HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/22/92TAPE #1014
UNAPPROVED DRAFT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
#0048
#0065
APRIL 22, 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, April 22,
1992, at 5:30 p.m., with Council President Lynn Horton
presiding. Council members present: Lon Overson, Richard
Neville, Eileen Fitz, Hank Waibel, Morrie Dawkins, Russ
Johnson, A1 Colvin and C.R. "Tiny" Collins. Also present were
City Attorney Ian Sievers and Kathleen L. McCluskey, City
Clerk.
The meeting opened with the Pledge of Allegiance led by
Council President Horton and Invocation given by Reverend
August Lubkeman of Memorial Lutheran Church.
President Hotton announced the addition of Items 8A -
Agreement With Port Of Bremerton To Act as Limited Surety For
Overwater Park Mitigation and Item 8B - Resolution #2388,
Authorizing An Interfund Loan From The Public Works Complex To
the Waterfront Parks Construction Fund, which would then
renumber items 8A and 8B to 8C and 8D.
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Minutes Of Meeting -April 1, 1992
#AB92-103
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.
M/S/C/U(Colvin/Dawkins) on April 22, 1992, the Council does
approve for payment those vouchers included and further
described as follows: 148285 through 148396 in the total
amount of $404,802.97; and Regular Payroll for the period
ending 4-15-92, in the total amount of $428,183.16.
COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS
Mr. Colvin reported he received several phone calls from
residents in Council District 8 concerning the intersection of
Marine Drive and Kitsap Way, which he referred to Councilman
Fitz.
TAPE #1014
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 22, 1992
Page 2 of 39
Mr. Dawkins announced Christmas In April will take place on
Saturday, April 17.
Mrs. Hotton reported she attended the Rotary Auction, along
with Councilman Overson and Mayor Mentor, which turned out to
be very successful and raised approximately $50,000. A
portion of those funds will be donated toward the sports
complex. She extended her compliments to former Councilman
Spencer Horning, chairman of that event.
Mr. Waibel reported the D.A.R.E. Walk took place on Monday,
April 13 and a very successful D.A.R.E. Karioke took place on
Saturday evening. He noted Eugene Robinson, representing the
Seattle Seahawks and Mayor Mentor were a part of that program.
He was disappointed that only one Bremerton Elementary School
was represented and there were no Bremerton D.A.R.E. officers
in attendance. He requested Mayor Mentor explain why
Bremerton was not better represented at this event.
PUBLIC RECOGNITION
Mayor Louis Mentor reported he "paid" to sing at the D.A.R.E.
program. He attended the city-wide Easter Egg Hunt on April
19, sponsored by the Bremerton Eagles and Elks organizations.
Mayor Mentor read the following Proclamations:
1. National Community Development Block Grant Week, April 20-
26, 1992. Carol Dickinson, Community Services Manager,
accepted the Proclamation and announced on April 16, at The
Yesterdays Store located at first and Washington, a
celebration will be held with a list of dignitaries to
identify and celebrate the use of Block Grant Funds throughout
the Puget Sound Region. Congressman Norm Dicks will be the
featured speaker at this event.
2. Drug And Alcohol Awareness Week - April 27 through May 1,
1992. Claudia Thomas, Bremerton School District, accepted the
Proclamation and expressed appreciation for the community
support they are receiving on their Comprehensive Drug and
Alcohol Program. The Bremerton Central Lions Club is helping
to sponsor this program. She review planned activities that
will provide education opportunities for children as well as
adults.
3. Crime Victims Rights Week - April 26 through May 2, 1992.
James Peterson, Burwell, expressed concern that a major focus
is being directed to the problem of "drug abuse" and the
prosecution thereof, when the more destructive elements are
"alcohol, tobacco and prescription drug".
TAPE #1014
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 22, 1992
Page 3 of 39
Frederick Salmela, Lower Marine Drive, stated he had concerns
over preliminary plans for improvements to the Marine
Drive/Kitsap Way intersection. The proposed plans indicated
a hard, sharp 120 degree turn at the traffic light. He did
not find that much of an improvement over the current "free"
right turn lane and felt it would cause extensive traffic
backups on Kitsap Way. Another concern is movement of lanes
closer to Sundown Cleaners and R & H Market, which will create
increased traffic hazard for people accessing those
businesses. He questioned why wasn't the City using part of
the old service land? He requested the City Council and Mayor
look into these points prior to start of construction.
David Baldwin, Trustee for Bremerton Eagles #192, stated this
past year Mr. Harold Stennett sponsored a "Child Abuse
Prevention" fund raising project. Through the labors and
contributions of the men and women in their organization,
$500.00 is being donated to a child abuse program. The Eagles
are hoping the money will help plant the seed of hope in our
youth that some day the term "child abuse" is no longer a
problem. Mary Serbousek, Chairman for Project Family,
accepted the donation and thanked the Bremerton Eagles for
their generosity. She hoped everyone was aware that April is
"Child Abuse Prevention" month. She emphasized the demand on
the Child Abuse Prevention Council's services. She cited
recent statistics that 4,322 children were reported to local
Child Protective Service (CPS) last year and 62,538 were
reported state-wide.
Don Atkinson, Bremerton Main Street Association, stated he
wished to make comment on the overwater park project, however,
he would not be available to speak at the time that item came
up on the agenda. He provided a handout that included a list
of private investors who had come into the downtown area
within the past year. He noted they had been drawn here by
the direction of the city, the promise of the boardwalk and
promising things happening downtown. He urged Council to look
long and hard at this project, bite the bullet and keep it
moving and in return will see increased commerce and tax
dollars downtown, as well as breaking the cycle of promising
something but not completing it.
Melissa Anderson Bremerton Animal Control Officer, announced
they are seeking owners of two animals impounded last week -
a miniature dachshund, mature male (red/short hair) picked up
in the 400 block of South Lafayette; a Samoyed, white mature
male wearing a brown collar picked up in the Farragut and
South Constitution area.
TAPE #1014
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 22, 1992
Page 4 of 39
Jerz7 Reid, representing a group of Citizens For Open Space,
reported this group has scheduled 45 meetings in different
location in the City in the next two weeks to discuss the
possibility of running a bond issue that would fund purchasing
open space/greenbelts/wetlands/establish trails, parks,etc.
These meetings are designed for citizens to come together and
decide if there is need for such a movement. The public is
invited to attend one of the following meetings: April 28,
7:00 PM Emmanuel Apostolic Church; April 29, 7:00 PM Bayview
Inn; April 30, 7:00 PM Bremerton High School.
6A - INFORMATION ITEM: BREMERTON/KITSAP COUNTY DWI-TRAFFIC
SAFETY TASK FORCE
The City received a three year grant for the Traffic Safety
Task Force. The grant terminates 9/30/92. Mike Hatzenbeler
has managed the program since May, 1990. Mr. Hatzenbeler will
explain the history and accomplishments of the program. He
also will discuss the future of this program at the
termination of grant funding in September.
Mike Hatzenbeler provided each Council member with a packet of
information that included a Mission Statement outlining goals
and objectives, a State-Wide Program Overview as well as a
Overview at the local level, examples of typical handouts.
The City received a funding grant in December 1989, with the
program getting under way in May/June 1990. Most of 1990 was
spent developing the goals/objectives and work plan that would
shape what the DWI Task Force would comprise. The mission
they developed is to lead all of Kitsap County in a
collaborative effort to reduce the incidents of alcohol
impaired driving. He works with existing organizations and
concerned citizens to direct their resources and concerns in
a way that will have the greatest impact on the problem of
DWI. The program budget is not large enough to create
programs so they are working to redirect existing resources in
a way that makes it more affective.
Primary projects undertaken have been public education,
enforcement and hospitality industry. Their public education
committee has been active in a number of areas, one being the
Run To A Drug Free Washington, a State-wide event that happens
every year. This committee is also responsible for co-
sponsoring two drug free work place conferences that have
taken place in Silverdale during 1991. They have made drug
free work place a priority because they see the work place as
a critical area to reach a segment of population that are
difficult to reach in other places...young males who are out
of high school but may not yet have a family and are not very
involved in the community. They view DWI as a symptom of our
TAPE #1014
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 22, 1992
Page 5 of 39
overall substance abuse problem in our society.
The major activity of their enforcement program is the DWI
Emphasis Patrol Project. This project involves all law
enforcement agencies in Kitsap County coming together as part
of the enforcement committee and organizing DWI saturation
effort in different regions around the County. The
hospitality project involves local members of the hospitality
industry (liquor licensees) working to show their commitment
to having an impact on the problem and promoting
responsibility within their establishment. Two ways they
provide this services is preventing over service to people and
preventing service to minors. They have also worked closely
with the DWI Victims Panel by providing technical assistance.
They are continuing to develop their goals and objectives and
to refocus their efforts in the areas necessary and continue
a high priority of working with youth, the drug-free-work
place and continuing their funding base beyond their initial
three year grant, which expires the end of September.
Mrs. Fitz questioned if there was a part of this program that
worked with the military? Mr. Hatzenbeler stated he had spent
a good deal of time working with Puget Sound Naval Shipyard
and Sub-Base Bangor because of the number of high risk drivers
located in those two areas. Through statistics a profile of a
high risk driver is: males, under 30 years of age who drive 4-
wheel drive pickups or small pickups, and who tend to drink
away from home. One of the messages this group responses to
most is not of personal injury and harm but one of law
enforcement, incarceration and loss of funds. Large numbers
of these types of individuals are found on military basis.
Mr. Neville questioned if this program would also apply to
boating while intoxicated? Mr. Hatzenbeler stated they had
not made boating a major emphasis but it had been mentioned
during a their meetings. One of the upcoming emphasis patrols
will involve Police Departments that man marine units.
Mr. Dawkins questioned the source of the handout brochure?
Mr. Hatzenbeler explained that brochure is produced by the
State Safety Commission and is handed out to school children
as well as adults.
