Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/15/93TAPE #1158 UNAPPROVED DRAFT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES DECEMBER 15, 1993 #0031 #005O 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 15, 1993, at 5:30 P.M., with Council President Eileen Fitz presiding. Council members present were Richard Neville, Lynn Horton, C.R. "Tiny" Collins, Morris Dawkins, Russ Johnson, Lon Overson, Hank Waibel, and Al Colvin. Also present were City Attorney Ian Sievers and City Clerk Kathleen McCluskey. The meeting opened with the Pledge of Allegiance led by Council President Fitz and Invocation given by Reverend Ken Worley of Abundant Life Foursquare Church. President Fitz announced due to the scheduled public hearing she would be handling the items of business as follows: Consent Agenda, Claims and Check Registers, Mayor's Report. Public Recognition and Council Member Reports will be deferred to the end of the Agenda with the public hearing on Utility rates the next item of business. CONSENT AGENUA A. Minutes of Meeting -- November 23, 1993 #AB93-238 M/S/C/U(/Waibel/Horton) to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. CLAIMS/WARRANT REGISTERS Vouchers audited and certified by the auditing officer as required by RCW42.24.080, 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) December 15, 1993, the Council does approve for payment those vouchers included and further described as follows: 171581 through 171757 in the total amount of $820,213.18. MAYOR'S REPORTS Mayor Louis Mentor discussed the following: 1) Toys For Tots Event - Saturday, December 18, more toys and help are needed and anyone willing to assist can get more information from the Marine Reserve. 2) Noted artist Jacob Lawrence received nation-wide publicity on Charles Krault's Sunday morning television program. On that same program Sunnyside, Washington was featured on their Farm Implement Christmas parade. TAPE #1158 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December 15, 1993 Page 2 of 19 President Fitz presented Mayor Mentor with a plaque from the Kitsap Regional Planning Council that reads: "Mayor Louis Mentor your dedication, leadership and valuable contributions of time and energy as a member of the Kitsap Executive Council will benefit the citizens of Kitsap County for years to come - December 1993. She extended a special "thank you" on behalf of the Kitsap Regional Planning Council. 7A - PUBLIC HEARING: UTILITY RATE CHANGES - INCREASING WATER RATES APPROXIMATELY 2%; INCREASING WASTEWATER RATE8 APPROXIMATELY 30%; IMPLEMENTING A CHARGE FOR STORM WATER, #AB93-240 The City has retained the services of Economic & Engineering Services, Inc. to conduct a study of utility rates. Significant changes to the current utility rates are necessitated by three factors: (1) the litigation relating to odors at the Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP); (2) necessary improvements to the WWTP; and (3) separation of the City's combined sanitary and storm sewers as required by Federal environmental regulations. Rich Hanna, City Treasurer, stated he believes there is a perception among rate payers and Council's constituency that the litigation surrounding the treatment plant odor is settled and thereby led directly to rate changes that are being considered at this hearing. The money required to settle the litigation around the treatment plant is an added financial burden on the Wastewater Utility and has adversely impacted the City's cash position and therefore rates. But, of greater significance are the environmental regulations that the City is being forced to comply with, which is not unique to Bremerton and relates to Wastewater Utilities throughout the country. Those regulations relate to air quality, which are locally enforced by the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency and are mandating significant enhancements to the air quality surrounding the City's sewer treatment plant. In addition, the City of Bremerton, like all other cities in the country, has been mandated to eliminate combined sewer system (that which transports both sanitary sewer and stormwater through a common system of infrastructure). The Engineer's preliminary projection for the cost of carrying out the this separation throughout the City of Bremerton is 28 million dollars, which can be financed over the next approximately 20 years. That is the amount of money the City is required to spend to remain in compliance with Federal Clean Water regulations and is the largest single factor contributing to the change of rates being proposed. Tom Gould and Angela Sanchez, of Economic And Engineering Services will present the results of the Rate Study. Tom Gould, Economic and Engineering Services, provided an overview of the Rate Study process that involved three steps: (1) Revenue Requirements; (2) Cost of Services; and (3) Rate Design. During TAPE #1158 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December 15, 1993 Page 3 of 19 this discussion, he focused on the revenue requirements and rate design portion for a period of one year with rates being adjusted by January 1, 1994. In developing the revenue requirements, they did look at a longer time period of 10 years, which allows planning ahead to see any expenses in the future that require additional adjustments over time. It was suggested to the City that each Utility should financially stand on its own. Rate payers wants to pay for water services received and wastewater services they received with no subsidizes occurring between the two utilities. They also talked about watching debt service ratio and what that refers to is the City's ability to repay their debt. The financial community also takes a good hard look at the City's ability to repay. In the study they also wanted to attempt to minimize the impact to customers and to look at the financial health of each utility. The following handout documentation was discussed: Summary Of Source And Applications Of Funds/Water Department: Source of Funds (water revenues from rates/other revenues) $4,121,000; Application of Funds (O&M expenses/capital outlays from rates; debt service) $4,185,480, Deficiency of Funds $64,480; Increase as a % of Rates (after tax) 2.0%; Debt Service Coverage Ratio Before Rate Adjustment 17.20 and