HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/24/96TAPE #1394
UNAPPROVED DRAFT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
COUNCIL
APPROVED AUG 7 1996
JULY 24, 1996
0025
#0046
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, June 24, 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 Deputy City Clerk Gil
Johnson.
The meeting opened with the Pledge of Allegiance led by Council
President Law and Invocation given by Pastor Jeffery Pulse of Peace
Lutheran Church.
President Law announced item 7D had been pulled off the Agenda.
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Minutes - July 10, 1996
#AB96-154
M/S/C/U(Neville/Farr) 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/McConnell) on July 24, 1996, the Council does
approve for payment those vouchers included and further described
as follows: 199643 through 199987 in the amount of $1,021,795.13;
and Regular Payroll for the period ending 7-15-96, in the amount of
$729,686.31.
COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS
Mr. Colvin made the following report: (1) asked that the
appropriate department check on a potential traffic hazard of
vegetation blocking view of traffic at the corner of Sylvan and
Pine Road; (2) Offered his supply of political signs to other
political candidates; and (3) his attendance at the Walmart Grand
Opening event.
Mr. Farr congratulated Emily Moshay on the recent newspaper article
about her volunteer efforts within the community.
Mr. Winters reported on Clam Run 1996, which was sponsored by the
Hombre Motorcycle Club, where he acted as the event's Master Of
TAPE #1394
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
July 24, 1996
Page 2 of 17
Ceremonies. The weekend event included motorcycle demonstrations,
a performance by the Seattle Cossack Motorcycle group and various
other activities.
Mr. Law reminded residents that there will not be a District #3
Neighborhood meeting in August.
MAYOR'S REPORT
Mayor Lynn Hotton reported on a very successful City Employee
picnic and softball game between four teams at Lions Field on July
19. The teams were Public Works, Fire Department, Police
Department and the Parks Department. She presented the First
Annual Softball competition trophy to the Parks Department team,
which was accepted by Jim Spencer, Parks and Recreation Director.
Mr. Spencer stated because his team was representing the Parks and
Recreation department they felt they had to win.
Mayor Horton noted this past week the City interviewed for an EDA
grant and during that process they were up against some stiff
competition. In 1995 they applied for the same grant in the amount
of one million dollars for infrastructure improvements in the
Werner Road and Auto Center Way area, but the City ended up being
ranked third. This year, the City ranked #1 and still has a ways
to go in the process, but did receive the official blessing from
the Economic Development District Board. The next step is to see
that Congress puts money into the 1997 budget for Economic
Development grants. The City was a previous recipient of an EDA
grant for the boardwalk project. She extended special thanks to
Earl Smith, of the EDC, and Rich Hanna, City Treasurer, for their
effort in the interview process.
PUBLIC RECOGNITION
Terry Dupee, North Cambrian, stated it took a couple of years to
get a speed limit sign on North Cambrian, and she was pleased to
report traffic has slowed down. She has observed people littering
and urged the public to not litter public streets.
Bill KamDs, Vice President of the Hombre Motorcycle Club (Peninsula
Chapter), made a special presentation to Councilman Winters for his
participation as Master Of Ceremony/Official Greeter for the 1996
Clam Run that was held at the Kitsap County Fairgrounds this past
weekend. Mr. Winters stepped in and assisted them at various times
making their weekend program a truly professional event. He noted
the Clam Run also benefitted the Bremerton Food Line.
Tita Fabelinia, representing Sylvan Way Baptist Church and the
Visayah Club of Kitsap County, commented on two subjects: (1) the
availability of the movie "JESUS" to members of the public through
the Sylvan Way Baptist Church; (2) described the various kinds of
TAPE #1394
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
July 24, 1996
Page 3 of 17
activities of the Visayan Club of Kitsap County including an
upcoming event on September 7, 1996. Tickets for the September
event can be obtained by writing Visayan Club Of Kitsap County,
P.O. Box 634, Tracyton, WA 98393, or calling 479-8061, 373-3385, or
692-4207.
Shirley Mowerton, 1002 Dibb Street, asked the following questions:
(1) why is there such a disparity in City franchise fees on
utilities; (2) why is Bremerton's garbage service costing twice as
high as other garbage companies; (3) is Brem-Air selling the items
they collect under the recycling program, and if so, why should the
citizens have to pay a recycling fee when they are making a profit?
President Law assured Ms. Howerton someone from the City would
respond to her questions at a later time.
CDR Jay Spurr, 241 5th Street, expressed his concern over the lack
of residential parking for residents residing in an apartment
buildings on 5th Street. The apartment building where he resides
has 24 units and is surround with approximately 180 different
commercial parking spaces, most of which are owned by Diamond
Parking. In the past two days, he received two parking tickets
having parked in the wrong spot resulting not only from his own
ignorance, but also possibly with some misinformation from the
apartment building owners and the people managing the parking lots.
