Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/18/92 C~TY COUNCIL NEET~N~ ~NUTES MARCH 18. 1992 The regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Bremerton was called to order in the City Council Chambers, 239 4TH Street, Bremerton, Washington, Wednesday, March 18, at 5:30 p.m., with Council President Lynn Horton presiding. Council members present: Lon Overson, Wayne Estes, Eileen Fitz, C. R. "Tiny" Collins, Morrie Dawkins, A1 Colvin and Russ Johnson. Councilman Hank Waibel was absent. Also present were City Attorney Ian Sievers and City Clerk Kathleen McCluskey. The meeting opened with the Pledge of Allegiance led by Council President Horton and Invocation given by Reverend Wambsganss of Westside Bible Church. CONSENT ~GENDA A. Minutes Of Meeting - February 26, 1992, #AB92-068 #0021 M/S/C/U(Fitz/Estes) to approve 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. #0041 M/S/C/U(Colvin/Dawkins) on March 18, 1992, the Council does approve for payment those vouchers included and further described as follows: 146003 through 146145 in the total amount of $231,177.82; and Regular Payroll for the period ending March 15, 1992, in the total amount of $410,695.83. President Horton announced Items 7A and 7B would be heard after Item SA. COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS Mr. Overson extended a special "welcome" to his sister-in-law and her husband who are visiting from California. Mr. Estes announced Washington State Ferries will hold an open house on March 26, 3:30 - 6:30 P.M., where proposed rate changes will be presented. He recommended that anyone interested in this fare increase take the time and let the State know their feelings on that issue. Since announcing his vacating his Council seat, he has received lots of comments TAPE #1003 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 18, 1992 Page 2 of 33 from citizens. Mrs. H~tz reported she received several telephone calls from people thanking Council for holding the forum to receive input in order to develop a Crime and Law Enforcement Policy. Two of those callers volunteered to serve on a committee that may be set up to work on any specific parts of a Law Enforcement Policy. Mr. Holvin extended an added "welcome" to Councilman Overson's visiting relatives. On Thursday, March 19, he observed Ian Sievers, city Attorney, in action in Federal Court. He commended Mr. Sievers on his defense of the City during a court hearing issue dealing with the Municipal Court Administrator. He learned from that hearing that the City needs to address deficient areas of the City Charter, especially in the area of defining Department Heads. In reference to Council's weekly televising of Council meetings, citizens experiencing problems with audio or visual presentations do not have any way to contact the TV crew directly to notify them of the problem. He received several complaints relating to garbage collection and he referred them to Mayor Mentor. He also provided Council a copy of another complaint received from a citizen. Lastly, he received some complaints about Gol~ Mountain Golf Club, which he will share with Councilman Dawkins. Mr. D&wkins reported he attended the St. Patrick's Day fund raising events, which were well attended and successful. He thanked Bremerton Main Street Association, Bremerton Athletic Roundtable, and the City's Parks and Recreation Department for their help on those events. Mr. Collins stated there is a group of people working together in District #7 developing strategies for parking in that area as well as seeking signatures on what is acceptable to residents. If anyone would like to assist in this project, please contact him at his residence or Council office. Recently, he fielded some heavy handed telephone calls on "money" and what the City is doing with the money. The single issue seems to be that people are questioning how their "property taxes" are being spent. He emphasized not all property taxes paid by citizens of Bremerton go to the City of Bremerton. He researched the following information on dispersement of tax funds: 1992 Tax Levy for Kitsap County...average citizen in the City of Bremerton is paying $15.82 for every $1,000 of valuation. Of that amount, $8.75 goes to schools, $2.91 goes to Kitsap County, Port Of Bremerton receives $ .42, Public Utility District receives $ TAPE %1003 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 18, 1992 Page 3 of 33 .09 per $1,000, and Bremerton's total with the General Fund, Emergency Medical, Fire Bond and Library is $3.73. He noted Bremerton receives 23.6% of taxes paid by City residents. Mrs. Horton announced Councilman Estes will be vacating his Council seat as of March 26 and Council is now requesting anyone interested to call the Council's Legislative Assistant to obtain an application. Applications will be accepted until April 1, followed by an interview process by a Council Sub- Committee April 2-7, followed by Sub-Committee's recommendation on April 8 and Council appointment to fill ~hat vacancy on April 15. She extended congratulations to Lena Swanson, who recently received the Jefferson Award for citizens who have gone above and beyond the call of duty in helping people within the community. PUBLIC RECOGNITION Mayor Louis Mentor made the following announcements: 1. Wished Councilman Johnson a "Happy birthday" ; 2. Wished "Happy Anniversary" to he and his wife on this date as well. 3. Population in Bremerton one year ago was 37,040 and has now increased to 38,092. He extended a special "welcome" to all those who are new to the City this past year (227 residents were annexed). 4. City of Bremerton and Bremerton Central Lions Club are accepting applications for exchange students to visit our sister City - Kure, Japan for one month this summer. Students at Bremerton High, Central Kitsap High and Olympic High Schools are all eligible to apply. Application forms are available in the Mayor's office and the deadline for submittal is Friday, April 17. 5. St. Patrick's Day Parade held on Saturday, March 14, was an outstanding success. He was amazed with the turnout of 2- 3,000 people for this event. Other events held during this celebration were very successful and generated in excess of $3,000 to be donated toward the Sports Complex project. 6. on Tuesday, March 17, he spoke to a group of people at the Sylvan Way Baptist Church, at the request of Councilman A1 Colvin. He enjoyed that opportunity, especially renewing a lot of old acquaintances. 7. State Representative Peggy Johnson and Representative Tim Sheldon will participate in a "Town Meeting". on Saturday, TAPE #1003 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 18, 1992 Page 4 of 33 March 21, 10:00 AM in the City Council Chamber. This program will be televised. 8. Dixieland Jazz Band Festival March 20, 21 and 22 at the Bayview Inn. 9. on March 21 the Tsuji Hotel School will hold a public Open House, 1:00 - 4:00 P.m.. He encouraged the public's participation. Bill Enaer, Puget Power Business Manger, reported Puget Power would be undertaking a Power Pole Treatment and Maintenance Program throughout their nine Counties service area. He provided a handout on this program, which are to be provided to Puget Power customers. Mr. Overson stated he and his neighbor share a telephone pole, that has been in place a long time and is not in good condition. He questioned how would he know if such a pole was destined for replacement and what would be the chance it could be moved to a more convenience location? Mr. Enger suggested Mr. Overson contact their Engineering Department and they will assess the situation. He noted if it was actually a telephone pole, they might not have jurisdiction over it. Terry Bow, 1930 Snyder, thanked the City for fixing Snyder Avenue. He had serious reservation about how the condition of the street would be returned after the construction project, however, the City did an excellent resurfacing job. 6A - INFORMATION ITEM - OVERWATER PARK PROJECT UPDAT~ Dave Baker, City Engineer, stated the overwater park project is moving along on schedule. Within the past few days all concrete has been poured between the panels and today they started placing the trim board along the outside edge. Once the trim board is in place, that will provide the outside forms for pouring the final topping on the concrete slab. He noted the concrete being poured has a rough surface, which is intentional so that there would be a good bond between that concrete and the finished slab. If Council approves the Change Order scheduled for Council's approval on March 25, there will be a 27 day extension to the contractor's completion date .... moving it forward to June 14. The project now is coordinating efforts in placement of the Harbor Master's office and Turner Joy gift shop. The foundation for the Harbor Master's office is being installed by Quigg Brothers, with the Port of Bremerton paying for that change. The footprint of the gift shop has been agreed upon and Portico is looking at that footprint with any change order drawings needed. He noted on page 3 of the update report is a summary TAPE %1003 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 18, 1992 Page 5 of 33 of Change Orders. A more detailed summary of Change Order #2 will be coming to Council later. Mr. Baker stressed the figures of the change orders are pretty good figures of actual costs, and there is only one estimate on that summary. Mr, Overson questioned the completion date for change orders relating to the Turner Joy? Mr. Baker stated as soon as Change Orders are approved, the contractor then has authorization to go ahead and order the planks required and to make the structural changes that are needed. This part of the project will not change the speed of the overall project, rather it will move right along with construction that is going on. He felt it was prudent to stick to the project completion date. The planks themselves will be out over the dock to the Turner Joy by the end of March. Mr. Estes questioned if Mr. Baker could guarantee this project was going along smoothly now and would be completed in June? Mr. Baker stated if there are no major changes, and no one expects any, it should be completed prior to that date, but certainly by June. 6B - INFORMATION ITEM - SOLID WASTE CONTRACT IMPLEMENTATION Kathleen McCluske¥, City Clerk, stated the City negotiated a new 10 year contract with Brem-Air for solid waste collection, disposal and recycling. That contract was implemented in February 1992, and as with any contract of that size there have been a few problems along the road of implementation. The purpose of discussion at this time is to present some of the issues the City has been informed of by the public, take input from Brem-Air in responding to those issues and have public comment following that. Russ Johnson, Chairman Bremerton's Solid Waste Advisory Committee, stated the new contract is in place and shortly behind it is an ordinance that addresses some of the solid waste issues, which will be accompanied by a much stricter Litter Control Ordinance. When the current contract was implemented, there were two unclear areas - "multi-family" and "commercial" areas. He believes there has been a good relationship between the apartment owners and businesses to help define those two areas. Another area of concern is the "Tag-A-Bag" program. Under the old garbage collection contract, one of the most frequent calls the City received was that drivers were picking up trash that was not suppose to be pick up and that they were billed for that garbage. The "Tag- A- Bag" proposal was developed to correct that problem. There was also concern from some apartment owners, who utilize dumpster type boxes, claiming unauthorized people were dumping TAPE #1003 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 18, 1992 Page 6 of 33 their garbage in their dumpsters. By utilizing the"Tag-A-Bag" apartment owners/commercial businesses would have the opportunity to dispose of that unauthorized garbage in some other manner and not pay the bag rate. Garbage collection rates were structured to give a lot of incentive to people who cut down on solid waste by pre- cycling, recycling and reuse of materials. The two-can rate is set so that it would be to everyone's benefit to reduce their garbage output. In the area of multi-family, it turns out it is not so fair where there is a four- plex (4 housing units) who could have four garbage cans for one rate, however, if the owner goes to two-can rate he would actually be penalized. This needs to be reviewed and adjusted so that it is always preferable for a landlord to try and coordinate a recycling program with tenants and use whatever method is most efficient for both the landlord, apartment dwellers and the garbage company. If someone has a multi-family unit or commercial business, they can sit down with the contractor and negotiate the most appropriate service. In reference to "Dura cans", they are equivalent to two cans, and would cost the 2-can rate. In many cases, particularly in the area of multi-family, that would probably be a preferred choice of container. One of the most difficult definitions to develop is what makes a business "commercial", particularly in the area of home- owned businesses. Other cities in the Puget Sound region were polled and revealed that everyone has the same problem as Bremerton in trying to develop a definition. By the same token, Brem-Air has gone out to the major haulers within the region and asked the same question. Multi-family recycling has not been fully defined, but it will be by the time curb- side recycling pick up is instituted. There will be the issue of "how many boxes per resident" or will there be something set up in the corner of the parking lot that all residents would contribute to. At this time, he is looking for people who have found glitches similar to the two-can rate issue and multi-family usage issue. He stressed the City wants to work with the community to make the garbage collection contract "right". ~eor~e Cvitanich, General Manager of Brem-Air Disposal, Inc., commended the City Council and staff for arranging this meeting so that citizens could have input as well as Council and staff input to try to resolve any problems. At the onset of implementation of the contract, they developed an in-house TAPE #1003 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 18, 1992 Page 7 of 33 form to list complaints that total less than 1/4 of 1% but that do set a pattern of the same complaints appearing. In compliance with the contract, they will submit copies of those complaints to the City. Mr. Cvitanich introduced Ms. Jackie Hocky, Assistant General Manager and Accounting Supervisor, who has served Brem-Air for the past 18 years; and Gary Passmore, Operations Supervisor, who has the responsibility of implementing all policies set by the City Council. He preferred hearing comments from the public and would then like to address those concerns. Dusty Rhodes, 2513 Reid Avenue, stated raising the price of garbage pick up will not increase the size of the landfill and will only create more illegal dumping in open spaces. He owns and lives in a duplex and has elected to pay the garbage collection cost for his renter. Previously he paid $32.00 for two cans and his most recent billing jumped to $67.00. He found this unacceptable and will elect to using two mini-cans plus the need for several "Tag-A-Bags" to accommodate excessive trash. Roy McInnis, 2711 Maple Street, echoed Mr. Rhodes concern over the price increase. Currently he has been using one 20-gallon can and one 32-gallon can, however, he doubted if Brem-Air had noted the smaller can and was charging him for two 32-gallon cans. He will probably go to one can and use the "Tag-A-Bag" for excess garbage. He did not think a 80-85% increase in collection charges was fair. Jim Adrian, 621 Washington Avenue and a multi-family housing owner, expressed the following concerns: (1) Need for a contact point person in the City. (2) He is presently having difficulty with unauthorized garbage dumping and hoped the City would expedite adoption of a more restrictive ordinance covering such acts. Once that ordinance is passed, he hoped the public would be informed of the enforcement mechanism, what level of evidence is required and who the City contact person is. This is a low priority for Police enforcement and another contact point within the City would be more workable. (3) Seattle is going to a micro can (10-12 gallons) and anticipating a 15% rate increase. (4) Redefine the minimum baseline level of service as "overhead charge" rather than implying it is a service. He feels this would be more acceptable to the citizens since it is already used by Puget Power and City water service. TAPE #1003 city Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 18, 1992 Page 8 of 33 (5) Continue "Tag-A-Bag" program longer in order to give the program a chance to succeed. (6) Contract language in both the new and old ordinances does not define "refuse", however, that word is used in the contract. When he is cleaning out apartments, he is unsure what can be considered "refuse". He questioned if "refuse" was the same as "garbage"? (7) Single-family dwelling garbage collection was fine, however, it did does not work for multi-family. Approximately 70% of City residents are renters and of those about 45-55% live in multi-family buildings. He stressed the need to provide a program that is structured to permit landlords the incentive to reduce their solid waste generation. (8) Mr. Adrian instituted recycling for 28 residential units in four properties. If the City says he has to pay for one can per residential unit, the incentive to recycle goes away totally. Currently, he has seven bills from Brem-Air and he is convinced four of them are billed improperly. He has discussed this with Brem-Air and it appears a resolution can be reached. He believes there needs to be something established whereby the consumer determines, for multi-family, what their level of service needs to be, not a negotiated deal with Brem-Air and dealt on a case-by-case basis. (9) Question - can mini cans be used for multi-family units? 10. He wanted to know, prior to concluding this discussion, how some of these questions will be brought to a conclusion? Geofr7 Hosea, 1544 Elizabeth Avenue, presented pictures showing his recycling efforts for a multi-family unit, which was successful in reducing his requirement for six cans down to three cans. Don Larson, 135 Rainier Avenue, stated he would like to see a provision addressed in the contract for 1-2 person households. He supports the "Tag-A-Bag" program. He did not support having to settle garbage collection disputes through the Court system. He also provided information regarding "Fair Credit Billing". Miohelle Gibson, Manager View Crest Villages, 3401 Spruce Avenue, explained she manages a 300 unit multi-family complex in East Bremerton that is located on 25 acres. Following are several concerns: TAPE #1003 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 18, 1992 Page 9 of 33 (1) Brem-Air and the City needs some type of representative that people can communicate with regarding their needs. She strongly supported Brem-Air having a representative for multi- family owners in order to work out their concerns. (2) Better enforcement for violators who dump garbage illegally. (3) Recycling - soon they will be purchasing a self-contained trash compactor and questioned how soon will Brem-Air or the City of Bremerton go to a weight verses volume collection program. Will Brem-Air or the City come up with some type of test recycling program for large multi-family facilities? What products will be recycled, i.e. glass, paper, cans, and where will they be going and would the cost of transporting these recycling items end up costing the customer more? Michael ArnolH, 3202 llth Street, stated he did not support the public paying for recycling since Brem-Air will profit. Currently, he takes his aluminum cans to Tacoma where he gets up to 60-70 cents per pound. In the Auburn/Renton areas they have a recycling program implemented whereby dumpsters are located in parking lots so that citizens can drive up and dump their recycables. He did not like the idea of Brem-Air garbage collection trucks have polished aluminum wheels and felt this was not a prudent way to spend money. Terrie Adams, Manager of a 44 unit multi-family complex, reported their garbage bill went up almost 200% under