After Rate Adjustment 18.85. The rate study recommends a 2% rate adjustment for the Water Utility. Low Income/Senior Citizen rate will not be increased. Bill Comparison was calculated so that people could see how the proposed rate increase might impact them. Most residential customers fall within the 5/8 x 3/4 meter size and most average consumers of residential water will fall between the 10-20 range and that is shown in hundreds of cubic feet (hundred cubic feet of water is 748 gallons). In this case, it is suggested that the rate adjustment be approximately 45 cents per customer per bi-month for the Water Utility. A 2% increase is also suggested for Fire Protection Rates (sprinkler systems in public buildings). No rate changes were suggested on Hydrant Service and Maintenance Rates or temporary construction meters. Summary of Sources And Applications Of Funds/Wastewater Department: Source of Funds (wastewater sales, other revenues) $4,987,000; Application of Funds (O&M expenses/capital outlays from rates, debt service) $6,414.541 (approximately 50% of the total cost of operating the Wastewater Utility comes from the debt service component); Deficiency of Funds $1,427,541; Increase as a % of Rates (after tax) $30.%; Debt Service Coverage Ratio Before Rate Adjustment .065, After Rate Adjustment 1.14; Combined Utility Basis Before Rate Adjustment .088, After Rate Adjustment 1.45. TAPE #1158 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December 15, 1993 Page 4 of 19 The rate study recommends a 30% rate increase for the Wastewater Utility. In reference to the debt service ratio, the recommended minimum is 1.3. As noted in the summary, Wastewater Utility does not meet that minimum, but on a combined utility basis, which is the way the financial community looks at it, the City is at 1.45. Given a proposed 30% rate adjustment, they tried to come back with some rate options for the Wastewater Utility. The rate study recommends moving some of the increased cost to the base charge on a hi-monthly basis. Generally, the cost of billing customers and taking care of the customer service type aspects is $3-5.00 per month. In this instance the rate study suggests a $6.00 bi-monthly charge. A chart was shown that depicted bill comparison for rates of what they anticipate to be the hi-monthly impact of Option 1. The chart reflected the categories: Single Family, Multiple family, Commercial I, Commercial II,; and the present rate and the proposed rate. Under Single Family, the present rate for the base charge is $1.30/bi-monthly and commodity charge $3.00/ccf. The proposed rate is $6.00/bi-monthly and commodity charge $3.70/ccf. Under Multiple Family, the up front basic charge is on a per unit basis (6-10 plex each unit is charged that basis charge). They have set that at 80% of the Single Family Rate because when looking at capacity the usage characteristics of apartments tend to have overall lower usage in comparison with a single family home. Under the Low- income, Senior Citizen and Low-income Disabled Citizens category, it is recommended to keep the base charge at the existing level and to increase the commodity charge for anything over 1000 cubic feet. Wastewater Rate Option 2 - the major difference between Option 1 and 2 is the up front basic charge. If the basic charge is reduced that means that the commodity charge needs to increase because the same amount of money needs to be collected. Under either option, a 30% adjustment is being proposed. The format for Option 2 is the same as Option 1 with the difference being the base charge and commodity charge have been changed just a little. The rate proposed under this option for Single Family Residences is $4.00 per account hi-month and $3.80/ccf. Under the Multiple Family the base charge would be $3.20 bi-month and $3.80/ccf. The Low-Income, Senior Citizen and Low-income Disabled Citizens rate is to remain the same. A viewgraph was shown that compared what other areas in the Puget Sound Region are charging based on a 3/4 inch meter and that everyone uses the same amount of water (10 ccf): TAPE #1158 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December 15, 1993 Page 5 of 19 Water ( 1 ) Wastewater Total Bremerton Present Rates $9.25 $30.65 $39.90 Proposed Rates 9.44 39.85 49.29 Anacortes $13.10 $37.00 $50.10 Centralia $16.00 $28.30 $44.30 Poulsbo $22.00 $27.50 $49.50 Puyallup $15.85 $28.11 $43.96 Port Townsend $20.60 $38.90 $59.50 Renton $26.80 $25.09 $51.89 (2) (1) Assumes 3/4" meter +10 ccf (7,480 gallons) (2) City also has a storm drainage rate which is in addition to the above costs ($5.00/month) Establishment Of A Storm Drainage Utility And Rates - The need to develop a new infrastructure to separate stormwater from wastewater is a requirement required by law that needs to be implemented. It is suggested that a separate Stormwater Utility be set up and some of the cost currently contained in the Wastewater Utility moved over to the Stormwater Utility. The City is in the process of establishing this utility. The rate study proposes establishing a $4.00 per month flat fee for all residential and commercial accounts. In the long run taking that action will keep wastewater rates lower. when looking a storm drainage utilities, you look at impervious area (like the size of a parking lot) because that measurement is amount of stormwater produced. Refinements to the commercial rate will need to be made at some point in the future. Mr. Gould pointed out Kitsap County is also moving in the same direction and their suggested fee is approximately $5.00 per month. The City of Renton currently has a $5.00 fee for stormwater drainage as well. Questions raised from the audience in response to Mr. Gould's presentation: (1) will there be another rate increase of 27% in 1995? Answer: that number came from an earlier analysis, which did not consider the Stormwater Utility and the separation of costs between the two utilities. (2) Where does the 4 million dollar lawsuit and 3 million dollar repair to the treatment plant fit into this picture? Answer: those costs are capitalized and become debt service spread over the life of the debt, which could be 20-30 years depending on the specific issue. (3) Will the rate payers be TAPE #1158 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December 