President Hotton referenced 1990 Kitsap County traffic
collisions statistics, which indicated a record high involving
people who had been drinking or under the influence of
alcohol. She questioned if 1990 had a record high for both
fatalities and collisions involving drinking and driving, how
TAPE #1014
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 22, 1992
Page 6 of 39
could he show this program is making a difference even through
the population had increased? Mr. Hatzenbeler stated 1990 was
the first year there was an active effort toward developing a
task force and the goals and objectives for this group were
started in June of 1990. It was in 1991 when they were able
to implement public education and running the projects. He
believed those statistics made a strong statement of problems
in Kitsap County. Partial statistics for 1991 show a decrease
of such incidents (about 7%), and 1992 is continuing that
trend. President Hotton questioned if Mr. Hatzenbeler knew
why the statistics for 1988 were so dramatically lower for
than 1990 for fatalities involving drinking and driving? Mr.
Hatzenbeler stated he did not know, however, he was continuing
to research that issue. He had reviewed historically data
back to 1975 for all collisions in general and there is a
history in Kitsap County of having some fairly high increases
and then large decreases over a 2-3 year period. Mr. Collins
pointed out there were a number of military ships homeported
in Kitsap County during that period. Mr. Hatzenbeler stated
he did not want to solely place the blame on the military but
it could have been a contributing factor.
Mr. Colvin encouraged Mr. Hatzenbeler to continue on with the
program and felt he was doing a good job. Mr. Hatzenbeler
stated he felt progress was being made and the credit should
go to all the volunteers and concerned citizens who work with
him and other organizations around the community. He stressed
that it was not only his organization's efforts making an
impact but more in partnership with efforts by the School
Districts and other entities promoting traffic safety and
reduction of substance abuse.
President Horton emphasized she is strongly in favor of
prevention and hoped the 1991 statistics could be provided
showing statistically that those problems are being reduced,
which would reflect very favorably on his program. Mr.
Hatzenbeler stated he would continue to work with the State
Patrol to come up with that information.
7D - TO CONSIDER A LETTER OF INTENT (10%) FOR ANNEXATION OF
THE PERRY AVENUE AREAINTO THE JURISDICTION OF THE CITY OF
BREMERTON, #AB92-107
This is initial step using the seventy-five percent process to
annex the area along Perry Avenue into the City of Bremerton.
According to the state statutes (RCW 35.13.125) the Council is
to determine:
1) Whether the City will accept, reject, or geographically
modify the proposed annexation;
TAPE #1014
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 22, 1992
Page 7 of 39
2) Whether it will require the simultaneous adoption of the
comprehensive plan, or if the annexed property shall be
administratively assigned provisional zoning; and
3) Whether it will require the assumption of all or any
portion of existing City indebtedness by the area to be
annexed.
Terrie Hartson, Municipal Services Coordinator, outlined
things to consider when looking at an annexation area: (1)
whether or not this area is utilizing City services or has the
potential for utilizing such services (a map showing
availability of such services was provided). (2) City
government seeks to protect individual rights, health and
safety of residents. A number of problems in the area have
been identified, such as abandoned vehicles on properties,
partially torn down houses, abandoned gas stations and other
miscellaneous problems, and could be more appropriately
addressed under the jurisdiction of municipal government.
Kitsap County has designated the subject area as urban and
placed businesses within the single family areas of the
annexation area. Currently, this areas' population is 190
people over a 50 acre area. After construction of the
Creekside apartment complex, density would amount to 13 people
per acre - both considered a dense population and urban area.
The Bremerton Comprehensive Plan shows the annexation area to
be "Residential" and "Commercial" zones and County zoning
considers it an urban area with R5 and General Business zoning
designation.
Boundaries for the annexation area have been identified and
viewed as an improvement over current irregularities. By
annexing the subject area, it would eliminate irregularities
and include people who are already using City services.
Residents already receiving City sewer and water services
would realize reduced rates for those services. Residents
could choose to remain on the North Perry Water service if
they so desired. Anyone who would require sewer services,
regardless whether or not they were in the City, would have to
hook up to City sewer. An annexation does not require people
to hook up to sewer but if the Health District declared a need
for a resident to hook up to sewer the City would be the
provider for that service. City residents do pay a lower
sewer rate than those living outside the City.
Existing public services - Police - this area is currently
serviced by Kitsap County Sheriff Department with a ratio of
TAPE #1014
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 22, 1992
Page 8 of 39
one officer for every 1,778 persons covering a 400 square mile
area. The City's Police service ratio is one officer per 660
residents, patrolling an area of 2-3 square miles. The public
safety services can respond within two minutes to emergency
situations in this area. Police reports do reflect burglaries
and drug activities in the subject area and it is felt that
City Police service would provide benefit to those
neighborhood areas.
Fire - and paramedic protection are also desirable in the
subject area. Currently, Fire District 15 serves this area,
including paramedic services, which requires travelling 4 1/4
miles through a very dense traffic area (even with lights
flashing). Ms. Hartson provided a chart from the American
Heart Association showing the survival rate of people
experiencing heart attacks if treated within a specific period
of time. If CPR is administered within eight minutes chances
of survival is 43%. The City's emergency medical services can
respond to the annexation area with 2-3 minutes. Beyond eight
minutes, the chances for survival drops to 17% and if CPR is
not started within eight minutes the survival percentage drops
down to 6%. Recently the North Perry Fire District merged
with Fire District #15, and do provide volunteer firefighters
and paramedic services out of their Perry Avenue station.
Because of the City's quick response time, 24-hour personnel
on duty and levels of training, hazardous insurance rates
would be lower.
Street Maintenance - there is much jurisdictional confusion
contributed to the center line division in several streets
(Stone Way, Perry Avenue and Sheridan Avenue). This poses
problems in that two jurisdictions have to add portions of
those streets to their street inventory, making it difficult
to coordinate repair/resurfacing projects. Of the 27 streets
throughout the City that are divided down the center and under
two jurisdictions, maintenance is a real problem. Traffic
enforcement is also difficult on streets that have divided
jurisdiction. The City Engineer pointed out Sunset Lane and
Fruitland streets were steep grades and would be difficult to
travel during times of icy weather. The City's Street
Department does provide sanding and snow removal on City
streets.
Street Lighting - residents within the annexation area are
currently paying $3.00/bi-monthly.
Storm Sewers - The City of Bremerton has a storm sewer and it
is believed the County has some drainage areas flowing into a
creek.
TAPE #1014
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 22, 1992
Page 9 of 39
Animal Control - Kitsap County has a less intense animal
control service (400 square mile area for 3-officers). The
City has an excellent animal control service and problems that
arise are taken care in a timely manner.
Planning - the County designates this area as "urban" because
it is an area with full public facilities, high volume of
transportation, a wide range of commercial services and wide
range of residential types and intensities, including high
density. It also includes community service uses, such as
churches, schools and parks. Kitsap County goals for an urban
are to encourage variety of quality multi-family and single
family housing, promoting an urban concentration. Recently,
the annexation area had a P.U.D. approved to construct
apartments, which would add to the density.
Codes - City, County and State building codes are identical,
as well as the same fee schedule, which is based on the cost
of construction. The County recently implemented "Impact
Fees" that amount to approximately $2,000 per residential
home. The City does not have such a fee at this time.
Recreational Needs - there are no neighborhood parks in the
annexation area, however, there is a school close by. The
City's Parks Director feels this area would benefit from a
neighborhood park.
The objectives of annexation are the preservation of natural
neighborhoods and communities; the use of physical boundaries
including but not limited to bodies of water, highways and
land contours; creation-and preservation of logical service
areas; prevention of abnormally irregular boundaries the
adjustment of practical boundaries and annexations to cities
or towns of unincorporated areas that are urban in character.
Ms. Hartson stressed this annexation meets that criteria.
Statutes authorizing annexation through the 75 percent
petition method authorize the legislative body of the annexing
City to require property in an area being annexed to assume,
as a condition of annexation, a pro rata share of the City's
then outstanding indebtedness, which had been approved by the
voters, contracted or incurred prior to the date of
annexation. Currently, the City has the following outstanding
bonds:
.1503 1977 Library District Tax - levied upon entire
County (15 cents per $1,000/annually)
.0303
1979 Fire Protection Issue - Construction &
Equipment For Max Meigs Station
TAPE #1014
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 22, 1992
Page 10 of 39
.02500
1990 Fire Protection Equipment - Engine
Replacement
.0553 Net charge per $1,000 of assessed property value
Ms Hartson reported she received a signed petition from
residents on Stone Way requesting they be omitted from the
annexation area. Currently, there are no City sewer services
along Stone Way. One of the reasons to include Stone Way in
the annexation area was to include a whole neighborhood and
Ms. Hartson felt it would be impossible to leave off some
Stoneway residents without causing an irregular boundary,
which would be overturned by the Boundary Review Board.
Therefore, staff recommends to Council, at the request of the
residents listed on the petition, that they be excluded from
the annexation area. She also was concerned over the split
jurisdiction on Stone Way, which could be alleviated through
annexation.
President Horton asked the "Appearance Of Fairness/Conflict Of
Interest question" with all Council members being seated.
Glenn Petroski, 2805 Stone Way, stated he appointed himself as
Chairman of his neighborhood and developed the petition that
was signed and submitted to the City requesting exclusion from
the annexation area. During his canvassing efforts, he found
only one resident, whose residence faces onto Perry Avenue,
not available to discuss the proposed annexation action.
Residents in the neighborhood made the following comments:
(1) increased traffic impacting Perry Avenue could create
another Wheaton Way; (2) questioning why City government
cannot work with County government; (3) water billing only
$4.00 difference; (4) single family residents did not feel
well represented in this proposal because the proposed
apartment project amounts to approximately 7 million dollars
in assessed valuation; (5) neighborhood is already divided and
proposed annexation would include them in a neighborhood they
don't belong in.