the new contract. She reported her complex has been utilizing 17-18 cans and have volunteered to implement recycling procedures. The bulk of her tenants are senior citizens on fixed incomes. She was very disturbed that her garbage collection rate went from $100.00 to $293.00 in one month. Rick Verhelst, 4310 Kitsap Way, Manager of Thunderbird Apartments (20 unit adult only complex) - 1142 Wheaton Way, reported his complex caters to tenants who are 63 years or older. Over the past 30 years they have serviced this complex with eight garbage cans and as of February, 1992, they are being charged for 20 cans. He found this amusing due to the fact a large number of his tenants are elderly ladies in their 80-90's and they might have one or two bags per week. He considered even doing good PR work in his neighborhood and invite neighbors to share the dumpster they are being required to use. He was told by Brem-Air that there was no flexibility on that issue and he asked if the complex could go to 20 gallon cans. He was informed that the 33 gallon can was all that would be available. At that time he questioned "what TAPE #1003 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 18, 1992 Page 10 of 33 about recycling" and was told it was not implemented yet. There does need to be some flexibility within the program and he strongly supported having a specific representative at Brem-Air for multi-family housing available to work out problem areas. Linda ForbeS, 2126, 2126 1/2 7th as well as a small rental house on Hewitt Avenue, stated she was told by Brem-Air that she had to have one can per unit even though she has one person living in a house and the duplex who could get by with one can. She did not understand why there was such a variance in required cans between different types of multi-family housing. Before the "Tag-A-Bag" program came into being, the garbage collectors would pick up trash that was laying around. She currently has a bill of $90.00 for picked up illegally dumped trash that was set by her cans. If she did not pay for that extra garbage, a lien would be put against her house. When people call Brem-Air they should be more understanding when trying to figure out what is happening with this new contract. She was also told if she did not like the rates and policies of the garbage collection, she should take it up with the City Council. Ms. McCluske¥ read into the record letters received from Bert Gegner and Owen Tripp, outlining the following concerns: (1) present contract charges the landlord of a five unit apartment more for one billing than for each unit of five billings for the same one can per unit service; (2) Brem-Air and City should encourage multi-unit service on one bill instead of multiple billing and the overhead charged saved could be better utilized by Brem-Air in recycling efforts; (3) City and Brem-Air should consider addressing rates of garbage cans per dwelling units, not just numbers of garbage cans per apartment unit; (4) previous extra garbage bag pick up was $2.00 - new . charge of $6.00 is "out of sight". Will the present charge of $6.00 for an extra bag turn ditches and back woods areas into dumping sites; (5) desire to have equal credit for those weeks we do not put out garbage, i.e., vacations or inadvertently forgot to set out garbage; (6) should customer be given partial credit for can only 1/2 full? (7) recommend that all customers of one year standing or more be issued four tags without charge and issued each January with the billing for that month for use any time throughout the year. In response to Mr. Larson's comments, the contract provides for a Hearings Examiner process to hear disputes. This is an internal process to the City and the purpose is to make it simple so that the public with the complaint can go through that process and not have to hire an attorney and go to Court. TAPE #1003 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 18, 1992 Page 11 of 33 The $1.75 rate, which was in the old ordinance, will not be included in the new ordinance. The lowest rate for single family will be the mini-can rate. Mr. Johnson stated in response to Mr. Arnold's comment on recycling revenue, since it is not known what the market climate will be for the recycled articles, the rates have been based strictly on expenditures. When revenue comes in there is a scheme where the City and Brem-Air will split those revenues. For a small percentage Brem-Air will get the most revenues to cover their cost of operations and to make a reasonable profit. Once a threshold is reached, the City would receive 90% of the funds, which would then be cycled into recycling programs and education. In response to the question of which commodities will be recycled, he listed the following products: newspapers, glass, plastic, magazines, aluminum and tin cans. In reference to the comment regarding "weight" verses "volume", as soon as it becomes practical to implement such a program the city would like to have garbage removed by the pound. Best estimate for that happening is within five years at the earliest. Mr. Johnson stressed it was never his intention to encourage large apartment complexes to set out 45 - 300 garbage cans and if the contract language states such, then it needs to be readdressed with Brem-Air. Mr. Cvltanich readdressed the following concerns: (1) complaints procedure - a City Hearings Examiner process will be used to hear unresolved disputes between Brem-Air and the customer; (2) customers pay for the commodities of recycling - currently, Peninsula Recycling pays for the commodities that are brought in; TAPE %1004 (3) multi-family services - Brem-Air more than willing to utilize Dura cans for multi-family dwellings thereby reducing the total number of cans required. When the City's multi- family recycling program is implemented there will have to be reduction of cans in order to facilitate placement of recycling constrainers. Mr. Johnson stated on the enforcement issue, under the contract Brem-Air will institute a reporting process of violators and notifying the City for proper prosecuting type action. ~ explained Brem-Air has implemented a TAPE #1004 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 11, 1992 Page 12 of 33 a"picture taking" program to document conditions and problems that exist. Mr. Estes reported the price for salvage materials is down at the present time. The only way this can be solved is by the United States Congress placing a surcharge on all raw materials and removing any surcharge on salvage materials. The use of aluminum wheels on trucks provide a "weight lightening" effort, which increases the pay load.., this is not a luxury but a necessity. Mr. Colvin expressed concern that not all citizens are getting the implementation information. He questioned if a homeowner goes on vacation for 3 months, how much would he have to pay towards garbage service? He also questioned who receives complaints in the City? Ms. McCluske¥ emphasized the Hearings Examiner process would be used for unresolved complaints and if a complaint had not reached that point, they would be referred to her office and she coordinates with the contractor. Mr. Johnson stated Council has requested the Mayor designate a solid waste person on City staff. The City Engineer is the Solid Waste officially designated person, however, he has other extensive responsibilities. Ms. McCluske¥ stated she is encouraging the public to contact Brem-Air first and to contact their General Manager if they are not satisfied after talking with Customer Service. If issues cannot be resolved through Brem-Air's Customer Service or General Manager, the next step is to contact the City. If a resident will be out-of-town more than three weeks, they can discontinue garbage collection service by contacting Brem-Air. Mr. Colvin emphasized the need to assist senior citizens who cannot haul their recyclable materials away. Mr. Colvin questioned where could citizens obtain "Tag-A-Bags" over the weekend? Mr. Cvitanich stated the only place they are available is at Brem-Air, however, they hope to have them available through the City and Red Apple Market at the Perry Avenue Mall. When the distribution points are in place, there will be newspaper advertising announcing that fact. President Horton questioned if she was correct that if someone placed an extra bag out for pick up but did not include a "Tag-A-Bag" it would not be picked up. Then, if that bag was still out the second week, the garbage company would pick it up. Ms. M~Cluskev stated that was her understanding. President Horton stated when people vacate premises and leave stacks of garbage out to be picked up, it can end up strewn around neighborhoods. She felt this was a real problem and needed addressing so that it does not become the "norm". TAPE #1004 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 11, 1992 Page 13 of 33 People do object to having to go out to get the tag in order to have extra garbage picked up. She wanted some common sense approach taken in dealing with that issue. Mr, Overson emphasized the "Tag-A-Bag" program's intent is to reduce the solid waste stream and to encourage recycling. He did not see making the tags readily available to encourage disposing of "added" garbage. He did not want to consider anything that would charge the citizens an extra fee so people who don't take care of their yards get them cleaned up b~ the contractor. Homeowners need to take care of their own property. Mr. M~Cluske¥ stated it was her understanding during negotiations that after the first week that extra garbage (untagged) was set out the contractor would pick it up the second week. The intent of this was to give the landlord the opportunity to get the garbage in the dumpster (for multi- family) after the garbage was picked up and not have to pay the extra bag charge. That was what was worked out with multi-family facility owners. Brem-Air has indicated to her that they are not in tune with pick up on the second week if bags are still sitting out. She had received calls from citizens that garbage had not been collected after the second week. Mr. Collins stated many citizens have found alternative solutions to disposal...burn barrels. He announced any burning permits are for