He is interested in finding out if there might be some relief for
his parking needs. The City Treasurer's office informed him that
there are two locations two blocks from his apartment building that
are "no pay parking", but do require a City Parking sticker. He
has received conflicting information about the Residential Parking
Program and would like that information clarified. The two "no pay
parking" locations cited to him were Highland Place and Pleasant
Avenue. He suggested the City look into putting the fine situation
on the ticket or somehow illustrate that to the general public.
His suggestion would be if it was impossible to place it on the
sleeve of the ticket, to list it in the Telephone Directory or
provide handouts to be distributed by property management offices
or real estate companies that own residents within the City. He
understands that Ms. Karen Fisher had an opportunity to discuss
this issue with the former Mayor, but now he is asking if Council
will consider, if they choose not to rezone 5th Street as
residential, to take the like number of spaces at the two
identified locations and give them to the residents of his
apartment building. Obviously, that would be a precedent setting
move for everyone living in an apartment that has the same parking
situation. He found it very difficult finding out where he should
go to learn about the City's parking policy on 5th Street and he
hoped there would be some way to provide that kind of information
to people moving into the area.
TAPE #1394
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
July 24, 1996
Page 4 of 17
Don Larson, President Washington Scuba Alliance, talked about the
availability of some broken up concrete from a test track at the
Paccar Technical Center in Mt. Vernon,'which could be used as a
foundation for an underwater park. It was his hope that the City
of Bremerton would be willing to accept the donation of the
concrete, which would be transported at no cost to the City. The
State Parks Program was not prepared accept such a donation at this
time. He was pleased to announce his group will receive a mini
grant from the Puget Sound Water Quality Authority for a clean up
of the Sinclair Inlet shoreline on September 21, 11:00 A.m. - 2:00
P.M.. The grant funds will be used to purchase materials used in
the clean up as well as education materials. Also, the Olympic
Coast National Marine Sanctuary gave his group a mini grant to
undertake a clean up and to study marine life in the Olymic Coast
National Marine Sanctuary near Neah Bay on Labor Day weekend. That
event is open to the public and information can be obtained by
calling Mr. Larson at 373-5367.
Gordy Byrd commented on: (1) "Just Good Food, a new restaurant in
downtown Bremerton; (2) cautioned the public to be aware of the
danger in leaving children or animals inside a vehicle during the
hot weather; (3) Concerts In The park. Terry Dupes cautioned
everyone to be careful during the hotter weather, especially
children of all ages.
Ed Rollman, 600 Block of Highland Avenue, stated he was pleased
that the attempt to institute 12-hour shifts for Police Patrols was
defeated by the Police officers themselves. He emphasized ideas
are the foundation of any city or democracy and then cited people
and events in history that supported that idea. He also supported
the idea of a new City Hall facility and the possibility of using
the vacant Penneys building for such a facility.
7A - BID AWARD, RESERVOIR 8 AND 21 REHABILITATION, #AB96-155
Bids were opened for the Reservoirs 8 and 21 Rehabilitation Project
on June 17, 1996. Three bids for this project were received. The
low bid from R.D.S. Construction, Inc. was $72,912.37. The
engineer's estimate for this project was $110,000. The action
before the City Council is approval of a contract for the Reservoir
8 and 21 Rehabilitation with R.D.S. Construction, Inc.
Tim Richard, Senior Engineer, stated this proposal consists of
rehabilitating the exterior coating on two City reservoirs -
Reservoir #8 located on the west end of Werner Road behind the UPS
facility and Reservoir #21, located within NAD Park. The
rehabilitation system for the two reservoirs is to pressure wash
and re-coat the exteriors with three coats of epoxy. This was the
same system used to rehabilitate Reservoirs #17 and #20. Because
the scope of work is considered maintenance, the funding source for
#1367
TAPE #1394
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
July 24, 1996
Page 5 of 17
this project is the Water Operations Fund. The firm of R.D.S.
Construction, Inc., is new to the City and a background check was
made that revealed they are a 2-owner operation, who were former
members, Superintendent/Project Mangers, of Diamaco, Inc., who
performed reservoir rehabilitation work for the City in 1995. The
City was very satisfied with the previously performed work.
Several other references were checked and the responses received
were "very satisfactory".
Public comment - none.
Mr. McConnell pointed out an approximate $24,000 difference between
the two lowest bids. He questioned if possibility R.D.S.
Construction might have missed something in the bid? Mr. Richard
stated no; however, they did speak with the firm about the
difference in cost and their response was that the job could be
done for the bid amount.