President Hotton explained this was the first step in the
annexation process and did not mean the proposed area is
annexed into the City - it only means that residents of 10% of
assessed valuation asked that the City consider an annexation.
Ms. Hartson explained if Council approves the Letter Of Intent
For Annexation, the next process will be community meetings
(block-to-block) where differences between services are
discussed. She acknowledged Mr. Petroski's concerns and noted
all of those reasons were why the City wanted to annex the
area.
TAPE #1014
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 22, 1992
Page 11 of 39
TAPE #1015
Following the community meetings, Ms. Hartson would then
present the 75% petition to Council and any area that did not
have 75% participation would be eliminated from the final
petition. Next, the annexation proposal would be taken before
the Boundary Review Board, who would notify all special
districts and County jurisdictions involved and at that time
they could invoke jurisdiction and ask for a public hearing.
At that hearing, the Boundary Review Board would find facts
and findings approving or denying the annexation.
William Warnsbee, currently living 1/2 block out of City
limits in East Bremerton, stated he spent almost 14 years as
a volunteer in the North Perry Fire Department. During that
time he held the rank of Lieutenant, Training Captain and
Chaplain. The North Perry Fire Department merged with Fir
District #15, which he felt was a positive move for his fire
department. After serving under District #15's leadership, he
began to see inconsistences in management which then brought
him to the point of leaving that department. He has great
confidence in the City of Bremerton's Fire Department and
trusts his family's lives to the capable hands of Bremerton's
firefighters.
The following individuals spoke in opposition to the proposed
annexation: Wesley Warren, Stone Way, Wayne Proctor, soon to
be resident in annexation area;
Following comments were made by the above listed speakers:
(1) water/sewer/garbage service will cost more; (2) Perry
Avenue Fire District already provided excellent service; (3)
already had Police protection services provided by Sheriff's
Department and backed up by the City's Police Department; (4)
City already has too many streets to maintain and many areas
are not maintained on a regular basis; (5) do not want to be
taxed in order to have street lights; (6) City has difficulty
maintaining their current parks - don't need to add new ones
just take care of what they have.
#0434
M/S/F(Overson/Collins) to approve notice of intent with an
adjustment to the geographical area omitting a portion of
Stone Way as described by Ms. Hartson.
President Hotton stated she would not support the motion and
would like Stone Way residents included in the annexation area
because there still is opportunity to drop that portion out
during the 75% petition process. Ms. Hartson does a very good
job working with the neighborhoods and neighbors and
responding to their concerns. Some of the testimony given by
#0513
#0529
#0591
TAPE #1015
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 22, 1992
Page 12 of 39
residents was erroneous and information could be provided to
the neighborhood by Ms. Hartson during neighborhood meetings
that will be held.
Vote: In Favor:
Opposed:
Abstain:
Motion failed.
Overson
Waibel, Collins, Dawkins, Colvin, Johnson,
Neville, Horton
Fitz
M/S/C/U(Johnson/Colvin) to approve the Notice Of Intent
without an adjustment to the geographical area omitting a
portion of Stone Way.
M/S/C/U(Waibel/Overson) allow Provisional zoning under the
City designation most similar to former county zoning with a
review within sixty days of annexation (Chapter I, Section 3,
City of Bremerton Zoning ordinance)
Mr. Johnson questioned if, in previous annexations, had there
been any instances where portions of the indebtedness had been
exempted? Mr. Waibel stated yes, in one case Council exempted
them all and in another exemption was due to duplication. Ms.
Hartson pointed out these were special issue bonds that the
proposed annexation area residents had not voted on and it is
up to the Legislative body to decide if they will be helped
by that bond issue.
M/S/C(Waibel/Johnson) to require the area to assume a
proportional amount of existing City indebtedness.
Vote: In Favor:
Abstain:
Motion carried.
Overson, Fitz, Neville, Waibel, Horton,
Collins, Colvin, Johnson
Dawkins
9A - TO CONSIDER RESOLUTION NO. 2380, REOUESTINGANAMENDMENT
TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN EAST OF PERRY AVENUE MALL WHICH WAS
CONTINUED IN FEBRUARY, #AB92-108
The applicant for this Comprehensive Plan Amendment has
received County approval for a multi-family residential
development on unincorporated land immediately east of the
Perry Avenue Mall. The development requires City utility
services. In order to receive such services, projects must
conform with the City's Comprehensive Plan. To achieve the
needed Plan consistency, the applicant is requesting that the
site be changed from low to high-density residential.
This request has been considered and recommended by the
Planning Commission at a hearing on January 21, 1992. In
TAPE #1015
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 22, 1992
Page 13 of 39
February, the City Council continued this hearing in order to
begin proceedings on the annexation of the site. The City has
prepared the 10% Petition for annexation of the site. Notices
have been sent to all property owners in the area. Amendments
to the Comprehensive Plan are made by resolution and a
resolution is attached for the City Council's consideration.
President Horton asked the "Appearance Of Fairness/Conflict Of
Interest" question with all members of the Council being
seated.
Ron Hough, Planning Manager, provided a view graph map showing
the location of the subject site - east of Perry Avenue, south
of East 30th Street and across Perry Avenue from the Perry
Avenue Mall shopping center. It also showed main arterial
streets serving this property and how residents could get
around that part of town. Most direct routes to downtown,
Olympic College, PSNS is across Manette Bridge.
The County's Comprehensive Plan designates the subject site as
"urban". The applicant received approval from Kitsap County
for a P.U.D. -apartment complex and a rezone to a high
residential zone. The Urban Comprehensive Plan designation
allows densities up to 30 units per acre. The subject project
proposes approximately 20 units per acre. The County did
conduct an environmental analysis of the site, reviewed site
plan, held public hearings and approved the P.U.D. request and
rezone request.
The proposed project needs the public services available from
the City of Bremerton. The City's policy is to grant utility
services outside the City limits to only projects that comply
with the City's Comprehensive Plan. In this case, the City's
Comprehensive Plan shows low density residential (0-7 units
per acre) and the project proposes 20 units per acre. The
only option the developer had besides reducing the size of the
project was to apply to the City for a Comprehensive Plan
Amendment, which they did, and a public hearing was held
January 21, 1992. The Planning Commission determined the
proposed project met all necessary criteria for granting an
amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and was in a good location
for high density residential. City Council then held a public
hearing in February, 1992, but because there was an annexation
proposal, the final decision on the amendment was postponed
until the annexation was initiated. That annexation has been
initiated and is in process and the applicant has now
requested Council make a decision on the Comprehensive Plan
Amendment. At this time the applicant is somewhat "pinched"
TAPE #1015
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 22, 1992
Page 14 of 39
between processes and would like to get the development
underway, and if delayed 6-12 months they would experience
problems with the funding element of the project.
The Planning Commission's recommendation is to amend the
Comprehensive Plan designation to 15-30 dwelling units per
acre.
Cynthia Stimpson, applicant, explained she and her husband had
worked on this project for several years. She expressed
concern that their project is caught between two governmental
jurisdictions and had met all criteria by all government
entities. She pointed out the City's ordinance states that
the "applicant only has to be willing to annex" in order for
the Comprehensive Plan to be changed. Unlike quite a number
of housing units lost in that area because of financing, their
project has been approved by HUD to go forward, which provides
for non-subsidized, moderate income housing. They are
desperately in need of meeting HUD's deadlines in order to
meet funding requirements.
Mr. Graham, resident in annexation area off of Stone Way,
questioned how many people would this complex house? Mr.
Hough stated the project is a complex of buildings, 132 units,
which are distributed throughout the site with driveways,
parking and landscaping between buildings.
Mr. Waibel called a point of order and questioned if this
issue was being heard in a hearing? President Horton stated
yes. Mr. Waibel pointed out if the resolution is passed
the date of this hearing and the previous hearing need to be
included. Per the Growth Management Act, cities and counties
need to increase densities in those areas where development is
already in place and this project is one way to help in that
endeavor. He preferred to have such development taking place
in the City and hoped the initial annexation taken will be
approved.
Mr. Colvln questioned the number of parking spaces needed for
132 units? Mr. Hough stated he did not know what was required
under the Kitsap County code, however, it does meet the
County's code requirement, which is very close to the City's
requirement. Mr. Overson pointed out Ms. Hartson had stated
the County and City codes were identical. Ms. Hartson
explained she was referring to the "Building Code". Mrs.
Stimpson stated there will be 212-217 parking spaces. Mr.
Waibel questioned the City's parking requirement for 16 units
per acre? Mr. Hough stated for 132 units the City's Zoning
Ordinance requires different parking requirements depending on
TAPE #1015
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 22, 1992
Page 15 of 39
the size of the complex. Mr. Waibel calculated if it was two
spaces for each unit that would total 244 and noted the
proposed parking spaces was reasonably close to that number.
Mr. Hough explained the site plan had been reviewed by the
City prior to its approval by the County. The development is
close to City requirements and does include a wide greenbelt
through the eastern portion of the property,
curbs/gutters/sidewalks along the frontage, deceleration lanes
and most features the City would normally require.
Mr. Johnson stated he was having difficulty understanding how
Planning staff comes to decisions on determination of "non-
significance" with regard to the environment. He questioned
how could proposed project on a 7 acre plot with a creek
running through it, that included 132 units and pave 200
parking spaces, be considered non-significant? Mr. Hough
explained it was non-significant enough to not require and
Environmental Impact Statement. Mr. Johnson pointed out the
County did some type of environmental review. Gary Scott,
representing the applicant, stated the County did do their own
environmental review and did not ask the applicant to provide
an independent study. In each case, the County found that the
project met or exceeded the standards necessary to protect the
environment. They have subsequently gone through the
Department Of Fisheries to make sure there would not be any
problems now that they have jurisdictions over creeks. The
Department of Fisheries is issuing the applicant a letter
indicating their project will have no impact on the
environment because of the plan for storm water management.