15, 1993 Page 6 of 19 paying off the lawsuit for the next 30 years? Answer: yes, there is the trade off trying to pay for it all in one year or spreading it out over a number of years. When talking about plant improvements, generally the cost of such improvements are spread over the people who benefit from the improvements. (4) What about the people who may sue the City over the treatment plant odor in the near future? Answer: That would not be considered a technical question to be answered by Mr. Gould. (5) Why do multi-family units use less water? Answer: typically there are not five people living in apartments. The consumption data, provided by the Water Utility, points out the same fact that multi-family units, on a per unit basis, do not use as much water as a single family residence. That ratio is also provided through the EPA criteria for wastewater plants. (6) During summer months single family homes use more water particularly for watering their lawns, but that does not go through the sewer and is not being taken into account. Answer: a lot of multi-family homes do not have washing machines or dishwashers plus other differences between a single family home and a multi-family home. (7) Where are mobile home parks in this plan, are they considered multi-family? Answer: there are none in the City of Bremerton. (8) Has the City refinanced the Utility debt at the current lower interest rates? Answer: the City went through a refinancing in 1992, so that process has just taken place. There is a cost to refinance and you have to look at the trade off between savings and the cost to refinance. Mr. Gould expects the City will keep a close eye on interest rates if they come down lower than those in 1992. (9) Who conducted the Rate Study? Answer: Tom Gould from Economic And Engineering Services, a consulting firm out of Bellevue, Washington. His area of expertise is in the area of "rates" and he has worked on rates for 15 years. He is an instructor for the American Waterworks Association on cost of service and rates. (10) What was the fee for the consultant service provided? Answer: the total project for the subject rate study is approximately $15,000, which include all public hearings and meetings. (11) What about the 20% surcharge Council has include in this rate for the General Fund? Answer: The actual surcharge is 6% and that was taken into account. (12) Is there any reason to continue the 6% surcharge on top of the increase? Answer: that has been a part of Council's discussion. (13) How much water does the average family in Bremerton use hi-monthly? Answer: 12-13 ccf. (14) Why will there be differences in the rates for different users? Answer: the rates are designed to collect the same percentage increase from customers. Depending upon where a specific customer is on the amount of usage you as a specific customer may not get exactly a 30% increase, it may be slightly less or more than that figure. The reason for the one rate is to place more of the cost on the base charge portion and less on the commodity charge portion. Both components were not increased by 30%. The reason why they decided to increase the base charge more TAPE #1158 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December 15, 1993 Page 7 of 19 than the flow base portion is because the City has a significant level of fixed costs in place and it was desired to make sure that if there is no usage on the system they should still pay a fair portion of the fixed cost like the debt service or the cost of reading the meter to take care of the system. That is why not everyone will get exactly a 30% increase. (15) A newspaper article stated the increase would be 37% for a single family/duplex. Answer: Travis Baker, Reporter for The Sun, stated anyone relying on a chart that he created in the newspaper about a week ago needed to be aware of some errors in that chart. There is no such creature as a single family duplex...there should be a slash mark between family and duplex (family/duplex). The water consumption figures listed in that chart were 10 times higher in each case. The 37.4% is listed in a document that was handed out to the City Council during a Study Session by Mr. Gould. The information given at this hearing does not include any percentage increases. As far as he knows, all other figures in the printed charts are ok. (16) A "thank you" was given the consultant for doing an excellent job and presentation. Eddy Chu, Public Works and Utilities Director, briefly reviewed the information provided in the following handout: WASTEWATER PROGRAM - summary of projects that the Utilities Department is committed to undertake, some by Decent Decree, some by local regulations, and some by necessity. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM as well as the Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) - The City is currently facing the 80% or above in combined sewer system. What that means is every sewer pipe that is in the ground carries stormwater as well as sewage. The Combined Sewer Overflow is when there is a storm where the pipe size does not have enough capacity to convey the stormwater and overflows, thereby impacting the water quality in Puget Sound. The CSO program will provide stormwater separation. By schedule, the City is mandated to separate stormwater from sewage as much as is economically feasible. The remaining items on this charge are mainly water monitoring issues to make sure those laws are being adhered to, such as only one CSO per year instead of multiple overflows, as is happening in the City of Bremerton. Summary By Year - shows how much money needs to be budgeted each year to take care of the Stormwater Program. The question has been raised "why a stormwater program now"? The City of Bremerton is actually in a catch up mode. RCW Chapter 90.70 delegates Puget Sound Water Quality Authority to oversee the Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan, which was passed through the legislature and enacted. TAPE #1158 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December 15, 1993 Page 8 of 19 The Puget Sound Water Quality Authority (PSWQA) and Department Of Ecology (DOE) require 115 local governments, including the City of Bremerton, in the Puget Sound basin to develop Stormwater Management