Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/19/92 TAPE #994 UNAPPROVED DRAFT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 19 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, February 19, 1992, 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 and Russ Johnson. Also present were Assistant City Jim McNamara nd City Clerk Kathleen McCluskey. The meeting opened with the Pledge of Allegiance led by Council President Horton and Invocation given by Councilman A1 Colvin. CONSENT AGENDA A. Minutes Of Meeting - January 29, 1992, #AB92-044 B. Minutes Of Meeting - February 5, 1992, #AB92-045 90020 M/S/C/U(Waibel/Fitz) 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 February 19, 1992, the Council does approve for payment those vouchers included and further described as follows: 144374, 144375, 144734 through 144741 in the total amount of $314,564.59 and Regular Payroll for the period ending February 15, 1992, in the total amount of $416,631.04. COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS Mr. Overson thanked everyone involved in setting up and participating in the Council Coalition meeting on Tuesday evening. Me complimented Councilman Johnson for conducting an excellent discussion among the attending City Council members. Mr. Estes stressed if anyone received a garbage billing this date and it did not reflect use of the new "mini can" usage, please contract Brem-Air Disposal, Inc., and they will make the correction. He reviewed the Pre-Release Facility scoping TAPE #994 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes February 19, 1992 Page 2 of 31 session held on Wednesday, February 12, at the Westhills Elementary School. He pointed out he was only an observer at that meeting. He wanted to clarify the following: (1) water bill survey - he stressed in order to have a valid survey, the public must be informed properly and the question has to be worded properly. (2) Technically, a Pre-Release Facility is a prison, however, it is actually an educational facility and is conducted as such. If an inmate is late for class three times they are sent back to a regular prison. Such a facility is essentially a vocational school and if it was sited in Bremerton then the City could apply for Federal Correction grant funds to put in a vocational school to be used by both the community and by the facility. Mr. Estes stressed this whole issue relates to education and jobs and he was amazed so many people were opposed to education and jobs. Such a project would put $750,000 into local purchases and services plus their payroll, etc. (3) Community leaders wanting higher class of people - Mr. Estes stated he hadn't figured out what a "higher class" of people is because he is impressed with most of the people in Bremerton. (4) City would also have the opportunity, under a long-te~m agreement, to operate a City Jail at this site and reduce the cost of incarceration, provide more police officers on the streets to confront the rising crime problems. (5) The issue of "family members" of inmates locating near Pre-Release Facilities - past history from other such facilities (Medical Lake) have shown that this is not a common practice. Families generally stay in their hometown because the Pre-Release Facility is a short term stay. (6) Roads and number of vehicle trips plus impact on City's sewer system - Mr. Estes was more concerned over the location of 1,600 home facility plus the Sports area being located in that general area. He believed there would be a greater impact on roads and City sewers by permanent residents living in the 1,600 households and participants at the Sports complex. Mrs. Fitz thanked the City Attorney, City Clerk, Planning Department, and Utility Department for taking the time to talk with her on the functions of City departments and how that relates to Council work. Thursday and Friday she will be meeting with the Police, Fire and Parks Departments. Mr. Waibel stated he found it interesting that all the people who are concerned with all three sites mentioned by Mr. Estes agreed with him that the site selection process was not very well done. Mr. Colvin thanked those citizens who had recently reviewed the City Charter with him. He noted they had identified a few TAPE #994 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes February 19, 1992 Page 3 of 31 discrepancies in the Charter, and discussed those items with the City Attorney, who will bring them up to Council at a later date. Mrs. Horton thanked Councilman Collins for his assistance in helping arrange the Council Coalition Dinner meeting as well as Councilman Johnson and Mrs. Erhart, Council's Legislative Assistant. She emphasized this meeting provided an open form type agenda and discussed what all of the communities had been doing over the past year and some of the issues to be faced in 1992. Sherry Appleton, Councilman from the City of Poulsbo and board member of the Association Of Washington Cities, shared some interesting things about legislative issues that will have tremendous impact on the cities. One of those issues had to do with the granting the County Commissioners the power to appointment someone to an unfilled Council seat if it was not filled within 90 days. Councilman Appleton mentioned other issues that would essentially take away powers at the local level and the State is willing and able to take on those responsibilities that the local municipalities have thus far handled. The Council Coalition members believe that local control was the better way to handle a lot of those issue. She stressed being alert and contacting State Legislators on such issues. PUBLIC RECOGNITION Mayor Louis Mentor reported on Saturday, February 15 he attended the Community Unity Banquet, which was well attended (in excess of 400 people). Admiral Davis, head of the 6th Fleet - Florida, was the guest speaker at that event and the Mayor found him to be a very inspirational speaker. On Friday, February 14, he welcomed the USS Truxton back in town from a 6-month deployment. This morning he attended a planning meeting for the March Of Dimes Walk-A-Thon, scheduled for May 9th. He thanked Councilman Fitz for being interested, as a new Council member, and visiting with the various City departments. Mayor Mentor presented a special United Way "Presidential Recognition Award" to Gil Johnson, Purchasing Agent, for his service to United Way as the City's representative. Mayor Mentor noted the 1992 United Way campaign was the most successful they had ever had. He noted Kathleen McCluskey, City Clerk, served as United Way's President, Barbara Stephenson is the Executive Director, and Paulette Mentor served as Campaign Chairman. Gil Johnson accepted the award on behalf of the employees of City of Bremerton who did contribute and participated in the United Way campaign. He emphasized all funds collected by United Way stay in Kitsap TAPE #994 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes February 19, 1992 Page 4 of 31 County. There are many non-profit agencies in the community that receive up to 30% of their support through United Way. Bob Long, Dockside resident, stated he had written several letters to the Department of Corrections opposing the siting of a Pre-Release Facility near his neighborhood. He admonished the Council for their lack of support and assistance in getting information relating to this issue out to the community. He attended the Advisory Committee's meeting on February 18 in order to learn how the selection of committee members came about and he was not happy with the process used. He questioned why there wasn't a public forum to select the committee members? Mr. Waibel stressed that the advisory committee was a State committee, requested by the state and the City Council had nothing to do with the selection process. President Horton emphasized that after Ms. Geiger requested names, she notified various agencies for recommendations to sit on that committee and those names were passed on to Ms. Geiger - simply a pass through item. The advisory committee was not a Council neither sanctioned or authorized, nor did they participate in any manner in that committee selection as a group. Mr. Long stated that was an example how misinformation flows because Ms. Geiger had stated, during an advisory committee meeting, that she was under the assumption these individuals had been notified by the Council and they were aware their names were being submitted. Mr. Johnson pointed out he had contacted the individual he recommended prior to submitting a name. President Horton stated all of the individuals, prior to being formally asked by Ms. Geiger, had been contacted as to whether or not they wished to participate. Mr. Long stated the utility billing survey may have been an informal survey but he questioned why didn't Council give it some credence or at least conduct another survey that would be more official. Mr. Overson stated Council never received any information regarding that particular survey. President Horton stated the Council, at this point in time, may be asked to sit on a zoning issue relating to the Pre-Release facility if the Bremerton site is selected. If Council interjects opinions about the facility, site, various other things prior to that process, they could potentially be barred from sitting on that hearing. Council has tried to maintain a distance from that process. Mr. Long stated part of the contention about the survey seems to be how it was worded. He did not understand why Council, without infringing upon future hearings, couldn't conduct some type of survey. He did not like using taxpayers dollars to pay for Environmental Statements on three sites for study purposes. He stated he thought community hearings on this issue was to say: "are we going to proceed on an environmental study or TAPE #994 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes February 19, 1992 Page 5 