Meill stated as she explained in her presentation that at the time they met with the residents last year they asked about being excluded from the annexation, which is a decision that can be made by the Council. Yes, she did make the comment that she did not remember which side of the street his property was located. Mr. Winters noted he lives at the corner of Carr Blvd., and Harlow Drive and he TAPE #1428 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December 11, 1996 Page 28 of 35 does enjoy being in a rural area where he can enjoy seeing the wildlife in that area. If the annexation is approved, will the area become part of District #9? Mrs. O,Neill explained the County is responsible for redistricting Council Districts. Mr. Winters asked if it was possible to take Mr. Hudspeth's advice and annex the industrial areas as opposed to the residential areas? Mrs. O,Neill pointed out Council could not expand the proposed annexation area because what is proposed is the maximum allowed under the 75% petition, but it can be modified to a lesser amount. Mr. McConnell stated he was unaware of any Street Light Tax in the City. Mrs. O'Neill stated there is none in the City. Mr. Farr stated it was unfortunate that no matter how many times we go through this process there seems to be misunderstandings on what Council is being asked to do, which is strictly to accept the annexation. Other concerns, such as wetlands, road conditions, etc., having nothing to do with this action. TAPE #1429 #0008 M/S/C(Farr/Montgomery) to approve Ordinance (first reading) annexing the Werner Road Annexation. Vote on Motion: Motion carried. In Favor: Montgomery, Huff-Menees, Farr, Overson, Colvin, Neville, Opposed: Winters, McConnell 7B - APPROVAL OF ADMIRAL THEATER 108 LOAN, #AB96-285 The Admiral Theater Foundation has received loan documents to finalize its receipt of a $1.5 million HUD Section 108 loan for capital improvements to the City's Admiral Theater property. The City approved the application, including a pledge of the property as security for the loan, and has recently provided a bridge loan until the HUD proceeds were available. As part of the loan documents the City must provide approval three documents: 1) a Secured Non-recourse Guaranty, which guarantees the Theater Foundation's obligations set forth in the Loan documents with recovery limited to the theater property only; 2) Deed of Trust with Assignment of Rents and Security Agreement to secure the City's Guaranty with a lien on the property; (3) Consent to the Collateral Assignment of Operating Agreement, which approves the Foundation's assignment of its operating agreement with the City as additional security. The County's rights under this loan will be assigned to HUD as TAPE #1428 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December 11, 1996 Page 29 of 35 guarantor of the bond issue, which will finance the 108 loan. HUD also holds the County's future Block Grant allocation as security for non-payment. Ian Sievers, City Attorney, reminded Council that Kitsap County facilitated the bridge loan by initiating a loan to the City, which was then loaned to the Theater Foundation. Once the loan is closed, the County will retain the repayment amount and extinguish the City's obligation to the County. He did receive the Contract For Loan Guaranty Assistance under Section 108 of the Housing Redevelopment Act, which is between the County and HUD. Also, it does verify the last paragraph of the Agenda Bill that the County pledges its future allocations and grants from the HUD program as well as pledging and assigning the loan documents to HUD, so if there is a future default on the loan it will be HUD's, not the County's. Public comment - none. Mr. Winters referenced the Agreement, under section 3,10 -Books and Records; Financial Statements, and asked that wording be added as follows: "And, to have a Certified Public Accountant sign, date and certify that all preparation is in conformance with all tax codes". He believed it would be to the City's benefit to have the "books" not be audited by an in-house bookkeeper, but should be reviewed by an outside person at the expense of the Foundation. Mr. Sievers stated there is a requirement to have those records kept and available to the City. Mr. Winters' request would duplicate a requirement that is contained in the original 1990 Operating Agreement whereby the City's Auditor will have the opportunity to conduct a review for the City. Mr. Sievers felt that requirement could be clarified outside of the subject agreement. Mr. Overson asked the amount of the annual payment on the loan? Mr. Sievers explained the loan has a 5-year repayment schedule; however, he could not give a more detailed answer. Mr. Overson asked if he understood correctly that it would amount to approximately $300,000 annually plus interest? He also asked what would happen if Council did not approve the agreement? Mr. Sievers explained the Secretary Of HUD made it clear in the application process that the City would, as the property owner, have to provide security for this Section 108 Loan Guaranty that it was giving for the issuance of bonds. If the Council was not willing to give Kitsap County a Deed of Trust and some of the less important securities, such as consenting to the assignment of the Operating Agreement, then probably the loan would not close. One of the most immediate consequences would be the City being "on the hook" for money spent on the bridge loan with the County. Mr. Overson stated if Council does give its approval, the Admiral Theater Foundation #0390 TAPE #1428 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December 11, 1996 Page 30 of 35 must make payments of $300,000+ per year or the City will be liable. Mr. Slevers stated that is one security, but as he mentioned HUD holds the County's allocations and grants under the HUD program. HUD must decide which of the two securities they would exercise in the event of default. Mr. Overson asked if the Admiral Theater Foundation had demonstrated how