Mr. Neville asked if Mr. Richard could reassure the public that the
City will not run out of water as a result of work being done on
the two reservoirs. Mr. Richard explained the work on the
reservoirs will have no adverse affect on the water supply since
only the exterior is being re-coated.
Mr. Overson questioned the expected percent of materials that
should be in the average bid? Mr. Richard stated he did not have
an answer to that question; however, they determined the estimated
cost from information provided by the supplier of the coating
system...price per square foot/tank applied. Mr. Overson wanted to
be assured that the contractor would not undercut on materials.
Mr. Richard explained an inspection program has been identified
that measures the specific thicknesses required for each coat of
the system and those will be checked using two kinds of measuring
equipment. Mr. Overson questioned the length of time to complete
the work? Mr. Richard explained the contractor has 30 working days
and will start within 10 days of the Notice to Proceed, which is
given to them at the time they sign the contract and the City was
satisfied with the insurance forms, and performance and payment
bonds.
M/S/C/U(Farr/Huff-Menees) to approve a contract for $72,912.37 with
R.D.S. Construction, Inc. for the Reservoir 8 and 21 Rehabilitation
and authorize the Mayor to execute the same.
7B - REVISION TO COUNCIL RUES AND PROCEDURES FOR QUASI-JUDICIAL
HEARINGS, #AB96-148
Ordinance 4550 established interim procedures for land use permits
pursuant to ESHB 1724 (RCW 36.70B) including procedures for a
closed record hearing or appeal before the City Council where there
TAPE #1394
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
July 24, 1996
Page 6 of 17
has been a prior open record administrative hearing on the
application or appeal.
Current Council rules set a procedure for an open record hearing
where new evidence is introduced and must be amended for a closed
record hearing based on the record from the prior hearing, argument
of parties, and "limited new information or evidence as allowed by
Council rules of procedure". [Ord 4550 Sec 2(2)]
Ian Sievers, City Attorney, stated as a result of Council's Study
Session on July 22, Rules 11 and 12 were revised per Council's
direction. He noted the following corrections: Rule 11, 2)(b) - no
change to the appearance of fairness inquiry; Rule 12, 2, 1)
Hearing Procedure - under the closed hearing Council desires that
the record will be in the form of a written transcript thereby
striking the following words: "the audio tape, audio/visual or".
Under Rule 12, 3, - deleting the entire sentence because there will
be no public testimony and all argument will be taken in written
form prior to the hearing.
Gordy Byrd requested clarification of the intent of Rule 11 and 12.
Mr. Sievers explained land use permits are now required to have
only one full public hearing where evidence is taken. Any
subsequent hearing, either on the final decision or appeal, has to
be what State law calls a "Closed Hearing", meaning there will no
new evidence introduced at that hearing, but rather Council will
use the record developed at the underlying hearing, which would be
the Planning Commission in the City of Bremerton. The change from
the copy of the rules in the Agenda packet resulting from Council's
Study Session on July 22, primarily introduced a new section - Rule
12, that instead of oral argument taken at the Closed hearing,
Council has substituted a procedure for submitting written argument
by the parties both in favor and opposed to either the Planning
Commission's commendation or decision. The procedure for
submitting argument is set forth in Rule 12, 1.
Mr. Montgomery stated even though he feels the adopted
State law is preposterous, he recommended approving the rule
changes as presented, including the corrections identified by Mr.
Sievers.
Mr. MoConne11 stated the City Council is the people's contact with
the City government and SHB1724 (RCW 36.70B), as passed by the
State Legislature, more or less takes the Council out of the
picture when it comes to public contact concerning land issues. In
his opinion, by not allowing public contact and testimony it
reinforces the opinion that some people have that the Council does
not listen to them. The rule change would not only address
decisions from the Planning Commission, but also on any
TAPE #1394
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
July 24, 1996
Page 7 of 17
recommendations they bring forth to the Council on land use issues.
His previous comment still stands..that is the City of Bremerton
should tell the State of Washington to stay out of City business.
He will vote "no" on this issue not because the procedure is not
well written and covers what the State mandates, but because the
State says Council is required to do as they say.
Mr. Oolvin asked if the City had any latitude under this new law?
Mr. Slevers quoted directly from the State law and concluded that
there was very little latitude. This requirement is sort of
integrated into growth management and the State wants to impose
this approval process on jurisdictions that operate under growth
management. Mr. Colvin stated then we must abide by State law.
Mr. Sievers stated Mr. Colvin was correct and if not, the City
would be corrected by the Courts for not being in compliance.
Mr. Montgomery stated he believes there is a loophole in the law
that says the City can hold hearings by making a few modifications
and that is have the Planning Department hold public meetings
verses open hearings.
