Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/02/93TAPE #111 UNAPPROVED DRAFT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JUNE 2, 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, June 2, 1993, at 5:30 p.m., with Council President Eileen Fitz presiding. Council members present were Lon Overson, Richard Neville, Lynn Horton, Hank Waibel, C. R. "Tiny" Collins, Morrie Dawkins, Al Colvin, and Russ Johnson. 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 Pastor Bill Wambsganss of the Westside Baptist Church. CONSENT AGENDA A. Minutes of Meeting - May 19, 1993, #AB93-099 #0028 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 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. #0045 M/S/C/U(Colvin/Horton) June 2, 1993, the Council does approve for payment those vouchers included and further described as follows: 166767, 166776 through 166797 in the total amount of $383,777.11. COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS Mr. Neville reported he enjoyed entertainment presented by a couple from Bogota, Columbia on the boardwalk this past Sunday. He had an opportunity to talk with the entertainers, who stated how pleased they were with Bremerton and the beautiful scenery. They also shared that when they return to this area next year they would like to play for the children of Kitsap County, especially the handicapped children. He announced an indoor Flea Market will be held on Saturday, June 5, 9:00 AM - 5:00 P.M. at the Sheridan Park Recreation Center. Proceeds from this sale will benefit the Pendergast Regional Park fund. TAPE #1111 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes June 2, 1993 Page 2 of 35 Mrs. Horton reported last Friday she attended the Bremerton Main street meeting where she enjoyed entertainment presented by the couple from Bogota, Columbia. She was somewhat surprised at Mr. Baker's dancing ability, which also was displayed at that event. She was also impressed with the way things of nature were used as musical instruments by the entertainers. Today she attended the Kitsap Regional Planning Council meeting and one of the things of most interest at that meeting was a presentation on the Olympic View Landfill Closure process that will be taking place. She emphasized the Barney White portion of the landfill has been closed for sometime, but now is being reviewed how best to mitigate and complete the closure process. There is concern over that portion of the landfill due to its not having any liner, therefore, there is seepage through the garbage. Mr. Waibel noted Mr. Neville forgot to mention that he also took advantage of the Farmer's Market on Sunday. He was pleased to report that the Market was well attended and for those who are concerned about seafood being sold there, it all come from certified beaches and certified as being safe to eat. Mr. Dawkins stated the weather has improved and in between showers he managed to play some golf at Gold Mountain Golf Course. He was pleased to report the golf course is in great shape. Mr. Colvin reported Larry Stone, of the Ad Hoc Citizen Advisory Committee, made an excellent presentation at the Bremerton Central Lions Club meeting this date. Mr. Johnson thanked Miller Woodlawn Cemetery for their "Avenue of Flags" display over Memorial Weekend. Mrs. Fitz stated she also enjoys the Cemetery's flag display. This past weekend she visited the Farmers Market. She was pleased to report the Marina was full. Recently she read in the Bremerton Area Chamber Of Commerce's bulletin the following statistics: for every boat in a marina, such as is in Bremerton, boaters spend between $75 - $100 per day while tied up to a pier and where they have access to shopping. She believes with this influx of boaters the local business people must be benefitting from boaters stay in Bremerton. Mrs. Horton added there are 52 boat slips in the downtown waterfront marina. PUBLIC RECOGNITION TAPE #1111 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes June 2, 1993 Page 3 of 35 Mayor Louis Mentor reported on June 6 there will be a D - Day Remembrance Ceremony in Tacoma, and among the guest speakers at that event is Richard Chrisinger of Bremerton. He referenced the closure of a portion of Olympic Landfill and the fact that it is projected to cost over 20 million dollars over 30 years. He cautioned "sometimes we should stop and figure out what our priorities are"...the closure will not be providing a new landfill. He would like to see some of those funds spent on figuring out what we are going to do with our garbage over the next 50 - 100 years. This past weekend he had the pleasure of being a judge for the Fathoms 'O Fun Court. He participated in the Law Enforcement "Torch Run" ( a Special Olympics funding raising event). On May 28th he attended a Scholarship Awards program at the Masonic Temple, where scholarships were awarded to students from the whole Olympic Peninsula. He attended a Memorial Day Ceremony on May 31, at Ivy Green Cemetery. He extended a special "thank you" to Bob Sauter and others who organized that event. This week the D.A.R.E. graduations are taking place in Bremerton area elementary school. He announced the Home Builders Of Kitsap County will hold their "Parade Of Homes" on June 5 and 6. Cecil McConnell, 3245 Almira Drive, Chair of the Ad Hoc Committee on government review, stated he wished to respond to several comments Mayor Mentor made at the previous City Council meeting. At that time, Mayor Mentor stated "there were still many unanswered questions in the Committee's report, and he asked specifically what about the Commissioner or City Administrator form of government. In response to that statement, Mr. McConnell explained the Committee was not charged to bring back a report on the items they did not recommend. Both of those issues were discussed by the Ad Hoc Committee, and the Commissioner formwas dismissed as a viable forms of government for Bremerton because it was not all that long ago since the City had a Commissioner form of government - people would not buy it any way. The City Administrator question was discussed and resulted in a decision it would only work if the City had a Mayor who left the entire administration of the City up to the City Administrator. A motion was made in the Committee to suggest a City Administrator to the City Council, however, that motion died for lack of a second. It was further decided that a City Administrator did not provide continuity to a City's government if the position of Mayor changed every four years. What upset him most about Mayor Mentor's previous comments was that he impugned the honesty, integrity and sincerity of the Ad Hoc Committee. He stated he would feel more comfortable about Bremerton's government if some of the members of our TAPE #1111 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes June 2, 1993 Page 4 of 35 government were as well informed as the people who served on the Ad Hoc Committee. Even though the Mayor Mentor's comments may not have been meant as an insult, Mr. McConnell believes he owes them an apology. In response to previous comments about a previous Ad Hoc Committee that formed the current form of government - the Committee he chaired did a well thought out job because they had the cooperation from the City Attorney's office, but the last committee had a hostile government and hostile City Attorney's office that resulted in the current Charter. Mayor Louis Mentor extended his apology to the Ad Hoc Committee if they felt he was insulting him by his previous remarks. He still believes there are a lot of unanswered questions and that is one of the reasons why Council chose to go to an Advisory Ballot. Bill Amo, 6625 Lake Drive, Ad Hoc Committee member, stated he did not speak at the previous Council meeting on the Advisory Ballot issue because he was disgusted with the Mayor and City Council. He was disgusted with the Mayor for his remarks about the poor job that the committee did that formed the present form of City government. He emphasized that group worked many hours and was not a "closed" group. They completely fewrote the Charter to match the form of government and then were told by the City "it was unconstitutional and that only one thing could be changed", so they changed the form of government. Then, it was the duty of the City Council and subsequent Councils to make the amendments necessary to that Charter to make it work. During the short time he served on the City Council action was taken to make amendments to the Charter. When it came time to obtain signatures to pursue the change in government, it was accomplished by a group of dedicated citizens. He served on the current Ad Hoc Committee because, unfortunately, the Mayor/Council form of government was not perfect. It seems that there was a built in adversarial relationship between the City Council and Mayor that has shownup time - after - time. He did not ask Council to change the form of government, however, it seemed to him that Council felt there was something wrong and created the Ad Hoc Committee to study the issue and make a recommendation. When that recommendation was presented, it appeared it was not quite what the Council wanted so the Committee went back and tried to conformto what Council must want and modified their recommendation. Now, he questioned Council's need for more guidance through a Freeholders process? He emphasized he has seen Council make decisions on various issues totally opposite from what the public's input and wishes identified. He TAPE #1111 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes June'2, 1993 Page 5 of 35 suggested taking the Ad Hoc Committee's recommendations, make whatever slight adjustments that are needed to suit Bremerton well, and run with it. He did not believe an election needed to be held to implement such a plan and that it could be initiated through an ordinance. He pointed out the lack of public protest to "bat down" the Committee's recommendation. Del Knauss, Olympic Avenue, stated Mayor Mentor stated at the May 26th Council meeting that voters turned down the last attempt to change the form of government 2 - 1, but what he did say was that out of 7,603 participating voters 3,520 voted for a Council/Manager form of government and 2,642 voted for a Commissioner form of government for a grand total of 6,162 voters who though a change was needed. This only left 1,451 voters out of 7,603 that thought the present form of government was working properly. Also, Mayor Mentor made it clear that he strongly favors the current Council/Mayor form of government, which he could understand ...he's protecting his job. He feels this is misleading because he told the Ad Hoc Committee he felt the best form of government for Bremerton was a dictatorship, which was the only form of government the Committee did not study for obvious reasons. He personally feels the Mayor does not want what is best for Bremerton. He referenced Councilman Colvin's District # 1 informal survey and questioned wouldn't it have been better to undertake such a survey after Mr. Stone, of the Ad Hoc Committee, presented the Committee's recommendations to the residents of District # 1 at their September