Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/13/91TAPE #898 UNAPPROVED DRAFT APR :)- CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES #0030 #0046 MARCH 13, 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 13, 1991, at 5:30 p.m., with Council President Lynn Horton presiding. Council members present: Lon Overson, Wayne Estes, Spencer Horning, Hank Waibel, C. R. "Tiny"Collins, Morrie Dawkins and Russ Johnson. Councilmen A1 Colvin was absent. Also present were City Attorney Ian Sievers and City Clerk Kathleen McCluskey. The meeting opened with the Pledge of Allegiance led by Council President Horton and Invocation given by Reverend Bill Wambsganss of the Westside Baptist Church. CONSENT AGENDA A. Minutes Of Meeting - February 27, 1991, #AB91-057 M/S/C(Dawkins/Overson) to approve Consent Agenda as presented. Vote: In Favor: Overson, Estes, Horning, Horton, Collins, Dawkins, Johnson Abstain: Waibel 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(Johnson/Waibel) on March 13, 1991, the Council does approve for payment those vouchers included and further described as follows: 124971 through 124973, 125903 through 126042 in the total amount of $277,190.86. COUNCIL MEMBER REPORT8 Mr. Johnson attended the Parks And Recreation Summit, held at the Kitsap Pavilion, and it was his opinion that the article in The Sun reporting on that event was not what he heard, particularly in the working groups. The tone of the entire conference was very up beat and he had never seen so much cooperation between the various Parks Districts, Parks Departments, County personnel, water skiing groups, etc. Discussions included ideas of joint use of facilities be it TAPE #898 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 13, 1991 Page 2 of 34 City, County, School District, etc. There was a suggestion to have a Regional County governing Parks Board or Parks Department. That suggestion was soundly rejected by every working group in attendance. The governing part and direction for local programs was what people didn't like. Everyone loved the cooperation and interaction discussed, therefore, it was suggested that there possible be a coordinated activity. Since that meeting, he had already received calls from the public in support of keeping the City's local Parks Board. Lastly, he expressed concern over another stop light being erected across from Yees By The Bay and Payless on Kitsap Way. Considering that would make the third stop light within a short distance, he did not feel that made good use of stop lights or a smooth flow of traffic. Mr. Dawkins reminded everyone of the Home Show at the Kitsap Pavilion and the Jazz Festival at the Bay View Inn this weekend. Mrs. Hotton stated this past week she experienced a jarring experience when driving over a pothole on her street. The impact of hitting that hole was so great that her daughter was sure she had run over a cat. PUBLIC RECOGNITION Mayor Louis Mentor expressed words of encouragement that work would begin soon on some of the many potholes created during this past winters weather conditions. He also attended the Parks and Recreation Summit meeting and had the opportunity to speak on "Arts And Enrichment". He announced on Monday, March 18, the Washington State Legislature would be adopting a Resolution recognizing the City of Bremerton as the most liveable City in the United States. This event will take place at 10:00 AM, in the House Chambers. He invited Council members and anyone from the public to attend this event. The State Legislature also passed a Resolution supporting the placement of a National Veterans Memorial Cemetery in the Bremerton area. Vicki Vanneman, Director Of Parks and Recreation, invited Council Members and the general public to attend the Health Living Fair on March 15 and 16, (Friday 12:00 noon - 8:00 PM; Saturday 10:00 AM - 4:00 PM), at the Parks and Recreation Center, Lebo Blvd. Over 60 exhibitors will be set up, there will be health screening and a healthy lunch menu will be available. Dartell McGorwin, 2641 Fir Avenue, expressed concern over a new apartment building being built in his neighborhood and the #0509 TAPE #898 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 13, 1991 Page 3 of 34 impact it brought on parking even before the complex was completed. He had contacted Mr. Pratt, in the Planning Department, about the parking problems he was encountering. Two weeks later Mr. Pratt sent him a letter that stated he had assigned someone to look into the matter. As of this date, he had no future word or help on this problem. He suggested that Fir Avenue be made into a one-way street or restrict all parking along that area. President Hortonquestioned where the apartment complex located? Mr. McGorwin stated Fir and Magnuson. President Hotton requested Ms. McCluskey, City Clerk, to check on this situation with Mayor Mentor and Chief McNeal and have them report back to Council. Don Larson, 135 Rainier Avenue, stated he was appointed Chairman of the Dyes/Sinclair Inlets Advisory committee, who are trying to clean up the bays. He announced there would be an Earth Day event on April 20. He noted he was also President of Kitsap Diving Association and he would be recruiting his club members to assist in another First Street Dock dive. He would be needing help from the City and requested that a representative from the City sit in on their meetings, with the next meeting being Tuesday, April 19 at the Great Northwest Building, 6:30 PM, in the Public Meeting room. Also, he would be needing some assistance in preparing a Proclamation. 