natural vegetation only, not for garbage and there is a stiff penalty for burning garbage. Mr. Adrian suggested that within the next 6-8 weeks Council hold another opportunity such as this, during a Council meeting, for input from the citizens. Mr. Cvitanich reminded the public that the personnel in Brem- Air's Customer Service are there to provide a service and to please not "curse or yell" at them. ?C - BUDGET ADJUSTMENT FOR THE OVERWATER PARK INCLUDING CDB~ MONIES, #AB92-071 A combination of circumstances, unforseen at the time the construction contract was signed, have created a need to / provide additional funding in order to complete the Overwater Park. These circumstances have been previously discussed and include a contract amendment, contract change orders and loss of funding from the Historic Ships Association. Mayor Louis Mentor provided a brief review of progress on the project: (1) 1989 Portico was selected as project designer prior to his coming into Office. TAPE %1004 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 11, 1992 Page 14 of 33 (2) Project went out to bid with funding sources of $2,093.00 obligation of $1,778,700.00, leaving $314,300.00. It appeared up to that time money spent up to bid opening had not been charged toward the project and the Administration felt they had $314,300; pre-design and Fisheries mitigation had not been charged toward the project. (3) There was a contract dispute caused by misinterpretation of the contract. The settlement could be "0" or up to $246,000. The City desires to settle this dispute for $145,000. If the City had chosen to rebid the project it would have delayed the project 3-4 months losing the entire summer of 1992, put Turner Joy project in severe jeopardy, possibly killing the entire project. The State, Kitsap County, Port Of Bremerton and many individuals had invested heavily in the Turner Joy, also thousands of people had purchased bricks and granite blocks through the P.S.N.S. Centennial Committee. The City would lose its credibility with everyone if this project did not move forward. If the City had chosen to redesign the project, that would have cost more money and would delay the project until 1993. If the City had paid the entire disputed amount of $246,000, Quigg Brothers would still be the iow bidder on this project. A decision had to be made quickly. He talked with advisors, attorneys, engineers, etc., and decided the City had an excellent case if this contract dispute went to litigation. However, in the past there were too many plans and no follow through and the City couldn't kill the project. The City is finally believing in itself and it would be hard pressed to build the momentum we have at this time if this project dies. He was elected by all the citizens of Bremerton to lead them out of the disappointments of the '80's and into the promises of the '90's. He was not elected to be indecisive. Even though there have been harsh allegations made about improprieties, cover up, etc., he, with the advise of staff, attorneys, architects, etc., made the decision that the project should proceed. At the time the contract was let, it appeared there was $289,000 extra, which would cover the contract dispute. Unfortunately, the preconstruction money was overlooked. At this time, adding all the previous expenses including all change orders, the project is $156,000 over budget. There is about $64,000 in anticipated change orders, which raises that overage to $220,000, along with adding in the $145,000 in contract dispute for a total of $365,000 in overruns, or about 15%. Loss of $195,000 in funding from the Bremerton Historical Ships Association (BHSA) - this group pursued obtaining a Naval ship to place on the waterfront for tourism purposes TAPE #1004 City Council Reg2 Mtg. Minutes March 11, 1992 Page 15 of 33 that would boost Bremerton's economy. He served on this Committee for two years and at that time it was felt it would take $650,000 to bring the Turner Joy to Bremerton and those funds would be raised on a national level...no local funding needed. However, their consultant felt the most money would come from Puget Sound Drydock, builder of the ship who was financially able to provide the full funding if he so desired. Everyone on that committee, in 1988 and 1989, had every reason to be optimistic and BHSA went after the Turner Joy. They anticipated getting the ship as early as fall of 1989, or spring of 1990. Unfortunately, no funding came from any of the national sources or the builder, but other funding was found - $250,000 State of Washington, $250,000 Kitsap County (payable over five years) $35,000 loaned to BHSA by Port Of Bremerton. Other money was raised through local fund raising donations. The overall fund raising was not as successful as expected and expenses increased. The BHSA has produced an invaluable asset for the City but now, due to a lack of fund, they are not able to meet their obligation to the City of $195,000. The City is faced with the loss of that funding source and must step up as the other governmental agencies have and either forgive the debt entirely or make a loan of $195,000, which could be paid back if the Turner Joy is successful or forgiven at a later date. Some people have the mistaken thought that the $195,000 shortage was caused because the boardwalk was not built before BHSA received the Turner Joy and that it is the City's fault that the Turner Joy has cost overruns. This is not true. He brought up the need for the boardwalk in 1989 and it was not a great concern. It was felt by most board members that we had to get the ship as soon as possible and not take a chance of losing it. The Turner Joy Committee thought they had a date to get the ship but was delayed by the Navy for various reasons. The City did not do serious design work until the summer of 1990, yet the BHSA thought they could receive the ship in the summer of 1990. The ship was in place April 12, 1991, yet the City did not go to bid on the boardwalk until May 2, 1991. There are many causes for delays, Fisheries, coordination with other entities, etc.. He discussed temporary linkage with some BHSA members but a cost of $10-30,000 was discussed and it was decided to work by boat instead. #1 Change Order - the engineers made the best estimate for working on the beach and determining the length of pilings. Everything the City had dumped there over the last 100 years could not be helped or determined. The test piles with the caps on the bottoms paid off, with a cost savings of $76.00 in contrast of those without caps. This paid off big but it also delayed the project while the piling was acquired. We TAPE #1004 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 11, 1992 Page 16 of 33 designed the boardwalk, assumed designing the Turner Joy gift shop and gang plank connection. The Turner Joy received a free gang plank from the Washington State Ferries. Last fall it became apparent that the connection from the Turner Joy to the boardwalk had not been done. The Turner Joy, Port of Bremerton and City all had their own architect with a common engineer and felt this type of problem would be avoided. For some reason that did not work. No one accepted responsibility and once again a decision needed to be reached - we could not stop the project to figure out who was at fault. The Turner Joy Committee stated they did not have the money in their budget for the work so he, the Mayor, committed to it stating we had to continue to try and find out who, if anyone, was to blame. The City of Bremerton has the following funds available $294,550 Hotel/Motel Taxes, $279,968 Real Estate Excise Tax and $64,000 of Block Grant funding, for a total of $639,518. That exceeds the $573,000 identified as necessary at this time to complete the project. Real Estate Excise and Hotel/Motel Tax are to be used exclusively for this type of project and cannot be used for general operations of the City. This money accumulates at a rate of about $350,000 per year. Also available is $334,500 in Capital Reserve, which accumulates at the rate of approximately $100,000 per year. He urged Council to fund this overage of $365,000 from the funds cited above. Also ,he urged Council to forgive or lend BHSA the debt of $195,000 from the same available funding sources. The State agreed to give $600,000 to build a fishing pier and then withdrew it because of pollution. The Port Of Bremerton then stepped up and built the pier themselves to help support Bremerton. The Turner Joy was in trouble and the Port agreed to fund anchoring the ship at a cost of about $95,000..this price went up another 50% but the Port did not hesitate and stayed with the project. The State and County have each stepped up to help Bremerton's project now it is time to help ourselves. It has been a difficult project having to coordinate not only the boardwalk but the Turner Joy, marina and Puget Sound Naval Shipyard Centennial Plaza. Many changes have taken place and each time the Turner Joy, PSNS or Port made a change the City had to make a change. Small groups of people have held back the City for years, bickering had stopped project after project in our City. We have been a slave to indecision. This City needed a completed project, not something we have to do, such as roads or sewers, but something to give our citizens for their support and belief in our City. This project has been in the news at least 20 years and many people have tried to get it built and TAPE #1004 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 11, 1992 Page 17 of 33 their hard work laid the ground work for our successes. All the individuals and groups who made it happen must stand together and be proud of their accomplishments. Mr. Estes stated he took exception to the statement on the Agenda Bill: "a combination of circumstances were unforseen at the time". He noted that included some of the problems the Mayor talked about, but as he recalled the contingency fund in the beginning ($185,000) never existed and this Council was never brought up-to-date from the time the contract was let until President Horton stumbled onto the problem about 2-3 weeks ago. In the future, this Council and the community should be given proper info£,Lation so that budget adjustments