HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/18/93TAPE #1130
UNAPPROVED DRAFT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
AUGUST 18, 1993
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, August 18,
1993, at 5:30 P.M., with Council President Eileen Fitz
presiding. Council members present were Richard Neville, Lynn
Horton, Hank Waibel, C.R. "Tiny" Collins, Morrie Dawkins, Al
Colvin, Russ Johnson, and Lon Overson. 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 Harrison
Hospital Chaplain Ben Belcher.
President Fitz announced Agenda Items 6B, 7D, 7E, and 7F were
pulled off of the Agenda for one week. And, the Study Session
on Drug and Gang Task Force Update, immediately following the
Council meeting, has been canceled and will be rescheduled at
a later date.
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Minutes of Meeting -- July 28, 1993 #AB93-164
B. Bid Award Recommendation -- Timber Sale
2-93 Buckhorn Selective Cut, Awarded To
Cascade Pole & Lumber For $415,505.00 #AB93-165
#0022
M/S/C/U(Overson/Neville) to approve the Consent Agenda as
presented.
CLAIMS/WARRANT 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.
#0051
M/S/C/U(Colvin/Dawkins) August 18, 1993, the Council does
approve for payment those vouchers included and further
described as follows: 168678 through 168680, 168684 through
168687, 168689 through 168847 in the total amount of
$422,126.61; and Regular Payroll for the period ending August
15, 1993, in the total amount of $527,764.67.
COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS
Mr. Colvin announced he invited Governor Lowery to come to
TAPE #1130
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
August 18, 1993
Page 2 of 22
Bremerton and to his surprise he accepted. Further details
will be shared soon.
Mrs. Horton extended a "Happy Birthday" and presented a
bouquet of pink roses to Merilynn Erhart, Council's
Legislative Assistant, in appreciation for her work for the
City Council.
President Fitz added Council also appreciates Mrs. Erhart's
efforts to assist citizens in a very positive manner when they
call seeking information or help from City Council members.
Mrs Horton stated she was saddened to learn that Forget Me
Not Florist will be closing their business.
Mr. Neville reported on Saturday he attended Puget Power's
Challenge Series and it was a pleasure to see the smiles on
the children's faces. He thanked Puget Power for putting on
this fun event and hopes there will be many more spectators at
next year's event.
Mr. Overson extended a special "welcome" to all tourist
visiting Bremerton this year, especially his mother, who is
visiting from Florida. He was also disappointed to see
several businesses in the downtown area closing and the recent
departure of Westbay Auto Parts from the City.
Mrs. Fitz reported on August 13 she attended an AWC seminar on
Municipal Finance And Budgeting. She came back with lots of
good information and realized in talking with other
representatives from other cities that every city has pretty
much the same problems from the little town of Moxie to cities
of Seattle and Spokane. She did receive some good
information, which she shared with her fellow Council members
earlier. Her hopes and plans for the next few months is to
develop budgeting goals and strategies for the City Council
and City. she anticipates starting that process in September
and have it completed for the budgeting process for FY 1995.
PUBLIC RECOGNITION
Mayor Louis Mentor reported the Kitsap Regional Library staged
a successful talent show last week with approximately 200
people attending that event. He noted 21 different groups
from all over Kitsap County performed for that event. On
August 14 he attended Puget Power's soap box derby, which drew
about the same size crowd as previous years. He complimented
Puget Power for doing a wonderful job making that a fun time
for all the kids participating. He also was saddened to see
businesses.leaving downtown Bremerton: Forget Me Not Florist,
Goldberg Jewelry and Booths Drug Store. He was pleased that a
new florist shop just opened in the downtown area. He pointed
TAPE #1130
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
August 18, 1993
Page 3 of 22
out Bremerton is moving forward at a rapid pace and there will
be setbacks, which can have an affect on business. On a
happier note, in 1992/1993 the City of Bremerton experienced
an all time high record for the number of businesses operating
in the City. Within the past month Bremerton Travel moved
into the downtown area and a new jean shop moved into their
vacated space in east Bremerton. He is also anticipating the
opening of other new businesses in the up coming months. Up
coming events: August 21 the Kitsap Historical Society is
sponsoring a "Barn Dance"; August 24 a farewell party is
scheduled for the exchange students from Kure, Japan; August
20 the Parks and Recreation Department, along with various
other departments, are sponsoring "KIDS DAY" on the boardwalk
from 1:00 - 4:00 P.M. Mayor Mentor displayed a Fair And Rodeo
tee shirt - "JAM SESSION" promoting this years's event.
Lastly, he introduced Lorraine Sarver, coordinator of the
Rodeo Court. Lorraine Barvet reminded everyone Fair time was
coming up fast. Over the past few weeks the Rodeo Court has
been traveling all around promoting upcoming events. Rodeo
Court members Queen Kari O'Donnell, Princess Charmaine
Lindsey, and Miss Katie Kitsap Erica Ratten gave a run down of
Fair and Rodeo events.
Bernie Forte, Executive Director of POWER, reported this past
week he met with Mayor Mentor to find out when the new Safe
Street's Program Coordinator would be on - the - job. He learned
that he was a little early in his inquiry and would be
checking back once Mr. Mincey is settled in. On August 17
POWER and TCI entered into an agreement to start an Intern
Program for youth at risk. He challenged other businesses in
the community to offer opportunities of internships for the
youth at risk in our community. He emphasized no business was
too small or too large to participate in such a program. He
and his wife own a Maid Service in Bremerton and have brought
one youth at risk into their organization. Counseling service
for youth will commence on August 30, 7:00 P.M., at POWER's
office, 920 Park Avenue Suite B. POWER's Board Of Director's
will hold their first meeting on August 26, at which time
officers will be elected.