Programs. This program requires that each city and county shall adopt all necessary requirements for stormwater quality and quantity controls. In 1960-1970's. under the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) guidelines, there was emphasis on the sanitary sewage, now, the focus is on stormwater. TARGET DATES: All cities and counties shall adopt all necessary requirements in stormwater manuals and comply with operation and maintenance program required by July 1, 1994 (a DOE mandate). Lots of cities, such as Renton and Bellevue enacted their stormwater program a number of years ago. The City of Bremerton hopes to catch up by implementation of a stormwater program by July 1994. CITY'M STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM: This program will be coordinated with Kitsap County's Comprehensive Water Service Management Program. The City's stormwater management program will address Sinclair Inlet and Dyes Inlet Watershed Action Plans. Questions raised following Mr. Chu's presentation: (1) why the sudden increase in 1994 for odor control? Answer: WWTP stands for Wastewater Treatment Plant and right now that plant contains a modest odor control system. The odor control program for 1994 and 1995 is a comprehensive effort to the odor control system for the treatment plant. The City will soon have a consultant on board to do an alternative study and using the state-of-the-art technology to minimize the odor at the plant. Included in the funding is the study and actual design of the improvements to be made. The design must be completed by December 31, 1994, with construction taking place in 1995. The City is mandated to have the entire odor control system in place before December 31, 1995. (2) Did the City have any kind of warranty with the firm who built the treatment plant to come in and make any needed corrections if it didn't work? Answer: City Attorney Ian Sievers stated there is no contractual contribution that would diminish the projected budget. (3) Will the federal government contribute any funding towards the Stormwater Program? Answer: At this point, there is no federal funding available. The only funding that may be available for this program is at the State level. (4) How much is the State going to contribute toward the Stormwater Program and are those figures included in the projected cost estimates? Answer: the figures shown have not taken into consideration any grant funding that the City might receive. The City will be pursuing any grant possibilities. (5) If additional funding comes in, will the user rates be lowered? Answer: Tom Gould stated within the Rate Study TAPE #1158 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December 15, 1993 Page 9 of 19 there are certain contributions that they recognized will come in, but they have assumed no federal grants would be forthcoming. The State does have some fund available. If money comes in it will be used to offset capital costs and at that time he is suggesting that the City review rates on an annual basis. At this point in time, there is nothing guaranteed that the City would receive any grant funds. President Fitz pointed out on the Callow Avenue Basin project the US Navy will participate to some extent. She also addressed that point with Congressman Norm Dicks during his recent Town Meeting that the mandates being handed down from the federal government were creating hardship on the cities. She believes he listened to what she was saying and planned to look into any federal grant program that might be available to the City. (6) Will the City get a guarantee from the next set of designers/builder of odor control improvements that it will work? Answer: The only assurance that can be given is the errors and omissions on the technical aspect of the improvements. (7) Didn't the City already have a study on odor control to correct the odor problem at the treatment plant? Answer: Mr. Chu was not aware of one. (8) If by 1996 the odor control designed in 1994 is in place but does not eliminate the odor problem, is there the potential for another lawsuit? Answer: the City is aware of that possible situation. Ian Sievers, City Attorney, stated he did not believe a lawsuit settlement dictates how a contract is written. Mr. Chu is correct, typically there are no escrows, guarantees, or warranties of a contractual nature. Professional Engineers are bound by a standard of care for the profession of engineering and it is the City's opinion that what is designed and built will take care of the odor problem. The following people provided public input: Lena Swanson, 2123 Snyder Avenue: (1) With four City Council members leaving, this Council is making a major decision and she has no recourse because they are already leaving. (2) To clarify a point, CH2M Hill did design odor control in the original design that was to be built into the secondary treatment plant. She believes when the new incoming City Council voted to build the treatment plant there was some construction budget factors and some of that stuff was withdrawn. (3) City residents should not have to bear the cost of the lawsuit settlement relating to odor problems at the treatment plant; (4) 1/2 of King County does not have secondary sewer treatment; (5) King County pollutes Puget Sound waters more than little Bremerton; (6) water bill is already unfair; (7) 30% increase on wastewater charge is unacceptable and she would do whatever action necessary even if it means forming a citizens committee; (8) what are the alternatives since the citizens are forced with a lawsuit that could have been avoided if this Council had used proper, good judgement; (9) in lieu of TAPE #1158 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December 15, 1993 Page 10 of 19 putting the burden on the citizens of Bremerton the City should sell Lions Field, cease and desist development of the Sports Complex; (10) there was a time when downtown business owners and slum landlords would not pay for the LID's to separate their stormwater. As a result, the Park Avenue/Warren Avenue area residents have sewer backing up in their basements. No, she will not pay for stormwater separation. (11) Asks that each Council member vote NO on this proposal. (12) City needs to hold CH2M Hill accountable for the odor problems at