HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/30/92TAPE #1060
UNAPPROVED DRAFT
CITY COUNCIL MEETIN3 MINUTES
z 1
SEPTEMBER 30, 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, September
30, 1992, at 5:30 p.m., with Council President Lynn Horton
presiding. Council members present: Lon Overson, Richard
Neville, Eileen Fitz, C. R. "Tiny" Collins, Morrie Dawkins, A1
Colvin, Russ Johnson and Hank Waibel. Also present were City
Attorney Ian Sievers and Acting City Clerk Rich Hanna
The -meeting opened with the Pledge of Allegiance led by
Council President Horton and Invocation given by Councilman
A1 Colvin
President Hotton announced Item 7C had been pulled off the
Agenda for one week.
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Minutes of Meeting - September 16, 1992
#AB92-241
#0020 M/S/C/U(Waibel/Neville) to approve Consent Agenda as presented.
#0037
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.
M/S/C/U(Colvin/Dawkins) on September 30, 1992, the Council
does approve for payment those vouchers included and further
described as follows: 157171 through 157175, 157319 through
175488 in the total amount of $125,480.33; and Retirees
Payroll for the period ending September 30, 1992, in the total
amount of $91,955.48.
COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS
Mr. Colvin reported he attended Harrison Hospital's 50th
Anniversary. He noted Harrison Hospital had cooperated well
with the City over those many years and is one of the largest
employers in the City.
Mr. Neville reported he attended the Campus/Evergreen
Neighborhood meeting on September 29. As a result of that
TAPE #1060
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
September 30, 1992
Page 2 of 34
meeting, a rough draft of the Campus/Evergreen Plan will be
before the Planning Commission on October 20. Since this
document was in "draft" form, citizen input could still be
included at the October 20 meeting. President Hotton
emphasized that meeting will be a neighborhood Planning
Commission study session, not a formal Planning Commission
hearing.
Mrs. Fitz reported she spent the past weekend in Boise, Idaho,
and was very impressed with the walking/running trails that
run along the river's edge. She hoped something of a similar
nature could someday be built in Bremerton.
Mr. Waibel stated he experienced confusion brought about by
the Department of Transportation when they closed Manette
bridge 10 minutes before a fully loaded ferry docked and off
loaded. Because of that situation, he spent 30 extra minutes
reaching his home. He did not understand why someone at the
Department of Transportation could not have checked the ferry
schedule and worked out a more acceptable closure time for the
bridge.
Mrs. Hotton reported a week ago she attended a luncheon at the
Senior Center where they were celebrating their 20Th
Anniversary. The Senior Center had activities going on the
full week of September 21 as part of this Anniversary
celebration. Two weeks ago, she played golf in the 5th Annual
Washington State Transit Golf Tournament and won second place
in the Ladies Division; and she won the "long ball" contest as
well. Mr. Dawkins questioned the number of participants in
that tournament? Mrs. Hotton stated three. She was impressed
with the condition of the golf course at Gold Mountain and
complimented the "Alexander" brothers for doing an exemplary
job at the golf course.
Mr. Collins attended the performance of "I Pagliacci" by the
Bremerton-Kitsap County Opera Guild and Bremerton Symphony.
He encouraged everyone who enjoys good music to not miss
seeing that opera.
PUBLIC RECOGNITION
Mayor Louis Mentor reported last week the USS Mayrant Reunion
(WWII) was held with 80 people (mostly from the east coast)
participating in that event. The AIDS Walk, held September
26, drew about 300 people. He also attended Harrison
Hospital's 50th Anniversary event. He reminded everyone
Kitsap Party will be held Saturday, October 3, with the
proceeds from that event going to Kitsap Sexual Assault
Program, Chuck Wagon Senior Nutrition Center, Hospice, Martha
TAPE #1060
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
September 30, 1992
Page 3 of 34
& Mary Nursing Home and Central Kitsap Foodbank. He pointed
out several recent news articles relating to Bremerton:
October SUNSET MAGAZINE printed an article on the Turner Joy,
boardwalk/Naval Museum and Keyport Museum; FINE ART
COLLECTOR, an international magazine, had an ad for the Amy
Burnett Gallery. Applications for the "Christmas In April"
program are available and information can be obtained by
calling Terrie O'Neill 478-5387.
Mayor Mentor commended the business people and City Council
for participating in the 4th Street L.I.D. He researched the
fact that the last L.I.D. was done in 1991, (for a street
project) which was the first in 14 years. In reference to a
recent Editorial in The Sun, he emphasized the 4th Street
L.I.D. project does not close off 4th Street but simply makes
it one-way and allows parking. The article also referenced a
similar project in Covington, Kentucky. In order for him to
understand what the comparison was, he called the Mayor of
Covington to find out what type of project they had
undertaken. He learned that 20 years ago Covington closed off
a portion of the street into a pedestrian mall, which did
close out traffic. The news article also referenced that the
Covington project was eventually ripped out and returned to
its original configuration. Mayor Mentor noted that was not
a true statement and the pedestrian mall was still in place.
John Eichmann, Bremerton Serviceman's Center, was pleased
Council turned down, a few weeks ago, a proposal to allow the
use of alcohol beverages in City parks. He emphasized there
were already several businesses in the downtown Bremerton that
serve alcoholic drinks and he did not want the wrong message
being sent to the young people, and negate the positive
affects of the D.A.R.E. program.
Richard Chrisinger reported on his recent visit to Las Vegas
and the many changes he found from growth in that area. He
noted property taxes for education in Las Vegas were 25-40%
and such taxes in Bremerton are 65-80%, which shows what
gambling can be of benefit to an area. He will be attending
a meeting of the National Association Of Civilian Conservation
Corps Alumni on October 6-7, in St. Louis, Missouri. This
group will be discussing the possibility of recreating the
earlier Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC).
Gordy Byrd, 3739 "G" Street, Apt. B, reported as of this date
he had collected $16,760.36 for his shelter for the homeless.
Don Larson, President Kitsap Diving Association, thanked
Kitsap Regional library for hosting a display celebrating
TAPE #1060
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
September 30, 1992
Page 4 of 34
Washington Coasts Week during the month of September. The
final event for Coasts Weeks in the Bremerton area will be a
clean up in Sinclair Inlet, Saturday, October 3, 10:00AM. The
public is welcome to participate in this event.
Bernie Waldbillig reported he would be meeting with Mayor
Mentor in due time as requested by the Council. He believes
there are questions that need answering, in public, relating
to the adequacy of police personnel handling his complaint.
He questioned since he is continually referred to the Mayor,
does that mean Council is no longer investigating the matter
or just simply not going to do any thing about the Police
Department's inaction? He referenced the Mayor's statement in
The Sun on September 25 about Mr. Waldbillig's being mad that
he chose bad tenants and wanted the City to do something about
the situation. He emphasized the Mayor's statement was absurd
for someone who comes to all City Council meetings and listens
to everything that is said - he didn't believe the Mayor had
heard anything he had stated. Anyone who has been following
this case can see that comment has nothing to do with why he
is before the City Council again and again. He pleaded with
the City Council to please do something and not "pass-the-
buck" and send him elsewhere. President Hotton reminded Mr.
Waldbillig that the Mayor is the administrator for the City of
Bremerton and Council's responsibility is to set policy and
authorize funding. The Mayor is the person Mr. Waldbillig
needs to meet with to workout any difficulties.
6A - AUTHORIZATION TO FILL POSITION OF OPERATOR, #AB92-233
City Council Resolution No. 2383 provides for formal approval
for filling vacant positions.
The Utility is requesting formal approval to fill the position
of Operator.
In response to the Surface Water Treatment Rule of the Safe
Drinking Water Act, improvements were made to various Utility
facilities to include the McKenna Falls Intake Facilities,
chlorination system, instrumentation and control system and
water quality monitoring facilities. Additionally, as part of
the implementation of the wastewater solids disposal program
of the Utility, water and sludge samples in the application
area are collected and monitored on a regular basis in
compliance with the Bremerton-Kitsap Health District permit.
This position is necessary to ensure that the required
operation of these facilities and water quality monitoring
activities are performed in a timely manner. This position is
currently unencumbered..
#0996
TAPE #1060
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
September 30, 1992
Page 5 of 34
Bill Dully, Utilities Director, emphasized this position is
authorized in the 1992 budget as a result of Safe Drinking
Water Act amendments. The Utility needs to increase its
readiness and security on operations of the Utility system,
particularly with regard to water. This proposal reinforces
that commitment to comply with mandated regulations.
Mr. Overson questioned where this position fell within the
organization structure? Mr. Duffy explained the position
would be under the Assistant Utility Director/Systems
Operations.
Public comment - none.
Mr. Colvin questioned the total number of personnel under the
Director Of Utilities? Mr. Duffy stated he has 50 authorized
positions in the 1992 budget. And, with contract operations
there about 80+ personnel.
M/S/C/U(Dawkins/Johnson) motion to approve the Utility's
request to fill the position of Operator and authorize the
Utility to proceed subject to City Administrative Policies and
Procedures.