Elizabeth Buell, High Avenue, reported Westbay Auto moved into
the County across from Fred Meyers. She was very concerned
about the strong odor coming from the City's wastewater plant.
Recently, she used the services of Roto Rooter to repair a
broken sewer pipe, and at that time the she and the serviceman
talked about the City's sewer treatment plant odor problem.
From that conversation, a suggestion was made on how to
correct the odor problem and she felt it would be of benefit
to the City if someone followed up and talked with someone at
TAPE #1130
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
August 18, 1993
Page 4 of 22
Roto Rooter about their ideas to resolve the odor problem at
the sewer treatment plant. She noted the City was lucky she
didn't live near the sewer treatment plant.
6A - OVERWATER PARK CONSTRUCTION CLOSEOUT, #AB93-166
Construction of the Overwater Park mitigation site is
complete. Final payment to Quigg Brothers Construction in the
amount of $112,935.34, and to Fish Pro, Inc. in the amount of
$2,842.64 is required. The attached cost summary sheet
details the Quigg And Fish Pro costs.
OVERWATER PARK MITIGATION
COST SUMMARY
The following summarizes the costs associated with the
Overwater Park Mitigation and miscellaneous closing costs.
1. Quigg Bros. Construction (Construction of the overwater
Park Mitigation Project)
Approved Change Order Amount $ 157,927.00
Actual Change Order Cost (233,937.43)
Amount Due Quigg in excess of Original Change Ord. $ 76,014.43
Reasons for the increased cost in construction of the
mitigation include:
A. The approved Fisheries permit changed the original
contract specifications, specifically the requirement
for placement of 1 foot of cobble material rather
than the anticipated 6 inches. This change increased
the excavation and cobble replacement quantities.
B. Unsuitable material had to be removed and replaced
with new material to provide a stable base.
The final payment to Quigg Bros. Construction is $112,935.21.
Note: This amount is the contract retention, including the
Total Change Order Cost.
Fish Pro, Inc. (Permit Acquisition)
Approved Contract Amount $ 83,113.72
Actual Costs (85,956.36)
Amount Due to Fish Pro $ 2,842.64
The reason for the increased cost was the necessary
TAPE #1130
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
August 18, 1993
Page 5 of 22
negotiations with Fisheries to obtain the permit. Successful
negotiations of last minute provisions to the permit proved
very beneficial to the City.
Randy Witt, City Engineer, reviewed the Cost Summary Sheet
for Quigg Brothers Construction and the actual change order
costs amounting to a difference of $76,104.43. The reasons
for that overrun cost are listed above in the Cost Summary
# 1(a)(b). Mr. Witt reviewed Fish Pro's contract costs as
identified in the Cost Summary # 2. Those negotiations that
cost $2,842.64 saved the City more than that amount
specifically in adjusting the slope of the hill that was built
so that additional property did not have to be acquired and
the contingency plans if the mitigation site does not work as
is expected. On a final note, the City has had the Corps of
Engineers out on site recently and they appeared to be
satisfied with the work. He noted the site is supporting a
lot of aquatic life and monitoring of the site will take place
over the next five years.
Mrs. Horton questioned of the $480,000 that the City placed in
an Escrow Account how much was actually spent on mitigation?
Mr. Witt explained the City spent $233,937.43 on the Quigg
Bros. Constr. contract. The Corps released $410,000 back to
the City with the retention of $70,000 to make sure the City
monitors and reports on how the mitigation is doing and that
is in line with what the City estimates will cost to do that
over the next five years. Mrs. Horton questioned what has the
City done with the residual $170,000+? Mr. Witt explained
that amount was moved into the boardwalk project itself. The
Treasurer's account for the project shows $480,000 went out
and $410,000 come back in.
Mr. Overson stated he was absent at the Council Operation
Committee meeting where this item was discussed and he was
somewhat behind on some of the factors. He questioned for
clarification if the $76,014.43 on the Quigg Brother
Construction contract had already been spent? Mr. Witt stated
yes. Mr. Overson questioned if there was authorization in the
contract for someone within the City to go above and beyond
the $157,927.00 contact amount? Mr. Witt stated he was not
sure of the answer to that question. The City is already
operating in the Change Order area, but what it amounted to
was an overrun of quantities on an additional change order.
The administration is required to come before Council if the
Change Orders exceed a certain amount, but if an overrun of a
quantity of work, in this case the excavation and riprap
material, is overrun they usually do not come back to Council.
Mr. Overson questioned why doesn't this represent basically an
TAPE #1130
City Council'Reg. Mtg. Minutes
August 18, 1993
Page 6 of 22
over expenditure of the budget? His understanding is that the
contract authorized the Mayor to spend $157,927.00, however,
what was actually spent was $233,937.43, leaving a difference
of $76,014.43. Now, the administration is coming to Council
and saying that amount has to be paid. From his view point,
Council could say "no, you do not have that additional
$76,000+ because you did not have authorization to spend it".
He emphasized the correct way to have accomplished that would
have been to obtain Council's approval prior to it being
spent. Mr. Witt stated part of his answer is somewhat
historical because a large portion of the project happened
prior to his coming to work for the City. In that context,
since his arrival things were happening fast and there was not
time to come before Council in order to keep them informed.
He agreed that in the future that should be done. Mr. Overson
questioned if that wasn't legally required? He emphasized
Council does. have the option to say "no" and then, in his
opinion, whoever authorized that contract is personally
responsible for those funds. What he is questioning at this
point is process because the City got into this whole thing in
the beginning where the administration over expended a whole
bunch of money knowingly up front and never told Council and
then came back later for their approval. What Council should
have done at that point was to vote "no", but didn't. He did
not believe the process was correct in this instance.