they will repay the loan? Mr. Sievers stated he had not reviewed the Foundation's financial records to determine the level of funding received from pledges. Mr. Parr stated he understood that the repayment was not based on operating profits from the Admiral Theater once it starts operating, but out of funding collected through pledges. Rich Hanna, City Treasurer, stated that was his understanding. Mr. Parr urged his fellow Council members to approve this item as presented and if not, it would be a horrible setback. Mr. Oolvin asked if the City of Bremerton would be obligated to pay $300,000 annually and was the City's cash flow sufficient to handle that payment? Mr. Slevers stated both the Deed of Trust and the City's guaranty are called a Non-recourse Guaranty and Deed of Trust. What is at stake for the City is if the Admiral Theater Founding cannot make the payments, the City's property can be foreclosed upon, but any deficiency that exists after HUD forecloses against the property would not come out the City's general fund or any other revenue source of the City. Therefore, it would not affect the City's budget, but just the property itself. Mrs. Huff-Menees offered that the Foundation examined very thoroughly whether they should apply for a HUD loan knowing full well what the repayment requirement would be and all HUD guidelines that must be met. Mr. Overson asked if his fellow Council members were confident about moving forward with this action? Mr. McConnell asked if prior Council action having to do with $750,000 for the Foundation was part of the 1.5 million dollars? Mr. Sievers stated yes. Mr. Montgomery stated his support of this request as presented. M/S/C/U(Montgomery/Farr) to approve execution of Guaranty, Deed of Trust and Consent To Collateral Assignment Of Operating Agreement. Mr. Winters questioned the Foundations' assets in the event they are unable to make the annual payment and how liable are they? Mr. TAPE #1428 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December 11, 1996 Page 31 of 35 Sievers stated the Foundation is a non-profit organization, but he was not sure how they are capitalized. He assumed it was not much more than their operating agreement, which is long term and has some value. They have made improvements to the building and he assumes they would have some personal property that are considered assets of the foundation. Mr. Winters questioned if the City would be able to assess that by reviewing the Foundation's balance sheet? Mr. Sievers stated yes. Mr. Overson asked if he understood correctly that the Foundation's officers had reviewed and signed the subject documents? Mr. Slevers stated he understood the closing would take place on December 12, and he was aware they had reviewed the documents because they had comments and made changes previously. Mr. Overson stated he would give his support to this proposal because he is relying on the professionals, who have reviewed the documents thoroughly, and the fact no one is bringing information to him not to move forward as requested. Vote on motion - unanimous. 8A - RESOLUTION #2574, AUTHORIZING ANINTERFUNDLOANFROM THE WATER FUND TO THE WASTEWATER FUND, AND APPROVING BUDGET ADJUSTMENT #96- 281 By Resolution No. 2541, the City Council authorized an interfund loan from the Water Fund to the Wastewater Fund. The size of the current loan was limited to $2 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, 1997, and that the size of the loan be increased to $3 million. Rich Hanna, City Treasurer, stated as presented to Council in several Study Sessions and Executive Sessions, a number of financial contingencies remain facing the Wastewater Utility, particularly the continuing negotiations with the Navy over provision of utility services and the associated fees, and the various sources of project financing for the several CSO remediation and other capital projects that are currently being dealt with by the Wastewater Utility. Again, a very careful and thorough analysis has been conducted of the long term financial viability of the Wastewater Utility and he remains confident that the periodic rate increase discussed in long range planning will be sufficient to maintain a financially sound and viable utility. The situation is a temporary cash flow deficit. At the time of the original loan, he had anticipated the two million dollars through the end of the current year would be sufficient; however, events have proven that to be untrue. He is hopeful that all of these issues will be resolved by the end of 1997. #0705 TAPE #1428 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December 11, 1996 Page 32 of 35 Public comment - none. Mr. McConnell asked why the Wastewater Utility Fund was so far overdrawn? Mr. ~anna explained there are two primary causes: (1) the City is in the midst of renegotiating contracts with the Navy for both water and wastewater service. At this point, both parties have agreed the new rates will be retroactive to October 1, 1995, once they have been negotiated. Were those contracts to settle today, the amount of money coming from the Navy would be adequate to pay the loan as it presently exists. (2) Several CSO projects - the City has invoices submitted to the State in excess of one million dollars, which may arrive prior to the expiration of the current loan. However, he does not know that will happen and must be prepared to deal with that if those monies do not show up prior to the end of the current authorization. Mr. McConnell asked if the two million dollars was borrowed on the basis of the future contract with the Navy? Mr. ~anna stated yes, among other things. Mr. Colvin asked if the City had an Accounts Receivable from the Navy? Mr. ~anna stated technically it cannot be considered an Accounts Receivable because it is a contract that has not yet been signed by the Navy, but it is in practical terms. Mr. Winters stated he was uncomfortable counting money that isn't in the bank or on a signed contract. He asked Mr. Hanna if the amount owned by the Navy is one