6B - CHANGE ORDER NO. 3 TO QUIGG BROS. MCDONALD, INC. CONTRACT
FOR CONSTRUCTION OF BREMERTON OVERWATER PARK, #AB92-236
This Change Order adds $120,047.00 to the present contract and
extends the date of substantial completion by 31 working days
to August 17, 1992. The new contract amount is now
$2,037,.282.50, including tax.
Historic Ships has indicated, verbally, that they will pay for
the additional costs related to construction of the Gift Shop.
Dave Baker, City Engineer, stated the change order includes
all of the work that has been approved to date. Change Order
Proposals #1-8 are outlined under Change Order #3 Exhibit I.
Mr. Overson recommended Council not accept the late submittal
of "Replacement 6B", based on the fact Item #8 under Change
Order #3 Exhibit I was not in the original Agenda packet.
Rich Hanna, City Treasurer, stated he was the responsible
person for the late submittal and his motivation was to get a
Change Order before Council that represented, prior to this
Change order, the contract as it presently stands. The issue
Mr. Overson referred to is the contract amendment, which was
approved some time ago based on negotiations between the City
Attorney and Counsel of Quigg Brothers over the issue of pile
driving.
#1181
TAPE #1060
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
September 30, 1992
Page 6 of 34
Mrs. Fits stated on the face of the Agenda Bill it states
Historical Ships verbally agreed to pay for additional costs
related to construction of the Gift Shop. She requested the
City Attorney create a document/note of some kind that will
put in writing that Historical Ships will be responsible for
that additional cost.
Mr. Waibel questioned if approval of such a document, as
suggested by Mrs. Fitz, be done before or after acting on the
Change Order request? Ian Sieve:s, City Attorney, such action
would be an independent remedy that needs to be pursued. The
earlier Change Order was approved and the work has been done
and there is an obligation to the contractor, therefore, there
is the need to pick up that third party responsibility with
the independent document.
President Hotton questioned if all of the Change Order items
should be approved at one time? Mr. Sievers stated Council
had previously discussed the need for a lease for the Gift
Shop. The Administration felt it was Council's opinion not to
access a gross lease, but rather to have them construct the
building for the City in lieu of rental payments for a 10-year
lease. However, that was at a certain level of improvement
and they did make a earlier commitment for contribution of
$195,000 towards the boardwalk project. He expressed the need
for direction on whether that should be included and pursued
as far as a note for future repayment commitment. President
Horton questioned if Mrs. Fitz wanted the City Attorney to
execute all elements in the written agreement? Mrs. Fitz
stated yes, and asked that it be added to her motion.
M/S/C/U(Fitz/Johnson) that the City Attorney create a
document/note stating Historical Ships share of the related
construction of the Gift Shop as well as the earlier
contribution of $195,000 towards the boardwalk budget.
Mr. Johnson stated everyone wants the Turner Joy to succeed
and in no way was Council trying to "twist their arm" for
quick payment of money. He felt it was poor business to not
have something in writing addressing the outstanding debt so
it does not get forgotten in years to come.
Mr. Waibel pointed out it may also be possible the City's
grant may be in jeopardy if action is not taken to follow
through on the $195,000 figure. Mr. Johnson stated members of
the Historical Ships organization have indicated to Council,
during Study Sessions, that they would not be opposed to
having such an agreement. President Horton stated her support
for having a written agreement, which would then be a matter
TAPE #1060
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
September 30, 1992
Page 7 of 34
of record in future years.
Mr. Colvin questioned the amount of "additional costs"
indicated? Mr. Baker explained the "additional Costs" that
were verbally agreed to were related to the construction of
the Gift Shop itself, a figure of approximately $10,000 - the
construction of the foundation for the Gift Shop and the floor
itself. Mr. Colvin questioned the impact of non-passage of
this Change Order? Mr. Baker stated the City could not pay
the contractor for the work accomplished.
Mr. Collins stated because he is somewhat confused over what
is being requested in the proposed Change Order, he requested
it be delayed and included as an item at the October 5 Study
Session. Mr. Waibel questioned if Mr. Collin's comments were
directed towards the proposed motion or to the overall Agenda
item? Mr. Collins stated on the whole issue. President
Hotton stated for clarification the items to be addressed in
a written document/note included in Mrs. Fitz's motion are:
(1) the additional $10,000 for the foundation of the Gift
Shop; (2) the lease agreement of the Gift Shop on the
boardwalk; (3) the written agreement, in some capacity, on a
payback of $195,000 originally committed to the boardwalk
budget.
Vote on motion - unanimous vote.
President Hotton requested Mr. Hanna provide an explanation of
the revised documentation issued after the Council Packet was
distributed. Mr. Hanna explained Item #8 is a contract
amendment, approved several months ago, whereby the original
contract between the City and Quigg Brothers was amended based
on a negotiated settlement between the City Attorney and
Counsel for Quigg Brothers. At his request, Mr. Baker asked
the consultants to include that item so the contracted figures
shown prior to this Change Order would be consistent with what
has actually been committed to by the City up to this point.
Prior to this, that contract amount was not included and
therefore in error in the amount of $157,012. Mr. Baker
stated Change Order #3 is a compilation of changes, both
change Order proposals and Field Orders, that have been issued
to the contract and are now put together in a formal Change
Order that needs Council approval. Once approval is given,
payment can be made to the contractor. The subject Change
Order includes items 1-7. Item #8, a piling adjustment, is an
amendment to the contract that was approved by Council last
March and was not in the figures previously presented.
Portico was not aware of that figure or previous Council
action because it was an agreement directly between the
i
TAPE #1060
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
September 30, 1992
Page 8 of 34
contractor and the City. Now, Portico has that information
and included it as a "bookkeeping" method of identification as
to the total contract amount to Quigg Brothers. The total of
all changes listed in Change Order #3 plus Item 8, amounts to
$265,698.53, and brings the contract up to the actual amount
that Quigg Brothers and the City agree is the contract at this
point in time. Mr. Waibel emphasized if Council was keeping
score, the figures including the piling adjustment are a much
more accurate way to keep score than without them.
President Horton pointed out Council had not seen the Change
Order item in the amount of $76,416.00. Mr. Baker stated that
was correct, Council had not seen items 1-7 prior to this date
and that was the purpose of the documentation provided.
President Hotton emphasized the final Change Order was adding
up to approximately $100,000. Mr. Baker stated that figure is
approximately $120,000. President Horton stated Mr. Baker had
indicated all along that there would be some final Change
Orders to conclude the contract. She questioned what kind of
dollar figure is anticipated for that final Change Order? Mr.
Baker stated the latest figure he has from Monthly Report #11
is $5,800.00. President Hotton questioned if Mr. Baker felt
that amount would conclude the contract? Mr. Baker stated
that should include all of the changes to the Quigg Brothers
contract. President Hortonquestioned when would Council see
the final Change Order to closeout the contract? Mr. Baker
stated within the next month.
Mr. Johnson questioned if there would be a similar Change
Order closeout for Portico? Mr. Baker stated there could be
some changes to the Portico contract that he is not aware of.
At this moment, all Mr. Baker was addressing was the Quigg
Brothers contract. Mr. Johnson stated there was still the
closeout of Portico, FishPro, etc. Mr. Baker emphasized
FishPro was not involved in this at all. To closeout the
total project is whatever might be owed to Portico, if any.
The only other two things that are outstanding would be the
daily testing of concrete, which is a separate company, and
Art Anderson And Associates, who are doing the civil and
mechanical engineering work, and there could be some
additional requests from them for additional work.
Public comment - none.
Mr. Collins stated the major part of this Change Order is
because of piling and questioned if the added cost for piling
was due to a change in design from what had originally been
proposed due to requirements mandated by the Department of
Fisheries? President Hotton explained the original design was
TAPE #1060
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
September 30, 1992
Page 9 of 34
modified when the construction budget was approved. The
ultimate design was altered (enlarged) beyond the point where
Fisheries would accept it to be close to the shore because of
the shadow it cast. Because the boardwalk was widened,
Fisheries required the City to move it out away from the
shore, therefore the City is responsible because the Mayor
enlarged the boardwalk. Mr. Collins stressed the original
cost estimates were based on something other than what was
actually built. Mr. Baker stated it could be, however, he was
not sure when the original estimate was actually made. Mr.
Collins expressed his desire to give this item further study.
President Hotton re-emphasized Council was told the project
adhered to the budget but the Mayor and administrative staff
failed to tell Council that because the project was larger it
exceeded Council's approved budget. The estimate of
construction equalled the entire project budget without
contingency so if everything had worked according to plan and
had no Change Orders, we still would have exceeded the budget
because Council was not informed the budget did not include
design, permits, etc. Mr. Overson pointed out there is
documentation that the Mayor was apprised of that situation.
Mr. Waibel noted Council was not aware of the contention
between the contractor and City about the piling and that
there was a potential $145,000 liability. President Hotton
questioned if Mr. Waibel had knowledge that the project budget
was 'built without permits, design or contingencies? Mr.