Mr. Farr asked the City Attorney if he was correct in understanding
the legislation was designed to speed up the permit approval
process? Mr. Sievers stated that was certainly the expressed
intent of the legislation in its Purpose Section. This particular
procedure of opened/closed hearings does not necessarily speed up
that process because it does not eliminate the second hearing, in
fact it may make the second hearing more delayed because the City
would have to produce a written record of the hearing. Mr. Farr
wanted to avoid the misconception that the City Council will no
longer hear the facts as the public might have been lead to believe
by earlier comments. There has to be extra care taken by
appellants and others involved in this process, but the City
Council is required to hear and review everything that was
presented at the open hearing.
Mr. Overson stated he disagreed with the law and its intent in that
it does tend to take away the right of the local people to control
what happens in their community. It is important to have that
control because we have to live in our own communities. He pointed
out and as emphasized by Mr. Farr, this is not a change in right of
the citizens, but it changes the process so it becomes a more
closely aligned process in order that the decisions made are
hopefully better understood by all parties. Mr~ McConnell stated
contrary to Mr. Overson's comments, the statements he made did not
say anything about the Council not receiving the facts, it will
come in a type written form similar to what is presented in Court.
What he did say was it removes the Council from contact with their
constituents when it involves land use issues. The public will be
able to present their oral arguments in front of an appointed
#1894
TAPE #1394
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
July 24, 1996
Page 8 of 17
Planning Commission, not in front of their elected officials.
M/S/C(Farr/Huff-Menees) to approve Revised Rule 11 and 12,
including the modifications identified by the City Attorney.
Vote on Motion:
Motion carried.
In Favor:
Opposed:
Overson, Farr, Neville, Overson,
Colvin, Huff-Menees, Law
McConnell, Montgomery, Winters
7C - DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES (DNR) COMMUNITY FORESTRY
GRANT, #AB96-156
The City has been awarded a fourth $50,000 Community Forestry Grant
from the Department of Natural Resources (DNR). This funding will
be used for hazardous tree removal, select pruning, Neighborhood
Block tree removal and replanting projects, expansion of Pendergast
tree planting, and other urban forestry projects throughout the
City. The action before the City Council is approval of the grant.
Jim Spencer, Parks and Recreation Director, stated this particular
grant was included in his department's 1996 budget; however, as the
year progressed it looked a little bleak as to whether or not the
City would be successful in actually being awarded the grant in
1996. A few weeks ago, he learned that DNR, through the good work
of the City's Urban Forester, had earmarked $50,000 to be used to
continue the enhancement to the City's urban forest. A number of
projects have been highlighted to be funded under the grant.
Terry Dupes asked what specific projects are being consider? Mr.
Spencer stated grant funds would be exclusively used for the City's
urban forest, which would include: removal of hazardous trees,
enhancements to several parks, specifically phase 2 of Pendergast
Regional Park, tree planting at Lions Field/SR-3, neighborhood
trees removed and replaced.
Mr. Winters reported a UPS driver contacted him and requested that
someone from the City trim some trees that are causing a traffic
hazard. Mr. Winters asked how does someone from the public find
out where they should report problems relating to trees within the
City? Mr. Spencer explained the City's recently revised Tree
Ordinance addresses those issues and it becomes a matter of
educating the public and making them aware systems are in place to
deal with those kinds of problems. An internal policy within the
City was included as part of the ordinance that clearly, in matrix
form, identifies which department is responsible for what
concerning problems within rights-of-way and parks.
Mr. MoConne11 asked if the grant required matching funds? Mr.
Spencer stated there is a match, but that match comes in a variety
)
#2249
TAPE #1394
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
July 24, 1996
Page 9 of 17
of forms. Not only will the City provide labor as a source of
match, the City's Urban Forester has been very successful in
soliciting volunteer support and those hours can be applied.
Mr. Overson complimented Mr. Spencer and the Urban Forester, Jim
Trainer, for their work on the Urban Tree Program.
Mr. Colvin echoed Mr. Overson's comments and asked if DNR inspects
what the City has done with the grant funding? Mr. Spencer stated
yes, approximately three months age two people from DNR were given
a tour of Pendergast Regional Park, Forest Ridge Park, the newly
created tree nursery and library. Their response to that tour was
very positive and Mr. Spencer believes that visit may have been the
catalyst for the City receiving this grant. In addition, the City
has been encouraged to submit an grant application to Tree City
USA, which receives national recognition. The City did make out an
application, which has been forwarded through DNR to the State
Urban Forester for review.
M/S/C/U(McConnell/Winters) to authorize and direct the Mayor to
accept the Community Forestry Grant from DNR in the amount not to
exceed $50,000.
