Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/04/92 TAPE #1000 UNAPPROVED DRAFT ~~ CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES MAR MARCH 4, 199Z 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 4, at 5:30 p.m., with Council President Lynn Horton presiding. Council members present: Lon Overson, Wayne Estes, Eileen Fitz, Hank Waibel, C. R. "Tiny" Collins, Morrie Dawkins, A1 Colvin. Councilman Russ Johnson 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 Frank Washburn of Kings West School. President Horton announced Council would hold a Study Session immediately following the City Council meeting to discuss funding for the Overwater Park. CONSENT AGENDA - None. CLAIMS/WARR]%NT 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. #0047 M/S/C/U(Colvin/Estes) on March 4, 1992, the Council does approve for payment those vouchers included and further described as follows: 145213, 145569 through 145739 in the total amount of $502,164.86, and Retirees Payroll for the period ending February 29, 1992, in the total amount of $62,909.10. COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS Mr. Overson stated hopeful the audio for the Council meeting will be better this week than it was last week. He attended a meeting Monday, March 2, about bridges and their impact on the area. Council's input at that meeting was to bring the meeting to Bremerton because it is a "hub" of the transportation area and the officials and residents of Bremerton need to review and comment on such a presentation. On Tuesday, March 3, he had the opportunity to accompany Don Pratt, Director of Community Development, who made a presentation in the Manette area on Growth Management and its TAPE #1000 city Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 4, 1992 Page 2 of 26 impact on the Manette area as well as the downtown. This program was well received and Mr. Pratt did an excellent job presenting information and answering questions. Mr. Estes reported he also attended the Transportation Department's meeting on Monday and found the new Cross-Sound Study to have a lot of weak points. He suggested the public review that study and contact their legislators as soon as possible with their response. He noted one statement in the study referenced "removing the YMCA building"...that was done three years ago! Also, Bremerton was the only location where ferry was to be deleted. The issue of parking was not addressed or the back up of traffic waiting for ferry service. Also, they had no idea of the impact of sending a large number of vehicles into West Seattle or some other place all at once...they are already congested in those areas. The cost of this study amounted to well over one million dollars and the fi~m contracted to provided it is based in California. He felt the report was "slip shod" and designated to determine if they could put bridges in and not so much the idea of having Ferry transportation. Mrs. Fitz stated she also attended the Transportation Department meeting on March 2. She felt it was very important for people in the Kitsap County area to attend the next scheduled meeting on Bainbridge Island. If this study is adopted, either in part or certain segments, it has far reaching implications for the County and the people who commute to the east side of the Sound. She noted additional hearings on the study will be held at Edmonds and Burien. Mr. Waibel reported he attended the Kitsap County Regional Council meeting this date. During the Board of Health meeting they received an update on HIV-Aids activity in the County. There have been 62 accumulative cases of aids since records began in Kitsap County and in 1988 there were 13 new cases and 12 deaths, 1989 12 new cases and 7 deaths, 1990 11 new cases and 4 deaths, and in 1991 12 new cases and one death. The medical community has done a lot to prolong life in cases of aids. The statistics for HIV Tests were: 1988 - 485, 1990 - 560+, 1991 - 923. The number of calls to the AID's hotline were: 1988 - 79 requests for the whole year; 1989 - 132, 1990 - 189, 1991 - 2,517. A good job of responding to inquiries, education and medical advances is being made. Mr. Waibel provided copies of the AIDS information and a copy will also be available in the City Council office. Additional information can be obtained from the HIV-AIDS Volunteer Program Coordinator -Holly Jacobson. Testimony was given on the value of the Volunteer Programs and the fact they are TAPE #1000 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 4, 1992 Page 3 of 26 life-saving both to the HIV person and to the families affected as well. He noted the City is well represented on this issue and Carol Dickinson, Community Services Manager, is not only on the Task Force Board but is Chairman for the Long- Range Planning Committee. HIV -AIDS information can be obtained from the Health Department by calling 478-4235. Mr. Colvin congratulated the Council for almost starting on time. He noted there is still some confusion for citizens on the garbage collection rates. He contacted Brem-Air for the following information: 32 gallon can costs $12.14 per month; 20 gallon can costs $15.02 for two months; all extra bags must be tagged. He noted if two garbage cans are set out, do not put the "tag" on one of the cans because that can will be disposed of also. He reported all Brem-Air customers must sign up for the service they desire. Curbside recycling has not been implemented yet and recycled items can be dropped of at Peninsula Recycling - 373-5378. Mr. Dawkins attended the Transportation Department's meeting on March 2, and noted he had been watching transportation issues for the past 25 years. The State Transportation Commission has a little latitude on what they spend their money on,i.e., million dollar Cross-Sound Study. He doubled that the legislators, who vote on funding, would support building bridges. He believed the emphasis will be on faster and better ferry service in all directions. Mr. Collins reported he attended the Transportation Department's meeting on March 2. An alternative to jumbo ferry service would be four small, 50 car ferries running from Bremerton to Seattle and also equal and like numbers of small ferries going from other points around the Sound. As outcome of Vision 2020, we would probably need 8 additional ferry points in the whole Puget Sound and move tremendous numbers of people with small ferries that do not require huge engines. In the past 30 years, he had observed five bridges built over major water areas and three of them are still standing. During this same period of time, a significant number of ferries have been built. Three bridges still standing equals a 40% mortality rate on bridges, but all the ferries that were built are still in service. He announced Bremerton Animal Control will the host the Washington State Criminal Justice Training Academy on Animal Control in 1992. This will be a 5- day seminar to be held in Burien and will draw Animal Control personnel state-wide and even farther. He congratulated Bremerton Animal Control for being a leader. He announced Bremerton Animal Control now is serving the community seven days per week, allowing animals to be retrieved on weekends. TAPE #1000 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 4, 1992 Page 4 of 26 Garbage Collection - when the new garbage collection contract was developed it was recognized there would be a need for a strong Litter Control Ordinance in order to keep people from dumping garage illegally. The new contract has been in effect for one month and already people are starting to dump garbage illegally and people who do not want to put lawn clippings into their garbage cans are dumping them on to the curb. He questioned if the City Attorney was preparing a more stringent Litter Ordinance? Ian Sievers, City Attorney, stated work is under way on a rewrite ordinances relating to litter and garbage disposal, however, they needed to tie in with business licensing and transfer of the fee franchise tax provisions. Mr. Collins questioned when would that item be before Council? Mr. Sievers stated it would be on the March 18th Council Agenda. President Horton reported Council will have discussion on the garbage contract implementation program as part of the Council Agenda on March 