HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/06/91TAPE #895
UNAPPROVE' DRAFT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
#0030
#0035
MARCH 6, 1991
The regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Bremerton
was called to order in the City Council Chambers, 239 4TH Street,
Bremerton, Washington, Wednesday, March 6, 1991, at 5:30 p.m., with
Council President Lynn Horton presiding. Council members present:
Lon Overson, Wayne Estes, Spencer Horning, C. R. "Tiny" Collins,
Morrie Dawkins, A1 Colvin and Russ Johnson. Councilman Hank Waibel
was absent. Also present were City Attorney Ian Sievers and City
Clerk Kathleen McCluskey.
The meeting opened with the Pledge of Allegiance led by President
Lynn Horton and the Invocation given by Councilman A1 Colvin.
President Hotton announced Council would hold an Executive Session
immediately following the Council meeting to discuss "collective
bargaining and grievance strategy".
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Minutes Of Meeting - February 20, 1991, #AB91-047
M/S/C/U(Dawkins/Estes) to approve Consent Agenda as presented.
CLAIMS/WET 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
has been made available to the council.
M/S/C/U(Colvin/Collins) on March 6, 1991, the Council does approve
for payment those vouchers included and further described as
follows: 125349, 125351 through 125358, 125734 through 125868 in
the total amount of $89,342.14 and Regular Payroll for the period
ending February 28, 1991, in the amount of $350,382.39
COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS
Mr. Hornin~ reported he attend the Puget Sound Council Of
Governments meeting this date. A summation of the Growth
Management Symposium will be released soon and the theme from that
event was "make growth liveable". He noted Bremerton will have to
absorb its share of the 70,000 people moving into Kitsap County
within the next ten years.
Mr. Johnson thanked the African American Advisory Committee and
Blacks In Government group, who recently sponsored the first
"Community Unity Banquet", and commended them for a job well done.
The attendance at this event was well over 300 and the program was
smoothly staged and carried out for the enjoyment of all. Mr.
Johnson announced that the Illahee property was in the final four
TAPE #895
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
March 6, 1991
Page 2 of 31
areas being considered for placement of the National Veterans
Memorial Cemetery. A draft Environmental Impact Statement, which
is the last formal document the public has an opportunity to
comment on or explain why Kitsap County is the best site location,
must be responded to no later than April 1. He encouraged anyone
in the public, who was interested, to
take this opportunity to give input on this proposal. Mr. Johnson
complimented Olympic College for their recent use of the Bremerton
Community Access Channel for a satellite program to do with
excellence in teaching methods. This program was aired on
Wednesday, February 27, just prior to televising the City Council
meeting. He hoped to see more use being made of the Access Channel
by the educational institutions in Bremerton. Lastly, he spent
three days attending the National Conference "Bio-Cycle", held in
Seattle, which looked at all the different ways to get rid of
municipal solid waste through composting, recycling, etc.
Mr. Colvin stated he also enjoyed the Community Unity Banquet and
noted the lack of representation by the City Council at that event.
He hoped the 2nd annual Community Unity Banquet would be even
better attended than the 1st. He noted Spring clean up time was
upon us and questioned if any formal plans were being made for
cleaning up the City? He had received compliments from citizens
regarding service being provided by City employees and he was
pleased to pass that information on to Mayor Mentor and the
employees of the City.
Mr. Dawkins stated he appreciated watching the State Basketball
Tournament games televised on the Bremerton Access Channel and it
was a tough break for Bremerton High School losing their game in
the State tournament by only two points.
Mrs. Hotton attended the PSCOG- Subregional Council meeting this
date. At that meeting, Richard Hayes, Executive Director of Kitsap
Transit, announced they would be sponsoring an "Oil Smart
Wednesday-March 27", that encouraged bus ridership by offering free
fares and selling 1/2 priced bus passes. This event will provide
a good opportunity for residents of Kitsap County to "try transit".
Mr. Johnson noted the Chamber Of Commerce and other groups were
working hard to improve ferry service to Kitsap County and were
seeking input on developing a ferry service plan that best supports
not only the commuter but everyone who uses ferries. Anyone
wishing to give input may call the Bremerton Area Chamber Of
Commerce at 479-3579 or Kitsap Transit.
PUBLIC RECOGNITION
Mayor Louis Mentor stated he was not able to attend the Community
Unity Banquet, however, he did attend a "lipsing" contest at the
Pavilion in the afternoon prior to evening event. He reminded
everyone of the Kitsap Dixieland Jazz Festival scheduled for March
TAPE #895
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
March 6, 1991
Page 3 of 31
15, 16, and 17 at the Bayview Inn.
Mayor Mentor read a Proclamation recognizing the contributions made
by women in the United States Military from the earliest day of our
republic, as well as in the Continental Army of the American
Revolution, as nurses, spies and soldiers on the front lines.
Approximately 35,000 women served during WWI, 400,000 in WWII,
50,000 during Korean War, 7,500 serving in Vietnam from 1962-1973;
and 400,000 women serve their country today in active military,
National Guard and Reserves. Mary Benikee, USN Hospital, accepted
the Proclamation on behalf of all the women who served in the
military, past and present. She thanked the City Council and Mayor
Mentor for their support. Mary Lynch Commander, American Legion
Post 149, thanked the Mayor and City Council on behalf of the women
in the American Legion. Richard Chrisinger, Commander VFW Post
3694, representing Hazel Ferguson of Veterans Of Foreign Wars and
all women who had served in military forces, joined in the
acceptance of the Proclamation. Robert Sauter, Sgt. Major
(Retired), thanked the Mayor and Council members for the
Proclamation, which would be forwarded to Washington, D.C., to be
hung in the Women's Of Military Service for American Memorial in
Arlington, VA.
Elena Argomanz, Kitsap Mental Health Services, announced their
receiving a Washington State Housing Grant in the amount of
$474,000. The purpose of the grant was to develop a pool of
affordable housing for mentally ill citizens, who currently live in
the community and who were facing the prospect of being homeless
due to limited incomes and escalating rents. This funding will
provide 10 homes to be distributed throughout the County, with six
being located in the Bremerton area. Ms. Argomanz thanked the City
Council for their support of the grant application. Also, through
other sources of funding, they now have acquired the resources to
purchase and renovate four other properties, that will also be
spread throughout the County. She reported that effort was
underway to resolve the financial issue that previously precluded
locating any of the homes on Bainbridge Island and they look to
being successful in providing such housing at that location. She
emphasized that the cooperation and collaboration they experienced
among city entities and County entities was critical to their
success so far. The most recent collaboration between the County
and City Housing Authorities resulted in the County Housing
Authority to issue a low interest bond for the entire program.
Robert Sauter presented a copy of the draft Environmental Impact
Statement, relating to the Veterans Memorial Cemetery, to
Councilman Russ Johnson. Mr. Sauter commended Kitsap Mental Health
of Kitsap County, for their program for counseling families of the
people in Desert Storm. He sat in on several of their sessions and
TAPE #895
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
March 6, 1991
Page 4 of 31
found them to be very gratifying and effective.
Richard Chrisinger stated the Kitsap County Commissioners read a
Proclamation concerning those servicemen and women who died in
Operation Desert Shield and Desert Storm. The County Commissioners
requested all flags be lowered to half staff for one week in honor
of those who gave their lives protecting the rights to freedom for
all.
President Herton announced Item 7B (Ethics Ordinance) had been
pulled off the Agenda for three weeks.
8A - PUBLIC HEARING - PRELIMINARY PLAT/SHORELINE PERMITS (9 LOTS)
APPLICANT: RAYDELL ENT., LOCATION: 1555 SHOREWOOD DRIVE, #AB91-056
On January 15, 1991, the Planning Commission voted 6 to 0 to
recommend approval of the Harbor Ridge Preliminary Plat. The
application also requires approval of a Shoreline Substantial
Development/Conditional Use Permit because a portion of the site is
within 200 feet of the shoreline.
Title 58, RCW Boundaries and Plats empowers the City Council to
hold a public hearing in order to accept, reject or modify the
Planning Commissions' recommendation.
President Horton asked the "Appearance Of Fairness/Conflict Of
Interest" question with all Council members being seated.
Jack A11ingham, Current Planner, provided a view graph showing the
location of the subject site on Shorewood Drive ( west side of
Shore Drive adjacent to and north of Beach Drive). The request is
to subdivide a 3.6 acre site into nine single-family lots.
Access to the site is a proposed 32 ft., wide road approximately
450 feet in length.