8A - RESOLUTION NO. 2551 AMENDING EMPLOYMENT APPLICATION PROCESS
FEE, #AB96-158
The Civil Service Commission has recommended that the Application
and Testing fees apply to uniformed positions only.
Jim Meith, Human Resources Manager, stated this issue has been
before Council at a couple of Study Session as well as before the
Civil Service Commission. This proposal would repeal the
resolution that puts the application and testing fee into effect
for all positions and would limit it only to "Uniformed" positions.
Gordy Byrd asked for the definition of "Uniformed employees"?
President Law stated that would apply to Police and Fire personnel.
Terry Dupes asked how the funds collected were used? Mr. Meith
explained the application processing fee is used to partially
offset the cost of processing the application, basically staff time
and materials to carry out that responsiblity. He estimates that
his department spends approximately $30.00 per application. In
regards to the testing fee, it is a straight through charge on some
tests. Mr. Winters stated it was important that Mr. Meith brought
out the fact that this proposal will not eliminate the testing fee
for all applicants.
Mr. McConne11 asked if the application fee and testing fee are two
separate charges and do testing fees vary in cost? Mr. Meith
TAPE #1394
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
July 24, 1996
Page 10 of 17
stated yes, and in some instances he does not know the cost of the
testing fee until they determine how many applicants will be
tested. Mr. MoConnell questioned the Civil Service Commission's
rational for retaining the application fee for uniformed personnel
only? Mr. Meith stated he believed the Commission's determination
was based on practices in other jurisdictions. Mr. McConnell
stated it bothers him when someone does something just become
someone else is doing it. He questioned if the current application
fee was the same for both uniformed and non-uniformed employees?
Mr. Meith stated yes, $15.50. Mr. McConnell asked why is the
application fee being left in place for the uniformed personnel?
Mr. Meith explained the original intent was to recoup the cost of
processing applications. After much study by the City Council and
two meetings of the Civil Service Commission, the Civil Service
Commission felt the application fee relating to the non-uniformed
personnel was not something that was traditionally done in the
industry and or in other jurisdictions. Mr. McConne11 stated he
would vote "no" on this proposal because he believes the
application fee should be applied to all employees, not just the
uniformed employees.
Mrs. Huff-Menees emphasized Council McConnell is within his right
to vote against this proposal, however, we would all do well to
remember that this has been given a very thorough study and it
comes back before Council because members of the public told
Council over and over that the issue to be revisited. In reference
to an earlier comment made by Mr. McConnell that sometime the
public does not feel they are being heard by Council, in this
instance the public has been heard. Also, Council asked the Civil
Service Commission to make a recommendation to them on this
resolution and she believes Council needs to adopt that
recommendation.
Mr. Montgomery asked how much does the City spend, dollar-wise, on
processing applicants? Mr. Meith stated the total budget for Human
Resources is $210,000 and based on a study conducted earlier this
year approximately 75% is spent on application processing. Mr.
Montgomery questioned the amount collected under the City's current
application fee structure? Mr. Meith stated the application fee
was instituted in April of 1995, and since that time $25,549.00 has
been collected. Mr. Montgomery noted even with an application fee,
the department did not come close to breaking even. Mr. Meith
pointed out it was never intended that the application fee
structure would allow them to break even.
Mr. Overson asked Mr. Meith to convey his appreciation to the Civil
Service Commission for their review of this issue and making a
recommendation to the City Council.
#2717
TAPE #1394
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
July 24, 1996
Page 11 of 17
M/S/C(Overson/Huff-Menees) to approve Resolution No. 2551, fixing
the charges to the public for employment application processing and
testing for uniformed positions and to repeal Resolution No. 2505.
Vote on motion:
Motion carried.
In Favor: Winters, Huff-Menees, Farr, Neville,
Overson, Law, Colvin
Opposed; McConnell, Montgomery
9A - ORDINANCE (FIR8T READING) AMENDING B.M.C- CHAPTERS 2.76.100,
2.76.200, 2.76.300, 2.76.600 FOR PROCUREMENT OF MATERIALS.
EOUIPMENT, AND SERVICES, #AB96-159
In 1994, City Council adopted Ordinance No. 4492 for the
Procurement of Materials, Equipment, and Services. The proposed
changes address standardization of terms; provides additional
definition of exceptions to bidding requirements; and provides for
Mayoral approval for the expenditure of funds in the event of an
emergency.
Gil Johnson, Deputy City Clerk, referenced Section 2.76,100,200
Definitions, and noted the dictionary definition for supplies
refers to quantity or amount of commodities available, which does
not describe what the City is attempting to put forth in the
proposed ordinance. A better word is "goods", which means
something that has economic utility, personal property having
intrinsic value, commodities, and merchandise. These terms have
been changed in the applicable chapters and additional changes
proposed are to provide clarity to the chapters.