Mr. Johnson questioned traffic impacts? Mr. Scott noted the
County also conducted a traffic study and within those studies
they are making some mitigations to deal with any traffic
concerns. Mr. Johnsonquestioned if that was the case and the
developer had to do things to protect the environment, why
doesn't the City adopt the County's EIS Study so that it would
be enforceable in the future? Mr. Walbel pointed out the
County's study stated what they determined...the City did not
determine anything as to environmental impacts. He felt it
was good to accept the County's study but the particular
statement referenced was "the County did a study an they
issued the Determination of Non-significance (DNS). Mr. Hough
pointed out this project was still in the County's
jurisdiction. The City did do a DNS on the Comprehensive Plan
Amendment, not on the project. Mr. Johnson emphasized if the
subject site did not develop but was annexed and was sold to
someone else then the City would be stuck with some property
that Planning had stipulated "non-significant" to go to 30
units per acre without an EIS. Mr. Hough stated he felt
Council might be confusing the site design and approval
TAPE #1015
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 22, 1992
Page 16 of 39
instruction with the Comprehensive Plan. A plan amendment for
an area outside the City is being processed and the site
continues to be under the County's jurisdiction, they are
issuing building permits, inspections, etc. If the project
happens to come into the City before it is built, then the
City has control of zoning, permits, etc., and the City would
do its own DNS. Mr. Johnson stated he believed the impact on
environment is "significant". Mr. Waibel stated before he
could support this request, he needed assurance that, if
approved, the City will have a development that meets City
requirements. Mr. Hough stated Planning staff did review the
plans prior to the County giving approval and before the
County's public hearing process. And, they did review the
mitigation measures and environmental check list. Planning
Staff opinion was that the County did a good job processing
this project. Mr. Waibel questioned the differences between
the City's requirements and County's requirements? Mr. Hough
stated when they reviewed the plans the City's setback
requirements were compared for curb/gutters,sidewalks,
streets, etc., which were all included. He could not say
positively all requirements were up to City standards. The
project does have more open space than would be required by
the City.
Mr. Collins stated he found the proposed Amendment did meet
the City's requirement for an amendment to the Comprehensive
Plan and would provide additional moderate housing. He
questioned how the Amendment would maintain consistency
between the different plan elements? Mr. Hough stated he did
not invent this criteria and found it to be difficult to
interpret regardless of the kind of amendment being
considered. He quoted: "Adoption of the Amendment will
maintain consistency between the different plan elements and
the plan map and conformance between the plan map and
implementing techniques". The different plan elements involve
things like parks and recreation, land use, transportation,
economic, social, etc. The plan map and its implementing
techniques are zoning and regulatory issues. This proposal is
a change in a residential category - keeps it residential but
increases density. It does not have any adverse affects on
the implementing techniques and they found no major areas
where there was a conflict.
President Hotton questioned when a Comprehensive Plan
Amendment is made do we require an EIS on what is changing?
Mr. Hough stated no, a SEPA Checklist is required to outline
what the various impacts are on various components of the
environment. If a problem or inadequate information is found,
they request additional information and review it carefully.
#1472
TAPE #1015
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 22, 1992
Page 17 of 39
If it appears there will be a significant adverse impact, then
an EIS can be required, or a special study. President Hotton
questioned if Mr. Hough felt comfortable with the proposal
based on the SEPA Checklist along with the County's EIS. Mr.
Hough stated is yes.
Councilman Waibel left the Council Chambers at 8:22 P.M.
M/S/C/U(Johnson/Colvin) approve Resolution No. 2380, modifying
the 6th WHEREAS to say that based upon a review of Kitsap
County's Environmental Checklist and studies that the City of
Bremerton issued a determination of non-significance on
January 18, 1992.
Councilman Waibel returned to Council Chambers 8:26 P.M.
9B - APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PUD
FOR ROCKY POINT VILLAGE~ APPELLANT: DAN M. MCDONALD;
LOCATION: 1526 MARINE DRIVE, #AB92-108
On March 17, 1992, the Planning Commission approved a
Preliminary Planned Unit Development (PUD) to subdivide 1.17
acres into four lots and construct four zero lot line single-
family residences.
The preliminary plan is being appealed on the grounds that the
development is not compatible with the neighborhood.
(Specific objections are stated in the letter of appeal -
Exhibit I.)
The City Council, when hearing an appeal, shall either: 1)
Affirm the decision under review; 2) Reverse the decision
under review; 3) Modify in whole or part the decision under
review; or 4) Remand the matter back to the approving
authority for further consideration.
Such action shall be decided by a majority vote of the members
present. That vote may be taken at the same or any subsequent
meeting.
Jack Allingham, Current Planning Division, provided a view
graph showing the location of the site - east side of Marine
Drive at the Marine Drive/Lower Marine Drive intersection.
(1.17 acres).
The site is comprised of 1.17 acres and has a zoning
classification of SF-3. It is primarily surrounded with
Single Family (3) on three sides, SF-2 across Marine Drive,
and some Professional Office and Commercial zoning to the
south of the site toward Kitsap Way. The application for
TAPE #1015
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 22, 1992
Page 18 of 39
attached single family dwellings with zero lot line is allowed
by the Zoning Ordinance in the SF-3 zoning district through
the P.U.D. process. A P.U.D. is a two-part process, the first
seeks preliminary approval of a preliminary plan, which is
approved by the Planning Commission and the final P.U.D. is
approved administratively. The Planning Commission's decision
can be appealed to the City Council.
The P.U.D. proposal provides for the subdivision of the
existing parcel into four lots and construction of two
structures, each having one dwelling unit on each side of the
structure separated by a single lot. The site will utilize a
common driveway and open areas that will provide for on-site
sewage disposal system. The applicant provided a depiction of
what the structures will look like. This does not "lock" in
the building of such structures. Mr. Johnson called for a
point of order and questioned if it was inappropriate to be
showing Council such information? President Hotton stated it
would be appropriate if it was the same information provided
the Planning Commission. Ian Sievers, City Attorney, stated
he did not think a P.U.D. approval extends to design features.
What Council would be approving, under the P.U.D., may differ
from the artist's conception. President Hotton instructed
staff to not use the pictures showing a building design.
Mr. A11ingham explained if the P.U.D. is approved, the
applicant can proceed with a short plat application and to
design structures to fit into that configuration. The
Planning Commission placed four conditions on this project:
(1) The short plat shall include a maintenance agreement for
the private road.
(2) The access road shall be designed so that it is on common
owned property.
(3) Access to the site shall be designed and constructed
subject to review and approval of the City Engineer.
(4) Driveway access shall not exceed a slope grater than 15%.
Dan McDonald, Appellant and neighbor of proposed development,
explained several things have happened for he and his fellow
neighbors to lose faith in the system. He expressed his
displeasure over the subject site being rezoned to SF-3 in
1988, and the fact that he had not been notified of such
action prior to it going into effect. He was also upset over
the fact there was no neighborhood meeting set up to discuss
this proposal. Their neighborhood is a suburban area and
there are no other houses of similar design to what is being
TAPE #1015
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 22, 1992
Page 19 of 39
proposed...three story, 2-bedrooms, and garage. The subject
site is the only remaining piece of undeveloped property along
Rocky Point. The neighbors are present to support their
stance that the subject project is not compatible with their
neighborhood. Even though President Horton disallowed the use
of the artist's conceptions of the buildings, the developer's
rebuttal document states: "it is two stories and has a
garage", thus three stories. He found that to describe a
rather tall building even if the garage is built somewhat
underground. The opposing neighbors are concerned about
credibility, management, and government. They are not opposed
to development of that site, however, they want it to blend
more into what is already established in that neighborhood.
Going back to review by City officials, prior to the Planning
Commission's rejection of their concerns, there were many
valid issues brought up, i.e. fire safety, etc., and the City
came back and stated they had all been "taken care of". He
doubted the safety of the access road if built at a 15% grade
especially when it was icy. He pointed out limited access for
fire trucks, however, they were told sprinklers would take
care of such problems. The height of the building will impeded
his view of Oyster Bay, which did not make him happy because
he is paying taxes for view property. Other concerns about
"shading" were brought out by other neighbors. The P.U.D.
does cite there will be blank walls, which they feel is an
issue but was not sure how that would bear on Council's
consideration. In the report it stipulates, by a Planning
staff person, that this class of house should not be placed in
a suburban area and would be more suitable for urban areas.
In reference to the "Rebuttal" document from the developer, he
felt it was full of erroneous and ambiguous information. A
statement is included stating: "with anticipated sales prices
of $90 - 105,000 they will greatly exceed the assessed value
of Mr. McDonald's house". The developer did not check with
Mr. McDonald and had he done so he would have learned that a
real estate company had indicated he could market his house
for $105-115,000. Another statement says: "it will have a
positive impact on the neighborhood" - the neighborhood is
opposed and present at this meeting to voice that objection.
The neighborhood is requesting reversal of the Planning
Commission's decision and that the property be developed with
something more compatible with the neighborhood. Mr. McDonald
presented Council with a folder of pictures showing the
character of the subject neighborhood. If a reversal decision
is granted, he felt their faith in the system would be
restored. Also, he believed the developer had been allowed
too much latitude and there were several mistakes and errors
TAPE #1015
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 22, 1992
Page 20 of 39
made that negatively impacted their neighborhood.
Paul Plett, applicant, pointed out in looking at the site
originally, they thought rather than apply for a 4-lot short
plat they would apply for the P.U.D. because of the site
layout. The property slopes from the rear toward the road and
the proposed access road would be the existing access that has
been in place at least nine months and probably a matter of
years. The property is zoned for at least nine units and even
if they short platted it into 4-units and ran the property
lines perpendicular to the road, the lots would be equivalent
in size to many neighboring property. The subject proposal
requests less density than is required and they have not
requested any variance from what the City requires or zoning
designation in terms of height, setback, number of units. The
reason they did not go forward with a community meeting at
that time was that they thought the request was so benign it
would not generate any interest, which just proves one can be
wrong. The value of Mr. McDonald's property that was
mentioned in their rebuttal was obtained from the County
Assessor's office.