Mr. Collins stated Mr. Witt made a comment that he felt was
very pertinent...why it was done in hindsight, which was
something to do with "we had to do something but didn't really
know what we had to do and only had a wild guess". He
questioned if his analysis was correct? Mr. Witt stated he
believed that was the starting point in that the Change Order
was approved not knowing the full perimeter of the Change
Order. He felt Mr. Overson's comment would be the next step
when the full cost of the Change order was identified...why
didn't the administration talk to Council about the difference
in cost amounts. At this point, he did not have a good answer
for Mr. Overson. Mr. Colvin stated he believed that point
could be charged to "lessons learned" when we signed a
document without knowing the full perimeters. Mr. Witt
explained the City issued a Change Order without a permit that
affected the change order.
Mr. Dawkins questioned if the $70,000 held by the Corps would
be returned if the mitigation project .works out? Mr. Witt
stated those funds are being held in reserve for monitoring
and reporting to the Corps. As the area is monitored and
reports submitted, he will be requesting that 1/5 of those
funds be returned for each of the five years. Mr. Colvin
TAPE #1130
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
August 18, 1993
Page 7 of 22
questioned if that amount would cover the overrun? Mr.'Witt
stated he believed the $70,000 would cover the cost of
monitoring over the five year period.
Travis Baker, reporter for The Sun, questioned why were the
pilings left upright where they are at the mitigation beach?
Mr. Witt responded - for aesthetics and they give sea life
another opportunity to grow.
Mayor Mentor referenced Mr. Colvin's remarks and emphasized it
was not a "lesson learned". The contract was put out for a
certain amount for a certain amount of dirt removed and dirt
put back in. No one knew exactly what amount would be needed
so there was a dollar amount identified per yard for soils
taken out and put back in. It was an open contract because no
one could predict how much dirt had to be removed until the
actual work progressed. He emphasized the subject contract
was a good contract that turned out to cost more due to the
increased dollar amount spent. Mr. Overson questioned if he
was not correct in that the contract was for $157,927.00 and
shouldn't the expenditures have stopped there until Council
approved additional spending? Mayor Mentor stated no. Mr.
Overson emphasized the Mayor is not to spend funds that have
not been authorized by the City Council. Mayor Mentor stated
he disagreed with Mr. Overson because of the inclusion of
language for cost per yard for any additional dirt removed or
put back in. He emphasized there was a base bid with a dollar
amount per yard. There was no possible way to figure exactly
what was needed, so it had to be a per yard bid along with the
base bid. Mr. Overson again stated Mayor Mentor was
incorrect.
Mr. Colvin asked that the City Treasurer give his opinion on
the Mayor's explanation. Rich Hanna, City Treasurer, stated
as the Mayor referenced the contact contained an estimated
number of units, in this case cubic yards of material at a
firm price per unit. But, the quantities were of a necessity
estimates and unfortunately as the Engineering Department
previously reported, some very disadvantage things were
discovered at the time the excavation commenced...loose soils
that were not consolidated to the degree they had hoped and
for that reason they had to excavate additional cubic yards
which were multiplied by that "firm" unit price. Both of
those volumetric estimates turned out to not be quite large
enough. Mr. Colvln questioned the percent of cost overrun?
Mr. Hanna stated it was on the order of 50% of the original
estimate. Mrs. Horton questioned if there was a dollar cap on
the contract amount? Mr. Hanna stated no, not to the best of
his howledge. Mrs. Horton stated what Mr. Hanna was
inferring was that Council signed an open ended contract? Mr.
TAPE #1130
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
August 18, 1993
Page 8 of 22
Manna stated Council did that based on the best estimates that
the Engineering Department could give at the time the contract
was approved. It was not a fix dollar contract, but it also
wasn't a complete blank check. As he recalled the discussion
before Council, staff did provide some qualifiers on their
statements given the marine environment, all of the fill and
other activities that have gone on over the years that there
was some margin for error in their estimates. Mrs. Horton
questioned wasn't 50% steep for an overrun? Mr. Hanna stated
he was sure no one on staff was any happier to see those
numbers turn out that way than Council was.
Councilman Waibel joined the City Council meeting at 6:20
Mr. Witt stated given the assumptions that they started the
work with 50% overrun is rather steep. But, because one of
the assumptions they walked into that the Fisheries Permit
would say remove and replace 6" thickness of beach, which
actually came back saying 12" thickness of beach. So,
quantity wise that brought about a 50% increase. Mrs. Horton
questioned what would have happened if the project had gone
over 200%? Would the contract have held and would the
administration still moved forward or stopped and brought the
issue before Council for authorization? She was not sure it
was appropriate to bring this "policy issue" up at this time,
however, it did need to be discussed as a policy where Council
draws the line with something like this and when the
Administration needs to come back to Council for further
authorization. She did not feel a 50% overrun was a good
situation even though the Administration is saying it was not
that bad. Mr. Witt stated there were a number of reasons why
this project went forward ranging from the Corps and Fisheries
pushing the City forward in such a short time frame to
complete the job. The question he was trying to address in
Mrs. Horton original question of "is 50% overrun reasonable
in this case", his answer is yes because they went in with
assumptions that proved to not be valid. And, it was his
understanding that those assumptions were discussed pretty
well when going into the actual work on the project. What he
hears now about the processes used, to him that is a different
question.
Mr. Overson stated he recognizes the kind of challenges of
this kind of conflict, but he believes long standing policy
and procedures as well as legal guidance has been that the
contract stops when a new estimate comes in.