18. If anyone has questions about the contract implementation, they will have the opportunity to speak to Council or they can call the Council Office or the City Clerk's office with those issues so they can be addressed in a comprehensive package. On Wednesday, March 11, following the Council meeting, Council will have a "Crime and Law Enforcement" hearing, which will be televised. On February 29, Council held a Study Session Retreat and discussed reformulating Council Committees and a change in format during Council meetings allowing public input after Council has an opportunity for discussion. Since Councilman Johnson was absent from the Retreat, she wanted to discuss this point with him prior to implementation. She anticipated starting that practice the week of March 11. Mr. Collins stated at the Kitsap County Regional Council meeting this date one of the action items was the County-Wide Population forecast. He questioned what was the result of that action and whose population numbers were to be used? President Horton stated everyone's numbers will be used and a "mid point" will be used between the high and iow figures. Mr. Waibel stated they are using the Office Financial Management's figures for the low and the Kitsap Census for the high and establishing a bid range between those figures. As the City's Planning Director pointed out during that meeting, it is only a 10% spread and in terms of forecasting predictions that percentage is a reasonable spread. PUBLIC RECOGNITION Mayor Louis Mentor stated he hoped everyone was enjoying Riddell Road and Wheaton Way now that the turn lanes and TAPE #1000 city Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 4, 1992 Page 5 of 26 resurfacing have been completed. Mayor Mentor read a Proclamation honoring Don Heinrich, a Bremerton native who recently passed away, who achieved the following during his life time: NCAA Hall of Fame quarterback, University of Washington All-American, team member of the New York Giants and Dallas Cowboys and 15 years coaching professional. Mayor Mentor proclaimed March 6, 1992, as DON HEINRICH DAY Don Atkinson, Bremerton Main Street Association, reported the Athletic Roundtable had a "conference call" with Don Heinrick about two weeks ago, which turned out to be a very moving event. Mr. Atkinson announced the J.C. Penney Building has been taken over for four days to house "Putin On The Green", a St. Patrick Day celebration - March 14, 15, 16 17. The Bremerton Sunday Market will be open on March 14 and 15, inside the Penneys Building. A parade will take place on March 14, 11:00 AM, and at 6:00 P.M. the "Roundwood Musicians and Dancers, from Dublin Ireland, will perform. A Reno-Night will be held on the evening of March 17 and net proceeds from this four day event will benefit the Andy Pendergast Memorial field complex. President Horton encouraged Mr. Atkinson to publicize this event on Channel 29. Jim Strait, 6520 Harlow Drive, President of Kitsap Lake Neighborhood Association, stated he was concerned over one City Council member being very vocal about building a prison in his neighborhood. He did not believe it was appropriate to site such a facility in that area and when the time comes for rezone of that site, he hoped that Council member would be restricted from voting. He reported there is an area along Kitsap Way that has been a right-of-way for over 50 years and there is a business using that section of right-of-way to store their equipment. He felt if they wanted to use that site then the City should be charging them rent or if it is not needed to then sell it to the property owner so it could be returned to the tax roll. President Horton requested Mr. Strait to pass on the location of that right-of-way to the City Clerk so it can reviewed. Earl Bert, 6410 Lake Drive, Chairman of the Citizens Advisory Committee - Pre-Release Facility, reported the Committee met on Tuesday, March 3, and the motion made during that meeting was to "not" support locating a Pre-Release Facility on the proposed site in Bremerton. There were six members of the committee present, one person absent, and the motion came out with a tie vote. This committee will not hold any more meetings until completion of the Environmental Impact TAPE 91000 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 4, 1992 Page 6 of 26 Statement. He would call a "special" meeting if something special came up. 6A - CONTI~ACT EXTENSION - DIAMOND PARKINGt ~AB92-056 The City contracted with Diamond Parking for management and operations of four City owned parking facilities since 1985. The current contract expires March 31, 1992. Conditions exist that warrant a one year extension of the contract, including: 1. The Internal Auditor and senior management have reviewed potential operating costs for the City to "self-operate" the owned parking lots. Their conclusion is that present revenues will not support self-operation at this time. 2. The Internal Auditor and staff will review the impact of the Bremerton Lumber property when data is available after commencement of operations. 3. Because of the investment required for start-up, a bid call should be for a minimum of three years. 4. Diamond Parking will waive the guaranteed minimum for services and will accept the present 15% of adjusted revenues as its fee. Kathleen MoCluskey, City Clerk, frequently the City was paying the minimum schedule of payments to Diamond. If the City had been paying 15%, it would have been less costly to the City. Diamond is willing to waive that minimum, thereby making it a more competitive contract. The more revenue Diamond can generate in City lots the higher their fee will be. The dollar figures for cost of operation and revenues collected for the parking lots does not support the City taking management of those lots in-house. The extension of one year will provide an opportunity for the City to once again look at self-operation and/or go out for bid. The City has been happy with the present contractor's services so there was no compelling reason to change providers. Public comment - none. Mr. Colvin questioned the total amount of income from the parking lots and what portion of those revenues did the City receive? Ms. McCluske¥ stated the total in 1991 was $190,442.00 and Diamond's fee amounted to $29,471.00. Because Diamond operates a number of lots in the City, they are able to spread their cost out over all of the managed lots. If City's parking revenues go up and if the City has other parking lots, there is a breaking point where it would be beneficial for the City to take over collection of fees. TAPE #1000 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 4, 1992 Page 7 of 26 Mrs. Fitz noted a $19,000.00 increased from 1990 to 1991 and the majority of the increase was from August through December. She questioned if the increase was for parking alone or had parking fees been increased? Mr. McCluskey stated a new parking lot, on Park Avenue, was opened in 1991, generating new revenues; and there was an increase in prices. Mrs. Fitz questioned if Ms. McCluskey had a breakdown of revenues collected for each lot? Mrs. M¢Cluske¥ stated yes, however, she did not have it available at the meeting. Mr. Collins questioned if all revenues received from parking fees go toward eliminating the Parking Garage debt or going into the General Fund? Rich Hanna, City Treasurer, explained the proceeds from the Diamond Contract for the off-street parking facilities together with the on-street (both fee boxes and meters), along with revenue from parking tickets, all go into the Parking Fund. Out of that fund, the City finances enforcement of parking regulations, the Diamond Contract, and any other expenses associated with operating the City's parking system. The remaining profits or funds not required for that system, are transferred to the Street Department. This year's transfer to the Street Department is approximately $200,000. President Horton emphasized there is a debt service on the Parking Garage. Mr. Hanna acknowledged that the debt service is also paid out of the Parking Fund. Mr. Collins questioned if it would be appropriate to use Parking funds to pay for any outstanding debt on the old "In & Out Restaurant" property? Mr. Hanna stated acquisition and development of the property was funded out of the Parking Fund. Mr. waibel pointed out Diamond gave the City a guarantee that the revenues from the Parking Garage would pay for its debt service. He questioned if the City was allowing Diamond to use all revenues from all the parking lots to meet that guarantee? Mrs. McCluske¥ stated that was a guarantee under the old contract for just the Parking Garage itself. Because the City is generating sufficient funding to pay the debt service, it has not been an issue. #1414 M/S/C/U(Colvin/Fitz) that present contract with Diamond Parking for management and operations of City owned parking facilities be extended for one year to March 31, 1993, and that fee be 15% of adjusted revenue. 