The application is divided into two parts, a preliminarily plat
approval from the City Council and a Shorelines Substantial
Development and Conditional Use Permit due to the site being
located within 200 feet of the shoreline.
During the preliminary plat stage, Council seeks to ask questions
as to public interest of subdividing the property, whether or not
provisions for roads, drainage, sewer/ water utilities are in
place, whether or not it complies with all land use regulations
(the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan), and then determine
from those if public interest would be served. Once the
preliminary plat approval was given, the applicant then could go
out and move soil, construct the roads and put in utilities. From
the preliminary plat approval, after all utilities and roads are
constructed, the City Council then gets a second look at the
TAPE #895
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
March 6, 1991
Page 5 of 31
project during the final plat process - determining if all the
conditions of the preliminary plat approval had been met, whether
or not construction was subject to the standards imposed at the
preliminary stage.
The Comprehensive Plan designation for the site is Residential 0-7
dwelling units per acre. The nine lots proposed would have a
density of 2.5 dwelling units per acre. Therefore, the subdivision
would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The zoning
designation for the site is Single-Family (SF3) with a minimum lot
size of 4,800 sq. ft., and minimum lot width of 40 ft. The
application does meet zoning requirements.
Under public services, i.e, water/wastewater, power/telephone,
Fire/Police, stormwater services are adequate and available to
provide the subdivision.
As a part of the subdivision, there is a 7,000 square foot common
area proposed at the entrance (open space) of the site. The
Planning Commission made a specific recommendation to identify that
open space and designate it as a condition of the project. If that
piece of property were not included in the plat, it could later be
used as a buildable lot.
Circulation/Trip Generation: approximately an average of 10 vehicle
trip-end per dwelling unit will be generated per single-family
residence. Nine single-family residences will generate a potential
of 90 vehicle trip-end.
There is a right-of-way issue where the applicant is proposing to
construct a 32 ft. wide right-of-way and construct a cul-de-sac,
however, he did not want to dedicate it but rather be kept as a
private drive. The Zoning Ordinance allows a private street to
serve four or fewer lots. The Planning Commission felt the right-
of-way should be dedicated and developed according to City
standards as a full street. They also understand that the City
Engineer had the authority to review and approve just what those
standards were.
Under the Shorelines regulations, because the subject site was
within 200 feet of the shoreline it has an urban residential
shoreline environment. In this environment the utilities are
allowed out right but construction of a road requires issuance of
a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit. The Planning Commission
reviewed the criteria for granting such a Shorelines Conditional
Use Permit and determined the plat met those conditions.
The Planning Commission determined the plat was consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan, in compliance with zoning and shoreline
relations and adequacy and availability of utilities and public
TAPE #895
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
March 6, 1991
Page 6 of 31
services. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the
proposal with the following conditions:
1. Right-Of-Way: The applicant shall design, construct and
dedicate a public right-of-way which meets the adopted City design
standard for work within the right-of-way subject to review and
approval of the City Engineer. These standards include but are not
limited to a 50-foot wide right-of-way with paved lanes, curbs
gutters and sidewalks. '
The entrance to the subdivision shall be landscaped with street
trees. The applicant shall submit a landscape plan for review and
approval of the Director Of Community Development.
2. Utilities: The applicant/developer shall design and construct
underground utilities for water and sanitary sewer subject to the
review and approval of the Bremerton Utilities Director.
3. Stormwater: The applicant/developer shall design and construct
a stormwater detention facility for stormwater to be collected from
the street prior to'discharge into the City's stormwater system on
Shorewood Drive. The stormwater detention facility shall be
subject to review and approval of the City Engineer.
4. Subdivision Design: The Final Plat shall be prepared by a
licensed surveyor showing distances and bearings for lots and
rights-of-way.
5. Fire: The aPplicant/developer shall provide fire hydrant(s)
with street markers. The design and location shall be subject to
the review and approval by the Bremerton Fire Marshal.
Environmental:
1. Prior to making any improvements on the property, such as land
clearing, grading or construction of utilities, a sediment and
erosion control plan shall be approved by the City Engineer. The
· facilities required by the plan shall be in operation prior to land
clearing and or construction. The erosion control measures shall
be maintained until construction is completed and the potential for
on-site erosion is absent.
All disturbed soils shall be re-seeded or replanted with ground
cover and continually maintained to prevent erosion.
Only trees and vegetation necessary to construct the access road,
utilities and common area shall be removed. No "clear cutting"
shall be permitted. Further clearing shall only be permitted
during construction of those uses permitted by zoning.
Open Space:
1. The common area shown on the plat shall be landscaped and
TAPE #895
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
March 6, 1991
Page 7 of 31
remain a tract available to all the residences of the subdivision
for recreation. The common area shall not be transferred for
residential development or other use.
Mr. A11inghammade a slide presentation showing the location of the
subject site and surrounding area. He pointed out the access road
would exit across the street from the owners' residence (duplex).
In some instances that might have been a problem, however, in this
instance the garage would act as a barrier for headlights shinning
into the residence.
way Passmore, representing Raydell Ent., Inc., stated he would be
available to answer any questions from the Council or members of
the public.
Public comment - none.
Mr. Estes questioned what would protect the house, across from the
exit, from being damaged due to a vehicle sliding into it during
hazardous winter road conditions? Mr. Allin~hamnoted the owner of
the subject site was the proponent of the application and may have
considered that as a risk. However, the grade at the exit was not
substantial and it would be doubtful that a prudent driver would
have a problem in that area. Mr. Estes questioned the number of
vehicle trips into the area and would it affect the neighborhood?
Mr. Allingham stated according to the Institute of Transportation
Engineers, approximately 9-12 vehicle trip-ins per dwelling unit
would be generated daily.
Mr. Dawkins questioned if seven dwellings per acre could be built
on the subject site? Mr. Allingham stated the Comprehensive Plan
designation was Residential 0-7 dwelling units per acre. However,
the Comprehensive Plan was only a guide for making land use
decisions and the actual SF(3) zoning allows up to 8 dwelling units
per acre, so there is an inconsistency between the Comprehensive
Plan and zoning. The lots, as proposed, far exceed the minimum lot
size of 4,800 sq. ft. Mr. Dawkins questioned if the Planning
Commission's decision was by a unanimous vote? Mr. Rilingham
stated yes, they recommended approval of the proposal, including
listed conditions. He pointed out the criteria for granting
approval was not whether or not they felt it was a good
development, but whether or not it was consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan, that it complied with the land and shoreline
regulations and that the publics' interest would be served. The
Planning Commission felt the proposal would be a quality project if
the listed conditions were fulfilled.
Mr. Collins stated he felt this would be an excellent development,
however, his only concern was to insure the cul-de-sac was
dedicated to the City and not a private street. He based his
TAPE #895
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
March 6, 1991
Page 8 of 31
concern on the fact that it was a street that would serving seven
residents and 20 years from now the street would need fixing and no
one would want to take on the responsibility. If the street was
dedicated to the City from the beginning, then the responsibility
of maintenance would rest with the City. Mr. A11inghamreferenced
Exhibit #5 in the Agenda Bill - article in the National Association
Of Homebuilders' Journal, that discussed the pros and cons of the
accuracy, size and whether or not right-of-ways should be
dedicated. Basically, it supported in order to construct a
dedicated right-of-way with curbs, gutters and sidewalks to the
widths required in some municipalities, it added the cost to the
lot and housing. Also, it stated'that excessively wide right-of-
ways would encourage speeding and could detract from the
residential character. In Bremerton the experience had been that
we wished we had wider right-of-ways, so there needs to be some
compromise in sizeable right-of-way necessary to serve nine lots as
opposed to a right-of-way necessary to serve 100 lots. In this
case, a 32 ft. wide right-of-way may be adequate to serve nine
lots. The City does have adopted design standards for right-of-way
and the Planning Commission recommended that it be designed to
those standards, subject to the review and approval of the City
Engineer. The City Engineer does have the authority to vary that
right-of-way through a variance process. Mr. Collins stressed if
the road was not dedicated wouldn't the City be treading on
delicate ground? Mr. Allingham stated if it was not a dedicated
road, then the City would not have the responsibility to maintain
it. Mr. Collins questioned what about the people living on that
road 20 years from now? Mr. A11inghamexplained the developer had
submitted a Declaration Of Covenants and land Use Restrictions that
provided for a Homeowners Association, spelling out each property
owner's responsibility for the common areas. Mr. Collins pointed
out the standards established by the City of Bremerton varies from
32-48 feet, depending upon the size of the development. He felt
the Community as well as future citizens would be best served to
adhere to the roadway as a City street. Mr. Allingham stated the
Planning staff and Planning Commission recommended that as well.
