HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/13/96TAPE #1366
UNAPPROVED DRAFT
COUNCIL
APPROVED
MAR 27 1996
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
MARCH 13, 2996
#0049
#0069
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, March 13, 1996, at 5:30 P.M.,
with Council President John Law presiding. Council members present
were Bob Winters, A1 Colvin, Cecil McConnell, Carlos Montgomery,
Sherril Huff-Menees, David Farr, and Lon Overson. Council member
Richard Neville was absent. Also present were City Attorney Ian
Sievers and Rich Hanna, Acting City Clerk.
The meeting opened with the Pledge of Allegiance led by Council
President Law and Invocation given by Chaplain Ben Belcher of
Harrison Memorial Hospital.
President Law announced an Executive Session was held prior to this
City Council meeting tonight, and the topic discussed was
"Litigation".
CONSENT AGENUA
A. Minutes -- February 21, 1996
#AB96-049
M/S/C/U(Montgomery/McConnell)
presented.
to approve Consent Agenda as
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/Winters) on March 13, 1996, the Council does approve
for payment those vouchers included and further described as
follows: 195864, 195875 through 196013 in the amount of
$240,103.16.
COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS
Mr. Colvin thanked Councilman McConnell for the invitation to his
District #2 neighborhood meeting.
Mr. McConne11 reported he recently toured the sewer plant and was
pleased to find it odor free.
Mr. Montgomery announced the City is holding a special meeting in
District #8 on March 26, 7:00 P.M., at the Public Works Complex,
TAPE #1366
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
March 13, 1996
Page 2 of 11
concerning the roadway improvements on Kitsap Way between Weslon
Place and Auto Center Way. He encouraged residents of this area to
attend, and to call 373-1300 if anyone had additional questions.
Mr. Farr reported he attended an Anderson Cove Neighborhood meeting
and was pleased to see the public interest shown from the people of
that area. He complimented all those working to get this
neighborhood "straitened out". A few problems have become apparent
because some of the properties in the area are non-owner-occupied
rental units. He is seeking help from the Puget Sound Renters
Association and hopes to have someone from that organization attend
the next neighborhood meeting.
Mr. Law announced District #3 Neighborhood meeting will be held on
March 19, 7:00 P.M. at the Senior Center located at East 13th &
Nipsic, with Mr. Randy McGreal, Project Executive from Fletcher
Wright making a presentation on the "Downtown Development". He
pointed out that thanks to the Engineering Department, Street
Department and Risk Manager, there is now a curb constructed at
Wheaton Way and Winfield Avenue near 13th Street for pedestrian
safety.
Mr. Montgomery reported he accompanied Bob Tulp, Public Works
Operations Manger, on a tour of the Street Department and saw the
new "pothole repair" truck in operation. He was amazed at the
amount of work that can be accomplished with the new repair
equipment using only two men. He urged the public to have
patience while the City tries to catch up with the pothole repair
workload. What the City really needs is a second pothole truck.
PUBLIC RECOGNITION
eordy Byrd commented on the March 12th Neighborhood Information
Network meeting. He questioned why the Executive Session was held
before the City Council meeting, before the public had a chance for
input. President Law explained the topic of the Executive Session
was unrelated to any of the Agenda items. He further clarified why
other meetings may be held before Council meeting.
John Thomas asked the whereabouts of the fire boat, how long it had
been out of the water and when will it be back in service.?
Don Larson thanked the Bremerton Police Department and Fire
Department for responding promptly, and for all the help received
from them after he was involved in a serious auto accident. He
reminded the public about the importance of using safety/seat
belts, which can reduce the chance of serious injuries. Due to this
experience, he recommended the Police Department carry copies of
Washington State Accident Report Forms in their Patrol vehicles,
and members of the public carry a copy in their own vehicles for
TAPE #1366
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
March 13, 1996
Page 3 of 11
future use. Mr. Montgomery pointed out Accident forms are
available on the first floor in City Hall. Mr. Larson explained
the State Patrol Accident form must be filled out within 24 hours,
and City Hall is locked up during evening hours and on the weekend.