Neighborhood Coalition meeting? Mayor Mentor stated when the vote was made a year ago the question asked was "do you think we should change the form of government - Yes or No". The voters' response at that time was "No" - 63% and "Yes" - 37%. Then, the ballot went on to say "regardless of whether you voted yes or no in the first question, which form of government would you prefer, if there had to be a change", and that is when the other vote came into play. The vote was almost 2 - 1 that No...we don't want a change of government. Larry Stone, Secretary/Ad Hoc Advisory Committee, stated he had hoped through the seven months the Committee has worked on this issue it could be an objective program. Last September Council asked the members of the Ad Hoc Committee to "review the Bremerton City Charter and form of government", and based upon those findings make recommendations that are appropriate under the RCW and State Constitution. While the Committee TAPE #1111 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes June 2, 1993 Page 6 of 35 Report was a disappointment to some elected officials, the Committee's charter did not obligate them to be pleasing rather than factual. They believe the Committee obligation has been discharged as capably as possible and their recommendations were made with the highest degree of objectivity and the proposed sequential handling of those recommendations was far more than a capricious decision. The decision of the Council to address Phase II subjects first is unquestionably within their authority and the Committee agrees with the importance of knowing the wishes of the voters. However, as Councilman Colvin's telephone survey pointed out, that type of research can only take place after some effort has been made to expand their understanding. Putting the issue on the November ballot, as pointed out by Municipal Research Services and County Auditor, could contribute to a great deal of confusion at a time when six City elections are also taking place. For reasons not all apparent to the Committee, the Council seems determined to proceed with an Informational Ballot in November instead of September. The Committee feels such action will have three immediate results: (1) it makes the incumbent Mayor, who has announced his objection to the Committee proposal to run two re - election races; (2) by making an objective governmental change recommendation a campaign issue it clearly establishes the Committee as a pawn in a political game of chess; (3) the injection of the Freeholder issue, however unintentional, is an insult to the integrity and validity of the work done by the Committee. There is still the issue of the City Charter and what to do about it. The Charter, as presented by the Committee, is a reproduction of the present Charter minus its many errors, job descriptions and its design to suit the needs of the present Council/Mayor form of government. It could very well serve the needs of Bremerton even if a change of government never takes place. It would be an even better Charter, however, if it applied to a City under the Optional Municipal Code because it would grant to the City Council extended home rule powers they do not now have. Comments by various Council members over the past few weeks made it obvious that there is a lot of misunderstanding of the Charter and proposed reclassification. If Council still persists putting Phase II items on an informational ballot, either in September or November, we'll all have to live with it. However, he suggested in the interim that Council hold a Study Session in which the Committee will be allowed to fully outline the Phase I Charter Code City proposal without having to respond to a lot of questions dealing with semantics and ideology. If Council finds the Committee's reasoning to be sound, they are then in the position, under RCW 35A.070.030, TAPE #1111 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes June 2, 1993 Page 7 of 35 to take steps that would create a solid foundation for the continued operation of the City while political games are played. Bob Wood, Bremerton, stated our best resources are people, however, he believes that simplistic polls that are taken, believed in and espoused by certain people really don't hold up. A change in government is desired because people want government brought back closer to them (in neighborhoods) and a government that is responsive, not one that is divided. He believes composition of the Ad Hoc Advisory Committee is very representative of the citizens of Bremerton and need to be believed. He emphasized this is not a "Mayor's" matter as he is the administrator of the City. The citizens of the City are the policy makers and the City Council codifies the policy that comes up from the citizenry. He suggested moving the process along, despite all previous Council motions, by having a Council retreat that included the Ad Hoc Committee to discuss the form of government. Through such a process he could see the reconciliation of minor differences between the parties, making sure the City Attorney takes care of all the legal aspects of what can and cannot be done under the Revised Code of Washington and let's move for change. Betty Griggs, member of the Ad Hoc Advisory Committee, stated she was upset that the recommendations from her Committee had come to this point. She felt it was important to note when this Committee was first brought together, individually and collectively, they were told the Committee was formed as a smoke screen to get rid of the Mayor and that the City Council would not accept any of their recommendations unless it was for a City Manage form of government. Individually and collectively, they tried to be very objective and she believed they managed to do that regardless of their personal feelings, and came up with their best recommendations. She feels that by ignoring their recommendations and putting Phase II on the November Ballot that rather supports that theory. She urged the City Council to take the Committee's first recommendation to take a step - at - a - time. Barbara Boyd, member of the Ad Hoc Advisory Committee, asked the City Council to consider the Charter that Ian Sievers has worked out and was recently distributed by the Committee, which conforms to the State Code. It would give the citizens of Bremerton the exact government that is currently'in place and all the changes would still take future action, but it would clarify the Charter and clear up the many confusions that have caused trouble and made the City awkward to run. TAPE #1111 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes June 2, 1993 Page 8 of 35 She was sure the City Attorney watched out for Council's interest if there was anything in the Charter that would alienate them. She was pleased with the idea that Council wanted to put some of the issues up for a vote because she agrees people rarely come to public meetings to voice their opinion. President Fitz stated she did not believe there was any intent by anyone on the City Council to not consider the Charter as presented by the Committee. There has not been enough time to study it since it was delivered. At previous Study Session on the Ad Hoc Committee's recommendations, the new Charter was not ready and other items were covered more extensively, such as should there be a change in form of government, etc. She does plan to schedule Study Sessions to discuss the City's Charter. She wanted to dispel the perception that Council was not going to look at the Charter as presented. Roy McInnis, 2711 Maple Street, stated once again he is confused over proposed Council action. At the time the Ad Hoc Committee presented its recommendations to the City Council, he recalls Mr. Stone saying the first thing the Committee recommends is for Council's reviewing the City Charter. He did not know how the issue of "change of government" got in front of reviewing the City Charter. He hopes sooner or later the City Council, along with the Ad Hoc Committee, can clear up the confusion he is experiencing at this time. 6A - INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH KITSAP COUNTY FOR SALE OF KITSAP MENTAL HEALTH PROPERTY LOCATED AT 500 UNION AVENUE, #AB93-106 The Kitsap Mental Health property was made surplus by Council on May 12, 1993. This agreement authorizes the City to proceed to sell the property and building and share costs proportionally based upon appraised value. The acceptable purchase offer will be presented to Council and the County Commissioners for final approval. Kathleen McCluskey, City Clerk, explained the agreement was prepared by the City Attorney, forwarded to the County Commissioners, which they signed and returned to the City. Mr. Waibel stated he absented himself from the May 12 discussion on this subject due to a potential appearance of fairness and questioned if he should just abstain on any action on this item or to totally step down? Ian Sievers, City Attorney, recommended that Mr. Waibel excuse himself TAPE #1111 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes June 2, 1993 Page 9 of 35 rather than participate. Mr. Waibel left the Council Chambers at 6:17 P.M. Mr. Johnson stated when this item was discussed at the Fiscal and Budget Committee meeting they were told since the agreement had already been signed off by the County Commissioners it would difficult to modify the document. He is concerned over the percentage of split in cost and in the sales costs. He believes when the property is sold the cost of such a sale would be greater on the building than on the raw land and he wanted something reflected in the agreement stating that belief. He questioned how do we assure the agreement is clearly understood by the County that if 70% of the sales costs are attributable to the building they must be responsible for that cost? He did not mind splitting the proceeds at the percentage designated. Mr. Sievers stated unless it is stated in the contract it would not be clear nor would it have any affect since this agreement is an integrated agreement as to discussions and understanding of the parties. If you intend to pay less than the formula set forth for cost of sale, then the agreement needs to be amended. Mr. Overson stated under Section 4 it states distribution of proceeds from a sale is not negotiable. Ms. McCluskey stated that was based on the value of the property. The value of the land was 34% and the building 66%, so the though was if it was sold for either the appraised value or less, then that percentage identified the value of each piece. She did not know how, other than the appraisal, to identify a percentage and claim we have more or less money when that was the purpose of the appraisal. Mr. Overson stated it is quite simple to appraise the value of real estate separate from the appurtenances. Ms. McCluskey pointed out they did just that. Mr. Overson suggested not using a percentage and just state the City receives the appraised value commensurately reduced and the County would receive the appraised value of the building commensurately reduced. Ms. MoCluskey stated the Administration was not contemplating selling the site with a bid for the land and bid for