of 31 not?" He question if that was a misconception on his part? Mr- Waibel stated public hearings are part of the environmental study. All of this effort is being conducted by the State and Council has nothing to do with anything but eventual land use issues. Mr. Long questioned the adequacy of publicizing the recent public hearing held on February 12. President Horton emphasized Council had announced the schedule for that meeting several weeks and that the actual hearing was shown on Channel 29 on Thursday, February 13. She would look into having this program aired again as a follOw up effort to inform the public. Mr. Long stated he was not opposed to expanding education and jobs, however, there were people from the law enforcement agencies opposing such a proposal as well as the Bremerton Area Chamber Of Commerce and Kitsap County Board of Realtors. Mr. Roy McInnis, 2711 Maple Street, stated for the record that at the public meeting on the Pre-Release Facility, held February 12, he was asked if he had been contacted about serving on the advisory committee. He stated yes, he had been contacted and asked if he would be willing to serve on this committee prior to being asked by Ms. Geiger. He did not choose to serve on that committee because he was either pro or con and he did understand that he was being asked to serve as a representative of the committee. Betsy Harris, Animal Control Officer, stated this week's featured "Pet Of The Week" is an Australian Shepard /Brittany spaniel mix, male, 9-weeks old. She anticipated that he would grow to be a medium sized dog (35-40 lbs.). Ms. Harris reported they were still looking for a home for the Toy Fox Terrier previously featured. Don Larson, 135 Rainier Avenue, reported Kitsap Diving Association participated with South Sound Diving Club/Tacoma, in a dive on a shipwreck, a new artificial reef in Sidney, B.C. - G.B. Church. Mr. Larson is hopeful that an artificial reef could be located in Sinclair Inlet, which could also attract tourists to this area. He encouraged Council to put a little pressure on the Parks Commission as to their recommendation about working on such a project for Bremerton. He displayed a new Snorkeling Fun Guide and noted people could snorkel in Washington waters using a wet/dry suit. He announced an Earth Day Clean Up of Sinclair Inlet is planned for April 18. A planning meeting for this event is scheduled for February 26, 7:00 P.M.,. at Reid Realty. If anyone had any questions concerning this event, they can call Mr. Larson at 373-5367. TAPE #994 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes February 19, 1992 Page 6 of 31 Rmv Jessup, 76A Haven Road, stated he was a concerned citizen of Kitsap County and wished to discuss problems he experienced with the Bremerton Animal Department over the past six months. Bremerton Animal Control impounded a 3-month old puppy, owned by he and his wife, in November, 1991. When they discovered the puppy missing, they contract Bremerton Animal Control and were told they did not have their puppy. As it turned out, the puppy had been picked up and was at Fairnall Kennel and had been overlooked for proper processing. It was only through their diligent effort and that on the part of Farinall Kennel that they found and had their puppy returned. He and his wife were greatly disturbed over this incident, as well as the type of animal control service being received in the Jackson Park area. He believed Debbie Goodell, Animal Control Supervisor, had lied to him and he did not want someone in a supervisory capacity who was not truthful. He was not supportive of having the City's kennel located in Belfair, which is in Mason County. He demanded that the kennel service be returned to Kitsap County and that Debbie Goodell be replaced by someone who can and will do the proper job of caring for strays and lost animals. He challenged citizens of Kitsap County to come forth and push for better treatment and respect for pets and their owners. President Horton suggested that Mr. Jessup call either Police Chief McNeal or Mayor Mentor and bring up the problems he had experienced. Richard Weld, Yew Street, stated several weeks ago he had requested the City Attorney provide him a copy of the document the City signed requiring the "guns" off the USS Missouri be located at Roosevelt Field. As of this date, he had not received any response and had requested Congressman Dicks' office provide him a copy of that particular document. In the meantime, he wrote a letter to the Editor of The Sun and The Progress regarding leaving the "guns" at Roosevelt Field. From a cost standpoint, that would benefit both the City and Olympic College. The cost for moving the guns would not be cheap and he estimated it would cost approximately $20,000 to place them on a new site. If Olympic College were to make any use of the site the guns are currently located on, they would have to bulkhead off 40-60 ft., to acquire two parking spaces. President Horton stated Ian Sievers, City Attorney, has indicated there is no documentation within the City's records relating to what Mr. Weld was addressing. She questioned if Mr. Weld would provide the City with a copy of any documentation received from Congressman Dicks' office. Mr. Weld stated yes he would. 6A - BID AWARD RECOMMENDATION FOR KENNELIN~ SERVICES,,~ABgZ- 036 TAPE #994 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes February 19, 1992 Page 7 of 31 Kathleen McCluske¥, City Clerk, stated this item is returned for Council's consideration for award of the bid to Olympic Kennels for kenneling services for the City of Bremerton. Jim MeN--ar&, Assistant City Attorney, stated resulting from previous Council action on February 12, the City Auditor and City Attorney were directed to review the bidding process on the kenneling services contract. Neither he nor the City Auditor, John Koch, found any material irregularities that would impede granting the bid to the low bidder - Olympic Kennels. He noted there were contract negotiations earlier with Fairnall Kennels, which fell through and a interim contract was implemented. Subsequent to that action, it was determined by the City Attorney's Office that kenneling services should be awarded not by Professional Services Agreement but by an open bid. Following that decision, bids did go out and were returned from Olympic Kennels, Kitsap Humane Society and Fairnall Kennels. There were no material irregularities from Olympic Kennels or Kitsap Humane Society's bid, but there were several irregularities in the bid received from Fairnall Kennels in that they modified the contract in several ways, both increasing burdens on the City and decreasing burdens on Fairnall Kennels, therefore, materially altering the contract that was sent out for bid before it was returned. He believed this would impede the City from awarding the contract to Fairnall Kennels even if they were the low bidder, which was not the case. The question was raised at the previous Council meeting about misunderstandings in the specifications requested in the bid, resulting in Fairnall's proposal coming in higher than they supposed. He noted there was, in the bid package sent out, a procedure for interpretation of the bid contract documents so that if there was any doubt in the meanings or the scope of the contract, that procedure provided for written request for interpretation from the City's Purchasing Agent. None of the bidders availed themselves of that procedure. Therefore, there is no impediment or irregularities in the bidding process and nothing that would stop the City from awarding the contract to low bidder - Olympic Kennels. Lorraine Martinez, 14637 NW Holly Road, co-owner Fairnall Kennels, stated she wanted to set the record straight on several issues. Their facility is large and enabled them to house "City" animals in a separate area from private boarding...all sections are isolated from each other. Their areas of concerns were in the sections where Bremerton animals were housed. Those concerns were self-evident in all of the letters they submitted to the City during negotiations'in the past four months. First call for bid, October 21, 1991, was TAPE #994 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes February 19, 1992 Page 8 of 31 met by their firm and the City responded on November 19, 1991, with a letter and a contract. Within that contract Item la: "for reasons of health and safety the animals will be limited to two animals per unit except where siblings are retained together and where nursing animals are retained with their offsprings". She exclaimed "what a redundant statement in a contract language, as there were many"! They were not trying to control Animal Control with these responses but their efforts were to enlighten, for clarity, safety, health and welfare of (1) animals and (2) citizens, (3) City of Bremerton, (4) for the protection of their facility. They were met with a letter of termination, dated December 26, 1991, informing them City animals would be taken out on December 31, 1991, and Debbra Goodell would coordinate the transition. Ms. Martinez noted they were never asked to extend the current contract for a short term to facilitate the animals until contracts were settled. She also noted there was no coordination for moving the animals...on the morning of December 31, 9:00 AM, two Animal Control Officers, Harris and Simpson, arrived at the facility. At that time she questioned where the animals were being moved to in order to be able to forward such information to those calling for information on lost animals, since her facility was still listed on the City's recorder. She was told, at that time, it was none of her business. There was a particular puppy set for adoption and that person was scheduled to pick up the puppy that day. She stated, at that time, that good customer service should take precedence over a pull-out since there