6B - OVERWATER PARK CHANGE ORDER NO. lm ~AB92-057 This Change Order includes Change Order Proposals No. 1,2,3 and 6 plus Field Orders No. 1 and 2 as shown n the attached documentation. TAPE #1000 city Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 4, 1992 Page 8 of 26 These changes have been required in order for the project to proceed on schedule. The contract sum will increase from $1,778,700.00 to $1,885,440. 97 including tax. Dave Baker, city Engineer, stated the subject change order is the one that has been referenced during several monthly project update reports. He emphasized he did inform Council there would be change orders because there is no way to drive piling at a per- foot cost and not have change orders. Change Order Proposal #1 is the lineal feet of 16" piling that was above or below that amount which was in the estimate that went out to the contract. (As an example, if the City made an estimate of 1,000 lineal feet of piling and the contractor provides a figure for that amount - anything beyond that amount would be paid for by the lineal foot. By the same token, if the actual amount was under the estimated amount, the cost would be reduced by the lineal foot.) This change order amounts to $46,516.00, amounting to 563 lineal feet, which is approximately 7.8 ft. per pile deeper than anticipated on the drawings and 51 splices. Change Order Proposal #2 was addition of 3-18" diameter test pilings. As outlined in Change Order #1, the footage was missed by 563.8 feet. Three 18" test pilings were driven at the cost of $3,250.00, which was the cost of moving the barge, driving the piling, hiring the testing company to make the test (both vertical and horizontal) and then from that the next 18" piling were estimated from what the original contract had stated. Referencing Item #5 - this is the modification to the 18" schedule, which means they hit the 18" schedule within 1.4 feet. It certainly paid to use the three test pilings. Change Order Proposal #3 - to modify the pier itself in order to take the Turner Joy gangway. The Turner Joy gangway and its connection were not part of the original contract. Change Order Proposal #6 - furnishing and installing poles and light bases and anchors. The contract drawing stated those items would be furnished by the City. By the time the City gets to an open bid for this item, it would be less expensive for the contractor to provide it. Field Order #1 is a change in the 18" diameter piles. The City received a credit of $76.00. Field Order #2 is telephone cable relocation. As you are probably aware, there is a marine telephone cable crossing Sinclair Inlet beginning at the south edge of the pump station. As it turned out, that telephone cable turned out to TAPE #1000 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 4, 1992 Page 9 of 26 be two telephone cables. The second telephone cable was directly under Pile #76, so in order to not damage that telephone cable, the City hired a diver to move the cable out of the way to make sure the piling did not go through either of those two cables. This cost for this service amounted to $2,730.00. The total amount on this Change Order is $99,017.60 plus tax for a total of $106,740.97. This will add 27 working days or 40 calendar days to the contract, which means the substantial completion date moves to June 15, 1992. Public comment - none. President Morton handed out to each Council member a rough work sheet showing the City budgeted $2,093,500 for this project. The total Portico contact, including the amendment and tax, amounted to approximately $313,000. The construction contract came to $1,778,000 (including tax); and an additional amount of $60,000 for permit fees. Those three items equal $2,152,000 and those figures indicate to her that the City was over budget when the construction contract was let out to Quigg Brothers. Mr. Hanna stated President Horton's numbers were close and he had performed the same analysis prior to Council meeting. Of the approximately $60,000 ancillary costs, some portion of those were funded by a grant that is not budgeted in the revenues for the overwater park ... Coastal Zone Management Grant for informational signing on the sedimentation. The order of magnitude was about $19,000 and the remainder of those ancillary costs were permitting. There were some other parties, in addition to Portico and Quigg Brothers, who were involved in some preliminary studies on fisheries and related expenses of that nature. He roughly estimated $50,000 for that figure, which gave a total commitment of $2,142,000, with identified funding sources totalling only $2,093,000. Roughly $50,000 was committed beyond revenue sources identified. President Horton emphasized from the beginning when the Quigg Brothers contract was approved, the City was committed beyond identifiable funding sources. Mr. Manna stated yes, and the only additional factor was costs associated with permitting when they "began counting" and some of those costs go back several years when presentations were made to Council of architect renderings of conceptual designs. President Morton stated the proposal now adds almost $107,000 to the construction costs, meaning at this moment there is no money in the budget to pay for this Change Order; and subsequently that would apply to the next Agenda item. Mr. Hanna stated President Horton was correct. President Morton stated totally the two figures the City is TAPE 91000 city Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 4, 1992 Page 10 of 26 about $160,000 over budget on this project coupled with the next agenda item of $145,000 - coming up with a figure of approximately $300,000 over budget. Mr. Hanna stated that was correct. President Horton questioned since the City is over budget and there is no funding available to pay for it, this item cannot be approved? Ian Sievers, City Attorney, stated if the Change Order is approved, it would lead to a signature obligating the City to pay the money and there needs to be an appropriation before a commitment is made or incur any liability to pay out that money. Mr. Colvin questioned where would the money come from? Mr. Hanna stated it appears the three most logical sources are Cumulative Reserve Fund, Hotel/Motel Tax or Real Estate Excise Tax. Among those funds there are adequate resources, but the budget would have to be amended to expand the City's financial ability. Mrs. Fitz questioned if there was money available to fund the Change Order and the next Agenda item or if there is just enough to fund the Change Order? Mr. Hanna explained in the three funds he just identified the Cumulative Reserve Fund has budgeted ending cash in the amount of $334,500.00; Hotel/Motel Tax Fund - $294,550; Real Estate Excise Tax Fund - $270,698.00 (with the caveat until the Comprehensive Plan is amended to include the C.I.P. element, the City is not at liberty to spend it until that other contingency is taken care of). Mrs. Fitz stated realistically those funds are not available at this time. Mr. Hanna stated not at this moment. President Horton questioned if that included the $500,000 that has been committed to the Sports Complex? Mr. Hanna stated no it does not...as it stands at this moment, the City has committed $250,000 to the Sports Complex. The dollar figures he cited were over and above that commitment of $250,000. President Horton stated for clarification out of one fund the City still needed to extract $250,000 for the Sports Complex. Mr. Hanna stated yes, to meet the City's total commitment of $500,000. Mr. Overson stated he believed Council needed to decide