Mr. Johnson questioned how can a contract be written so that
TAPE #1130
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
August 18, 1993
Page 9 of 22
once it is approved for a specific dollar value not to be
exceeded that the process stops at that point and is brought
back to Council? Mr. Sievers stated a review should be made
of the City's Purchasing Ordinance. If special circumstances
are expected in a project, then they need to be written into
the contract as a different exception, such examples could how
many percentage points do you go over without having to come
back before Council. Mr. Johnson pointed out that was the
purpose for having contingencies and once those dollars are
expended and there is still additional funding needs, he would
like to see the words in the contract and in City procedures,
financial, purchasing, engineering, etc., so that when that
dollar limit is reached things stop. Mr. Sievers stated there
is already a flexible limit in thePurchasing Ordinance of 20%
or $30,000, whichever is less. He thinks Council realized at
the time the ordinance was approved, that engineering
estimates are never exact and there needs to be some
Administrative flexibility. Possibly some additional
exceptions needed to be added to that ordinance. Mr. Johnson
stated such wording is usually put in before getting to the
final dollar amount of the contract. He emphasized all future
contracts he votes on will be quarried by that question.
Mayor Mentor emphasized the City had a limited amount of time
to do the job and if they had stopped it would have delayed
the project for five months and would have destroyed all the
work done up to that point. Mr. Johnson stated a phone call
to the City Council office would have helped. And, had the
Council President been apprised that an additional $76,000 was
needed to continue the project he believed an Emergency
Council meeting could have been called to deliberate that
issue. Mayor Mentor stated the trouble was they did not know
what was needed until each day started. Mr. Johnson pointed
out the Administration knew the permit's requirement of
doubling the beach replacement thickness requirement. Mayor
Mentor explained that was not the only contribution to the
overrun, there was a problem with rain at the time and a bank
area sluffing off. Mr. Johnson stressed aS the project went
on day - to - day the project when over budget by 50% without even
a phone call to the Council - the City cannot continue to
operate in that manner. Mayor Mentor believed had the project
been stopped at that point it would have cost the City much
more.
#1518
M/S/C(Collins/Colvin) to authorize and direct the Mayor to
make final payments to Quigg Brothers Construction in the
amount of $112,935.34 and to Fish Pro, Inc. in the amount of
$2,842.64 for completion of the Overwater Park mitigation
construction.
TAPE #1130
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
August 18, 1993
Page 10 of 22
Vote on motion: In Favor: Collins, Dawkins, Johnson, Neville,
Fitz, Colvin
Opposed: Morton, Overson
Abstain: Waibel
Motion carried.
7A - RESOLUTION NO. 2441 REGARDING THE RECOVERY FEE FOR
FENCING THE DANGEROUS FOUNDATION LOCATED AT 280 SYLVAN WAY,
#AB93-168
In March of 1993, the City was forced to erect a fence around
the abandoned church building foundation at 280 Sylvan Way.
Monetary constraints have stalled the project, and the
foundation surrounding excavation have filled with water,
making the site a public nuisance and an attractive nuisance.
The site was abated under the Uniform Code for the Abatement
of Dangerous Buildings, and the owner failed to correct the
situation. A fence was installed by the City, and the
property owner asks that the expenses incurred be placed as a
lien against the property rather than a personal judgement.
David Nelson, Building Official, stated this was an abatement
process and was done on two separate occasions, the first time
the owner fenced the area, second time the City had to fence
it. This particular type of nuisance is an open pit full of
water 6 - 8 feet deep, an inside foundation, which represents
one of the worst kinds of dangers. If a small child or someone
falls inside the foundation there would be no getting out. It
was very important that this site be secured in a very timely
manner. Part of the City's abatement fund was used to fence
the site from children's curiosity. He urged Council's action
to approve this item as presented.
Mr. Dawkins questioned if the building project was ever
completed, would this issue come back before Council. Mr.
Nelson stated if the project is continued to do some type of
development on the site where nothing ever happens to the
title and the City is put into the position where they have to
file a lawsuit to recover the cost, then the process for
foreclosure may have to be initiated.
Mr. Collins expressed concern that when it starts raining the
area will fill up with water again and there is always the off
chance some of the fencing will be carried away or broken. He
questioned if anyone had thought about dismantling or putting
holes in the foundation so that it does not fill up with water
like a swimming pool? Mr. Nelson stated yes, thought was
given to such an idea, and demolition of the foundation and
backfilling is always a possibility. He described the site as
an open excavation around the perimeter of the foundation (10-
TAPE #1130
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
August 18, 1993
Page 11 of 22
15 feet beyond the edge of the foundation so there is a pool
of water around the outside as well as inside the foundation.
Water flowing into the area is a problem due to a natural
spring that drains into it year around If holes were knocked
out it would just allow water to flow back and forth.
Mrs. Horton stated the resolution alludes to the property
only, she questioned if the owner of the property needed to be
include in the resolution? Ian Sievers, City Attorney,
explained all action is against the property and notices do
have to be sent to the owner.
Mr. Neville questioned if he was correct in his understanding
that initially the property owner did erect a fence and was
that fence just not good enough? Mr. Nelson explained the
first fence erected was a rented fence and at the end of the
term the rental expired and they allowed it to be removed. At
the second abatement the owner indicated they had no funds to
provide fencing. Mr. Neville questioned if the fencing the
City erected was reclaimable? Mr. Nelson stated the fence
erected by the City was purchased and will be surplused when
the need for it goes away.
Mr. Colvin questioned if the owner of the property had been
notified of this action? Mr. Nelson stated yes. Mr. Colvin
questioned who would be responsible if the current fencing was
damaged and needed to be repaired? Mr. Nelson explained the
City would maintain the fence and any additional charges would
come under another lien action against the property.
Public comment - none.
#1786
M/S/C/U(Dawkins/Colvin) motion by Resolution No. 2441 to order
that the fees incurred for the erection of the fence be filed
as a lien against the property located at 280 Sylvan Way, plus
interest compounded daily.