Mr. Johnson referenced Secton 2.76,300 and noted there have been
occasions when questions have arisen as to whether a needed service
is a professional service or not. In order to provide a more
adequate description, the following definition of Purchased
Services has been proposed for inclusion in Chapter 2.76,300:
"Purchased Services are defined as general support services
provided by a vendor to accomplish routine, continuing and
necessary functions. These include but are not limited to: Court
reporting, data entry, word processing, language translation,
equipment repair and maintenance, landscape maintenance, cleaning
and janitorial services".
As described in subsection (a) of Section 2.76,300, immediately
following the Purchased services definition, it is proposed that
contracting procedures for Purchased Services be conducted in a
similar manner as Professional Services so as to maintain
competition and by pre-qualification of vendors. The pre-
qualification process occurs annually or as needed by advertisement
in widely circulated publications, such as The Sun, Daily Journal
Of Commerce and Northwest Dispatch. At the present time,
TAPE #1394
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
July 24, 1996
Page 12 of 17
Professional Services is an Open Roster, that is new contractors
can apply and be added to the roster at any time during the year.
It is proposed that Purchased Services will also be an Open Roster.
At the present time, the Professional Services Roster includes
approximately 200 companies representing 41 disciplines. This
process insures that firms submitting proposals for either
Professional or Purchased Services are qualified to provide the
requested services, while maintaining the spirit and intent of
formal budding principles through competitive negotiations relying
not on price alone, but also on qualifications. Bids for
construction projects, and goods, materials and equipment in
amounts greater than $10,000.00 will continue to be solicited by
advertised call for bids procedures.
At the last session of the State Legislature, computer hardware and
software were exempted from formal bidding requirements, providing
that procurement is made through competitive negotiations. The
rationale is that technology of systems need to be tailored to
specific applications and that hardware and software purchases are
not driven by price, but rather by system performance necessary to
meet the needs of the City. Therefore, a new Section 7 is proposed
as follows: "Acquisition of electronic data processing and
telecommunications systems, hardware and software or related
services is conducted through competitive negotiations."
Another recommended change is Mayoral expenditure of funds in the
event of emergency. At the present time, there is no provision for
expenditure of appropriated funds in the event of a natural
disaster or other catastrophic event resulting in the absence of
incapacitation of members of Council necessary to constitute a
quorum needed to conduct City business. Therefore, it is proposed
that a new Section 8 be added as follows: "In the event of a
natural disaster or other catastrophic event which results in the
absence or incapacitation of a quorum of the City Council necessary
to conduct City business, the Mayor shall have the authority to
issue an interim emergency proclamation and to approve expenditure
of appropriated funds necessary to respond to the emergency.
It is proposed that Section 7 in the present ordinance be deleted.
The decision as to whether a purchase, lease or rental falls within
exceptions to bidding is moot because the exceptions are listed.
Additionally, Council will continue to approve contracts greater
than $10,000. The approval process includes review by appropriate
directors, recommendation to/by the Mayor and Council committees'
review and ultimately action by the full Council in a public
meeting.
TAPE #1394
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
July 24, 1996
Page 13 of 17
Public comment - none.
Mr. Farr asked if he understood correctly that the $10,000 limit
does not apply to computer software and hardware regardless of the
price? Mr. Johnson yes, and the $10,000 cap applies to bringing a
contract before the City Council for approval and award.
TAPE #1395
Mr. Farr stated he wanted assurance that the City was not giving
away the advantage the City receives by going to lowest bid. Mr.
Johnson explained based on his experience there are disadvantages
going by the lowest bid and the City has not always benefitted by
taking the lowest dollar amount. He believes by pre-qualifying
vendors and by having competitive negotiated contracts with those
vendors the City is not only getting a qualified product and
service, but also getting the best possible price. Mr. Farr asked
Mr. Johnson to tell him how we can achieve the same thing on a
competitive bidding on award on lowest price, if you prepare the
bid procedure with restrictions that would allow the City to
receive the services or quality that is needed? Mr. Johnson stated
on a sealed bid process there have been instances where the City
has been stuck with a bid that was not the most beneficial to the
City. In the instance of a negotiated bid, the process can be
reviewed, talked through and understand fully before the contract
is completely negotiated. Mr. Farr stated even after Mr. Johnson's
explanation he could not support the proposal as presented.
Mr. McConnell questioned if the City was restricted negotiating
with more than one company on a negotiated bid? Mr. Johnson stated
no, and an example is the City's Small Works Roster, which has 150
contractors for a variety of services, i.e. plumbing, roofers, etc.