still was a contract in place until midnight that day. When the puppy was picked up the $5.00 adoption fee was turned over to the City, along with the rest of their reports as a finalization and commitment to the City. She was told "we are not private boarders and do not have to give customer service; it is too bad if he has to run around looking for the dog - if he is interested he can call us". Within the hour of the dog's removal the party did arrive and was not happy...the rest is history. She found this and a lot more a direct lack of professionalism and provided this information as an insight as to what had been happening within the system. For the record, and since adoptions seem to be an issue via Animal Control, Fairnall adopted 253 animals directly from Animal Control; seven were miscellaneous, i.e., raccoons, rabbits, goose, etc., 70 pure bred, 148 mix breeds, i.e., dogs, cats, puppies. They have an adoption program still in place and are proud of it. They see fit to rescue animals and they receive many of them from private citizens. Any of the City's animals could have been adopted out of and via a City program if Animal Control had one working in place at that TAPE #994 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes February 19, 1992 Page 9 of 31 time. However, the point is they were not and on the day Bremerton Animal Control staff determined an animal expendable via Title 7 ordinance, Farinall would then be given an opportunity to rescue the animal. Had they not done so, those animals would have been put to sleep on that distinctive day. Fairnall not only rescued animals but also saved Bremerton citizens time, solution, officers time for euthanizing and rendering costs. All times the City's program had an opportunity to develop and she was glad to see there was a current functioning adoption program. Driving Time - this seemed to be an issue and was discussed during the prior Council meeting. She quoted the following from the bid document submitted January 17: "As I specify everything was line limited for clarity sake so there would be no discussion for the call for bid. Fairnall Kennels is located within Kitsap County within cited driving time 15-20 minutes from the Bremerton Animal Control area, doing the speed limit and for the area. A portion of said time is passing through the west end of Kitsap Way, which is a primary residential area, Austin Drive leading to Jackson Park Housing, which the City has a contract, and the northern end of the Kitsap Lake area, which has a high residential area. This enables your officers to provide services while in route to this facility". Doubling up of animals - as stated the previous week, and reading from the contract originally sent in October relating to doubling up animals: "that item for health and safety reasons, the animals will be limited to two animals per run with siblings, who are retained together, or where nursing animals are retained with their offspring". Fairnall met those challenges and they were very flexible where they encouraged and then agreeing mutually so the risk factor would be less. Doubling up was the original intent and it still is whether the contract language has changed - what problem is there in contract language texting language that calls for singular use for an animal. She did not understand that! Where else or why else would they go from 20 and 15 units per animal (cat/dog), which was called for in those specifications of October and now changed in January's call for bid to 10 and 10 units when it is a known fact that will not accommodate animals unless they are doubled up. The Humane Society does not double up unless it is a sibling from the same household. The Seattle animal shelters have night crews to monitor any problems that arise, i.e., fighting, etc. They did agree on some exceptions to remove the risk in liability for the City and for themselves as well. She has heard that only small baby animals will be doubled up. She stated that was not the TAPE #994 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes February 19, 1992 Page 10 of 31 fact and questioned if small puppies and kittens were expendable. Fighting occurs when introducing food into the environment regardless of size and being a breeder and kennel owner for many years she was well advised on these issues. Larger animals magnify the problem of fighting and case histories of deaths are on record and this presents a liability risk factor. Ownership - previously stated by the City: "these are our animals we can do what we want with them". Ms. Martinez stated these animals are not City property as previously stated. The first four days animals belong to residents of the City of Bremerton whether they are known or unknown owners. Animals are held in detention for safety sake and the City will be extracting a boarding fee and impounding fee from the owners if they are found, which leaves the City with the direct obligation to perform with health, safety and welfare of these animals. Only on the 5th day is the City given the authority of disposal through Title 7 Ordinances. The City's obligation to the citizens is still present in that 5th day and every ensuing days those animals are held. Doubling up provides an environment for cross-contamination, as previously stated. Diseases of Parvo and Corona were not addressed and are contact viruses transmitted through stools and urine. Any animal will become infected when coming in contact with that shedding. With these dreaded diseases cross-contamination is an issue and those healthy animals are then doomed. Ms. Martinez stated this information is supported by University studies. Airborne viruses were previously mentioned and they do travel 30 feet, however, if animals are given a specific type vaccine, studies have shown that within 48 hours canines have immunity against Bordetella, which is not life threatening. Animals being held beyond 72 hours and held for adoption must be vaccinated against these viruses. All shelters follow this practice and Fairinall was merely asking to perform within a common denomination of other shelters, but they were shotgunned. And, there is a direct obligation to protect these animals: (1) for their own welfare; (2) for the public at large who will adopt. Rabies is an issue and in previous years Ms. Martinez had to inform Bremerton residents that they needed to get rabies vaccinations or they would be fined $100.00 per day for every day they can't give issue to it. Animals should be impounded for 10-11 days guaranteeing that adoption will not be transmitting rabies diseased animals. To provide optimum humane treatment the liability still exists. All of these important issues were addressed.by Ms. Martinez and she had made many calls with the response that TAPE #994 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes February 19, 1992 Page 11 of 31 she should talk with Councilman Tiny Collins, which she did and he stated he "couldn't talk". She tried to speak with Mayor Mentor and he commented he did not know what was going on. All avenues were closed to her with the exception of Public Recognition during Council meetings, which is why she is speaking at this time. She felt all this was way beyond a contract bid, which is not the total issue - the issue is animals and their welfare, residents of Bremerton who intrust the City to care for those animals, service, professionalism within the City's program. In closing, Ms. Martinez made the following statement: "cost and care of animals may never match but is the direct responsibility of this City government to do all within their powers to see that all efforts are made to: (1) house your animals humanely within your Title 7; (2) give quality services to residents within that Title; (3) make it convenient for those citizens to claim those strays that they own and provide a truthful acknowledgement during that due process. You may have your own shelter within a few years and she commends the City for that, but meanwhile the City still has these obligations. Your cost shortfalls or lack of information should not be put on the shoulders of those loving creatures that were created for our enjoyment and that are most sensitive to us as family members. And, they should not be the ones that will have the reaction and negative impact they have entrusted to you via your impound. She raised the following question: "why was she sent specifications that called for services of adoption and collecting impound fees and comparably services that were done by their facility for years?" If this was in error, why did she not receive a letter correcting that? And, when referring to the contract she noted there was contract change as it stated "each cat and each dog". Her changes, which were identified in that contract of January 17, only led for clarity. All of those things were addressed in a concerned packet but now she is being called "out-of-bid". When the City's contract states "as many animals as the City will bring to you" she posed the question" wouldn't you question that because it could overrun any facility, double them up, etc., yet you ask for a reasonable cost". Any good professional vendor would, at that point, correct that situation and say: "within the limitation of the obligation of item 16a", and would lead not to suggestion, ideology or any misunderstanding in the contract years to come, which had occurred in the past. She is still in support of the City, the animals and her facility. When she came to Council in April of 1991, and stated they needed to renovate the City's section, President Horton stated to her "factor it in the contract", which she did, and then the TAPE #994 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes February 19, 1992 Page 12 of 31 City factored her out. taro! Johnson, Bremerton, questioned if the City was spending tax dollars for Bremerton or Kitsap County, why