Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/11/96COUNCIL APPROVED OCT 9, 1996 TAPE #1405 UNAPPROVED DRAFT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 11, 1996 #0028 The regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Bremerton was called to order in the City Council Chambers, 239 4th Street, Bremerton, Washington, Wednesday, September 11, 1996, at 5:30 P.M., with Council President John Law presiding. Council members present were Bob Winters, Carlos Montgomery, Sherril Huff-Menees, David Farr, Richard Neville, Lon Overson, Cecil McConnell, and A1 Colvin. Also present were City Attorney Ian Sievers and City Clerk Kathleen McCluskey. The meeting opened with the Pledge of Allegiance led by Council President Law and Invocation given by Reverend Larry Reed of Olympic View Assembly of God Church. CONSENT AGENDA None CLAIMS/CHECK REGISTER8 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/McConnell) on September 11, 1996, the Council does approve for payment those vouchers included and further described as follows: 201357 through 201543 in the amount of $565,649.17. COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS Mr. Colvin announced the District #1 Neighborhood Meeting scheduled for September 19 will be MC'd by Wayne Olsen and Mayor Lynn Horton will give the State of the City address. Mr. Overson reported today at approximately 2:00 A.M., the Bremerton Police Department was summoned by his neighbor due to an apparent prowler. He was pleased to report the Police response was very quick and the problem resolved. Because his mother and mother-in-law heard such good things about this area, they are both currently visiting the Oversons. He extended a special welcome to his mother-in-law Mary Long Erickson. Mr. Neville reminded everyone to exercise their right to vote on Tuesday. Mrs. Huff-Menees also encouraged people to vote on Tuesday and pointed out many races will be decided on Tuesday. She TAPE #1405 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes September 11, 1996 Page 2 of 31 congratulated the City on the opening of the new 18-hole Olympic Course at Gold Mountain. Mr. Montgomery reported on September 6, 1996, he sent a letter to President Clinton in reference to the USS Missouri being moved to Hawaii for its final resting place. His position was clearly stated opposing such a move and the fact that it would be visited by only the wealthy, thereby depriving the many hundreds of thousands of people the opportunity to visit the historical ship. And, he did not support the idea of bringing the USS IOWA to Bremerton, since it currently is moored on the east coast. He doubted he would receive a response from the President. On Saturday he artended the dedication of the new Crownhill School. He urged everyone to vote on Tuesday. Mr. Winters stated he agreed with Mr. Montgomery's letter and suggested that others write the President. He thanked the individuals, who contacted him this week, regarding the District #9 Neighborhood Meeting he held at his home on Monday. He urged the public to please support local fund raising activities. If someone is not registered to vote, their vote won't count, so the first step is to register. He is looking forward to meeting lots of people on the new golf course on Friday. Mr. Law stated he is convinced the new Gold Mountain Olympic Course has at least 17 signature holes and undoubtedly the most beautiful course next to Pebble Beach. District #3 will hold a Neighborhood Meeting on September 17, at the Senior Center, 7:00 P.M., with Police Chief Paul DuFresne as the guest speaker. The Manette Merchants Flea Market will be held on September 15, 1-5 PM. MAYOR'S REPORT Mayor Lynn Hotton extended an open invitation to the opening ceremony for the new golf course on Friday, 12:00 noon. Mayor Horton issued the following Proclamations: (1) September 16, 1996, Gold Star Parents And Gold Star Wives Remembrance Day, which was accepted by Nancy Lowan, President of Veterans of Foreign Wars Ladies Auxiliary. Bob Sauter emphasized the men and women who died fought for our right to vote and if it were not for their sacrifice we would not have that right. He urged people to register to vote. (2) September 20, 1996, Prisoner of War And Missing In Action Remembrance Day, which was accepted by Bob Sauter, who announced he will read this Proclamation on MIA Day in Olympia at the Capital Campus - September 20, 10:00 AM. PUBLIC RECOGNITION TAPE #1405 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes September 11, 1996 Page 3 of 31 Shirley Howerton, Bremerton resident, stated she and her sister-in- law purchased flower pots for the Front Street businesses...they built them and planted them; however, last night half of them disappeared. She questioned the City's authority to set time limits in special marked Handicap parking spaces in front of City Hall. She also questioned if the residents of Bremerton would have the opportunity to vote on any revitalization or re-development of the downtown area? President Law assured Ms. Howerton she would receive a response to her questions. Don Larson, President Washington Scuba Alliance, reminded Council and the public of the Sinclair Inlet Clean-up & Marine Fair to be held September 21, 11:00 AM - 2:00 PM., at the First Street Dock. He also requested the City to plan for a future underwater park by including it in the City's Capital Improvement Plan. Karen Willjams spoke about the Constitution Day event - September 15, 1:30 P.M., at the Bayview Inn, sponsored by the Martin Luther King Jr. Scholarship Fund. Linda Kroum, YWCA A.L.I.V.E. Program, talked about the YWCA Week Without Violence October 6 -12. Richard Chrisinger expressed his support for keeping the USS Missouri in Bremerton. He announced a Dedication Ceremony for the WWII Memorial will be held on October 3, 1996, in Olympia. Model #22 was selected for the memorial. He also urged members of the public to vote. Charlie Brown, Bremerton resident, stated a noise problem involving a parking lot sweeper is an on going problem in his neighborhood; however, he believes the City is trying to work through the problem. He feels if Bremerton can't have the USS Missouri it should be anchored in Tokyo Bay. He brought up the August 2nd Sinclair Landing Association/Fletcher Wright sponsored event at McCormick Woods and was trying to under stand why this organization, who is in place to either redevelop or revitalize downtown Bremerton, would hold a social event outside the City of Bremerton. He could think of two places in Bremerton to hold such an event - the Turner Joy or on the boardwalk. He also believes the SLA Board should have an open meeting, at the boardwalk, and invite the public to view the presentation material and allow public comment. eordV Byrd encouraged citizens to vote on Election Day. He also his appreciation of the Fire Department Paramedic Service's quick response to assist him with a medical emergency. De1 Knauss expressed concern that Councilman Montgomery publicly #1397 TAPE #1405 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes September 11, 1996 Page 4 of 31 read a letter addressed to Mr. Knauss without getting Mr. Knauss's permission. He referenced a recent Value Engineering Study that addressed making Burwell and 6th Street, possibly llth Street and Callow Avenue one-way, and removing parking on Callow. He felt strongly that Council should stick to their previous decision to not go to a one-way couplet involving Burwell, 6th Street and Callow Avenue. He questioned why is the City paying one consultant to review another consultant? He believes the push for one-way streets is coming from the developers of the Sinclair Landing project. He emphasized we can't do something detrimental to the residential neighborhoods to save downtown Bremerton. Also, if Callow Avenue is made one-way and if parking is removed from that area, it will kill the Callow Avenue Business District. Someone on the City Council needs to tell the Mayor and consultants "we are done studying, we took a vote it is over." He announced he would personally make copies of the information he obtained regarding this issue and distribute it to residents and Callow Avenue businesses. Don Atkinson, KITZ, reported following negotiations with West Sound Access Television they will be doing a simultaneous broadcast on election night and will be originating from TCI. Elizabeth Buell, Bremerton resident, was pleased to hear residents of Kitsap County will have the opportunity to get election results via radio or TV. She supports Del Knauss's concern about Council giving reconsideration to the one-way couplet proposal. Recently, she made a call to CENCOM about lights being left on at Lions Field at 2:00 A.M., and someone responded quickly call and extinguished the lights. 7A - THREE YEAR CONTRACT EXTENSION FOR UNIFORM AND LAUNDRY SERVICES, #AB96-200 The City entered into a three (3) year contract with Superior Linen Services to provide uniform rental and laundry services on July 1, 1993. Service is provided to the City's Public Works employees. Staff review of product and services provided by the contractor reflects that it is in the best interests of the City to extend the contract for an additional three year period. The contractor has agreed to maintain current pricing through the extension period and to add two additional products consistent with current contract pricing. Public comment - none. M/S/C/U(Montgomery/Huff-Menees) to approve a three year extension for uniform rental and laundry services provided by Superior Linen Service. #1442 #1496 #1516 #1590 TAPE #1405 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes September 11, 1996 Page 5 of 31 8A - ORDINANCE NO. 4568 (8ECOND READING) AMENDING THE 1996 BUDGET (BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS #96-13, AND #96-15 THROUGH ~96-26), ::AB96-196 Public comment - none. M/S/C/U(Farr/MontgomerY) to pass Ordinance No. 4568 on second reading, amending Ordinance No. 4552 relating to the budget of the City of Bremerton for Fiscal Year 1996. 