the building, which is what Mr. Overson proposed. They felt the appraisals split out the appraised values so whether the bid comes in higher or lower, these percentages would reflect the values based upon appraisal. The only wayto accomplish what Mr. Overson is suggesting is when itis put up for bid that a prospective bidder place a bid for land and building. She believed this would be real unusual and anyone bidding would have to do a lot of research and/or like the County better than the City and bid a higher price for the building and less for the land. TAPE #1111 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes June 2, 1993 Page 10 of 35 She believes the City is safer using the certified appraiser's appraisal percentages and apply that to whatever price is agreed upon. Mr. Colvin questioned how is it equitable for the County to receive 66% and the City receive 34%? Ms. McCluskey explained the building is appraised at $300,000+ and the property is appraised at $100,000+ based on a certified real estate appraiser. The County owns the building and the City owns the property so each should receive that value. In response to Mr. Johnson's concern, the agreement could be amended. However, the sale of this property, according to this agreement, would be based on advertising, realtor, etc., it does not address if someone comes back and says in order for them to buy the property they want a new roof, fumigated, etc.. It would be her understanding that any proposed deal that comes back to the Commissioners and Council to approve the sale will come back with the buyers conditions. At that time, Council and the Commissioners will decide whether or not they want to sell the property. Also, at that time she believed Council could put conditions on the sale. Since no one knows what will be offered for the property, it would be difficult to place conditions at this point. The purpose of this proposal was not to address "what if" and "sales condition", but simply the City's and County's cost of marketing the property. President Fitz stated if Council placed conditions in the agreement at this time it may be act has a "hamper" to a sales agreement someone might present. Ms. McCluskey stated she believed there will be significant negotiations once bids are received. Mr. Sievers stated Ms. McCluskey's representation is accurate and this agreement covers the standard closing costs. The City may be getting a better deal because if it were a raw piece of land the City would be covering all of the closing costs rather than sharing in them. Mrs. Horton pointed out the exact wording states" the parties agree the proceeds from the sale shall be disbursed as follows: ....", it does not caveat it in any way. If you are talking a plain sale where there are no conditions this would be fine, however, there is no guarantee there will not be conditions. Mr. Sievers. suggested inserting a phrase under Section 4, after the word "property" ...assuming it is sold as is. He believed most conditions coming back on a counter offer have to do with financing. Mrs. Horton stated she would be more comfortable if such language was added allowing some flexibility in case something changed. TAPE #1111 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes June 2, 1993 Page 11 of 35 Mr. Collins questioned which fund would the proceeds of this sale go into? Ms. McCluskey stated according to the City's current ordinance, such funds would go into Cumulative Reserve Fund. She pointed out the site is a General Fund property and never belonged to the Utility. Previously, the site was GSA Right - of - way and other properties that were part of some parcels in that area. Mr. Collins stated Kitsap Mental Health came before Council requesting that the City designate the sale funds from the land be donated towards the cost of their new facility. He questioned if anything further had come from that request? Ms. McCluskey stated no, the City agreed to surplus the property but no commitment as far as disbursement of the funds has been made. She does expect them to come back to Council following the sale of the site with a request. Public comment - none. Mr. Johnson stated Mr. Collins had an excellent point. City ordinances stipulate funds derived from sale of capital assets to be deposited into Cumulative Reserve for more capital assets. He was bothered that Kitsap Mental Health may come back to Council and request the donation of the sale funds towards their new facility. He emphasized Kitsap Mental Health is a deserving cause, however, Council deals with lots of deserving causes and if they feel the City should contribute to their cause they should come forward at budget time and complete with everyone else. #2056 M/S/C(Horton/Colvin) to approve Interlocal Agreement with Kitsap County for sale of Kitsap Mental Health property and building, with the addition of, under Section 4, adding the words "as is" after the word property. Vote on motion: In Favor: Horton, Collins, Dawkins, Colvin, Johnson, Overson, Fitz Opposed: Neville Councilman Waibel returned to the Council Chambers at 6:30 P.M. 6B - LABOR AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF BREMERTON AND INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIRE FIGHTERS LOCAL 437 1993- 1995, #AB93-107 The attached Labor Agreement between the City and the International Association of Fire Fighters Local 437 has been negotiated in conformance with Council direction and covers a three - year period beginning January 1, 1993 and ending December 31, 1995. All changes made to the existing agreement TAPE #1111 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes June 2, 1993 Page 12 of 35 are identified in the attached Exhibit 2. Significant changes are summarized here. Wage adjustments: 3.5% January 1, 1993 90% of Seattle CPI - W July 1993 Index Minimum 3% -- Maximum 6% January 1, 1994 90% of Seattle CPI - W July 1994 Index Minimum 3% -- Maximum 6% January 1, 1995 Fire Prevention Specialist/Public Educator receives a special 5% adjustment 1/1/93 to adjust to labor market and internal alignments The position of Fire Captain was added -- same wage as Medical Officer and Deputy Fire Marshal. Changes to hours of work are included as follows: Two (2) pro - scheduled relief days (K - Days) are added on 1994 and two (2) additional are added in 1995. This reduced the average shift hours worked per week in 1993 from 52.5 to 51.6 in 1994; and 50.65 in 1995. Vacation leave accruals were changed from an annual adjustment to one every five years. No change to the overall benefits result and contract administration is made more efficient and accurate. New provisions were added to Article 15 (15.7 and 15.8) which prescribe standard rules for Paramedic certification and promotional examination processing. Mayor Louis Mentor stated negotiations have been going on with the Fire Department since last summer on this agreement. He believes it is a fair agreement and the City is fortunate to have a good Fire Department to be proud of. The City has been a little out - of - line in the area of benefits and the wages and benefits reflected in this contract will bring the City more in line with other Fire Departments in the area. He noted the contract is for a 3 - year term, which takes the pressure off having to deal with the Unions yearly. He believes the contract is a reasonable amount and acknowledged it is sometimes "hard to swallow" when local news articles reflect 400 people are to be laid off from the Shipyard. TAPE #1111 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes June 2, 1993 Page 13 of 35 Public comment - none. Mr. Johnson stated he is opposed to this contract and has been opposed to a number of labor contacts in the past, not because we aren't giving excellent fire service...we have excellent, dedicated fire fighters. What has happened, as a result of binding arbitration in the State of Washington in the area of pubic safety, is "blackmail" against the City saying we have to be "on average" with anyone. That means as all the cities cycle through the negotiations project automatically 50% or below and you end up with a constant upward spiral. Over the past 10 years most of the contracts he has seen are 3 - 6%, mostly on the 6% end and the core of the citizenry of Bremerton being Federal Civil servants or related contractors with similar wage rates, have had their wages frozen, promotions have been frozen and down sizing has occurred causing layoffs. It seems to him as a City government when you talk about cutting costs and spending rate and the salary of municipal employees should reflect that of the community. He emphasized his feelings on this issue is no reflection on the excellent fire personnel in the City of Bremerton. Mr. Overson stated he agreed with Mr. Johnson and he works in the Shipyard with people who are residents of the areas around the City, who have told him outside Fire Districts cover the same number of residents and/or homes as Bremerton but they cost 1/3 less. He wished the City could get closer to its competition, but something needs to be done at the higher level. He also expressed his appreciation for the Fire Department personnel and the good work they do for the citizens. Mrs Horton raised the point that neither Mayor Mentor or the Fire Chief had signed off on the Agenda Bill and questioned if they supported the proposal? Mayor Mentor explained he was out - of - town when the Agenda Bill came trough his office and both he and Fire Chief McKinley were supportive of the proposal. Kathleen McCluskey, City Clerk, reported Chief McKinley did sign the original Agenda Bill. Mr. Dawkins stated he understood the concern of some Council members, however, if a citizen vote was taken as to the most important service they receive from the City, it would be the Police and Fire services. If council turned this proposal down, the next step would be binding arbitration, which is not the direction Council desires to go. Mr. Colvin stated he agreed with Mr. Dawkins, Council was led TAPE #1111 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes June 2, 1993 Page 14 of 35 to believe that binding arbitration could be more costly than the proposed contract. He questioned how binding is binding arbitration? Ian Sievers, City Attorney, stated it is very binding. In reference to Councilman Johnson's comments, the State's law sets up binding arbitration for Fire and Police and does sets standards that arbitrators will apply in those arbitrations, using averages of like jurisdictions and do get caught up into a spiral. Mr. Neville stated it is his understanding that this agreement will bring the City closer to the norm of the other municipalities around the State and places the City where it needs to be to get to a common ground where we can't be placed in binding arbitration. #2354 M/S/C(Neville/Horton) to approve the Labor Agreement by and between the City of Bremerton and the International Association of Fire Fighters Local 437 for the period January 1, 1993 through December 31, 1995. Mr. Collins added this proposal will cost $2,040,638.36, of that $1, 534,128.63 is for salary and $106,509.73 will be for benefits, uniforms and standard insurance. He