what to do with the this Agenda item and the following Agenda item. It appears this item, at a minimum, needs to go before the Council Fiscal And Budget Committee for review. Aside from the $250,000 required for those three funds, there are other purposes and it needs to be resolved how important those purposes are. He suggested Council discuss the next Agenda item, but it may take the same direction as this item and be tabled for further review. He questioned, under Change Order #3 - Turner Joy Gangway, was this a surprise to the contractor and why wasn't it in the construction contract? Mr. Baker stated he wished he could explain that, however, he was not involved in the design phase of the project and he took over TAPE #1000 city Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 4, 1992 Page 11 of 26 when construction began. Mr. Overson questioned if Portico was at fault on that point? Mr. Baker stated perhaps, however, there are at least four entities working side-by-side on this project. Mr. Overson pointed out Portico is the project manager and they provided the design. Mr. Baker stated Portico did what they were directed to do and he was not sure what they were directed to do. He can only assume they were not directed to put the gangway on the plans since that is not on the plan. Mr. Overson requested research on what happened on that particular point. He noted this proposal is a non-budgeted item and no one expected that. The issue of lighting turns out to be a non-budgeted issue by the way it was handled. It was always intended lights would be provided and he questioned how did that item get out of the contract? Mr. Baker stated he did not know how it was taken out of the contract, however, he confirmed that it was indicated on the drawings to be furnished by the "owner", meaning the City. Mr. Overson stated he believed Portico needed to provide information as to how they were being guided. He reviewed a report dated January 31, stating contract costs of $2,227,815 and another report, that is validated, showing the contract cost as $2,152.288...the numbers just do not add up. President Horton stated Mr. Baker was on record, when Council approved the Quigg Brothers' contract, saying that there was a contingency of $165-185,000, when in fact there was no contingency and the City was over budgeted at that point. She questioned how did that little thing happen to slip through the crack? Mr. Baker stated he was not sure the City was over budget. He was not aware the project was over budget and the budget he has in front of him is the budget sent out by the Treasurer showing there was approximately $2,100,000 budgeted. President Horton stated that was correct, however, when adding up those three figures, Portico Contract, Permit fees and construction, the project is already over budget. Mr. Baker pointed out the Portico contract was not amended at that time and he was not aware what was paid for the design prior to the contract itself. President Horton questioned if Mr. Baker did not know what was going on, who in the administration did? Mr. Baker stated he knew the budget figure they had was $2,100,000, and he knew that the amount of the contract and the amount of Portico's involvement was not $2,100,000. President Horton questioned if Mr. Hanna knew, when the Quigg Brothers contract was approved, that the project was over budget? Mr. Hanna stated no, he did not. Mr. Overson stated maybe that is an issue that the Council Fiscal and Budget Committee needs to look into. president Horton stated Council needs answers to her questions. TAPE #1000 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 4, 1992 Page 12 of 26 #2369 M/S/C/U(Collins/Colvin) to table this item until it and any adjustments have been reviewed by Council Fiscal and Budget Committee. President Horton requested a report from the administration to document where the City erred and how to get it back on track. 6C - CONTRACT AMENDMENT IN SETTLEMENT OF OVERWATER PARK CONTRACT DISPUTE, ~AB92-058 A dispute has arisen in the interpretation of the Overwater Park contact language regarding payment of pilings. A negotiated settlement has been reached between Quigg Bros. - McDonald, Inc., and the City whereby the City would include a price for the contract estimate for piling based on 59% of the contractor's unit prices for piling. The cost to the City amounts to $145,651.53 plus tax. Public comment - none. Mrs. Fitz questioned if there was a conflict in the contract from the beginning? Ian Sievers, City Attorney, stated yes, his earliest memo shows a response to an objection once the bids were opened from the contractor back to June 24, 1991, expressing a different interpretation of the bid documents. He researched on whether the City could negotiate a change at all and it was determined they could not and Quigg Brothers would have to accept the contract as written. They did sign the contract and stated they had a different interpretation of this agreement and they reserved their rights. The City has been negotiating with them since that time. President Horton stated when Mr. Baker presented the original contract to Council Mr. Estes identified that Quigg Brothers left something off the bid and wanted to make sure that was now resolved and you indicated it had been taken care of. Mr. Baker stated he indicated the contract was signed for $1,650,000. President Horton stated this Council did not know there was a contract dispute still pending at that time and she questioned if Mr. Baker knew that Council did not know? Mr. Baker stated he is assuming now that Council didn't know Mr. Overson questioned if Mr. Baker knew there was a contract dispute at that time? Mr. Baker stated he knew there was a dispute but was not aware the dispute was to be carried on because Quigg Brothers had signed the contract. Mr. Colvin questioned if the City Attorney knew there was an unresolved dispute? Mr. Sievers stated yes, Quigg Brothers only signed the contract with a future process of mediation or litigation to resolve our interpretation verses their interpretation of TAPE #1000 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 4, 1992 Page 13 of 26 how much was actually owed them under the contract. They must have provided something in writing as the City responded on June 24th in writing. They got back to the city with a more detailed analysis on November 26, 1991, and he responded a couple of times since then. He noted in the June 24, 1991, letter they reviewed the issue with Mr. Baker and reviewed Quigg Brother's position on their interpretation of the contract. After a few months into the contract, the contractor submitted to Mr. Baker a schedule of value and that reflected their interpretation. The City then pointed out to them our interpretation had to be included as a lump sum and distributed among scheduled values for progress payments to be paid and they did correct that but re-emphasized they were not conceding their point on the contact. Mr. Colvin questioned the amount of the dispute? Mr. sievers stated $145,000 is 59% of the disputed amount and the City's position is no money and their position is basically 100% of all the piling that has been driven. Mrs. Fitz questioned why did the City go into a contract when there was a dispute to begin with? Mr. Sievers stated he believed there was a very good reason for that.., if the contract were interpreted later by the Court totally in the favor of Quigg Brothers, they still would have been the low bidder. By litigating this and prevailing, perhaps rendering a settlement the City would still have the low bidder on the contract and possibly made some progress on the bid as well. The only other option was to have Quigg Brothers sign the contract and if they chose not to sign the contract they could have retrieved their bid bond and the City would have had to go to the second lowest bidder and would have cost the city money above even if they prevailed totally. President Horton stated had this Council known at that time there was 1/4 million dollar dispute, they would have had the option to ascertain whether or not to go forward with the project as designed or, if funding was not identified, request the Mayor to scale back the project. Mr. Overson stated he was part of the original design