the sewage treatment plant. Richard Chrisinger, outgoing Bremerton resident of 337 N. Lafayette and property owner at 334 Bremerton Blvd.: (1) former tenant moved out of his rental property due to odor from sewer treatment plant. Currently, he has those properties up for sale and hopes he does not have to sue the City over any possible odor. (2) Proposed increases adversely affect people on limited incomes. (3) Mr. Weld, 319 Yew Street: (1) When the overflow situation is corrected, it will reduce the amount of water flowing through the sewage treatment plant, which will increase the odor problem. (2) Current sewer plant is three times oversized for City's needs. (3) Most of the plant over design was mandated by the State in 1983 and there was no State funding for stormwater separation at that time. If state is mandating separation of stormwater then they should be willing to provide some funding. Craig Triggs, 120 Olympic Avenue: (1) Was discussed over the City's past, current and future sewer problems, which could lead to additional lawsuits by his own brother to sue him. (2) Why isn't the original City Council held accountable for their actions because at the time they were sworn in it was to protect the citizens? (3) There was money allocated years ago to correct the odor problem at the treatment plant and that information is a matter of public record. (4) Administrative authority should be held accountable - State, Kitsap County, Building Department. (5) Does the City contract with other municipalities to dispose of sewage at its sewer treatment plant. Brian Mueller, 1540 Park Avenue: (1) Requested City Council request that the State Attorney General look into from day one up until the present administration the handling of the sewer problems, not just the smell, the operation, design, engineers in the past and in the future, who worked on the problem. (2) City must tell the rate payers how they will pay for increased costs, not just by a yearly review of the rates; and tell them what they will receive for their money. (3) Lawsuit over odor could have been settled before it got to the point of its being a lawsuit. (4) City residents expect certain things, police and fire protection and sewer service. Now TAPE #1158 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December 15, 1993 Page 11 of 19 they are paying for something they are not getting. Currently, his sewer smell stays in front of his home and it smells out at the sewer plant. (5) Not right that we sued or counter sued neighbors. City probably could have bought all of Navy Yard City for four million dollars. (6) Mayor-elect has stated when she takes office she will attempt to get some leeway on the suit with the Environmental Protection Agency over the combined sewer overflows. (7) Park Avenue sewer problems were reviewed by the Utilities Director and a bandaid fix was made. However, sewer lines are collapsing on Park Avenue. Putting off a permanent fix is hurting the citizens of the City. (8) High cost of City services are driving people away from the City. Don Zomerfeld, 2210 Trenton: (1) City has exceeded its ability to service this debt and should declare bankruptcy, which would stop all state and civil litigation. (2) Did not want to mortgage his child's future. TAPE #1159. Glen Jarstad, 2823 Hefner: (1) He is thankful that he is hooked up to sewer system. (2) City's Water Utility is one of the great utilities on the Pacific Coast. (3) Factor that "ticked off" everyone was the City's inactivity on the sewer smell and then having to settle a large lawsuit over the odor problem. (4) State of Washington held up Bremerton's 90% application to build a sewer plant for six months while they were trying to make a decision. As a result of that hold up time, the Federal government ran out of available funds. (5) The wastewater utility was built large for a primary function... to take care of Puget Sound Naval Shipyard. (6) His property near the City's sewer treatment plant increased in valuation rather than decreased and he does not believe people lost value on their homes due to odor from the treatment plant. (7) The sewer treatment plant does small awful. (8) Need to set up a Utilities Commission and a representative from the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard should serve on that commission, which would provide some weight when the City goes out for federal and state funds. Mary Lou Long, 2515 Baymont Place: (1) When the original secondary sewer treatment plant project was brought before the public, there was no consideration given to funding the capital improvements on a property assessment program verses user fee. (2) By using a user fee now and on into the future gives the City a tax base over and above what is allowed by the State. (3) Everyone paying more but getting back less. (4) City's sewage treatment plant was modeled after Olympia's, but it did not include a retention tank that allows for continuous flow into the treatment process. (5) Stormwater separation was brought out in 1950 and was to have been completed at that time and the three commissioners adopted a plan TAPE #1159 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December 15, 1993 Page 12 of 19 to collect funds to cover the cost of separation; that money disappeared. (6) First manager hired to run the sewage treatment plant had no sense of smell. (7) Money is having to come from the people who can least afford it. (8) Council should not be "buying" anything without getting some kind of guarantee. Mike Gustavson, Engineer, P.O. Box 1, Southworth (rental property owner in Bremerton: (1) He works in new technologies that bring him in contact with a variety of specialties. From what he has been able to learn as a novice in some of these fields, there are products available that could help eliminate some of the problems being experienced at the sewer treatment plant. He offered his services, free, to help solve the City's problem. Craig Coons, 1932 Trailway, Poulsbo (rental property owner in Bremerton: (1) If the City eliminates the 6% surcharge on water City could decrease the service charge about 10% because thatis on gross both water and sewer. If the citizens of Bremerton will be hurting financially he didn't see why the City shouldn't hurt a little too and