Mr. Passmore emphasized the Homeowners Association would be formed
at the time the property was developed, that would include annual
dues as a part of the Deed, to be used for maintaining the street.
Their main reason for keeping the driveway area private was to make
a secured area for nine homes, with a gate placement 100 feet back
off the road and the entire property fenced.
President Hotton stated she applauded the proposal and just because
a street was owned by the City didn't mean that it would be kept in
good condition (she cited her own street as an example). Mr.
Passmore stated he had no problem dedicating 100 feet of the right-
of-way, however they were concerned with the roadway starting at
the gate and desired to have it owned and maintained by the
property owners. Mr. Overson pointed out numerous condominium
#1724
#1933
TAPE #895
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
March 6, 1991
Page 9 of 31
projects in Bremerton and the fact that their roadways were private
property.
M/S/C(Overson/Collins) to adopt the Finding Of Facts and
Conclusions of Law of the Planning Commission and hereby approve
the Harbor Ridge Preliminary Plat and Shoreline Substantial
Development/Conditional Use Permit subject to the conditions
outlined in Exhibit I (as previously listed above); with the
exception that the right-of-way be a private drive.
Mr. Morning questioned if Council deleted Item #1 of Exhibit I,
would that meet with Mr. Passmore's approval? Mr. Passmore stated
yes. Mr. Allingham stated that would approve the plat as
submitted.
Mr. Johnson stated from his experience private streets do
deteriorate and over time people may notice their street was not in
as good condition as others and question why the City doesn't
maintain their's better. He emphasized if the street was not
dedicated to the City, the residents should not expect any
services, such as sanding or snow plowing during winter conditions,
no ditch cleaning, and no repairs made by the City. He did not
support keeping the roadway as a private drive.
M/S/F(Johnson/Dawkins) an amendment the original motion to require
that the roadway be dedicated as a public City street.
Mr. Colvin questioned if Council could impose provisions on the
occupants if the street wasn't kept up that it would revert to the
City? Ian Sievers, City Attorney, stated he supposed it would be
possible to fashion those kinds of conditions. As Mr. Johnson
stated, when private roads are built there are no standards for
construction, so those would have to be developed. He felt it
would be a complicated system of judging deterioration.
Mr. Collins questioned how did the Fire truck get up this private
road? Mr. Passmore stated it was the intent to have a key-guard
gate and in that event the Police and Fire Departments would be
furnished a key. He noted this arrangement was popular throughout
the United States and they were not setting any precedents. He
emphasized that the roadway would be developed according to City
Engineer specifications.
Mr. Horning stated he was not all that proud of some of the City's
streets and this would be a lightly used access with a maintenance
fund built into the home ownership. He emphasized the commitment
by the homeowners was legal and binding and not easily forgotten.
stated he wanted to see the street developed right.
TAPE #895
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
March 6, 1991
Page 10 of 31
Mr. Overson noted he felt the proposal was a good plan and wanted
it to have the opportunity to work.
Vote on amended motion:
In Favor: Collins, Colvin, Johnson
Opposed: Horning, Dawkins, Overson, Estes, Horton
Motion failed.
Vote on main motion: Unanimous.
7C - ORDINANCE (FIRST READING) ANERDING THE OFFICIAL ZONINGMAP FOR
A 20-ACRE PARCEL WEST OF ALMIRA DRIVE AND SOUTH OF RIDDELL ROAD
(REDICORP REZONE), #AB91-053
On February 27, 1991, the Bremerton City Council conducted a public
hearing to consider written information, the Planning Commission's
recommendation, and public testimony pertaining to a request by
American Redicorp, Inc., for approval of a rezone of a 20- acre
parcel at the intersection of Almira Drive and Riddell Road.
The City Council's decision has been included in this ordinance,
which now requires Council passage to finalize the rezone and
Zoning Map Amendment.
Mr. Houuh, Planning Manager, noted Section 3 of the ordinance
contained the conditions Council applied to this rezone to bring
back at the preliminary site plan for Council Public Hearing and
approval and includes the seven specific areas of concern which the
applicant will have to address during the preliminary site plan
approval. He also noted the SEPA process was still open and the
applicant was still required to provide information on storm
runoff, transportation and traffic (bus traffic, bicycle
circulation and pedestrian circulation) and the impact of the
project on schools and parks. Mr. Hough noted the applicant, Mr.
Hancock, was not able to be at this meeting due to a prior
commitment. Mr. Hancock asked Mr. Hough to pass on to Council that
he was working on arrangements with the traffic engineering and
architectural firms to provide the information required. He also
hoped to begin meetings with neighborhood residents within two
weeks.
Lastly, the recommendation is to approve the ordinance as
presented.
De1 Knauss, Olympic Avenue, stated after hearing the comments made
by City Council members during the February 27 public hearing, he
requested that the vote be rescinded and a new public hearing be
held for the following reason: the decision to approve this rezone
was based on economics (several statements during the Planning
Commission public hearings and Council's public hearing were
referenced).
TAPE #895
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
March 6, 1991
Page 11 of 31
John CannadV, 4413 Petersville Road, questioned Mr. Dawkins what he
based his decision on at the time of the vote approving this
fezone?
Mr. Colvin questioned if there was any validity to Mr. Knauss's
concern that the decision could not be based on economics? Mr.
Sievers, City Attorney, stated unless it had to do with the City's
proprietary financial interest, which is a different matter
entirely, economics relating to the health and welfare of the
community would be totally appropriate for zoning decisions. Mr.
Colvinquestioned if an increase in density would also increase the
City's tax base? Mr. Sievers stated it might have that effect,
however, the City would not be owning the property to be used for
City purposes at some later date. It would be more a revenue
fixture that goes into City coffers to perform functions of the
City generally. Revenues allow the City to operate and provide
specific services for the benefit of the vitality of the community
are appropriate for zoning.
Mr. Co111ns requested Mr. Pratt explain the interpretation of the
changing of land use or rezoning and the economic considerations.
Don Pratt, Director Of Community Development, stated he would defer
to Mr. Sievers any legal questions Council might have. Secondly,
he had consistently told Council that the economic basis he was
referring to was the economic basis of a specific piece of property
and what the value of that property would be to an owner or
potential owners of the property. He agreed that the economic well
being of the community was a valid issue, but he did not agree
whether more or less profit could be made according to density -
that was not a valid issue for rezone. Mr. Sievers, stated he
agreed with Mr. Pratt's statement. Many times zoning actions were
taken because the financial predicament of an owner were based on
special circumstances of an owner and that cannot be taken into
affect.
Mr. Johnson stated obviously the tax base would increase and high
density type developments had lots of costs associated with them.
If he had made a decision based on that, his vote would have been
no. However, from his experience in dealing with high density
developments, the costs of providing public safety, maintaining,
etc., is probably a break even to a slight loss as far as overall
revenue. He revealed the real reason he supported the proposal was
that Bremerton needed housing and particularly in the mid- income
bracket. His only concern was that the developer would not develop
the property. He questioned if all the conditions imposed would
have an affect on the density of the project? Mr. Sievers stated
he believed that was what the Planning Department pointed out
during the public hearing. If Council maintained some strings to
rezones in the form of a binding site plan approval, some of those
setbacks, which exceed the normal setbacks and open space requires
TAPE #895
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
March 6, 1991
Page 12 of 31
of the Zoning Code, could force a lower density. Mr. Johnson
questioned the Council's right to place such conditions, i.e.,
height, setbacks, open spaces, wet lands, etc., that affected
density of a project? Mr. Sievers confirmed Council's rights. Mr-
Johnson questioned if the highest density allowed could be
developed on the? And, he noted he would be voting on the
liveability of the surrounding neighborhoods based on the best
layout and utilization of the site.
Mr. Homing noted during the Subregional Council meeting this date
discussion centered on the Growth Symposium and in particular the
proposed project was referenced. And, at that time it was noted
Bremerton was willing to step forward to do good development that
did increase densities but there was concern for the people in the
surrounding neighborhoods. He acknowledged it was difficult for
the neighbors to see the benefit of such a project, however,
Council had stipulated conditions that would bring about good
development. One of the big concerns that would help the neighbors
was Council's concern for streets and sidewalks abutting the site.
This development, if built correctly, would make for a very plus
to their community and to greater Bremerton. Referring to Mr.