committee and the original design of the overwater park (or boardwalk) was smaller than the current project. One of the purposes behind that smaller design was based on the recommendation of some very high quality engineers and designers from the City, who were intimately involved. A smaller sized design was something affordable, but which would provide what the City wanted. Later, that design was changed to make the large facility that is now being constructed and it looks like someone may have "bitten off more than they should have". He questioned if there is a funding source to cover the $145,000 being requested? TAPE #1000 city Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 4, 1992 Page 14 of 26 Mr. Colvin stated as he understands it, if the City goes to Court, we may end up with a greater liability than the $145,000. Mr. Sievers stated if the City had to pay 100% of the disputed amount it could amount to $245,000. Mr. Colwin questioned if this was the most economical way to get out of the dispute? Mr. Sievers stated there are arguments on both sides and he is recommending the settlement to Council for the reasons he stated in his confidential" memo. Mr. Wai~el stated there is a lot of State law in terms of whether a City can commit funds they don't have and if the City had a potential liability built into the initial contract, we were at that time allocating that potential $300,000. We should never have been allowed to approve the contract without knowing the amount of the obligation. Mr. Sievers stated that was possibly true and there should be a normal contingency fund. In the event of potential added liability that fund should be increased accordingly. Mr. Waibel stated he believed the City may have entered into the contract in direct violation of State regulations. He wants to make sure the City does not do something like that again. Mr. Sievers stated that was true, and he understands this item has to be tabled for the same reasons the previous Agenda Item was tabled. He pointed out the figure arrived at with Quigg Brothers is hinged upon the timeliness of settlement in reaching that figure. If the contractor has to wait for a settlement until the end of the contract, they way choose to litigate instead of accepting the proposed settlement. He urged Council to try to find funding. President Horton pointed out it was up to the administration to find the funding and route it through Council Fiscal and Budget Committee and then to Council for approval. Mr. Estes requested Mayor Mentor to comment on this issue since he is the chief executive officer and responsible for overseeing the functioning of the City. Mayor Mentor stated at the time the bid was let, he felt the money was identified, and in fact had a $265,000 contingency fund. He did now know how this discrepancy came up of approximately $150,000, possibly the architect or design fees were not included in the proposal. Mr. Waibel pointed out there is now the potential of having a $300,000 liability. Mayor Mentor stated there is a potential of about $240,000 in dispute and at the time when the project first began it looked good. President Horton stated it appeared from the beginning there was a problem and Mr. Baker stated he was not aware of the shortfall, now the Mayor is stating he wasn't aware of it - this is not a good way to "run a railroad". Mr. Estes questioned Mayor Mentor how this problem will be solved, how long will it take and TAPE #1000 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 4, 1992 Page 15 of 26 will it jeopardize the project? mayor Mentor stated a decision on whether or not to accept the proposed settlement figures is need, continue negotiations, or to a lawsuit. Mr. Waibel stated Council did not have a choice as there is no money...they cannot obligate the City. Mayor Mentor stated a funding source needs to be assigned to fund this proposal and he felt it would most likely be the Hotel/Motel Tax Fund. Mrs. Fitz stated had Council been apprised of this sooner, money could have been budgeted. Mr. Overson stated this item does need to go back to the Fiscal and Budget Committee. Based on what Council now knows, there was knowledge at the time the contract was let that it amounted to 2.4 million dollars as opposed to the 2.1 million dollars proposed. Mayor Mentor stated at the time the project was put out for bid the City felt it had funds to cover the project. President Horton recommended that Mayor Mentor meet with the City Treasurer and prepare a budgetary amendment and process it through the Fiscal and Budget Committee. #2978 M/S/C/U(Waibel/Estes) to table this item until it has been reviewed by the Fiscal and Budget Committee for potential funding sources and to direct the Administration to make sure the contracts are never let in the future with a dispute that was not covered under some potential funding source. TAPE 91001 6D - MEETING BETWEEN COUNCIL ANDPROPERTY OWNERS TO 1) APPROVE THE ANNEXATION AGREEMENT; 2) CONSIDER 10~ NOTICE OF INTENT FOR ANNEXATION OF THE NATIONAL HEIGHTS AITNEXATION AREAt ~1 MARION A~q~NUEt ~AB92-059 The City has certified a "Notice Of Intent" from the property owners remaining outside of the City of Bremerton on Marion Avenue. The petition is to serve as notice of intent to proceed with annexation. According to RCW 35.13.125, the legislative body is to set a date within 60 days after the filing of the request for a meeting to determine the following: 1) whether the City will accept, reject, or geographically modify the proposed annexation; 2) whether the said Petition shall require annexed property to assume current City indebtedness; 3) whether pre-annexation planning and zoning will be required or provisional zoning assigned under Zoning Ordinance TAPE #1001 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 4, 1992 Page 16 of 26 Chapter II, Sec. 3. President Horton asked the "Appearance Of Fairness/Conflict Of Interest" question". Councilman Collins stepped down and all remaining Council members were seated. Tetris Hartson, Municipal Services Coordinator, stated the total acreage of the annexation area is 16.14 acres with a population of 115, which includes a 32 unit apartment complex. The density per acre is approximately 10 people per acre. There are no businesses located in the annexation area. Ms. Hartson provided a view graph showing the boundaries of the proposed annexation area. She pointed out the City limit line would become more even and less irregular. Currently, there are needs in the annexation area that are being met by the City of Bremerton and some needs that could be met by annexation. Most of the properties are now being served by City of Brsmerton water and if annexed they would receive a 33% reduction in their water costs. There are three parcels that are on City sewer and the 15% surcharge as a non- resident would be eliminated if those properties are annexed. This area is in Fire District #7, that recently merged with the previous Fire District that served the area. This means paramedic services for this area would be coming from Gorst whereas the City has 24-hour per day fire fighters and paramedics available at Max Meigs Fire Station on Kitsap Way. The City has Police services that would provide more police per capita than Kitsap County Sheriff's Department. Response time for such services to the annexation area is estimated at 2 minutes. The proposed annexation area is targeted for extensive growth, according to Kitsap County's Sub-Area Comprehensive Plan, which designates the area as "urban" providing for the high density of growth and is demonstrated by the apartment complex that was allowed in the single family residential area. Such action would be considered a "spot zone", if it had been built within the City. Marion Avenue area is one of 27 streets that are divided down the center line and because this area is bordered by the City along the north and south only one western portion remains in the County. This area can be confusing as to jurisdictional coverage and the City is already snow plowing this area in the winter. Concerns within the neighborhood include: (1) potholes, (2) parking tickets, (3) not sure they want to be included in the TAPE #1001 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 4, 1992 Page 17 of 26 