6A - APPOINTMENT TO THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION - CRAIG R. SMITH - #AR91-058 There is a vacancy on the Parks and Recreation Commission due to the resignation of Geoff Hosea. It is recommended the vacancy be filled by Craig R. Smith. Mayor Mentor explained that Geoff Hosea had served three years on the Parks Board and had to resign due to personal commitments. Therefore, he urged the Council to appoint Craig Smith, who had been involved in many community activities both as a teacher and volunteer. M/S/C/U(Dawkins/Estes) to confirm the appointment of Craig R. Smith to the Parks and Recreation Commission. Craig Smith stated he appreciated the appointment and having worked with students in the community he looked forward to working on the many projects under the Parks Department responsibility. 6B - APPOINTMENT TO THE CITY SOLID WASTE ADVISORY COMMITTEE - JOHN E. CARLSON- #AB91-059 There is a vacancy on the City Solid Waste Committee due to TAPE #898 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 13, 1991 Page 4 of 34 the resignation of James McDonald. It is recommended the vacancy be filled by John E. Carlson. Mayor Mentor reviewed Mr. Carlson's qualifications and background and urged the Council to confirmhis appointment to the City's Solid Waste Advisory Committee. #0603 M/S/C/U(Johnson/Waibel) to confirm the appointment of John E. Carlson to Bremerton's Solid Waste Advisory Committee. John Carlson stated he appreciated the opportunity to serve and looked forward to the duty. 8A - BARRIE REZONE HEARING TO CONSIDER A REOUEST FOR AREZONE FROM -GENERAL BUSINESS (GB)" TO ,,SINGLE-FAMILY (SF-3)" ON THE MEATON WAY FRONTAGE OF THE PROPERTY OF JAMES & SHEELABARRIE - #AB91-068 The adoption of the new Zoning Map in 1988 changed the Wheaton Way frontage of the Barrio property from Residential (old R-l) to Commercial (new General Business). At that time, this was the only Wheaton Way property between Sylvan and Riddell with residential zoning. The applicants did not request commercial zoning and believe they are now suffering tax-related financial hardships as a result of that change. They have requested a rezone to return this portion of their property to residential zoning. The Planning Commission has conducted a public hearing on this request and has forwarded its recommendation to the City Council. Rezone requests require public hearings at both the Planning Commission and Council levels prior to the final decision. If approved, staff will prepare an ordinance to complete the rezone. President Hotton asked the "Appearance of Fairness/Conflict of Interest" question with all Council members being seated. Ron Hough, Planning Manager, provided a view graph showing the location of the site. The applicant's property consists of 9.65 acres and had remained undeveloped, with the exception of a single family residence. The property's only street frontage is on Wheaton Way, a major arterial highway The Comprehensive Plan Map shows the Wheaton Way corridor from Sylvan Way to Riddell completely Commercial. The Application request was to change the zoning of this property from GB to SF3. The General Business zone was stipulated in 1988 upon adoption of the new Zoning OrdinanCe. TAPE #898 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 13, 1991 Page 5 of 34 The applicant felt that GB was not an appropriate zone and felt they had not been properly notified of the impending change prior to adoption of the Zoning Ordinance. The portion of the Bartie property that is the subject of this rezone request includes the eastern most 150 feet of the property. The rezone area is approximately 48,750 sq. ft., or about 1.1 acres in area. In 1988 the City Council adopted the new Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map. This legislative action affecting all 16,500+ properties in the City were rezoned up or down to some extent. The Barrie property was one of the only two remaining segments on the stretch of Wheaton Way between Sylvan and Riddell that was not zoned Commercial. The Council felt that corridor should be Commercial and both properties were changed from Residential to Commercial. At that time the City Council felt the future of that corridor and subject property was commercial and the Comprehensive Plan Designation at the time was commercial. Therefore, the Council approved Commercial zoning on the eastern most portion of the property fronting Wheaton Way. Mr. Hough reviewed the process of notifying the public of public meetings to discuss the proposed Zoning