can be made without adversely impacting the budget. Mayor Mentor stated at the time they thought they had the money but did not. He takes the responsibility for that and had no other explanation. The only explanation he could see was the funding spent ahead of time was not counted in the overall project. Mr. Estes stated in future projects would the Mayor keep this in mind? Mayor Mentor stated yes, better controls have to be maintained. This was and is a very complicated project due to so many different funding sources and different entities working together. Mr. Estes pointed out, as Mayor Mentor mentioned, all groups have to work together and he would like to see the Mayor and Council work together closer on projects like this so we don't get shocked again. Mr. Johnson stated he took exception to a lot of the comments made by Mayor Mentor and though it was a very one sided presentation. Late this afternoon he talked with a representative from the Turner Joy and learned they met every funding goal they ever had, they didn't get the money from the same sources and the reason they are late is because that project has been delayed time and time again. He found this to be one of the largest embarrassments he has had since serving on the Council. The Council pleaded with Mayor Mentor during Budget review to please get a Project Manager due to the complexity of this project. Comments by Mayor Mentor stressed he hoped the City did not get another project as complex as this...the City has a number of them just as complex right around the corner. What the Mayor presented at this time does not include the total needs for this project. There is no money included for mitigation of the fish problem and will be coming up in the next couple of years. Unless the Mayor addresses them as to how they will be done, the City will have to cancel the Sports Complex project and delay the Public Works complex. He sees the proposed funding as only a "quick fix" by taking money out of the reserve funds. This was the most poorly managed project he has seen since serving TAPE #1004 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 11, 1992 Page 18 of 33 on the Council. He emphasized Council would love to work together but we have to work like a bunch of mushrooms and don't get good information until it is too late. Mayor Mentor stated he was sorry Mr. Johnson felt that way, however, he was involved in the Turner Joy project and he knows what went on. Mr. Johnson questioned if the Mayor was calling representatives of the BHSA liars? MaYor Mentor stood by this statement and noted BHSA would have lost more revenue had they received the ship in 1989 or 1990. He did not want to argue that point with Mr. Johnson. Mr. Johnson pointed out the Mayor made a big point in his presentation that a good portion of the project problem was the Turner Joy; and that was not true. MaYor Mentor stated no it is not...he does not blame the Turner Joy and felt they did a great job for the city, but they did not get the funding they thought they would and the ship arrived a little too soon before the boardwalk was built. The beach mitigation was caused by the Fisheries Department and they are the same group that took away the $600,000 funding for the fishing pier. The City has received a grant to do the design work for Evergreen Park in response to the Fisheries mitigation. He does not know the total cost or where the funding will come from to complete the mitigation project. He stressed there is funding available for the Sports Complex. He re-emphasized that the intent of the Real Estate Excise Tax and Hotel/Motel Tax is to expressly be put aside for these types of projects, whether they are small or large and the City is not to horde that money. Mr. Johnson stated he understands the intent of those funds, however, it would be nice to build up the fund to be used for something really meaningful. Mayor Mentor stated building the boardwalk and Sports Complex are meaningful projects. Mr. Johnson stated the attitude seems to be those funds come in at a certain rate and are spent at this rate...he did not buy that and felt he and the Mayor had a difference of opinion. President Horton stated the Mayor made a comment that this project had been going on for several years and a lot of factions worked together and he made the hard decisions to get it pushed through. Mayor Mentor stated he did make some hard decisions to go ahead with the project when decisions had to be made. ~resident Horton stated she felt that was appropriate, however, what is not appropriate is for the Administration to usurp the responsibility of the City Council in financial concerns. We are the budget and policy setters and those issues were taken out of our hands. We were never consulted about the contract dispute and had we known at that time we may have said "wait, we cannot afford the project". Council was never given a total overall picture of what this project was costing. Council was under the assumption it was TAPE #1004 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 11, 1992 Page 19 of 33 costing 2.1 million dollars and the fact is the project is already at budget with no contingencies, no permits, etc., yet we were told, on the record, that not only was this project under budget but that there was a $165,000 contingency. We were not given the proper info£,,ation that we needed to make a decision. She was sure by the time the City Auditor is finished with the audit he will have some very definite recommendations on how we approach projects like this in the future. She emphasized this project was the worst financially tracked project she has ever seen and she hopes it never happens again. She recognizes the City needs to move on with this project and if it were delayed it would cost the city more money. First and foremost we have a commitment to the Sports Complex of $500,000, and before her vote goes for any further expenditure on the boardwalk $500,000 has to be preserved in tact. Secondly, consideration needs to be given to the beach mitigation; and she suspects it will come about in 1993 or 1994. Thirdly, once another $250,000 is taken away for the Sports Complex from this funding, the balance in those three funds amounts to less than $40,000. Granted, the funds are there to do major projects, but it is this Council's responsibility to make those financial decision, not the Administration. It is the Administration's responsibility, once the budget has been sent, to adhere to that budget and to know how many dollars have been spent and how many need to be spent. And, to keep this Council infoz,,ed every step of the way, which did not happen on this project. She expressed her anger and hoped it never ever happens again. Mayor Mentor stated everyone hopes it never happens again. He felt he had the funding, there were some mistakes made and he was no more aware of it than anyone on Council at that time. Mr. Overson questioned the availability of the $64,000 proposed from the Block Grant fund? Mayor Mentor explained those funds were allocated the end of 1990 or 1991 for use in conjunction with a project at the end of 4th Street, which did not materialize, so that money was in truth for that waterfront project. Mr. Overson stated what we have to do is demonstrate the requirements for expenditure of Block Grant funds are met by this project. He noted Council had been guarding funds 104, 109, 103 for some time and it is saddening to see then being taken away. He felt more consideration above and beyond what is being proposed may need to be done before actually passing a funding method. Mr. Estgs stated this issue was discussed in Fiscal and Budget Committee and recommends support moving forward with the project. TAPE %1004 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 11, 1992 Page 20 of 33 Public comment - none. Mr. Colvin stated it made more sense to move forward on the waterfront project than to stop. For that reason, he will support this proposal as presented. %1737 M/S/C(Estes/Dawkins) to approve Budget Adjustment Request No. 92-5; and in addition set aside $250,000 to be placed in a reserve fund for the Sport Complex in order to guarantee that project. Mr. Collins stated he did not support holding the waterfront project as hostage in order to guarantee funding for the Spots Complex. He would prefer completing the waterfront project and directing staff to identify the funding source for the Sports Complex and process it through the Fiscal and Budget Committee. Mr. Johnson stated the problem he has with this Agenda Bill is the source of funding. The funds proposed are the most convenient source and there are people who have overrun budgets on projects and someone somewhere needs to generate some revenue to take care of it. He believed Council should direct the Mayor to get some efficiencies in the City and generate funds other than the capital funds to pay for the overage. He will opposed this proposal on the basis of where funding is being taken from not for the purpose of the project. Mr. Overson stated he supported Mr. Johnson's position on this issue and pointed out when this administration started in 1990, these funds (103, 104, 109), had a combined total of over two million dollars. What this means is that in two years, irrespective to attempts to build up these funds to fund something significant, they have been reduced to less than $300,000. Mr. Fit~ stated she did not support anything that would delay this project, however, Council would be discussing measures that could possibly produce some of this funding. She will support the motion setting aside the $250,000 for the Sports Complex, however, she wanted to go on record that she is supporting this proposal in order to keep the project moving forward. Mr, Colwin requested Mr. Hanna to respond to the following question: "if we pass the proposed motion, would that hamper the project from moving forward?" Hr, Hanna offered slightly different wording that the Mayor and staff be directed to TAPE #1004 city Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 11, 1992 Page 21 of 33 return to Council within a time frame with a plan for providing that additional $250,000. Mr. Estes reminded everyone that Council had requested information