million or two million dollars, if the Navy paid it today? Mr. ~anna stated he did not know; however, the time frame is well defined and rates are still being negotiated, but he believed it would be in excess of one million dollars and closer to two million. Mr. Winters stated if the City only expects to receive back two million dollars and have an interim Department loan fund of three million, where is the extra million dollars coming from at the end of 19977 Will it be instilled in the rates within that contract? Mr. ~anna explained the rate has already been set. The two millions dollars from the Navy is roughly the amount owed to date and as time goes on that number increases. He was requesting an amount of funding that he believes is adequate to cover the financial needs in the hopes that he will not have to bring the issue back before the Council at a later date. Mr. Winters ask if Mr. Hanna had a "Plan B" if hypothetically there isn't a Navy contract? Mr. Hanna stated he did not want to think it would come to discontinuing water. service. M/S/C/U(Montgomery/Farr) to adopt Resolution #2574, authorizing an interfund loan to the Wastewater Operating Fund from the Water Operating Fund; and approving Budget Adjustment #96-29. 9A - ORDINANCE #4579 (SECOND READING) ADOPTING THE 1997 BUDGET, #1104 TAPE #1428 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December 11, 1996 Page 33 of 35 #AB96-276 Jud Turner, Chair Fathoms O'Fun Festival Inc., asked that the City Council consider allocating $4,000.00 from Hotel/Motel Taxes to help fund the fireworks display on July 4, 1997, in Sinclair Inlet. He pointed out the fireworks has been enjoyed by many Bremerton residents for many years and this was the first time the City had been asked to contribute toward that event. For the first time in many years the Festival has asked for financial help from the City of Port Orchard for the fireworks show and were granted $2,000 from their Hotel/Motel Tax revenues. Mr. Farr questioned the remaining balance in the Hotel/Motel Tax Fund following Council's action at first reading of the ordinance? Mr. manna stated $2,000.00. Mr. Farr stated he liked the idea of cooperating with Port Orchard, but would not support the disruption of the allocations previously agreed upon. However, he would support using the remaining balance of the fund for this purpose. Mr. Winters asked Mr. Turner how much money does the Festival receive from the City of Port Orchard? Mr. Turner stated in 1996 they allocated $2,000 from the Hotel/Motel Tax Fund and for 1997 have allocated $4,600 from that same fund. Mr. Winters asked Mr. Turner if the City of Bremerton agreed to fund his request, would he then come back each year expecting to receive additional funding? Mr. Turner stated no. Mr. Winters asked if the remaining $2,000 in the fund possibly designated for the Council's travel budget? Mr. Manna stated no. Mr. Overson suggested that Council remand Mr. Turner's request to staff and let the Administration decide if they wish to make a recommendation to Council. He views that amount of money is within the Mayor's budgetary authority. Mr. McConnell asked if the fireworks display comes under the legitimate uses for Hotel/Motel Taxes? Ian Sievers, City Attorney, stated the catchall promoting tourism is a little broad. The actual designated uses for those funds are more narrow, i.e. develop strategies to promote tourism, or to disseminate information to attract tourism. Mr. Turner noted he believes the State Statute is vague as to what constitutes promotion of tourism and apparently up to each jurisdiction to make that determination. His experience in Port Orchard has been that on the night of July 4th Holiday Express Motel is sold out (31 rooms) for people watching the fireworks. M/S/C(Montgomery/Colvin) to pass Ordinance #4579, on second reading, approving and adopting the financial budget for the several fund of the City of Bremerton for the fiscal year 1997, and appropriating the amounts set forth in each budget to each fund in #1678 TAPE #1428 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December 11, 1996 Page 34 of 35 accordance with RCW 35.33.075; with the balance of the Hotel/Motel Tax fund 104 be remanded back to the Mayor to make a decision for expenditure. Mr. Overson stated he would not support the motion because he believes the distribution of Hotel/Motel Tax is inappropriate and on the edge of a bad decision and should be revisited. Mrs. Huff-Menees asked if a vote was not taken at this time, what would that do with respect to approving the 1997 Budget? Mr. Hanna stated this action is second reading of the ordinance; however, there was enough time to hold the item for one week and still be effective by year end. Mrs. Huff-Menees stated she did not understanding what could be gained by revisiting this item in one weeks time. Mr. Overson stated his concern had to do with the correct process for presenting an item such as this to the Council. Vote on motion: Motion carried. In Favor: Opposed: Winters, Montgomery, Huff-Menees, Farr, Neville, McConnell, Colvin Overson 9B - ORDINANCE (FIRST READING) AMENDING THE 1996 BUDGET, #AB96-282 A number of actions have been taken by the City which need to be incorporated into the Budget in order for the document to remain an accurate projection of City financial activity. Rich Hanna, City Treasurer, stated based on the lateness of the evening he would not discuss each Budget Adjustment even though some of the items were not previously reviewed by full Council. Public comment - none. M/S/C/U(McConnell/Montgomery) to approve Ordinance (first reading) amending the 1996 Budget on First Reading. Acting President thanked the TV camera crew for their services: Rob Rupe, James Noble and Patricia Mathis. TAPE #1428 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December 11, 1996 Page 35 of 35 · m~C a~r~,~_ : 11 00 P.M. With no further business . KATHLEEN L. McCLUSKEYjVty Clerk ~rE. LAw, Council President City of Bremerton KLM/JL/me cc: Normal Distribution File/Vault