were they contracting with someone outside the County? In reference to the ownership of animals when impounded, she stated according to ordinances the animals do not become property of the City until after 72 hours have passed. When she visited Olympic Kennels several weeks ago she was informed that the cats from the City were never kept in the stainless steel cages and were to be used only for privately boarded cats, and that City cats were kept in the grooming cages or some kennels in the back. She observed big dogs in runs together. What she observed at Olympic Kennels did not correspond with what she heard during the discussion of this issue the week prior. She expressed concern over housing animals together and the problem of cross-contamination of diseases. She questioned if other people or private owners disagreed with keeping City cats with privately owned animals and would the kennel continue to house City cats in stainless steel cages? She questioned if the City would guarantee that the animals would be kept in nice areas after the contract is finalized? The only conclusion she came to after hearing the previous discussion, and visiting the kennels was: (1) will strays will stay in nice cages and private boards will be placed in dumpy ones; (2) they'll all be mixed together; (3) strays will be in nice cages long enough for the contract to be finalized. She questioned what happens this spring when the animal population booms, there isn't enough space at Olympic Kennels to house them. She questioned if more animals would be put to sleep and what will they do with the overflow? Mr. Weld, 1319 Yew, stated he has three animals and had on occasion lost them and had extremely difficult time getting them back. He was concerned if the proposed contract did not provide assisting an owner in finding his animal, the contract was very deficient. There should be a provision and a price to make sure a person can find and identify their animal if it is lost and in the City's or kennel's control. If Council could do anything to improve that service either with rebidding or revising the proposed contract, he felt it would be well worth the City's time to do so. Brenda Jessup, Jackson Park, questioned if the citizens are providing the funding for the contract shouldn't they have a say where that contract goes? Mr. McNamara stated the bid documents did provide a process whereby if someone needed clarification of any item, a written TAPE #994 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes February 19, 1992 Page 13 of 31 process was outlined to follow through the Purchasing Supervisor. The bid documents also provide that no oral interpretation of any provisions of the contract will be made binding for the City. Therefore, anything Officer Goodell might have said to the bidder at Fairnall that may have been construed, should not serve to impede award of the contract. The other question was about his comment earlier about Fairinall Kennel having an addendum to their bid contract. He did not believe this to be relevant because they were not the low bidder; and if they had been the low bidder then he felt relevancy arises. In particular, the one he was speaking about materially altered the contract was where the City contract requested a certain number of kennel spaces to be open - Fairinall had an addendum stating that those spaces would be available on a first come first serve basis, i.e., space not guaranteed. And the section stating "city shall provide bedding and water to animals delivered to the kennel between 5:30 PM and 8:00 AM", which was not in the contract and was added as an addendum and it places a material burden on the City that was not something that was contracted for. He was not arguing about whether those were good ideas or not - only to argue that those were items that other bidders did not have in their contract and was not the contract they were bidding on. He did agree with the owner at Fairinall that some of the changes they added were merely points of clarification. He did, however, review case law which states you can't renegotiate the contract with bidder nor add things to the contract that was put out for bid. What happened, in effect, by submitted the contract with 10 addenda Fairinall was bidding on their own contract, which was other than what the City put out. President Horton requested that the City Attorney address the issue of who owns the animals and within what time frame? Mr. McNamara requested Ms. Goodell to respond to that question. Ms. Goodell, Animal Control Supervisor stated upon impound the animals become wards of the City and after 72 hours they technically become property of the City and we would have to assume responsibility for their welfare one way or another determining whether they are adopted out or disposed of. President Horton stated for clarification then up to the 72 hours the animals would be property of the owners and wards of the City. Ms. Goode11 stated yes, they have to make the decision for their welfare in that period of time and try to find and contact the owner. President Horton raised the question about follow up to make sure the contractor is not providing better service in the initial phase when the City is looking at them as prospective contractor versus maintaining that same standard. ~s. ~oode11 stated there is a 30 day termination clause 'in the contract and they do follow up on a daily basis. At the small TAPE ~994 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes February 19, 1992 Page 14 of 31 kennel there are 24 runs, all the same for the dogs and there are stainless steel cat cages as well as galvanized/stainless steel metal cages for overflow housing. Presi4ent Horton wished to know the process for "helping owners locate their animals". Ms. Goo4ell stated the "voice mail" system is available, which provides multiple choices for giving or receiving Animal Control information. This information relating to a lost animal can be retrieved out in the field. If this is the case, then the officer can return the pet to the owner, which has happened frequently. President Horton stated for clarification that the responsibility of assisting the owner find the animals rests with the City, not the contractor. Ms. Goodell stated the only thing they are afraid of with a private contractor would have to do with them clearly understanding the breed of animal and how it is classified, which is a function of the Animal Control officer. President Horton requested the City Clerk address the issue of "going out of County" and whether or not there are any requirements relating to that issue. Kathleen McCluske¥, City Clerk, stated no, there is nothing that precludes the City from contracting out of County for goods or services. She did note that such firms do pay B&O tax to the City on the contract and are licensed. Mr. Overson stated he is very aware the Animal Control Officers have given good treatment to animals in their charge. He hopes that the new contractor will continue that good care, however he did not find anything in the contract that provided for specific animal protection. He questioned if there was something in State law that provided that protection, such as in the case of putting more than one animal per kennel? Mr. Goodell stated there are no "for sures" on anything. Technically, if a dog is running loose it has a good change of getting hit and killed by a vehicle before it ends up with Animal Control. There is someone living on-site at Olympic Kennels and available to monitor such behavior 24-hours per day, seven days per week. If there are any collars on animals that might be a danger to the animal in any way, they are removed. As far as more than one animal per kennel, they would only be placed together early in the day so that could be observed for any type of conflict between animals. Mr. Overson questioned if there way anything in previous contracts that addressed protection specifically? Ms. ~oodell stated no. Mr. Overson stated in reference to locating lost animals, no one speaking on this issue noted that their animals had City licenses for easy identification. He questioned why someone couldn't call and say they are looking for their animal with a specific license number? ~s. ~oode11 stated for the 10-15% of the residents who license their animals that TAPE #994 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes February 19, 1992 Page 15 of 31 would work. Mr. Collins specifically mentioned to Mr. & Mrs. Jessup that they pay no taxes that go into any part of Animal Control. The United States government has entered into contract with the City for Animal Control services in the Jackson Park area and they have defined what Animal Control services they will pay for. And if the Jessups do not like the services they are receiving then they should talk to the U.S. government. ~s. Goode11 stated to her knowledge that was correct. Mr. Collins questioned if he correctly understood Ms. Martinez statement that the first and second contracts documents were the same? Ms. Martine$ stated what she said was that the contract the city sent to her with specifications on the first call for bid was very comparable to the second call for bid with the exception of those specifications leading to less runs for the dogs and cats. TAPE #995 Mr. Collins questioned the amount of her first bid? Ms. Martinez stated their first bid was $59,500. Mr. Collins questioned what caused the difference between the first and second bid? Ms. Martinez stated in negotiations there were lots of services asked during those negotiations. When we speak of water buckets and someone on site 24 hours per day it is necessary to specify if someone will actually be "in the kennel" and will they come down and clean the cages, provide beds, blankets and water. There was the adoption program laid to rest at the kennel's doorstep, that was additional services