Waibel stated there was a contingency but he did not know the
contingency was eaten up by the liability. He did not know
that the budget did not involve the permits and Council should
have been apprised of that fact. President Hotton stated
Council assumed the budget contained all the necessary
elements to complete the project.
#2552
M/S/C(Fitz/Colvin) motion to approve Change Order No. 3 to
Quigg Bros. McDonald Construction Contract as shown on
Addendum 6B that shows $2,194,241.11, including taxes.
Vote on motion:
In Favor:
Opposed:
Collins, Dawkins, Colvin, Johnson,
Neville, Fitz, Waibel, Horton
Overson
6C - AMEND INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR PUGET SOUND REGIONAL
COUNCIL, #AB92-242
Puget Sound Regional Council was established a year ago as a
regional council to implement state and federal laws
pertaining to regional transportation planning and regional
growth management for Kitsap, King, Snohomish, and Pierce
Counties.
TAPE #1060
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
September 30, 1992
Page 10 of 34
In 1992, state law requires expanding the executive board of
the Council to include the State Department of Transportation,
Transported Commission, Port of Seattle, Port of Tacoma, and
Port of Everett to remain eligible for $660,000.00 in state
planning funds.
A new method of assessing dues is also recommended in the
amended agreement. Beginning in fiscal year 1994, dues would
be assessed proportionally based one-half on population and
one-half on assessed value, rather than the present assessment
based on size of each jurisdiction's general fund.
Ian Sievers, City Attorney, stated the only thing in reading
the agreement that may sound more definite than it is has to
do with the funding. The agreement states the statutory
members shall be assessed dues established by the Executive
Board. And, it also states cities and counties will have dues
based proportionally on a formula to include their population
and assessed valuation.
President Hotton stated she would not support this proposal
because the last time Council adopted such a proposal a letter
was sent stating at some point in time Council the issue of
representation needed to be revisited. Now, this proposal is
coming forth with no change in representation and if the City
concurs and sends another letter the same thing will happen
next year. Also, it further excludes the Port Of Bremerton,
which she believes is an intrinsic statutory member that has
been left out.
Mr. Johnson explained the main changes have to do with the
dues structure and the City does sees a reduction in cost.
However, it does not say when population is counted and which
year's budget is used to determine the dues for which years.
It also dilutes the Kitsap County and Kitsap cities votes on
the PSCOG, not by reducing the City's but by adding a bunch of
other people that were added by the State Legislature. The
State Legislator added the three largest Ports so improvement
could be made to cross sound transportation, but it turns out
they are "all in a row" on the east side of the sound and does
not make a lot of sense then to get people to talk about cross
sound transportation. President Hotton stated the only way to
get their attention is by voting down the interlocal
agreement.
Mr. Colvinquestioned who represents Kitsap County entities on
that board? President Hotton stated Kitsap County
Commissioner John Horsley and Mayor Mitch Mitchusson of the
City of Poulsbo are representatives on that board. Mr. Colvin
TAPE #1060
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
September 30, 1992
Page 11 of 34
questioned if this proposal was voted down, what impacts or
benefits would that result in? President Hotton explained
PSCOG is a regional planning organization and it is important
for the City to be involved in such regional planning. Mr.
Dawkins pointed out even if the City votes it down, they would
go ahead with their proposal. Mayor Mentor stated he agreed
with what was being said and it would be nice to have more
representation. He doubted anything would happen to change
the voting structure and in reality Kitsap County
representation vote is so small it does not have significant
impact on issues. The most important element is the fact that
Kitsap County governmental entities are represented on that
board and have the opportunity to voice an opinion from cities
within the County. He did not want to see the City
representation lost. President Hortonquestioned the Mayor if
that group had discussed amending the membership as they
stated they would discuss the first time the City agreed to
the interlocal agreement? Mayor Mentor stated it had been
discussed quite often and a number of plans had been reviewed
as to how it could be changed. Following the previously
approved interlocal agreement, mandates came down from the
State to include METRO and Ports. He did not believe they had
discussed the issue of membership in a public forum.
Mr. Walbel questioned if the Kitsap County representatives to
PSCOG report back to the Kitsap Regional Planning Council
(KRPC) as far as their attempts to bring up that issue for
discussion. President Hotton stated no report had been made
to the KRPC. Mr. Waibel expressed concern that possibly Kitsap
County representatives may not have forced the issue.
President Hotton stated she was aware that Commissioner
Horsley had been discussing/negotiating on the membership
issue and so far had come up with no change. Mr. Waibel
stated for clarification then there is no documented meeting
where the issue of membership was addressed, as requested by
the City. President Horton stated then it may be time to
formally ask that it be put "on the table" prior to Council
giving concurrence on the interlocal agreement. Mr. Waibel
cautioned Council to not outright deny this proposal and lose
representation on the PSCOG board.
TAPE #1061
Mr. Overson stated if this City turns it down it sends a
message, but does not dissolve the organization. He felt it
was up to Council to agree or turn this proposal down and to
advise the Mayor to return it with strong language stating
Council's disapproval and why. An example of why Council
should not approve it is there are a thousand votes in the
weighted votes...King County gets 55% (550), Pierce County
1
TAPE #1061
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
September 30, 1992
Page 12 of 34
(210), Snohomish County (160), and the entire Kitsap County
and cities within (70).
Mr. Johnson suggested tabling this item until a written
response is received from the PSCOG Executive Committee, with
regard to their discussions on representation and the
direction they are heading. Then deliberation on this subject
proposal could follow the receipt of a response from PSCOG.
He also felt the letter from the City should also point out
the importance that the City continue to be part of the PSCOG
organization. Mayor Mentor stated he would be happy to write
a letter asking for clarification on how this votingstructure
came about. President Hotton stated she was not looking for
clarification of how it came about, she is looking to see the
City formally request that representation for at least
Bremerton, other cities and Kitsap County be addressed as
previously requested. And, previously they assured the City
that issue would be addressed. Mr. Waibel stated there is
nothing in State mandate that precludes adding the Port of
Bremerton as a voting member. In fact, he believes that was
the intent of the State Legislature to encourage that kind of
representation. President Hotton stated she believes the City
needs to make a formal appeal to the Executive Board to
address the issue of our representation specifically. If the
other three cities and Kitsap County aren't willing to address
the issue, we, as the major City in Kitsap County, should.
Mayor Mentor emphasized Kitsap County was the only county that
has only 1/2 vote.
Mr. Johnson stated he felt it was "nuts" not to haul cargo
across the sound instead of routing it all across the Tacoma
Narrows Bridge.
President Hotton pointed out this is a far bigger issue. The
Washington State Transit members, the major players on the
east side of the sound, are seeking out their own lobbyist and
may be in conflict with the State Transit Association lobbyist
position because they want to lobby for "light rail". And,
they see that by keeping solidarity in the Transit association
that does not further their agenda, which then fractures the
other group and the State Legislature then turns both away.
Mayor Mentor stated there was no question Seattle, Snohomish
and Tacoma have different concerns than Kitsap County. It is
important that Kitsap County and the cities within Kitsap
County be represented and able to voice opinions on that
board.
Public comment - none.
#0257
#0324
i
TAPE #1061
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
September 30, 1992
Page 13 of 34
M/S/C/U(Overson/Colvin) to table this item pending a response
from PSCOG to Mayor Mentor's letter.
Mr. Johnson suggested that President Horton, or her designee,
and a couple of Council members work with the Mayor on the
fine points to include in the letter PSCOG. President Hotton
recommended Mayor Mentor draft the letter to PSCOG for review
by the Growth Management Committee on October 6.
Councilman Colvin left the Chambers at 7:20 P.M.
7A - ORDINANCE NO. 4387 (SECOND READING) AMENDING THE
MANAGEMENT ANDPROFESSIONAL STAFF COMPENSATION PROGRAM, #AB92-
-230
Various titles in the Management and Professional Staff
Compensation Program are not consistent with the titles of the
classification specifications of the position. The attached
ordinance removes incorrect titles and adds the correct ones.
Public comment - none.
M/S/C(Johnson/Collins) motion to approve and pass Ordinance
No. 4387 amending Chapter 2.50.020(a) Applicability, to
correct titles listed under the heading 'MANAGEMENT AND
PROFESSIONAL STAFF".
Vote On Motion:
In Favor:
Abstain:
Johnson, Overson, Neville, Fitz,
Collins, Dawkins, Horton
Waibel
Councilman Colvin returned to the Chambers at 7:26 P.M.
7B - ORDINANCE NO. 4388 (SECOND READING) TO INCORPORATE
REVOLVING ABATEMENT FUND AS ESTABLISHED IN UNIFORM CODE FOR
THE ABATEMENT OF DANGEROUS BUILDINGS, #AB92-238
The Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings, as
adopted by Bremerton Municipal Code 17.04, and the Bremerton
Housing Code, establishes a revolving abatement fund. It has
not been the custom of the City to utilize this funding
process. The process would be set up so that monies collected
as the result of abatement liens, judgements, billings, etc.
be revenue into this revolving fund, and said fund would
continue from year to year without being subject to general
fund policies. Funds would be subject to Council review every
three years.