8B - ORDINANCE NO. 4569 (SECOND READING); AND RESOLUTION NO. 2558, ACKNOWLEDGING A REVISED EMPLOYEE EXPENSES REIMBURSEMENT POLICY, #AB96-197 Public comment - none. M/S/C(Huff-Menees/Montgomery) to pass Ordinance No. 4569 on second reading, repealing Section 3 of Ordinance #4374; Vote on motion: In Favor: Huff-Menees, Montgomery, Neville, Farr, Colvin, Winters Motion carried. Opposed: Overson, McConne11, Law M/S/C/U(Montgomery/Huff-Menees)to approve Resolution No. 2558, acknowledging a revised Employee Reimbursement policy. 8C - ORDINANCE (FIRST READING) GETTING ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION FOR COUNCIL AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT, #AB96-201 The proposed ordinance increases the salary of council members by $2,190.00 per year, and the council member appointed by the City Council as Council President by $100.00 per month as compensation for additional responsibilities enumerated in the Council Rules and Procedures. An annual cost of living adjustment is included beginning January 1, 1997. Article XI, Section 8 of the Washington Constitution prohibits an increase in the salary of any county, city, town, or municipal officer after his election, or during his term of office. The increase approved in this ordinance can be paid only to council members filling the next term for each district council seat, beginning for some in 1998, and extending to all council positions in 2000. This ordinance is inoperative as.to incumbent council members during their present terms of office. President Law stated he was requested by Council members to allow them to make comments prior to opening the discussion to the public. M/S/C(Montgomery/Overson) to table this item until after the November election. TAPE #1405 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes September 11, 1996 Page 6 of 31 Vote on motion: In Favor: Motion carried. Opposed: Overson, McConnell, Colvin, Montgomery, Huff-Menees, Neville, Law Winters, Farr 9A - RESOLUTION NO. 2559, REVISIONS TO CITY CHARTER, #AB96-199 The revised Charter removes redundant and inconsistent language, updates the current language to reflect changes in state law, such as the election of the municipal court judge, and clarifies a number of ambiguous passages. A second emphasis is to remove the majority of references to administrative organization, including position titles and duties of officers and employees. A summary of substantive changes is attached as a cover sheet to the draft. The first hearing will provide an opportunity for public input and incorporation of changes to the draft. A resolution referring the revised charter to the November general election will be considered the following week. President Law explained this is an extension of the hearing held at the September 4th City Council meeting. At that hearing, one action was taken to accept the revised edited Charter. Following that action, several changes were presented to the Council, which were included in the Agenda packet and identified as "PROPOSED ALTERNATE SECTIONS". He asked the City Attorney to identify the minor corrections that need to be made to the proposed Charter. Ian Sievers, City Attorney, referenced his late submittal of Section 8 to reflect what was in the Charter at the September 4th hearing, which was a written down version of what he read on the record about compensation for Council members going to the vote of the people. In the alternate section, which followed the Charter, he revised what he read on the record to reflect the fact that even if it goes to an Initiative measure, the people cannot decrease a salary of a sitting Council member or the Judge. That is a different version of sending it to the vote of the people. He also submitted some additional draft language reflecting different interpretations for Special Elections under Section 10, as to when that Special Election would be held to fill positions on the City Council if more than four became vacant at one time. The current interpretation would call for a Special election that would coincide with the Municipal General Election. He believes it was the intent of those working on Section 10 that the election would be sooner than that simply because there are so many positions vacant. He provided two options: (1) hold a Special Election each year at the General Election; (2) have a Special Election on the mid-year election dates. He was not aware of any other corrections or omissions to the proposed charter. TAPE #1405 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes September 11, 1996 Page 7 of 31 President Law asked if anyone in the audience believed that any segment approved at the September 4th Council meeting is not incorporated in the proposed Charter? Andv ParVpa, Bremerton resident, recommended a change to ARTICLE VIII, Section 35 - deleting the word "Charter" and replace it with the word "section", based on the fact that Sections 49, 50 and 51 were struck out thereby deleting reference to an ordinance being submitted to the qualified electors for amending an ordinance initiated or referred. Mr. Sievers stated there is still an Initiative and Referendum process in the Charter. Mr. PazTpa pointed out not in the "smooth" copy. Mr. Sievers noted it was contained in Section 36. Mr. Sievers recommended changing the word "Charter" to "section". Mr. Colvin questioned if it would be in order to make a motion to table this item because there seems to be so many questions still unanswered? Mr. Overson emphasized there was not a lot of confusion. Mr. Sievers stated he did not think a tabling motion was necessary and he did under stand Mr. Parypa's point on the section in question. The current Charter has three lengthy sections explaining the process whereas the proposed Charger shortens that discussion with the reference to State law, which outlines the details of that process. President Law announced with the one change recommended by Mr. Parypa, Council accepts the preliminary Charter, which is now open for comment by the City Council members. Mr. McConne11 stated he was not sure of the public's awareness of the proposed alternate sections. President Law pointed out that information was provided in the Agenda packet, which was available for public review. He asked if anyone in the audience wanted the alterative proposals for various sections read out loud or desired an opportunity to view them. The response from the audience was to just read the titles. Kathleen McCluskey, City Clerk, read the following: Council Conflict Of Position, Sec. 6, three insertion options; Council Compensation, Sec. 8(1), three replacement options; Mayor Pro Tem, Sec. 11(1) and (2), replacement option; Civil Service Status of Chiefs, Sec. 31(3), replacement option; Disposal of Utility Assets, Sec. 29, new subsections (2) and (3) option; Age requirements for Boards and Commissions unless excepted by Ordinance, Sec. 34, replacement option. Mayor Lynn Hotton stated for the most part she felt the proposed Charter was a fairly well written document and she reminded Council the intention of this document is a clean up of the existing Charter so that it is workable and understandable. She commended Larry Stone, Andy Parypa and the Ian Sievers for the good job they did in developing the document. She stressed this is not a new issue and over the past three years there has been much discussion TAPE #1405 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes September 11, 1996 Page 8 of 31 about revising the Charter, and the over riding principal was to get a good Charter that was readable and understandable. In that vain, she had comments that had to do with some of the recommendations made at the September 4th Council meeting. On the issue of Council Compensation - she recommended that a Citizens Commission be formed to make a recommendation to Council for adoption by the City Council with the same provisions, by Washington State law, that it would not take affect for the Council members until they had a new election. That way, the citizens would be reviewing Council's compensation and making a citizens' recommendation rather than putting the issue on the Ballot. She was doubtful that anyone would approve a salary increase at any point of time and it was only fair that periodically Council salaries are increased. When she served as City Council President she spent more in long distance telephone bills then the compensation she received. In regard to the Mayor Pro Tem issue, Mayor Horton's only concern is that the Council President be the Pro Tem for continuity of power based on the fact that, as the President, that person is the most knowledgeable person on City issues on the City Council. If Council desired to have a position, i.e. protocol where they assume the Mayor's position for ceremonial purposes, she would could support that as well. Under the issue of Civil Service for Police and Fire, she is strongly in favor of exempting the Fire Chief and Police Chief from Civil Service. If the Mayor is the responsible entity to oversee the Fire and Police Departments, she does not believe it is fair to saddle those positions with Civil Service requirements. If a Fire Chief or Police Chief end up being someone who needs to be removed, the Mayor needs the authority to remove them quickly and the Civil Service process can be very long and convoluted. Currently, the Police and Fire Chiefs waive their Civil Service rights prior to accepting the position. An extensive Job Assessment was conducted for the employment of the City's current Police Chief and she would have liked to participate in that function because there were some questions that she wanted to address at the point of interview, but she was not allowed because it was conduced under Civil Service rules. Lastly, on the issue of disposal of watershed and Utility property, over the last several years the City has purchased, sold and traded many pieces of watershed property. Those actions were taken in order to secure the watershed; and some City property was deemed no longer necessary for the long term benefit of the Water Utility. And, if each time you proposed to place such action on a Ballot, you will seriously hamstring the Utility. If the Utility was in a TAPE #1405 