Ordinance, which included a number of things above and beyond what was required by the State. He did note that they did not specifically notify the applicant that their property would be rezoned from any particular zone to another, however, they did receive a general notice of the process to be conducted. The Barries apparently did not receive what they felt was proper notification and were not aware of the rezone until they received a tax bill later on. The Barrie's attorney contacted the Planning Department and asked about the Correction Of Errors process, which was in place for six months following adoption of the Ordinance. This request came in quite some time after the conclusion of the six months correction process and they were advised that process was finished. At that time, the applicant was informed the only way to go back to Residential Zoning would be by applying for a rezone, which they did. The rezone application was submitted, processed and staff felt the criteria was not adequately met at that time and they recommended denial. Next the rezone request went to the Planning Commission, with that recommendation, they held a public hearing and continued that hearing to get more information from the Kitsap County Assessor Office on the issue of taxation (Assessor's letter included in Council packet). It was suggested early in the process that a compromise might be reached, however, because they felt the zoning was appropriate and no real pubic benefit for a compromise or changing it to a residential zone, there was no compromise suggested or proposed. The applicant stated the commercial zoning would limit the residential use of the TAPE #898 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 13, 1991 Page 6 of 34 property, however, there is a house located on the property and it is a legal use and now considered as a non-conformity. A single family home could remain indefinitely and could be remodeled or expanded and in the event of a disaster, such as fire or earthquake, it could be rebuilt. The Planning Commission was apprised that the property tax impact as a result of a zoning decision, on the personal finances of a property owner, was not one of the criteria to be considered for a rezone; nor was determining whether the County Assessor's Office was doing its job properly. The Commission was encouraged to base their decision on the specific criteria of the Zoning Ordinance. Following the public hearing, the Planning Commission concluded the Commercial zoning on the property was premature, not requested by the applicant and should be considered an error in the adoption of the new Zoning Map in 1988. Therefore, the Commission's recommendation to the City Council is approval of the rezone requested by the Barries from GB back to SF3 based on an error. Phil Noble, representing the applicants (Barries), stated there were some points with which he agreed with Mr. Hough's presentation and some matters he disagreed. It is their belief that an error was made in 1988, and in order to correct such a mistake they were informed that a request for rezone would be the procedure for requesting a correction of the zoning. As long as the Barries had lived on the property, it had been zoned for residential purposes. In 1988, without their approval or knowledge, the City Planning Department arbitrarily drew a line through their property and zoned a portion of their property Commercial, removing it from residential and placing financial burdens upon them. As a consequence of this action, they suffered and will potentially suffer some extensive tax consequences through tax assessment. And, contrary with what Mr. Hough maintains, they believe the way the City ordinance is drafted it does directly affect their ability to use their property. They are restricted in their ability to use their property as residential property owners and because of that they are requesting relief from an erroneous zoning in the first place. He pointed out when the City presented its information to the Planning Commission, the Long Range Planning Department indicated no objection to the request for a rezone. Long Range Planning Department also indicated that this requested rezone was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan to the extent it restricted strip development. He noted that the Planning Commission held a second hearings on this issue after TAPE #898 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 13, 1991 Page 7 of 34 requesting addition information and as a consequence of what he believed was a thorough study by the Planning Commission, they rejected the Planning Department's proposal to reject this rezone request because it did not comply with the zoning criteria. The Planning Commission also moved to recommend to Council that the subject rezone be adopted because of an error in the original zoning proposal in 1988. One of the criteria for a rezone was the fact that the original rezone was incorrect and not appropriate when adopted. The City maintains that the rezone was intentionally done, however, after