Public comment - none.
#0366 M/S/C/U(Dawkins/Colvin) motion to pass Ordinance No. 4388 on
i
TAPE #1061
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
September 30, 1992
Page 14 of 34
Second Reading,
established.
that the revolving abatement fund be
7D - RESOLUTION NO. 2409, APPOINTING AN ADA COORDINATOR AND
ADOPTING A GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE, #AB92-243
The federal regulations implementing the American's with
Disabilities Act (ADA) require public entities with 50 or more
employees to designate at least one employee to coordinate its
compliance efforts and to investigate any complaints alleging
non-compliance. These entities must also adopt and publish a
grievance procedure.
Peggy Lessor, Risk Manager, explained this is simply a paper
effort to complying with the ADA. Both Agenda Bill items
relating to ADA have been reviewed by Fiscal And Budget
Committee and Operations Committee, whose recommendations have
been noted.
Mr. Colvin questioned if the ADA Federal regulations are
mandated? Ian Sievers stated the City does need to designate
an officer and comply with the Federal Act. Mr. Colvin
questioned if there was a penalty for non-compliance? Ms..
Lessor stated yes, there are monetary penalties. Mr. Waibel
pointed out if such regulations are not complied with, the
City would be jeopardizing receiving Federal funds. President
Hotton noted the City would also be subject to lawsuits.
Public comment - none.
Mr. Waibel stated the ADA is primarily, in the City's case, an
employment act in terms of making sure opportunities and
access are provided for employees as well as the public who
have disabilities. He believes compliance should be monitored
by Human Resources personnel rather than Risk Management
personnel.
Mr. Colvinquestioned if a lot of work was envisioned in order
for the City to comply with the requirements? Ms. Lesser
stated what the City is required to do is to not discriminate
against the handicapped. In the past, the City has not
discriminated against the handicapped nor does it plan to in
the future. As situations arise, the City will be required to
accommodate the needs of the handicapped. Mr. Colvin
questioned if that would mean placing a ramp where the steps
now exist on the main level of second floor of City Hall? Ms.
Lesser stated that was one way to accommodate the handicapped,
but probably not the preferred method in most instances. The
City would be looking at something non-structural before
looking at structural changes. It may be more appropriate to
#0575
TAPE #1061
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
September 30, 1992
Page 15 of 34
render services to the public by going to a place that is
accessible to the handicapped. President Hotton emphasized
the requirements are broader than just "accessibility", it
also has to do with hearing and visually impaired.
Mr. Waibel stated ADA goes far beyond accommodation. ADA is
now the Federal law that states every aspect of our lives has
to be accessible to people with disabilities on a equal
footing with non-handicapped people.
Mr. Johnson stated he understood from the Agenda Bill that the
Resolution is to authorize the Mayor to appoint someone as the
ADA coordinator. He suggested changing the preamble of the
Resolution to state: "A Resolution authorizing the Mayor to
appoint an ADA Coordinator".
Mr. Colvin questioned who would audit the City to verify
compliance with the Federal law? Ms. Lesser explained
various aspects of the regulations are enforced by different
Federal agencies...Department Of Justice, Department
Transportation, etc.
Mr. Johnson noted the point of this proposal is whether or not
to authorize the Mayor to appoint the City's ADA Coordinator.
President Hotton stated there had been discussion as to who is
an appropriate staff person for that position.
M/S/C(Johnson/Colvin) motion to approve Resolution No. 2409,
authorizing the Mayor to appoint an ADA Coordinator and
adopting the proposed grievance procedure.
Vote on motion:
In Favor: Overson, Neville, Fitz, Horton,
Dawkins, Colvin, Johnson
Opposed: Waibel, Collins
Motion carried.
7E - ORDINANCE (FIRST READING) REPEALING CHAPTER 2.88 AND
ESTABLISHING THE HAKE UP OF A DISABILITY ACTION COMMITTEE,
#AB92-244
City Council has adopted an ADA grievance procedure which
utilizes a Disability Action Committee as a hearing board for
ADA grievances. This ordinance establishes the make up of the
Committee and outlines its duties and responsibilities.
Peggy Lesser, Risk Manager, stated Council's action on Item 7D
adopting the Grievance Procedure calls for an appellant body.
This Ordinance repeals a similar body that was set up under
other circumstances and replaces it with the appeal body that
TAPE #1061
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
September 30, 1992
Page 16 of 34
is referred to in the Grievance Procedure.
would be appointed by the Mayor and would
appellant and advisory body to the City.
The committee
sel-~e as an
President Hotton questioned since this is a committee and not
a board or commission, do the members need to reside within
the City of Bremerton? Ian 8ievers, City Attorney, stated he
believed they would because this is a standing committee that
Council is establishing by Ordinance with certain specific
duties and roles. Council has not exempted membership or
residency in the City and the Charter would require they be
residents of the City. President Hotton questioned if it
would be appropriate to include that verbiage in the
Ordinance? Mr. Sievers stated no, since there is no action in
the proposed Ordinance that allows them to not be City
residents.
Mr. Waibel noted the committee membership consists of two
members representing specialized needs of the disabled
community. He questioned if it was intended to have two
members who are differently disabled on the committee or
individuals, such as himself, who represent them? Ms. Lesser
stated she had not discussed that with Mayor Mentor, however,
she believed it is his intention to request the membership of
the Specialist at Kitsap Transit to serve on this board. To
her knowledge, that individual does not live within the City.
It is her intent to either have challenged individuals or
advocates for challenged individuals serve in those two
referenced positions. Mr. Waibel recommended that at least
one of those individuals be a differently disabled individual
rather than an advocate for that person. President Horton
stated she felt it should be more than one.
Mr. Waibel stated he was glad to see the elimination of the
handicapped language that was used in the old ordinance, which
is out of "vogue".
Public comment - none.
Mr. Johnson suggested changing the wording in Paragraph
2.88.020, subparagraph (a)(1)(i) to read: "Two Bremerton
Citizens shall represent the specialized needs of the disabled
community"; and to carry out that designation throughout the
ordinance where it references "two members". And, he would
like to include, under Paragraph 2.88.090 - Vacancies, wording
stating: "if a vacancy exists greater than 90 days, the City
Council may appoint a Bremerton citizen to fill that vacancy".
#0825 M/S/C/U(Waibel/Collins) motion to table this item for one
TAPE #1061
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
September 30, 1992
Page 17 of 34
week so that language can be included that will require the
appointment of two members who are differently disabled and
that one of the five members be an advocate for the
differently disabled and give the City the option of having
expertise of people who might live outside the City; and the
wording suggested by Mr. Johnson to Paragraphs 2.88-020 and
2.88,090 as stated above.
7F - ORDINANCE (FIRST READING) AUTHORIZING THE SALE OF GENERAL
OBLIGATION BONDS ANDACCEPTING THE PURCHASE OFFER OF SEAFIRST,
#AB92-245
The proposed Ordinance will authorize the sale of $500,000 of
non-voted general obligation bonds to provide financing for
the Overwater Park Mitigation Project.
Rich Hanna, City Treasurer, stated the nature of the proposed
ordinance and the purchase offer from Seafirst Bank provides
for a variable rate of interest to be borne on these bonds;
and it will be a function of the Bank prime. At the present
time, the interest rate will be 3/4 bank prime, which would be
4.5%, and provides for amortization over a period not to
exceed six years. Prepayment may be made at any time without
any form of penalty. Additionally, the City does not have to
sell the entire bond at one time, only as the need for funds
arises to carry out the mitigation project. The purpose of
structuring the Bond Ordinance and purchase offer in this
manner is to facilitate the greatest amount of flexibility
since the actual nature of the mitigation project is not yet
well defined.
President Hotton asked Mr. Hanna if he had calculated, based
on the interest rate and the six year carry out, what the
approximate annual assessment will be? Mr. Hanna stated at
the present interest rate a six year amortization would
require annual payment of approximately $96,000.
Mr. Oversonquestioned if that amount was higher than what was
previously discussed in initial sessions on this issue? Mr.
Hanna stated no, the variable rate is actually below what was
cited at preliminary discussions. Mr. Overson questioned if
the City's bond Counsel was involved in this transaction? Mr.
Hanna pointed out Seafirst's purchase offer includes approval
by Bond Counsel as one of the cited conditions in the
agreement. President Horton questioned what if Bond Counsel
did not like the proposal? Mr. Hanna stated that would negate
the entire transaction. Mr. Colvin questioned if there would
be any cost incurred for the Bond Counsel? Mr. Hanna stated
the costs of debt issuances were included in a budget
adjustment approved for the Overwater Park Construction Fund
#1013
TAPE #1061
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
September 30, 1992
Page 18 of 34
approximately one month ago. He estimated the cost of
issuance of this type of a bond would be less than $5,000,
hopefully significantly less.
