Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/14/94TAPE #1252 UNAPPROVED DRAFT COUNCIL APROVED JAN 4 1994 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES DECEMBER 14, 1994 #0004 #0009 The regular meeting'of the City Council of the City of Bremerton was called to order in the City Council Chambers, 239 4th Street, Bremerton, Washington, Wednesday, December 14, 1994, at 5:30 P.M., with Council President Sherril Huff-Menees presiding. Council members present were Morrie Dawkins, John Law, David Farr, A1 Colvin, Carlos Montgomery, Lon Overson, and Richard Neville. Councilman Bob Winters was absent. Also present were Assistant City Attorney Leila Mills and City Clerk Kathleen McCluskey. The meeting opened with the Pledge of Allegiance led by Council President Huff-Menees and Invocation given by Pastor Sam Rachal of Mt. Zion Missionary Baptist Church. CONSENT AGENDA A. Minutes of Meeting - November 30, 1994 #AB94-260 M/S/C/U(Colvin/Dawkins) to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. CLAIMS/CHECK REGISTERS Vouchers audited and certified by the auditing officer as required by RCW 42.24.080, and those expense reimbursement claims certified as required by RCW 42.24,090, have been recorded on a listing that had been made available to the Council. M/S/C/U(Colvin/Dawkins) on December 14, 1994, the Council does approve for payment those vouchers included and further described as follows: 180652, 180654 through 180673 in the total amount of $73,059.99. INFORMATIONAL PRESENTATION Presentation by Puget Sound Water Quality Authority and Department of Ecology Representatives on the Direction of Stormwater Management Eddy Chu, Director of Public Works and Utilities Department, introduced Vallana Piciolo, Program Manager for Puget Sound Water Quality Authority, and John Glen, Water Quality Manager for the Department Of Ecology. The City invited representatives from these two agencies to give insight into what the City is embarking upon as it relates to the Stormwater Management Program. Mayor Lynn Hotton introduced Representative elect Lois McMahan, who represents the 26th District, and Washington State Senator Betti TAPE #1252 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December 14, 1994 Page 2 of 24 Sheldon. She felt it was important that State representatives hear first hand the kinds of things being mandated by the State and the affect it has upon municipal governments and the residents within those areas. Vallana Piciolo, PrOgram Manager for Puget Sound Water Quality Authority, stated the State acknowledges the hard work and expense the City has already put out to address environmental issues, such as the wastewater treatment plant and separation of stormwater and sewers. Ms. Piciolo provided a slide presentation showing the important work the City of Bremerton has done to weave it into the bigger picture of Puget Sound and why such action is necessary. The following facts were presented: The Puget Sound Estuary stretches from the Canadian Border down to Thurston County. There are 12 Counties stretching from the Olympic Mountains to the Cascade Mountains and within that area there are approximately 16,000 sq. miles of land surface area and about 10,000 miles of rivers and streams. All activity on the land washes into Puget Sound, which has been part of the problem. There is very unique wildlife in Puget Sound, such as Orcas and eagles. Puget Sound Basin has expanded tremendously in the last 10-20 years Between 1980 and 1990 the population increased 23% just in the 12- County area of Puget Sound. The State projections are another 34% increase in population to some 4.4 million people in the Puget Sound Basin. With all of the new people coming into the area, it means more homes, factories, businesses and vehicles. All of these entities contribute to pollution. Vehicle exhaust settles particles and toxic chemicals on roadways that wash into the streams and through storm drains into Puget Sound. This data has been documented through studies. With more people there will be more sewage treatment plants and current plants will have to be upgraded. In the rural areas there will be more land 'conversion, more farms and other disturbing activity that all wash pollutants into the Sound. The good news is that the Puget Sound Central Basin is in pretty good shape in terms of water quality, but our urbanizing bays and sediments are quite contaminated and they are finding that 9 of the Puget Sound salmon species have gone extinct and another 43 are threatened or endangered. Fifty percent of all wetlands in the State have been filled. Wetlands are the natural filtering system to hold excess stormwater, cleanse it and hold back flood waters allowing it to seep .slowly through the ground. However, when the wetlands are filled or polluted, they can not provide that function. About two thirds of the commercially valuable species, shellfish and finfish particularly, in Puget Sound basins spend part of their life in wetlands. Shellfish closures - about 40% of the shellfish beds in the Sound, both commercial and recreation, have been closed, however, there have been some recent upgrades that has been a bright spot through hard work of some local governments, citizens, tribes and businesses. TAPE #1252 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December 14, 1994 Page 3 of 24 The cause of shellfish restrictions is not sewage treatment plants like most people think, but failing on-site septic systems, animal waste, farm animals and hobby farm animals, and stormwater runoff. The other part of the Puget Sound pollution story has to do with just the shape of t~e basin and not human cause. The circulation of the Sound iS pretty complicated and it tends to trap both nutrients and pollutants in a central deep basin and does not flush out to the Straits and the Pacific Ocean like one would think. So, what we pollute in Puget Sound stays there for a long time. One of the slides showed the liver of a flounder fish that was brought out of industrial bay in Eagle Harbor/Bainbridge Island. A healthy flounder liver is a uniformed dark brown, however, the one shown had white patches that were malignant tumors that are directly related to toxic pollution that has been washed off in industrial stormwater into the bay. Another part of the Puget Sound story has to do with money...that water dependent industry is worth a great deal to our State's economy. The shellfish and finfish industry is about 175 million dollars per year and is dependant on good water quality. In Puget Sound shipping there is about 57 billion dollars worth of goods that come through the Sound every year. If sediments become too contaminated and we can't safely keep our navigational channel cleared out then there is an impairment to that economic sector. Recreation in Puget Sound is one of our Fortune 500 industries and worth about 7 billion dollars per year, so that is on par with Boeing type industries. We are hearing a lot about stormwater and non-point runoff, and the City of Bremerton has taken some important steps to try and address some of those concerns. She emphasized it is not just a Puget Sound issue, but also a National issue. Somewhere in the vicinity of 43-75% of the nation's coastal estuaries and the nation's rivers and streams are polluted not from sewage treatment plants and industries, but actually from stormwater and non-point, so it gives you the prospective that it is a big issue and that is partly why there are laws in the Federal Clean Water Act to address stormwater and non-point. Stormwater and non-point issues are a broad variety of issues...construction sites, silty water, improper timber practices can cause some flooding and siltation. Our rural neighbors are part of the stormwater and non-point runoff issues...failing septic system, farm animal waste if it is given direct access to the stream, and farming if it is done with too many fertilizers. A slide was shown showing sample bottles of stormwater taken by the Department Of Transportation off Hwy. #405. It was noted that one did not have to be a scientist to conclude that the sampled stormwater did not meet State standards. The pollutants that are TAPE #1252 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December 14, 1994 Page 4 of 24 evident are of quite a variety...stormwater sediments, oil and grease, heavy metals, other toxins and disease causing pathogens. Approximately 1.5 trillion gallons of