He announced the Bremerton Parks & Recreation Department is
sponsoring events for Earth Day at Evergreen Park on April 15, at
10:00 A.M. The Sinclair Inlet CleanUp is scheduled for april 20,
12:00 noon.
Carol Atkinson, Bremerton Mainstreet Association announced the
following events: 5th Annual St. Patrick's Day Parade, March 16,
11:00 A.M., beginning at 5th Street & Pacific Avenue; and St.
Patrick's Day Dinner at the Cloverleaf Tavern on March 17, at 6:00
P.M.
De1 Knauss challenged the City Council over the use of the yellow
"Request To Address The City Council" forms in that it violated RCW
Chapter 42.30 Open Public Meetings Act. He observed the City's
Fire Boat has been sitting uncovered up on block at the Port
Orchard Boat Yard for several months. He questioned why is it
still sitting out in the weather? Bob Tulp, Public Works Operations
Manager, reported the Fire Boat should be back in service by the
next weekend.
Bonnie McDade thanked the City for the improvements at Forest Ridge
Park. She announced the following event: 40's theme Dance on March
15, 8:00 P.M. to 12:00 midnight, at the Eagles Hall - Admission
$25.00 per couple, $12.50 for singles.
Gene Hart, 2015 Trenton Avenue, thanked the Mayor and City Council
for wisely protecting and investing taxpayers resources; and
complimented the City on the decision to use video arraignment in
the Municipal Court, which results in a more efficient operation of
the Court.
7A - INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT -- TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNALS WITH THE CITY
OF PORT ORCHARD, #AB96-050
Approval of agreement between the City of Bremerton and the City of
Port Orchard to maintain traffic signals located within the City of
Port Orchard.
Bob Tulp, Public Works Operations, noted this is an on going
contract with the City of Port Orchard to service two traffic
signals for a term of 3-years.
Public comment - none.
Mr. Winters asked the number of years the City of Bremerton has had
an agreement with the City of Port Orchard to provide this service?
#0925
#1047
TAPE #1366
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
March 13, 1996
Page 4 of 11
Mr. TulD stated 5-6 years.
M/S/C/U(Montgomery/Colvin) to approve Interlocal Agreement between
City of Bremerton and City of Port Orchard to maintain traffic
signals.
7B - INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT -- TRAFFIC CONTROL 8IGNALS WITH KITSAP
COUNTY, #AB96-051
Approval of agreement between the City of Bremerton and Kitsap
County to maintain traffic signals located within Kitsap County.
Bob Tulp, Public Works Operations Manager, stated this is an on
going contract with Kitsap County to service 32 traffic signals.
The City has provided this service for well over 12 years and the
terms of this agreement is 3-years.
Gordy Byrd asked how are signal lights maintained? Mr. Tulp gave
a brief description of the kinds of services they provide.
Elizabeth Bue11, High Avenue, questioned why some traffic signals
take so long to cycle on? President Law pointed out Mrs. Buell's
question was not pertinent to the issue. Mr. Tulp offered to talk
with Mrs. Buell at a later time.
M/S/C/U(Colvin/Montgomery) to approve Interlocal Agreement between
City of Bremerton and City of Port Orchard to maintain traffic
signals in Kitsap County.
7C - OVERWATER PARK BIOLOGICAL MITIGATION MONITORING CONTRACT WITH
FISH PRO, INC., #AB96-052
As part of the Overwater Park project, the beach immediately
adjacent was rehabilitated as a condition of the permits to
construct the Boardwalk. The permit also required the City to
periodically monitor the biological activity on the beach. A
consultant services agreement in the amount of $21,370 has been
negotiated with Fish Pro, Inc. to determine the biological activity
and document the activity to the permitting agencies.