7B - RESOLUTION NO. 2442 FINAL PLAT APPROVAL - HARBOR RIDGE
SUBDIVISION AT 1555 SHOREWOOD DRIVE; APPLICANT: FPH MANAGEMENT
CORPORATION, #AB93-169
The Preliminary Plat for Harbor Ridge, a nine lot subdivision,
was approved by the City Council on March 6, 1991 subject to
7 conditions (see Exhibit III). Improvements necessary for
road access, utilities, and fire protection have been
constructed in compliance with the conditions of the
preliminary plat approval. Now, a plat map prepared by a
licensed surveyor has been submitted for Council approval. If
approved, the plat will be recorded with the County Auditor.
RCW 58.17 Boundaries and Plats requires Final Plat approval by
TAPE #1130
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
August 18, 1993
Page 12 of 22
the City Council.
Jack Allingham, Current Planning, stated this plat is a
subdivision of approximately 3.6 acres into nine residential
lots. The site has a Comprehensive Plan designation of
Residential 0 - 7 dwelling units per acre. The nine lots result
in a density of approximately 2.5 dwelling units per acre and
is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The site is zoned
Single Family 3 (SF3), and the lots have been developed in
conformance with zoning regulations. The plat has complied
with the seven conditions of the Preliminary Plat and is now
ready for City Council approval. Passage of the proposed
resolution will allow the plat to be recorded and the lots
sold and building permits permitted for new residential
construction.
Public comment - none.
Mr. Johnson expressed concern over Harbor Ridge Drive, which
is labeled a "private road", and he anticipates sooner or
later the property owners will ask the City to take over the
road in order to keep up the maintenance. It seemed to him
that when doing plats like this that if it is not written in
it has been City Council policy that the developers develop
roads to City standards and at that point turns them over to
the City. In this case, he did not know if the private
driveway would be developed to City standards. Due to the
location of the access, he did not know if the City could
abrogate its responsibilities for non - point source of
pollution from stormwater run off, which is what the blue
print says. Mrs. Horton questioned for clarification if
Council had not already had this full discussion at the time
of the public hearing and was not this action just reaffirming
what was approved in the public hearing? Mr. Allinghamstated
Mrs. Horton was correct. He did not recall if the Planning
Commission recommended a private street or to have a dedicated
public right - of - way, but Council's decision in 1991 was for a
private street.
Mr. Dawkins described the current stormwater drainage flow in
the subject area... where the water comes down to Shorewood
Drive it goes on a little ways in a large sized ditch, crosses
underneath the road and flows out between two houses through
a large storm drain that has deteriorated from 100 ft. to 50
feet. Previously, he had contacted the Street Department and
asked them what could be done to stop further breaking away of
the storm drain, however, to his knowledge nothing has been
done to improve existing conditions. A resident living close
to that storm drain is concerned that their bulkhead will be
TAPE #1130
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
August 18, 1993
Page 13 of 22
eroded due to the water flowing out of the storm drain.
Currently, the platted area already has a lot of water runoff
and he is concerned about how that will be controlled so that
it does not adversely affect residents in that area. He
questioned is there something so stated that when the water
gets to the beach and starts washing out other things who is
responsible? Mr. Allingham stated the plat that was approved
is subject to a stormwater system being designed and approved
by the City Engineer and it does have a stormwater detention
system designed and constructed in place. As far as
deterioration of an outfall from the ditch along Shore Drive,
this plat will contribute to a greater volume of water in that
area.
Mr. Colvin questioned if it had been concluded that the
driveway is to be a private road and the City has no
obligation for maintenance? Mrs. Horton stressed the intent
is that the driveway will be a private road from this point on
and into the future. However, there is always the possibility
that the City could be petitioned by the residents to deed the
private road right - of - way over to the City. She pointed out
the City does not do all that great a job maintaining current
City streets. Mr. Johnson stated that was why the City had a
lot of "junky" roads because this kind of development was
allowed to happen. Mrs. Horton strongly disagreed with Mr.
Johnson over that point. President Fitz stated she lives on a
private road in the City and in order for the City to take
over that road the owners would have to bring in up to
specific standards. She questioned if she was correct that if
the property owners within the plat area wished to turn it
over to the City they would have to improve it with sidewalks,
curbs and gutters? Mr. Allingham stated it was his
understanding the street would have to be designed and
constructed to the City's design standards. Mr. Colvin
requested the City Attorney's opinion on that point. Ian
Sievers, City Attorney, affirmed Mr. Allingham's response on
that issue. Mrs. Horton pointed out if at some future time
the residents asked that the City take over the driveway, they
would have to bear the expense to bring it up to City
standards before it would be accepted. Mr. Sievers stated he
assumed that would be a condition of the acceptance of
dedication.
Mr. Dawkins questioned if he understood correctly that tract
A would not be built upon? Mr. Allingham explained that was
the area where the stormwater detention system will be
located. Mrs. Horton questioned if the City Engineer approved
the stormwater system for this plat? Mr. Witt, City Engineer,
stated yes. Mrs. Horton questioned in his opinion will their
TAPE #1130
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
August 18, 1993
Page 14 of 22
system take care of the development without degrading things
farther down the road? Mr. Witt explained the intent of their
stormwater detention system is to maintain the existing flow
off the site as it is currently today. Mrs. Horton questioned
if Mr. Witt was satisfied that it will do the job it is
suppose to do? Mr. Witt stated yes. Mr. Johnson questioned
if the detention system approved by Mr. Witt is not large
enough and the flow is greater, who is responsible for making
it even larger? Mr. Sievers stated if the sign off is to a
performance standard, such as to be released at a certain
cubic feet per minute, then the property owners would be
responsible for amendments to that line. If it is an approved
design and all that they had to build and was signed off,
they would not be obligated to expand it later unless the City
had some general nuisance ordinance in place under stormwater,
which we do not have at this time. Mr. Johnson stated even
though the prints lead people to believe it is the homeowners
problem, that sign off has now made it a City problem. Mr.
Sievers stated that was correct.