The City conducts those negotiations for purchased services much
like the small works projects. Mr. MoConne11 stated his support of
a negotiated contract for computer software and hardware. Mayor
Lynn Hotton explained in a construction project there is a design,
specifications and is something that is fairly straightforward.
Since she has been with the City, she has witnessed many times when
software has been ordered only to find that it was not what we
thought we were getting and ended up either having to "gerry rig"
something to make it work or send it back, or spend a huge amount
of time and effort on training for something we thought was fairly
simple. Getting a product that you are really satisfied with is
sometimes an art, not a science.
Mr. Winters stated since his tenure on the Council he has seen the
lowest bid on major construction contracts often come back to
Council Committee with change orders. Based on that, he felt that
the negotiated contract process should be applied to construction
projects as well, since it provides the City with more control of
the product or services they are to receive.
#3065
TAPE #1394
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
July 24, 1996
Page 14 of 17
M/S/C(Montgomery/Farr) to approve ordinance on first reading,
revising procedures for the procurement of materials, equipment,
and services by the City of Bremerton, and amending Chapter
2.76,100, 2.76.200, 2.76,300, and 2.76,600 of the Bremerton
Municipal Code.
Vote on Motion: In Favor: McConnell, Colvin, Winters, Montgomery,
Huff-Menees, Neville, Overson, Law
Opposed: Farr
Motion carried.
10A - PUBLIC HEARING, PRELIMINARY PLAT, 6 LOT SUBDIVISION,
APPLICANT: JERRY VERGER/CHARLES PARR; LOCATION: ADJACENT TO AND
NORTHWEST OF MCCLAIN AVENUE AND SHERIDAN ROAD (628 SHERIDAN ROAD);
AND APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. 2552, #AB96-160
On June 25, 1996, the Planning Commission recommended approval to
City Council for the Preliminary Plat for 6 lots. The City Council
is the decision-making body responsible for evaluation of
Preliminary and Final Plats.
The City Council shall either: 1) Approve the preliminary plat and
pass the approving resolution; 2) Deny the plat; 3) Modify in
whole or part the conditions as recommended by the Planning
Commission; or 4) Remand the matter back to the Planning
Commission for further consideration.
President Law asked the "Appearance Of Fairness/Conflict Of
Interest" question. Councilman MontgomerY announced he visited the
subject site and Councilman Farr stated he sold a personal
property to one of the applicants. Ian Sievers, City Attorney,
determined that no one had a conflict and that all Council members
could be seated.
Jack A11in~ham, Planner, stated this is an application for a
Preliminary Plat approval to subdivide approximately 3.65 acres.
The applicant is Jerry Vergeer and the property owner is Charles
Parr. The site is located just north of Sheridan Road and just to
the west of McClain Avenue. The site is relatively vacant and had
developed with a single family residence, the Parr's residence. In
late 1994/early 1995, Mr. Parr short platted four lots on his
property, the remainder is now being requested to be further
subdivided. The lots primarily front McClain Avenue. The site is
zoned Single Family 3 (SF-3), and SF-3 has a minimum lot size of,
at the date of this application, of 4,800 sq. ft. The proposed
lots are substantially larger than the 4,800 sq. ft., at
approximately 9,000 sq. ft. in size, 75 feet in width and 120 feet
in depth; and are similar in configuration to lots on the east side
of McClain Avenue.
TAPE #1395
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
July 24, 1996
Page 15 of 17
Access to lots #2 and #3 will be off of McClain Avenue and lots #4,
#5 and #6 will use a common driveway, which will access onto
Sheridan Road. The plan proposes a preliminary storm drainage
system that will consist of an underground storage tank in the area
of the shared driveway and will discharge into the City's
stormwater system.
The Planning Commission heard substantial testimony from
neighboring residents, primarily concerned whether or not the lots
would be in-filled to raise the site up to McClain avenue, which
would raise the elevation and potentially block views. The
applicant stated for clarification that there was no intention to
fill in the site and in order to gain access to the lots a shared
driveway would be provided. It was indicated the houses would have
a frontage appearance on McClain Avenue, but the access to lots #4,
#5 and #6 would be via the shared driveway. There was also
testimony about the need for street lighting along McClain Avenue.
Currently, houses along the east side of McClain Avenue provide a
"yard" light at the entrances of their homes along their driveways
and requested the side of the street to be developed provide street
lighting in the same character. The Planning Commission is
recommending that street frontage lighting of the same character be
provided for the subdivision. Finally, there was concern that a
shallow water table moves along the soil and is flooding
foundations on existing houses, which were built under the short
plat and that there needs to be some sort of a system, i.e. curtain
drains,'to direct the water around the foundations for this site.