untreated stormwater goes into Puget Sound e~ch year and it carries with it about 1.5 million tons of sediment, a good portion of which is from land disturbing activities. If you add toxins to that equation, it adds up to about 4,800 tons of toxins every year just from stormwater going into Puget Sound. Of the 120 or so local governments in the Puget Sound basin, 101 of them have at least stated their stormwater control practices, 64 have passed Stormwater Utilities that provide for stable funding to support these fixes. Where are we heading with stormwater and CSO controls?An important factor is the Federal Clean Water Act, which in response to concerns of the City of Bremerton and many other local governments probably will be revisiting how strict should the Federal Water Quality Standards be for stormwater. Another issue is the Puget Sound Authority and the Department Of Ecology and many of the State National Resource Agencies are carefully looking at watershed coordination issues and working with the Governor's new Watershed Coordinating Council to address many of the concerns about regulations that are not coordinated and may be causing more expense. The City of Bremerton has made some important progress on CSO's, sewage treatment plant and stormwater issues. John Glen commented on the many changes and upgrades the City has done to address water quality concerns in the Bremerton area. More recently, the City has engaged in tough negotiations and discussions on developing the City's combined sewer overflow plan. Vallanna has done a good job explaining the nature of stormwater and why we are all concerned about it and why the communities throughout the Puget Sound area are asked to address it more comprehensively. The State recognizes that the plethora of requirements that stem from Federal, State and local requirements can be confusing and even overwhelming at times, but he believes there are some rational schedules that can be worked out. Mr. Overson stated the slides represented that the major contributors to the problem are the failing septic systems and agriculture, yet the ratepayers and taxpayers are being charged very large costs to separate stormwater with a very modest contributions to the solution. He felt that aspect was the most uncoordinated element in the total problem. Ms. Piciolo stated Mr. Overson raised an important point. The bar graph showed the impact and closures related to one particular type of pollutant and that is fecal form bacteria, which is largely caused by failing septic TAPE #1252 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December 14, 1994 Page 5 of 24 systems and farm animal waste and then stormwater. The other part of the equation is that toxins and stormwater contains up to one half of the toxic pollutant poundage that is coming into Puget Sound. Mr. Farr pointed hut the City passed on to its ratepayers considerable cost to upgrade and separate stormwater and now that the stormwater will be separated, what can we, as a community, expect in regulations pertaining to treatment of that stormwater prior to it being discharged? Ms. Piciolo stated the Department Of Ecology has done an excellent job in developing a technical cookbook for what is called Best Management Practices For Stormwater, a good housekeeping source control and some lower tech and medium tech treatment solutions. The research indicates there is a good chance that if these lower cost Best Management Practices are done assertively on the separated stormwater there is a good chance to meeting the Federal and State water quality standards. She noted there is quite a lot of technical debate on that point. Mr. Glen stated there are two options: (1) collect all stormwater and sanitary sewage and treat it at a plant; (2) or try to separate it at use by Best Management Practices plans, good common sense and adequate planning to deal with the stormwater issue. Virtually every municipality, including Bremerton, concluded that it was most cost effective to separate and implement the Best Management Practices along with adequate planning rather than attempt to treat both stormwater and sanitary waste at the same time in the same facility. Mr. Farr asked if after the stormwater is separated and if the quality standards are met, would the City be required to treat the stormwater? Mr. Glen stated that is the approach they are using and is being used throughout the country. Municipalities in general cannot construct large stormwater treatment facilities and there are major cost effective measures when considering that possibility. Both the State and all consultants that have worked on the issue of stormwater have concluded a careful look must be given to planning and implement management practices to the stormwater issue. Mr. Colvln asked if there was a way to assess if major contributors are paying their fair share of the costs to correct the problem? Mr. Glen stated some of the major contributors, like fecal form are not necessarily from stormwater, but must of it is from agricultural practices and failing septic tanks. Many of those facilities are not subject to routine regular assessments in the form of taxes or rates, but correction of the systems can be very costly. Agriculture practices that contribute to the problem have to be changed and that entails different systems and management of agriculture waste and in some instances installation of improvements on the farms to control that discharge. Ms. Piciolo stated hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent by local TAPE #1252 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December 14, 1994 Page 6 of 24 governments and have resulted in substantial water quality improvements in certain jurisdictions. The other part of the cost equation is to acknowledge the private sector, small and large business and industry, who also have spent thousands of dollars upgrading treatment systems trying to address stormwater issues. The State is respectful of that investment and results are becoming evident. eordy Byrd questioned how can you tell the difference between animal waste and human waste and stormwater? Ms. Piciolo explained there are scientific procedures that help sort out source tracing and then they analyze it to find the kind of pollution. Phil Drouin stated he served on the City Council in 1983 when the new secondary.treatment plant was built, which was a state-of-the- art facility. The Washington Department of Ecology oversaw the building of that plant by telling the City what could or could not be done based on the best information available at that time, however, we live in an every changing world. There are Federal laws with no money for implementation that are enforced by the State, with no money implementation, and now the environmentalist are demanding the City to do things, but no funding source is provided. For example, the City is required to chlorinate the sewage sludge as it comes into the treatment plant, however, under a new law the City is required to remove the chlorine prior to the' water being discharged back into Sinclair Inlet. Now, Federal law requires cites to separate stormwater from the sewage. The environmentalist will require us to treat the stormwater and want it as pure as the drinking water before it goes into Sinclair Inlet. He suggested complaining to State Legislators and new Congress members that we can't afford to have "pure" stormwater. He questioned why do we continue to allow nitrates in lawn fertilizer that continue to go back into the waters? Richard Chrisinger stated his big concern has to do with the large shopping centers that have large parking lots and the pollutants that are deposited by vehicles while parked in those. lots. Most parking lots do not have oil separators. Mr. Glen stated Mr. Chrisinger is correct and it is a problem. Oils and anti-freeze can get into the stormwater and cause real problems when they enter the receiving water. The technical items that have been addressed in the Puget Sound Plan, which they are recommending to local jurisdictions when they install and/or retrofit old stormwater systems, do address some on-site technologies to deal with those oils and chemical discharges. Chiefly, they entail installation of oil/water separators and use of stormwater detention ponds. David Wingo asked if there are any funds from the Federal government or Department Of Ecology to assist the cities and TAPE #1252 