reviewing the materials Mr. Noble could not find any specific discussion about the Barries' property. The only thing they could find was that it was adopted because it complied with the Comprehensive Plan, regardless of that fact they maintain it was inappropriate when it was done. They have asked repeatedly what was the "public need" that required the City, in 1988, to rezone the property Commercial? No explanation has been given to that question. The only need identified was that some time in the future someone else may move into the property and they needed to be protected against noise and dust generated along Wheaton Way. This was hypothetical and if someone moved in, Mr. Noble believed they would be willing to accept those risks if they desire to move in even if a problem such as that existed. This would not be considered a "public need", such as safety, health, welfare, moral need that required zoning to commercial. Nor did it require a zone to commercial use in order to provide that protection. Through the site review process or building permit process, setbacks could be required if determined it was a public need. Mr. Noble explained the heavy financial burden placed on the Barries after the property was zoned Commercial by more than double previous assessment (from approximately $200,000 to $500,000). As a direct consequence of that, the tax burden on this property will be horrendous. They believe that the Assessor's Office establishes assessments against properties by following zoning restrictions and if this property was zoned residential they were confident the assessed value would be placed back accordingly. They also noted a significantly difference in the way the Assessor's Office treated the Barries' property and the way they had treated other properties further south, that being a residential area bordering on Wheaton Way. This City Council chose not to zone that property commercial and allowed it to remain residential even though those people faced the same noise and dust problems as the Barries. Also, the Assessor's Office continued to assess those properties as residential. And, it TAPE #898 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 13, 1991 Page 8 of 34 is their belief that the Assessor's Office assessed the Barries' property Commercial because it was zone Commercial and it was their belief that by changing that it would relieve the tax burden experienced by the Barries. With respect to the City's Zoning Ordinance, they believe the Barries are affected in the way they could use their property. In Chapter 9 of the Zoning Ordinance, it provides the continuation of their house, which has been admitted to be a non-conformity, which could be terminated by the exercise of lawful authority of the City at any time, which means the continued use of their residential property was at risk because the City may decide to exercise their rights to change that use at a later time. Secondly, the ordinance also provides that the Barries could not add to or enlarge or generally alter their use of their property. Also, if the Barries' house burned down or burned more than 75% they could not rebuild it as a residential property because it would be a non-conforming use. Because of those and other reasons they believe that by having the property zoned Commercial it specifically restricts their use right to enjoy their property as residents of the City of Bremerton. Within the documentation presented by the Planning Department, there is indication this may be considered spot zoning or a variance request and should be rejected on that basis. Mr. Noble stressed that this was neither spot zoning or a request for a variance, but a request to correct an error that was made in the first place. Public comment - none. Mr. Overson stated he felt whether the property was zoned Residential or Commercial, it was valuable and the Assessor would be duty bound to assess it at its highest and best value. If the owner wanted the property changed to SF3 and the Planning Commission recommended the SF3 zoning designation, then he felt it should be that as well. Personally, he was not convinced that a reduction of the tax assessment would be made upon changing the property back to Residential zoning. Mr. Collins restated the efforts made, during the new Zoning Ordinance process, to inform the public including the six month Errors and Omissions process. He did not support making a change in zoning based on the fact that he had not been shown that the Errors and Omissions process was not made available to the Barries. Also, the Assessor's letter stated that property would be assessed for the highest and best use TAPE #898 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 13, 1991 Page 9 of 34 and he did not believe by rezoning the property to Residential would provide any financial relief for the Barries. Mr. Johnson stated he supported allowing the Barrie family to live on their property and enjoy all of the rights entitled them. He did not believe the City made a lot of errors during the City-wide