recognizes this is a large sum, but he does agree with the overall proposal. Mr. Waibel stated the City Council could made a statement of principle and not approve the increase, however, it would cost the City more due to the cost of arbitration along with the results of binding arbitration. He understands the desire to not support this proposal, but he encourages passage. Mr. Overson stated in order to help the citizenry understand the Council's concern, as Mr. Collins pointed out this is a large budget item and the increase over what was budgeted for 1993 is $71,422, which is about $1,500 per fire personnel. He pointed out additional increases will be forth coming in years 1994 and 1995. Also, this proposal provides for additional time off in 1993, 1994 and 1995, which is a significant advantage to the fire personnel. He believes the proposal is a good agreement and hoped the fire personnel will appreciate it as much as we appreciate their services. Vote on motion: In Favor: Waibel, Collins, Dawkins, Colvin, Overson, Neville, Horton, Fitz Opposed: Johnson Motion carried. TAPE #1111 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes June 2, 1993 Page 15 of 35 President Fitz stated we cannot fight this battle in the City of Bremerton, but all cities in this State who are experiencing the same problem need to band together and have a lobby as good as the Fire and Police personnel have. Mr. Overson stated another approach would be that the firemen recognize the problem and just stick with a level situation and not ask for more. 7A - ORDINANCE NO. 4419 (SECOND READING) ESTABLISHING L.I.D. FOR 4TH STREET IMPROVEMENTS, #AB93-104 Mr. Overson stated he had been contacted by some of the business people who agreed with his previous point that this project should not happen. The business people who talked with him were not present at the previous discussion because they were angry because the City did not pay attention to their first opposition to it when it started. Public comment - none. Mr. Waibel stated he did not want this proposal to sound like one of the examples Mr. Amo pointed where Council had its mind made up in spite on the public's opinion. He has received a lot of positive responses from many people in the area, who do support the City taking this step. Hearings on this proposal have been held and if someone wishes to make a statement for or against they did have. that opportunity. #2615 M/S/C(Waibel/Johnson) to pass Ordinance No. 4419, on second reading, ordering the improvement of 4th Street from Washington Avenue to Pacific Avenue all in accordance with Resolution No. 2430 of the City Council; establishing Local Improvement District No. 326, ordering the carrying out of the proposed improvement; and providing that payment for the improvement be made by special assessments upon the property in the District. Vote on motion: In Favor: Neville, Horton, Waibel, Fitz, Collins, Dawkins, Colvin, Johnson Opposed: Overson Motion carried. RESOLUTION # 2433 SETTING PUBLIC HEARING DATE FOR VACATION OF ARVON AVENUE RIGHT - OF - WAY, NORTH OF 16TH STREET, TO BE INCORPORATED AS PRIVATE STREET IN THE "ARVON VILLAGE" SUBDIVISION, #AB93-108 Vacation of approximately 3,027 square feet of the Arvon Avenue right - of - way (a portion 15' wide by 202' long) north of 16th Street. RCW 35.79,010 requires the setting of a hearing TAPE #1111 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes June 2, 1993 Page 16 of 35 By resolution not less than 20 days nor more than 60 days after Council passage of the Resolution. Mr. Johnson suggested slipping the hearing one week due to the absence of several Council members who will be attending the Association Of Washington Cities Conference in Yakima on that date. Kathleen McCluskey, City Clerk, stated if the Planning Department had not already sent out the public notices, the date could be moved ahead to June 30. Public comment - none. #2764 M/S/C(Dawkins/Johnson) to pass Resolution # 2433, setting a public hearing for the Arvon Avenue Vacation on June 30, 1993, at 6:00 P.M., or later. Vote on motion: In Favor: Overson, Neville, Horton, Waibel, Fitz, Dawkins, Colvin, Johnson Opposed: Collins Motion carried. 8A - PUBLIC HEARING ON MOTION TO RESCIND AN ADVISORY BALLOT FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF FREEHOLDERS, #AB93-109 On May 26, 1993, the City Council passed a motion to place an Advisory Ballot Measure on the November Election Ballot regarding the utilization of Freeholders to examine the City government structure and recommend changes as appropriate. The Motion was heard after some of the public that had been in attendance had left Council Chambers apparently believing that all Agenda items regarding the City Charter and form of government had been completed. This motion is brought in keeping with the spirit of open public meetings and procedures and policies of the City Council to only act on items that have been properly advertised, placed on the Council Agenda and distributed for public review prior to the Council meeting. The public should be allowed input or discussion on the additional advisory measure on the establishment of Freeholders. Mr. Waibel called for a point of order - in all of his education on western civilization, all civic classes and public science classes, one of the things he learned about a democracy is that it is very hard for democracy to get anything done if you continually allow vote - after - vote - after vote on the same item. Because of that, rules have been created to keep from going back and rehashing the same motion over and over again. Robert's Rules, which Council does not TAPE #1111 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes June 2, 1993 Page 17 of 35 follow all of the time but has followed this particular rule in the past, says that the only time a motion can be reconsidered is if a person who was in the majority of that item requested it before any further action is taken by the voting body. He emphasized Council cannot hear this issue at this time and still say that we follow any rules. Mr. Johnson stated Mr. Waibel was absolutely correct if he were asking for a reconsideration motion. He is not doing that, but is asking for a recision of a previous motion. Mr. Waibel stressed you cannot frame this in any other way but a reconsideration and you have directed what you want the reconsideration to be. Mr. Johnson stated he would refer a response to Mr. Waibel to the City Attorney and parliamentarian. He stressed all this proposal would do is to take it back so that the public has an opportunity for input. Council had an item on the Agenda last week that was advertised on the Agenda, discussed by the public and Council, followed by Council action on three motions that were included in the Agenda Bill. Council then took a break as part of normal procedure which means the item is over unless it is stated that the item will continue. He did not believe Mr. Collins was trying to "sneak by" something in the motion on a prior Agenda item but he believed it did have an appearance of such an action. After reflecting on that action, he realized he was remiss in not having called for a point of order at the time the motion was made. His intent of this Agenda item is to go back and do it right. Mr. Waibel stated Council never has "public input" after a motion has been made. Council always makes motions after taking the discussion back from the public. The issue of "freeholders" has been brought up by Mr. Collins at every opportunity the Ad Hoc Committee Report has been discussed. If anyone on Council needed to address that issue, they should have done so at the time they had the opportunity. Not only do we not have motions listed in many Agenda items, but Council often changes those motions after closing to public input. Mr. Johnson suggested Mr. Waibel rereading Robert's Rules Of Order, looking at the difference between "Recision" and "reconsideration". Kathleen McCluskey, City Clerk, stated when this issue was raised she looked at Robert's Rules and as Mr. Waibel stated, the way this body functions Robert's Rules is used as a guide and the final decision is left to the chair of the Council, who is Mrs. Fitz. However, in reviewing this issue to see if a motion to rescind was appropriate what Robert's Rules states is "when an assembly wishes to annul some action it had previously taken and it is too late to reconsider the vote, the proper course to pursue is to rescind the objectional TAPE #1111 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes June 2, 1993 Page 18 of 35 resolution, order or other proceeding. The motion has no privilege but stands on a footing with the new resolution. Any action of the body can be rescinded regardless of the time that has elapsed". Mr. Waibel questioned if there is any restriction as to who can request a rescission? Ms. McCluskey stated there was nothing written restricting who could request it or any time - it is simply a new motion. Mr. Collins stated he would like to "shed a little light" on what we are here to accomplish. The Revised Code Of Washington provides very specific law on the amending and revising of a City Charter. Because of the direction, the Law, what is being proposed by the Ad Hoc Committee he can only agree with in substance but not in method. He has been very emphatic from the beginning that in order to do the extensive modification proposed it must be accomplished by freeholders. What brought him to this conclusion is RCW 35.22.120 Petition for submission of charter amendment. "On petition of a number (equal to fifteen percent of the total number of votes cast at the last preceding general state election) of qualified voters of any municipality having adopted a Charter under the laws of this state, asking the adoption of a specified Charter amendment, providing for any matter within the realm of local affairs, or municipal business...". TAPE #1112 Mr. Collins noted as additional clarification to this statement RCW 35.22.140 New or revised Charter Petition - Freeholders reads: "On the petition of a number of registered voters of a city equal to twenty-five percent of the total votes cast at the last preceding city. election, the city council of a charter city shall, or without such petition, may cause an election to be held for the purpose of electing a board of 15 freeholders for the purpose of preparing a new charter for the city by altering, revising, adding to or repealing the existing charter including all amendments thereto .... ". He emphasized there are two significant points...according to his dictionary to "amend" is to remove the fault or error and "to revise" is to change or modify. To amend a charter by petition requires only the signature on the petition of 15% of the voters in the last preceding general State election, but for a new or revised charter 25% of the voters in the last general state election must sign a petition. This would indicate the revision of a charter was a much more serious undertaking than the amending of a charter. The second point is that freeholders is the only method allowed to revise a charter. With an amendment there are two ways to amend the charter, RCW 35.22.120 - petition TAPE #1112 City. Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes June 2, 1993 Page 19 of 35 method and RCW 35.22.130 states: "... This and RCW 22.120 do not deprive city councils of the right to submit proposed charter amendments but affords a concurrent and additional method of submission". Mr. Collins stressed Council could act on its own volition but for a new or revised charter there is only one way - use of freeholders according to the RCW. The three proposed ballot measures, voted on last week, in his opinion were inappropriate and illegal, therefore, he voted against them because they are. major revisions to the City's existing charter. They are sweeping changes and therefore must be seen as revisions to the Bremerton City Charter. The document provided to him by the Ad Hoc Advisory Committee, dated May 20, 1993, which he feels is an excellent document and is a good proposed charger, indicates there were 43 changes to 49 existing sections of the charter and it incorporates the provisions of a Code City. These are not amendments to the Charter - this is a new or revised Charter and therefore must be presented to the electorate by the freeholder method, which he proposed, was seconded, voted on and passed at the last Council meeting. He feels the freeholder question was the only one appropriate to place on the ballot. Mr. Overson pointed out the above discussion by Mr. Collins was what should have been in keeping with the proposal. What is presented at this time is the correctness that we should have followed doing that process. Mr. Colvin asked the City Attorney to comment on Mr. Collins' comments. Mr. Sievers stated he and Mr. Collins had a brief exchange shortly prior to the Council meeting so he did not have a in depth analysis of the section of State law Mr. Collins referenced. He believed Mr. Collins made two points that there are two methods for amending charters (they seem to use different terminology) one talks about charter amendments and the other talks about revisions and a series of other adjectives. Mr. Collins is interpreting the one to mean the freeholder description of what can be amended as requiring a freeholders election for very significant changes to the charter, basically changing course of direction, reorganization of government, etc., and amendments being more minor. Another thing Mr. Collins points to in support of that argument is the different percentages required to elect freeholders as opposed to adopt an amendment that is forwarded by Council. He referred Mr. Collins to a very old case that states: "...amendments referred to and provided for in the charter only such revisory or supplemental changes as the working of the present charter may suggest and should not be held to refer to amendments which alter or annul the basic TAPE #1112 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes June 2, 1993 Page 20 of 35 plan or principle upon which the city government is founded. It would be dangerous in deed for courts to draw a line between amendments that are classified in any way". Mr. Sievers emphasized the courts are apparently unwilling to make a distinction in the types of changes referred to in those two sections of the RCW. He is of the opinion the difference in percentages that supports each ballot action is probably because when you select freeholders the citizens are electing a new body to make decisions. In the first instance they rely on their present elected representatives on the City Council to make decisions and probably the former is a more significant change since they are electing a whole new body. He does not concur with Mr. Collins and believes either method is available for amending the City's Charter. Mr. Colvin stated for the record he wants to support the recommendation that was brought by Mr. Stone, Secretary of the Ad Hoc Committee. But, failing that, where freeholders are concerned he is supporting not necessarily the action by freeholders but the choice of our electorate to be the ones to determine whether we use freeholders or not. He emphasized that was his position for voting in the affirmative on placing the freeholders motion on the Election Ballot. Mrs. Horton stated if this Council wants to ask the citizens if they want to use freeholders, and if the result is that they do want to use that method, then Council should not have spent the Ad Hoc Committee's time, energy, and months - and - months of research on what they did. She stressed most everyone agree that the Ad Hoc Committee did a thorough and unbiased job in their research. If, at this point, Council says "thank you very much but we're going to see if the freeholders idea is going to fly", it would be a real slap in the face to all of those people who spent all of that time. If Council had wanted to look at the change in government through the freeholders method, we should have implemented that process last September. She believes the Ad Hoc advisory Committee deserves to at least have something on the ballot that reflects their recommendation to Council. She would like to see the Committee's recommendation go in the form of an advisory vote to see if the citizens want a City Manager, smaller council and how they want to vote for their Council representation and then do the Charter change and change of government all at one time. Mr. Waibel stated several members of the Council wanted to address the issue of freeholders in September of 1992. He did not understand the logic of saying that we want to hear from a selected part of the public rather than hear from all of the TAPE #1112 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes June 2, 1993 Page 21 of 35 public. Council is saying at this time we want to hear from the people who are present but we don't want to hear from the electorate. He agrees with Mr. Collins that the motion made addressing freeholders was the only legitimate motion made at the previous Council meeting under the issue of Charter review/change of government. We are not allowed to put on an Advisory Ballot something we cannot do. Mr. Johnson called for a point of order. He challenged Mr. waibel's last sentence and emphasized it was not true and if you would ask Mayor Nelson if there can be major changes made by non - freeholders to a City Charter he would have to say yes. Mr. Waibel stated we cannot ask the citizens of Bremerton if they want the Federal government to reduce income taxes. He used that example showing that the City cannot ask things on an advisory ballot that they cannot deliver. Council cannot change the number of Council members...that can only be done by the vote of the people. The other three motions were all things Council can not do and should not be included on the advisory ballot. Something Council can do is to suggest numbers of Council members to comprise the City Council. He questioned if Council wanted to place such a "suggestion" on the ballot? Mr. Johnson state that was the point of having this issue on the Agenda for discussion. If Mr. Waibel felt so strongly on the whole issue, he wished he had said more during discussion at the previous Council meeting. However, he thinks the colloquial that is going on here between Councilmen Collins, Waibel, Colvin and the City Attorney points out when you establish that "tonight we are going to talk about freeholders on the Agenda", some very valid points are made. He sees this as a positive process and he would guess that when it is opened up to public input more points will be brought up. This is a subject that is not just "slid in" following a lengthy discussion while seated in a over warm room and geared to go onto the next Agenda item. He has no problem over the idea of placing the freeholders issue on the Advisory Ballot, but what he feels, particularly as hard as this Council has worked, is that action taken at the previous Council meeting did not support Council's spirit of openness and fairness to the public. Mr. Walbel stated every time Council has gotten into the business of trying to change things about this form of government arguments have occurred, such as what just took place. He emphasized that is why the freeholder process is there and Council does not belong in it. Mr. Johnson stated he disagreed with Mr. Waibel's statement and in fact 50% ofthe RCW states we can be involved. Mr. Waibel stated Council can make small amendments and generally he thought one of the things the Court will look into is how much controversy surrounds that amendment as to whether or not it is a revision. Mrs. Horton pointed out the City Attorney TAPE #1112 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes June 2, 1993 Page 22 of 35 refuted that argument. Mr. Waibel stated Mr. Sievers stated he didn't agree but he also did not have a chance to look at it all. Mr. Johnson stated the subject Agenda Bill has nothing to do with whether or not the freeholder issue is placed on the Advisory Ballot. The point of it was that Council violated the spirit of intent of its own procedures and want to make it right. Mr. Waibel re - emphasized Council never goes to the public for comment once the motion has been made. Mr. Johnson stressed Council never start hearing an item following a break once it has been closed off. Mr. Waibel stated there have been a number of motions that have been made that were not even on the Agenda. He reminded everyone that two weeks ago an issue was introduced that was not included on the Agenda for the meeting that week. Mr. Overson stated something this important should be handled correctly. Mr. Colvin stated he agreed with Mrs. Horton that the Ad Hoc Committee did a tremendous job. He questioned if anyone on the Council had a different opinion on that statement? Mr. Collins stated at the same time the Ad Hoc Committee was serving the City he was serving on a similar committee for the County for a considerably longer period of time. He has a document that states the outcome of that committee's work and the result as to "go to freeholders" and the restof it was to find the places where the freeholders need to exert some effort and thought for improvement. He believes that the Ad Hoc Committee did a good job for what they gave Council as a proposed Charter - it is excellent. He found only one or two minor changes that he would make to that document. He also found some minor things he would like to see changed in the County's document, but the freeholders will get to look at it. If the Ad Hoc Advisory Committee feels that what they did on this, even though we say it is an excellent document, should not be looked at by freeholders then he is really sorry. He feels the RCW says that when there are major changes to the Charter than it comes under the portion that says there will be freeholders either by petition or established by Council. Mr. Colvin stated the Ad Hoc Committee made an excellent presentation and Council lauded their efforts. He questioned when Mr. Stone made his recommendation why didn't Council agree with him? President Fitz questioned which recommendation was Mr. Colvin referencing? Mr. Colvin asked that Mr. Stone read his original recommendation made to the City Council. Mr. Stone stated the