Knauss's comment, economics are always discussed and a developer
could plead that economics were critical, however, economics do
play a part if the City wants good development. SHB2929 and Vision
2020 addresses specific actions cities/counties must do and if the
City is going to insist on good development then the public must
understand that SHB2929 says "you will have densities".
Mr. Estes stated one always hears about "rights"...he questioned
what about the neighborhoods' rights? His interpretation on this
issue was that the residents of the neighborhood were being
neglected and not enough consideration given to their views.
Mr. Overson pointed out the Council had certain responsibilities
and this was one of them. He referenced another time when a tough
decision had to be made by the Council, that being to build a
secondary treatment sewer plant; and had they gone with the anger
of the citizens they would not have approved it. He emphasized
Council could not vote based on the threats of constituents, but to
base that decision on the facts.
Mr. Dawkins questioned how many units could be built if the
property was left at SF? Mr. Hough stated it would depend how it
was developed, SF-3 allows one unit per 4,800 sq. ft.,
approximately 7 units per acre. Mr. Dawkins noted if that were the
case, then 140 single family homes could be built on the site. He
felt it would be better to have clusters of buildings with trees
landscaping than to clear all the land bare and put in signal
family homes. Mr. Johnson questioned what type of quality home
could be built on that size lot? Mr. Dawkins noted the type of
#3533
#3616
TAPE #896
TAPE #895
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
March 6, 1991
Page 13 of 31
homes would probably be approximately 2,000 sq. ft.
President Horton reviewed the background of public involvement in
putting together Vision 2020 and through that process the public
said what they wanted...open space retained, urban areas to be more
densified, stop sprawl, recognizing the fact that it would make
some hard decision of the elected officials. Growth will bring
change to a community. Through Vision 2020 and SHB292 a vision has
been created and now it is up to the respective communities to make
sure it happened. In order for this vision to happen in Bremerton,
it must be of quality and that was why Council requested
preliminary site approval of this project. Mr. Johnson pointed out
the one thing the County has to do is to stop sprawl, however, the
City can not be effective running up to the County and telling them
to stop sprawl when the City had not done its part in providing
higher densities.
Mr. Colvin stated he did not believe higher density was synonymous
with better. He noted he did support the Planning Commission's
position, however, he could not support Council's action on this
issue.
M/S/C(Overson/Horning) to approve Ordinance, on first reading,
amending the Official Zoning Map of the City of Bremerton from "SF-
3" to "MF" on a 20 acre parcel southwest of the intersection of
Almira Drive and Riddell Road.
Mr. Johnson requested that Council be informed if in fact the
developer did meet with the residents of the neighborhood prior to
submittal of the preliminary site plan, if he considered their
input in the plan and if not then the citizens needed to bring such
items to the Council during the next public hearing.
M/S/F(Collins/Johnson) amendment to the motion to add the density
to the criteria, making it #8.
Mr. Homing stated he did not see now Council could make this work
as proposed by Mr. Collins' amended motion. Mr. Sievers stated it
may be more an economic matter in that the developer may not want
to design a lot of studio apartments that would not be marketable,
so as a practical matter he felt the developer needed some
assurance that planning for a site plan would be worthwhile and
that he would not revert back to the current density. Mr. Sievers
stated it was not appropriate to be modifying the decision that was
made during the last public hearing. If Council was modifying the
substance of the decision rather than simply approving the
ordinance as an implementing instrument, maybe the public hearing
should be reopened. Mr. Homing stated he did not support such
action as it would be unfair to the applicant who was not present
during this meeting. Mr. Johnson stated if everyone says Council
TAPE #896
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
March 6, 1991
Page 14 of 31
had density control, couldn't a density be set? Mr. Homing stated
the control was through the preliminary site plan - the developer
could not exceed MF zoning and could build at a lower density.
Council could require him to go lower depending on what he proposed
in the site plan. President Hotton stated it was a given
considering the requirements for open space, transit turn outs,
walkways, setbacks, trash facilities, and access onto neighboring
streets. And, Council would be controlling density by what was
being required in the site plan. Mr. Slevers stated it would at
least give the developer the advantage to design something for the
density allowed under MF. If Council imposes excessive conditions,
the developer could question his given rights and challenge whether
or not Council was being reasonable. As a practical matter,
Council's conditions may seem reasonable. President Hotton noted
if the site plan came back with 22-units per acre and everything
requested by Council was included, she did not believe Council
would take back their commitment of the MF zone. She raised the
question: "if Council approved the motion stated what would that do
to the course of action taken during the last public hearing?" Mr.
Sievers stated the one thing the developer received through
previous Council action was the MF zoning allowing a high density
and he could go ahead and design something with that density in
mind and not have it taken back on the pretext of open space. Mr.
Johnson suggested adding the wording "which could affect density".
Mr. Sievers stated it would be almost the same as saying he would
get the old density but we'll give you more if you come back with
a site plan we like.
Mr. Colvin questioned if Council approved MF density and that the
conditions were not placed on the density? Mr. Pratt stated yes,
Council did approve MF density and the conditions were placed on
the site design not density. If Council attached density to this
as a condition, then there would be no reason to have zoning. The
zoning was multi-family based on use and up to a certain density.
If the density factor was taken out, then the zoning issue would be
removed.
Mr. Overson questioned if the motion on the floor was a legal
motion? Mr. Sievers stated the City's charter says that a public
hearing must be held for both readings of an ordinance, which was
not true in all cities. Public input must be allowed and that
could affect Council's decision if it is on the merit of the
decision itself. In the past, a public hearing was held and may
coincide with first reading. On the subsequent Charter hearings on
ordinances, he believed it was the City's practice to make sure
only the ordinance was accurate and implemented the decision and
that a rehearing on this issue should be set if a reconsideration
of the merits of that decision is desired so that all parties
affected could be present. Mr. Overson asked for clarification if
this motion was not legal? Mr. Sievers stated he believed the
TAPE #896
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
March 6, 1991
Page 15 of 31
motion would change the decision from the previous action and he
was not sure if this hearing received the same kind of notice as
the last hearing. If a decision is to be changed, he believed the
full notification process used during the past hearing was
warranted.
Mr. Johnson questioned if Council could change the density when a
site plan was brought back for approval. Mr. Slevers stated yes,
Council had given itself some powers that might affect density that
would still be supportable. Often times there are administrative
decisions through SEPA for multi-residential projects that may
affect density simply because environmental issues on the site may
be such that conditions have to be met...not allowing the developer
to use the full density of the zone. As a practical matter, people
should understand that some legitimate conditions may affect
maximum density on the site. President Horton pointed out that was
stated during discussions at the last public hearing. Mr. Hough
stated there were lots of things in the Zoning ordinance that would
affect this development outlining standards and lot size, the
density just being one part. There are parking requirements,
setbacks, landscaping, open space, etc., which are in the Zoning
Ordinance and must be included in the design. At the same time,
the seven conditions included in the ordinance are issues that have
to be considered and addressed in the site plan.
Mr. Colvin questioned how many parking spaces per unit would
be required? Mr. Hough stated that was not known yet and depended
on the design of the buildings. There are different standards for
different size units - 1-2 bedroom units require 11/2 parking
spaces, 3-bedroom unit would require 1.75 parking spaces. Mr.
Colvin felt this was inadequate and cited the problems residents
were experiencing on Fir Avenue. Mr. Hough stated when the Zoning
Code was adopted it was felt to be adequate.
Mr. Collins stated Council did not approve a MF zone but approved
the drafting of an ordinance. Mr. Sievers stated no, Council
approved the rezone.
Vote on amendment:
Motion failed.
In Favor: Dawkins, Johnson, Collins
Opposed: Overson, Estes, Horning, Horton
Abstain: Colvin
Vote on main motion: In Favor: Johnson, Overson, Horning, Dawkins,
Horton
Opposed: Colvin, Estes, Collins
Motion carried.
6A - AGREEMENT FOR USE OF OPTI-COM SIGNALIZATION WITH KITSAP
TRANSIT, ~AB91-048
Kitsap Transit has agreed to provide matching funding with the City
TAPE #896
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
March 6, 1991
Page 16 of 31
of Bremerton to upgrade signalization at major intersections to
OPTI-COM. This agreement will allow Kitsap Transit non-emergency
use of these OPTI-COM intersections for a period of 10 years.
Mick McKinley, Deputy Fire Chief, reviewed changes in the contract
that included: under Item #2, Kitsap Transit will pay the City 75%
of the cost; Item #8 - the life of this agreement would be 10 years
rather than 5 years as previously stated.