that would bring on staff, as quoted on the original contract. Mr. Collins questioned if contract %1 and contract #2 were similar? Ms. Martinez stated they were identical except for the release of less units being used in second contract language of January 17. Mr. Collins noted there was about $20,000 difference between proposals. Ms. Martinez stated they were also discussing that the City wanted to have new refurbished identity in that area that would cost that amount. She had other options at best to be presented and she tried to say if the City wanted stainless steel water buckets they could have them if they'd like to buy them in the first contract and they would reduce them from the proposal. Because that issue was in the negotiations, she believed it was part of the contract. She thought anything discussed in negotiations would be written in the contract. She had requested that to be texted but it was not so and the contracts received were a lot different than negotiations. President Horton stated it is her understanding contract negotiations that were held first were totally negated once those calls for bid subsequently came out. Ms. Martinez if TAPE #995 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes February 19, 1992 Page 16 of 31 you want to talk and say a phone call .... "can you get any lower - no - forget it"! When you are talking and asking a lot for cost for run and services - you have to be realistic. The Humane Society is realistic and she previously held the contract - she knows the cost. She serviced those costs with stainless steel units, with additions made with provisions, with the burden of those costs directly on the facility. When the call for bid reduced itself to 10 with auxiliary units, then the cost for bid was reduced for that amount, which brought them down to the $36,500. President Horton pointed Council's discussion should only consider the second call for bid. Ms. Martinez questioned why were the specifications sent to her calling for staffing for an adoption program, facilitating collecting fines and fees and all of the above? And as it was stated no oral conversations are allowed, but yet there was a question on the call for bid when it was received last week saying that we were calling only for kenneling, no paperwork, no fines, fees, etc. That was a direct conflict for what everyone bid for. Mr. McNamara stated the specifications were sent along with the proposed contract and all three parties had the same documents, which were drafted by the City and had to be read in conformance with the contract. The contract language would have been controlling then and all the bidders could see what was actually going to called for in the final contract. Ms. Martinez questioned if Mr. McNamara was saying that they did not have to house them within the contract language per say? Mr. McNamara stated the contract does require housing. Ms. Martinez questioned doesn't the contract also state in Item C - collections of fines and fees for the City (page I of the second call for bid)? This language was in direct quote of what occurred in past years, which then lead to the burden of that obligation in staff and wage of collecting fines and fees and the paperwork. She emphasized it was the kennel staff that identified those misidentified animals for those owners. President Horton stated the question has been asked of the Attorney if the bid document addressed things that were included in Fairinall Kennel's bid that perhaps Olympic did not include in their bid? Mr. McNamara stated all three parties, who bid on these services, had the same contract regardless of any misunderstandings about what had been done in the past. Ms. Martinez questioned if Olympic Kennels would be only housing and not doing any fines/fee collections, adoptions or any of the above? Mr. Waibel questioned if the proposed contract requires the contractor to collect and promptly remit license fees and fines to the City? ~r. McNamara stated that language is in the contract under Item lC. Ms. Goodell stated in the interim TAPE #995 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes February 19, 1992 Page 17 of 31 she had not requested Olympic Kennels collect anything due to the shortage of time to provide adequate training. 'In fact, they will be collecting fees and fines, which they have already. Any fees that are collected at the Kennel will be remitted to the City and those employees will be trained by the City to carry out that function. Mr. Waibel noted the $20,000 bid was based on that service. He questioned if adoption services would be provided? Ms. Hoo4e11 stated that was correct and Connie Keiser, Kennel manager, is a veterinary technician and previous Animal Control Officer, who is trained in those area. She also emphasized the contract requires proper training for such services and Olympic Kennel staff have had proper training. Mr. Waibel stated when the specifications say facilities will be staffed by persons trained and qualified to perform animal care and feeding, adoption services, prospective owner's training and temperament testing - we only wanted to make sure they were trained but did not intend them to provide that service. Ms. Goode11 stated yes -but not in all instances. For example, when providing adoption services there is a problem checking on past priors and only the Animal Control officers have the ability to do that checking. The decision making for adopting and or releasing animals is not what they are being contracted for. They are being contracted for processing the work and being trained in those areas. Mr. Waibel questioned how would he, as a contractor, know what to bid on that is "sometimes and sometime not" a requirement? Ms. Hoode11 stated similar to an emergency service. Mr. Waibel noted this is not an "emergency" service. He questioned would he bid to provide those services at all times? Ms. Hoo~ell stated yes, what the contract states is that there will be trained staff available. Mr. Waibel stated he was very familiar with Federal contracting and did not know how anyone bid on this bid document without raising some questions. He noted not being familiar with animal care he had all kinds of questions after reviewing the bid specifications. He was not surprised there was a $20,000 difference in bids without people asking questions and verifying specific things. He did not feel this bid process was done very well. As the City Attorney and City Auditor had stated, there weren't any material improprieties, but he personally felt it was a lousy job of bidding. Mr. Estes invited the representative from Olympic Kennel to speak to the issue as to whether or not he could perform the services required in the bid proposal. Don Smith, owner Olympic Kennel, NE 211 E. Tiger Way, gave a brief history of his kennel service and training qualifications. He noted his kennel had grown rapidly over the past five years and provide excellent service and maintain a spotless facility. In TAPE #995 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes February 19, 1992 Page 18 of 31 reference to "moving animals out back", he had no idea what was meant by that comment as they have only one set of stainless steel kennels and one set of regular kennels. Currently, his kennel runs are full an~ he is planning to expand his kennel space and anticipates construction commencing this summer. He has provided service to the City for about two months and so far there have be no problems housing cats as each one has their own space, litter boxes and food. Mr. Estes questioned if Ms. Goodell had any objections over the way Mr. Smith is running his kennel. Ms. Goode11 stated no, she was impressed with the cleanliness of the facility. Mr. Colvin questioned if Olympic Kennel was licensed with the City even though it was located in Mason County? Ms. McCLuske¥ stated Mr. Smith had already obtained a Bremerton Business License. Mr. Colvin ques=ioned what were the provisions in the contract for violations? Gl1 Johnson stated the contract contained the standard 30 day cancellation clause. If the City gives notice to a contractor that they are not providing services as contracted, they have 30 days to rectify such conditions or the contract would be canceled in 30 days. President Horton questioned - the bid prospectus states that the facility will be staffed by personnel trained in all of the identified things.., does it imply that the City will ask the bidder to provide those services or only that they have trained personnel in those areas? Ms. ~oode11 stated the prospectus states that kennel staff will be trained in those areas. Now, whether or not the City opts to use them or not - that is up to the City. It does not say they will do that all of the time (100%), however, that is probably what will end up happening. Mr. Johnson stated the prospectus and bid were not referenced in the agreement and the agreement has a paragraph that states "if it is not written in the agreement it does not apply" - he questioned what's the point here. The agreement also does not reference adoption, etc., unless the bid specifications are referenced the City will not have any authority to require those other things. Mr. McNamara stated the City's enforcement rights of the contract would be what is in the contract, not what was in the specifications. Mr. Johnson pointed out the agreement is very limited, i.e., open from 10:00 AM - 6:00 PM Monday through Saturday and 10 pens would be available. Mr. McNamara stated Council could make an adjustment to the agreement to incorporate, by reference, the specifications into the contract. Mr. Johnson questioned if TAPE #995 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes February 19, 1992 Page 19 of 31 that was acceptable to Mr. Smith? President Horton stated, for the record, Mr. Smith indicated Yes. Mr. Johnson questioned the limited hours that the Kennel is open