The following individuals spoke in opposition to the proposal:
Edwin E11ers, 1525 Rocky Pt. Rd.; Eleanor Forbes, 1519 Rocky
Pt. Rd.
Following are comments made by the above listed speakers: (1)
question - what will this development do to the "fight on
drugs"...it is a secluded environment; (2) proposed buildings
will not be compatible with existing homes; (3) Planning
Commission voted to require the developer to come back with a
plan that was more compatible with the neighborhood - this was
not done; (4) dangerous area for children to have to walk to
school; (5) if patios are added it will be within a few feet
of neighboring property lines; (6) shading of gardens; (7) run
off of rainwater into neighboring homes with basements; (8)
developer does not care about what happens to neighboring
properties.
Mrs. Fits expressed concerned that the driveway coming out
onto Marine Drive was unsafe. She questioned the width of the
proposed driveway? Mr. Overson pointed out the drawing of the
P.U.D. showed a 20-foot driveway. Mrs. Fits noted the
location of the driveway is hidden from traffic coming down
Marine Drive. Unless the developer was to widen the driveway
and clear trees, which might not be good for the dirt bank,
she felt it was a dangerous place to have an ingress/egress
road. Dave Baker, City Engineer, stated the Engineering
Department had looked into the access and some recommendations
TAPE #1015
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 22, 1992
Page 21 of 39
were made. He would review the proposal to see if those
recommendations were incorporated into the plan. Mrs. Fitz
noted there was a comments made by the Street Department that
"any development that results in 5,000 sq. ft. of impervious
area must provide a storm detention system and this
development appears to be over that amount so detention would
be required". She questioned where would a detention system
be located on the site? Mr. Baker stated the detention could
be done in each individual lot, which is the normal method.
There is also the possibility of putting such a system in the
right-of-way, however, they do not recommend that method.
Mr. Johnson questioned how Brem-Air Disposal trucks could
access up a 16% grade without waking up the entire
neighborhood? Mr. Baker stated trucks traversing such a grade
would make as much noise as trucks traversing Burwell just
beyond Callow Avenue. Mr. Johnson questioned the maximum
logical number of very small houses located on the site? Mr.
Hough stated with a sewer system one house for every 4,800
square feet of lot area would be allowed (10 houses). In this
case it is proposed to have zero lot line P.U.D. for four
units, which is less than half of the density with sewer. The
P.U.D. is approved by the City and is locked in as a P.U.D.
If the developer wanted to do something different in the
future, they would have to revise that P.U.D. through a public
process. Mr. Johnson questioned if height restrictions were
the same for SF-3 as they are in this P.U.D.? Mr. Hough
stated the 30 foot height restriction is the lowest height
restriction in the City. There are higher heights allowed in
more intense zones. Mr. Johnson questioned if the developer
could take one half of the proposed buildings and place it on
a small lot? Mr. Hough stated yes, the developer would not be
in this process if he only desired to short plat into four
lots, which could happen. Part of what staff does is to
encourage the developer to do something a little more creative
for more efficient use of land. Staff believes the proposed
design is a better design than what could be done if it were
divided into four lots.
Mr. Collins pointed out comments in the Planning Commission's
discussion stated one of the adjoining property owners
testified that the location of the property lines were in
question. And, a "note:" was added stating a survey is not
required for short plats with four or fewer lots nor for
building permits. Recently, Council became aware that Mr.
Baker, City Engineer, made a decision that based on other
applications for short plats a survey is required. Mr. Hough
stated that was correct, the way it is currently worded a
short plat requires a survey unless waived by the City
TAPE #1015
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 22, 1992
Page 22 of 39
Engineer. Mr. Collins emphasized the City Engineer had
indicated to Council that he had no intention of waiving that
requirement. Mr. Hough stated that was correct and the
Planning Commission also decided they wanted a survey required
to assure property lines are correctly identified. Mr.
Collins stated considering the fact that the School District
was not highly in favor of this particular project, was there
any mitigation given to them? Mr. Hough stated normally for
a development of increased density they have been receiving
negative comments from the School District because they always
feel they are at or beyond capacity at schools. The City does
not have impact fees that provide income to schools for a new
development. Mr. Collins questioned if the primary drain
field was large enough to provide sewer service to three
additional units and did the City have something in writing
that stated such additional facilities would not be built?
Mr. Hough stated this proposal is a P.U.D. and once approved
it is locked in and becomes recorded. If at a later time City
sewer services are made available and they desired to hook up
additional units, the developer would have to request a
revision to the P.U.D. and would still be restricted to the
density of the zone, which is one unit per 4,800 sq. ft.
Therefore, it is possible to change it in the future but would
have to go through the public process. Mr. Collins questioned
how did this site get zoned SF-3 when surrounding properties
are zoned SF-i? Mr. Hough pointed out surrounding property is
SF-3 to the northeast side of Marine Drive.
Mr. Waibel pointed out under the Planning Commission's
response to Criteria #1..."that the overall densities proposed
far exceed the zoning and comprehensive plan limitations". He
felt the words "does not" should be interjected after the word
proposed. Mr. A11ingham stated yes, it is within the
limitations of the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Waibel stated he had experience in designing logging roads
in the Olympic National Forest, which are fairly steep and one
of the ways to do that is to traverse the side hill in a
diagonal. He questioned with the new type drain fields
available, is it possible to put a road across the top of the
drain field? Mr. Baker stated that would be up to the Health
District. Such a design had been used, however he was not
sure it would be approved by the Health District. Mr. Waibel
felt if such a design could be achieved, it would provide more
maneuvering ability.
Mr. Overson emphasized Zoning Ordinances and land use laws are
generated to protect the owners of the real estate relative to
their use and those who live around it relative to their right
of privacy and quality of life. He questioned if the City's
TAPE #1015
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 22, 1992
Page 23 of 39
Zoning Ordinance or any other ordinance guaranteed height?
Mr. A11ingh~m stated the 30 foot height restriction and
setbacks generally provide some protection. Shoreline
regulations does get into some view protection but it is
mainly designed for views from public areas, streets and view
corridors. Mr. Overson felt the documentation had
contradictorypoints - the applicant's statement indicates the
buildings will be 32 feet in height. He questioned if this
meant all the way to the peak of the roof? Mr. A11in~ham
stated there is not enough information provided for Council or
staff to make a determination on the height of structures to
be built on this site. Mr. Overson stated on that basis,
going by the level of height limitation, does that mean
nothing above that height? Mr. A11ingham stated there is an
averaging method used in calculating heights as stated in the
Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Overson questioned if that figure goes
to the peak of the roof? Mr. Allinghamexplained on a pitched
roof it is measured to the mid point between the ridge and the
eve. If it was a flat roof, it would be measured to the top
of any parapet surrounding the flat roof. Mr. Overson stated
for clarification then the structure could end up being 34
feet high. Hequestioned if this project met the best density
use? Mr. Allinghamstated it all depends...as a City tries to
develop housing stock, it may be in the best interest to
increase density and provide that resource. That could not be
done at this time without City sewer service. The proposal to
put in 4 units is efficient use of the land.
TAPE #1016
Mr. Overson questioned when would sewers be available in that
area? Mr. A11ingham stated it could be available in the near
future with the Oyster Bay subdivision bringing sewers into
that area. Mr. Oversonquestioned if sewers were available is
there a requirement for them to hook up? Mr. Waibel stated
no, only if the Health District so dictated. Mr. Overson
questioned if the project was meeting the 15 foot setback
requirement and if the patio area was different? Mr.
Allingham stated the project does meet the 15 foot setback
requirement. The Zoning Ordinance allows certain intrusions
into the rear yard, small unobtrusive structures, accessory
structures, steps/porches/patios.
Mr. Colvin stated he understood there is a trend to increase
density within the City. President Hotton emphasized
increased density is not a trend but a State mandate. Mr.
Colvin questioned when encouraging density is consideration
given to the impact to surrounding properties and quality of
life and was it done in this case? Mr. Allingham stated yes,
whether or not there is a causal relationship between crime
TAPE #1016
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 22, 1992
Page 24 of 39
and high density, there may not be a causal relationship but
there may be a correlating relationship between high density
and crime. President Hotton pointed out the density
allowable for this site is not "high density". This lot could
be developed to a density of 10 houses and the developer
proposes building four units. Mr. Colvin questioned why was
a Special Use Permit required? Mr. Hough explained this is a
P.U.D. and the developer wants to build zero lot line houses
on smaller lots to concentrate them on the part of the
property most suitable for that development. If the developer
did not do that, he would probably be limited to dividing it
into four equal pieces at a fairly conventional design. The
request before Council is an appeal of the Planning
Commission's decision to approve the P.U.D. Mr. Colvin
pointed out the neighborhood was concerned that the developer
had not met with them on this proposal. Mr. Hough stated
originally there was not a neighborhood meeting, however
between the two Planning Commission hearings there was a
meeting between the developer and neighborhood members. No
alternatives were identified at that meeting and at that time
the neighbors were more interested in the proposed design of
the buildings. The surrounding property owners also have the
right, with their zoning, to build structures 30 feet high
unless recorded covenants prohibit that in any way. Staff did
not want to penalize the developer for going through a process
to be a little more creative and end up with less than what he
began with.
Mr. Dawkins noted a three story building is somewhat unusual
in Bremerton and he questioned if the garages could be placed
on the side of the two units would that block out neighbor's
view? Mr. Hough stated that would make the units wider and
the lots could be made larger as well. Mr. Dawkins felt
having four units would be less adverse impact on the
neighborhood. Mr. Hough stated this property is considerably
lower than the properties behind it - a grade separation. It
would be like removing a story anyway and not sitting 30 feet
above residents on adjacent properties.