Public comment - none.
Mr. Overson noted this pledges the City's taxes, but does not
stipulate how it will be paid. He reminded Council that
during budget sessions there was still an "open board" on this
issue. President Hotton pointed out the 1993 budget will
reflect the first year payback of this Bond.
M/S/C/U(Johnson/Colvin) to pass Ordinance, on an emergency
basis, relating to contracting indebtedness; providing for the
issuance of a $500,000 par value of Limited Tax Generally
Obligation Bond, 1992, of the City for general City purposes
to provide funds with which to pay a part of the cost of
designing and constructing a fisheries mitigation project;
fixing the date, form, maturity, interest rate, terms and
covenants of the bond; establishing a bond redemption fund and
a construction
8A - PUBLIC HEARING: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF
A SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
PIER "D" 170,000 CUBIC YARDS OF BOTTOM MATERIAL; APPELLANT:
THE SUOUAMISH TRIBE; LOCATION: PIER "D" PSNS, #AB92-246
On July 21, 1992, the Planning Commission approved a Shoreline
Substantial Development/Conditional Use permit subject to
conditions stated in the Findings and Conclusions (attachment
II).
The Planning Commission's decision is being appealed on the
grounds that: 1) Dredging will impact aquatic benthic
communities; 2) Permit is inconsistent with Shoreline Master
Program regulation governing depositing of dredge material in-
water areas; 3) Permit is inconsistent with criteria for
approval for granting a Shoreline Conditional Use permit.
The City Council, when hearing an appeal, shall either: 1)
Affirm the decision under review; 2) Reverse the decision
under review; 3) Modify in whole or part the decision under
review; or 4) Remand the matter back to the Planning
Commission for further consideration.
Such action shall be decided by a majority vote of the members
present. That vote may be taken at the same or any subsequent
meeting.
President Hotton stated there are two members of the City
TAPE #1061
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
September 30, 1992
Page 19 of 34
Council whose livelihood are dependent upon Puget Sound Naval
Shipyard, Mr. Overson and her own (her husband is employed by
PSNS). She did ask the City Attorney whether or not she and
Mr. Overson would be precluded from sitting on this item. She
requested the City Attorney provide a clarification on that
issue. Ian Sievers, City Attorney, stated under the situation
where the livelihood of spouses or Council members is not
likely to be affected by the outcome of the decision, there is
not an appearance of fairness problem. And, given the salary
structure for the members or their spouses he did not feel
there was a conflict of interest in this matter or appearance
of fairness. President Hotton asked the "Appearance Of
Fairness/Conflict Of Interest" question with all Council
members being seated.
Jack Allingham, Current Planning Division, stated the action
being appealed is the Planning Commission's decision to issue
a Shoreline Substantial Development/Conditional Use Permit to
the U.S. Navy and Puget Sound Naval Shipyard to undertake some
upgrades to Pier D, which involves dredging and upgrades for
mooring. Pier D is located in the western portion of the
shipyard. The permit came to the City in the form of two
applications, one for dredging and upgrade to Pier D and the
other to provide a multi-ship moorage for approximately 20
vessels in the middle of Sinclair Inlet. He emphasized the
subject action is just to review the dredging and upgrading of
Pier D.
A Master Shoreline Map was displayed showing the subject site
as an Urban Industrial shoreline environment. The use of
dredging within the Urban Industrial shoreline environment
requires a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit. The description
of the project is to dredge approximately 170,000 cubic yards
of bottom material below the pier, increasing the depth from
"-42 feet" to "-49 feet" MLLW. The upgrade to Pier D also
includes providing some electrical substations,
steam/condensate pipe, sewer collection system, replacement of
wood fender piling system with steel pilings and create some
fencing and lighting. This will enable Pier D to berth two
ACE-6 Class ships.
Normally, the City of Bremerton nor the City Council do not
see "permits" within the Shipyard. The State Shoreline
Regulations exempt Federal agencies from shoreline permit
requirements except when projects are taken on property which
is not owned by the Federal agency. In this case, the project
is being undertaken in land which is still under State
ownership and has been granted to the Navy proprietary right
of use. Also, because the dredging operation involves permits
TAPE #1061
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
September 30, 1992
Page 20 of 34
under the Clean Water Act a State Water Quality Permit is
required (Section 401) as administered under the State
Department Of Ecology. As a requirement for water quality
certification, Coastal Consistency is required, which has been
interpreted as receiving a local Shoreline Permit and is
essentially why this project is before the City.
As noted in the appeal, the Permit is being appealed on
essentially the grounds of environmental impacts; that the
permit does not comply with the Bremerton Shoreline Master
Program nor does it meet the requirements of a conditional use
permit as stated in the Shoreline Management Act.
Based on the record developed, the Bremerton Planning
Commission approved the Shoreline Substantial
Development/Conditional Use Permit for the Pier D dredge and
upgrade subject to the following conditions:
(A) A public access plan shall be submitted for review and
approval by the Director Of Community Development. A "payment
in lieu" of providing public access shall also be acceptable
to meet the public access requirement of the Bremerton
Shoreline Master Program.
(B) All dredging activities shall be in compliance with
conditions of the Puget Sound Dredge Disposal Analysis and
Water Quality Certification.
(c) All upland transporting and disposal of dredge materials
shall be in compliance with all solid waste handling permits
issued by State and local agencies.
(D) All dredging activities shall comply with the following
regulations of the Bremerton Shoreline Master Program:
(1) Dredging spoils shall be deposited upland, and measures
taken to prevent erosion of the deposited material. If the
deposit area is on the shoreline, a vegetation inventory shall
be required, consistent with the land clearing section of the
Master Program.
(2) Spoil deposit sites in water areas shall be identified
with the cooperation of the State Department Of Natural
Resources, Game and Fisheries.
(3) Depositing of dredge materials in water areas shall be
allowed only for habitat improvements, to correct problems of
material distribution adversely affecting fish and shellfish
resources, or where the alternatives of depositing materials
TAPE #1061
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
September 30, 1992
Page 21 of 34
on land is more detrimental to shoreline resources than
depositing it in water areas.
(4) When dredging is allowed, the following and any other
information deemed necessary shall be required:
A. An analysis of material to be dredged;
B. Time f dredging;
C. Method of dredging and disposal;
D. Location and stability of bedlands adjacent to
proposed dredging area;
E. Location, size, capacity and physical characteristics
of spoils disposal area.
(5) Depositing of dredge material in water areas shall be
allowed only at approved disposal sites.
(6) Maintenance dredging for approved dredged areas shall be
permitted only to the limit originally allowed.
(7) Dredging of bottom materials for the single purpose of
obtaining fill material is not allowed.
Staff recommends that City Council uphold the Planning
Commission's decision with the addition of one more condition
requiring compliance with the Washington State Department Of
Fisheries Hydraulic Project approval. The Department of
Fisheries, an agency with jurisdiction and environmental
expertise in this area has issued a Hydraulic approval for
this permit.
Dorothy Alther, Attorney representing the Suquamish Tribe,
stated she would highlight a few issues that Mr. Allingham did
not cover in his presentation. The amount of dredge material
changes periodically and the most recent figure for dredge
material she has seen is 105,000 cubic yards. The Navy is
proposing to dispose of approximately 31,000 cubic yards of
dredged materials in an in-water disposal facility in Elliott
Bay and depositing some 4,000 cubic yards in the Olympic View
Landfill. An Environmental Impact Statement was completed on
this project... a programmatic impact statement, which means
it took into consideration not just specifically the dredging
disposal but all aspects of the project, including the
Sinclair Inlet moorage. The Tribe is deeply concerned with
the two major component parts of this proposal: (1) dredging
operation; (2) Sinclair Inlet moorage. As Mr. Allingham
pointed out, the Planning Commission is staying any further
action on the Navy's Permit request for the Sinclair Inlet
moorage to let the Tribe and Navy continue negotiations on
TAPE #1061
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
September 30, 1992
Page 22 of 34
differences they are having. At this time she wishes to deal
specifically with the dredging proposal.
The Tribe has two problems with the Planning Commission's
decision: (1) the decision does not set forth sufficient basis
information or explanation to justify granting the Use Permit;
(2) the Commission's decision inappropriately adopted and
relied upon the Environmental Impact Statement issued in
September 1992. She referenced the Findings Of Fact And
Conclusion Of Law, Section G - Criteria For Action, and
stated, in her opinion, comments made by the Commission were
worded in such a way that they merely recited the criteria
without giving any explanation or justification for the
findings. She believed the Commission had failed to set forth
an adequate explanation or justification for findings that the
Use Permit will not result in any adverse environmental
impacts.
President Horton questioned what kind of data or background
information could Ms. Alther present to indicate contrary to
the Planning Commission's findings. Ms. Alther referred
Council to a letter dated June 19, 1992, from the Suquamish
Tribe to Don Pratt, Director Of Community Development,
outlining the reasons they believe the Permit did not meet the
criteria set forth in the Bremerton Shoreline Master Plan.