and the fact that a lost pet may be disposed of prior to the owner getting out to the kennel in time. He questioned if the Kennel could stay open for business until 7:00 p.m.? Ms. Goode11 stated anyone can call Animal Control and make arrangements to meet someone at the kennel during "after hours". The Animal Control Officers generally work until 7:30 P.M., and in the summer months they'll be working until 9:00 PM. If someone calls and it is determined that the animal is impounded, they will then place a "hold" on any further action on that animal, and they can gain access to the kennels even after the time of closing. #0704 M/S/C(Johnson/Colvin) that the City of Bremerton accept the bid from Olympic Kennels with the provision that specifications from the January bid call be included as Appendix A to the contract. And, the deletion of the word "deliver" as it relates to unconditional accessing the kennel. #0746 M/S/C(Collins/Overson) an amendment to the motion that staff come back to Council in two weeks with a Budget Adjustment moving the excess kenneling fund back to the General Fund. Mr. Estes questioned if Council could legally change a contract during deliberations? Mr. McN-mara stated yes, all the parties who bid not only bid on the contract but on the bid specifications as well and were aware what the bid specifications for this contract would be. The proposed motion was just an amendment to include, by reference, bid specifications. Mr. Waibel pointed out Council could change the contract towards the bid specifications, but not significantly away from them. And, the fact that it is necessary to change the contract toward bid specifications calls the contract into question. He emphasized, according to the wording of the contract, that Bremerton Animal Control could only have access to the kennel facility for delivery of animals, not to retrieve animals. Mr. McNamara stated the agreement states Bremerton Animal Control shall have access 24-hours each day, 7-days per week throughout the year to deliver animals. He suggested deleting the word "deliver" to provide for unconditional access to the kennel. President Horton stated based on Ms. Goodell's statement, they will have access and she believes it is implied in the contract that they have access 24-hours per day. TAPE #995 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes February 19, 1992 Page 20 of 31 Mr. Overson questioned the hours of the kennel under the previous contract? Ms. McCluskey stated they were the same. Vote on amended motion: In Favor: Fitz, Collins, Dawkins, Colvin, Johnson, Overson, Horton Opposed: Waibel Abstain: Estes Motion carried. Comments on the main motion - Mr. Overson noted the Mayor and staff have presented a contract they support, which included a cancellation clause in the event of any problems developing. He felt the contract as presented was supportable. Mr. Waibel stated even with the addition of the bid specifications, which were already identified as extremely unclear, he believed the City would again see acceleration of costs, as they had in the past. President Horton pointed out there is a 30-day bail out clause within the contract and if problems arise she felt sure the Mayor's staff would alert Council of those problems and Council could readdress the issue. Vote on main motion: In Favor: Collins, Dawkins, Colvin, Johnson, Overson, Estes, Fitz, Horton Opposed: Waibel Motion carried. 6B - APPOINTMENT TO PARKS BOARD - JOHN K. GILLESPIE, ~AB9Z-04~ There is a vacancy on the Parks Board. Mayor recommends it be filled by John K. Gillespie. Mayor Louis Mentor reviewed Mr. Gillespie's educational background, community involvement, and urged Council to confirm his appointment to the Parks Board. Public Comment - none. #1039 M/S/C/U(Waibel/Fitz) to confirm the appointment of John K. Gillespie to the Parks Board. 8A - PUBLIC HEARING - TO ACCEPT PUBLIC COMMENTS RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION REGARDING THE pOST- ANNEXATION COMPREHENSIVE PLaN AND ZONING OF THE BR~MERTON HEIGHTS ANNEXATION AREA; AND PASSAGE OF RESOLUTION ~2378, AND ORDINANCE (FIRST READING), ~AB92-049 In September, 1991, the City of Bremerton completed the TAPE #995 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes February 19, 1992 Page 21 of 31 annexation of an area known as Bremerton Heights, located between Oyster Bay Avenue and Bremerton Boulevard and immediately south of the proposed City Public Works Complex site. Upon annexation, "provisional" zoning was applied, with the understanding that the Planning Commission would later review the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning of this area and make its recommendation to the City Council for the final designations. The Planning Commission conducted its required public hearing and has forwarded its recommendations to the City Council. This public hearing has been scheduled to consider those recommendations and to accept public comment. Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan are made by Resolution. The Zoning Map is amended by Ordinance. President Horton asked the "appearance of fairness/conflict of interest" question with all Council members being seated. Ron Hough, Planning Manager, provided view graph maps showing the annexation area and the predominate land use. Current Plan & Zoninq Designation - the zoning in the County was R-5MH and at the time of the annexation the City applied provisional zoning, which is a temporary zoning district that is as close as possible to the County zoning so that after the annexation it is taken back to the Planning Commission for the public hearing process and eventually the most appropriate zoning is applied. Because this area was predominately single family, they applied the Single Family-2 zone (SF-2). The City's Comprehensive Plan designation for the entire area is "Industrial/Business Park". The Kitsap County Plan designation is "Urban". Planning Commission's response - the first proposal coming from the Planning Commission was to designate the remainder of the property, separate out the four lots and place them in a residential designation, and include larger vacant piece in the Industrial designation. At the Planning Commission's public hearing, there was testimony given that the owners of some of the properties adjacent to the Industrial Park zone knew they were designated "Industrial" over the past years and they liked that designation and were looking forward to having industrial development occur in their area. One of those owners, Mildred Sommers, would like'to see the Industrial Park area extended along Oyster Bay Avenue to compliment the Public Works TAPE #995 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes February 19, 1992 Page 22 of 31 Complex, which flows along with the topography. Oyster Bay Avenue is seeing more industrial traffic with the Pubic Works Complex project. Mrs. Sommers claims she had discussed the possibility of industrial development with commercial realtors and neighbors and believes they also support the Industrial designation and would like to see it tied in with the industrial complex. After taking all that into consideration, the Planning Commission's final recommendations are: 1. A change from an Industrial Plan designation to a residential designation, as proposed, will better recognize the partially developed residential character of the area and will not create any inconsistencies between Plan elements, map or implementing techniques. 2. The proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment will retain the "Industrial" designation on the City's parcel, which is intended for use in conjunction with the Public Works Complex, and on several lots along Oyster Bay Avenue, at the owners' request, for possible future industrial development. 3. Light industrial development, as allowed in the "Industrial Park (IP)" zone, would be compatible with the increasing traffic on Oyster Bay Avenue and would provide a buffer between that street and the multi-family West Park development to the west and the single-family neighborhood to the east. 4. The proposed residential Plan designation and SF-2 zoning is consistent with previous County zoning and with the current density of development in the area. 5. The change from an industrial designation to a residential designation on a portion of the area will help provide stability and take away any threat of future industrial redevelopment of the area. 6. Four old subdivision lots fronting on Bremerton Boulevard will be of insignificant value to the Public Works Complex, but could be residentially developed and should be included in the SF-2 zone for future surplussing. 7. This Plan/Zoning review is a necessary step in the annexation process to make Plan adjustments and to apply official City zoning to replace the provisional zoning. 8. The proposed amendments are in the best interest of the community by providing the location for an improved .public works complex; of the neighborhood by stabilizing a sound TAPE #995 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes February 19, 1992 Page 23 of 31 residential area; and of local economic interests by providing a new location for light industrial development. 9. Essential public facilities and services for existing uses are available. Improvements to those facilities and the extension of new utilities may be required of future new development. 