Mr. Collins questioned if the turn around area within the
plat was wide enough for a garbage truck and/or fire truck to
maneuver? Mr. Allingham stated he did not have an answer for
that question. Mr. Overson questioned if there was a need for
such trucks to turn around within that circle? He assumed the
streets within the plat were designed to some engineering
standards that includes that kind of use. Mr. Collins
questioned does the City want that size of a vehicle backing
out onto Shorewood Drive?
Mr. Waibel questioned for clarification if the approval was
for a performance approval or design approval for the
stormwater detention system? Mr. Witt stated once the plat is
accepted it is accept as is. Mr. Waibel stated then Mr. Witt
approved the design with no statement it had to be maintained
to limit the outflow to a certain amount. Mr. Witt stated
that is what it has been designed to do. The City reviewed
the design and said "yes" we agree with the design, which was
prepared by a registered Engineer other than himself. They
intend to work out with the engineer any problems the City has
and the solutions to them would depend upon his obligation if
the system is not working. As time goes on, it will become
the City's facility. Mr. Waibel challenged that point due to
wording stated on the design that "respondent" has
responsibility for storm drain maintenance. Mr. Witt stated'
such wording relates to the maintenance...mowing the grass and
making sure the small dikes are still in place. Mr. Waibel
restated ..."maintenance of the storm drainage system". Mr.
Witt stated he agreed with what is written. The design of the
TAPE #1130
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
August 18, 1993
Page 15 of 22
system and how it will function is what the City is accepting.
His understanding of "maintaining" would be to keep it in an
operating condition. The question is... id the operating
condition adequate? If there is a problem with the system,
the City will go to the property owners, designer and
developer. He believes the ultimate responsibility on
acceptance of the map would rely on the City. Mr. Waibel
questioned if, at the time of original acceptance of the
subdivision, the City should make it a qualification that the
runoff could not be increased over what is currently
occurring? Mr. Witt stated that is the criteria to which the
detention system has been designed. Mrs. Horton stated she
recalled the approval was given subject to the City Engineer's
approval of the stormwater detention system. Mr. Witt stated
the proposed design for the stormwater detention system has
met the City's criteria.
Mr. Dawkins stressed there are not many developments like the
proposed project in the'City of Bremerton and such housing is
very much needed.
#2540
M/S/C(Waibel/Horton) to approve Resolution No. 2442 accepting
the Final Plat of Harbor Ridge, located on the west side of
Shorewood Drive and adjacent to and north of Beach Drive,
Bremerton, Kitsap County, Washington.
Vote on motion: In Favor: Dawkins, Overson, Horton, Waibel,
Fitz,
Opposed: Collins, Johnson
Abstain: Neville
7C - ORDINANCE NO. 4432 (EMERGENCY READING) AUTHORIZING BOND
ANTICIPATION NOTES FOR LID 326 AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY,
#AB93-170
The proposed Ordinance will allow for BANs to be issued to
provide construction financing for the LID project on Fourth
Street. Permanent financing will be arranged at the
conclusion of the project.
Rich Hanna, City Treasurer, stated these notes will provide
construction financing for the L.I.D. project. The sizing of
the note is $389,000, the City Engineer's preliminary
assessment roll for the project. He made the following
additions to the ordinance (page 3 and as underlined: "The
note shall be in fully registered form; shall be dated
September 1, 1993; shall mature on April 1, 1994; shall be in
the denomination of $389,000; shall be numbered 1 with any
additional designation as the Bond Registrar (the City
TAPE #1130
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
August 18, 1993
Page 16 of 22
Treasurer) deems necessary for purposes of identification; and
shall bear interest at the rate of 3.5% per annum .... ". Mr.
Hanna noted the rate offered by the bank is very competitive
and he did confirm that with other sources in the market. The
notes also have a call provision with a 10 day notice to the
bank in the event the project is completed earlier and the
process moves ahead then the notes would not run to the final
maturity.
Mr. Dawkins questioned the reasoning for the "emergency
reading"? Mr. Hanna explained there was some discussion at
the Fiscal and Budget Committee meeting about the use of an
"emergency" reading. Subsequent to that meeting, he reread
the Charter provision and it appears, from his unprofessional
legal interpretation, that particular word is necessary in the
language to comply with the City's Charter. Mr. Collins
questioned .what is the emergency? Mr. Hanna stated the
emergency is simply the interest of the City to obtain the
lowest cost financing possible and that requires the City
taking immediate action on the bank's offer. He assured the
public this is not a lack of planning by the Administration or
City Council, but simply driven by the dynamics of the Bond
market that demand the bank expose themselves to the smallest
possible market risk between their offer to purchase these
notes and the City's acceptance.
Mr. Walbel questioned if Mr. Hanna had reviewed this action
with the City's Bond counsel? Mr. Hanna stated yes.
Mr. Johnson strongly emphasized that $389,000 has been
allocated for this project, not identified for any specific
contract and not for any point in time. Anything over
$389,000.00 needs to come back to Council for approval. Mr.
Hanna stated as a point of clarification, and this has been
the case throughout the planning and development of the 4th
Street L.I.D., the assessment roll will not fund the utility
improvements that are being undertaken in conjunction with the
project. The overall project is not 100% L.I.D. funded, but
Mr. Johnson's point is well taken. Mr. Johnson emphasized the
need to establish, in writing, what is and' what is not
included in the project because he is already hearing
exceptions to the rule. He raised questions... what is a
utility, what's not a utility, is a decorative street light a
utility? He wants to know how much money was authorized and
he wants to know when Mr. Witt will be back before Council for
additional funding. Mr. Witt stated it was his hope that he
could come to Council and report that he had extra money
available from the project. He acknowledged if the project
exceeded the $389,000, he will come before Council for
#2825
TAPE #1130
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
August 18, 1993
Page 17 of 22
approval. That commitment was made to Council at the time the
project was approved with a similar commitment being made to
the other property owners along 4th Street, who are concerned
about the same issue. Mr. Johnson stated he did not want the
City meeting that commitment by somehow figuring out a way to
charge things so they get fed back so the City picks up the
tab. Mr. Overson stated he believed the contributions by the
Utility are defined in the contract. Mr. Witt explained the
utility contributions are defined in the Agenda Bill that
awarded the contract for the project. There are two other
elements of funding that project, which equally have their own
ceilings: (1) street light portion, which has a grant for
$39,0.00; (2) utility work .