John Clauson, Service Development Manger for Kitsap Transit, stated
he would stand by for any questions they might have regarding this
issue.
Mr. Hornlng stated this item had been reviewed over quite a period
of time and he supported the proposal from the start and felt
having Kitsap Transit involved was very beneficial to the City.
#0733
M/S/C/U(Horning/Colvin) to approve agreement for use of OPTI-COM
signalization with Kitsap Transit.
6B - CABLE ACCES8ADVI8ORY COMMITTEE - REAPPOINTMENTOF ED BACHMANN
AND LORRAINE INABINETT, #AB91-049
Two members of the Cable Access Advisory Committee have terms that
have expired or will expire shortly: Ed Bachmann, expired 5/90,
Lorraine Inabinett, expires 5/91. Both members would like to be
reappointed and both are excellent committee members.
Kathleen McCluskey, City Clerk, stated as a member of this
Committee, she noted both of these individuals were extremely
active members and very knowledgeable of the many aspects of
community access cable televising. She stressed there was a lot
more planning over the next five years and felt both of these
individuals would be an asset to the City. Ms. McCluskey pointed
out that Mr. Bachmann served as a member representing education and
Ms. Inabinlett served as a representative of the general public.
Public comment - none.
Mr. Johnson stated Bremerton Community Access television had come
a long way in a short period of time and two major reasons that was
a fact was the contributions of Ed and Lorraine. He strongly urged
the reappointment of both of these Committee members. Mr. Johnson
pointed out neither of them were Bremerton residents, however, the
Community Access Television Ordinance was amended to allow out-of-
City committee members because of the expertise required for some
positions.
#0817
M/S/C/U(Johnson/Horning) to reappoint Ed Bachmann retroactively to
5/90 for a three year period to 5/93; and to reappoint Lorraine
Inabinett for the period 5/91 to 5/94.
TAPE #896
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
March 6, 1991
Page 17 of 31
Mr. Colvin stated Mr. Johnson also deserved to be commended for his
support and involvement in the Community Access Television program.
6C - AMENDMENT TO THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH
PARAMETRIX, INC., FOR THE BREMERTON-GORST CONNECTOR PROJECT, #AB91-
050
The Washington State Department Of Transportation has requested
that the City assess the feasibility of transitioning a State
Highway into/through Gorst and transitioning highway traffic north
and south through the Loxie Egans Interchange area as part of the
Bremerton-Gorst Connector Project. This amendment will allow the
City's consultant to perform this work.
Jan Stemkoski, Assistant City Engineer, stated the Department Of
-Transportation (DOT) requested that the City take a more in- depth
look at the interface of the Gorst-Bremerton project with Highway
#3 at Loxie Egan Interchange and Highways #3 and #16 at Gorst.
They wanted a more detailed study to see what the benefits would be
of making the route a State Highway. The additional study would
also provide a completed Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), that
would be beneficial at the time the State wanted to begin
construction of either one of the interchanges at those two
locations. The State felt it would be better coordinated if the
City did the additional study as a part of its project rather than
they undertake the task and coordinate it with the City's work
plan. Funding for this study would be covered 100% by the State.
Public comment - none.
Mr. Dawklns reported this item had been reviewed by the Council
Operations Committee.
Mr. Johnson questioned if the City had anything in writing that
stated 100% of the cost for such a study would be funded by the
State; and could the City increase the dollar amount of the
contract? Mr. Stemkoski stated at this point the City had a letter
from Art Smelser, District Administrator, that tied into the
$365,000 for this portion and in addition $430,000 funded by DOT
for the City's portion of the project. And, the City cannot charge
more money for the work designated.
Mr. Estes questioned if this study would indicate where the road
would be located? Mr. 8temkoski stated this particular work, that
is requested through the amendment, only applied to those two
locations...(1) in Gorst where the City's route would tie into
Gorst;and (2) where the City's route would into Loxie Egan
Interchange. The actual route cannot be identified until the EIS
was completed and all alternatives were reviewed.
Mr. Overson questioned by approving the amendment would it extend
#0920
#1042
TAPE #896
City Council Meg. Mtg. Minutes
March 6, 1991
Page 18 of 31
the contract of Phase I to 25 months and how much would the change
amount to? Mr. Stemkoski stated the original contract was for 20
months and the amendment would add five months.
M/S/C/U(Dawkins/Collins) to authorize the Mayor to execute the
contract amendment to Contract #3240 with Parametrix, Inc.
6D - I~MENDMENT TO THE L~BOR ~GREEMENT BY ~ BETWEEN THE CITY OF
BREMERTON ~ TE~STERS' LOCAL 589, #AB91-042
Positions added to 1991 Budget through Council budget actions:
Several new classifications have been added to the classification
plan through the Civil Service Office. Wage Grades need to be
established for the new classifications. The City and the Union
have met and agreed upon the Wage Grade placements for each of the
new positions, as set forth in the Amendment.
The 1991 Budget, as adopted by the City Council, includes position
allocations for all of the new positions in the appropriate
departments.
Caroline Marshall, Director Of Personnel, stated this was formal
action to amend the agreement to include the new positions and
classifications that were added during the budget process.
Public comment - none.
Mr. Johnson questioned what a Wage Grade 16 earned? Ms. Marshall
stated that would be the classification for a Civil Engineer. Mr.
Johnson questioned if the salary would be less than that for
Information Services Manager? Ms. Marshall stated yes.
M/S/C/U(Johnson/Colvin) to amend the Labor Agreement between the
City and Teamsters' Local 589 to add new classifications to the
Wage Grades contained in Appendix A as set forth in the Amendment
to the Agreement. And, to acknowledge receipt of the Letter Of
Understanding regarding the inclusion/exclusion of the position of
Payroll Specialist in the bargaining unit covered by the agreement.
7~ - ORDINI~NCE (FIRST RE~DING) idaENDING THE I~d~AGEMENT ~
PROFESSIONAL STAFF COMPENSATION PROG1U~H, #AB91-045
A new classification of Water Quality Manager has been added to the
Management and Professional Staff group and needs to be included in
the listing contained in 2.50,020(a) Applicability.
Caroline Marshall, Director of Personnel, stated this was a
formality to implement action taken during the budget process,
i.e., adding the Water Quality Manager. This position needed to be
added to the Ordinance so that it would have the same benefits as
the rest of the managers and professional staff.
TAPE #896
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
March 6, 1991
Page 19 of 31
Public comment - none.
#1107
Mr. Overson pointed out that action taken at this time would not
implement the salary level for this position.
M/S/C/U(Johnson/Colvin) to approve Ordinance, on first reading,
amending Chapter 2.50.020 (a) Applicability to add to the listing
contained under the heading ,,MANAGEMENTAND PROFESSIONAL STAFF" the
title "Water Quality Manager", and requesting that staff submit the
change to Appendix A of the budget by a Budget Change Request form
through the Fiscal and Budget Committee.
7D - ORDINANCE (FIRST READING) REVISING TITLE 15 OF THE CITY OF
BREMERTON MUNICIPAL CODE, #AB91-054
The Utility, in order to maintain compliance with recently enacted
Federal and State regulations regarding the management and
operation of municipal utilities and in response to the City
Council's Statement Of Legislative Intent, has updated Title 15 of
the Bremerton Municipal Code.
The revisions include new sections in response to the Federal Safe
Driving Water Act Amendments and to the Federal Clear Water Act
which provides for the delivery of safe drinking water supplies to
the community and the treatment and discharge of wastewater. The
revisions also include a new program for the management of
stormwater.
Additionally, the Code has been reformatted into various sections
to include but not limited to Administrative, Water, Wastewater,
Storm and Utility Billing in order to allow for increased
flexibility and understanding of the Code.
Drafts of Title 15 have been distributed to Council members and to
City staff. Two Council Study Session were held to solicit
comments with respect to the revisions.
The revisions together with comments have been reviewed and
incorporated into the Code by the City Attorney.
Bill Duffy, Utilities Director, stated this was a long awaited
revision to the Utility Ordinances. The ordinance had been
reformatted and changes made to meet increased regulations, legal
requirements, Council Statements Of Legislative Intent (SLI's), and
compatibility with other ordinances. He also eliminated some of
the more burdensome information and actually gone to a rule making
process - most of the changes involve facility construction
standards and he is developing a Construction Facilities Manual.
The first section of the Ordinance deals with General Provisions of
· APE #896 ,
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
March 6, 1991
Page 20 of 31
the Utility together with definitions and then is broken into three
areas: Water, Wastewater and Stormwater. There is a section on
assessment rates, charges and Utility Billing System and an appeals
process.