President Hotton requested Ms. Alther give an executive
overview of those points. Ms. Alther stated she would focus
on Criteria #4 - the proposed use will cause no unreasonable
adverse affects to the shoreline environment. The Tribes
biggest concern is that they do not know what the
environmental impacts are and they have consistently
throughout this proposal and project, asked for additional
information. The site is a very contaminated area and
currently in an "Operable Unit 6" under the State Model Toxic
Act Law and is being investigated and evaluated for
environmental clean up. The dredge materials that will be
taken out of the site are extremely contaminated. The fact
that the Navy is being forced to dispose of most of the
dredged materials in an upland facility is strong indication
that contaminated material is too toxic to be placed in an in-
water disposal in Elliott Bay. The Commission has found that
there is no environmental adverse affects and as a concerned
party and member of the public she wants to know why...what
did they look at to make that determination. Previously, the
Tribe requested how the environmental issues would be met
because it was their feeling it might not be very easy to meet
such environmental requirements and needed to be planned for.5
President Hotton stated part of the problem is Ms Meyers was
asking the City Council, who do not have the expertise, to
TAPE #1061
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
September 30, 1992
Page 23 of 34
make a determination on technical and environmental issues.
The City has the Shoreline Master Plan and Conditional Use
Permit criteria, but to bring up Benthics the City needs to
rely on the Department Of Ecology, Department Of Fisheries and
Corps of Engineers. Unless Council is given some concrete
reason why they should not think that is good enough, it will
hard to make a determination. Ms. MeVers stated she believed
there were some large, outstanding technical issues that have
not been resolved. Whether Council trusts the Navy to revolve
them adequately or not, they have yet to be resolved. One of
those issues has to do with storm water. President Hotton
questioned why would storm water be an issue? Ms. Meyers
explained the Navy will have 1,000 cubic yards of contaminated
sediment on Shipyard property, location to be identified. One
possible site for holding of this material is the helicopter
pad location, which has already been identified as a high
priority site for clean up on the State clean up program.
Currently, ground water movement on the Shipyard site is being
tracked to identify contaminant pathways. What the State is
concerned about is how separation of contaminants from the
dredge spoils will be achieved with the contaminant in the
existing contaminated site.
Mr. Waibel stated the City's Shoreline Master Program was put
together and approved by the State. The State has said: "you
are requesting enough information in your permitting process
and are requiring enough conditions of technical expertise by
other people to be satisfactory as a Master Plan". Now, the
City Council is being asked to change the City's permitting
process and require more technical information before the
proposal is approved. Ms. Alther stated she takes issue with
the fact that part of the criteria the Planning Commission has
to evaluate and apply to the proposal specifically requires
them to look at what will be adverse environmental impacts
from that project. She had no problem with the Planning
Commission getting technical information from Corps Of
Engineers, Ecology or to rely on an EIS that has been
prepared. The problem that she does have is once that source
has been sought out and they have consulted with those
experts, if the Commission then concludes that this criteria
has been met and there will not be an environmental impact it
should state so in the Commission's Findings And Conclusions.
In that way the public will know what the Commission has
looked at, who they talked with,and then the public can make
up its mind whether or not they feel that has been adequate.
Another area of concern relates to providing public access,
which is required under this proposal. Mr. Waibel pointed out
in the Findings Of Fact And Conclusion Of Law it states the
Navy must comply with providing pubic access, which the Navy
i
TAPE #1061
City Council Reg. Mtg..Minutes
September 30, 1992
Page 24 of 34
has specifically stated they would provide such public access.
The City is requiring the permit will only be in force as long
the Navy complies with the conditions, and other agencies will
monitor such compliance. Ms. Alther stated if the City issues
the Permit based on compliance with other laws, then that
requires the public to do that monitoring. What she preferred
to see was the Permit be stayed pending the Corps' assessment
of the impacts of dredging. She noted the Department of
Ecology had become more involved with this project because
they had become more aware of the dewatering problem. She
wanted to wait to see what the other agencies conclude rather
than issuing the permit and then relying on the public to
monitor compliance with all requirements. As soon as this
Permit is issued, the Planning Commission steps out of the
process and do not monitor it as an on going proposal. That
was one of the alternatives that the Tribe have recommended in
its appeal. What she was asking the City Council to do was to
look very closely at what the Planning Commission has done.
The public has nothing to evaluate the Planning Commissions'
decision that this proposal meets the RCW.
Finally, Ms. Alther referred to the conditions placed on the
permit, which are also confusing and somewhat misleading. She
referenced Planning Commissions' Condition D-3 and pointed out
there was nothing in the Navy's application that addresses why
it is being allowed to continue with the in-water disposal.
Specifically, she assumes the Planning Commission has
authorized in-water disposal of 31,000 cubic yards of dredged
materials. According to the Shoreline Master Plan, in-water
disposal cannot be approved unless it was for habitat
improvement, to correct problems of material distribution
adversely affecting fish and shellfish resources, etc. None
of those appear in any of the documents developed by the Navy.
Therefore, she is questioning if the Planning Commission was
approving in-water disposal and who will make sure that
condition is met? President Hotton emphatically emphasized
the City has been "beating our heads against the wall" with
the Army Corps Of Engineer, Department of Fisheries, National
Fisheries over environmental compliance of their rules and
regulations. Ms. Alther stated the Corps of Engineers,
Department of Ecology and Department Of Fisheries are involved
with this proposal because they to are issuing a permit or
certificate in order to make sure their conditions are met.
Her question to the Council is who will be there to insure the
Planning Commissions' conditions are being met. Only the City
Council or Planning Commission can have that authority.
In conclusion, the public notice and comment process, as
outlined in the Bremerton Shoreline Master Plan, does not have
TAPE #1061
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
September 30, 1992
Page 25 of 34
much meaning if the pubic is not given much explanation or
information about what went into the basis of the Planning
Commission's decision. There is not sufficient information to
support their decision. She believes, as pointed out by
Phyllis Meyer, there are a lot of environmental questions
still unanswered. She requested the City Council either (1)
reverse the Planning Commission's decision because it does not
have a sufficient factual basis to supports its conclusions;
or (2) that the Conditional Use Permit be stayed until further
information can be obtained by either the Planning Commission
or Department Of Ecology or Corps Of Engineers; and that
further data be provided the Planning Commission in order for
it to more fully evaluate what the impacts of this project
will have on the environment.
Captain Dave Walsh, Public Works Officer - Puget Sound Naval
Shipyard, emphasized "land use" is an important part of this
project and the land use will not change as a result of this
project for Pier D. The subject site has been used as a pier
since its construction as an industrial/berthing pier. The
Navy views this as an important project because to be a viable
shipyard in industrial activity on the waterfront there will
be the need, from time-to-time, for dredging. He noted it was
fortunate that the siltation rate in Puget Sound is very low.
In reference to environmentalquestions that have been raised,
the process through the Planning Commission was just one step
of many they have to go through for various regulatory
processes in order to proceed with construction. There is a
requirement for a Water Quality Certificate, a Hydraulic
Permit (which has been granted) and the Corps of Engineers
Permit. The technical issues raised by the Tribe on dredge
materials and disposal are absolutely a part of those
permitting processes. They fully expect there may be
conditions attached to the permits, as is normal practice in
this type of project. Under the City's Conditional Use
Permit, they are required to comply with any and all
conditions placed on the project. In their opinion, they
believe the Planning Commission acted responsibly and made the
right decision.
Public comment - none.
Mr. Johnson stated he was familiar with the Navy's action
bringing the AOE-6's into this area and questioned if there
was some State and National interest with their being in this
area? CaDtain Walsh stated yes, they view homeporting is
important as a means for continuing their industrial base.
Mr. Johnson stated it was his understanding there would be
TAPE #1061
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
September 30, 1992
Page 26 of 34
increased public access as part of the mitigation close by to
the site. Captain Walsh state yes, what they agreed to was to
provide access outside the shipyard boundary with some type of
viewing station with signage explaining the shipyard. Mr.
Johnson questioned if the Shipyard will be required to do
"something" that will cause the area to return to normal as
part of the Hydraulic and Ecology permits? Captain Walsh
stated that would be in the process if there are any
requirements. He was not sure that would apply in this case.
He was not aware of any conditions that would require
replacing whatever "life" may be removed from the dredged out
area. Mr. Johnson questioned what would happen to the very
polluted dredged materials? Captain Walsh explained in this
dredging there is some clean material and some contaminated
material and there had been extensive testing that identified
the location of the contaminated pockets. The plan is to
dredge the contaminated material, separate it on the upland
disposal site and take the clean material and deposit it in
the in-water site. Mr. Johnson stated he had concern over
dumping 75,000 cubic yards of dredged materials into the
Olympic Landfill because a great effort is being undertaken to
prolong the life of the landfill. He questioned before the
Navy could dispose of that material at the landfill site
didn't they have to work through the County Solid Waste people
and obtain some type of permits? Captain Walsh stated Olympic
View Landfill would have to obtain the proper permits before
the Navy could dispose of any materials at that site. Mr.