Additionally, a budget amendment is attached increasing the project
budget by $4,100, from $19,200 to $23,300. This reflects the funds
available for the 1996 mitigation monitoring.
Mark 8ouza, Senior Engineer, explained Fish Pro Inc., performed
other biological services related to the mitigation plan like those
to be performed in years 4 and 2. The mitigation plan is for a
period of five years and was developed by the Engineering
Department and Fish Pro Inc.
Mr. McConne11 asked if the budget amendment was just rolling out
#1215
#1291
#1387
TAPE #1366
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
March 13, 1996
Page 5 of 11
the money out of the escrow account into an active fund so that it
can be used for the mitigation project? Mr. Souza state yes.
Gordy Byrd questioned for clarification what is an
park"?
Mrs. Huff-Menees pointed out it meant the boardwalk.
"overwater
Mr. Colvim asked for clarification the term "periodically" as
stated in the document. Mr. Souza explained the mitigation plan
covers a period of five years and the City must monitor the
biological features of the beach in years 2, 4 and 5. The proposal
before Council is for year-4.
Mr. Winters asked since we are in the 4th year of the observation
program, is the City in any violation? Mr. Souza stated it appears
the fish are doing fine, but this testing will give a better
evaluation of how well the new beach has performed.
M/S/C/U(McConnell/Montgomery) to authorize and direct the Mayor to
execute the attached agreement with Fish Pro, Inc. in the amount of
$21,370 for the biological monitoring of the Overwater Park
mitigation beach and to approve the budget amendment increasing the
project budget by $4,100 to $23,300.
7D - KITSAP PHYSICIAN8 SERVICE CONTRACT FOR 1996, #AB96-053
This is the seventh year of our contract with KPS for employee
medical services. Through the efforts of our consultant and the
Insurance Benefits Committee, which represents all unions and
management, we recommend a one year contract 1/01/96 to 12/31/96.
We further recommend the stop loss be lowered to $100,000 from the
$150,000 ISL in 1995.
Rioh Hanna, Acting City Clerk, stated he would standby for
questions.
Public comment - none.
M/S/C/U(Winters/Colvin) to approve one year contract with KPS for
employee medical services and budget adjustment.
8A - ORDINANCE NO. 4547 (SECOND READING) REORGANIZING THE HEARING
EXAMINER FUNCTION, #AB96-048
Gordv Byrd asked if someone could explain the intent of the issue
in layman's language. Ian Sievers, City Attorney, gave a brief
overview of the intent of the ordinance.
M/S/C/U(Huff-Menees/Farr) to pass Ordinance No. 4547 on second
reading, reorganizing the hearing examiner function as part of the
Bremerton Municipal Court, and amending Chapters 2.62, 5.02, 6.04,
TAPE #1366
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
March 13, 1996
Page 6 of 11
6.32, 7.07, 7.08, 10.11, 10.40, and 15.08 of the Bremerton
Municipal Code.
8B - ORDINANCE (FIRST READING) SETTING STORMWATER I~TES, #1~B96-054
The proposed ordinance will increase the City's retail wastewater
rates by an average of five percent. Staff analysis has
demonstrated that an increase is necessary to allow the utility to
pay for current operations and to implement the capital
improvements which are mandated to meet environmental regulations.
An increase in retail wastewater rates of five percent is proposed
to take effect July 1, 1996. This rate increase is needed to
compensate for the effects of inflation since rates were last set,
to allow for continuing renewal and replacement of the wastewater
system infrastructure and to finance capital improvements including
the mandated separation of the stormand sanitary sewer systems and
odor improvements to the wastewater plant. If current regulatory
and economic conditions continue, additional rate increases of
three percent will be requested each January 1 beginning in 1997
and continuing until 2007. These increases are expected to be
approximately equal to inflation over that time span.
Elizabeth Buell asked if the 5% increase was on the sewer part or
on both the water and sewer? Mr. Hanna explained the proposed rate
increase would only affect the wastewater portion.