10. The proposed Comprehensive Plan Map amendment, as shown on Exhibit "A" is consistent with the City's adopted criteria as contained in the Comprehensive Plan. 11. The proposed amendment to the City's official Zoning Map, as shown on Exhibit "B" is consistent with the City's zoning criteria contained in the Zoning Ordinance. Based on the record developed, the Bremerton Planning Commission recommends Council approval of the Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment and the Zoning Map Amendment for the Bremerton Heights Annexation Area. Mildred Sommers, 102 So. Oyster Bay Avenue, owner of five pieces of property in the annexation area, stated she is in support of the proposed changes. Also, another neighbor, Mr. Murphy who also owns property in this area, requested her to speak for him that he also favors the proposed amendments. Mrs. Sommers explained she had discussed the possibility of developing her properties, under the "Industrial" designation, with a realtor. If it was excluded from the "Industrial" designation, she felt the area was not desirable to develop homes on her property due to the close proximity of West Park, nor could she afford to put housing in that area. She urged Council to include her property in the "Industrial" designation. Audrie Walker, Beach Drive, Port Orchard, stated she is against this proposal and felt it would take away a supplement to her income that she now receives. She explained her attachment to the site and why she did not want it included in an "Industrial Zone". She was under the impression that the City was in some way taking away her ownership of her property through the amendments. President Horton clarified the fact that just the zoning designation was changing and no one was taking her property rights away from her. Mrs. Walker stated even though she now had a better understanding of the situation she did not support the proposal as presented. Bill Shaw, 112 Oyster Bay Avenue, property owner directly TAPE #995 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes February 19, 1992 Page 24 of 31 south of Mrs. Sommers" property, stated he was a little confused on how the properties were laid out on the Comprehensive Plan for "Industrial/Business Park". He questioned if the Comprehensive Plan, as proposed, would indicate the eventual zoning? Mr. Hough stated the Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1986, a 20-year plan for the City and it is long-range future of what the City has visioned for the future and zoning is generally based on the Comprehensive Plan. Even though it was residentially zoned in the County and a portion of this area is proposed to be residentially zoned, it is based on what is there now not on what will be in the future. Mr. Shaw questioned between now and 2016, is it the desire of the City to have that entire portion eventually zoned "Industrial? Mr. Hough emphasized they are also working on a Growth Management Act Comprehensive Plan, which has new requirements that were not required in 1986. The City will be reviewing all Comprehensive Plan designations over the next couple of years and it is very possible that the designation in this area could change. Therefore, he could not say that this is definitely what will happen over the next 10-20 years. Mr. Shaw stated he agreed with Sommers that the area designated for "Industrial" would probably be better suited for that purpose judging by the proximity of the Public Works Complex and the general feeling of the neighborhood. However, it was his understanding that if it is changed to "Industrial" zoning designation that there would be an increase in tax liability for the current owners, whether or not it was being used for "Industrial" use or single family residents. If that is the case, then he wondered if there was some way to tax the property according to its current use even though it was to be zoned at "Industrial/Business Park". If it is designated single family residents now, he would like to see that continued along with that tax structure. He questioned if the residential area remained under the "Single Family" residential designation at this time, is it a long drawn out and expensive process to request a change to another zoning designation later? Mr. Hough stated in regard to the question on tax assessment issue, it is staff's feeling that the taxes would increase, however, he did not know that positively because the Assessors and Appraisers don't necessarily follow the City's zoning. There are times when they will appraise something for its highest and best use, which is not necessarily what the City would like that property used for. In this case, they may look at the subject properties and say it is zoned "Industrial", but there is no chance it will develop because it is an existing residential area. On the issue of timing of the rezoning, he had talked with Mrs. Sommers about the TAPE #995 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes February 19, 1992 Page 25 of 31 possibility of her not finding someone to develop her properties for quite some time and that the taxes may be raised due to the change in zoning. Mrs. Sommers responded that she was not concerned and was willing to take the chance and had already discussed such development with a realtor who felt there may be a good chance of attacting some small industrial park type development. There is a shortage of "Industrial/Park,, land in the City at the present time and it is more difficult to change the zoning from residential to "Industrial" then it is to zone it "Industrial" then change back to residential. Mrs. Sommers is willing to take the chance of having higher taxes in order to attract some small development along Oyster Bay Avenue. In reference to a property owner going through the rezoning process, he noted if the Comprehensive Plan stays "Industrial/Business Park" that would support an Industrial zone whether it is "Industrial/Park,, or "General Industry", or even "Neighborhood Business". Someone could apply for a rezone at any time which costs $200.00 for the application and environmental review. That process takes between 3-5 months, requiring public hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council. Mr. Waibel cautioned Council that they could not get into a monetary consideration. President Horton stated she was looking for clarification for the citizen rather than for Council's consideration. She felt it was only fair that the people who are affected know what the ramifications are. Mr~ Hough stated currently the proposal is to zone a large portion "Industrial/Business Park". Mr. Colvin questioned if Council approves the "Industrial" zoning designation, how adversely would that affect Mrs. Walker's property? Mr. Houqh stated it would difficult to say because there was no development proposal at this time. There are houses currently on the small lots and Mrs. Walker's property is a rental property, she personally lives elsewhere. If a developer should come along there are standards in the "Industrial/Business Park" zone, that is tailored to fit adjacent to residential area, i.e., requiring some additional setbacks and buffering. It is possible that the Sommers' property could be developed into some type of industrial type business, which could isolate the Walker property between it and the City's Public Works complex and may not be a pleasant place to live. On the other hand, there are setbacks, buffering and noise limitations that would be applied to minimize the adverse affects. There are some problems'once a property is zoned "Industrial" that makes the houses non- TAPE #995 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes February 19, 1992 Page 26 of 31 conformities. #2541 M/S/C/U(Collins/Estes) to pass Resolution #2378, amending the Comprehensive Plan Map of the City of Bremerton in the Bremerton Heights Annexation Area. #2599 M/S/C/U(Collins/Colvin) to approve Ordinance, on first reading, amending the Official Zoning Map of the City of Bremerton to apply City Zoning to the Bremerton Heights Annexation Area. Councilman Russ Johnson left the meeting at 8:30 P.M. 6C - CONTRACT FOR ALS TRANSPORT BILLINGt ~AB9Z-047 Staff has completed negotiation of a Professional Services contract with the firm Systems Design, Inc., to provide the City with patient billing for ALS transport services. ~he contract is for the period January i through June 30, 1992, and may be extended for additional six month periods. Rich Hanna, City Treasurer, apologized for the disparity between the inception of the contract and the current date - there has been ongoing negotiations between himself and A1 Duke, the City's Medical officer and the service provider. The City is currently receiving services from this contractor and have been satisfied with services received up to this point. Public comment - none. Mr. Waibel wanted to make sure the City is in compliance with the City Charter and questioned if there should be language included in the contract that addresses no extensions beyond the 10 year limit? Mr. Hanna pointed out the extension periods are six months, not six years. Jim McNamara, Assistant City Attorney, stated language could be added providing for the te~m of the contract shall not exceed 10 years. Mr. Hanna stated he believed the contractor would not be opposed to that amendment. Mr. Dawkins questioned if this item went out for bid? Mr. Hanna stated no, it is a Professional Services contract. Mr. Dawkins expressed concern over the City doing business with a business located in Silverdale. He questioned if anyone else was considered? ~r. Hanna explained they had contacted the medical community and the two firms that were highly recommended were located in Silverdale and Seattle. Mr. Dawkins questioned~ if this firm had a Bremerton business license? Mr. Hanna stated yes. One of the reasons the TAPE #995 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes February 19, 1992 Page 27 of 31 subject firm was selected was its close proximity to Bremerton. #2915 M/S/C(Waibel/Colvin) to authorize the Mayor to sign the contract with Systems Design, Inc., for ALS transport billing. Vote: In Favor: Overson, Estes, Fitz, Waibel, Horton Opposed: Collins, Dawkins, Colvin Motion carried. Mr. overson questioned if Council would see this item at the six month interval extensions? Mr. Hanna stated yes, if Council so desired. Kathleen McCluske¥, City