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December 14, 1994 Page 7 of 24 counties in implementing the warranted improvements? And, does the City have a pamphlet or study showing the pollutants and/or percentages of what is flowing into the Sound that they are responsible for? Ms. Piciolo stated the Puget Sound Authority does provide grant monies that they receive from the Environmental Protection Agency that is then passed on to cities for stormwater management. The Department Of Ecology has a number of grant programs to help with pollution as does the State Department Of Community Trade And Economic Development. That funding source is not enough to meet all of the needs, but it is a fair amount of money. In response to the question about a "study", Puget Sound Authority does do an annual study to add up all the sources of pollution in the Sound for all cities and counties and all the land mass. That report does not break it down for just the City of Bremerton, however, the City's Utility Department may have some monitoring data that could provide that information. Mr. Wingo expressed concern that the businesses in Bremerton will be greatly impacted by the City's commercial stormwater rate. Mayor Hotton stated the City is in the process of one combined sewer overflow project that is costing the City approximately five million dollars and the design work is underway on a second project that will cost 10 million dollars. Let us assume for the moment that they do not meet the State or Federal standards and Best Management Practices do not work, what will the City be looking at in real and specific terms and how much will it cost our community? The City has already passed a 30% rate increase to the ratepayers at the beginning of 1994, some for sewer treatment plant upgrades brought about by a lawsuit, but the majority was for the combined sewer overflow projects. If these don't work, what will we be looking at? Mr. Glen stated he did not have a precise answer, but he went back to an earlier comment that the correction of the combined sewer overflows will go a major way toward correcting the problem, and the implementation of the Best Management Practices plan as outlined in the Puget Sound Stormwater Manual will take care of the stormwater pollutant discharges, in their judgment. He stated there was no WaY of knowing what the costs will be in 5-10 years down the road. Mr. Law wanted to clarify what percentage of the costs were the State'and Federal Government helping to pay to the municipalities, for the studies, the engineering, and the construction? Mr. Glen stated that the cost has gone down significantly. The State is contributing 50% to the grant-eligible portion for some of the combined sewer overflow corrections, but not all of the projects will be grant-funded. There will be a gradual decline in all grant contributions from both the State and Federal government. He also wanted to make it clear that a significant amount of the Stormwater corrections being contemplated now will have to be funded and TAPE #1252 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December 14, 1994 Page 8 of 24 implemented locally, and that grant assistance is only occasionally available to implement specific elements. The development of the Puget Sound Stormwater Manual was largely done with State funds, and was intended to relieve local jurisdictions of many of the engineering requirements that might have devolved upon them if it did not exist. ~ President Huff-Menees wanted to know how the State determined which projects will be grant-funded? Ms. Piciolo explained that there is a ranking process for the different "'pots" of State monies. In Olympia there is a lot of discussion on the need for coordinating regulations and the need for coordinating the grant funding because of the many different "pots" of money, and there are occasions when certain funding needs to be protected. There is some progress on the processing, however the bottom line is that the amount of dollars available Federally, State, and locally is shrinking. Also, there aren't as many State staff available to provide technical assistance for someof the clean up projects. Due to all of this, the State is trying to figure out how to accomplish the most important things first, that will get the most results with the decreasing dollars. The hope is that the regulatory reform themes will help. Mr. Montgomez7 asked about the degree of purity of the water being discharged back into the Sound, and how the State requirements are related to the Federal requirements? Mr. Glen stated they are the same. The Federal requirement is that water quality standards and beneficial uses not be adversely impaired, and the State standards are the same. The State recognizes that much of the stormwater that is discharged is not of drinking water quality, and they would not expect that. Ms. Piciolo stated water quality standards are very technical and very Confusing, and the Department of Ecology was less stringent on some of the toxic water quality standards compared to the Federal requirements, and her agency asked them to upgrade them about three years ago so they are now on par with the requirements of the Federal government. As far as "beneficial uses", the State does differ in that it does require pretty high uses such as drinking water and swimming water. She pointed out she was the State's representative on the National Stormwater Policy Team in Washington D.C. representing local governments from the Puget Sound region and State agencies. They lobbied very hard to go easy on the Federal permits for the medium and small cities because at first the Clean Water Act was thinking of requiring pretty demanding Federal permits for towns the size of Bremerton and smaller. They felt the local governments were working very hard and were ahead of a lot of other cities and towns across the country, and thought it was a better way for the cities to figure out how to do it at the local level with some State guidance. She was happy to report that their message was heard, and her staff is TAPE #1252 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December 14, 1994 Page 9 of 24 now busy preparing a report card of progresses to show to Federal EPA that this more flexible State-partnership is getting the job done, and maybe not as much Federal control is needed. This is where the discussion is at, at the.National level. Mr. Chrisinger queseioned if once this was all in place, would it take care of the Red Tide problem? Ms. Piclolo explained that she was not sure because they still do not know for sure what causes Red Tide. It is not know for sure if pollution is the cause, but there are some indicators that it does. What they do know is that if we don't continue to diligently follow the steps that we are now trying to take, we are pretty sure there will not be salmon or edible shellfish in the Puget Sound Basin. Mr. Chrisinger pointed out the problem of Red Tide is a problem throughout the world. Mr. Overson raised Mr. Drouin's concerns about the continued use of nitrates in fertilizer and also what have other States done, such as Colorado in their implementing ethanol in gasoline? Ms. Piciolo stated she could offer a few comments in response to Mr. Overson's questions, however, it was definitely out of her area of expertise. The Authority did a study to look at how much atmospheric pollution contributed to water pollution. A good portion of what they learned was that automobiles contribute significantly. What was surprising to her was that wood stove smoke from homes contributed significantly to both air and water pollution in the Puget Sound Basin. It is believed that the "Commute Trip Reduction" law, pass two years ago, will help in reducing pollutants from automobiles. On the compressed natural gas, it seems to be a city-by-city choice for use in vehicles. Mr. Glen stated in some areas where there are acute air pollution problems they have had to resort to some unusual circumstances. It is true that we need to look much more comprehensively and holistically at all the sources of pollution, which is being done on the Federal level and to a certain extent on the State Level. Their current Director is very impatient with separate programs and agencies that don't talk to each other. Gordy Byrd asked for one reason why he would consider having a business in the State of Washington if everyone is going to interfere with one another? Mr. Glen