rezone, however, he did not realize that the frontage piece of property along Wheaton Way was attached to the rest of the property on the backside and he would consider that an error. He felt all the discussion on tax burden was irrelevant as far as Council's decision. Mr. Dawkins noted the subject property was one of the only oasis in the middle of strip zoning that Council had said they didn't like and in years to come he expected the property to turn Commercial. He supported the Planning Commissions recommendation that an error had been made. Mr. Waibel pointed out the extensive advertising undertaken by the City in notifying the public of the Zoning Ordinance process as well as the Errors and Omissions process. He did not support the idea that an error had been made and not noticed during that time. He believed the subject property did fit in the Commercial designation and it did have access onto Wheaton Way, which the residential property to the south did not. In regard to the tax assessment, the Washington Administrative Code states: "All property unless otherwise provided by statute shall be valued on the basis of its highest and best use for assessment purposes .......... The fact that the owner of a property chooses to use it for less productive purposes than similar land is being used shall be ignored in the highest and best use estimates. Where land was being classified or zoned as to its use, the County Assessor may consider this fact, but he shall not be bound to such zoning in exercising his judgement as to the highest and best use of the property". Mr. Waibel stressed there was no way to assure the Barries that the tax bill would be reduced if the property was rezoned to Residential. Mr. Collins pointed out of the current Planning Commissioners there were possibly only two members who were on the Planning Commission at the time the Comprehensive Plan, Comprehensive Map, Zoning Map and Zoning Ordinance was developed and possibly there might have been a little loss of memory. Mr. Johnson pointed out that "what is best use of property" did not have to mean "highest use". And, in this instances "best" related to a residence use. TAPE #898 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 13, 1991 Page 10 of 34 Mr. Overson pointed out one of the philosophies followed during the Errors and Omission process, as opposed to a strict error in law, they looked at an issue if an error was made in so far as the owner was concerned. The question was asked had an error been made that would adversely impact the owner of the property? In this case, he noted the City had taken away the rights of SF3 from the property and the owner felt and still feels that the best use was SF3. It was not the intent of the City to take away those rights. Mr. Dawkinsquestioned if the SF designation was returned, how long did the applicant have to return it to GB? Mr. Hough stated he would have one year to make such a request. President Hotton questioned if this piece of property had two tax lots? Mr. Hough stated no, the City did draw a line along the frontage of the property for distance of 150 ft. back lining it up with the commercial zone on the south side of the property. President Hortonquestioned if there were any other properties within the City that had the same time done to it? Mr. Hough stated that was difficult to say as there were many changes made at that time. Some properties were down zoned and some up zoned. It was her belief that the subject property should remain in the Commercial zone, however, unless someone could show her that a lot of properties in that massive rezone effort were split in a similar manner as the subject property, she felt there was an error made. Mr. Hough noted there were not many parcels of 10 acres. President Hotton stated she remembered keeping close to the tax lines and this one was not treated that way. Mr. Homing stated it was not a Council decision that would give the Barries tax relief. Mr. Johnson stated emphatically that tax relief had nothing to do with this rezone request. Mr. Estes stated by granting the rezone the City would be granting the owner the right and privilege to use their property as they see fit. Now they are limited in that uses and he supported giving back those rights. #1562 M/S/C(Johnson/Dawkins) to uphold the Planning Commissions decision to rezone from General Business to Single Family (SF-3). Vote: In Favor: Dawkins, Johnson, Overson, Estes, Horton Opposed: Collins, Horning, Waibel 8B - REZONE "CBR" TO "GB" APPLICANT: ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY, LOCATION: 2114 5TH STREET - #AB91-069 TAPE #898 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 13, 1991 Page 11 of 34 On January 29, 1991, the Planning Commission voted 9 to 0 recommending conditional approval of the proposed rezone'for one parcel located at 2114 5th Street. The City Council is required to hold a public hearing and act on the Planning Commissions' recommendation. President Hotton asked the "Appearance OF Fairness/Conflict of Interest" question with all Council