Public comment - none.
M/S/C/U(Dawkins/Colvin) to pass Ordinance No. 4432, on
Emergency reading, relating to Local Improvement District No.
326; providing for Local Improvement District Bonds;
authorizing the issuance and sale of Local Improvement
District Bond Anticipation Notes pending the receipt of the
proceeds of the Local Improvement Bonds and assessment
collections; and providing for the sale of such Bond
Anticipation Notes to the National Bank of Bremerton,
Washington.
8A - PUBLIC HEARING ON 1994-1999 SIX - YEAR TRANSPORTATION
IMPROVEMENT PLAN AND ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 2440, #AB93-
172
The Six - Year Transportation Improvement Plan ("Plan") is
prepared pursuant to RCW 35.77.010 and RCW 36.81.121. .The
Plan is updated annually and filed with the Secretary of
Transportation, Department of Transportation Local Programs
Office. It is intended as a planning tool for local, State,
and federal transportation funding entities. The attached
plan has been prepared for City Council approval and submitted
to DOT.
Randy Witt, City Engineer, explained the changes to the plan
as follows:
1) Gorst to Bremerton Ferry terminal (Priority #1) - updated
cost estimate, updated project funding schedule and account of
the $675,000 in Federal ISTEA funding received in May 1993.
2) Kitsap Way Reconstruction, Weslon Place to Auto Center Way
(Priority #2) - updated cost estimates, establish project
funding schedule and account of the $55,000 in State TIA
matching funds received in May 1993.
3) Sylvan Way Overlay, Wheaton Way to Olympus Drive (Priority
TAPE #1130
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
August 18, 1993'
Page 18 of 22
#3) - new project added to reflect $158,000 received from the
State as part of the transfer of SR306 (Sylvan Way) to local
control. It is rated high because the State funding is in
place.
4) City wide level of service Traffic Study, Growth Management
Mandate (Priority #5) - new project added to prepare the
traffic analysis necessary for the growth management plan.
5) 11th Street Reconstruction, Chester Avenue to Warren Avenue
(Priority #7) - update cost estimates and schedule to reflect
possible State TIB funding.
Other arterial street projects are expected to be identified
as part of the City's 1994 budget process. The Plan will then
be adjusted to include these projects.
Projects below number 11 (Lower Marine Drive) on the Plan are
generally improvements to "collector" or "local access" City
streets. These streets have been prioritized by pavement
condition, and are scheduled for reconstruction. Most do not
need reconstruction; base repairs, grinding and/or resurfacing
will provide an adequate street surface. These streets are
not likely to receive Federal or State funding. They are on
the Plan for City planning and prioritization purposes. The
local streets action plan details the work anticipated to be
performed on these streets this summer and next.
The Six Year Plan can essentially be broken into two
classifications of street improvements; the capital
improvement projects on arterial and major streets, and the
maintenance/minor repairs on local streets. To address this
and have the Plan more accurately reflect the City's needs,
the Public Works and Utility Department has begun to evaluate
the prioritization process/factors and the proposed
improvements to each street. A prioritization methodology
which also considers traffic, cost and recommended
improvements to each street, will be established in 1994.
TAPE #1131
Public comment - none.
Mr. Waibel stated Perry Avenue has become the primary
north/south arterial on the east side of Bremerton. A number
of years ago there was a contract with someone to put in some
sewer system in that area and to resurface the street. At the
conclusion of that project, the surface of the street was not
replaced adequately and the construction firm and bonding
TAPE #1131 ~
City Council'Reg. Mtg. Minutes
August 18, 1993
Page 19 of 22
company went bankrupt an the street has been in bad shape ever
since. Now, a new middle school has been constructed along
Perry Avenue, which will add to the already heavy vehicular
traffic. For the past five years he has been asking how can
Perry Avenue get added to this Plan. Mr. Wltt explained the
collector streets are prioritized solely by pavement
condition, which excludes Perry Avenue because there are a lot
of shorter streets that are in much worse condition, but they
do not serve nearly as many people. That issue needs to be
looked at and in that context he would like to have a Pavement
Management System. The question should be how does Perry
Avenue rate over all the other more major projects and which
ones should be done first. Mr. Waibel questioned if Mr. Witt
was committed to evaluating the criteria the City is using and
that traffic load could become part of that criteria? Mr...
Witt stated he felt that was an essential part of the criteria
traffic on the streets. But, will Perry Avenue flow up to
the top, he was not willing to commit to that. Because of his
time constraints in getting this Plan adopted due to State
mandates, he chose not to go into a process evaluating every
street that anyone thinks or knows should be on it. The
direction he wants to head is to get all data in by the time
the next submittal comes due. Once a system is set up, it
would become a revolving system.
President Fitz reported when Fiscal and Budget committee met
on this issue Mr. Witt stated a street with five houses may
not have the best street in the world but they would not
require the same kind of fix that a Perry Avenue or Kitsap Way
would require. And, a less traffic impacted street could be
better maintained by the Street Department and not be included
on the large project list. Mr. Witt explained that was the
intent of the second list showing those streets that can be
fixed by the Street Department. Such a fix would not include
tearing up the street and putting in new curbs, gutters and
sidewalks.