Mr. Dully reviewed the following changes:
1. Section 3 - established a Stormwater Operating Fund (note:
Section 3 deals with the revenue section of City government).
2. Section 2 - the section relating to "Wastewater Utility only"
was deleted and created a "Municipal Utility" section -provides for
the purpose of the department and indicates the various programs
that department undertakes to provide water, wastewater and
stormwater. There is a section for administration of the Utility,
which provides for appointment of a director, and establishes the
authority of the Utility.
3. I. General Provisions - provides for definitions.
4. 15.01.070 Developer System Improvement - Agreements - this is
a new section and would provide for a standard policy and procedure
for negotiating system improvements.
5. 15.01.080 Developer System Improvements - Reimbursement -this
would provide for codification of a procedure wherein development
improvements that benefitted not only the developer but the City as
a whole could be reimbursed for some of the excess costs.
6. 15.02.020 Comprehensive Plan - this is required by State Law
and is being included in the ordinance.
7. 15.02.040 Service Beyond City Limits - contains three new
sections that deal with service beyond the developed City limits.
8.. III Wastewater...15.03.020 Comprehensive Plan - included in
ordinance per State law requirement.
9. IV Stormwater - this is a new section, although somewhat
abbreviated, providing for creation of a Stormwater Program in the
City. The following sections are outlined as follows: Purpose,
Comprehensive Plan, Service Availability, Service Connections, On-
Site(Private) Improvements, Sampling Stations, Abatement Of
Nonconforming, Unauthorized Or Unsafe Conditions, Stormwater System
Maintenance, Interruption Of Service, Changed Site Conditions,
Prohibited Acts. (As previously noted this section was somewhat
abbreviated and the City was still waiting on the new ordinances
coming out from the Department Of Ecology.)
10. V 15.05 Reserved For Future Programs
TAPE #896
City Council Meg. Mtg. Minutes
March 6, 1991
Page 21 of 31
11. VI Assessments, Rates Fees And Charges - under Section
15.06,020, for water utility service, the assessments deal with an
equity fee upon footage fee and connection fee. In the past there
was a flat rate for wastewater service connections. As far as
connection for stormwater, the City had not been recovering costs.
In the Wastewater and Stormwater sections, a mechanism was provided
where the City would recover some of the assessment fees. Through
this section they have tried to provide some consistency from
utility program to another.
12.15.06.050 Rates - Stormwater - this is a new section. Section
"a" did set a rate, Section "b" provided an adjustment for those
property owners who had participated in either retention or
detention or stormwater quality program.
13. 15.06,060 - Miscellaneous Fees and Charges - Section (a)
provides for the automatic check handing system. The credit was
raised from 25 cents to $1.00 per bill for those people who choose
to use it. Under Section (f) Cross-Connection Control Inspections
- the City is required by law to insure that all cross connection
controls devices that had been installed between the public water
system and private water systems be checked on a regular basis.
Most of the devices are installed by private parties.
14. "VII Utility Billing Section 15.07,050 Billing And Duplicate
Billings is a new section. The intent is to bill property owners
and then provide a mechanism to send a duplicate bill to tenants or
residents. The department was experiencing considerable cost in
dealing with tenants and inability to collect fees. Last year they
processed over 6,000 account changes.
Under Section 15.07,070 Designated Agents - this provides a
mechanism whereby someone could designate an agent or someone other
than the owner to receive billings.
Under Section 15.07.100 Deferred Payment - the current ordinance
has a section relating to this issue, however, there are conflicts
with State law and this new section was developed to replace the
previous one.
Public comment - none.
Mr. Overson commended Mr. Duffy on his providing an excellent
document and noted he found only one comma missing before the "if"
(on page 58) under section 15.06.060 (g), because it sets out and
identifies if the customer requests an inspection. he questioned
if Mr. Duffy had an implementation plan for the Stormwater Section?
Mr. Dully stated yes, due to its being a monumental ordinance, it
would take time to make some changes and a priority list was
developed that did involve. other departments, such as Information
TAPE #896
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
March 6, 1991
Page 22 of 31
Services. He noted the Stormwater portion would be the most
difficult and some of the Water and Wastewater sections would be
fairly easy to change. Mr. Overson pointed out the ordinance
approval process was relatively short in time and questioned if his
implementation plan would be ready by second reading of the
ordinance? Mr. Dully stated he did have an implementation plan,
however, implementation of the Stormwater Section would take
between 90-120 days. Mr. Overson noted one of the biggest impacts
would be the billing of property owners as opposed to tenants, he
was not sure the double billing plan would resolve that and he
questioned how that would be implemented? And, he was not even
sure that was the best method. Mr. Dully stated currently they were
sending two billings, one to the tenant and one to the owner in
case of delinquent accounts, but many times a landlord would put
the account in the tenants name. What was being proposed was to
bill the landlord directly but a duplicate billing provided for a
$1.00 fee to the resident. Mr. Overson questioned if any
consideration had been given to 12 billings per year? Mr. Duffy
stated that process would be expensive. Mr. Overson noted even if
it did cost more, he felt it was easier on the customer, especially
those who were on fixed incomes. Mr. Duffy pointed out the next
item on the Agenda relating to utility rates included a rate
structure to give some relief for people on fixed incomes/low
incomes/disabled.
President Hotton questioned if any action had taken place on two
bills pending in the State Legislature, one taking about the 150%
rate for out-of-city customers and the other relating to billing
owners? Kathleen McCluskey, City Clerk, stated as of this date
they were both still alive with some modifications.
Mr. Johnson thanked Mr. Duffy for providing a well written document
and for included Chapter V (blank) to be used for other issues that
would be coming up to address solid waste, cable Television, etc.
#1811
M/S/C/U(Johnson/Colvin) to approve Ordinance, on first reading,
updating Title 15 of the City of Bremerton Municipal Code; which
will become effective 10 days after passage and posting; and
authorize the Mayor to implement the revisions to the code, subject
to City Administrative Polices and Procedures, as amended.
Mr. Colvin questioned on the ACH Program would it be possible to
set up a budget process, similar to the Power Company program?
Mr. DuffV stated no, not at this time. They have looked into such
a program as well as the possibility of bar coding utility bills.
Mr. Colvin noted he also felt Mr. Duffy did and excellent job
putting the document together.
Mr. Estes questioned under Section 2.16.020 Administration if the
wording as underlined: .... "Utilities Director who shall be
TAPE #896
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
March 6, 1991
Page 23 of 31
appointed and removed from office by the Mayor; appointment and
removal shall be subject to City Council confirmation" was in
violation of the Charter and was he correct in that the City
Attorney was the only employee who shared Mayor/Council appointment
and removal? Mr. Sievers, City Attorney, stated Mr. Estes was
correct. the Charter was explicit on his positions because the City
Attorney served two clients. He was not sure if under the Charter
it addressed either the confirmation or removal of the Utility
Department head. There is another ordinance under Personnel that
mentions Administrative heads and does list the Utility Director
subject to Council confirmation on appointment. Mr. Estes stated
he could not support this proposal as written because it violated
the City Charter. Mr. Sievers stated he did not believe this would
violate the City Charter, however, it was contrary to the other
Personnel Ordinance. President Hotton questioned if the City
Charter exclusively said that City Council could not confirm
removal? Mr. Sievers stated no, it mentions only confirmation on
a couple of department heads and the Utility Department head was
not even mentioned. Mr. Duffy stated the Charter provides for a
Water Superintendent of the Water Department. President Hotton
questioned if the underlined wording outlined by Mr. Estes,
remained in the ordinance, would it be in violation of the Charter?
Mr. Sievers stated since the Council had powers of confirmation on
appointment and the Council by legislative action through this
ordinance set up personnel procedures, policies and ordinances for
the selection of any employees and that personnel system may
include confirmation on appointment as well as termination.
Therefore, he believed Council had an open power if they adopted it
by ordinance. Unless it was somehow inherent in separation of
powers between Administrative and Legislative branch he did not see
it as a problem. He pointed out Council had given itself the power
to confirm a number of department head positions, through the
Personnel Ordinance, that were not included in the Charter. He
concurred with Mr. Estes that this pointed out a conflict with
current policy on conformation for removal of a department head.
Mr. Estes stated it was his understanding the Utilities Director
could be removed from office tomorrow and Council would have no
recourse? Mr. Sievers stated yes. President Hotton pointed out if
the City Charter stated the City Council would have confirmation of
removal of only the City Attorney then Council would be in
violation of the Charter. Without that only City Attorney, then
this ordinance could stand as it was presented. Mr. Sievers stated
that was correct, and there was a case discussing conflicts of a
general Personnel Ordinance with Seattle City Charter, but they
found that personnel system had by ordinance not to be in conflict.