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes September 11, 1996 Page 9 of 31 condition of experiencing serious problems, maybe then she'd consider such action. TAPE #1406 However, Bremerton has one of the premier water systems in the Nation and one of the few systems State-wide that is not required to have water filtration, which is a clear indication that the City Administration and City Council are good stewards of the Water Utility and Council can make a decision on their own as to what to keep and what to surplus. She believes it is critical for the Council to keep that control. The same thing goes to the super majority vote for disposal of Utility land - situations come up where a quick decision is needed and having a requirement for a super majority vote of the City Council would delay prudent action. She urged Council to approve the proposed Charter for placement on the Ballot. John Thomas, Bremerton resident, supported the proposed option for Section 6, Council Conflict of Position - no person shall be eligible for the potion of Council member while holding any other elective public office or otherwise employed by the City. In regard to Council's compensation, he made the following recommendation: "Council member compensation shall increase each year (effective October 1) at the same percentage rate as the lowest bargaining unit percentage rate increase. In the event of City employee lay offs generated by budget limitations, the annual increase shall be waived for the Mayor, Council members, and City Management staff employees." He was opposed to the option to form a Commission made up of citizens, which would be named by the Mayor and confirmed for the City Council. Regarding Section 11 - Pro Tempore Appointment, he supported retaining the current process for electing a Mayor Pro Tem from within the Council as a separate responsiblity than that performed by the City Council President. Regarding Article IV, Section 21, he felt the language was confusing as to who could remove the City Attorney. His position on Article V, Section 19 Disposal Of Utility Assets is as follows: "Nothing in this Charter shall be construed to permit the City of Bremerton to sell all or any portion of the real property now owned or hereafter acquired for water supply DUrDOSeS generally known as watershed, whether or not currently used for water supply purposes, unless a question of such proposed sale shall have been first submitted to the qualified electors of the City by a majority plus one of the Council at a municipal general or special election and assented to by sixty percent of said electors voting on such question." He believes that control should be extended to cover the sale of all City real property, not just watershed properties and the condemnation of any real property for any City purpose (fire stations, office facilities, parks, parking lots, police stations, streets/street improvements, etc.), including any utility purpose. Lastly, Mr. Thomas stated his support of including the TAPE #1406 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes September 11, 1996 Page 10 of 31 Police Chief and Fire Chief under Civil Service protection. Charlie Brown, Bremerton resident, stated he agreed with Mayor Horton on the issue of retaining the Fire Chief and Police Chief as at-will employees. In regard to compensation for the City Council and other elected officials, he supported the proposal to have any pay raises approved by the voters. By doing that, the citizens will determine if the elected officials are doing a good job. Emily Moshay, Bremerton resident, stated her support to have a Citizen Commission make recommendations for future pay raises for the elected officials of the City. Del Knauss, Bremerton resident, stated pay raises for elected officials should be by the vote of the people. In regard to the sale of watershed property, he felt the protection of that land is crucial and should be supported in the Charter. He also supports putting the Fire Chief and Police Chief under the protection of Civil Service. Roy McGinnis, Bremerton resident, stated his support to have Bremerton's elected official's compensation approved by the vote of the people. In no way did he favor the appointment of a commission by the Mayor to recommend Council's pay raises. He felt strongly that if there is a deserving reason, the citizens will support an increase for the Council. In regard to the sale of watershed property, he felt comfortable with the current Council and Mayor, but he was not comfortable about actions that may be taken by future Councils and/or Mayors regarding disposal of utility land. The citizens need something in writing to control the upcoming elected officials. Gene Sampler, Director of Public Works and Utilities, stated he believed Mayor Horton presented some very strong arguments against limiting the sale or disposal of Utility land upon voter approval. It is important to recognize that the Utility has a fiduciary ability to act in the best interest of the Utility, which may not be in the best interest of all residents for other purposes. The Water Utility has a strict responsibility to the purpose of supplying water and to manage the assets of the Utility in a prescribed manner. He does not believe that submitting to the vote of the people decisions relative to disposition of assets is in the best interest of the City Utility as a water purveyor. He appreciates the concern that people have about the Union River watershed and shares that concern. If one looks at the acquisitions of the Utility over the years, the watershed is essentially protected by Utility owned land or land owned by the Department Of Natural Resources, which cooperates with the City in managing those properties. He believes it is important to not TAPE #1406 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes September 11, 1996 Page 11 of 31 overly restrict the Utility's ability to manage those assets. He also believes too make an assumption that all purchases in the past have been good decisions is an error. Utility properties have been disposed of in the past that have not been of any value to the Utility and good actions were taken in disposing of such sites. He, as the Manager of the Utility, trusts the City Council to confirm or deny any recommendations that they feel are not serving the best interest of the Utility. City Council members are elected by the constituents for specific purposes, and they serve as the Board Of Directors for the Utility and should continue to operate in that manner. He noted the Utility's Land Management Plan is nearly complete and is an indication of how serious the Utility is about management, and that Plan will provide for a sound basis for decision making for all Utility assets. Del Knauss stated as a spokesperson for the Land Management Plan, the Citizens Committee for the Plan is proposing an ordinance that includes agreement with the Suquamish Tribe, Silverdale Water District, and Kitsap County Health District. The only difference between that ordinance and what is being proposed here to protect Utility assets is the requirement for a 9-0 vote of the City Council to surplus any watershed land. He suggested Council consider the requirement of a 9-0 vote, which would bring about the same effect as that proposed by the Citizens Advisory Committee. President Law noted an alternate has been suggested for the section dealing with disposal of Utility land. Mr. Sievers stated for clarification Mr. Knauss's suggestion would identify a 9-0 vote by Council; however if a vote came in less than 9-0 it would then have to be approved by the ballot method. For further clarification the section would read as follows: "Nothing in this Charter shall be construed to permit the City of Bremerton to sell all or any portion of any of the real property now owned or hereafter acquired for waters supply purposes generally known as watersheds, whether or not currently used for water supply purposes, unless a question of such proposed sale shall have be approved by a unanimous vote of the entire Council membership or first submitted to the ~ualified electors of the City by a majority vote." President Law identified the statement just read as Alternate #4 for Section 29. Andy Parypa stated he was in some agreement with Mayor Horton on the issue of the Fire and Police Chiefs being under Civil Service, but he wanted to clear up a misconception about how long it takes to fire someone under Civil Service. Based on his past work history, if the supervisor, Department Head or manager properly documented inappropriate actions by the civil servant they could be terminated in a very timely manner. He does fear the possibility of pressure being placed on the people having enforcement power for Fire Codes. If the enforcement officials are muzzled or micro managed, and they are not protected by Civil Service, we'll have a TAPE #1406 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes September 11, 1996 Page 12 of 31 lot of buildings that will not meet Fire Codes, and such conditions already exist. Charlie Brown stated he worked 29 years in the Federal service and has had occasion to fire people, but it does take a lot of time to gather the data/information and to dismiss the individual at the senior management level. In many instances the process for termination is so involved that the choice was made to transfer an individual to another department instead of trying to fire them outright. He suggested leaving the Fire and Police Chiefs as at- will employees of the Mayor, but in order to dismiss them it would take a majority vote of the City Council. Mayor Horton stated if she as Mayor is the responsible entity for the administration of the City, then she should have the ability to terminate Department Heads at-will without confirmation from the City Council or having to go under the Civil Service process. There has not been a time when she has come before Council notifying them of her proposed actions relating to dismissal of a Department Head where they disagreed with her actions, but by the same token, if Council overrides that firing and she is