Johnson questioned if the Navy was required to do any
mitigating for this project, i.e. epibenthic, kelp, etc.?
Captain Walsh stated he was not aware of any mitigation
requirements at this particular time other than the public
access. He pointed out the project at hand is dredging, not
"new construction".
Mr. Overson stated he understood the Navy had dredged in the
subject site before and he did not know of any adverse
environmental affects from that dredging. Captain Walsh noted
the last time dredging was done in the shipyard was for the
USS Nimitz several years ago. Mr. Overson noted from past
experience the Navy can and will meet all the requirements and
produce a better end result than what is being expressed
during this appeal.
President Hortonquestioned if this were a land use hearing or
a hearing for a Special Use Permit, which included some
environmental sensitivities, would Council be required to look
at special mitigation for those things over and above what the
City expects Ecology to require for granting a permit?
Council does not deal with shoreline issues very often. In
TAPE #1061
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
September 30, 1992
Page 27 of 34
order for Council to ensure the process and to make sure it
was being done correctly, she wanted to know if there were
special requirements because it is shoreline and water verses
just an environmental concern on land?
TAPE #1062
Mr. Alllngham stated the Permit as it is conditioned has
addressed compliance with the City's Shoreline Master Program
and has been specifically conditioned to comply with the
Shoreline Master Program's public access policies and
regulations. It has been conditioned so that the Permit, which
is ultimately approved by DOE and not the City, is forwarded
to the DOE, who then has the final approval. And, it is
conditioned appropriately so DOE can work with the conditions
placed on this level and have the authority to place
additional conditions if they deem necessary; and before they
can do that they need a Permit they can work with. President
Hotton questioned if she was correct in understanding that
there are as many avenues taking care of water environmental
concerns as there are for land? Mr. Alllngham stated yes.
President Hotton emphasized the City has been very interested
in water quality, i.e., construction of a secondary sewage
treatment plant, water basin studies and an impending CSO
reduction program. She questioned if the City is to look at
all the necessary preventive issues addressed in capacity and
taken care of? Mr. Allingham stated he did not believe the
City was the "quality authority" and more a State interest.
Water quality certification would come under the State Permit
process where it would be addressed.
Mr. Overson questioned if he was correct in understanding the
process would take this project normally through the Planning
Commission and then on to the State agencies to define the
actual controls and enforcement processing? Mr. Allingham
stated yes, the Planning Commission is not the enforcement
body. Mr. Overson stated he believed Council was being asked
technicalquestions without having the necessary data that are
within the realm of other agencies that can and will meet
them.
Mr. Dawkins questioned the other agencies that will be part of
this process? Mr. Allingham explained at a minimum the
Washington State DOE, Department Of Fisheries, Army Corps Of
Engineers in conjunction with the Environmental Protection
Agency, and for such areas of dredge disposal, in-water dredge
disposal sites the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration is involved in conjunction with the DOE and
perhaps the National Marine Fisheries Service. There will be
interest in other Permits that are yet to be issued.
TAPE #1062
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
September 30, 1992
Page 28 of 34
Mr. Collins stated supporting document in Council's Agenda
packet contained documentation showing the Hydraulic Permit
from the Department Of Fisheries had been approved and
questioned if that was correct? Mr. Allingham, stated yes,
that document relates to the multi-ship moorage in Sinclair
Inlet. The Hydraulic Project approval he displayed earlier in
this discussion was for dredging operation.
Mr. Colvin questioned what responsibility did the Planning
Commission have, if any, to see that all other Permits are
issued? Mr. Allingham explained it would be the Navy's
responsibility to obtain all necessary Permits and it would
not be the Planning Commission's responsibility. President
Hotton questioned would the City Council hold that
responsibility under any condition? Mr. Allingham stated
Council could choose to take no further action at this time
until all other Permits are issued. Captain Walsh
emphatically emphasized it is the Navy's responsibility to
obtain permits and they cannot proceed with construction until
they have all permits. He disagreed with Mr. Allingham on the
fact that they must have the City's Conditional Use Permit in
order to get to the Corps Of Engineers Permit to construct the
project.
Mr. Johnson stated he was still jumpy over mitigation and even
though there may not be any required on this project, he
questioned if the City should be adding a condition that puts
a Hold Harmless on the City for any mitigation cost because
the City approved the Permit? Mr. Sievers stated Permitting
activity is a discretionary act by the City Council. He did
not think that would hurt if he could conceive of a way that
someone could attach that as a damage and hold the City
responsible because they acted under the Permit. He believed
the conditions attached to the Permit relies on those other
agencies that are more sensitive to environmental concerns and
who attach mitigation for environmental damage. Mr. Johnson
questioned if there was anything in the application that
adversely affects Sinclair/Dyes Inlet Action clean up plan?
Mr. A11ingham stated at this time he could not identify any
conflicts with that plan.
Mrs. Fitz stated the Tribe has raised some valid concerns that
are of concern to others, however, they must be addressed in
a different forum by people who are experts in those areas.
She did not want the Tribe to think Council did not hear their
concerns...they are being heard.
Mr. Colvin stated he believed the Tribe was asking for things
which were not in the Planning Commission's purview. Ms.
TAPE #1062
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
September 30, 1992
Page 29 of 34
Alther stated she disagreed with Mr. Colvin and believes the
City Council is focusing on the environmental technical issues
that Phyllis Meyer's addressed. She pointed out other issues
had been raised, specifically with the inadequacy of the
Planning Commission's decision. That is within the realm of
what the City Council is authorized to review. What they have
presented is merely that the Commission should have to set
forth the basis, whether or not it gets that information from
DOE, Corps of Engineers, Navy, etc., of their decision. The
Commission has made broad, inconclusive statements that this
proposal is in compliance with the City's Shoreline Master
Plan and have set forth no justification for making that
finding. Based on that, that is why they are asking a remand
back to the Commission for no other reason than to provide
further explanation for their conclusions. There are
environmental issues as well and the reason they raised them
was the Planning Commission specifically found that there is
no environmental detriment from this proposal. Mr. Johnson
pointed out Ms. Alther was incorrect as to what the Planning
Commission said. The Planning Commission stated "there would
be none if the following conditions are met"...which is a big
difference. Ms. Alther stated she found in the conditions of
the Permit that the Navy has to comply with the Corps Of
Engineers, DOE, etc., that is not saying there is no
environmental consequences from this project. In the body of
their Findings they specifically set out the criteria and in
their comment they specifically found there is no
environmental detriment. They may condition it on Permits the
Navy, by law, has to obtain in order to proceed with the
project. But, what she is finding was if she was addressing
the Corps Of Engineers and she was making her argument to
them, the Corps could say: "well, we won't take any action
until you receive other Permits from other agencies". What
she is asking is that at some point some agency has to take on
their obligation to review this proposal under the criteria
they are mandated to look at. President Horton pointed out
there are areas within the Shipyard that may or may not be
contaminated. For something to occur she felt it was in the
best interest not to further degrade the situation. According
to the City's Shoreline Management Plan, that area is
designated as Urban Industrial and it has been, historically,
an industrial site. The proposed project may be making the
condition better than what is currently there. She was not
sure what else Council, State and Federal agencies could
require than what is already being required. Ms. Alt~er
stated perhaps what she is asking is that the Planning
Commission's issuance of this permit be held in abeyance until
those other agencies have had an opportunity to look at this
proposal. Perhaps the Planning Commission has acted
TAPE #1062
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
September 30, 1992
Page 30 of 34
prematurely in granting a Permit without knowing some of those
answer. President Hotton stated this is a quasi-judicial land
use hearing and for Council to require issuance of the City's
Permit "out-of-sequence" was not appropriate.
Mr. Waibel stated after reviewing the Planning Commission's
Findings Of Fact And Conclusions Of Law and after hearing the
presentation pro and con this evening, he was satisfied
dredging will not impact aquatic Benthic community if the
conditions in the Permit are met. He believes the Permit is
consistent with the City's Shoreline Master Plan regulations,
if conditions are met; and that the Permit is not inconsistent
with the criteria for approval based on the current usage of
the area and the proposed Permitted use.
#0682
M/S/C/U(Waibel/Collins) motion to adopt the Findings of Fact
and Conclusions of Law of the Bremerton Planning Commission,
approving the Shoreline Substantial Development/Conditional
Use permit subject to the conditions stated in the Findings
and Conclusions, with the additional condition that the Navy
acquire Department Of Fisheries Hydraulic Permit for the
dredging.
8B - PUBLIC HEARING ON RESOLUTION NO. 2410 TO SURPLUS PARCELS
ON UNION &WERNER, UNION & PACIFIC, AND3RDSOUTH OF RESERVOIR
#4; AND APPROVING TERMS OF DISPOSAL, #AB92-247
This is a proposal to surplus 3 parcels of City property. Two
parcels are assets of the Utility Fund, a 1.35 acre parcel on
3rd Street south of Reservoir #4, and a .75 acre parcel at
Union & Poindexter adjacent to the armory. The third parcel
is 1.55 acres held by the General Fund at Werner & Union, and
currently leased to Kitsap Mental Health.