recommendation to the City Council was to take Phase I issues first for resolution and TAPE #1112 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes June 2, 1993 Page 23 of 35 then move to Phase II issues. Phase II issues deal with the change of form of government and Phase I issues deal with the City Charter and Ordinance recommendations. Mr. Colvin stated he agreed with Mr. Stone' recommendation, however, not all of the Council members shared that opinion. President Fitz stated the reason she supported the motion placing freeholders on the Advisory Ballot was not because she thinks the Ad Hoc Committee didn't do a wonderful job, but we are putting items on the ballot for people to make decisions on something different beside that. To be able to vote for freeholders is an option for people who may not want a Mayor or Council/Manager form of government. She believes in the need to offer the citizens the opportunity to not only vote on the first three but also vote on having freeholders to study it further. The citizens may not have the same perception of the Ad Hoc Committee's report as the City Council and that the citizens also have the right to make a decision on whether or not it needs further study. Larry Stone, Secretary/Ad Hoc Advisory Committee, explained the Ad Hoc Committee made three changes to their revised version of the City Charter, which if excluded would leave the exact same charter presently in effect (2 - year residency requirement; term length; and performance audit). He did not know that the law says retyping a charter is an amendment or a revision. There were sections in the Charter that were covered by the Code and in that sense were redundant. He was somewhat confused by Council's action the previous week because it was addressing the issues of the Ad Hoc Committee. He has searched through his records and minutes and could find no reference to "freeholders", so it was difficult for him to see how it would come in properly in an issue that had an Agenda title involving the Ad Hoc Committee. He emphasized the Charter itself will not be changed significantly if it is a Charter under the Optional Municipal Code. Cecil McConnell, 3245 Almira Drive, Chair of the Ad Hoc Advisory Committee, stated he had no objection with the freeholders question going on the Advisory Ballot. However, he did object strenuously that it be given any sense of legitimacy by tieing it to the Ad Hoc Committee's recommendations. He thinks it is unforgivable of any City representative to attempt to stick his ideas upon an Agenda Item that is not remotely connected to the issue that he addresses. If that representative wanted an Agenda item on the Council Agenda addressing freeholders, then he should have submitted one. He emphatically stressed placing freeholders on the Advisory Ballot was not, is not and will not ever be a recommendation of the Ad Hoc Committee. A freeholder process TAPE #1112 City Council'Reg. Mtg. Minutes June 2, 1993 Page 24 of 35 eliminates Council input and the ability for Council to hold public hearings and fine tune the results. Also, freeholders only allows public input twice, once through election of the freeholders and once to vote "yes" or "no" on their results. And, a freeholder cannot be given direction to change, modify, delete, add to or even repeal a Charter under the State RCW. He specifically asked the sponsor of last weeks motion, regarding the freeholders issue, if it was his intent to completely block the Council out from having anything to do with this and his answer was one word..."YES". Bob Wood, Willow Street, stated he felt the Council was being toyed with by one of their members and that he had an agenda of his "own design". He also served on the County group along with Councilman Collins and believes the City is not dealing with the same issues that the County is in their Charter process. The County Charter deals with very broad issues along with consolidation of governments, whether they be junior taxing districts or cities and counties. Also, the County is dealing with Commissioners, who each represent over 65,000 - 70,000 people. The City Council appointed people to serve on an Advisory Committee, many of whom were known as neighborhood leaders, who would be logical and just about numerically the same as freeholders. The City does not have big, broad issues, you have choices of form but are not changing jurisdictions, but rather how the City functions day - in - and - day - out as a government. To go through another process would be doing the public a disservice because the Ad Hoc Committee obviously solicited input and made their recommendations. Del Knauss, Olympia Avenue, state he wanted to point out to Mr. Collins the Ad Hoc Committee's recommendations was the Agenda item and it had nothing to do with "freeholders". The City Council made comments on an Agenda item, then opened it up for public input, public input was closed, Council debated the issue and then voted on the three recommendations, followed by Council taking a break. At that point, Mr. Knauss. thought the issue was over and left the Council Chambers. Then, Mr. Stone informed him that Council had taken further action and added a fourth item to be placed on the Advisory Ballot. He believes Council was totally out - of - line in taking action after the Agenda item had concluded and with no public input. As far as he is concerned Councilman Collins tried a deliberate end run last wednesday and it was deceitful and dishonorable. From this day forward, based on this act and previous acts, he hopes he never sees Mr. Collins' name on the Ballot for Council District # 7 or the City again. TAPE #1112 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes June 2, 1993 Page 25 of 35 Mr. Colvin questioned if Council can appoint freeholders or do they have to be elected? Mr. Sievers stated it is an improper use of the term, the term "freeholders" should only apply to those that are elected on a ballot and have duties and responsibilities in the RCW. Mr. Waibel noted Mr. Sievers stated he had not been able to address the issue of the "revised" verses the "amended" and asked if he agreed if in fact you are talking about a revision that the freeholder method needs to be used? Mr. Sievers stated no, he does not agree with Mr. Collins' opinion on that point. This case and others he has knowledge of where people have attempted to have a Court strike an initiative because it is unconstitutional the Courts are very reluctant to interfere with the political process and they look at that as an expression of free speech. Mr. Waibel stressed there is a big difference between an initiative and action taken by Council. Mr. Sievers stated he understands, but the Courts seems to take the approach in that case and not wanting to fine tune what an amendment is verses a charter addition or revision. They are looking at them as one of the same, allowing both methods, either initiative or freeholders, for charter change to go forward. Apparently, both methods are open and they are not addressing "this re - writes the whole charter as opposed to only changing a small part that is more compatible with an existing charter". Mr. Waibel questioned if Mr. Sievers was saying the Court was saying in that case the Court did not want to make that distinction? But, if the statutes say there is only one method to do a revision and two methods to do an amendment is Mr. Sievers saying they just do not want to make that distinction? Mr. Sievers states yes, he thinks Mr. Collins was trying to use definitions found in the dictionary of "amendment" verses definition of "revision" and saying one is broader in scope and one is smaller and less significant and less likely to make a change in direction. The court said, under the definition, they were not taking that argument and allowed amendments to be broad and all encompassing changes as well. Mr. Waibel questioned if changing the form of government entirely and changing the Charter from a Charter Code would be considered amendments and not revisions? Mr. Sievers stated he believed that case considers them as amendments and the portion he read into the record stated even those that changed the whole form of government. What might be misleading to Mr. Waibel was the title of the freeholders section mentioned by Mr. Collins earlier - it talks about a new charter revision. Titles provided by the codifier are not binding and it is the language that is binding within a section. There are words that can be quite minor, such as "add to a charter", which accepts every thing that is there TAPE #1112 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes June 2, 1993 Page 26 of 35 and adding additional items. Those things do not have to be significant changes even when using freeholders. Mr. Overson pointed out what is happening is a lot of discussion that should have gone on at the previous presentation of the "freeholder" item. He supported stepping back and taking another look and doing it correctly. #0981 M/S/F(Overson/Horton) moved to rescind the Advisory Ballot measure for the establishment of freeholders. Mr. Waibel again stated he did not understand logic of saying we and a few members in attendance are the public and not willing to go to the general public through an election process. Mr. Johnson stated that was not the point. The fact is Mr. Collins came in with a motion addressing a subject that no one on the Council was prepared to address at that time. He did acknowledge that Mr. Collins had voiced his support of the "freeholders" process for a long time, but at the point Council came back to reconvene the meeting they were prepared for the next Agenda item. Mr. Waibel noted we have had a full hearing tonight and there is a motion before Council. If the motion is passed as stated, Council will be saying we and the few people in the audience, know better than the general public. He felt this was a real shortcut to ignore one of the provisions that is very public oriented in terms of freeholders. Mrs. Horton stated what Council wants to ask the public is if they agree with the first three items previously approved by Council for an Advisory Ballot, which were part of the Ad Hoc Committee's recommendation. Mr. Waibel pointed out the fourth motion is asking the public if they want Council out of it and let some neutral people deal with it. Mr. Overson stated possibly the process is to go ahead with the Advisory Ballot issues as presented for those three items and if the result comes me out differently than expected, then the freeholder process could be pursued. Mr. Colvin questioned what would it take to go back to the Ad Hoc Committee's recommendation and vote on that recommendation? President Fitz stated first of all we need to address the motion by Mr. Overson and seconded by Mrs. Horton. Mr. Colvin asked that Mr. Overson's motion be restated and if approved what impact would it have? The City Clerk restated the motion. President Fitz emphasized it was an Advisory Ballot only. Mr. Johnson stated the Agenda Bill he submitted brought with it the proposal to kill the motion that was made the previous week relating to freeholders. What he is asking Council is if consideration is given to the freeholder TAPE #1112 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes June 2, 19931 Page 27 of 35 question, that it be done by submittal of an Agenda Bill, take public input followed by a vote of Council. Mr. Waibel stated if Mr. Overson's motion is upheld we cannot do that but if the motion is voted down it could bring about that result. Mrs. Horton emphasized the issue of freeholders was not a recommendation from the Ad Hoc Advisory Committee, the other items were. Mr. Colvin stressed Council did not follow the Committee's recommendation. Mr. Waibel stated nothing Council did last week had anything to do with recommendations from the Committee. Mr. Johnson pointed out to Mr. Waibel that the three motions that were approved at last weeks Agenda were at the direction of a majority of the Council at a Study Session. Mr. Overson pointed out those issues were on the Agenda Bill because Council could not make up its mind what to do. Vote on motion: In Favor: Johnson, Horton, Overson, Dawkins Colvin, Neville, Waibel, Collins, Opposed: Fitz Motion failed. 