stuck with someone she does not want, that would make her job much more difficult. Ida Mae Cooper, Bremerton resident, stated she supports the proposal to keep the Police and Fire Chiefs under Civil Service in order to give them some protection and not allow them to become puppets for the Mayor. She agreed with the earlier suggestion that the Mayor be required to come to the Council stating the problem and then requiring the majority vote of the City Council for dismissal. Gene Sampley, Director of Public Works and Utilities, referenced Section 29, option (2)- Disposal of Assets, and pointed out the recommendation that disposal of lands not required for water supply purposes having to go before the voters flies directly into the face of the Utility's responsiblity to manage for water supply purposes, which he views as an important aspect. Mr. Winters stated this issue is very important and he thanked all of the individuals who provided input during this discussion. He noted for the record that no one from District #9 was either in the audience or had called him prior to this meeting to give their input on this issue. Kathleen McCluskey, City Clerk, read into the record the three options for COUNCIL CONFLICT OF POSITION, Section 6. Mr. 8ievers stated for clarification the title used for all three options would be the same and the highlighted portion under (2) and (3) are simply an alternate portion that is highlighted in (1). #1131 TAPE #1406 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes September 11, 1996 Page 13 of 31 M/S/C(Overson/Montgomery) that Council support Option (1), which contains both (2) and (3). Section 56 - Election - Term of Qualifications: No person shall be eligible for election to any City Office, unless he is a citizen of the United States and has resided in Bremerton for at least one year preceding election, except the Municipal Judge, who need only be a citizen and reside in Kitsap County and licensed to practice law in the State of Washington. No person shall be eligible for the position of Council member while holding any other elective public office or otherwise employed by the City. Candidates for Council must also be residents of their respective districts at the time of filing. Mr. Farr asked Council to closely consider this and not be overly restrictive, specifically that a Council member cannot hold another elected office would prohibit someone from serving on the School Board at the same time serving on the City Council. He believes the law governing conflicts of interest is enough and being more restrictive could eliminate some good civic minded people, but hold other offices that are not in conflict with the City Council. Therefore, he supports option (3). Mr. Overson pointed out there are probably 1,000+ registered voters in each of the nine Council Districts and he believes out of that someone could be found to run for a City Council position that does not hold another elected office. Vote on Motion: In Favor: Opposed: Motion carried. Colvin, McConnell, Overson, Neville Huff-Menees, Winters, Law, Montgomery Farr Mrs. McCluskey read the three options - I, II, III, under COUNCIL COMPENSATION SEC. 8(1). Mr. Montgomer7 stated his support for Option III based on the fact he believes no elected official should be given a pay raise unless it was voted on by the people. Mr. Winters acknowledged his taking into consideration the opinions of those who spoke before Council on this issue. Those individuals may not agree with the way he votes, but he wanted it to be clear that he gave serious consideration to their input. Mrs. Huff-Menees challenged some of the speakers over the fact that many are or were employees of the Federal Government and their salaries were paid by the public and their salaries were not subject to decision based upon the public, who do not have a clear understanding of what the job is or what it requires the individual #1513 TAPE #1406 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes September 11, 1996 Page 14 of 31 to do to accomplish that work. She does not support elected official salaries being subject to the vote of the people. There isn't any jurisdiction in Kitsap County or as far as she knows in the State where public officials' salaries are subject to a vote of the people. She finds it difficult to believe that'members of the public would be willing to allow thousands of people to make a decision about their salary without having an understanding of what they do in that position. She also pointed out it is a fact that the electorate is never fully informed about the issues being voted on, and for that reason she believes that subjects such as salaries need to be determined by people who have made a close and thorough study of the responsibilities, what is required to carry out that work and only then is someone capable of making a decision what is adequate pay for that work. Mr. Farr acknowledged that for most public officials it is somewhat embarrassing to talk about their compensation and that someone should not go into politics for the money. What he has found, issues or candidates are passed in the ballot box somewhat based on someone championing that issue or an individual. He questioned who would champion this cause? An issue that does not have a supporter won't pass. He believes this is a very short sighted approach and would result in the City Council being manned by only retired individuals. Many people would like the opportunity to serve, but this job involves a lot of time and many people would like a little compensation to make up for the time they devote to the job that they could have been gainfully employed doing something else; and it may give some younger people the incentive to run for elected office. He pointed out in the last City election of the four Council positions up for election, his position was the only one opposed. He suspects because the job entails long hours and low pay has something to do with the lack of Council positions being challenged. Another option for the people wishing to doom Council positions to low pay, is to donate their salary to their favorite charity, return it to the City and let the public know that is what they have done. He learned two years ago that the City of Port Orchard's City Council, who meet half as frequently as this Council, receives $7,200 per year and this Council with twice the meetings or more receive $6,000 per year. He doubted that the public would pass a raise for the City Council. M/S/C(Farr/McConnell) to accept Option II: The compensation of the Mayor and Municipal Judge shall be fixed by ordinance. Council salary shall be set by a commission appointed by the Mayor, using the language from the City of Vancouver Council Compensation Ordinance as identified by the City Attorney. Mr- Montgomer]F stated he became a Council member to serve the community, not because of the salary he would receive. He again TAPE #1406 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes September 11, 1996 Page 15 of 31 voiced his position on the issue...let the voters decide. Mr. Winters stated he took the time to check records at the Kitsap County Court House and learned that information submitted in 1993 reflected Council members' salaries as follows: City of Bremerton $6,000 per year; City of Port Orchard $2,880 per year; City of Poulsbo $1,500 per year; Bainbridge Island $2,400 per year; and Kitsap County Commissioners' salary data $61,630. Mr. Colvin stated he agreed with Councilman Farr that not a lot of people are actively pursuing City Council positions. He believed that other Cities around the Puget Sound area pay their City Council members more than what the Bremerton City Council receives as a salary. He personally will not benefit from a salary increase; however he believes Council deserves a raise, which the voters do not really understand. Mrs. Huff-Menees stated in terms of the make up of the City Council, it is an unfortunate fact that there are only three current Council members that were opposed in their last election and everyone else ran unopposed. She spent 16 years as a single mother raising two sons and working. Had she wanted to take an office such as this, she would not have been able to because of the time involvement. The current City Council does not represent the make up of the population of the City. Five members of this Council are retired, who do a great job, nevertheless they are retired, and there is only one woman on the Council and only one minority. The only way to make that more equitable and elect a Council and provide the people with a choice who they elect to represent them, is by making it a position that is respected enough to pay a decent wage so someone that does have to work part time or full time would be able to serve in this capacity. She pointed out young parents are not represented on the Council nor are there enough minorities represented, which is a factor of what the work pays yet the work is critically important. Mr. McConne11 asked if more specific language should be stated in the motion identifying the use of a Commission appointed by the Mayor to recommend a salary increase for the City Council? Mr. Slevers stated Option II is modeled after the Vancouver, Washington, ordinance and is a rather innovative approach. It is the only City that has adopted a Commission. Commissions are a method of surveying what is an appropriate salary level, but the real leap of faith in their Charter amendment is that there is actual legislation that becomes effective by Commission action. Commission members are not elected, but they actually pass this legislation being an ordinance that affects Council's salary. That ordinance is subject to a popular referendum. It may be a great idea and he was not commenting either way, but given the state of TAPE #1406 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes September 11, 1996 Page 16 of 31 the law it is an iffy proposition whether or not it could be done in the Charter. The Vancouver Charter text, if you have read the Constitutional amendment, models exactly the State Salary Commission that affects State offices. Such