members being seated. Jack Allin~hamstated the applicant was requesting a rezone of a 5,459 sq. ft. parcel consisting of two lots from Central Bremerton Residential (CBR) to General Business (GB). The applicant is Atlantic Richfield Company, represented by Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. A view graph showing the location of the site was shown, noting it was 130 feet west of Naval Avenue and on the north size of 5th Street. The address at the existing house is 2114 5th Street. The intent of the applicant is to develop the site collectively with some other commercial property in the area and construct an AM/PM Mini-mart gas station. The Comprehensive Plan Designation for the site, which is on a fringe area (between residential and commercial), is considered commercial. The Residential designation is 7-15 dwelling units per acre. The Planning Commission looked at this designation as well as the Comprehensive Plan's land use elements, economic development elements and found the rezone application to be generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. They also reviewed uses that could potentially be allowed and they felt allowing this rezone to stand alone and permitting such uses as car washes and auto repair businesses may not be in the best interest. Therefore, they made a recommendation to the City Council that the rezone be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The site shall be developed substantially as shown on the site plan submitted, including landscaping that would act as a buffer for the neighborhood. 2. The applicant/developer shall record the site plan with the Kitsap County Auditor as a binding site plan. Will Wolford, representing the ARCO Company, gave an overview of the project which included: 2700 sq. ft. building; a 14 ft. high pump station canopy; four underground tanks (double wall fiberglass constructed with an electronic alarm system to detect any leaking in or out of the tanks); 16 parking spaces; significant landscaping to buffer between residential TAPE #898 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 13, 1991 Page 12 of 34 area and business area; and lighting. The rezone area was but a part of development of the site. The total site would be comprised of 35,000 sq. ft., the rezone area being 5,400 sq. ft. The development process would include demolition of existing residential buildings as well as other type buildlings. Landscaping will be at a height of 5 ft. or more as well as a wood fence between residential area and the site. They made a commitment to the Planning Commission to attempt to save one tree that blended in with surrounding trees, however, until they actually get into construction they were not sure they could keep that promise, but their intent is to give it a good try. A color board was displayed showing the color design and placement of signage: exterior of building would be white stucco with a panaflex panel on top with backlighting; three signs placed on the building and one additional sign placed near the intersection ( 92 sq. ft., 20 ft. in height). The sole purpose of the rezone was to allow the applicant to consolidate enough property together under a consistent zoning to permit development of the project. They had attempted to design the project without utilitizing this property to avoid the rezone action, however, a number of problems developed that were insurmountable to provide a viable project. Movement of vehicles through the pump canopy area and back out on to the streets was key so that it would not conflict with the vehicle parking areas and create a hazardous condition. Three driveways are proposed, Naval Avenue, Fifth Street and 6th Street. Four other driveways from those three streets would be eliminated. Another conflict was the need to provide access for a 75 ft. tanker truck so that it would not totally block the flow of vehicles existing the area. The primary focus of the project was to have everything facing towards the intersection/streets and there would be only security lighting in the back of the building. Lighting on the site would be shielded and directed lighting. The pump canopy lighting takes care of most lighting needs in the front area of the site. He pointed out that other uses that may be built on this site under current zoning without coming before the Council for a rezone would not be: (1) subject to the condition of the planned development, as is this one being recorded with the County; (2) the standard code requirements do not require the type of buffering they are able to provide for this particular development. He felt this proposal did a good job protecting the surrounding neighborhood. TAPE #899 TAPE #898 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 13, 1991 Page 13 of 34 The site visibility at the corner will be improved as the project will set back farther than the existing buildings. Impacts on adjacent residental uses are significantly reduced and a number of insightly buildings would be removed. In response to the "Criteria" for a rezone, Mr. Wolford