on what Mayor Mentor planned for the 4TH Street building and it has been delayed for months. He questioned if that would happen with this project. ~a¥or Mentor stated he could come back in two weeks with a funding source for the $250,000. Mr. Overson stated for clarification that the item Mrs. Fitz referenced relating to implementing efficiencies within the City to generate additional funding did not address funding for the overwater park, but rather the shortfall in the General Fund. President Horton stated she will support the motion as it stands, but she did not want to send it back to staff. If Council is unwilling to take the hard line and support a resolution to stop spending from the General Fund and take care of the deficit, she will immediately ask the City Clerk for a reconsideration of her vote and will subsequently vote "no" on this issue. She felt strongly that there had been enough irresponsibility going on and the projects needed to be linked together to form a "big picture" so that Council knows what they are voting on. Mr. Johnson questioned, in the case of the Turner Joy and overwater park funds, why the City couldn't use interfund loans due at various times? Mr. Hanna stated in the case of Bremerton Historical Ships Association (BHSA), they are not a City fund. Mr. Johnson questioned if the motion passes is the City forgiving the Turner Joy debt? Mr. Hanna stated as it is being presented the City is forgiving that debt. Mr. Johnson stated he felt that was wrong, however, he did not want to be tough on them but the funds should be paid back someday. He also felt there was additional sources of funding through the General Fund. Mr. Hanna stated he would have to defer to the City Attorney in regard to the pledge by the BHSA. Ian Sievers, City Attorney, stated that contract was some time ago and he would need to review it to see how binding it is. If BHSA believed they have satisfied their obligation to the City in other ways, they may have the defense the City incurred costs to them. Mr. Colvin restated his question...if this motion passes, would that hamper the overwater park project? President ~orton stated no. Mr. ~anna stated he agreed. TAPE #1004 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 11, 1992 Page 22 of 33 Mr. Collins stated if he remembered correctly, the Turner Joy's $195,000 was a pledge towards a City grant as matching funds, therefore, he felt there had to be a transaction of some kind and not one of forgiveness. ~r. JohnsoR stated if that goes away the City goes below the threshold of community participation in the project, pNesident Morton stated she was not sure that was accurate. When BHSA made their presentation to Council, they stated they had in fact gone over and above their pledge to the EDA grant. The fault lies in that we should not have budgeted that dollar figure in this project. Mr. Oversonquestioned if President Horton was saying the City did not have a contract with BHSA? MaYor Mentor stated he believed there is a good chance the Turner Joy could still receive some national funding that was originally sought. If BHSA is indebted they may have more of a chance to get some of that funding. President Horton stated she didn't believe BHSA was "off the hook" just because the city came up with a budget adjustment. Mr. sievers stated this should not be assumed as a forgiveness and the City should look into their obligations. If they have to repay the City out of future earnings or if there is a compromised reached, that would not provide funding needed now. President Horton stressed all Council was doing at this time was to provide budgetary capacity so that the project could go forward. Mr. Hanna stated the City does not contemplate that money being available for the construction of the project. Vote: In Favor Fitz, Collins, Dawkins, Colvin, Estes, Horton Opposed: Johnson, Overson, 8A - RESOLUTION ~2383~ FISCAL YEAR 1992 SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET GUIDANCE~ ~AB92-072 A Resolution to provide guidance for adjusting Fiscal Year 1992 Budget. Council Fiscal and Budget Committee did discuss this proposal and supported its intent. Mayor Mentor explained Bremerton has experienced effects of the nation-wide recession this past year. It became apparent after the first of the year that the City would have a shortfall at the end of the year of approximately $300,000. He and his department heads have been meeting weekly to address this issue and possible ways to meet that shortfall. The Fiscal and Budget Committee was presented with a list of ways to meet some of these financial needs, i.e., personnel costs savings of approximately $206,500 in positions that are vacant and other personnel costs; Animal Control contract savings, unanticipated revenues from a grant for the Police TAPE #1004 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 11, 1992 Page 23 of 33 Department, and $11,000 budgeted for TAN financing, coming up with a total of $302,500. This would cover one half of the approximately $618,000 shortfall in the General Fund. The proposed Resolution contains conservation ideas that he has already instituted or discussed. He noted the City has put on a hiring freeze and positions are not being filled unless absolutely necessary. He is also restricting out-of-state travel. There is a freeze on office renovation/repair/furnishing. He hoped Council would come up with other ideas in order to identify funding for the approximate $300,000 shortfall remaining. Budget revenues and expenditures are being reviewed monthly and he will have a better picture of the financial climate on a quarterly basis. President Horton stated she believed people wanted to know who is responsible for the shortfall and she acknowledged that "we are all responsible". On the staff side, it is very difficult from this position to hear after the fact that Council did not ask the right questions. She stated she is tired of trying to figure out what the right questions are and then find out after the fact that an error was made. This has to stop and staff, regardless of their positions in life, have to be honest and forth coming with this Council when it comes to budgetary issues. The Mayor needs to hold his departments responsible for their budget. And, when his staff recommends or gives direction to be conservative he must heed that; and when Council gets that recommendation they must heed that as well. We need to start working together as a team and need to start communicating. Mr. Overson pointed out that the figure of $618,000 may not reflect the whole picture, however, it is assumed all the departments will stay within budget. When Council learned of the possible shortfall in 1992, they tried to set aside funds to cover that occurrence, however, that did not come to pass. Mc. Collins supported Mr. Johnson's proposal, but felt it needed some additions. He requested the inclusion of the "Utility" in the hiring freeze. He would like to insert an immediate moratorium on all travel outside of a 100 mile radius with appropriate prior approval. Under Item 9, he felt the Mayor, Fire Chief and Police Chief review overtime staffing and recommend that be included on Council's April Study Session. president Horton recommended including monthly updates at Council sessions reviewing any department that has at that TAPE #1004 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 11, 1992 Page 24 of 33 point gone over their budget, on a monthly basis. This process would be used whenever a department is over budget accumulatively. Mr- ~olvin questioned why type of report would be given regarding overtime use in the Fire and Police Departments? Mr. Overson stated those are documented on a monthly basis. Mr. Estes reported Fiscal and Budget Committee reviewed this issue and they intentionally left the Utilities off because they are under a separate budget. Mr. Collins stated he understood what Mr. Estes was saying, however, we have personnel and personnel involvement and they are all employees of the City. Mr. Estes recommended that the wording "require approval of Council" for special hiring be included. Mr. Collins suggested eliminating the words "general" and "street", so that it would affect any department in the City. TAPE #1005 Public comment - none. #0060 M/S/C/U(Overson/Estes) to pass Resolution #2383, providing for supplemental budget guidance and policies as modified by Council's discussions. 9A - PUBLIC HEARING - APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PUD FOR R & J REYES CAFE, LOCATION: 2122 SHERIDAN ROAD, ~AB92-073 On January 21, 1992, the Planning Commission approved a Preliminary Planned Unit Development (PUD) to construct a 4,000 square foot fixed commercial building with associated parking for 24 cars. The preliminary plan is being appealed on the grounds that inadequate parking is being provided. The use of the building is primarily a restaurant and will have a card room also. The appellant believes that the parking requirements for a video game, arcade use should be applied to the card room use at 15 spaces per 1,000 gross square feet instead of a restaurant use requiring one space per 200 square feet. 