stated he is aware of that kind of concern and his office hears such comments a lot over increasing regulations. He emphasized such requirements are not unique to the State of Washington, but are throughout the Country. What Mr. Byrd is trying to get at is how can we make things more sensible for businesses. Effort is underway to get technical outreach through business associations to help businesses understand and comply in a regulatory streamlined way. Jack Lefcoski stated if we can compare our water on a scale of i - 10, ( drinking water is a "1") and (water in Sinclair Inlet is a TAPE #1252 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December 14, 1994 Page 10 of 24 "10"), could they give a wild guess on what existing regulations could do to bring that "10" downward to a "4". After we install all the good systems required, will we be able to achieve a "3" or "4"? He referenced the fact that the City of Bremerton had a 30% increase in water/sewer utility services in 1994, and he did not want his grandchildren getting hit with another 30 percent increase in 10-20 years, which will happen if regulations are not restricted in some way. For your assignment and all of our Congress people, he would like to see some legislation that grandfathers these levels of acceptability. Mr. Glen stated he believed that was an excellent point. Perhaps the sad fact is that the rules have changed over the years and the cities have been obliged to make additional investments to meet those new standards. And, the question we all need to ask ourselves is what else is truly needed and what are the cost implications? Mr. Wingo stated not only are residents being hit in the City, but at this time we are being hit in Kitsap County by the same Department for one million dollars that this same group is going to pay. He believed there needed to be a balance somewhere. Mr. Chrisinuer stated years ago, when he was an Amway distributor, may states had outlawed phosphates in dish washing compounds, laundry soaps, etc. This 'Concluded the "town meeting" portion of the City Council meeting. 5A - ORDINANCE (FIRST READING) ESTABLISHING COMMERCIAL STORMWATER RATES, #AB94-261 Stormwater rates for all City accounts were implemented in February 1994. Insufficient data at the time resulted in commercial accounts being charged at the same rates as residential accounts (i.e. $4.00 per account per month). At the same time of implementation, commercial accounts were advised of future increases when definitive data was available. The recommendation before the City Council is for approval of new stormwater rates for commercial accounts based on the number of Impervious Surface Units (ISU), with one ISU equating to 2,500 square feet. The cost per ISU per Month is $4.00. Credit opportunities for Detention/Retention and Water Quality are available. Also, parcels owned or leased by a public school district which provides activities which directly benefit the stormwater management program will receive credit opportunities. Eddy Chu,Director Of Public Works and Utilities, reminded Council that the proposal ordinance and related issues have been discussed TAPE #1252 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December 14, 1994 Page 11 of 24 over previous weeks in Study Sessions. Since then, the issue has also been brought to a "town meeting" and has been discussed with the town customers. At this point, he is presenting the issues to the Council for their consideration and approval. He emphasized the proposed city commercial account rates for the stormwater charge are in parallel with Kitsap County's rates, as well as the time tables for implementation. Rod Parr, owner of 12 acres in Bremerton, stated what he wanted to bring before Council is the fact the auto dealers in Auto Center Way have a water problem in front of their dealerships. Their concern is that they are paying a substantial amount of taxes to be 'in the City of Bremerton, and nothing has happened along the years to solve their water drainage problem. Their concern now is that another tax is being implemented and nothing is still going to happen to solve their water drainage problem. As been seen with the sewer bills, once something is started it is like a big monster it can't be stopped. His garbage bill for one of his places of business runs $1,000 per month and his sewer bill runs about the same. As auto dealers, they don't get police protection and must to hire their own police protection, which costs them a substantial amount. He questioned where is it going to stop? The auto dealers are generating 28-30% of the taxes for Bremerton and they haven't seen any of it returned in just repairing the water problem in front of their businesses. Just as an example, if his business was outside of the City he would save $100,000 in B&O taxes per year. He likes being in Bremerton, however, he hoped that the City will be mindful of what they are doing and how it impacts the businesses so that it does not become a dis-incentive to maintain a business in Bremerton. Phil Drouin stated when the City .was presented a secondary treatment plant for Bremerton in 1983 we were told we could build a certain sized plant, it would be 10% over capacity to which Department of Ecology would match 50% funding and that in order to properly have the secondary treatment we had to plan on removing the combined sewers and separate them. It was understood at the time the sewer treatment plant was built that there would be a stormwater program and it would financially impact the residents. When that discussion was brought up before the Council in 1984, the public was clambering that they were paying too much. Now, it is 10 years later and things have inflated. He understands the problem the auto dealers, Bremerton School District and others like St. Vincent DePaul will be facing in having to pay the stormwater charges. In the case of St. Vincent DePaul, the charge will be approximately $1,000 per year and that funding will come out of the funds that are used to feed the hungry, shelter for the homeless and utility payment assistance to the low income. This problem is part of secondary sewer treatment and something the Federal TAPE #1252 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December 14, 1994 Page 12 of 24 government passed the law and the Department Of Ecology is following up and the environmentalist are suing the City because we aren't doing anything. He remembers when fully loaded Navy ships came into Sinclair Inlet full loaded and emptied their sewage holding tanks directly into the bay. He asked Council that if they make an exception for public schools because they are going to have educational classes, he felt it was only fair to give the same exemption to the parochial schools. If the auto center area is to be exempt, then other businesses should be exempt.' He was not sure how churches were been addressed under this program. JerrTSoriano stated he believes that everyone understands that the proposed stormwater rates will exist and what the City Council needs to understand is that Bremerton's rates need to be lower than Kitsap County's rates. Everyone knows the City has more taxes (B&O taxes) garbage rates, sewer rates than anyone else in the County. Everyone knows that right now the County is going ahead with Planning Commission hearings for changing the designation of property out past Riddell Road and we are going to have more and more of our commercial businesses going outside of the City and not providing any taxes for the City. We have to be able to compete with the County and Council needs to make sure that their costs are to be less. The decision made on this issue will probably not affect the downtown because it is hurt too bad already through a 50% vacancy rate. He emphasized the City must look at what is reasonable and when he attended a public meeting on this issue it was shown that $2.00 of the $4.00 went to Administrative costs. One thing that was discussed was giving a "break" for a period of time if something is to be done to provide on-site retention. Owning property in the City of Bremerton, especially in the downtown area, is a problem...we cannot get a break because they have to build to the sidewalks and to the alleys. He cannot do anything with his buildings to put anything under them to get any credits. Right now they have a building that is only 3,000 sq. ft., but they are paying for three different