President Hotton questioned the location of the greatest
amount of vegetation in the subject area? Mr. Plett pointed
out the terrain and current types of vegetation. President
Hotton questioned if the vegetation was as tall as the
proposed height of the buildings? Mr. Plett pointed out
existing trees and other types of vegetation that was about
ten feet in height, with berry bushes along the back line of
the property. President Hotton stated the lot lines needed
to be sorted out legally, especially if the neighboring
property owners propose litigation at some point. She
#0510
TAPE #1016
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 22, 1992
Page 25 of 39
believed this development is probably far more desirable than
it could be under the scenario of "10 little houses". She
also believes aggregate housing is far more desirable than
separating them because it maintains open/green space. She
felt the "height" of the buildings was the only issue and the
developer was not requesting an exemption from the SF-3
zoning, which means their height is ok under the Zoning
Ordinance. Mr. Walbel stated if the P.U.D. is passed at this
time without giving exception to the height restriction, then
they are restricted to that height.
Mrs. Fits emphasized Crown Hill School is the closest school,
however, they are busing child to other schools because there
is no room at Crown Hill. President Hotton pointed out a new
school will be opening in the fall.
Mr. Waibel stated he supported the P.U.D process for this
project, however, he was not satisfied with the driveway and
felt it could be improved. He was at the point where he felt
the P.U.D. should be continued until the developer had an
opportunity to go to the Health Department and see if there
was a design that could support allowing a driveway over the
septic system.
Mr. Colvin stated he would also like the stipulation that the
developer have a meeting with the neighbors.
Mr. Hough stated the slope of the driveway was 16% - this
issue was taken to Traffic Safety Commission, as well as
having it reviewed by the Engineering Department, and several
recommendations came up including sight distance improvements
in area entering Marine Drive. They also wanted the driveway
flattened down to 15% grade because that is the City's street
maximum for a public street, however, this was not a public
street. Mr. Walbel stated if the percentage of grade can be
reduced, it should be.
Mr. Collins questioned if this appeal is continued would
Council have to take public testimony again? Ian Sievers,
City Attorney, stated no, it would be just continuation of
Council deliberations.
M/S/C/U(Waibel/Fitz) to continue the appeal for three weeks,
allowing sufficient time for the developer to investigate
driveway slope mitigation and other issues that were brought
up during this discussion.
7A - AUTHORIZATION TO FILL POSITION OF ENGINEERING TECHNICIAN
#0677
TAPE #1016
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 22, 1992
Page 26 of 39
II - UTILITY DEPARTMENT, #AB92-104
City Council Resolution No. 2383 provides for formal approval
for filling vacant positions.
The Utility is requesting formal approval to fill the position
of Engineering Technician II (Customer Service Technician).
The position is currently unencumbered and is being staffed
with temporary help. The temporary employee currently filling
the position has accepted a full-time position with another
agency effective April 1, 1992.
This position is necessary for the operation of the Utility in
providing utility services to the community.
President Horton announced the portion stating "(Customer
Service Technician)" has been deleted from the title.
Bill Duffy, Utilities Director, stated this request is to fill
a position that was vacated several weeks ago by an employee
who took another position.
Mr. Waibel stated he had been talking for five or six years
about the fact we need to do a better job of reviewing what
goes on in the City's Utility. When a statement is made,
under the Clearance Comments section, we do not have to
consider it because it is not a General Fund impact, we are on
the line legally for not representing the citizens. He
emphasized this does affect the rate payers and there is a
good reason for approving this item and that is the reason it
should be given clearance approval, not that it has no impact
on General Fund. If we don't review every physical item
submitted with close scrutiny, the City will have the same
kinds of problems in those funds as we do in the General Fund.
Mr. Johnson emphasized this item is before Council because of
the "hiring freeze" put on the General Fund because it is in
trouble. President Hotton pointed out this item was reviewed
by Fiscal and Budget Committee, who did recommend approving
this position.
Public comment - none.
M/S/C(Johnson/Dawkins) to approve the Utility's request to
fill the position of Engineering Technician II because it does
not have any impact on the General Fund, therefore, not
falling under the hiring freeze.
Vote: In Favor:
Overson, Neville, Fitz, Horton, Collins,
Dawkins, Colvin, Johnson
#0753
TAPE #1016
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 22, 1992
Page 27 of 39
Opposed:
Motion carried.
Waibel
7B -AMENDMENT NO. 2, CONTRACT NO. 3279/PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
CONTRACT BETWEEN CITY OF BREMERTON AND PARAMETRIX, INC.
{MCKENNA FALLS SURFACE FACILITY IMPROVEMENT), #AB92-105
Amendment No. 2 to the professional services contract
(Contract No. 3279) between the City of Bremerton and
Parametrix, Inc. associated with the McKenna Falls Surface
Supply Facility Improvements provides for the extension of the
termination date of the contract from December 31, 1991 to
December 31, 1993. The extension is necessary to allow for
the final design and construction management of the project.
Bill Duffy, Utilities Director, stated this is a housekeeping
item brought about by his being late in getting the project
moving along as a result of some State Health Department
requirements.
Public comment - none.
M/S/C/U(Overson/Colvin) to approve Amendment No. 2 to Contract
No. 3279 for professional services associated with
improvements to the Utility's McKenna Falls Facility and
authorize the Mayor to execute said Amendment subject to City
Administrative Policies and Procedures.
7C - CALLOW AVENUE DRAINAGE BASIN IMPROVEMENT/PROFESSIONAL
SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF BREMERTON AND CH2M
HILL, #AB92-106
The Utility, in response to W.A.C. 173-245 requiring the
elimination of combined sewer overflows (CSO's) and the
proposed expansion of the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, has a
requirement for professional services for the pre-design,
design, and construction management of improvements associated
with the Callow Avenue Drainage Basin Separation Project.
Attached for City Council's consideration is a professional
services agreement between the City of Bremerton and CH2M
Hill.
Services include Step I - Pre-design Engineering and
Miscellaneous Engineering Services for the separation and
replacement of the combined sewers in the Callow Avenue
Drainage Basin.
The estimated cost of professional services is as noted below:
TAPE #1016
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 22, 1992
Page 28 of 39
Step I - Pre-design Phase Services/
Drainage Basin Planning
$222,000
Miscellaneous Engineering Services
$ 71,000
TOTAL $293,000
Bill Duffy, Utilities Director, stated this project is being
done in concert with CSO planning efforts, some of the Urban
Bay Action planning efforts, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan as
well as the PSNS expansion. The Utility has been involved in
this project for some time and had applied for a grant under
the Centennial Clean Water Act, which did grant partial
funding for this project. Mr. Duffy provided a map showing
the Callow Avenue Basin, one of the largest basins in the
Utility with regard to sewer and storm sewer service. As
indicated, the current status of the basin is that the City is
exceeding over 90 overflow events per year and that needs to
be reduced down to no more than one, per State statutes. The
City is discharging in excess of 30 million gallons of
combined sewage a year through an overflow at the south end of
the basin. This proposal is the first element of the project,
which would provide a pre-design engineering report, which
includes language for design and construction management. The
attachments only allow funding for the pre-design report.
Ultimately, the project will cost the City between 12-15
million dollars to complete. The pre-design report will allow
the Utility to seek additional monies from outside agencies,
specifically the Centennial Clean Water Act as well as Federal
government with regard to the Shipyard expansion.
Mr. Waibel questioned what is the potential amended cost of
this Professional Services Agreement? Mr. Duffy stated this
contract provides language to do the entire project, however,
at this point only the pre-design report will be funded, which
amounts to $293,000. Mr. Waibel stated Council was probably
setting itself up to be asked to amend the contract to
continue the monitoring through the construction phase and
basically authorizing that now. Mr. Duffy stated that was
correct. Potentially, the Utility will spend between 12-15
million dollars on the project, which includes construction.
Mr. Waibel emphasized this contract will not be amended to
provide for construction funding. He questioned what will the
Professional Service Agreement possibly be expanded to? Mr.
Duffy noted the $293,000 will cover the pre-design and he
estimated design would amount to about 10 - 15% of the
construction cost. Until it is known what is needed in
regards to design, he could not give a specific number other
than a rough percentage. Mr. Waibel stated for clarification
TAPE #1016
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 22, 1992
Page 29 of 39
that the City is locking in the Professional Services
Agreement for about 1/4 million dollars which will probably
end up totally 2 1/4 million dollars. Mr. Dully stated that
is correct. Mr. Waibel pointed out that was about a 1,000%
increase in the original obligation and this needed to be
discussed. Mr. Dully stated it needed to be recognized there
will be additional costs. That cost will not be known until
the first elements are completed and he would be back with an
amendment...which could mean 2-4 million dollars depending on
the design and permit requirements. Mr. Waibel stated with
that in mind in terms of our Professional Services Agreement
solicitation did Mr. Duffy consider this group the most
qualified to do the entire project? Mr. DuffV stated yes, the
Utility did solicit proposals, which were reviewed by a
committee, who recommended this firm as the best of all those
submitted. Mr. Waibel questioned if they were aware of the
potential expansion of the agreement? Mr. Duffy stated yes.
President Horton stated she participated, as a non-technical
person on that review committee and all other members were
highly qualified to serve on that selection panel. She stated
one of the points this firm stressed was they were very good
with dealing with the community. This is a very large project
and she felt the community needed to be made aware of the
impacts to their lives that this project will create. This
aspect is very important to her because of the poor job of
"public relations" provided during the Snyder Avenue project.
#1056
Public comment - none.
Mr. Collins questioned if Mr. Duffy was already doing some
work on this project in the Callow Basin area. Mr. Duffy
stated no, what they are doing is reviewing their drawings and
getting their records straight. He has been dye testing storm
and sanitary sewer lines to straighten out his records in
preparation for the project.