John Thomas, 2004 Perry Avenue, stated most local households are
tied into the Federal Government and experience an annual raise of
2.5 - 3.5%. Even the labor contracts for City employees fall
within this range, yet each year the City raises the budget 6% and
now is proposing to increase sewer rates by 5% and in January of
1997 raise it another 3%. He did not believe anyone was opposed to
paying for the operating costs of the sewer treatment plant or any
other City service. He believes it is time to separate the capital
expenditures for the sewer treatment plant from the operating and
normal maintenance costs and present a bond issue to the taxpayers
to pay for the capital expenditures, which would allow the them to
use that cost as a tax deduction. He raised the following
questions: (1) is there a law preventing the City from separating
the capital expenses from the operating costs and presenting a bond
issue to the residents for the capital expenditures and paid by
property taxes? (2) If there is not such a law, when and will the
City make it easier for the citizens to pay for the capital
expenditures at the sewer treatment plant with an additional
property tax?
Brian Mueller, 1541 Park Avenue, stated 2 1/2 years ago when the
City raised the rates by 30% he had specific questions about the
division of rates and Puget Sound Naval Shipyards proportion, their
use and their payment. During that time, the rate of the Shipyards
TAPE #1366
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
March 13, 1996
Page 7 of 11
use was 30-35% and they were only paying 25% of the actual costs of
the operation of the sewer treatment plant. Members of the City
Council and the public were told that Shipyard's rate structure
would be revisited and their rates increased. Two and one half
years have passed and to his knowledge the Shipyard rates have not
been increased and it was not revisited. There has been some
change in upper management within the wastewater treatment plant,
but that has not changed. As a member of the citizens committee for
the sewer treatment plant upgrade project, he has tracked some of
this information. Due to the recent separation of the two
stormwater drainage systems, both the Callow Avenue and Warren
Avenue basins, there should be less actual effluent coming into the
plant, so the percentage of actual usage should increase for the
Shipyard. Again, they are not paying their fair share. Now, the
City is proposing to raise the rates of the average homeowner and
businesses. It is not a fair and equitable rate because people are
not being charged the same nor does the City monitor the rate of
effluent coming from people's homes. He urged the City Council to
remand this issue back to staff for further study. Mr. Hanna
stated in answer to the question regarding the ability of the City
to levy property taxes with which to retire bonds used for utility
purposes, that is a viable financial alternative under Washington
law. He did not know if such a proposal had ever been before the
voters of the City prior to his tenure of the last 10 years, but it
has not been used during the time he has been with the City. Mr.
Mueller struck the point of that question - people who own
significant amounts of property within the City are not likely to
be pleased by that financial alternative. Whether that is more
equitable than continuing with Revenue Bonds that are supported by
wastewater rates is a question that could be debated by the
Council, if they so desire. In response to the question about the
Navy's rates, since rates were last raised in February 1994, the
City has gone through a process of cost of service and rate
analysis on the Navy accounts, which resulted in an increase of
rates of slightly over 60% from the rates being paid at the time of
the last retail adjustment. He emphasized that is a very recent
development and Mr. Mueller may not have been aware of that action.
Rich Hanna, Acting City Clerk, read a letter from Gloria L. Agas,
1522 Almira Court, into the record: "I am writing to you at this
time to express my unhappiness about the proposed wastewater rate
increase effective July 1996 and every January 1 thereafter. My
unhappiness is not caused by the fact that I have to pay for the
increase. Like almost everything else in this time and age, a rate
increase is inevitable. If we want a service, in this case,
processing of our sewage, we should be willing to pay for that
service and since the City has the monopoly, we have to pay the
rates it charges. My unhappiness stems from a number of things,
TAPE #1366
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
March 13, 1996
Page 8 of 11
among them are:
(1) The two newspaper articles (The Sun 2/1/96 and 3/13/96) and the
City Council Agenda Bill mentioned that the proposed increase is
5%. Unless the City is basing this increase on something else
other than the current rate, my calculation is showing an
approximately 50% increase. (Single Family, Within City Limits, at
$3.00/Acct increased to$4.49/acct = 49.6%). Please correct me if
I am wrong and I apologize if I am in error.