units at $4.00 per month for stormwater charges. It is hard to understand how you can set something up and still meet the requirements that you have to meet, but still take into consideration we have to keep the big businesses in this City. A positive way has to be found in getting businesses to want to be in Bremerton, right now we don't have that attitude. He doubted that levies would be passed for schools and every time a new tax or charge is implemented it takes away from some other good cause that needs that kind of additional funding. David Wingo stated he is not a businessman, but does pay his share 'of taxes. He believes businesses should have some type of reduction because in the long run that added cost will be passed onto the consumer. TAPE #1252 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December 14, 1994 Page 13 of 24 Mr. Colvin asked the City Attorney if churches and State agencies are exempt from this fee? Leila Mills, Assistant City Attorney, stated no. Mr. Colvin asked if schools would be exempt? Ms. Mills stated public schools would be exempt if they had certain programs educating the children about these very issues of stormwater and water quality issuas. Mr. Colvin asked about private schools offering the same thing. Ms. Mills stated that according to the current reading of the ordinance, they would not be exempt, and would still have to pay. Mr. Dawkins asked Mr. Chu about water retention, and what it would cost for a 10-20 car parking lot if they put in a water retention system. What type of break would they get for putting one in? Mr. Chu. stated it would depend on the layout and the topography of the lot, and what was on top right now, such as landscaping, would they need a tank, etc. The engineering division could provide some technical guidelines for anyone who desires it to help determine their individual situation. Mr. Colvin felt their was a valid concern regarding the issue of public schools being exempt, but not private schools, and felt they should be treated the same. Also, the City needs to compete with the County so as not to run any more businesses out of the City. He feels the Council should give more consideration to this issue. Mr. Overson wanted to put into perspective the fact that the auto dealer mentioned he is paying $100,000 is B & 0 taxes, but they are a multi-million dollar per year business, and after the 200 plus ISU's they'll be paying for, will add a $10,000 additional cost to them which adds up to about less than $40 additional per automobile. He felt the bigger concern was the water problem that the auto dealer have had because he thought that problem had been resolved. Mr. Chu stated they have significantly improved the area, but that the problem has not been solved. It is a top priority for 1995to have at least a design completed to improve that area. Mr. Overson asked is it a stormwater problem? TAPE #1253 Mr Chu explained that problem has been there for awhile, but that is basic elements and principles of it as you take away the stormwater to percolate down into the ground and let it run down the surface eventually when the big rain hits it will rush in to a low spot and the flooding will begin. Mr. Overson stated because the City is being mandated to provide stormwater management, he believes a multi-million dollarbusiness would be capable of paying the stormwater charge. On the business evolution, all business cannot go out into the County and ultimately growth management has to come in to stop the County from turning that place into a commercial chaos like it is today. In reference to the School's concern, it is his understanding that Mr. Chu, with a stroke of a TAPE #1253 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December 14, 1994 Page 14 of 24 pen, can say a school will not pay for the proposed stormwater charge? Mr. Chu stated since the discussion on this issue is comparing the City and County, he wanted everyone to be aware that 10 out of 10 categories relating to the stormwater management program, the City beat the County. The two programs do have different formulas for some categories. In reference to the School District issue, there is one School District within the City that is comprised of 15.accounts. Utility staff members did meet with representatives from the Bremerton School District and the exemption element was patterned after Kitsap County for their school districts as well as King County and their 11 School Districts program. The school exemption element only applies to public schools due to their tax base and limited budget. In turn, School Districts will have to provide and show they have a very aggressive program for .stormwater or environmental subjects. The effort they would have to put forth would have to be equal or exceed the stormwater fee assessed to them. Mr. Overson stated for clarification that if Mr. Chu considers something the schools are doing is worth as much as what it would cost them in a stormwater fee, then their obligation to pay will be erased. Yet, lets take. this a step further in that the State is mandating the City to provide stormwater management and schools are largely funded by the State, why don't the schools go to the State and say "you forced the mandate on the City therefore the State should provide the funding to cover that specific cost". What Mr. Chu is proposing is that the cost go back to the homeowners and business people, who are at least in a position to afford it. He felt such action was incorrect. Mr. Chu emphasized it is up to the City Council to decide if they wish to provide this exemption. Staff did research what neighboring Kitsap County and other cities have done in charging schools and the City of Bremerton was trying to be consistent with them. Mr. Montgomerv stated if the exemption element is approved, the City of Bremerton would be telling the schools what subjects to teach and he did not feel that was in the City's purview. He does not agree with exempting schools from the stormwater charge. Mr. Chu stated he would not be the one approving the curriculum, however, what he proposes was patterned after King County, who has had several years of experience in dealing with exemption of schools and the kinds of classes being taught relating-to stormwater management and environmental issues. If the exemption is approved, the schools would submit a very comprehensive program that outlines the type of education programs they would provide. Mr. Montgome~][ stated then what Mr. Chu is saying is that Seattle can prove in dollars and cents that this program is paying off. Mr. Chu explained actually there' is an accounting that provides details, which he can provide to the Council. They have proven that the schools have a very aggressive and specialized program, TAPE #1253 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December 14, 1994 Page 15 of 24 such as adopt-a-stream, etc., that teaches the children to be future environmental custodians. By doing so, they are accounting for school hours and identifying expenses incurred to clearly identify their contribution towards the stormwater charges that would normally be imposed. Mr. Montgomery asked that he be provided with that information. Mr. Colvin asked he understood correctly that Mr. Chu is proposing that the School District be exempt from the stormwater charge? Mr. Chu stated that was correct. Mayor Hotton stated the City will give the option to the schools, assuming that the Council does not want to entirely exempt schools, and it will be up to the school to either pay the stormwater rate or they can do what equates for them to be Best Management Practices and that is teaching their students about environmental issues that affect us and will affect them as adults. There has already been discussion on exempting public school, but not parochial schools and whether or not pre-schools or day cares are allowed some kind of exemption. It is up to the City Council 'to made a decision on that point based on their purview as the custodians of each of the Legislative Districts. The City would not be mandating curriculum that the 'schools must teach .... that will be an option. Mr. Montgomery asked if there were any others exempted from the stormwater charge? Mr. Neville stated as he understands the proposal, schools are not exempt, but they have the choice of teaching specific curriculum and paying a flat $4.00 rate like a resident. The only exemptions he sees