8B - PUBLIC HEARING: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF A ZONING ORDINANCE SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ALLOW AN INTRUSION OF 15 FEET INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK OF THE SF-3 ZONE FOR A 30' X 30' THREE CAR GARAGE/STORAGE STRUCTURE; APPLICANT: DAVID BARCELON, LOCATION: 1545 MADRONA POINT DRIVE, #AB93-110 On April 25, 1993, the Planning Commission denied an application for a Zoning Ordinance Special Exception to allow a three-car garage/storage structure to locate within five (5) feet of the front property line abutting Madrona Point Drive. The City Council, when hearing an appeal, shall either: 1) Affirm the decision under review; 2) Reverse the decision under review; 3) Modify in whole or part the decision under review; or 4) Remand the matter back to the Planning Commission for further consideration. Such action shall be decided by a majority vote of the members present. That vote may be taken at the same or any subsequent meeting. Don Pratt, Director of Community Development, stated the appellant for this appeal has advised the City he cannot be present this evening and requested that it be held at a later date. The Planning Department became aware of that situation after public notice had been given. Council's options, at this time, are: to conduct the meeting without him, to open the meeting and continue it, to open the meeting and conclude it. If Council wishes to move the meeting to a time when the appellant can be present, he recommended opening the meeting, TAPE #1112 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes June 2, 1993 Page 28 of 35 asking if any one wished to testify and advising them could testify now or at a continued meeting, followed by a motion to continue. President Fitz asked the "Appearance Of Fairness/Conflict Of Interest" question with all Council members being seated. President Fitz asked if anyone from the public wished to speak to this issue, either for or against, at this time - no one came forward. #1244 M/S/C/U(Waibel/Johnson) to continue this hearing one week. 8C - PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT (AND PUD) FOR 7 LOT SUB- DIVISION INCLUDING NEW BUILDINGS WITH ACCESSORY PARKING AND NEW PARKING FOR EXISTING APARTMENTS; APPLICANT: JOHN STEPHANUS, BREMERTON GARDENS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; LOCATION: WEST SIDE OF WEATON WAY, NORTH AND WEST OF EAST 16TH STREET AND ALONG THE PORT WASHINGTON NARROWS IN EAST BREMERTON, #AB93-111 On April 25, 1993, the Planning Commission approved a Preliminary Planned Unit Development which proposes to subdivide 21 acres (914,760 sq. ft.) into seven lots and locate five multiple - family structures resulting in 78 new dwelling units. The Commission also recommends to City Council approval of the Preliminary Plat for seven lots as conditioned in the attached Findings of Fact. The City Council is the decision - making body responsible for evaluation of Preliminary Plats. The City Council shall either: 1) Affirm the decision under review; 2) Reverse the decision under review; 3) Modify in whole or part the decision under review; or 4) Remand the matter back to the Planning Commission for further consideration. Mr. Waibel raised the question if he had a conflict on this issue due to his residing within 300 feet of the subject property? Ian Sievers, City Attorney, stated he believed Mr. Waibel was the best judge as to whether his property values would increase by Council action. Mr. Waibel stated such an increase was certainly not visible and it may help the entire City. President Fitz asked the "Appearance Of Fairness/Conflict Of Interest" question with all member of the Council being seated. TAPE #1112 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes June 2, 1993 Page 29 of 35 Shane Jensen, Planner, explained the proposal is a Preliminary Plat to create seven lots and considered in the framework of a PUD. As background on this project, this was previously a PUD and Shoreline Permit approved in 1989. The applicant could not secure financing and the PUD approval and building permit approval expired. The project was started but not completed. At this time, financing is in the works and they are ready to build the project, which is somewhat modified from the 1989 proposal. Changes since the first application include: basically the same PUD but financing requires a subdivision, which brings a new set of conditions and thus new set of requirements. Some of the conditions that are attached are due to the subdivision and others bringing the project into zoning compliance. A PUD is required because the proposed lots do not meet standard lot dimensions, there are some potentially reduced setbacks, and there are some unique site characteristics. The density was also a consideration in the PUD and the density proposed is potentially greater than if this were run as a straight subdivision and adequate open space has been provided to allow a little greater density. There are less apartments (78) proposed than what was proposed previously (104), and there is more parking provided than is necessary. Parking is evaluated only for what would be required for new construction. The project still is non - conforming to current parking requirements, around 60 spaces. There are some parking, parking lots and landscaping issues addressed in the conditions. There is now a required maintenance agreement and common ownership of open common areas. This is needed because of the subdivision and is a consideration for streets and open space.. This is needed in the event the project is put into separate lots, which is a possibility. If the lots are sold, they could potentially lose the common site amenities, such as parking, open space, and access on the private driveways. The conditions listed serve the subdivision concerns and also uphold the PUD requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Jensen emphasized this proposal is only a preliminary plat and all details are not in place. The conditions proposed are possible to meet and they have been acknowledged by the project architects, who indicated they will comply. This will be done prior to a final PUD, which is an administrative decision and finally a.final plat, which will come back before Council. Council action, at this time, is voting on the preliminary plat only and is considered in the framework of a Preliminary PUD because of some of the development constraint. Final design plans will be nailed down in the final PUD stage and then after final plat approval building permits can be obtained. TAPE #1112 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes June 2, 1993 Page 30 of 35 Mr. Dawkins questioned for clarification if any buildings would be built near the ravine? Mr. Jensen stated no, the closest building will be A - 6. Mr. Dawklns questioned if the ravine was being counted in the land area? Mr. Jensen explained it is counted as part of lot # 5. Mr. Dawkins questioned the setbacks from the street in areas where there isn't any setbacks along Wheaton Way? Mr. Jensen stated setbacks are generally variable within a PUD, except for what is considered a perimeter setback. Along Wheaton Way there is a front perimeter setback requirement that is pretty much "set in stone" - at 25 feet. There is a condition for approval that must be taken care of through another special process such as a Special Exception or Variance. Mr. Dawkins questioned if buildings would be removed and new concrete foundations put in place? Mr. Jensen stated yes and they were initially approved, but since the building permits and PUD expired, this is as if it were a new application, therefore there is need to resolve the perimeter setback issue through one of the above mentioned processes. Public comment - none. Warren Pollock, Architect - 1423 Western Avenue, Seattle, stated this proposal is a revisit of a PUD application that was made and approved as staff indicated. When the original application was made and approved, there were two phases of work, Phase I was to rehabilitate the existing buildings on the property, of which there are 34. Those buildings were brought up to energy standards with new insulated windows, siding repaired and repainted. Phase II of the project was to construct the new buildings and foundations were poured, buildings were inspected by the Building Department and the work stopped at that point because the expected financing disappeared. The project has sat at that stage while the owner attempted to find financing, which he now feels he has a good chance of securing. However, one of the conditions of the financing is that the new buildings be divided on separate parcels of land from all of the existing buildings so that the loan is for the new buildings and not encumbered by 34 other existing buildings. The new component of this request is to ask for permission to divide the land into separate lots. There is no intention of selling ownership or dividing the ownership, it is just to facilitate financing. Revisions to the project are: that some of the buildings that were originally proposed and approved have been eliminated. One of them (A - 3) as well as two others that were to be located close to the ravine. They also have reconfigured the parking to meet new Federal handicap requirements, which are TAPE #1112 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes June 2, 1993 Page 31 of 35 imposed on the project nation - wide. By eliminating buildings instead of building 104 new units, they are proposing to only build 78, however, they are still proposing to provide all the parking that was proposed under the original PUD. The result of this is having a better parking ratio than what was previously approved. From an environmental point of view, the project has less impact than what Council previously approved. The Shoreline Permit is still in effect. At the time of the first PUD, an easement was granted to the City all along the water. There is a component of the original project that brought about a lot of discussion and that was how beach