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 approving authority for further consideration. Such action shall be decided by a majority vote of the members TAPE #1005 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 18, 1992 Page 25 of.33 present. That vote may be taken at the same or any subsequent meeting. President Horton asked the "Appearance Of Fairness/Conflict Of Interest" question with all Council members being seated. J&ck Alli~a~-m, Current Planning, stated this proposal is an appeal of a Planning Commission decision which gave approval for a preliminary plan united development to construct a 4,000 sq. ft. restaurant/cafe over a 2,600 sq. ft. basement area. The site is located at 2122 Sheridan Road and is adjacent to the Perry Avenue Mall and east of Bremerton National Bank. The appellant is Kent Bratt, attorney for Mr. Eggers. The Planning Commission reviewed a preliminary planned unit development project consisting of a site plan. The site is zoned "Shopping Center" (SC), and that zone does not have any specific setback requirements and therefore it has been interpreted to require a planned unit development with preliminary approval of such a site plan before final design details are drafted. The Planning Commission reviewed parking requirements for restaurant use of this site and concurred in 20 spaces for 4,000 sq. feet and one space for each additional 200 sq. feet above 4,000 sq. ft. The preliminary plan provided for 24 parking spaces, which has now been slightly modified to 26 spaces. Public testimony was given during the Planning Commission's hearing questioning whether or not a cardroom use, which was associated with the cafe, should require more parking. The Planning Commission felt that people sitting at a table playing cards would not require any more parking than people sitting at a table eating; and basically approved the preliminary plan subject to two conditions: (1) required applicant to seal the site off to prevent trespass from the adjoining property by providing a curb; (2) move a 5 ft. landscape setback from the west property line along the east property line. Kent Bratt, Attorney, stated he is representing Mr. Eggers, owner of Castaways East (Perry Ave. Mall), and Jack Waldon, owner of Jack's Restaurant (Perry Ave. Mall). The main concern that his clients and other members of the Perry Avenue Mall have expressed relates to parking requirements. He stressed the proposal is not just for a restaurant, but includes three other businesses in this particular building (restaurant/lounge/cardroom/convenience grocery store). The original plan proposed 24 parking spaces and as stated in the Staff Report, the applicant is anticipating 75-100 vehicles TAPE #1005 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 18, 1992 Page 26 of 33 for the lunch and dinner hours. Some of those 24 parking spaces would be utilized by employees and card players who will sit for 2-4 hours playing cards and other spaces would be used for patrons of the lounge plus the 75-80 vehicles that would frequent the restaurant. He felt it was impossible to have 26 spaces servicing all of the intended uses. This did not take into account the convenience store proposed. In Mr. Bratt's opinion, cardrooms are similar to video arcades in that people go into them and stay long periods of time. Part of the Planning Commission's requirement is to ensure that there is not an adverse impact on surrounding property owners. Perry Avenue Mall has parking bordering the subject site and the impact on the Mall would come into play if there is not adequate parking provided for the development. This adversely impacts that property owner and w~uld create a trespass and would require Perry Avenue Mall Merchants Association to hire people to patrol the parking to ensure their land and rights to use of parking are not infringed upon. Currently, Perry Avenue Mall parking is heavily used by the VFW/Bingo Parlor and Castaways East. In regard to the size of the building facility, what is not mentioned is the fact that for the 4,000 sq. ft. building there is a 2,600 sq. ft. basement, that will be utilized for support facilities for the business on the first floor. When the question was raised about the storage area, it was stated it was more a warehouse. Mr. Bratt pointed out under the Zoning Code, warehouses of this size have a requirement of three parking spaces, which should have been added in if it was one. He stressed this "basement" is not a warehouse but an active portion of the businesses. He believed the down play that this was more than a restaurant also mislead the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission questioned since there was no code requirement for a cardroom what should they do? Mr. Bratt's clients ask that Council not approve this particular use and PUD due to the fact that there is insufficient parking, that it would unduly impact surrounding landowners or at least sent it back to the Planning Commission and require that they do a study of the parking facilities, the use thereof and traffic flows along Sheridan Road. He pointed out the City's last Traffic Study for that area was 1982, and traffic had increased markedly since then. Mr. Bratt pointed out there is a 200 unit apartment complex approved at the end of Sheridan where it intersects Perry Avenue. This will have a significant impact on the traffic pattern on both Perry Avenue and Sheridan Road. TAPE #1005 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 18, 1992 Page 27 of 33 It was brought out that those opposing this proposal owned restaurants and did not want the competition. Mr. Bratt stressed his clients were not concerned with competition, but rather parking. The tenants of the Perry Avenue Mall have to pay for their parking and if this proposal is approved, they will have to go to the added expense of policing the area for trespassers. Bob Lewis, representing himself and Bill Tennyson, owners of the Perry Avenue Mall, stated he was protesting this development due to the lack of parking. He challenged the City's interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance in its interpretation of Gross Floor Area, which states: "all horizonal areas on all floors that is enclosed by and including the exterior walls and it does not exclude storage place, restrooms, etc.". This means that the 4,000 sq. ft. plus 2,600 sq. ft. is a 6,600 sq. ft. restaurant. The Zoning Ordinance designates up to 4,000 sq. ft. requires a 150 sq. ft., per parking space and beyond that is 20 vehicles plus for every 100 sq. ft. He interpreted the Zoning Code to require 46 parking spaces for this project. Mr. Lewis referenced the following comments made by City staff during the Planning Commissions hearing of January 21, 1992:(1) "if no reciprocal parking space agreement is reached with Perry Avenue Mall space 11 would have to be eliminated as a way to turn the cars around in order to exit parking lot; (2) the eastern edge of the parking area is severely lacking in landscaping; (3) storm retention will be required (this was not shown on the plot plan and Mr. Lewis felt it would take in considerably more area than shown in the landscape area; (4) applicant projects 75-100 trip generations for lunch and dinner; (5) city is obligated to prevent trespassers of vehicles from this site to the mall site; (6) excerpt from January 21 Planning Commission meeting: "This is a disappointingly unimaginative site design that seems to fall short of the PUD potential. If this is the best possible perhaps too much is being crowded into too small a site". Mr. Lewis does not believe this is a good project and it is oversized for the lot. He urged Council to require this project be reduced drastically in size or that 46 parking spaces be provided as designated in the City's Zoning Ordinance. Mike Brow~, representing FBH Management Corporation, developer of the project and representative for Reyes, made the following rebuttals: (1) the issue of 4 separate business being proposed is misleading. There are four separate TAPE #1005 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 18, 1992 Page 28 of 33 entities operating out of one single facility by one single owner and operator. What is being proposed is an ethnic restaurant and grocery store and not a quick stop conventional grocery store. (2) Easterly boundary was lacking in landscape space - that position was broached earlier and resulted in the Planning Commission request to move the landscaping buffer from the westerly boundary to the easterly boundary. (3) No storm detention possible on site with the current planting area - the storm detention has been engineered by a local engineering firm, an underground system, that has been approved by the City's Engineering Department. (4) In reference to space #11, the original plan designated that space as an area for assisting turning around vehicles to exit the lot. Since a five foot wide planting area is now shown, there is an area designated where the last parking spaces on either side can back into and then exit. (5) They have worked on the plan in a good faith effort. In November of 1991, he wrote to the owners of the Perry Avenue Mall requesting their input on the proposed plan. He never received any response to his letter or to several follow up telephone calls to that organization, nor did they attend a public meeting held prior to the issue being heard by the Planning Commission. The proposed plan is now in excess of two parking spaces than what is required in the current Zoning Tables. If there is a deficiency in the Zoning Table, he did not feel it should be taken up on this project after they have already gone into the process of strict compliance with the existing zoning requirement. He briefly reviewed several local projects he had developed showing the level of quality of such projects. Mr. Lewis reiterated his point about the City's interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance relating to number of parking space requirements per square footage of buildings and the fact that they are changing that requirement for this development. Mr. Brown stated the originally proposed 2,600 sq. ft. basement has been reduced to 2,000 sq. ft. The size of the storage area is larger than that usually allowed for a normal size restaurant due to the fact that it is ethnic in origin and they would be buying in bulk quantities those items that are not readily available locally. Mrs. Fitz questioned the number of entrances for the four businesses? Mr. Brown stated there would be two separate entrances, all of which have common public areas. An individual coming into the restaurant area also has access to the grocery and cardroom from that particular entrance. There will be a single cashier for both the grocery and restaurant. Mrs. Fit~ questioned the amount of floor space to be utilized for the store area? Mr. Brown stated approximately 800 sq. TAPE #1005 city Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 18, 1992 Page 29 of 33 ft. President Horton questioned how many employees would the four businesses employ? Mr. Brow~ stated this was not his area of expertise but he thought about seven. President Horton noted this seemed to be well under the requirement, but there is a new Federal requirement called a Transportation Demand Management Program