find other sources of money and rebate back to the owners. (2) Suggested assessing litigation/mitigation fees on either assessed valuation or usage factor and let each person pay an assessed fee and pro rate it over a 30 year period. (3) If a lawsuit is filed against design companies and there is a settlement, will the City give a rebate back to the customers or will it just go into the General Fund? Ruth Davie, Park Avenue: (1) Annapolis Sewer Treatment Plant does not smell and functions correctly. (2) Wants explanation why the City ignored separating the stormwater over the past 20 years when they were told it was needed. (3) Does the METRO plant at Discovery Park smell. (4) Clapping and approving what others say is part of free speech. (5) Money was collected from 1950 onward to repair the sewers, but they didn't use the money to improve the sewer system. President Fitz stated questions raised by the speakers during this hearing have been duly recorded. She will try to have answers to those questions by the next City Council meeting. The public will have an opportunity to speak on this issue at the City Council meetings scheduled for December 22 and December 29. Mr. Overson stated he felt the option of having an assessment fee rather than a user fee should be looked into, which was not given as part of the Rate Study. The public here seem concerned about the limitation and ability of the rate payer to pay for this cost. That point was studied by the State and statistics show that citizens in the City of Bremerton have incomes that will support significantly greater increases that what is proposed. TAPE #1159 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December 15, 1993 Page 13 of 19 Richard Chrisinger referenced a ladies income of $318.00 from Social Security in 1993 and it will go up to $359.10 in 1994. Out of that income $41.10 goes to Medicare. Mr. Overson pointed out the proposed rate increase accounted for people on very low incomes. Mrs. Horton stated everyone is concerned about the wastewater treatment plant designer and operators participation. The City has not let that window of opportunity go by and it will be addressed, either individually or collectively. For the sake of the rates right now, the City cannot assume there will be any relief from the plant designer, operator or anyone else, nor grant funding because those things may not materialize. President Fitz noted another statement was made that we could have bought all of that area for four million dollars. That was not the case because that area is a community of people, who have lived there for many years, and they want to continue in their homes, but they don't want the smell. Mr. Collins stated it should be made common knowledge that in the bureaucracies there are restrictions on certain funds that come from certain sources such as Real Estate Excise Tax, Hotel/Motel Tax. he emphasized Utility property is not City property, but does come under the umbrella of the City, and if such property is sold the proceeds can only go back to the Utility. He expressed his appreciation for all the citizen input and what they had to say was of value. He cautioned against thinking about entering into a "bankruptcy" proceeding because the largest asset people have is their home and if the City went into bankruptcy what happens to the value of that piece of property. Mr. Mueller stated he does understand that money does come from other sources. What he would like Council to understand is the citizens are the money source and they are not an unlimited fund whether or not the state has conducted surveys or realize what their mandates are affecting. 6A - ORDINANCE NO. 4439 (SECOND READING) ADOPTING THE 1994 FISCAL BUDGET, #AB93-237 Public comment - none. #0981 M/S/C(Johnson/Colvin) to pass Ordinance No. 4439, on second reading, approving and adopting the financial budget for the 1994 Fiscal Year, and appropriating the amounts set forth in each budget to each fund in accordance with RCW 35.33.075. Vote on motion: In Favor: Overson, Horton, Fitz, Dawkins, Colvin, Johnson Opposed: Collins, Neville Abstain: Waibel TAPE #1159 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December 15, 1993 Page 14 of 19 Motion carried. Mr. Collins explained the reason he did not concur in the budget approval is that there is a flaw in the budget in the area of employee health care. Mrs. Horton stated she agreed with Mr. Collins' statement, however, the City must have a balanced budget passed by the December 31, 1993, and she would guarantee, as Mayor, she would be back before Council as soon as logistically possible with a budget adjustment to look at the amount of money that was pulled out of the reserves. She will do with or without the issue being settled in the City's favor by the arbitrator. 6B - ORDINANCE (FIRST READING) AMENDING THE DEFINITION OF ,,STREET,, IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND MODIFYING THE REOUIREMENTS FOR THE PUBLIC DEDICATION OF STREETS, #AB93-239 The current Planned Unit Development standards require streets serving four or more lots to be publicly dedicated. This requirement is not subject to variance due to the definition of "street", which defines a street serving more than four lots as a public street. Variances are not allowed to the definition section of the zoning code. The proposed ordinance would provide flexibility in imposing the requirement of dedicating streets in subdivisions by providing that such streets would not have to be publicly dedicated when not integral to the circulation pattern of the area. Councilman Johnson and Councilman Horton requested to step down from hearing this item due to their being absent at the early hearing. Ian Sievers, City Attorney, stated it is a matter of choice whether or not they step down if they do not think they are fully informed as Council members and could abstain at the time a vote is taken. Regardless of their hearing public input, they are eligible to vote on the matter because it is a legislative matter. Mrs. Horton pointed out the issue before them is based on a public hearing and if they disagreed with the other Council members agreed to at the public hearing, then they have no recourse but to abstain. Mr. Sievers stated it would be the same answer because that hearing