President Horton requested Mr. Sievere to review this issue prior
to the second reading of the ordinance.
Mr. Homing questioned if Council passed this ordinance at this
time would that mean a Stormwater Utility was set up? Mr. Duffy
TAPE #896
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
March 6, 1991
Page 24 of 31
stated Council would be setting up a Stormwater Utility without a
rate structure. Mr. Homing stated he was not in favor of doing
that in this context and felt the Stormwater Utility portion should
be addressed separately and during a public hearing. He did not
believe the general public understood all that was included in the
ordinance proposed and stressed the importance of their having an
opportunity for input prior to passage. Under Section 15.07.050
Billing And Duplicate Billing, he questioned if the requested
duplicate billing would have the wording "duplicate" stamped on it?
Mr. Dully stated yes. Mr. Homing stated he preferred some
refinement on this section - hebelieved the billing should remain
in the tenants name so that they would be responsible. He
understands that the landowner is subject to a lien against the
property subject to unpaid water bills. He stressed that to change
this as the ordinance proposes would make it very difficult for a
large number of people. He suggested leaving the first billing
sent in the name of the tenant and he understood the need for a
charge to provide a duplicate of that billing sent to the property
owner, because he would be ultimately responsible. Mr. Duffy
stated he understood Mr. Horning's concern, however, there had been
some problems with tenant/landlord relations and they did have
approximately 6,000 changes in the past year. President Hotton
questioned when a tenant leaves without paying their bill did the
Utility tack on all costs administratively incurred when billing
the landowner? Mr. Dully stated within the limits of the current
ordinance yes, but they are still left holding a lot of "bad
paper". President Horton questioned how many dollars did the City
lose because of that? Mr. Dully stated approximately one year ago
there was over $1,000,000 in unpaid bills. Mr. Overson questioned
if it was legal for the City to follow suit of other utilities and
charge a deposit upon opening an account, such as a $50.00 deposit
if they leave without paying final bill? Mr. Duff~ stated the City
already charged a deposit and noted there was an accounting
problem if deposits were collected due to the requirement to pay
interest on the funds collected.
Mr. Colvin stated he felt Mr. Sievers was trying to change the
Charter by ordinance. President Hotton explained what was being
done was to put in the ordinance what the Charter didn't say and
Mr. Sievers would check into the legality prior to second reading
of the ordinance. If it was found to be in violation, then that
portion could be removed from the ordinance prior to passing. Mr.
Mr. Collins questioned why was Utility Billing built into this and
questioned why wouldn't it be more appropriate for the Treasurer to
collect the funds? Mr. Duffv explained changes were made to
Section 2 and 3 of the ordinance and the Treasurer is responsible
for funds collected. The Utility does the billing and the
Treasurer collects the funds, except in the instances where someone
makes an adjustment on their bill, signs up for services, etc. Mr.
#2736
TAPE #896
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
March 6, 1991
Page 25 of 31
Collins questioned under the Appeals Section, third paragraph, who
from the Utility would respond? Mr. Dully stated either the
Director or his designee. The particular person to respond may
depend on the area of concern. Mr. Collins suggested including
wording that spelled out that more clearly. He questioned who
would respond to a person who felt they had been over billed? Mr.
Dully stated they would come to the Utility Office and if it was
determined to be a computer error, it would be corrected
immediately. If that individual thought he had paid too much or
that his bill was too high, they would work with him to determine
if there was a leak. If a satisfactory resolution was not
accomplished, then the appeals process would come into effect.
Mr. Duffy noted ultimately he was the responsible person within the
department and he would assign appropriate staff to work with the
citizen. M:. Collins questioned how would the citizen know that
there was a process to use for problems relating to billing? Mr.
Duff~ handed out samples of the water billing forms, which included
information for the public as to who they should contact if they
had any questions regarding billings and that information is also
included in the Telephone Book.
Mr. Homing stated he would not support this proposal as presented
and suggested setting up a public hearing to give the public the
opportunity to give input.
M/S/F(Horning/Colvin) an amendment to the motion to remove the
Stormwater Section from the Ordinance and set a date for a future
public hearing to discuss the setting up of the Stormwater Utility
and the rates thereof.
Mr. Johnson stressed the fact that Council had been discussion the
issue of stormwater separation for over a year and had no other
alternative. He was not resistive to delaying the second reading
until a public hearing could be scheduled, however, he personally
felt Council should act on the ordinance now.
Mr. Homing stated this Council had always stood up for the
public's right for input and strongly supported providing an
opportunity for such input.
Vote on amendment:
Motion failed.
In Favor: Collins, Dawkins, Colvin,
Horning
Opposed: Johnson, Overson, Estes, Horton
Mr. Homing stated he was sure Mr. Duffy had misunderstood when he
stated that the City had lost in excess of $100,000 through bad
billings. If the City were to have lost anything he would be
surprised, a bad check maybe. The point here is if you bill a
tenant for water and they don't pay the City had the right to: (a)
TAPE #896
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
March 6, 1991
Page 26 of 31
place a lien against the property; (b) to not turn the water back
on until that bill was paid. He hoped there was $100,000 worth of
accounts out that did not have water service.
#2934
#3027
M/S/C(Horning/Overson) an amendment to the motion to allow for the
original set up of an account in whatever name the owner chooses.
If the owner chooses having someone else receive a duplicate bill,
i.e., himself then he would have to pay an appropriate fee to
recover costs of such service. If the name is changed on either
the primary biller or the duplicate biller an additional $1.00 is
charged.
M/(Johnson ) an amendment to the amendment to say that in order
to implement that proposal that all landlords would be required to
put up separate service connections for each unit.
Motion died for lack of second.
Mr. Johnson stressed that landlords were in the practice of keeping
track of tenants, not the City and he did not feel City residents
should be subsidizing them.
Mr. Horning stated he was not asking the City to do anything more
than what they were already doing now and he was suggesting they
charge for it.
TAPE #897
President Hotton again brought up the issue whether or not the City
collected all its administrative costs for collecting past due
bills? Mr. Dully stated that was what he was looking at under the
next agenda item. He pointed out Bremerton had a 50% transient
population and much time was spent just handling paper. Mr.
Horning pointed out under his proposal a charge would be levied for
such service.
Mr. Overson stressed that the amendment motion was hopefully to
bill the party who was using the water and it provided for the
needs of the City to recoup the cost of doing City business, i.e.,
collecting from its utility users. Mr. Dully stated the question
was whether or not the City was willing to provide a billing
service on behalf of landlords in Bremerton. Mr. Horning stated he
proposed to charge for such service. The City is in the business
of servicing the public and if the public is willing to pay for
such service then it should be done.
Mr. Homing suggested changing the wording in the amending motion
to reflect an "appropriate fee to cover costs of such service", and
Mr. Overson, as the second on the motion, concurred.
Vote on amended motion:
In Favor: Dawkins, Colvin, Estes, Overson, Collins, Horning
TAPE #896
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
March 6, 1991
Page 27 of 31
Opposed: Johnson, Horton
Motion carried.
Vote on main motion as amended - unanimous.
7E - RESOLUTION #2338, ESTABLISHING FEES, I~TES AND CHARGES FOR
UTILITY SERVICES, #AB91-055
The Utility, pursuant to the revised Title 15 of the Bremerton
Municipal Code, has a requirement to establish fees, rates and
charges for utility services.
Attached for Council's consideration is a resolution establishing
said fees, rates and charges. The resolution provides for an 8%
increase in water rates and a 4% increase in wastewater rates,
revises the assessment rates for connection to the Wastewater
System and further provides for a fee and rate structure for a
stormwater utility.
Bill Duffv, Utilities Director, reviewed the proposed Resolution
and made the following comments:
Water Assessments/General Facility Fee - no change.
Front Footage - no change.
Connection Fee - no change of 3/4" and 1". Currently the 11/2"
and 2" meters are being charged on time and material basis. He
would now like to place a flat rate on that portion.
Asphalt and Restoration costs - a fee is assessed when a street
has to be torn up as part of the project. If a street is not
disturbed then the money collected is remitted back.