City. Ms. Hartson emphasized the City does have the full 75% petition for annexation, as required by State statute. Annexation is the only government action that requires such a great majority of people to commit to the annexation before it is processed. Some residents were concerned if annexed they would have to hook up to sewer. Ms. Hartson noted that was a very common concern, which is not true but rather more of an environmental issue. Public comment - none. #0241 M/S/C/U(Waibel/Estes) to accept the annexation of the National Heights Annexation Area #1 Marion Avenue. #0255 M/S/C/U(Waibel/Colvin) City Council requires assumption of a proportional share of the City's current indebtedness as a condition of any future Petition for annexation of the proposed area. #0285 M/S/C/U(Fitz) City Council requires the adoption of a Comprehensive Plan and land use prior to the final petition for annexation. Councilman Collins returned to the Council Chamber at 7:12 P.M. 7A - RESOLUTION ~2381, AUTHORIZING AN INTERFUND LO~N FROM Tw~ EQUIPMENT RENTAL RESERVE FUND TO THE GENERAL FUND, ~AB92-060 For the past several years the City has financed the cash flow requirements of the General Fund through the issue of a Tax Anticipation Note (TAN). Current conditions in the bond market have made this financing alternative more costly than internal financing. For this reason, authorization of an interfund loan to finance the General Fund cash flow is requested. Rich Hanna, City Treasurer, stated it has been necessary throughout the years for the General Fund to utilize some borrowing mechanism in order to finance the cash flow of the General Fund. The reason for this is primarily the result of property taxes being collected twice yearly with the first half coming due in April and the second coming due in October. There are periods of time during the year when the General Fund operates in a deficit cash position, which is contrary to State law. If it is necessary to secure funds to cover those period when the City would otherwise have a deficit cash flow. He emphasized this is not a situation of a problem in the General Fund and therefore the City is borrowing against each tax period to "bail" ourselves out. The only way to avoid TAPE #1001 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 4, 1992 Page 18 of 26 this kind of borrowing, on an annual basis, would be to carry an extremely large (1.5 million dollar) cash balance forward at the end of each year. Because budgets have been historically tight in the City due to its weak tax base, carrying those kinds of reserves has not proven to be possible. Normally, when the City issues debt the interest paid on that debt does not represent taxable income to the holders of those bonds. For that reason, our borrowing costs are normally significantly below our opportunities to reinvest those funds...that is what has made the Tax Anticipation Note method of financing so attractive over the years. The margin between our borrowing cost and investment opportunity has generally been about 1.5% and has proven to be very lucrative. With rates as low as they presently are, our borrowing costs are actually higher than our reinvestment opportunities. Mr. Hanna reviewed three different options for financing the borrowed funds, with the most economic option being "Financing Cash Flow With Internal Funds" and costing the City approximately $2,916.00. Roy McInnis, 2711 Maple Street, questioned the total amount of funds the City would be borrowing from the cited internal fund? Mr. Hanna stated if Council desires to put a ceiling on the amount of the loan, he proposed the amount of $750,000, basing that on the lowest projected cash balance in the General Fund that occurs in November in the amount of $500,000. As he previously mentioned to Council, that is a November 30 balance and there is approximately $300,000 of sales tax revenue that does not come in until that day. President Horton questioned the balance of the Equipment Rental Reserve Fund? Mr. Hanna stated the balance in that fund is approximately one million dollars. President Horton stated that would leave a balance of $250,000 in that fund. She noted there had been some equipment purchases and as those come on line and questioned if it would cause the Equipment Rental Reserve fund to run in any deficit condition? Mr. Hanna stated no. Mr. Overson stated Mr. Hanna demonstrated a remarkable "calm" when making this presentation, however, he personally did not feel quite so comfortable. There is a risk in this proposal and that is ..." if the City doesn't pay it back". As an example, he referenced the last inter fund loan Council made did not get paid back. And, there have been some extensive things done this year to make sure it does get paid back. He trusts there is sensitivity on this and the intent is to pay it back. Mr. Hanna stated that certainly is the intent and like any transaction whether internal or external when money is borrowed no one can give an absolute guarantee it will be TAPE #1001 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 4, 1992 Page 19 of 26 paid back. Mr. Overson stated the City Treasurer made a statement that we got into this fiscal situation because of our "weak" tax base. He could not identify with that...the City knows what the income will be and projected out for some time within a certain degree of error. What has not been done as well as he wished it had is "control" spending. This Council and previous administrations have looked to building a beginning year position so that the City would not have to do "TAN's" or any kind of loans. We are going the wrong direction! Historically, this was one of the things Council was going to definitely stop - borrowing between funds. President Horton stated because we cannot do a "TAN" she questioned how much will the General Fund lose as a result of that? Mr. Hanna stated when the General Fund budget was presented to Council this year, it was planned to issue a TAN and the budget was built on that along with a number of other assumptions. Based on that, $120,000 was budgeted of interest income on the Revenue side of the General Fund. Needless to say, because we won't have those borrowed funds to invest, that $120,000 will not be there. There will be some very modest interest earnings on those positive cash balances that occur in some of the months under Option III, as illustrated. Mrs. Fitz questioned if she was correct in her understanding that borrowing between funds is not free? Mr. Hanna stated yes, she was correct and the proposed Resolution calls for the General Fund to pay to the Equipment Rental Fund an interest rate equivalent to what the City is earning at the State Treasurer's Investment Pool. Mr. Waibel questioned is the cash flow chart based on recognition that a "TAN" would not be pursued ? Mr. Hanna stated yes, that is the projected cash balance if we borrow no money from any source. Mr. Colvin requested clarification on a previous comment made about an interfund loan not being repaid. Mr. Hanna explained that comment referenced in 1991 an interfund loan was made between the General Fund and Street Fund and when he initially came to Council he stated that loan would be repaid by the end of 1991, which did not happen. They did build the 1992 Street Fund around repayment of that interfund loan and he is confident it will be repaid. President Horton noted at the end of March Council will be getting a progress report on that interfund load. Mr. Waibel reminded everyone one that 5-6 years ago the City TAPE #1001 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 4, 1992 Page 20 of 26 did millions of dollars in interfund loans and Council decided that was not the best way to do business and utilized the TAN process. Now, the City is in a special situation and he did not want his vote of support indicating he wants to get back into all those interfund loans. Mr. Overso~ suggested adding the words "limited to $750.000, to the first sentence in the last paragraph of the Resolution. Mr. Collins stated usually when something of a financial nature is presented to full Council there is some type of documentation that the Fiscal and Budget Committee had reviewed the item. He was concerned that there was no such indication on this Agenda item. Mr. Hanna stated this issue was discussed in Fiscal and Budget Committee in December of 1991, and again in February of this year. #0819 M/S/C/U(Overson/Colvin) to pass Resolution #2381, authorizing an interfund loan from the Equipment Rental Reserve Fund to the General Fund, including adding the words "limited to $750,000 to the first sentence in the last paragraph of the Resolution. 