was set to get some direction on how Council wanted to proceed, it was a public hearing on the City's laws and not a quasi judicial matter. Mr. Johnson stated he would choose to step down on this issue. Mrs. Horton stated she also would step down. Don Pratt, Director Of Community Development, state the action before Council is to determine if the decision to allow private streets in subdivision of more than four lots, which was heard at the hearing on December 1, is represented in the proposed ordinance. The proposal that Council agreed to on December 1, was whether or not to allow private streets to serve subdivisions with four or more lots with the condition that those private streets TAPE #1159 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December 15, 1993 Page 15 of 19 must meet design and development standards as determined by the City Engineer. The proposed changes only allows private streets to be developed if they are approved by the City Council. There was an issue in the hearing as to the authority that should be delegated to the City Engineer's opinion whether or not a private street would be permitted. Several different conditions were discussed, which would guide his decision, such as circulation and ability to serve adjacent properties. There was much discussion abut relying on the decision of the City Engineer or recommendation of the City Engineer as to how much influence or authority the City Engineer would have in making that determination. The proposed ordinance does not delegate any final authority to the City Engineer to make those decisions. Instead, that authority remains with the City Council by policy and procedure the Engineer makes a recommendation on each proposed plat which includes its designation of whether the street is private or public first to the Planning Commission and they then make their recommendation to the City Council. Included in that recommendation is the City Engineer's recommendation. Council would assume they would always have the benefit of the City Engineer's advice. In this case, the wording of the ordinance does not let him make a final decision. If subsequently approved after the second reading, a subdivision with four or more lots could be presented to Council with a private street included, which could be approved or disapproved by the City Council. Currently, private streets with more than four lots cannot even be presented. Mr. Pratt stated there is additional information that was not presented to Council that is indirectly relevant to this issue. Ian Sievers, City Attorney, stated following the previous hearing on this issue, he talked with the City Engineer and discussed an issue relating to the legal significance or consequences of changing ownership from public to private streets that has nothing to do with the quality of the street itself. The City Engineer had not addressed that legal point with either the City Attorney's office or the Police Department. The State traffic laws and rules of the road are set forth in statute and adopted in the Model Traffic Ordinance, which the City of Bremerton adopted by reference. Of direct bearing on this issue of enforcement on private streets is RCW 46.61,005: The provisions of this chapter (the chapter being the RCW which contains all of the State traffic laws) relates to the operations of vehicles exclusively on highways except that (1) where different places and specifically referred to in a given section; or (2) the provisions of three or four RCW's. There is another State definition of highway...it can 'be defined in different ways. In that RCW it is very clear "highway" means the entire width between the boundary lines of every way publicly maintained when any part thereof is open to the use of the public for purposes of vehicular traffic. In reading TAPE #1159 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December 15, 1993 Page 16 of 19 those two statutes, it is clear that the State statute has to specifically allow enforcement of private right-of-ways before enforcement can take place, and the second exception listing those four other statutes means that these traffic infractions or violations can be enforced on private right-of-ways, i.e., DWI, reckless driving and hit-and-run. In private parking lots or private streets those three things can be enforced, but all other traffic violations of the State cannot be enforced on private right-of-way. The City also has its own set of traffic violations, principally parking violations, in Title 10, where no mention is made as to public or private, but given the fact the City has adopted those State definitions in adopting the Model Traffic Ordinance, the status now is we would not be able to enforce our public parking infractions on private streets. There is a recommended solution to this problem if Council wants the Police Department to enforce traffic violations and parking infractions on private roads. Council must define City enforcement authority on any right-of-way or alley, which may be private but is open to the public. There is one Supreme Court ruling that stipulates the City of Seattle, by its Municipal Code, could have laws enforced on private rights-of-way provided it met the one minimum that it was open to the public. The reasoning is you need a public purpose before you start providing public salaried employees to service such an area. If the City Council wants to draft some expanded enforcement authority, then the City can enforce on private roads that Council approves through the process outlined by the Director of Community Development. The one caveat is that they must remain open to the public, which would limit enforcementin closed subdivisions. President Fitz stated it would be important to provide this information to developers up front so that they would understand they may have Police protection for just DWI's, reckless driving and hit-and run. Mr. Sievers stated enforcement of laws other than vehicle operation laws can be enforced on private property as we do now and we can investigate without permission of the residents without going inside a residence. Mr. Collins questioned the legal use of speed bumps? Mr. Sieves stated the City' Traffic Safety Commission discussed speed bumps a number of times and determined they are not