is all parcels of property that are undeveloped and all public right- of-way. Mr. Colvin stated he did not feel there should be a difference between public schools and parochial schools. Mayor Hotton stated that discussion was held and it came to "where do you draw the line". In reference to the comment that Mr. Chu could change something in the ordinance with a "stroke of a pen", that is incorrect, Mr. Chu must follow the ordinance. If the intent of the Council is to allow the schools to substitute curriculum instead of paying the stormwater rate, guidelines will be drafted and in order to get that exemption, which Mr. Chu will approve, they have to conform to that requirement. Mr. Colvin called Mr. Parr to the podium. Mr. Parr stated B&O Tax has nothing to do with profitability, it has to do with gross sales. A candy bar costs a lot less than an automobile... the average new vehicles cost is $20,800. He pointed out national figures show new car dealers lose money selling new cars because of the expenses. He felt Council was getting the wrong attitude from what he stated earlier. The car dealers are not saying they don't want to pay, but what they are saying is that once those taxes/rates start they ramp up quickly and there is no control over them. The car dealers have been paying taxes for years, but the water problems they experience in their location still exists and has not been correct. He questioned with the new tax will the water problem go away? He TAPE #1253 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December 14, 1994 Page 16 of 24 pointed out that of a $4.00 charge $2.00 goes toward Administrative costs. They are concerned about the money being wasted. He emphasized B&O Tax is not a good example of what is happening. Mr. Chu stated he wanted to clarify Mr. Parr's comment that $2.00 of the $4.00 charge would be for Administration...that is not correct. Right'now'the program does not have one staff assigned for administration over the program. The current Utility staff level is being used to administer the program. What Mr. Parr alluded to about the $2.00 was basically for operation and maintenance of the current infrastructures, and that would also include the billing costs. Mr. Neville raised a point on the "rate adjustment... the quality of the improvements that meet all system development and construction standards". He questioned if the "standards" are strictly City standards or County/National standards? Mr. Chu stated the standards are being developed as we speak. The City is adopting the State's Chemical Manual and further developing what the local systems will need. Mr. Neville questioned when would these standards be finished? Mr. Chu stated new development already has to comply with such standards, which are updated through a continuous process. Mr. Law noted Mr. Chu stated he emulated the King County Stormwater Regulations and asked if they are the same as what Bremerton is proposing for automobile dealers? Mr. Chu stated for clarification that he just borrowed King County's Education Program and the charge for automobile dealers came out of discussion with staff and the consultants in developing the plan. What is proposed for automobile dealers is fairly common to the Puget Sound area. Mr. Law stated something that bothers owners of older buildings or blacktop areas is that they are going to have to go into either major remodeling to make a change or having to pay $2.00 more per unit. He asked if there is anything being done to softening that impact or working with the businesses? Mr. Chu stated the City does sympathize with the rate impact, therefore heavy consideration is given during the transition period. The City is proposing to allow a 3-year period to implement some of the Best Management Practices and that businesses need to look at all options and their profitability and what is feasible to be done on a particular site. The City has devised a step to implement this program by giving every commercial account with 2 Impervious Surface Units and up a 50% credit and by giving that credit the City is asking them or trusting them that they will be doing something in return, which is the water quantity retention as well as water quality treatment. Assuming that they do so and submit plans as verification by the October 1995 date, they will then be given their credit beyond that time. Once the plans are submitted showing they propose to do something in the way of stormwater management, then the City will TAPE #1253 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December 14, 1994 Page 17 of 24 extend the credit two additional years allowing them time to finance and implement that program. If nothing is implemented by 1997 and they choose not to pursue a retention option, then the credit will be denied and they will then pay the full stormwater rate. He believes ~his will ease into the program and allow the businesses time'to absorb the impact of the Stormwater Management Program. Mr. Farr stated one of the comments made during a Council Study Session on this issue was that there wasn't much of a reaction from the business owners over the proposed commercial stormwater rates. He regrets not having some of those business owners at a study session to hear their reactions to what was proposed. He asked Mr. Chu. to again explain the cost to a dealership or large surface area business in Bremerton as opposed to what it would be in the County. Mr. Chu stated they did not do a specific auto dealership comparison, but what he does have is the County's proposed rates in the commercial uses. The County's rate is $45.00 per Impervious Surface Unit (ISU) (County's ISU is 4,200 sq. ft.). Based on that, the County's rate is $4,152 and the City's rate would be $3,700. He wanted to impress upon Council that the City and County are not always "across the board" when doing comparisons due to the variances in formulas. And, the City's dollar amount included the credit given to businesses. Mr. Farr brought up the point that the residents of Bremerton have been paying their stormwater rate since February of 1994, however, the commercial rates are not being assessed retroactive rates from that same start date. Mr. Chu reported a survey is being done by the Association Of Washington Cities on stormwater rates and the City of Bremerton is within the same range as every other city included in that study. Mr. Farr asked what will be the scenario for adjustment to these rates - do we go out and hire another consultant to look at rates or is it based on needs of the Utility? Mr. Chu stated right now the City's consultant are Engineering Services Inc., who are completing a 8- year Capital Improvement Program on the Stormwater Program. So far 18 drainage basins have been identified as well as the problem area within each of those basins. Based on that information, a rough estimate will be established as to how much it would cost to correct those problems and how to finance those projects. It is proposed that some of the capital improvement projects would have to be funded through bonds. Mr. Dawkins questioned if a commercial lot could tie into the stormwater separation project that is currently being constructed on Park Avenue? Mr. Chu stated the City does have the dedicated storm system and a sanitary sewer system and commercial lots would be allowed to hook up to the stormwater system. To do such a hook up, it would require engineering plans approved by the City. Storm drainage is for service runoff, roof drain connections and TAPE #1253 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December 14, 1994 Page 18 of 24 everything that has to do with runoff of rainwater. Mayor Hotton stated this proposal comes to Council based on technical expertise, which is the Administration's function. After sitting on the City Council for six years, she believes Council's position needs to be to evaluate all of the things they have heard during the public hearing on the proposed ordinance and to make modifications as they see fit based. on the technical expertise that the Administration has provided. Personally, she does not like any of the rates. The people from Ecology andPuget Clean Water stated the City is trying to interject common sense and work together with other counter parts, however, the reality is, from the City's level, that is "bunk". Until the State gets their act squared away and they figure out comprehensively where it needs to