(2) Since this City Council action will affect the entire service
area, the customers should be given more time and opportunity to
ponder on the proposed rate increase and comment on it, instead of
just two short newspaper articles which appeared on the same day
that the issue will be taken up by the City Council. If there was
a neighborhood meeting, specifically in my district (#2), to
discuss this very important issue, I was not aware of it. There
was no newspaper article or a mailed invitation to attend and I do
not subscribe to Cable TV.
(3) While it is beneficial to the City's objective, increasing the
base charge does not encourage water conservation, especially since
there is a movement on water conservation, nation-wide, if not
world-wide, due to diminishing water supplies, stricter
environmental regulations and higher costs for the development of
new water supplies sources. If water conservation is practiced,
there will be less sewage going through the treatment plant which
will translate to lower maintenance and operations costs. After
all, one of the tips given by the City during the neighborhood
meetings held prior to the 30% rate increase in 1994 was water
conservation.
The recent change in the operations of the Wastewater Treatment
Plant from contract operations to City staff should result in lower
operating costs since the City will no longer have to pay mark-up
costs.
It might be a good idea to separate, as in the past, charges
collected and earmarked for capital improvements (treatment plant
and sewer mains) from operating costs and efforts made to establish
a mechanism wherein we, the ratepayers, may have the ability to
claim such payments as tax deductions. The City and the ratepayers
can work together towards a user-friendly solution. There will be
less stress between them - the ratepayers will put up less
resistance and the City will have an easier task of collecting.
Rate increases in smaller doses are easier to take; I am still
recovering from the 30% rate increase in 1994. A huge rate
increase causes further hardship to low-or one-income families.
Their inability to pay, in a timely manner, if at all, results in
TAPE #1366
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
March 13, 1996
Page 9 of 11
higher operating costs for Utility Billing/Customer Service and the
Utilities meter crew who have to spend longer time talking with
delinquent customers, printing delinquent/overdue utility bills,
issuing promissory notes, hanging door knockers,
disconnecting/reconnecting meters due to nonpayment, filing liens
against the property of non-paying customers and at worst, complete
loss of revenue due to non-paying customers leaving the area or
write-off of uncollectible. A more equitable rate structure might
be in order - that is generators of industrial wastes should be
charged more than residential users.
There are other reasons and comments worth mentioning but I will
not burden you further.
I am glad the City gave me a 2.9% cost of living increase effective
January 1, 1996. At least, I know where it is going, although I
still have to put out some of my limited savings stashed away for
a "rainy day" to makeup for the difference. But how about those
who are less fortunate than me?"
President Law stated for clarification the City Council held a
Study Session in February on the proposed rate increase and many
questions were asked and alternatives were discussed.
Mr. Overson stated he received a phone call from a citizens, Mark
Fisher, who voiced his concern over the proposed sewer increase.
Mr. Overson assured members of the public that Council has looked
closely at this issue and validated the need. Whether to levy the
rate by volume or by direct rate has been discussed extensively.
Mr. Hanna provided detailed comparisons on several options and the
end result indicated that if the City levied a tax it would mean a
significant increase in monthly costs for many people throughout
the City. One of the great values of the present volume system in
that it allows people to control, to some degree, their costs. He
used the example of retired individuals, who use a low amount of
water, and often times are on a fixed income and not in a position
to pay higher rates. The proposal to levy the increase on the base
rate seems to be an excellent way to implement the increase because
it gives a level income for the capital development that is
necessary to improve the quality of the water in Puget Sound.