To surplus Utility property, the City Council is required to
pass a resolution, following a public hearing, declaring such
properties are not needed for providing continued public
utility service, RCW 35.94.04. The City's surplus policy
applies to all three parcels.
The utility parcels have no planned utility use. The General
Fund parcel has been surplused to City program needs and will
be sold subject to the existing lease to Kitsap Mental Health.
It is recommended that surplusing procedures of Policy 1-6
relating to Planning Commission recommendations on disposal
and competitive bids be waived based on a pending offer which
includes these parcels as part of the City's consideration.
The negotiated agreement will provide benefits to the City
which would not be achieved in a sale to other bidders.
TAPE #1062
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
September 30, 1992
Page 31 of 34
The agreement is detailed in the attached supplemental Agenda
Bill entitled "Annexation Agreement".
Councilman Morrie Dawkins stepped down from this issue due to
a possible appearance of fairness/conflict of interest. All
other Council members remained seated.
Bill Dully, Utilities Director, stated the Utility, in
response to the City's extra territorial land use plan and
development growth of the City together with improvements to
the Utility system, has negotiated an agreement with HMI
Incorporated, i.e. Chuck Hazelwood, providing for development
of the owner's property. The agreement provides for
annexation of the owner's property in exchange for utility
services. It provides for a comprehensive Utility plan of the
Westhills Auto Center area and will address water service,
fire flows, wastewater service and stormwater service to that
area. The agreement also provides for an exchange of
property, as noted in the Agenda packet (three parcels). In
exchange for those properties, the City will be receiving a
parcel of property (a retention pond), which the City intends
to use for stormwater detention. The stormwater detention
pond is very critical to the City in order to address some
stormwater problems in the Westhills Honda location as well as
providing a drainage area for stormwater coming from the south
down Union Avenue as well as off of Werner Road. At this
point, that area has remained in the County and it has been
difficult to deal with that portion of the flow that is being
directed into "car town" area. Additionally, the agreement
provides for release of interest the Utility might have in
some Department Of Transportation property located adjacent to
the north and south bound on-ramps on the west side of the
freeway. The auto dealers have expressed an interest in
landscaping that area. Finally, the agreement grants an odor
easement to the City associated with the comprehensive
planning and development of the area. Annexation of the area
will result in increased revenue to the City and will allow
the Utility to improve the infrastructure in that area,
specifically stormwater problems as well as wastewater and
water service.
Russell Houge, Attorney 600 Kitsap Street, Port Orchard,
stated he represents Mr. Hazelwood individually in the matter
of one aspect of this exchange - his proffer of an odor
easement, over certain properties he owns, to take affect at
92 levels. An odor easement directed at the air pollution
emitting from the City's sewage treatment plant. Mr.
Hazelwood is a party plaintiff in the litigation known as the
Westhills vs City of Bremerton. He emphasized Mr. Hazelwood
TAPE #1062
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
September 30, 1992
Page 32 of 34
was quite happy with this agreement and believes he has
received a "good deal", and Mr. Houge believed the City felt
it was also a good deal for the City. Mr. Houge will be
working with the City concerning further impact of this
agreement on that litigation. He noted should this result in
a dismissal of Mr. Hazelwood's claim, he still had 92 clients
and they too appreciated the City's appearance to reach an
applicable solution. They also look forward to similar
negotiations in the future, with themselves individually,
although they recognize they do not have as much to offer as
Mr. Hazelwood. He put the City on notice, at this point, that
further negotiations with his clients concerning odor
easements should be routed through him at his Law Office. He
also advised the City Attorney of that process.
Finally, Mr. Hazelwood has conveyed to Mr. Houge that he is
happy to be part of the City for a variety of reasons and
considers himself a Bremerton booster and recognizes the
enterprises he will bring into the City will add considerably
to the City's tax revenue. Mr. Houge also noted his clients
in general express their interest in annexing in the future as
well so they will have a vote in future City elections.
James Wald, 1223 So. Oyster Bay Avenue, member of the
Westhills lawsuit, stated another "deal" had been cut with
another lawsuit member without notification of the attorney or
the remaining members of the lawsuit. Any conversation that
the public, himself, may have this evening is germane and
should not be brushed aside. He believed items 1-6 and
potentially #7 of the Planning Commission's surplusing of
property be waived. He believes there is some sort of ethical
question about why an agreement was negotiated with one person
and not any of the others. When he attempted to open
discussion with Mr. Duffy about his interest in putting in a
bid for one of the pieces of property surplused, he was told
such discussion could not be held because he was legally
represented by Mr. Houge. And, he was told if he would or
when he chose to drop his representation then such dialogue
would be offered.
Gloria Sturdivant, 1318 Cotton Street, stated she is a member
of the Westhills Association and questioned if the City will
negotiate with the other members of the lawsuit as was done
with Mr. Hazelwood. She described the adverse effect the
sewer plant odor has had on her husband, who suffers from
chronic adult asthma and emphysema over the past years.
After their home burned down they had to rebuild on the same
site because they could not afford to relocate to another area
because no one wants to purchase land in an area that is so
TAPE #1062
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
September 30, 1992
Page 33 of 34
adversely affected. She questioned will her family be able to
move to an area where they can breath clean air and will they
have an opportunity to negotiate with the City?
David LeOtort, 1400 Cotton Avenue, stated he built his home on
this site when the City had just a small sewer plant. Now, he
is stuck with a 4,000 sq. ft. home that he cannot sell due to
the adverse affect of the odor from the City's new wastewater
treatment plant. He hopes he will receive some equitable
dispensation so that he could move into a neighborhood where
he can rebuild a home and raise his children where they do not
have to endure stench that is the front door of the City of
Bremerton.
Mr. Overson stated it was his understanding from staff that
these other interested parties, involved with the Westhills
lawsuit, would have their concerns addressed. Ian Sievers,
City Attorney, stated the City will make every effort possible
to settle the suit. The City's intent is to make an effort
later October/November to speak with the rest of Mr. Houge's
clients through him. Mr. Overson stated he understands that
the proposed action is legal and based on staff's analysis
this is the right way to go. Mr. Slevers stated he thinks the
type of consideration negotiated by the Mayor and Mr. Duffy is
the kind of consideration that should lead to a finding that
the surplusing procedures are not needed and should be waived
by Council. Even the people who spoke against the procedure
waiver agreed this one negotiated buyer had an advantage to
the City that no other bidder could offer. Again, there was
no need to incur the cost of an appraisal and bid procedure.
Mr. Collins stated the problem to him is not the lawsuit but
the odor. He requested Mr. Duffy provide an update on what
the City is doing about correcting the odor at the wastewater
treatment plant. Mr. Sievers stated this was not the
appropriate time to be discussing that issue. The City's
strategies for dealing with the odor is privileged and should
not be discussed in public. Council has known since the plant
was built that there has been on going analysis and reports on
ways to improve the situation. The City Council can expect
the department to continue that effort and he did not think it
was unfair to say that regardless of the suit the City will
continue to make improvements. President Hotton pointed out
a schedule of improvements at the wastewater plant has been
set out and as time goes on such improvements will be made
regardless of the state of the lawsuit.
Mr. Colvin requested Mr. Houge to define "odor easement" and
#1722
TAPE #1062
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
September 30, 1992
Page 34 of 34
how did this affect the City? Mr. Houge stated "odor
easement" is a termhe first heard from the City Attorney, Ian
Sievers. It is a term he has not found defined in any legal
book, however, deducing from what he believed to be the
intended meaning is as follows: "in this case, as of the date
of the execution and approval of the Annexation Agreement, the
properties affected by the odor easements and the persons
owning those properties and each successive owners of those
properties will have no grounds for making any kind of claim
against the City for odor ever". Mr. Colvin stated he could
not find such a statement in the documentation provided. Mr.
Sievers pointed out where that statement was contained in the
document. Mr. Colvin stated he was putting Council on notice
that at some time in the future he will raise the issue as to
what would he do if he had purchased property in that same
area and was experiencing an "odor" problem. President Hotton
stated this is the first of a series of a negotiated
settlement with the litigants in the lawsuit. We will
actively pursue settling this lawsuit, but additionally, we
have been and will continue to work to mitigate the problems
of the sewer treatment plant regardless to what happens to
this lawsuit. No one wants the problems to continue or
people's lives impacted.
M/S/C(Johnson/Colvin) motion to approve Resolution No. 2410,
declaring the three parcels surplus and setting consideration
for sale.
Vote on motion: In Favor: Overson, Neville, Fitz, Waibel,
Horton, Colvin, Johnson
Opposed: Collins
With no further business meeting adjourned at 9:45 P.M.
KATHLEEN L. McCLUSKEY, City Clerk
IHORTON, Council President
City of Bremerton
KLM/LH/me
cc: Normal Distribution
File/Vault