8A - PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDINANCE (FIRST READING) FOR STREET VACATION AT NORTH 20 FEET OF KITSAP WAY WEST OF OYSTER BAY ROADm APPLICANT: JAMES H. ROBINSON CO., INC., ~AB92-061 On December 17, 1991, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to vacate a portion of the north side of Kitsap Way (20' x 240') located immediately west of Lower Oyster Bay Road. On February 12, 1992, the City Council set the date for this hearing by adopting Resolution #2375. The City Council may adopt, amend or reject the recommendation of the Planning Commission. Mr. Collins questioned if he had a conflict of interest due to his having heard this request twice before as a Council member and as a Planning Commission member? Ian Sievers, City Attorney, stated no, because all of those contacts with this Agenda item were public hearings and of public record. The RCW specifically allows you to serve on a recommending body to a legislative body that you serve on. Therefore, he did not believe Mr. Collins had a conflict of interest and could be seated. President Horton asked the "Appearance Of Fairness/Conflict Of Interest" question with Councilman Eileen Fitz stepping down TAPE #1001 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 4, 1992 Page 21 of 26 and all remaining Council members being seated. Jack A11inqham, Current Planning Division, stated the applicant James Robinson Company is requesting the vacation of 4,800 square feet of right-of-way, located at 4512 Kitsap Way. The proposed right-of-way is an undeveloped strip approximately 20 feet in width and 240 feet in length. If vacated, the right-of-way will revert to the ownership of the abutting property and then be used for future development. The adjoining property to the subject area has a zoning designation of General Business (GB), and the Comprehensive Plan designation for the property is Commercial (C). The right-of-way is classified as a major arterial and the City's adopted minimum right-of-way width for major arterials is S0 feet. The abuttinq right-of-way varies along Kitsap Way in this location from 130 feet to 167 feet. Within the last year there have been several improvement made to Kitsap Way: approximately 4 new lanes of pavement with left turn lanes, bike lanes, curbs/gutters/sidewalks have been placed adjacent to the site. There is approximately 20 feet of surplus right-of-way between Kitsap Way and this location is the area Mr. Robinson is requesting to vacate. Mr. Allingham reviewed the criteria for vacating and noted the Engineering Department did not have any objection to this proposal, that it is surplus right-of-way and not required for future right-of-way needs since they have already been completed in this section. The public interest would be served by allowing this right-of-way to revert to the adjoining property and allow for future development consistent with the Zoning and Comprehensive Plan. Based on those findings, the Planning Commission is recommending approval of the right-of-way vacation subject to two conditions: (1) that the applicant compensate the City for the right-of-way; (2) that the City reserve existing and future utilities in the right-of-way that is being requested. James Robinson, 4904 Kitsap Way, stated he had owned his property since 1973, with taxes always being current. In 1982 he invested in sanitary and storm sewer in conjunction with property that was subsequently developed as Oyster Bay. The property is zoned for "Business" use and he is proposing a professional office on the site. The site is long and narrow and is difficult topographically. He felt it absolutely essential, in his opinion, to have control of the usable ground in order to make an orderly development out of this TAPE #1001 city Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 4, 1992 Page 22 of 26 site. As was indicated earlier, this proposal had been before Council twice before and were denied because it was City policy to wait for the street improvements to define the adequate right-of-way width. That has now been completed and they have signed an easement with Puget Power and do concur with the recommendation of the Planning Commission. Of the 20 feet in width, one half will be landscaped per zoning code and the other half will be utilized for parking. He respectfully requested Council's favorable consideration of this proposal. Public comment - none. Mr. Overson noted Ms. Wilson, Long Range Planner, had a comment in the supporting documents that needed to be identified, if not addressed. That comment is "until the City adopts a Transportation Program, the City does not know whether it wants or needs any of this real estate". He requested Mr. Allingham to expand on that comment. Mr. A11ingham stated when looking at vacating right-of-way there are two schools of through: (1) the City does not have an adopted Transportation Plan and at this time there is no telling what future needs would be for right-of-way. Council would have to weigh short term gain of allowing the property owner abutting this property to use it to develop his property in compliance with zoning and the Comprehensive Plan; (2) or holding it in reserve for future generations to decide what transportation needs could utilize the right-of-way. Mr. Overson stated in the alternative, the City and State put a lot of time, effort and money into Kitsap Way, and questioned what is the life expectancy of the existing Kitsap Way development? Dave Baker, City Engineer, stated the design life of a highway is a little hard to predict, but they are looking at a design life of the pavement itself of 7-8 years and construction itself of 50 years. President Horton stated for clarification that Mr. Baker anticipated what has just been completed, as far as construction and design, should hold up for a lengthy period of time. Mr. Baker stated yes and those were the assumptions made when the design was developed. A few years back, Council did adopt some "minimums" along Kitsap Way that included two lanes each direction, a two way left turn bay, bicycle lane and area for bus turnouts, which has been included in that design. Presi4ent Horton stated in Mr. Baker's opinion if the City did a Transportation Plan, would that area change drastically from what has already been designed for those improvements? Mr. Baker stated technically there is not a Transportation Plan, but there is a Transportation Element to the Bremerton Comprehensive Plan. That element was brought before Council and one of the questions asked was "do you want to go to three lanes each TAPE #1001 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 4, 1992 Page 23 of 26 direction plus bicycle and bus lanes, with the knowledge that in order to do that and make it safe there would have to be a jersey barrier installed". At that time, both Council and staff felt that would destroy businesses in that area. So, the conclusion was Kitsap Way will never go 3-lanes each direction and a jersey barrier down the middle was not desired. Mr. Waibe! stated as a board member of "Kitsap Transit", he is aware there are enough requirement within the next five years, being placed on the City by the State, requiring the City to place some "HOV" transit lanes for travestying the County as well as some inter-City. He did not know if Kitsap Way would be one of those areas. The City needs to come up with a Transportation Plan that recognizes those potentials and the 1995 requirements the State have placed on cities. President ~orton stated she believed Kitsap Transit was looking at the Opticom System to regulate the lights and/or a by-pass at intersections. Mr. Dawkins questioned if there was anything in the way at either end of the right-of-way strip to limit development? Mr. Allinqham stated to the east of the proposed site is the former Tsuji Hotel School and to the west is residential. Mr. Dawkins stated if suddenly the