go, she will oppose this kind of legislation, but she did not see, at this time, that the City had a choice. Administratively, she and her staff did the best job possible to bring Council the technical data in order that they could make the hard decision. Mr. Overson stated Mr. Parr commented relating an approximate 50% administrative cost. He is trying to understandMr. Chu's response and relating that to the City's budget. The 1994 budget indicates 25% of the funding went to personnel and somewhere between 25-50% of the funding went toward Administration. The 1995 budget shows approximately 33% going to personnel and somewhere between 30-60% going toward Administrative. He asked Mr. Chu if he endorsed that information or is his perspective incorrect? Mr. Chu stated from his recollection the current Stormwater Program only allotted for 3 1/2 full time employees and they all reside in the Stormwater Division (Service Specialist, Service Specialist Senior and Foreman). Some of the other supported full time assistance is coming from co-compliance, engineering supports, billings and customer services, etc. Currently, there is no additional staff to administer the stormwater program.' Mr. Overson stated by comparison we are actually accumulating capital funds at greater than 50% of the income. Mr. Chu stated as Mr. Overson recalled there is a big heavy Capital Improvement line item and in 1994 we have $100,000 earmarked for the CSO project. As alluded earlier, the CSO project has been a very heavily financed project and currently 90% of that funding comes from the Wastewater Fund. If money is no object,there should be a 50-50 split between Wastewater and Stormwater. Because the stormwater program is in the infant stage, the 1994 stormwater funding is only $440,000. Based on that, there is no way to make a dent in a CSO project, so in 1995 $150,000 is being earmarked toward the CSO project. Mr. Overson pointed out Mr. Chu has been wrestling with this proposal for months and he appreciates the time and effort put into its development. He felt it was a good presentation based on what Mr. Chu had to work with even-though he disagrees with the way he TAPE #1253 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December 14, 1994 Page 19 of 24 proposed charging the public schools. Mr. Overson asked Mr. Lefcoski to comment if he had something to contribute. Jack Lefcoski suggested the owners of "car town" form their own L.I.D. and put in their own private stormwater separation system. He opposes the classroom education program and feels it is "pie in the sky". He believes' children should realize every household is paying $4.00 per month and parents should be instructing their own children on water conservation. Two things important to him are education and welfare. If the City is going to give an exemption it should be given to the Salvation Army, all of the goodwills, all of the people catering to the underprivileged, foodbank organizations, etc. Mr. Law asked the total ISU's for the Bremerton School District? Mr. Chu stated there are 15 accounts for the Bremerton School District covering 13 different schools and administration centers. The total number of ISU's under the School District is 798, and with the credit, they will be paying $19,152.00 annually. If the education program is implemented, the School District would still pay $720.00 annually. The difference in impact would be $18,432.00. Mr. Law asked what incentive would the School District have to implement their program to take advantage of on- site detention? Mr. Chu stated the incentive would be "cost". Some of the newer schools already have on-site detention systems in place. Mr. Law pointed out if the School District chose the education program, there would be no incentive. Mr. Chu stated bear in mind the education program he has outlined is very comprehensive, such a hydrological cycle, wetlands, streams, rivers and ecological systems, etc. It was his feeling that the school should have such programs anyway. Mr. Law stated what the City is asking a commercial business to do is to put in a detention site for the quantity control. He asked what incentive will the School District have to put that in if they have already been exempted from paying the fee? Mr. Chu re-emphasized it is the School District's choice as is it the businesses' choice whether or not they install an on-site collection system or pay the full fare. Instead of the School District paying the full fare, they can choose to implement an educational program and receive credit for taking such action. President Huff-Menees stated she is aware the Jr. High and High School are already offering such environmental studies. Mr. Chu stated he had reviewed the School District's current program and when discussing this option with the principals of the elementary schools they indicated their current programs would have to be enhanced in order to justify the credit. Mr. Farr stated to him the exemption of the School District for the minimal amount of money is more trouble than it is worth and it would open up Council to criticism for singling out a specific group. He felt there would be additional cost to the City in #1529 TAPE #1253 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December 14, 1994 Page 20 of 24 trying to monitor what is being taught. He is not in favor of any exemptions. Mr. Ohu stated in either case utilizing the credit toward the education program or if the decision is made to do an on-site detention system, the City would need to be involved because of the code compliance and will be an on going program and need inspections on an annual basis. Mr. Law stated he agreed with Mr. Farr and felt the City would be opening the door up enough that private schools would want the same exemption. He acknowledged that Mr. Chu had studied this proposal long and hard and was trying to be fair and was certain the School District officials are concerned about finding the $19,000. But, in 'the long run he felt it was more fair to everyone by not making any. exception. Mr. Colvln commended Mr. Chu for his diligence in putting together this proposal, however, he felt public schools and private schools should be treated the same if an exemption is to be given. Mr. Chu emphasized that he could not take all the credit...his staff has put much work into this proposal. If it would be helpful to Council, he would do a more indepth look into the school program and see what other School Districts in the Puget Sound region are doing in the area of environmental educationl Mr. Farr asked if the suggestion made by Mr. Lefcoski that the auto dealers form a L.I.D. is a possibility should' they choose to participate in such a program? Mr. Chu stated any neighborhood, either the downtown business district or auto dealers, could form a L.I.D. and look at their local problem comprehensively, then come to the City to form a special district. The City would help guide them through that process and help them develop their particular program. Mr. Law asked if that wouldn't affect the overall planning? Mr. Chu stated when the Comprehensive Plan is developed, it is not like sanitary sewer or water. It is much more difficult to calculate how much stormwater runoff will be generated in a particular area and such calculations are only rough estimates with some safety factors built in to accommodate the worst case scenario. Mr. Colvin asked if he understood correctly that untreated stormwater would enter the Sound? Mr. Chu stated currently the Best Management Practices asks for source control (metered out so it will reduce flooding downstream) and quality control by taking care of the sediments (sand/gravel/leaves/oils/grease/pesticides), which could be considered partial treatment. M/S/C(Overson/Farr) that the City Council approve the commercial stormwater rates with the exemption -for the Bremerton School District (i.e. $4.00/ISU/Month) with the credit opportunities #1572 #1640 #1906 TAPE #1253 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December 14, 1994 Page 21 of 24 identified above). M/S/C(Law/Farr) am amendment to the motion that we do not make an exception for the School District. Vote on Amendment: ~In Favor: Farr, Law, Montgomery, Colvin, Huff-Menees Opposed: Dawkins, Overson, Neville Motion Carried. Vote on main motion as amended: In Favor: Law, Montgomery, Dawkins, Overson, Neville, Farr, Huff-Menees Opposed: Colvin Motion carried. 