illegal under State law, but they are not favored. Mr. Pratt noted speed bumps would not be prohibited on a private street and would be an option. Mr. Collins pointed out the potential problems that Fire trucks could experience if speed bumps were in place. Mr. Waibel stated the design of the street and speed bumps should be under the City Engineer's direction, who would make sure the street was maintained for the movement of safety vehicles over them. Mr. Pratt stated his understanding of the criteria the City Engineer may use would be if a traffic hazard is proposed by a design presented for a public street, it may not achieve private street status. Also, the TAPE #1159 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December 15, 1993 Page 17 of 19 City Engineer may recommend a private street, but someone may give public testimony to the contrary and again it is Council's option to follow their best decision. Mr. Waibel questioned what authority does a private management agency have to enforce traffic violations on private streets? Mr. Sievers stated private management agencies do not have the power of tow-a-way because they are not law enforcement officers, but are agents of the homeowners association or private property owner. They would have the authority to eject someone from the private property for violating advisory signs. Mr. Waibel questioned how did private parking lots get authority to tow-away vehicles? Mr. Sievers explained State law allows them, if properly posted, to eject vehicles for trespass. Mr. Colvin questioned what obligation does the City have to make sure that emergency vehicles can travel safely on private roads? Mr. Sievers explained that is primarily reserved through the Fire Code because on private property there fire lanes must be kept open, i.e. shopping centers and commercial buildings. Even though those parking areas are private, there is a requirement to keep paring lanes open and the Fire Marshall or Police Officer can enforce those restrictions. Mr. Colvin questioned who will determine the criteria for private streets? Mr. Pratt stated every application for subdivision of lots is reviewed by the City Engineer, Street Department, Police Department and Fire Department, who make comments and suggestions. Some of those departments actually control whether or not the subdivision can take place. That information is reported to the Planning Commission and included in the information provided to Council. Typically, Council will not get a recommendation for approval from the Planing land use office unless and until all of those reviewing departments have achieved the design that they require. Mr. Collins questioned who will insure that private streets are maintained to the level they are built? Mr. Pratt explained if it is a private street, the City does not have the authority to require maintenance of the street to a certain standard. The City can require that the street be built to a certain design standard, which would give it durability. If for some reason there is a failure in the street, the City does not have the authority to mandate repair. It is possible, some time in the future, when the street deteriorates to a very poor condition the property owners could petition the City to bring that street under ownership and to be operated and maintained by the City Street Department. That recommendation would not be forthcoming unless and until the homeowners fixes the street and brings it to a standard of construction and durability . TAPE #1159 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December 15, 1993 Page 18 of 19 George Coons, 1310 Park Avenue, questioned if the City would snow plow or sand private roads? President Fitz stated no. Gordy Byrd, P.O. Box 930, questioned for clarification the definition of "private street" and would it affect his shelter for the homeless that he hopes to build some day?'Mr. Pratt explained a private street could only service four or more lots and what Mr. Byrd was referring to was a driveway, which would not be affected by this proposed change. Mr. Neville set up a scenario that a developer wishes to develop a 30 acre parcel that abuts a subdivision that has a private street that ends in a large turn around. He questioned if the City maintained the right to take over that private road in order to provide access to another development? Mr. Pratt stated no, but that is a critical issue the City Engineer has to consider for future circulation. The current City Engineer is reluctant to grant private street status for exactly that reason. The few areas in the City where there are 4-5 acres of undeveloped land are typically side-by-side and he would be reluctant to open one up without seeing how it would link up with the other two. A prime example of that is the old Hadden School site. #3225 M/S/C(Overson/Dawkins) to approve Ordinance on first reading. Vote on motion: In Favor: Waibel, Dawkins, Colvin, Overson, Neville, Fitz Opposed: Collins Motion carried. PUBLIC RECOGNITION Gordy Byrd, P.O. box 930, reported as of this date he had collected $14,400.87 towards his shelter for the homeless. COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS Mr. Overson reminded everyone of the ribbon cutting ceremony for the Turner Joy Gift Shop on Thursday, December 16, 3:00 P.M. Mr. Colvin congratulated Carl Glaser on his retirement from Olympic College today. Mr. Johnson reported several Council members, City staff and Mayor Mentor met with State Senators and representatives this morning, sharing ideas and concerns. Some of the issues covered were "how do we get on the State-wide Municipal Court System to keep track of juveniles, gangs, etc., economic diversification for Puget Sound Naval shipyard and other military activities". TAPE #1159 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December 15, 1993 Page 19 of 19 Mrs. Fitz stated she hoped everyone notice the red ribbon she was wearing, which is being promoted by Mothers Against Drunk Driving. She cautioned against driving if drinking and to be safe by watching the consumption of alcohol during this holiday season. With no further business meeting adjourned at 8:45 P.M. KATHLEEN L. McCLUSKEY, City Clerk EILEEN FITS., Council President City of Bremerton KLM/EF/me cc: Normal Distribution File/Vault