access would be developed since there is a fairly steep embankment, except at a street end location (E. 16th Street). It was concluded with City staff that the best location for the beach access was at a street end because there would always be free access to the public. Beach access was a condition of the previous approval and is again indicated as a condition of the final plat that the applicant provide the required walkway. Mrs. Horton asked for clarification of the intended use of the ravine area. Mr. Pollock explained there is no proposed use or construction in the ravine area, except where civil engineering needs to correct drainage out fall. The ravine is under private ownership, but it is just used as open space. He believes it has a special designation in one of the City's plans. Mrs. Horton stated since the City is in the process of working through a Critical Land Ordinance, which she believed applied to this parcel, she would like to see that area preserved. Mr. Pratt, Director Of Community Development, stated the site plan before Council is the only plan that can be developed on that site. No building permits can be issued for construction in the ravine area unless this PUD is amended before the Planning Commission or the City Council. You will put development prohibitions on the ravine if Council adopts the proposed PUD. Mr. Waibel questioned if the roadways in the complex were public or private roads? Mr. Pollock explained the roads that are within the parcel are under private ownership. He also pointed out the beach access would be developed at the end of E 16th Street. Mr. Colvin requested clarification of the parking ratio. Mr. Pollock stated right now at the project site there are 181 apartment units and 129 parking spaces, so there is less than one space per unit. The proposal for the completed project is to have 259 units in total and have parking for 302 vehicles. TAPE #1112 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes June 2, 1993 Page 32 of 35 Mr. Neville questioned if calculations worked out to 12.7 dwellings per acre density or 12.37 Mr. Jensen pointed out the density would be well within the allowable density for that site. Mr. Colvin requested clarification on the "maintenance of common areas". Mr. Pollock explained all parcels of property will be under one ownership, however, an issue raised by Planning staff was if, at some time in the future, the parcels came under different ownerships they felt there needed to be a maintenance agreement that would bind any new owners to maintain the property and open space. The specific wording of such an agreement has not been worked out, but in concept everyone has agreed it is a legitimate concern and they will provide such an agreement. Mr. Neville stated he was concerned that a Determination Of Non - significance was issued by the City's Responsible Official in March of 1993, however in another section of the report is states the City Engineer is concerned that the stormwater outlets might cause damage to the ravine. Mr. Overson questioned if an area proposed for parking near the ravine was part of the ravine that fell away a couple years ago? Mr. Pratt stated the parking lot in question and storm drain out fall cannot be constructed without the City Engineer's approval and that it follows the design standards and policy of the City. The assumption is made by the Responsible Official (SEPA Official) that if the appropriate design standards are followed the environmental impacts will not be significant. What is being approved now is conceptual design, but does not have the engineering detail. Building permits cannot be issued until the engineering detail is locked in and at that time he assumes construction will be adequate to meet the storm requirements and to protect the ravine. That was the basis for the finding of Non - significance...there is further review and there has been no variance asked from that further review. He could not recall the exact cause of the collapse of a section of the ravine, however, he believed the primary cause of that slippage was due to drainage coming off the uplands rather than what was happening below the street. Mr. Pollock pointed out there is a large culvert under Wheaton Way. Mr. Waibel stated as the applicant indicated, the Shoreline Permit has a different lifetime then the City's preliminary plat. He thought Shoreline Permits were tied specifically to the approved site design and if the site design has changed won't there need to be an amendment to another review by the Shorelines Permit. Mr. Pratt stated no, the proposed amendments in the design are away from the shoreline access and shorelines themselves and it was his administrative TAPE #1112 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes June 2, 1993 Page 33 of 35 determination that they were not germane to the quality of the original Shoreline permit. If the City wanted to "box up" the project they could conceivable go through an amendment process for the Shoreline permit, but it was felt the project was far enough away not to adversely affect the shoreline. Mr. Waibel stated he hoped the City was not setting a precedent. He understood Mr. Pratt had the administrative authority to not pursue the amendment process for the Shoreline permit, however, he felt it might be worthwhile to go through that step anyway. Mr. Johnson questioned which parcel contained the Kitsap Transit stop? Mr. Pollock pointed out the Transit stop is currently on Wheaton Way. Mr. Johnson noted this Council had been told when doing large project that proper bus stops are suppose to be provided. Mrs. Horton questioned if Kitsap Transit had reviewed the revised plan and concurs the best site for the bus stop is along Wheaton Way? Mr. Pollock stated no, transit had not reviewed his proposal. Mr. Johnson pointed out a statement made by the Fire Chief that the roads in the project site are too narrow for his trucks. He questioned if the road were too narrow for garbage trucks as well? Mr. Dawkins noted some garbage containers are located near the Wheaton Way access. Mr. Waibel stated he believed Kitsap Transit should review this proposal and the possibility of relocating the present transit stop. If the use of transit is increased in that area, it may be more appropriate to locate it somewhere else. He wondered whether or not that may impinge upon the preliminary plat and Council may want that answered prior to giving approval. Mr. Johnson stated he was also concerned with the parcels, once they all have separate deeds you've locked in the size of the road going into the complex or most of the places along Wheaton Way are one of the new parcels, so you preclude good PUD planning. Mr. Pollock stated his impression of the Fire Department's comments is that they are commenting about the existing project. The subject proposal would not be using the existing roadways and would have their own access. Mr. Pratt stated both the transit issue and fire issue are eligible for debate during this discussion since it is a new action. What was approved previously does not bind Council on anything that needs to be addressed at this time. The last time it received approval, there was discussion on transit and the standards were not quite what they are today. It is entirely possible and something he would like to do at this point before there TAPE #1112 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes June 2, 1993 Page 34 of 35 is a final PUD and final plat to require discussions and negotiations between the developer and transit to see if that is the best place for the bus stop. If it is not the best place for a bus stop and needs to be better situated, that can be reflected. The way to accomplish that at this time is within the plat, which is an allowable condition, Council could granting either the Planning Director or City Engineer authority to sign off on transit improvements made after receiving transit's comments. At the time the final plat comes before Council, they can see if adequate design on those comments has been provided. In response to the questions raised about narrow roads and fire access, this was an issue in the first plat, however, it does not bind Council in consideration of this plat. But, the Fire Department did give in their clearance comments the fact that the roads are to narrow and would necessitate care and signage to prevent parking along those roads. And, the owner had to take both an active and passive effort to remove illegal vehicles along the narrow roads. On that basis, they did not recommend denial. Mr. Johnson again raised the garbage collection question. Mr. Pratt stated his recommendation is to wait until the final PUD to see that it is addressed. The PUD Ordinance requires a final PUD to show how garbage collection areas will be screened. Mr. Johnson questioned if those would be conditions Council could place on the proposal at this times? Mr. Pratt explained a final PUD is an administrative approval subject to appeal and the final plat approval is a City Council approval. Ultimately, the City Council will see the whole project and the burden of the plat is to reflect the discussion held during this hearing. Mr. Colvin asked if the Planning Commission addressed the same concerns that Mr. Johnson raised? Kathleen McCluskey, City Clerk, read into the record a letter received from Lucille C. Powell, 1311 Marlow A - 9, expressing her opposition to this proposal. In her opinion, Bremerton Gardensis an eyesore, Wheaton Way is already overloaded with traffic, and since Bremerton is in an unstable employment situation at the current time it would not be appropriate to provide high density living where it is always crowded. Mr. Dawkins pointed out a lot of cars come down Wheaton Way, traveling south, and turn in front of on coming traffic to proceed onto 18th Street. He would like the Engineering Department to look into this situation to see if anything can be done to lessen the danger. Mr. Walbel stated one of the problems with making such a turn is having to almost come into the traffic lane to make it. TAPE #1112 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes June 2, 1993 Page 35 of 35 Mr. Overson stated he was not overly concerned over the bus stop issue because there is another transit stop to the north of the complex near Eastpark. Mr. Pollock stated when the transit issue was discussed previously, the present site seemed the best location. Mr. Johnson stated four years ago the ADA rules were not in place. #2962 M/S/C/U(Horton/Waibel) to approve the Planning Commissions's recommendation of Preliminary Plat with the existing conditions they placed on it and the additional conditions that the transit element, the Fire- red lined curbs and no parking signs are clearly delineated and the Brem - air issue is resolved on the final plat. #3030 M/S/CU(Horton/Overson) that Kitsap Transit be included on the comment survey from here on whenever Council gets a land use item as a requirement placed on staff. With no further business meeting adjourned at 8:38 P.M. KATHLEEN L. McCLUSKEY, City Clerk EILEEN FITZ, Council President City of Bremerton KLM/EF/me cc: Normal Distribution File/Vault