Mr. McConne11 asked why the 1996 budget did not reflect the need
for an increase in sewer rates? Mr. Hanna explained as discussed
in the first of the two Study Sessions held on this issue, the
financial projections reflected lacking this rate increase the
City's Utility would not run out of money in 1996. However, what
will happen is rates will be such that we are not contributing as
much to the capital renewals and replacements to the system as
should be. If we continue at the current rate, the reinvestments
TAPE #1366
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
March 13, 1996
Page 10 of 11
diminish rather rapidly and actually become negative about the
middle of 1997. Mr. McConnell's comment about'the 1996 budget is
correct. Mr. McConne11 asked if money from the Wastewater Fund is
being used to purchase property in the "condemnation" area near the
sewer treatment plant and is it a mandated requirement? Mr. Hanna
stated the acquisition of those properties is a part of the capital
budget of the Wastewater Fund for 1996; however, there is no
mandate and the City made that decision.
Mr. Colvin called John Thomas to the podium and referenced a
comment Mr. Thomas made that if the rate increase was placed as a
property tax it would be tax deductible on his Federal Income Tax.
Mr. Thomas stated as a bill, he could not deduct it from his Income
Tax, but if it were a tax, he could deduct that portion from his
Income Tax. Mr. Colvln asked the City Treasurer if Council had
considered that point? Mr. Hanna restated his earlier comments
that to his knowledge there has never been a formal presentation of
that alternative. Mr. Montgomerv stated he seriously doubted the
citizens of Bremerton would ever approve such an increase in
property taxes for this purpose considering the 50-60% increase in
property taxes in 1996.
Mr. McConne11 stated in response to Ms. Agas's comment about
information on the sewer increase was not put out to the residents,
this issue was discussed at his District #2 Neighborhood Meeting,
which was held on March 12. He stressed that the 5% increase was
not being attached to volume, but rather being added to the base
rate of $3.00 for residential accounts.
Mr. Farr concurred with earlier comments about Council having
opportunity on several occasions to discuses the proposed rate
increase. During that discussion, data was brought in from other
wastewater utilities, some of which indicated the majority of the
Wastewater Utilities in the State don't base sewer charges on water
usage. Personally, he favors another system that would not base it
on water usage, but at this time to cover the cost of operating the
plant by dividing it among the number of customers some would have
raises that would be more unpleasant. The current billing system
is based largely on volume and in effect what that does is for each
extra gallon of water that is used you pay many times more than the
price of the water because it runs up the sewer when in effect the
cost of operating the sewer plant remains constant. The good news
of all of the different proposals that were brought forth this
time, the one before Council places the majority of this increase,
although this increase is small, on the base rate verses the
volume. The other side of the proposition is there is not a
corresponding increase on charges on volume and the sewer bills
should not reflect a greater than 5% increases and in many cases
will be less than a 5% increase. In his opinion, the rate
TAPE #1366
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
March 13, 1996
Page 11 of 11
structure is still skewed in favor of volume and this is the first
step in getting it down to something more realistic. This proposal
does not delude water conservation.
President Law noted when the first discussions on this issue came
to the Council in Study Sessions, the consultant did mention having
the basic sewer charges on the property tax and they felt the
expense and exposure for errors were so great they did not
recommend using that method. Mr. Hanna explained there were two
different discussions along those lines and as he recalled one was
the use of property taxes as a portion of Utility funding and the
other was a system-wide L.I.D. for improvements to the treatment
plant. There is no perfect answer to Utility solutions and the
alternatives were given serious consideration.
#2512
M/S/C(Montgomery/Huff-Menees) to approve
reading, amending rates and charges for
services; and amending Ordinance No. 4529.
ordinance on first
municipal wastewater
Vote on motion:
In Favor: Overson, Farr, Huff-Menees, Law,
Montgomery, Colvin
Motion carried.
Opposed:
McConnell, Winters
With no further business meeting adjourned at 6:50 P.M.
KATHLEEN L. McCLUSKEY, City Clerk
JO~ '/"/'~ Council President
City of Bremerton
KLM/JL/me
cc: Normal Distribution
File/Vault