M/S/C/U(Johnson/Colvin) to approve the professional services
agreement between the City of Bremerton and CH2M Hill and
authorize the Mayor to execute said agreement subject to City
Administrative Policies and Procedures.
President Horton announced Items 8A and 8B would be discussed
jointly.
8A - AGREEMENT WITH PORT OF BREMERTON TO ACT AS LIMITED SURETY
FOR THE OVERWATER PARK MITIGATION PROJECT, #AB92-112
The Army Corps of Engineers Permit for the Overwater Park has
been revised to allow additional time to comply with
TAPE #1016
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 22, 1992
Page 30 of 39
Mitigation required of the project, subject to conditions.
One condition is execution of an agreement with The Port of
Bremerton to act as a limited surety for faithful performance
of the Mitigation project. Upon notification from the U.S.
Army Corps Of Engineers that the City has failed to make
satisfactory progress, the Port, under the agreement, will
utilize City security to complete the project. The proposed
agreement includes access to any City site proposed for
Mitigation work.
Mayor Mentor stated he had received many telephone calls as
well as verbal comments that indicate the citizens are being
supportive of the boardwalk project. He emphasized the
cooperation of the Port of Bremerton as well as state U.S.
Senators and Congressional Representative Norm Dicks. Even
though the Corps has brought pressure upon the City, they have
been very cooperative and worked very hard with the City
Attorney to work out an agreement. He received word from the
Colonel of the Corps of Engineers indicating if this agreement
can be approved and faxed to him he would immediately remove
the Stop work order and work on the project could start on
Friday or Monday.
Ian Sievers, City Attorney, stated the project had been
stopped for over two weeks because of failing to comply with
a special Mitigation condition in the original Army Corps Of
Engineer's Section 10 Rivers/Harbors Permit. Under powers
reserved in the original permit, the Corps can re-evaluate its
decision granting the permit, which might include suspension
or irrevocation. The Corps is now prepared to reissue the
permit with a revised Mitigation condition: (1) Mitigation is
more clearly specified to Mitigation of Habitat impacted by
construction of the overwater park; (2) the condition allows
the City additional time to complete Mitigation, specifically
March 1993, and is conditioned on a number of points: (a)
structured timetable of events which the City must meet; (b)
required a third party surety that guaranteed performance of
these various bench marks and, if in their opinion, there is
a default in any bench mark this surety would go into effect
and complete those requirements. The Port Of Bremerton has
been approved as surety and agreed to perform this role; (c)
City is required to post security with the Port for their use
in completing the Mitigation, if required. The City has
negotiated three forms of security that might be used:
cashiers check, assignment of funds or letter of credit.
These are all available and may be substituted. Each has its
own advantage to the City, depending on the point in the
project, how much money is required and how long it has to be
TAPE #1016
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 22, 1992
Page 31 of 39
posted. The security may be reduced during progress on the
project, specifically at two points: (1) when the final
Mitigation project is approved and designed the security can
be reduced to the actual cost of construction and monitoring;
and (2) after completion of construction, the security can be
reduced to the estimated cost of monitoring.
There is still uncertainty, as it was in the original permit,
as to how long monitoring will go on. The City is obligated
to continuing good performance of conditions of the Permit,
which includes the Mitigation project. We do not know the
exact cost involved, however, we think this is the most
conservative estimate of the project and have the Corps
agreement that this is a "conservative" estimate for the
Mitigation condition. If the City does not move forward on
the Mitigation project, the Corps does have certain powers,
under the original permit, and can contract for Mitigation
action the City was to undertake and bill the City for that
action. The project cannot be abandoned or the Corps can
cause site restoration at our expense.
Council is being requested to approve the performance
agreement with the Port as security, as required by the Corps
Of Engineers. Secondly, that the City transfer funds into the
Overwater Project construction funds to provide the security
the Port requires. President Hotton noted for clarification
the monitoring of the Mitigation could go on for several years
and anywhere in that interim if the Corps feels that
Mitigation is not working they can come back and require more
mitigation. Mr. Sievers stated that was correct.
Rich Hanna, City Treasurer, stated as mentioned by the City
Attorney, there remain several unknowns in our negotiations
with the Corps. The Corps Of Engineers is requiring the City
to post $480,125 surety deposit, which will be made with a
local bank in favor of the Port of Bremerton as security
interest. In addition, the City needs to move forward with
the initial phase of the Mitigation project - a data gathering
and design process at an estimated cost of $100,000. For that
reason, the next Agenda item is a Resolution authorizing the
Interfund Loan in an amount sufficient to cover those elements
of the Mitigation project. As was discussed in the Study
Session, this is not the end of the project...behind the data
gathering and design element the next step will be
construction of the Mitigation project. Additional issues
will be brought to Council when more information is known and
additional financial requirements needed to fund those
elements. President Hotton stated at some later date Council
will need to discuss payback of funds to the Public Works
TAPE #1016
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 22, 1992
Page 32 of 39
Complex fund. Mr. Hanna stated that was correct.
Mr. Johnson stated the cost of the Mitigation project seems to
be growing at the rate of $100,000 a day, however, there are
some things he wanted on the record: (1) referencing the
Treasurer's financial plan, it mentions the Golf Course Fund
as a possible source of funding. He felt that should be
"ruled" out of the Treasurer's thinking at this point in time.
(2) If an interfund loan is being done from the Public Works
fund, the amount of money in that fund after payback should be
no larger and not be allocated any more money or expenditure
authority than it is today. Mr. Hanna stated he had language
coming up that would address that issue. Mr. Johnson noted
there are rules when borrowing from a Public Works fund that
you pay at a rate of interest (5.5%), which amounts to
$14,000. That would mean the Public Works Fund would be that
much larger with increased budget authority than it is today.
He has no intention of allowing that to happen. Mr. Hanna
stated he did not think that was correct. The unused funds
that are currently available in the Public Works Trust Fund
would earn interest to the benefit of that fund were they
either invested or as they are presently in external
investments of the City. The interest income currently
budgeted in the Public Works Construction Fund will not be
impacted by this borrowing, it is an alternative investment.
Those funds are currently part of pooled investments of the
City and the yield on those investment is actually higher than
5.5%. His proposal of a 5.5% interest payment was to ensure
receiving at least a return of interest on borrowed funds to
off set coupon interest on the notes.
Mr. Johnson expressed concern of the "Privileged And
Confidential" notation on correspondence from the Corps of
Engineers and questioned if the City would go to jail for
making this public information? Mr. Sievers stated it was his
understanding the City requested this information so they
would have, in writing, the Corps position. He was sure that
would modify the form that was used to transmit the
information. Mr. Johnson emphasized the City still did not
know what mitigation is, what is an acceptable response to
whatever we are mitigating, and we know we probably can't get
any of our money back for 5-7 years and the Corps can increase
the amount of money needed to complete the Mitigation. Mr.
Slevers stated it was most likely the City would get money
back as progress was made over 5-7 years, that amount can be
adjusted. Mr. Johnson pointed out the Corps decision is not
appealable and all depends on the District Engineer. Mr.
Waibel pointed out there. has been a critical change in the
Permit and that is a change from "how many fishes there are in
TAPE #1016
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 22, 1992
Page 33 of 39
the sea" to "whether or not there is feed available
(habitat)". Whether or not that is sufficient to main a fish
run is no longer part of the Permit, but was initially. Mr.
Johnson stated if he was an environmentalist and doing a
debate he would say that unless you are talking about fish at
the top of the food change everything else would be habitat.
Mr. Waibel stated the Department of Fisheries does have a
definition of habitat in terms of acreage, amount of food
available within that area, etc. The City has a better chance
to meet that definition for Mitigation than we do for how many
salmon come back every year.
Mr. Overson stated he did not agree with the determination
that there was need for an additional $100,000. He sees
nothing that validates the requirement for the extra $100,000
plus he sees nothing that validates that amount should come
from this fund. What someone is doing is to delay another
hard decision, trying to weave Council into a commitment that
later on makes a hard decision. He recommended that Council
leave that hard decision with staff and have them identify the
source of funding at a later time. He felt it looked a lot
like the contract litigation problem that the staff held from
Council when the contract was granted. Previously, staff
pointed out: "we didn't tell you Council because they might
not have approved the contract". If staff had been up front
with all of the information, Council could have had the
opportunity to reduce the size of the project to an affordable
amount, which would have also removed a large portion of the
Mitigation problem. Now, we do not have that choice and the
only choice is to get those fund from whatever source. He
emphasized the method of interfund loans is ruinous to a City,
especially in a year when the City is facing financial
problems. He wished we had a good manager who would have
provided all information up front so that Council could made
good choices.
Mrs. Fits questioned if someone had been selected to manage
the mitigation project? President Horton stated one of the
elements in the Auditor's report was a recommendation to hire
a professional Project Manager. She felt it would be up to
Council to see that someone was hired to take on that
responsibility if the Administration failed to carry out that
recommendation.
Mr. Colvin requested Mayor Mentor to respond to Mrs. Fitz
question. Mayor Mentor stated the City is hiring Bruce Dees
and Associates to do the Mitigation project and they have an
expert in that field to follow through and make sure the
Mitigation works. Mr. Johnson questioned who in the
TAPE #1016
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 22, 1992
Page 34 of 39
Administration is responsible? Mayor Mentor stated right now
the Project Manager is Dave Baker. Mr. Waibel stated for
clarification that at this point we are agreeing that
Mitigation is part of the project. Mayor Mentor stated yes.
President Hotton emphasized the need for a separate Project
Manager to take on this project as their sole job.
Mr. Colvin pointed out for every day the project was shut down
it was costing the city $2-3,000.