for any business that has 20 or more employees. She felt even if this project did not require such a plan, it might be prudent to have one anyway. City staff needs to start including that element into all business segments. Mr. Brown stated he understood President Horton's point, however, at no time did he anticipate 20 employees for an operation of this size. Mr. Collins questioned if the plan shown on the view graph was the same shown at the Planning Commission hearing or did they only see the sketch included in the Council Agenda packet reflecting 24 stalls rather than the proposed 26? Mr. A11inqham stated the Planning Commission only saw the sketch included in Council's Agenda packet, which identified only 24 parking stalls. Mr. Collins stated considering the fact that Council was viewing a plan that was not provided at the Planning Commission hearing, it should be remanded back to the Planning Commission. #1406 M/S/F(Collins/Colvin) to remand this issue back to the Planning Commission. Mrs. Fitz questioned if she was correcting in the fact that moving the landscaping and providing turn around space were recommendations of the Planning Commission? Mr. &11ingham stated yes, that is correct, this is only a preliminary site plan approval. From this approval, applicant can go on to final design details and the applicant has continued to work on the design since the public hearing. President Horton stressed the revised sketch reflects the decision of the Planning Commission. Mr. Johnson questioned if the proposed development was built but at a later date was to become a hardware store, would that change in use come before Council? Ian Sievers, City Attorney, stated the change in use would require a change in occupancy permit which would trigger another review. Mr. JOhnson stated that was amazing because he had not seen even one such circumstance happen in the past 10 years. President ~orton pointed out that action is done administratively. Mr. Colvin questioned if the previous reference to Planning staff's comments were correct? Mr. Allinqham stated those were comments made by one Planning staff member and not the TAPE #1005 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 18, 1992 Page 30 of 33 official position of the Planning staff. ~r. Colvin questioned the official position of the Planning Staff? Mr. Allin~ham stated it was to recommend approval as presented subject to the conditions set by the Planning Commission. ~r. Colvin questioned if he were to build a building of the same size as the proposed project, being on all one floor, would he be required to have more parking spaces? ~r. ~11ingb-m stated the parking can be calculated by the use if it could be shown that part of that use was storage use; and would not be required to provide the same parking as that required for a restaurant. Mr. Estes questioned if Mr. Bratt's clients had responded with input on this development? Mr. Brat~ stated there was one preliminary meeting with City staff that did not have any representation from the Perry Avenue Mall. However, there was attendance at the Planning Commission hearing on this proposal. Mr. Brown stated he was in agreement with the sequence of events. Mrs. Fitz questioned the hours of the proposed establishment? Mr. Brown explained they would be opening at 11:00 AM and closing at midnight or shortly thereafter. Mr. Overson pointed out that once the bingo parlor and horse racing activities stated at businesses in the Perry Avenue Mall, parking became a major issue. He questioned whether or not the City can reinterpret City laws to squeeze this requirement down, and whether the developer was legal in all four applications relating to floor space and required parking spaces? Mr. Allingham stated there are several ways to interpret the parking and both applicants have provided one interpretation of that. The Planning Commission is supporting the proposal being presented at this time. Vote on motion: In Favor: Colvin, Collins Opposed: Johnson, Overson, Estes, Fitz, Horton Abstain: Dawkins Motion failed. Mr. Dawk~ns stated when Perry Avenue Mall is in full operation, parking is a major issue. If there is an overflow from the proposed site to the Mall parking lot, it will create a problem. He questioned who would monitor that situation if it happens? He felt that the addition of the cardroom would tie up parking spaces for long periods of time. He questioned if anyone had talked with the owners of the bank lot to the west of the proposed site for additional parking? Don Pratt, TAPE #1005 city Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 18, 1992 Page 31 of 33 Director Of Community Development, stated if there is that potential the only way to get to it would be to uphold the appellant and request the developer come up with additional parking for the proposal. Whether or not they could utilize additional parking at the bank is not part of Council's discussion at this time. The answer to Mr. Dawkins question is yes, it is possible to work out agreements for remote parking, however, it is not known if there is a willing partner to such an agreement. Mr. Overson questioned assuming Council approved this proposal, is the City at risk to be sued because we have encroached on another party? Mr. $~evers stated he did disagree with the comment that the City was responsible for preventing trespass. The City does the best it can with available police powers and zoning, but it does not extend to liability for trespassing of third persons. He was concerned that the parking requirement for uses is so loose and subject to interpretation that maybe it needs to be improved. There should be an average or normal amount of storage associated with restaurants and that should be compared with what is being proposed and to the use the storage parking requirements for what is left over. Mr. Overson questioned from a legal standpoint, assuming the interpretation is legal, are we totally legal to approve it; and if not then the City may be at risk for noting uphold our own ordinance? #1796 M/S/C(Fitz/Johnson) to uphold the Planning Commissions decision approving the preliminary planned unit development for the R & J Reyes Cafe subject to the conditions stated in the Planning Commissions Findings Of Fact And Conclusions Of Law. Vote on motion: In Favor: Johnson, Overson, Estes, Fitz, Horton Opposed: Colvin, Collins, Dawkins Motion carried. President Horton provided the following direction to staff: "tighter controls are needed in the Zoning Ordinance relating to parking"; and she would like that looked into. 7~ - EOUIPMENT RENTAL RESERVE BUDGET ADJUSTMENT FOR ~URCHASE OF A NEW WHEEL LOADER FOR BTREET DEPARTMENT, ~AB92-069 The 1992 budget did not include authorization for purchasing a new loader for the Street Department. The Fleet .Maintenance estimate for repair costs to our existing loader exceeds $24,000; a cost not warranted to a 10 TAPE #1005 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 18, 1992 Page 32 of 33 year old loader. Purchasing a new loader will cost less than triple the repair costs, thus a budget adjustment is needed to allow for the purchase of this new loader. Ken Brees, Street Superintendent, stated it was in the City's best interest to invest in the new loader rather than repair the existing piece of equipment. Mr. Dawkins questioned the life expectancy if the current loader was repaired? Mr. Brees stated the other hidden problem is the fact that the current loader is foreign made and it is difficult getting parts. Mr. Dawkins questioned if the Equipment Rental Reserve Fund had funds to cover this cost? Rioh Hanna, City Treasurer, stated this piece of equipment is at the end of its useful life and the dollars are within that account. Mr. Johnson expressed concern that the Ryder estimate was not clear. He questioned the high cost estimates of items and no labor costs for installation of the transmission. Mr. Brees stated the intent may be to sublet the job for installing the transmission. Mr. Overson pointed out if the equipment was repaired the funds for those repairs would come from the Street Fund. However, if the equipment is purchased new it can be funded out of the Equipment Rental Reserve Fund. Hr. Brees stated they have set aside funds, over a period of years, to replace this equipment. Mr. Overson questioned why a quote for $56,636 was given when Mr. Brees requested $71,00007 Mr. Hanna stated the $56,636 does not include sales tax and the reason for requesting $71,000 is to provide, on the expenditure side of the budget, the gross cost of this machine. The trade-in is in effect a sale of the old machine, which is on the revenue side of the budget, needing an expenditure capacity for the entire cost without deducting the trade in value of the old machine. He stressed that will not be the total cash dispersement but is the expense that will show on the City's accounting books. Public comment - none. #2322 M/S/C/U(Estes/Dawkins) to adjust Equipment Rental Reserve budget in the amount of $71,053.61 to allow for purchase of a new loader. 7B - INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN PACIFIC COUNTY, TAPE #1005 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 18, 1992 Page 33 of 33 WASHINGTON ~ THE CITY O~ ~REMERTON FOR PURCH~.SE OF A NEW WHEEL LOADER, #~%B92-070 The Street Department requests approval for the City of Bremerton to enter into an intergovernmental agreement with Pacific County, Washington, for the purchase of one (1) JD544E John Deere new wheel loader with options. Cost of this leader is not included in budget, however, Equipment Rental Reserve has adequate funds available. Council Fiscal and Budget Committee concurred in the Budget Adjustment request. Mr. Brees outlined the process of buying items off the State Contract and the cost savings benefit to the City. Public comment - none. #2393 M/S/C/U(Dawkins/Colvin) to authorize the Mayor to enter into an Intergovernmental Agreement between the City of Bremerton and Pacific County for the purchase of one (1) JD544E John Deere new wheel loader with options. With no further business meeting adjourned at 10:00 PM. KATHL~EN L. McCLUSKEY, City Clerk LIfNN HORTON, Council President City of Bremerton KLM/LH/me cc: No£mal Distribution File/Vault