Mrs. Horton stated previously Council had talked at length on
item #11 - Lower Marine Drive to Marine Drive because of some
development going in at that area. She questioned if Mr. Witt
had talked with the people in that area to let them know where
his thought are on this whole process? Mr. Witt stated yes,
he had the opportunity to attend a public meeting on another
issue in that area and at that time there was discussion about
sewer service/streets. His thought is before overlaying the
street, especially if sewers are to be put in, these things
should all be wrapped into one package.
Mr. Colvin pointed out an error on Item # 19 - it should read
TAPE #1131
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
August 18, 1993
Page 20 of 22
Montgomery Avenue 15th Street To The'Deadend, not "to Wycoff
Avenue". Mr. Witt stated that would be correct.
Mr. Neville questioned if alleys fall in the Local Street
Action Plan and do they get a lower priority because they are
an alley verses a street? Mr. Witt stated in the past alleys
have not been rolled into the plan at all and he felt that
would be another discussion point on what do we want to do
with alleys. It gets back to the money available and how it
should be divided. Mr. Collins added sometimes when talking
about alleys in truth the discussion may be about
thoroughfares because the way this City is built on hills the
only access people have to their homes is through an alley.
Mr. Johnson stated he shared some of Mr. Waibel's concern and
he also agreed on the needs for Perry Avenue. He was
surprised to see over the next six years some streets are not
even on the plan for "year # 6" with some kind of estimated
figure. Some of those streets are: Kitsap Way going northwest
from Hwy. # 3, 6th and Callow intersection and in fact the
whole Callow Avenue area, and sink holes developing in the Old
Belfair Highway. Another concern was the lack of sidewalks
around schools. In order to do something about sidewalks, he
assumed something had to be done with improving streets. He
felt there is a need to have a sidewalk plan included in the
Plan that would provide a safer way for children to come off
of school properties on their way to their residence. He
questioned why couldn't Council add those items at the end of
the list, numbering them 56 through 61 and put $10,000 in year
# 6. Mr. Witt stated that would be possible, however, the
reason he did not is because the list is very long. He
recommends coming back systematically and reviewing all
streets. Mr. Johnson stated this is the llth time he has
dealt with this plan and if something like he suggested is
desired, come next year they will not be addressed. If items
make the list, no matter how low they are on the list, they
are reviewed and discussed.
Mr. Colvin stated he was looking for Lebo Blvd., on the list
but could not find it. He felt that even if it was not on
this list, within five years or less major repairs will have
to be made to that street. Mr. Witt stated this discussion
points to the reason why the City needs a system of evaluating
which street is more deserving. Mr. Colvin asked that Mr.
Witt put traffic counters on Lebo Blvd. and compare it to
other heavily traveled streets. Mr. Witt stated as a priority
the system should consider all arterial streets, which include
Lebo Blvd., Callow Avenue and Perry Avenue. Rather than add
a street here and there based on the knowledge at this time,
#0589
TAPE #1131
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
August 18, 1993
Page 21 of 22
he needs to come back with a pavement management system that
clearly identifies money available and how they propose to do
the work. Mr. Waibel stated he would like to see those
streets that have been identified during this discussion
placed on the Six Year Plan. Mrs. Horton stated this
discussion illustrates that what is called a Six Year
Transportation Improvement Program is sort of misnomer.
Council should be looking at two or three separate things,
such as looking at our whole transportation system and do some
long range planning on where we want to develop specific
things for the transportation system. As the west hills area
starts to develop, the City will be faced with how that area
is serviced. At one time there was discussion about an off
ramp off Warren Avenue Bridge to go west from the southbound
lane, however, she was not sure where that project stood as a
priority. Somehow there needs to be discussion on overall
transportation improvements for the whole system and then we
need to be looking at a management program for our
streets/alleys and looking at where do we fit in sidewalks in
strategic places. Council does not get that kind of
discussion and that is the kind of discussion needed in some
environment other than a 20 minute discussion during a Council
meeting. And, following that discussion try to figure out a
revenue stream addressing those things identified as priority
needs. Mr. Witt stated the point that builds on what Mrs.
Horton just stated is. the "to do" list is much longer than the
City's "can do" list. The proposed Six Year Transportation
Plan is essentially the carried forward last year's "to do"
list, recognizing that a pavement management system needs to
be developed as well. Mrs. Horton pointed out the State has
a pool of money - Public Works Trust Fund, which the City has
never applied for. Mr. Witt corrected Mrs. Horton on that
point...the City did apply for funds from that source this
year. Mrs. Horton emphasized the City should be tapping into
that source in order to stretch the few merger dollars that
are available. Mr. Waibel noted the City's chance of getting
those funds increases as we apply in the future and as a
better criteria is developed to set priorities.
president Fitz stated she believed Mr. Witt brought a lot of
information to Council on ways he things the City can improve
its streets and plans to go forward for this next year. She
feels that within this next year Council will be seeing him
often in developing this program.
M/S/C/U(Johnson/Waibel) to adopt the attached Resolution No.
2440 approving the City's 1994-1999 Six-Year Transportation
Improvement Plan with the following changes': add #56 Perry
Avenue, #57 Kitsap Way northwest from Highway 3 to City
TAPE #1131
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
August 18, 1993
Page 22 of 22
Limits, # 58 6th and Callow intersection area, # 59 resurfacing
and roadbed repair on the Old Belfair Highway, # 60 Lebo
Blvd.study, # 61 sidewalk and school areas with a dollar amount
of $5,000 in year six for each project, and direct the Mayor
to forward the Resolution and Plan to the Department of
Transportation Local Programs Office.
With no further business meeting adjourned at 7:40 P.M.
KATHLEEN L. McCLUSKEY, City Clerk
EILEEN FITZ, Council President
City of Bremerton
KLM/EF/me
cc: Normal Distribution
File/Vault