Mr. Collins pointed out the City is being required to set
aside $480,125 as security for the Mitigation Project; and in
order to accomplish the design of the Mitigation project
Council is being asked to approve funding for $100,000 to
carry out that work. He questioned if his understanding was
correct? Mr. Hanna stated Mr. Collin's conclusion is correct,
there are two things Council is being asked to fund - $480,125
for surety and based on the requirements of the Corps for
lifting the stop order the City needs to commence work on the
Mitigation project and the first evidence of that is data
gathering and design of the Mitigation project. It is
estimated those elements of the project will cost
approximately $100,000. Mr. Colllns questioned if there was
a contract with anyone on this particular part - or are we
setting aside the $100,000 and saying we can charge against
that amount? Mr. Sievers stated they were in the process of
drafting the contract, which should come before Council the
following week. Vicki Vanneman, Parks and Recreation
Director, stated she received a FAX today from Percy
Washington of GAIA Northwest Inc., a Fisheries sub-consultant
to Bruce Dees and Associations, the firm that has been chosen
to do the Mitigation work. Neither are under contract at
this point, however, there is a proposal for scope of work for
Mr. Washington's work. The estimate of $60,665 for all of the
baseline study work for both sites is an accurate figure and
that along with #2, survey construction documents and bidding
services (Dee's contract) of $34,0000 make up the $100,000 to
accomplish items 1-5 obligations with the Corps. Mr. Johnson
questioned when would Council see those contracts? Ms.
Vanneman stated they will work on them immediately and would
hopefully come to Council Committee next week and on the
Council Agenda the following week.
President Hotton stated even though someone said the Corps
would allow the $100,000 to be taken out of the $480,125, she
did not think we should hold our breath waiting for that to
happen.
Mr. Waibel questioned do we have to, at this time, authorize
TAPE #1016
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 22, 1992
Page 35 of 39
expenditure of the money for the design in order for the Corps
to lift the stop work order? Mr. Sievers stated no, that was
not a requirement of the Corps. We certainly want to have
funding to start on that work. It was his understanding that
going forward on the boardwalk and going forward on the
Mitigation was separate. Mr. Johnson suggested directing the
Mayor to come back, preferably next wednesday, with a
negotiated contract and budget adjustment for approval not
later than two weeks. This would demonstrate Council's
direction to "get on with it".
Mr. Colvin questioned Ms. Vanneman if this would allow her to
hire someone to take on the Mitigation project. Ms. Vanneman
stated we can go ahead and work on the scope of work and then
bring forward a contract for that work. Mr. Sievers was more
involved in discussions with the Corps and if he does not feel
there is a need to have the $100,000 set aside at this time
and have the permit lifted tomorrow that is the case.
Mr. Waibel stated for clarification if we were to authorize at
this time $480,125 to an escrow fund that would be sufficient
to lift the stop work order as long as we also assure the
Corps we will be moving rapidly in the direction of a contract
for the design of the Mitigation project. Mr. Sievers stated
yes and by also approving the agreement with the Port that
assurance is contained in Exhibit A of that agreement, which
is that detailed, structured time table. President Hotton
questioned will that satisfy the Corps? Mr. 81evers stated
yes, if the City accomplishes items 1-6 to the best of its
ability. However, if we don't accomplish that work within 120
days, the Port will start spending the City's $480,125.
Mrs. Fitz stated when staff brings back a budget adjustment to
fund the Mitigation project there also needs to be included
funding for a Project Manager position. Mr. Overson pointed
out the City had been paying Portico group for managing this
project. He questioned what has that gained us? He
emphasized the need for a City staff member be identified as
someone directly responsible for this project.
Mr. Collins supported the idea of setting aside $100,000 at
this time thereby showing the Corps Of Engineering the City's
intent to move forward on this project. Mr. Dawkins stated
his support of Mr. Collin's position and felt the City should
not be "playing games" with the Corps.
Steve Galkie, Gregory Way, stated he had been following this
issue in the newspapers for a long time and he became
concerned over recent comments questioning "will it even
TAPE #1016
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 22, 1992
Page 36 of 39
happen". He urged Council to move forward on this project
because it would benefit the residents and local businesses in
the downtown area. He looked forward to opportunities for his
family to enjoy the boardwalk once it is completed.
Doug Harvey, Kitsap Lake, urged Council to "bite the bullet",
putting aside the problems and dealing with it in a rational
way. He felt everyone was trying to work together and
commended everyone for doing a good job.
Mr. Johnson emphasized there is no intention or way the
Council could stop this project - it must be completed. He
cautioned that next year there may be major City service
reductions resulting from the current boardwalk process.
President Hotton stated she will vote no on both motions on
these issues out of protest. She understands that the project
must go forward and had worked diligently to see that happens.
However, Monday she was called and asked if a phone poll could
be made to Council members and approve a check for $480,125,
which she refused. At that point she suggested calling a
hastily put together meeting and she was asked if it could be
done in an Executive Session, again she refused. A Study
Session was called and at that time Council was asked to
consider it a formal Council meeting and approve this issue at
that time. Council felt it was inappropriate to do that and
the issue was held over until this date. This is an issue
that is very difficult. The notion that we have lots of money
in other funds is fallacious - it is gone. This Mitigation
will have to be paid back directly out of the General Fund and
that means Police, Fire, parks and other services. We, as a
Country, have a Federal deficit that is astronomical.
Projects come on all the time that are carried out to a point
in time where people know you can't turn back; and that is
exactly what has happened on this project. We, the Council,
have been placed in a position where we cannot say no. Well,
she for one, as a tax payer, is tired of it and as an elected
official she is tired of being put into a box with no options.
Earlier this evening Council was presented an ordinance that
was to be passed unanimously, which took away her right of
dissent. She highly objected to the process and she is
standing up and say "it has to stop". My "no" vote will
reflect my dissent - not on the project as I believe it must
go forward. She hoped that this situation never happens
again.
#2815
M/S/C(Waibel/Collins) to approve Resolution #2388, changing
the last paragraph as follows: "Now Therefore, let it be
resolved that the City Treasurer is authorized and directed to
#3003
#3065
TAPE #1016
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 22, 1992
Page 37 of 39
transfer $480o125.00 from the Public Works Complex
Construction Fund to an assigned fund account of the Overwater
Park Construction Fund to be reflected in an appropriation
ordinance to take effect before the expiration of 120 days or
until the current construction contingency is obligated,
whichever occurs first. If an appropriation ordinance is not
passed this amount will automatically be refunded to the
Public Works Fund and a Letter Of Credit issued in this amount
to secure the CitV's obligation under the Army Corps Of
Engineers Permit for the Overwater Park.
Mr. Collins questioned how are we going to pay for the
contracts Ms. Vanneman will be bringing to Council next week?
Mr. Waibel stated a budget adjustment request can be brought
forward at the time the contracts are presented. Also, the
City will be obligating themselves to the Port to complete the
Mitigation project in 120 days.
Mr. Colvin questioned if this motion required a unanimous
vote? Mr. Slevers stated this is not an appropriation
ordinance requiring a unanimous vote for emergency passage,
but rather a motion transferring funds.
Vote:
In Favor:
Opposed:
Abstain:
Waibel, Collins, Dawkins, Colvin, Overson,
Neville, Fitz,
Horton
Johnson
M/S/C/U(Waibel/Collins) the City waives its review
requirements by Fiscal and Budget Committee for appropriation
of money for a contract for testing and establishing a
baseline and direct staff to return that contract next week.
M/S/C(Waibel/Dawkins) that the City Council approve proposed
performance agreements for Mitigation with the Port Of
Bremerton.
Vote:
In Favor:
Opposed:
Overson, Neville, Waibel, Collins, Dawkins,
Colvin
Johnson, Horton
Mr. Johnson stated he did not believe the Mayor or Council
were happy with the process and no one would like to do it
again. He believed the Project Manager would come forward in
some form in the near future. More needs to be addressed and
from a Fiscal and Budget point of view he is putting together
some documents that when staff comes to Council for major
projects minimum document requirements will be identified. He
recommended putting together a "Blue Ribbon" committee before
TAPE #1016
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 22, 1992
Page 38 of 39
jumping into 5-6 other major project that are almost on the
drawing board.
8B - RESOLUTION #2388 AUTHORIZING AN INTERFUND LOAN FROM THE
PUBLIC WORKS COMPLEX TO THE WATERFRONT PARKS CONSTRUCTION
FUND, #AB92-113
The Waterfront Parks Construction Fund has an immediate and
short-term need for cash to provide funding for a surety
deposit and provide funding for a surety deposit and to pay
for data gathering and design of the required mitigation
project. Following the 120 day design period, permanent
arrangements will be made for project funding and surety.
(Note: Discussion and motion adopting Resolution #2388 are
recorded under Item 8A.)
TAPE #1017
8C - ORDINANCE NO. 4374 (SECOND READING) REPEALING PERSONNEL
POLICIES ON WAGES. HOURS, AND BENEFITS IN BMC CHAPTER 2 THAT
NO LONGER APPLY, #AB92-075
Public comment - none.
#0010
M/S/C/(Waibel/Colvin) to pass ordinance No. 4374 on second
reading, repealing provisions of the Municipal Code
establishing wages, hours and benefits, chapters 2.36, 2.40,
2.44 and 2.52 of the Bremerton Municipal Code, and codifying
City Hall hours and holidays.
Vote:
In Favor: Overson, Fitz, Waibel, Horton, Collins,
Colvin, Dawkins, Johnson
Abstain: Neville
8D - ORDINANCE NO. 4375 (SECOND READING) AMEND BUSINESS
LICENSE/TAXES 5.02 TO INCLUDE GARBAGE UTILITIES, #AB92-101
Public comment - none.
#0025
M/S/C/U(Waibel/Colvin) to pass Ordinance #4375, on second
reading, imposing a business and occupation tax on the
business of solid waste collection and amending Bremerton
Municipal Code Chapter 5.02.
TAPE #1017
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 22, 1992
Page 39 of 39
With no further business meeting adjourned at 10:49 p.m.
KATHLEEN L. McC~ity Clerk
LtRT~, ~
Council President
City of Bremerton
KLM/LH/me
cc: Normal Distribution
File/Vault