The Planning Commission is recommending that curtain drains be
provided as necessary; however they did not mandate that for every
structure since it may not be needed in every instance. The
determination whether or not such a drain would be necessary would
be up to the builder/developer of the property.
Furthermore, the Planning Commission recommends that the
applicant/developer construct a sidewalk the full length of McClain
Avenue. For the short plat that was approved, the developer
constructed a curb and gutter all the way down McClain Avenue and
a side walk fronting the earlier short plat lots. As part of the
new development, the sidewalk will be extended down to Sheridan
Road. The developer will also be required to provide temporary
erosion control, develop underground utilities and a stormwater
retention system, which has been submitted and reviewed by the
City's Engineering Department. Based on the conditions as outlined
in the Resolution, the Planning Commission recommends approval.
Craig Baldwin, West Sound Engineering, 217 SW Wilkins Drive, Port
Orchard, and representing Jerry Verger, stated he would be happy to
answer any questions. He complimented Jack Allingham on the
completeness of his presentation of the proposal. He pointed out
TAPE #1395
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
July 24, 1996
Page 16 of 17
some people might call this project an "in-fill" in an area with an
established neighborhood. As indicated by Mr. Allingham, by
ordinance the developer could use smaller lots, but Mr. Verger has
not elected that option because he wants to maintain the
consistency of the neighborhood, which is also a good marketing
tool. Mr. Verger was involved with Mr. Parr in the short platting
of the lots to the north, lots #B, #C and #D, which have homes
built on them. During that process, they learned it would be to
everyone's advantage to run sanitary sewer lines from the back of
the lots instead of connecting to the sewer main in McClain Avenue;
thereby not having to have the interruptions or excavation to
McClain Avenue. The water main is already located behind the curb
and gutter and will require only running simple water meter
connections to the lots. A hydrant will be installed at the corner
of Sheridan Road and McClain Avenue for fire protection. The
preliminary engineering is shown to demonstrate the developer can
comply fully with the requirements and regulations for development,
the Stormwater Managements Manual, developed by the Department Of
Ecology, and not change the character of the remaining land owned
by Mr. Parr. There was a lot of discussion about groundwater and
the problems neighbors across the street on McClain Avenue were
experiencing. During those discussions, it became evident that the
owner of Lot B does have some problems with water under the
foundation, but the homes on lot "C" and "D do not have that
problem. So, there is evidence and proof that a groundwater
problem exists in certain areas within the neighborhood and the
developer feels the Planning Commission's recommendation is
appropriate that foundation drains be installed where necessary.
To require foundation drains on every home might be a little
onerous and precedent setting. He would recommend that at the time
footings are dug and formed the builder and building inspector
review the concern for groundwater problems and require curtain
drains be install, if there is evidence of groundwater and that
evidence can be found in two ways. In the winter time, if there is
evidence of water under the foundation a problem exists, but in the
summer water tables can go down. During the dryer months of the
year, to determine if groundwater is a problem, the soil can be
examined to see if there is any mottling, which reflects
intermittent presence of water.
Kate Billings stated she was not opposed to the project and the
concerns that she and other neighbors sent into the Planning
Commission have mostly been answered, and Mr. Baldwin's explanation
about the groundwater issue helped her better understand that
concern and how it will be handled.
Gordv Byrd asked what give a city the right to tell people what
they can do with their property. President Law pointed out Mr.
Byrd's question was not relevant to the issue being discussed and
#0774
TAPE #1395
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
July 24, 1996
Page 17 of 17
could be answered at another time.
Mr. McConnell stated it is unusual to have something other than
apartment complexes proposed and he was pleased that the developer
was proposing to build single family homes on the site because he
believes that is what will continue to maintain this city.
Mr. Overson pointed out one of the functions of a city is to be
urban and that means density. He agreed this is a good proposal,
but he is also pleased with some of the good apartment developments
that have been established in the City providing quality living
spaces and he encourages those as well.
Mr. Montgomery emphasized the system works, the residents of the
area brought their concerns to the Planning Commission and they
were reviewed and acted upon.
M/S/C/U(Colvin/McConnell) to adopt Resolution No. 2552, accepting
the preliminary plat of "Parr's Corner", located adjacent to and
northwest of McClain Avenue and Sheridan Road (628 Sheridan Road),
Bremerton, Kitsap County, Washington.
President Law thanked the TV camera crew for their services: Nadine
Price, Terry Bowlby, Dave Noble, Bruce Hall.
With no further business meeting adjourned at 7:36 P.M.
KATHLEEN L. McCLUSKEY, City Clerk
~Co;"~uncil President
City of Bremerton
KLM/JL/me
cc: Normal Distribution
File/Vault