6A - ORDINANCE NO. 4494 (SECOND READING) AMENDING THE 1994 BUDGET. #AB94-256 Public comment - none. M/S/C/U(Neville/Montgomery) to pass Ordinance No. 4494, on second reading, amending Ordinance No. 4489 relating tothe budget of the City of Bremerton for Fiscal Year 1994. 6B - ORDINANCE NO. 4495 (SECOND READING) APPROVING THE 1995 BUDGET, #AB94-257 Public comment - none. A motion was made by Mr. Dawkins and'seconded by Mr. Farr to move $40,000 from the Roosevelt Field Capital Asset Fund to.be applied to the American Legion Field construction project for the lighting of the field. Discussion on that motion resulted in the recommendation that the Mayor present a budget adjustment, at a later date, allocating funding from the Roosevelt Field Capital Asset fund to the American Legion Field Construction Project. Mr. Dawkins and Mr. Farr withdraw their motion and second. M/S/C/U(Colvin/Montgomery) to pass Ordinance No. 4495, on second reading, approving and adopting the financial budget for the several funds of the City of Bremerton for the fiscal year 1995, and appropriating the amounts set forth in each budget to each fund in accordance with RCW 35.33.075. 7A - AMENDMENT TO TONKIN/HOYNE, INC. CONTRACT TO PROVIDE PLANNING/ANALYSIS OF WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, #AB94-262 The City of Bremerton has an existing contract with Tonkin/Hoyne, TAPE #1253 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December 14, 1994 Page 22 of 24 Inc. for planning, financial services for the City-owned parcel on the waterfront. This amendment to the contract expands their scope of services to include a District Redevelopment Plan, design guidelines, and return on investment analysis for the project. It also more specifically identifies work products necessary for the City to preparean R}FP for project. Phil Nachbar, Community Development Manager, provided a brief history of the development of the City's waterfront property, pointing out that Phase I was the development of the Overwater Park and Phase II as it is now conceived is a mixed use development on the currently City owned site, located between First and Second Street/Washington Avenue to the waterfront (currently serving as a parking lot). Presently, the City is working with Kitsap Transit in coordinating a joint development project in which the City would prepare an RFP with Kitsap Transit. The City's focus would be on the City owned property and Kitsap Transit would be focusing on the Ferry Terminal site adjacent to the subject site. The project is a mixed use 'development that would include, if successful, a residential component, office, retail, possibly two restaurants and public market space, perhaps community space and other amenities that would be attractive toferry users as well as the community. In 1994 there was an OE Grant of $50,000 given to the City through the Economic Development Council that was the funding source for the Tonkin/Hoyne Contract. That contract, in general, provided guidance to the City in how it may carry out a development and provides specifics for site planning, the types and square footage uses, financial feasibility analysis of the project, design guidelines and how the City could participate financially in the project to receive revenue as well as facilitate the project. After reviewing the initial Scope Of Services, Mr. Nachbarfelt it was not clear enough and did not provide the City with the kind of specificity that was needed to go on to the development offering stage, which is the next stage of the project. He emphasized there is no change to cost of services and the items to be changed have been negotiated within the existing budget. He cited the following changes: (1) the amendment adds in design of a Waterfront District Redevelopment Plan, which considers the entire area on the waterfront from 5th Street to 1st Street. (2) It looks more closely at circulation of pedestrian access, open space, a parking structure, which the City contemplates participating in financially to construct a set'of guidelines that would be used in a development offering that would provide some guidance to a developer to participate in that development. TAPE #1253 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December 14, 1994 Page 23 of 24 (3) Financially, the amendment adds more indepth analysis of a parking structure, the design as well as the cost and revenues associated with it, how a public entity could participate, a Performance Statement, which would look at the structuring of a project. \ (4) The additional item that would be added would be one month in completion time to the contract having it end January 31, 1995. (5) Deletion - parking component, which is not felt to be needed as the rest of the items and could be given up in' exchange. (6) Project Management - since he joined the City three months ago, he has taken on the role that the consultants would have taken in coordinating, making presentations, determining the City's concerns in the project. Public comment - none. Mr. Colvin commended Mr. Nachbar for the good job he is doing. He asked what will be the end result of this contract once all the planning is finished? Mr. Nachbar stated the end of result of this particular contract will be a set of specific items that can be included with our own work into a development offering RFP, which will be the next stage of the project. What goes into an RFP will include design guidelines, concepts that have been discussed for the site, set of preferences the City would like to see happen on the waterfront, but not dictating what should happen. Also, he believes'the City will have a better understanding of the financial packaging of the project itself. It is anticipated that there will be the need for public financial participation in this project and the consultants are helping to identify what those components might be, how to finance them and the organizational structure for carrying that out. Mr. Colvin asked if that went as far as securing an investor for the project? Mr. Nachbar stated the consultant contract does not really include securing an investor, but it helps the City identify the feasibility and the way it can be set up. Concurrent with the consultant study and thereafter, the City will have to start seeking funds and identify sources for the project. Mr. Neville noted the original scope and services that were to be performed had a termination date of December 31, 1994, and this new contract amendment will terminate it at January 31, 1995. He asked if there would be no problem meeting the new proposed termination date? Mr. Nachbar stated that was correct. Mr. Neville stated it was his understanding that everyone involved is working together #2420 TAPE #1253 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December 14, 1994 Page 24 of 24 and making great strides to have this plan come together. Mr. Nachbar stated there is a lot of excitement and cooperation among the individuals involved in this process. Mr. Neville noted it appears there is no change to the Waterfront Market Place Business Plan that identifies linkages with Kitsap County EDC Incubator System. He questioned if that was still going to take place? Nachbar stated yes. the ECD Incubator System will still be a component of the project. He reminded Council that this project was funded by the Office Of Economic Adjustment and part of their concern is the defense oriented economy in Bremerton and providing opportunities for laid off workers. We don't know if that will necessarily help the waterfront specifically, but it remains as part of the plan. Mr. Colvin asked at completion will there will be a conceptual drawing of a proposed project? Mr. Nachbar stated. yes, the consultants. have provided several conceptual drawings, which are well done and give a good idea of the development, circulation, and provides a master plan for the entire area, with a focus on the City owned site. Mr. Neville noted that the contract references "Washington Street" rather than "Washington Avenue" and questioned if that needed to be corrected? Leila Mills, Assistant City Attorney, stated that would not be a problem. M/S/C/U(Dawkins/Colvin) to approve Amendment to Tonkin/Hoyne, Inc. contract, and authorize the Mayor to sign and execute Amendment as written. With no further business meeting adjourned at 8:30 P.M.. KATHLEEN L. McCLUSKEY, 6~tTel~rk City of Bremerton KLM/SH-M/me cc: Normal Distribution File/Vault