action is fine since there is an amendment to the Constitution that allows that Commission to set salaries for those offices. There is not a similar inclusion of that method for setting salaries for local offices. The Constitution does not give much guidance on setting salaries for local offices other than Article 30 Section 1, which is the topic of you can increase your own salary for those local offices that do set their own salary. But, it does not say how it is to be enacted. The Constitution does say you can't conflict with the general law. There are two statutes that seem to address salary RCW 35.22.200 and RCW 35.22.205, which is probably the worst example of drafting legislation because they have a direct conflict. Section 35.22.200 states the legislative powers of a City and it goes on to say that a Charter can determine elective officers duties and can dictate what those officers will receive as compensation. The very next section states the compensation and the time to be devoted to the performance of the duties of the Mayor and elected officials of all cities of the First Class shall be fixed by ordinance of said City irrespective of any City Charter provision. The City of Vancouver attorneys used a narrow rule of statutory construction and said the first one was adopted slightly later than the second one. Mr. Sievers believes it is iffy because the first section does allow some compensation be prescribed by Charter, and compensation probably means an amount of money, but probably did not intend to make this fundamental change in how legislation is passed. It did not say you could have some mechanism for setting compensation other than an ordinance, other than the Council or direct initiative ordinance. Municipal Research does not believe Vancouver's actions are supportable, but as of this date there has been no challenge. He did get the impression from the Vancouver attorneys that there was such strong support for the formation of the Commission by their Charter Revision Committee that they decided to assume the risk. He emphasized by pointing out the shaky legal grounds it is not to say it isn't a good idea and maybe the State Legislature should allow it in the statutes and declare the conflict within the two statutes. Mr. Sievers agreed with Mr. McConnell that more language needed to be added to the motion and would probably want to include wording that follows the State Salary Commission...appointed by the Mayor, but confirmed by the City Council and a referendum procedure for the Salary Ordinance that is being created by the Commission, which he felt was a good idea. To be on the safest grounds possible, he suggested including all of the applicable language included in the Vancouver Ordinance #2314 TAPE #1406 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes September 11, 1996 Page 17 of 31 Mr. Overson stated his support of the motion as stated. Mr. Sievers pointed out a significant change from the short version to the long version... Vancouver's version uses the Commission for the Mayor's salary as well, but Council's short version was directed just towards the Council's salary. Vote on motion: Motion carried. In Favor: Opposed: Huff-Menees, Farr, Neville, Overson, McConnell, Colvin Montgomery, Winters, Law Mrs. McCluskeV read REPLACEMENT OPTION MAYOR PRO TEM SECTION 11(1) AND (2) Ian Sievers, City Attorney, stated the option is language currently in the Charter and the only change was its placement in the reorganized section and split it into two subsections. Mrs. ~uff-Menees stated having served as City Council President and knowing the level of involvement required with that responsiblity, she agreed with Mayor Horton's statement that the Council President is the person most fully informed on the Council. In no way was she saying that to demean any performance by any other Council members, but the President is more directly involved with the Mayor and what is going on in the City. Her recommendation is to leave this section as it stands currently. It is hoped that all Council members are well informed, but the City Council President has an involvement and a work load that is very different from other members of the Council. Mr. Winters stated he has served three years as Mayor Pro Tem and finds it to be very enlightening, but at the same time he agrees with the Mayor the most informed person is the Council President, not the Mayor Pro Tem. That saddens him because the duties of the Mayor Pro Tem are outlined in the Charter; however he was not kept informed by the Mayor. He is withdrawing his suggested recommendation for this section and he believes every Council member should be equally informed by the Mayor through the City Council Office. He noted Mr. Thomas had approached him with the comment that the Mayor Pro Tem position should stay; however, he was not supporting that recommendation. M/S/F(McConnell/Winters) Within the first ninety days of each year, the Council members shall, by majority vote, designate one of their number, or any qualified registered voter of the City of Bremerton, as Mayor Pro Tempore to serve in the absence or disability of the Mayor. TAPE #1406 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes September 11, 1996 Page 18 of 31 The Mayor Pro Tempore shall hold office at the pleasure of the Council, and performall the duties of the Mayor, except that Mayor Pro Tempore may only remove department heads of the City of Bremerton after the Mayor has been absent from his position as Mayor for thirty consecutive days, in which event the Mayor Pro Tempore may remove department heads of the City of Bremerton with the approval of the Council. Vote on Motion: In Favor: Montgomery, Winters Opposed: Huff-Menees, Farr, Neville, Overson, McConnell, Colvin, Law Motion failed. Mayor Pro Tempore statement in the Charter will remain. Mrs. McCluskey read the option for CIVIL SERVICE STATUS OF CHIEFS, SEC. 31(3). Mrs. Huff-Menees stated she does not support the option and believes the Mayor, as Chief Executive of the City, has to have total authority over the Department Heads and doing anything less than that is hamstringing the Mayor. Several people have stated there has not been a circumstance in this administration or any recent administrations where it has been an issue. The Mayor has made good decisions about Department Heads and several members of the City Council have stated "if it isn't broken, don't fix it", which she believes is one of those situations. Mr. McConne11 pointed out the City's current Charter has the Police and Fire Chiefs under Civil Service; however State law was enacted that allowed cities to take them out of Civil Service, if they volunteer to waive that right and put them under contract. While it may be difficult to get rid of someone under Civil Service, he did not believe it was that difficult based on his personal experience. He felt it would be more costly if the City had to buy out a contract rather than go through the procedure of firing through the Civil Service process. Mr. Overson stated this was not an easy issue and there is benefit to both sides. He pointed out there have been a couple of votes with the voting public wherein they strongly supported the present system of government, which is tantamount to strong support of the Mayor's independence to carry out her job. He believes it is necessary to put it in the Charter so that the constituents understand that the Mayor they elect has the power and responsiblity to carry out the job. Things should not be placed in the Charter that dilute that authority and/or responsiblity. Mr. Winters stated several people in the audience stated their TAPE #1406 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes September 11, 1996 Page 19 of 31 support to keep the Police and Fire Chiefs under Civil Service. Council is asked to make important decisions and if Council is not informed of the utmost importance and truth from those Department Heads with the protection of Civil Service, then in his opinion Council is not completely serving the public to the best of their ability. Mr. Neville stated his support of keeping the Fire and Police Chiefs under Civil Service. He has seen the benefits on both sides of the issue, but feels strongly the Police and Fire Chiefs' main concern is the public safety of each and every citizen of Bremerton and to have them answer only to the Mayor could be an injustice to the well being of the 40,000+ citizens. It has been stated that it takes time to remove them from their positions; however to him time equals to accountability of the Department Head and through accountability they have to have constant evaluations, which is a good thing. If the Mayor keeps up with the evaluations of the personnel, their performance should be well documented. Mr. Farr stated he worked several years under Civil Service, but City Government is somewhat miniature of the Federal Government and the analogy would be the Mayor being a Chief Executive and her relationship to the Fire and Police Chiefs is that of Cabinet Officials, who are not elected and they can be dismissed at the request of the President. He believes those in upper management, in exchange for privileges and a higher salary structure, accept added responsibility and may lose some of the security they may have had. He concurred with Mr. Overson's position that the Police and Fire Chiefs not be placed under Civil Service. Mr. Montgomery stated based on his past experience working under Civil Service, he is not in favor of Civil Service and cannot support placement of the Fire and Police Chiefs under Civil Service. President Law stated the City is fortunate to have a very good Mayor that communicates, which is a positive aspect that has not always been to the benefit of the Council. However, he believes the Police and Fire Chiefs need an independence of influence by some future Mayor over issues of public safety. Therefore, he is in favor of keeping them under Civil Service. Mr. McConnell expressed his desire to not have any undue pressure placed on the Fire and Police Chiefs by the Mayor, as had been the case under a previous Mayor. TAPE #1407 #0034 M/S/C(McConnell/Winters) to accept the replacement option - #0202 TAPE #1407 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes September 11, 1996 Page 20 of 31 All full paid employees of the Fire and Police Departments of the City shall be included under the provisions of this Article, and all existing provisions of State Law pertaining to such employees shall be substantially complied with by the Commission. All other full time employees shall be included under the provisions of this Article unless excluded in Section 33. Mrs. Huff-Menees emphasized any person elected to serve as chief executive of this city needs to have the ability to make determinations about their Department Heads, whether that means hiring or firing. Vote on Motion: Motion carried. In Favor: Opposed: Neville, McConnell, Colvin, Winters, Law Huff-Menees, Farr, Overson, Montgomery Mrs. Mccluskey read the options for DISPOSAL OF UTILITY ASSETS, SEC. 29. Mr. McConne11 stated he agreed with Mr. Knauss's recommendation to have a 9-0 vote for disposal of property and if Council could not agree with a 9-0 vote, then it would go before the voters. M/S/F(McConnell/Colvin) to accept option (2) with the modification as recommended by Mr. Knauss: Nothing in this Charter shall be construed to permit the City of Bremerton to sell all or any portion of any of the real property now owned or hereafter acquired for water supply purposes generally knows as watersheds, whether or not currently used for water supply purposes, unless a question of such proposed sale shall be approved by a 9-0 vote of the entire Council or first submitted to the qualified electors of the City by a majority plus one of the Council at a municipal general or special election and assented to by sixty percent of said electors voting on such question. Mr. Montgomery disagreed with the motion as stated because the City Council, as elected officials, were voted into office to take on that responsibility. He believes this issue became a primary concern by some individuals when the City Council approved the sale of some watershed property located in the Anderson Hill area. No one has been able to convince him that Council did anything to jeopardize the City's water source through that prior action. Mr. Farr stated there are already checks and balances in place with the management of the Utility and issues before Council and requiring a majority plus one vote was adequate for further protection. TAPE #1407 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes September 11, 1996 Page 21 of 31 Mr. Colvln asked if a majority plus one vote as opposed to 9-0 vote was still subject to the same kind of lawsuit? Mr. Sievers stated no, this is a way that would allow action for disposal without having to place it on a ballot and Council can determine the super majority in the Charter...either a majority plus one or a simple majority or a unanimous vote. Mr. Colvin stated he believes Council is elected to make decisions and supported the method using a super majority vote of the Council. Mr. Neville stated he researched the number parcels sold verses the number of parcels acquired over the last seven years and there has been a significant increase in acquired land over that time frame. The Utility management staff is very professional in over seeing the City's watershed. He supports the majority plus vote of the City Council. Vote on motion: Motion failed. In Favor: Opposed: McConnell, Winters, Law Neville, Overson, Farr, Colvin, Montgomery, Huff-Menees, #0417 M/S/C(Colvin/Winters) to option 2 using a majority plus one vote of the Council: Nothing in this Charter shall be construed to permit the City of Bremerton to sell all or any portion of any of the real property now owned or hereafter acquired for water supply purposes generally known as watersheds, whether or not currently used for water supply purposes, unless a question of such proposed sale shall be approved by a 6-3 vote of the entire Council to pass it at the Council level or by a 6-3 vote of the Council to submit it to the qualified electors of the City at a municipal general or special election and assented to by sixty percent of said electors voting on such question. President Law raised some question as to the clarity of the motion and what it would actually accomplish, Mr. Sievers stated Council has the option to make a simple majority vote for the sale of watershed property and a super majority to sent the issue to the voters. Mr. Winters stated he believed the confusion was coming from the prior failed motion and asked that it be revisited as to content. Mr. Sievers explained the failed motion identified a 9-0 vote of the Council or first submitted to the qualified electors of the City by majority plus one vote of the Council. Therefore, the only change to that earlier motion would be substituting the 9-0 vote with a 6-3 vote to pass at the Council level and the decision would be final and not have to go to the voters. #0603 #0714 TAPE #1407 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes September 11, 1996 Page 22 of 31 Mr. Farr withdrew his second of the motion because the way he desire the sale of Utility lands is simply by a majority vote. Mr. Winters seconded Mr. Colvin's motion. Mr. McConnell urged the Council to vote "NO" on this motion and recommended a motion be made that identifies a simple majority vote by the City Council to dispose of Utility assets. Vote on motion: Motion carried. In Favor: Opposed: Neville, McConne11, Colvin, Winters, Law Overson, Montgomery, Huff-Menees, Farr M/S/C(Huff-Menees/Farr) to accept option #3: The City shall not sell, lease or dispose of any utility lands, systems or parts thereof essential to continued effective utility service, unless and until such disposal is approved by a majority plus one vote of Council. Vote on motion: In Favor: Winters, Huff-Menees, Farr, Neville Law McConnell, Colvin Opposed: Montgomery, Overson Motion carried. Mrs. McCluskey read replacement option for Section 34 - Age requirement for Boards and Commission. M/S/C/(Montgomery/Winters) to accept replacement option: The Mayor shall appoint all boards, commissions and committees established by ordinance or charter, except the Audit Committee, with Council confirmation as required by ordinance. All members of boards, commissions and committees established by ordinance or charter shall be residents of the City for at least one year prior to appointment and eighteen years of age, unless otherwise provided by ordinance. Any member of a board, commission and committee established by ordinance or charter who is not a resident of the City at the time this provision takes effect shall serve out the balance of the term for which appointed. Vote on motion: Motion carried. In Favor: Opposed: Winters, Montgomery, Farr, Law, McConnell, Overson, Neville, Colvin Huff-Menees #0923 TAPE #1407 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes September 11, 1996 Page 23 of 31 Mr. Sievers asked for Council's thoughts on the handout he provided them on the issue of "Special Election". The language in the current Charter calls for a Special Election if more than a quorum of the Council is vacant at one time. He believes the thought for calling a Special Election to fill the positions was to have it happen quickly. The language in the draft Charter calls for the next available Special Election. Under State law for elected positions it would only be the next available General Municipal Election. He has provided two options: Option 1 would give language that refers to the next available Special Election for Partisan offices. That would be the off year for Municipal Elections, which would allow it to occur at the next General Election, so it would occur the next year. Option 2 simply adds a subsection to Section 10 and specifies what is meant by a "Special Election" and states that available Special Election referred to in this section includes any date permitted under RCW 29.13.020, which is the section that sets all the mid-year Special Elections available to the City, and it goes on to say the date for filing and primaries are calculated as if that was a Special or General Election. He emphasized Council can choose one of the two options or to retain the current draft language that would only make those Special Elections happen at the time of the normal Municipal General Election (every other year). Mrs. Huff-Menees asked if Council chose any General Election following an appointment, would that not then require, if one was in the middle of a term, that person to run for election again in a subsequent year when the term was up? Mr. Sievers stated yes. Mr. Neville stated he felt Council should take action on this issue based on the legal advice from the City Attorney. The problems identified included that an election would take place during a partisan office election. He pointed out the disadvantage of a Special Election costing the City additional dollars; therefore he supported Option #1. Mr. Sievers passed on to Council the County Auditor's recommendation that to go to the mid year Special Elections for an act of electing an office would be a great disparity in practice and might be confusing to the voters. M/S/C/U(Neville/Colvin) to accept Option #1 for Section 10. "If at any time the membership of Council is reduced below a quorum, the remaining members, if any, shall appoint the requisite number of qualified persons to create a quorum who will appoint qualified persons to fill the remaining vacancies. The appointees shall serve until persons are elected to serve the remainder of the unexpired terms at the next available special election for partisan offices unless there is an earlier available general election. If no Council members remain, the Mayor shall appoint qualified persons to temporarily fill the vacancies. The appointees shall #1213 TAPE #1407 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes September 11, 1996 Page 24 of 31 serve until persons are elected to fill the remainder of the unexpired terms at the next available special election for partisan offices unless there is an earlier available general