Clerk, explained when an extension is provided for in the contract, typically it is extended administratively. Presi4ent Horton invited Sharon Tucker of Olympic Ambulance to speak. Sharon Tucker, stated when the City was looking to go into the ALS transport business, Olympic Ambulance had offered their billing service to the city. Their intent, at that time, was to work cooperatively with the City and they do have a very effective program and their collection rates are probably higher than anyone in the State. Mr. Colvin stated he was not questioning the integrity of any elected official or City employee, but questioned if anyone from the City Council or city staff owned stock in this firm. President Horton stated if anyone on the Council had any interest in this firm who was making a decision on this item needed to step down from discussing or voting on this item. Mr. Dawkins questioned the cost of the proposed contract? Mr. Hanna stated the current year's budget is $27,500. Mr. Collins questioned why Olympic Ambulance was not considered as a provider for this service? Mr. Hanna explained this is a Professional Services contract and no formal bid call or advertising was issued. They met with representatives from Kitsap Physician Service and others involved in the provision and billing for medical services in the community and two firms were recommended as the best alternatives for providing this type of service to the City. President Horton pointed out this contract does go through June 30, 1992, and may be extended, but in the interim time she saw nothing wrong with Olympic Ambulance presenting some type of proposal to the City. Mr, Collins stated he felt it was an oversight on the part of City staff to not look at a local business. TAPE 9995 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes February 19, 1992 Page 28 of 31 Mr. Estes questioned if the Fire Department was still considering undertaking the billing service in-house? ~l Duke, Fire Department Medical Officer, stated that had been discussed during the budget hearings and they determined it was not yet feasible to do it in-house. It was their intent to consider it this year, however, the City Council and Mayor were not supportive in funding additional personnel to carry out that task. He anticipated discussing the in-house service during the 1993 budget discussions. Mrs. Fitz questioned if there would be any conflict of interest for Olympic Ambulance to handle the City's billing in the future. Mr. McNamara stated initially he did not see any problems, and he would look into the matter. TAPE ~996 Mr. Colvln questioned if Mr. Hanna had made it publicly known that the City was seeking this service? Mr. Hanna stated no, as previously stated because it is a Professional Services contract there was no public notice posted. Vote: In Favor: Overson, Estes, Fitz, Waibel, Horton Opposed: Collins, Dawkins, Colvin Motion carried. 7A - ORDINANCE (FIRST READING) ESTABLISHING OPERATION OF AMBULANCE SERVICE WITHIN THE CITY LIMITSt ~AB92-030 This ordinance is a revision of BMC Chapter 5.50. It deletes the Chapter in its entirety and establishes an ordinance in line with Federal, State RCWs as well as local requirements. It establishes a rotation policy for current and future participants, eliminates a 3-ambulance requirement and implements a performance-based criteria. The ordinance allows the Council to approve rates for 911-initiated calls only. A1 Duke, Fire Department Medical Officer, stated he met with representatives from the ambulance companies and discussed suggested changes they had brought up and agreed to include in the ordinance. One of the main issues discussed was setting rates. During a Study Session it was stated Council wanted to regulate only the 911 rates, which has been included in the Council packed. The rate proposal will be presented at second reading of the ordinance. At that time an issue will come up that whatever the 911 rate is they also have to have that same rate in their private business - they cannot have two different rates. President Horton noted it was suggested in the Study Session that perhaps Council approve a "cap"~on the high side of the rates which would give the latitude for the TAPE #996 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes February 19, 1992 Page 29 of 31 companies to set rates up to that cap. Public Comment - none Mr. Dawkins emphasized if this ordinance is approved, anyone could own one ambulance and start up an ambulance service in the City. Mr. Duke stated yes. The ambulance companies are on a one month rotation cycle for answering 911 calls. ~N, Dawkins expressed concern over the possibility of several ambulances responding to an emergency. Mr. Duke explained if someone came in with just one ambulance and they failed to respond with a back up vehicle, they would be fined for not responding as required and if this happened a specific number of times, their license would be suspended due to their not being able to provide the service. President Horton pointed out under current rules there is no restriction against anyone who wanted to apply for a Business License to provide ambulance service no matter how many other ambulance companies already serve the City. Mr. Waibel pointed out there is not even a requirement that they have one ambulance. #0131 M/S/C(Waibel/Estes) to approve Ordinance, on first reading, repealing Chapter 5.50 of the Bremerton Municipal Code and adopting a new Chapter providing for ambulance service licensing and rotation of providers of 911 requested calls within the City of Bremerton. Vote: In Favor: Overson, Estes, Fitz, Waibel, Horton, Collins, Colvin Opposed: Dawkins Motion carried. 7B - ORDINANCE (FIRST R~DING) ADOPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO BREMERTON SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM, ~AB92-048 On August 15, 1991, the City Council adopted Resolution #2358 - a resolution of notice of intent to adopt amendments to the Bremerton Shoreline Master Program. The amendments address public access, shore modification, view protection, moorage, Kitsap Lake and Bog, and various administrative "housekeeping" amendments. The amendments also include Environment Designation Map amendments. The Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE) adopted the amendments on February 5, 1992. The City Council now needs to adopt those amendments by Ordinance. Ron Hough, Planning Manager, stated this is the final formality in adopting these amendments to the ShorelineMaster Program. The amendments were approved by the City Council TAPE #996 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes February 19, 1992 Page 30 of 31 passed through a Resolution of "intent to adopt". Those amendments were then submitted to the State and they in turn granted approval. President Horton stated this issue originally went through a public hearing and Mrs. Fitz was not seated as a Council member at that time' and the proposed action is a follow up to action taken at that public hearing. She questioned if Mrs. Fitz could sit in on this issue without having gone through the prior hearing? Jim McNamara, Assistant City Attorney, stated as he understands the situation Mrs. Fitz could only be seated had she reviewed the minutes, video tape or audio tape of the prior Council hearing. Mr. Collins pointed out this is an ordinance, which has nothing to do with previous Council action, which was the passing of a Resolution completing a piece of business. The Resolution was the vehicle used to forward the amendments to the State for their concurrence. Now, the State has granted their concurrence of changes made to the City's Shoreline Master Program. Mr. McNamara stated the scope of public hearing would be the underlying hearing that went into what Council has before them at this time. Mr. Collins noted the State Department Of Ecology deleted 15 pages out of the Plan and questioned if that would require a second public hearing? Mr. Hough stated normally, if there is a significant change to something that had passed through Council it would be remanded back to the Planning Commission and they would review it and hold a public hearing to bring forth a new recommendation to Council. If the issue went all the way back to the Planning Commission and their review resulted in a new recommendation, then it would be appropriate for Mrs. Fitz to participate on that issue. At this point, there have been no changes, at the State level, and was adopted by them as presented. Councilman Fitz stepped down from hearing this issue due to her not being seated on the Council at the previous public hearing. Public comment - none. Mr. Overson questioned if Council was allowed to change this document at this time? Mr. Hough stated at this point it would be very difficult and would have to go back through the a new amendment process. #0463 M/S/C/U(Overson/Estes) to approve Ordinance, on first reading, adopting amendments to the City of Bremerton Shoreline Management Master Program of 1977 which promulgates shoreline management policies and use regulations consistent with the TAPE %996 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes February 19, 1992 Page 31 of 31 State of Washington Shoreline Management Act of 1971, as amended. Councilman Fitz returned to the Council meeting. 7C - ORDINANCE NO. 4364 (SECOND READING) AMENDING THE 1992 BUDGET/DEPARTMENT SECRETARY-POLICE DEPARTMENT, ~AB92-03R Public comment - none. %0500 M/S/C(Overson/Estes) to pass Ordinance %4364, on second reading, amending the 1992 Budget for Police Department staffing and Appendix A-111 and amending Ordinance %4351. Vote: In Favor: Overson, Estes, Fitz, Horton, Colvin, Dawkins Opposed Waibel, Collins With no further business meeting adjourned at 9:09 p.m. KATHLEEN McCLUSKEY, Deputy City Cler~k~ / LY~ HORTON, Council President City of Bremerton KLM/LH/me cc: Normal Distribution File/Vault