Rates - Retail Water Service Rates - there is an 8% rate increase
on the Commodity Charge only. Currently the City is charging
$0.69/H.C.F., and moving it up to $0.75/H.C.F. Mr. Duffy noted
there had not been a rate increase in the Water Utility since June
1983. He provided a Rate Comparison Chart to Council showing water
costs of other areas of Kitsap County. The average customer uses
about 1500 ft., and currently costing $13.85 -the new rate proposed
would be $14.75. Other areas are charging as follows: Silverdale is
currently charging $14.10, Port Orchard $19.70, North Perry
$23.75, Annapolis $25.00, PUD #1 $26.50, Poulsbo $22.70.
Fire Protection Services - slight increase - in some instances the
base charge was lower than the what was being charged for a 3/4"
water meter. One of the things needing to be done in this area was
to install more meters and cross connection controls in order to
meet State requirements.
Hydrant Service and Maintenance Rates -Public and Private hydrants
TAPE #897
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
March 6, 1991
Page 28 of 31
- currently the City is covering the costs of those hydrants built
into the rate...they are looking to itemize those costs and
actually bill separately for them. This would have some
implications in regard to where or how the City charged outside
agencies, i.e., Fire Districts.
Low-Income Senior Citizen and Low-Income Disable Citizen Rates -
this has been upgraded to meet State law by providing a bi-monthly
charge of $3.50 and at no charge the City will provide the first
1,000 cu. ft. of water for a two month period. Anything over the
1,000 cu. ft. must be paid at the current rate.
Temporary Construction Meters - charges fall within same range as
what was being charged now - this just formalized those charges.
Wastewater -Assessments - General Facilities - currently there is
just a flat rate depending on the type of connection ($795.00). In
order to provide a consistency with the Water Utility that charge
will be broken up and charge a Facility Fee of $150.00 per
equivalent residential unit, a Front Footage Fee, wish is the same
as Water and an Inspection Fee. In most cases, these charges would
amount to less than what some people are currently paying.
Retail Wastewater Service Rates - this was consolidated into a base
charge in Commodities Charge reflecting a 4% raise.
Low-Income Senior Citizen and Low Income Disabled Citizen Rates -
based on a single family the City would be providing the base cost
with no charge for the commodity up to 1,000 cu. ft., and any thing
over that amount must be paid at the current rate.
Stormwater Assessment General Facility Fee - currently the
stormwater rate was set up on impervious surface unit which equates
to 2,500 sq. ft. of impervious surface. To hook up to the City's
stormwater sewer system would cost $100.00 per impervious surface
unit. A mechanism is built in for all single family/duplex
residential units to be considered one (1) impervious surface unit.
Front Footage Fees - slightly higher than the Water charge due to
the pipes being larger and costing more.
Open Conveyance System - no charge to hook up to a drainage ditch.
General Rates Structure -Undeveloped Property - no charges. Under
developed property 0-2 impervious surface unites, all residential
and duplex living structures fall within that category. Mr. Duffy
noted a correction under this heading "3 - 4 ISU" rather than "3-5-
~ISU". Mr. Duffy presented a tentative Stormwater budget with three
alternatives. The rate structure was based on Alternative A and
TAPE #897
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
March 6, 1991
Page 29 of 31
would generate about $425,000 annually, which provides for
supervision, labor, supplies, other services and charges for those
activities that are generally done by the Street Department now.
And, he stressed the proposed rate structure did not provide any
funding for construction. Under Alternative B and C, the only
difference was that they would begin to collect some money in terms
of capital to make improvements and that would be based on a city-
wide Stormwater Utility. If Council chose either Alternative B or
C, the cost per impervious surface unit would increase and
Alterative B provided for a $3.50 per month charge and Alternative
C provided for a $6.00 per month charge. Mr. Overson noted some
of the private residential property had been cleared and replaced
with space for parking vehicles. He questioned what the ISU and
fee for such areas would be? Mr. Duffy stated currently parking
lots constructed if they don't have utility services, are basically
discharging water into the stormwater system at no charge.
However, under the new ordinances, those areas would be charged.
Those individuals who did put in retention, detention, oil
separator systems, could apply for and receive an adjustment up to
50%.
Duplicate Billing Charge - this was changed but a dollar amount was
not available at this time.
Office Services and Field Services - City is currently charging for
this service but this document would formalize that action.
Plan Check Fees - this is a new charge.
Jack Swanson, representing The Sun, raised the following questions:
1. What plan do you have, as a Council or Utility Director, to
inform the public of the increases?
2. He requested, on behalf of the public, a copy of Mr. Duffy's
materials that showed the actual changes in rates so they could be
published.
3. In specifically showing the Retail Water Increases it was
specified the overall increase was 8% and then cited increase from
$13.85 to $14.75...making it only a 6.5% increase and wondered why
there was a difference?
4. He requested City Council or Mr. Duffy provide him with the
actual changes made to Title 15 Ordinance that was just acted upon.
5. ~uestion - when would the new rate structure go into effect and
when specifically would the property owners and users see the
change in their bill?
Mr. Dully responded to Mr. Swanson's questions as follows: in
TAPE #897
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
March 6, 1991
Page 30 of 31
regard to the 8% increase it was on the Commodity charge only.
There is two parts to the charge, a base charge and a commodity
charge and it was the cost of commodity that would increase.
In reference to informing the public, he noted Ordinances had to be
advertised in The Sun's legal section and he expected some type of
reporting in the news section of the newspaper. And, ordinances
become effective 30 days after passage and publication unless a "10
days" clause was included. Kathleen McCluskey,City Clerk, stated
the effective date of the Resolution would be tied to the effective
date of the Ordinance. Mr. Duffy pointed out the billing process
would probably be ready with the new charges approximately 60 days
after the Ordinance when into effect.
Mr. Hornlng expressed concern that there was not more citizens in
the audience to speak on this issue and suggested that publication
be such to notify the public and set up another Public Hearing in
three weeks to discuss the rate schedule. If the decision was made
tonot bring this information before the public prior to adopting,
he would not support the proposal as presented.
Mr. Colvln questioned what provisions were made to notify the rate
payers of this proposal? Ms. McCluskev stated there was no public
notice placed other than the Agenda Packets and Cable Access
Channel advertising. Mr. Duffv stated he had not provided any
other publication of this item. Mr. Colvin questioned how much
would the proposed rate change increase an average household
billing? Mr. Duffy stated for water service the customer would pay
another six cents for 700 gallons of water. Mr. Overson
questioned who put the budget figures together? He noted by using
his calculations, using those figures, the average bill would be
raised by approximately $2.50 per month. Mr. Duffv stated that was
correct and he did look at the overall revenue stream coming into
the Utility on the commodity charges.
President Hotton questioned what the stormwater fees would be used
for? Mr. Duffy stated initially they were setting up a basic
Utility so they could get on with handling some of the water
quality problems. In addition to that, there are some problems
throughout Bremerton, i.e., flooding, that need to be studied and
then a determination made as to the source of funding to correct
such problems. It was not his intention to address all the
stormwater problems at this time, but to create a mechanism so they
could go ahead with figuring out what to do. President Hotton
questioned if the City was being pressed by the State and Federal
regulations to move forward on stormwater separation? Mr. Duffv
stated yes, the Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan names
Bremerton as a problem area.
Mr. Johnson questioned how a fee was determined when connecting
water/sewer service along a private road? Mr. DuffV stated
#1373
TAPE #897 :
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
March 6, 1991
Page 31 of 31
generally the public service stops at the right-of-way line and
from there on it was the customers responsibility. Mr. Duffy
explained the developer can put in the infrastructure and then
dedicate it to the Utility. Mr. Johnson stated the reason he was
so emphatic during his discussion on the stormwater issue was that
large shopping areas with extensive paved surfaces were discharging
stormwater into the City's sewer system and not paying the City to
process it through the wastewater treatment plant. It is to the
City's benefit to separate the sewage and stormwater, however, the
City did not have a mechanism to accomplish that. Mr. Duffy stated
about 30% of Bremerton is combined sewers and most of that was in
the older sections of town on the Callow Avenue basin, downtown
Bremerton. Mr. Johnson stated he was not opposed to continuing
this item for one week and delay second reading of the ordinance
for one week, if a public hearing was held March 13.
Mr. Homing stated the Council did every thing legal in putting
this item on the Agenda, however, he honestly did not feel that the
public had the opportunity to respond.
M/S/C/U(Horning/Colvin) moved to continue this item at a Public
Hearing on March 27.
With no further business meeting adjourned at 9:47 p.m.
KATHLEEN L. MCCLUSKEY, CITY CLERK
APPROVED
L~~NHORTON, Council President
City of Bremerton
KLM/LH/me
cc: Normal Distribution
File/Vault