section. Mrs. McCluskey pointed out Council needed to take action, by Resolution, to place the proposed Charter on the ballot. Mr. Overson asked how in the future will Council know that the final amended version of the proposed charter will be the version published in Ballot. Mr. Sievers stated he would provided Council President Law a draft showing all of the amendments as approved by the City Council. Mr. Overson asked how will the final formed Charter be identified? Mr. Slevers stated it would be the one attached to the Resolution and marked EXHIBIT A. President Law asked that the marked up version of the Charter with the lines through and under the changes would then become part of Council's Consent Agenda for the September 18 Council meeting. This will require the City Attorney's Office to have it ready for publishing by noon on September 13, which will give each Council member an opportunity to review the document and provide an opportunity to make correction of any error that might be found prior to submitting it to the County Election Department. Mr. Overson stressed the importance of marking the final document with a date or special mark setting it apart from other drafts. He asked if such an identification could be made prior to it being placed ont he September 18 Agenda? Mr. Sievers stated he would see that each page of the document is dated 9-11-96. Mr. Montgomery felt the voters should be provided a "smooth" copy of the proposed Charter. Mr. Farr asked if there is a mandatory form required for placement on the ballot? Mr. Sievers stated it he believed it is necessary to show amendments in the Title, and he was unsure about printing both the current Charter and proposed Charter in the ballot. Mr. Farr stated since the voters would be voting on accepting or rejecting the changes, wouldn't a summary of the changes be sufficient? Mr. Sievers explained the Voters Pamphlet will include a summary of the changes. M/S/C(McConnell/Colvin) to adopt Resolution No. 2559, setting forth the amendments to the City Charter for submission to the Qualified Voters of the City for approval or rejection at the General Election to be held November 5, 1996. to Ballot. Vote on motion: Motion carried. In favor: Opposed: Winters, Huff-Menees, Farr, Law, Neville, McConnell, Colvin, Overson Montgomery TAPE #1407 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes September 11, 1996 Page 25 of 31 President Law announced Council will be accepting names of individuals within the public, who are willing to serve on the Pro and Con Committees, which are required to prepare pro and con statements for the ballot, at the City Council Office by noon on September 13. 10A - PUBLIC HEARING; AND ORDINANCE (FIRST READING) TO CONSIDERAND ADOPT AMENDMENTS TO THE BREMERTON COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, #AB96-202 The Comprehensive Plan may be amended only once each year. Proposed amendments to the Plan are collected during the year and processed as a package during the spring and summer. The Planning Commission reviewed and held public hearings on all proposed amendments and has recommended City Council approval. The amendments were submitted to state agencies in late June for a mandatory 60-day review. Any comments received will be considered prior to adoption of the proposed amendments. The Harrison District Plan is also a Plan Amendment, but because of its complexity, it will be considered at a separate public hearing and adopted by separate ordinance. Ron Hough, Planning Manager, stated this is the conclusion of a five month process in updating the City's new Comprehensive Plan, which was adopted in April 1995, and readopted in February 1996, following the Growth Management hearings. The Growth Management Act requires that proposed amendments be docketed throughout the year and then processed all of the amendments at the same time comprising one massive Comprehensive Plan Amendment. The required State review of the proposed amendments has been completed and no comments were received from any State agency; therefore, the City is assuming the plan is accepted as presented. All of the recommendations are coming to Council with the recommendation of APPROVAL from the Planning Commission. There are six plan amendments...Pope Resources, Harrison District, Sciepko Annexation; Capital Facilities (citywide), Smith Cove and Arvon Park, which are minor amendments and not controversial. Mr. Hough briefly reviewed the 13 State Planning Goals identified for each of the amendments. The Pope Resources Plan Amendment - 270 acres located near Pendergast Regional Park, which was proposed for a Planned Unit Development and approved to start that process several years ago. Pope is in the process of planning that PUD, which is a mixed use PUD with a variety of densities including some industrial park areas. In April 1996, Pope presented another proposal wanting to expand the industrial park area that ties in nicely with the property to the north (National Guard Armory), which is also designed Industrial Park. The other proposal was to add some medium density residential on the opposite side of their TAPE #1407 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes September 11, 1996 Page 26 of 31 development. This corresponds with some initial plans that are being developed, which have not come to the City for approval, but includes a variety of housing types, including some single family attached housing, which was not allowed in the low density zones before the Zoning amendments were approved 1-2 months ago. Therefore, the proposal is to add the medium density and increase the industrial park to about 60 acres rather than 27. Sciepko Annexation Area Amendment located east of Gorst, involves an area that was annexed to the City. When the annexation went before the Boundary Review Board, they suggested that several properties be added in order to square off the annexation area. The City followed the Boundary Review Board's directive and at the last minutes those properties were annexed into the City, also under the Industrial Park category, with the understanding the area will be reviewed later, which has been done. Those added properties are currently either undeveloped, large acreage or have one or two single family residents. The slopes are fairly steep along the freeway (Hwy. 16) and most of the properties are heavily wooded with steep slopes that are probably not suitable for the Industrial Park type of uses up on the plateau, so rather than create non-conformities out of the existing homes, the recommendation is to change them back to Low Density Residential and a rezone action will be coming along later to change the zoning as well. South Smith Cove and Evergreen Park Amendment - the City adopted a Master Plan for Evergreen Park, which included the extension of the park south around Smith Cove including an area that was designated Mixed Use. In order to develop Evergreen Park consistent with the Plan, there needs to be a change to the plan to show the expansion of the park. A zoning designation change will come later to change the Mixed Use (MU) to Parks & Schools (PS). The zoning changes should be almost automatic and should be before Council in 1-2 months. Arvon Park Amendment - this site is a small park, ,approximately 1/4 acre, in West Bremerton on Arvon Street just north of 15th Street. The City acquired this parcel in 1995 and developed it into a neighborhood park, which now need s to be placed in the Parks designation on the Comprehensive Plan and zone it Parks & Schools (PS). Mr. Neville asked if a portion of the Pope Resources request will come back before Council at a later time? Mr. Hough explained there were two proposals that went through the Planning Commission. When Pope applied for their Comprehensive Plan Amendment, they needed to do it one way because at that time there was zoning that did not allow Low Density attached dwellings. In order to build TAPE #1407 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes September 11, 1996 Page 27 of 31 Low Density attached dwellings they would have had to go to a higher density zone, like a Multi-family Zone and the only way they could do that was to get a Medium Designation on the Comprehensive Plan. In the process, two options were proposed to the Planning Commission in case the Planning Commission and Council did not approve the Zoning amendments that would allow Low Density attached dwellings; however, the zoning was amended to allow Low Density Attached. Ida Mae Cooper, Bremerton Resident, stated she made extensive comments on the Harrison District Plan and at that time, she was told she would receive a revised, corrected copy; however, she never received a copy. She questioned how does she review something she hasn't received? She questioned if the City was doing the same thing with people in other areas affected by the proposed amendments? She emphasized the only recourse the public has when property is being rezoned is to come before the City Council on a one-to-one basis. Mr. Huff identified specific maps in the Agenda Packet that reflect the amendments as presented as well as the two options presented for the Pope Resource Amendment. In response to Mrs. Cooper's concern over not receiving a copy of the Harrison District Plan, copies are available through the Planning Office. Kay Wilson, Planner, apologized to Mrs. Cooper and assured her and anyone from the public interested in receiving a copy of the plan that they can either pick up one from the Planning Department or request that they be mailed directly to them. David Cunningham, Pope Resources, stated this particular action on the Comprehensive Plan Amendment is the third of four the City required in 1990. Council may recall the City had the choice of gaining control of all the land uses in the watershed or building a very expensive water filtration plant in 1989-90. Pope Resources owned a lot of land in the watershed and they agreed to exchange that land for other City owned land. As a result of that, there were some timber, land and cash exchanged between the City and Pope Resources to make it a fair trade. That is