Federal government stated rapid transit was needed and offered to fund such a project, could the City buy back or condemn the right-of-way area if it was needed? Mr. Allinqham stated the City does have the right to condemn property for public interest. President Horton pointed out if the City did condemn that site, the cost of the property would be at the improved value. Mr. Collins reflected on his prior position on vacating rights-away along Kitsap Way and his displeasure with some of the development that has taken place along Kitsap Way. He believes Mr. Robinson's proposal for the site is of the highest quality, but the City has practically given away every bit of buffer along Kitsap Way. He is hesitant about releasing any property, however, he will support Mr. Robinson's request. He was not happy that the City Council did not have a plan for surplusing property anywhere in the City, nor is there an inventory of land that the City may want to eliminate or do something with. He hoped the City hadn't made a mistake in letting all the right-of-way go at the Marine Drive and Kitsap Way intersection and having to buy back a portion of it to complete construction of a new intersection at that location. Mr. Baker acknowledged that the City would not have to "buy back" any of that particular right-of-way. President Horton emphasized the City did not "give away" that property, but rather "swapped" pieces of TAPE #1001 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 4, 1992 Page 24 of 26 property. President Horton stated Mr. Collin's comment had an interesting point and questioned if Mr. Baker had an inventory of the right-of-way along Kitsap Way? Mr. Baker stated yes, he does have an inventory of the right-of-way along kitsap Way. president Horton requested a copy of that information. Mr. Waibel stated there are properties within the City that have different options on them, i.e., where certain platting areas had to be vacated if the City did not use them. There needs to be some identification of properties where the City has liabilities for those potential requests as one source of surplusing. Also, there needs to be standards established for certain arterials defining what those right-of-way requirements are for those standards and then see what is left beyond that. Mr. Overson stated there are a lot of pieces of property around the City that are right-of-way, many being street ends and most of them we don't need but do retain. It is a known fact that some of those properties have buildings on them even though it is City property. He noted this proposal was a worthwhile application for the real estate and improvements have been made to the roadways. #14584 M/S/C/U(Dawkins/Colvin) to adopt the Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law of the Planning Commission and approve Ordinance, on first reading, approving the requested street vacation. Councilman Fitz returned to the Council Chambers at 8:00 P.M. 8B - PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDINANCE (FIRST READING) FOR STREET VACATING AT 1144 CARR BLVD., APPLICANT= RICHARD E. BERG, #AE92- 0~2 On January 21, 1992, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to vacate a portion of right-of-way located adjacent to 1144 Carr Blvd. on February 12, 1992, the City Council set the date for this hearing by adopting Resolution #2376. The City Council may adopt, amend or reject the recommendations of the Planning Commission. President Horton asked the "Appearance Of Fairness/Conflict Of Interest" question with all members being seated. Jack A11inqham, Current Planning, stated the applicant of this TAPE #1001 city Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 4, 1992 Page 25 of 26 request for vacation of right-of-way is Richard E. Berg. The proposed vacated strip of right-of-way is triangular in shape and approximately 200 feet in height and 20 feet at the base totalling 2,120. It is located 1144 Carr Blvd., just to the east of the intersection of Carr Blvd., and Lyle Avenue. The adjoining property to this site is zoned Single Family-One (SF-1) and has a Comprehensive Plan designation of Residential 0-7 dwellings per acre. Carr Boulevard has a functional right-of-way classification of a local access. The City's minimum standard for a local access right-of-way is a minimum width of 50 feet. The applicant proposes to vacate a triangular shaped portion of the right-of-way thereby reducing the right-of-way down to a point of 50 feet at its narrowest point. The right-of-way area is not improved with curbs/gutters/sidewalks but according to the City's adopted standards the 50 foot minimum allows enough space to develop such improvements at a later date. When reviewing the request for right-of-way vacation Council has to determine whether there is a public need to retain the right-of-way and whether or not the public interest will be served by vacating the right-of-way. The Planning Commission identified that this portion of right-of-way is surplus and the public interest would served by vacating the right-of-way and placing it back on the tax rolls. The school District is currently constructing a new school directly across the street and are running a stormwater utility line across a portion of Mr. Berg's property and suggests in the event the City does vacate the right-of-way perhaps they use that to swap to get sto~mwater easement across the property. Based on the record developed, the Planning Commission's recommends approval of the requested vacation of right-of-way subject to the following conditions: (1) to compensate the City; (2) reserve necessary existing and future utility easements. Richard Bert Jr., 715 9th Street NW, Puyallup, stated he was present to represent his father Richard E. Berg Sr., and available for any questions Council might have. He noted his father is very agreeable to having the stormwater drainage go across his property. Public comment - none. Mr. Overson stated when viewing the subject site it does not appear there is that much real estate between the present road and the house. It appears that parts of the improvements for that lot are actually placed on City property. He questioned TAPE #1001 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 4, 1992 Page 26 of 26 if that was true? Mr. Allinaham stated there is a landscaped berm that he estimates is in City right-of-way. It is not uncommon to have landscaping in City right-of-way and surplus right-of-way is a good place to have such landscaping, mr. Overson stated recently a property owner in the Manette area was required to remove her landscaping from City right-of-way and was perplexed that there was a standard based on "where you live" in the City. Mr. Allingham described Mr. Berg's landscaping of being a berm about 3-4 feet in height with shrubs. Mr. Colvi~ questioned if that area is vacated then the City would not have to be concerned about landscaping on the right- of-way? Mr. ~llingham stated he imagined that may be one of the motives behind the vacation is to get control of the landscaping. In the future, the City may not choose to purchase back that piece of property and disturb the landscaped area. He emphasized excess right-of-way can be used as landscaping. President Horton stated if the time comes when a sidewalk needs to be built is there adequate room for the road and sidewalk? Mr. Allinqham stated the City Engineering Department has not identified that as an issue. Mr. Waibel stated it appears there is a prior vacation to the north of the subject site which lines up and straightens out with this proposal. Mr. A11ingb-m stated Mr. Waibel was correct. He had previously heard that the property abuts a cemetery and at one time that piece of property might have been considered for cemetery use. Mr. Collins stated this property is one of the most beautiful pieces of property in Kitsap County. He noted this is one of the few vacations he can truly agree with. #2011 M/S/C/U(Waibel/Collins) to adopt the Findings Of Fact and Conclusions of Law of the Planning Commission and approve ordinance, on first reading, approving the requested street vacation. With no further business meeting adjourned at 8:10 PM. KATH~EN L. McCLUSKEY, City Clerk ON, Council President City of Bremerton KLM/LH/me cc: Normal Distribution File/Vault