how they acquired the 270 acres located next to the Pendergast Regional Park. At the point where they acquired the land, the Forest Management designation was changed to a mix of single family, multi-family and industrial. Then, in 1992 came the harvest of the timber and at that time the City looked at some of the wetlands and steep slopes, creek and wild life and had a lot of thoughts about how the timber on that site should be managed, as did Pope for the economic value in the timber. As a result, they actually had Jack Allingham, a City Planner, work with their foresters on the ground to make sure that logging practices respected those environmental conditions. The site now has some cleared areas, which will be developed for building and there is a tremendous amount of open space. The third step of the process is this Comprehensive Plan Amendment, which TAPE #1407 City Councll Reg. Mtg. Minutes September 11, 1996 Page 28 of 31 provides a very solid policy basis for them to bring in the real detailed PUD plan for City approval, which is step #4. Of the 270 acres, 150 acres will be left for open space and the remainder will be built out. They have worked with the Parks Department and Utilities Department to interface to make sure the utilities are being put in as necessary and they paid their share of those costs. Their approach typically is not to do a project and force it into a City or County Comprehensive Plan or Zoning Ordinance...they would rather do it another way and in this case it has taken them six years. He urged Council to support the Comprehensive Plan Amendments. He complimented the City on their process for making Comprehensive Plan Amendments and cited their orderliness, understandable and as clean as any he has seen. Kay Wilson, Planner, quoted from a State publication about Growth Management as follows: "One of the most important, Vet least understood, parts of a comprehensive plan is the capital facilities plan or element. In many ways, capital facilities planning is the essence of Growth management, since only through effective use of the capital facility Dlanning process can growth management deliver on its promise of reducing the costs of unplanned development. A good capital facility plan requires matching the amount of facilities that can be financed with the amount of development that will be allowed." Bremerton is proud that its capital facilities element was listed in that same newsletter as one of the best in the State. No comments were received from the State agencies at the conclusion of their 60 day review period and the City is taking that to mean they are comfortable with the changes made. The capital facilities element is one of five Comprehensive Plan elements required by the Growth Management Act and the City's capital facilities element is separated into two parts in order to make it easy to upgrade on an annual basis. While the other elements of the Comprehensive Plan need only be updated once every five years or sooner if desired, the capital facilities element needs to be updated every year due to State law that cities and counties shall perform their activities and make capital budget decisions in conformity with their Comprehensive Plan. This means for the City to spend money on roads, sewers, water and other city facilities such actions need to be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. In order do this and since there is an annual Budget update, we need to update the capital facilities element also. This plan provides a process, which is being utilized for the first time this year and found that it worked quite well for the first time and anticipate it working even better in future years. The process starts off with the land use element of the plan and whatever that says generates the need for more or less capital facilities in any part of the city. The capital facilities element must implement the land use element. Once those elements TAPE #1407 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes September 11, 1996 Page 29 of 31 are adopted, each of the City departments that provide capital facilities goes through a planning exercise, which is not necessarily done once a year...sewer and water plans are adopted once every several years. The recommendations of those plans are summarized in the Capital facilities Program. The annual Budget must reflect the end results of the Six-Year Plan process for the capital facilities element. Ms. Wilson pointed out there is one section of the capital facilities element that will change automatically, but is not included in the Agenda packet... CF-l'Capital Facility Level Of service Standards - Long Term (out of Part I), a summary of the level of services that are adopted in Part II. This table shows which ones will change as recommended. The Fire Department is recommending a change in the way they measure level of service for emergency medical to reflect a more accurate figure. Because they learned they need to measure response time differently than how it was determined a year ago, they need to up the level of service from 4 minutes to 5 minutes for "basic life support". The Parks' level of service changed as a function of arithmetic, which means what we are trying to do is within the Six Year Plan make the numbers work. The Parks Department plans to add 13 acres to the Parks system over the next six years, which is not a change over 1995's figures. All of the Parks' level of service numbers change somewhat but is more a rearranging the categories of the parks. The capital facilities element is required to include an Inventory of Facilities and Ms Wilson used an example of the Parks inventory where three new parks were added that were not anticipated at the time the Comprehensive Plan was adopted...McKenzie Basketball Court, Puget Power Park and an unnamed park (Arvon). By adding those acreage into the number of neighborhood parks, the total figure has changed. An example of how the level of service shows up for each type of facility is the level of service for fire protection changing because the definition of level of service is being changed to reflect actual figures. Up until now, the City's level of service for Fire was 4.7 minutes response time. The Fire Department has now recommended that the measure be response time for both emergency and non-emergency calls because it is not practical to separate out the two kinds of calls. The City's current level of service measured in this way is 5.44 minutes response time. The Fire Department is recommending we not change the proposed level of service, but to try and bring that down to 5 minutes. The other factor that goes into determining what the needs are for facilities is the Population forecast and the graph provided shows that it is expected the population of Bremerton to continue to grow TAPE #1407 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes September 11, 1996 Page 30 of 31 at a gradual rates similar to the rate it is grown over the past 10-15 years. But, after some point in time that growth rate would increase dramatically as growth management kicks in. Until Kitsap County adopts policies that direct more growth into urban areas, we don't expect to see a change in the City's current level of growth. Level of service and population forecast are two parts of the formula that helps us to arrive at what our projected needs are for capital facilities. The plan requires that a map showing existing and proposed facilities be included. An example of how future needs are calculated using the population forecast and level of service, which in the case of parks is the number of acres per capita are we going to try to provide, is to compare that with the current acres available and that shows whether there is a surplus or deficiency of park acres. The Park Plan that was adopted in December 1995 indicates 13 more acres will be added to the City's park inventory over the next 5-6 years. Using this level of service, it shows that if we do add' 20,000 people to the City by the year 2012, which is our current target, we will be deficient 286 acres of parks if we want to main this level of service. But, the city is only committed in the capital facilities element to address the first six years. The bottom line in the capital facilities element is the six year funding plan that shows we must list funding sources, the projects and how much money will be spent in each of the next six years starting with the current year and what that total will be. In this case the Parks Department is showing there is a surplus of expected funds of $427,000. These numbers are consistent with what is in the Capital Improvement Program. Finally, if 13 new park acres are added in the form of Evergreen Park Expansion (1/2 acre) and 12 1/2 acres of other acreage, this will satisfy our self- determined requirement. Regrettably, time ran out to update "Schools", "Stormwater", "Transportation', and "Water sections. The good news is that the State did not comment on those sections not being updated and it was staff's conclusion that the City started ahead of most of the cities and counties in the State and even though not everything was updated, we're still ahead of most other places. The second point is that because the City adopted its Capital Improvement Program, we have simply lifted the Budget Sheets and Budget Summary sheets out of that program and added them to the capital facilities element in the form of an addenda, which she believes will cover what is needed. Public comment - none. #3177 TAPE #1407 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes September 11, 1996 Page 31 of 31 Mr. MontgomerlFcomplimented Kay Wilson and Ron Hough for a job well done. M/S/C/U(Montgomery/Colvin) to approve ordinance on first reading, adopting 1996 amendments to the Bremerton Comprehensive Plan. President Law thanked the TV camera crew for their services: Stephanie James, Erin Daniels, Debbie Harris, Aaron Williams and David Saunders. with no further business meeting adjourned at 10:12 P.M.. ~ L.~McC~ity KATHLEEN Clerk JO~E. LAW, Council President City of Bremerton KLM/JL/me cc: Normal Distribution File/Vault