made the following statements: Criteria #1 - being in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan was acknowledged in the Staff's Report and confirmed by the Planning Commission. Primarily the economic development as stated under Policy 12, speaking to capturing a greater share of dollars spent by the City in other communities, provided a service to a large number of people of the city. Criteria #2 - referencing changed conditions necessitation rezone. One of the key things that provides a public interest in this case was the conditions of the buildings currently on the site. The project will replace the unsightly buildings and in their place construction of a modern and upscale facilitliy. Criteria #3 - rezone would not result in adverse environmental consequences. The City has reviewed the Environmental Check List, which was submitted for this project and a DNS without conditions was issued. The landscape buffers, as well as the distances separating this use from other residential areas, make the project compatible to adjacent uses. The project is oriented towards the streets and away from any residential uses. Criteria #5 - essentially public facilities and services are presently available and adequate, or can be reasonably available. The staff report indicates all the necessary utilities and all public utilities were available to accommodate this use. At the Planning Commission hearing, there were some issues broguth up from the comments made by citizens. Some of those issues were: traffic, sale of alcohol and adult magazines, competition from other uses, loitering. The question of traffic dealt primarily with the impacts of this facility on 5th Street. What they have done to address those particular issues was to (5th Avenue was a one-way-street) use 5th Avenue as a secondary exit route, which would take vehicles out to Naval Avenue. It would also provide the most convenient access routes for the residential area off the the west of the site. They propose placement of two signs on each side of the driveway existing onto 5th Street would provide directional TAPE #899 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 13, 1991 Page 14 of 34 information, i.e, that a right turn onto 5th Street would be an illegal turn due to it being a one way street. The issue of loitering is one that is dealt with quite often and one that some of the competition has done a disservice to this type of use. Some facilities offer video games, sell adult magazines as well as other types of activities that tend to draw kids to the site. ARCO does not have video games nor do they sell adult magazines. They do have strict anti-loitering policies and all employees are trained in enforcing those policies. Regarding the sale of alcohol beverages, all of these type facilties, including ARCO, do sell beer and wine. This always brings out the issue of selling to minors and one of the things he, as a representative of ARCO, and ARCO are proud of the fact that they have never been caught in a "sting" operation selling alcoholic beverages to minors. Their company is large enough that it would not make or break them if they only sold to adults, which may not be the case in a mom/pop type business. He noted the Planning Commission held a thorough hearing on this proposal and voted unanimously to recommend approval of the project and he urged the Council to give it their approval as well. The following individuals spoke in opposition to the proposal: Bill Robinson, 2130 5th Street; Terrence Menage, 2136 5th Street; Enrique Otanez, 2131 5th Street; Curtln Allen, 2123 5th Street; Robert An~el, 2149 5th Street. And letters read into the record from: Bryan and Stephanie Adams, 2132 5th Street; Trudy and Ray Heistand, 2124 5th Street; Karin Newman, owner Newman's Texaco 2021 6th Street. The following concerns were registered by the above speakers and letters submitted to be read into the record: (1) neighborhood already served with this type of service with 5 similar businesses within a one mile radius and only reason ARCO was locating there was to make a profit; (2) traffic existing from site onto 5th Street would create traffic hazard for neighborhood immediately adjacent to site; (3) posting exit would not guarantee traffic would not go wrong way on 5th Street; (4) City Council had stated they wanted to protect the core residental areas of the City, but if this rezone was approved it would be down grading such an area; (5) question - what residential neighborhood would be the text target to turn commercial?; (6) existing residence was in good repair and one of the better ones in the neighborhood; (7) eliminating affordable housing; (8) safety of small children in abutting neighborhood; (9) bringing in large company could have adverse financial affect on established business; (10 no exists onto 5th Street; (11) residents were not properly notifed of Planning Commission TAPE #899 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 13, 1991 Page 15 of 34 meeting; (12) survey taken of shipyard workers, resulting in negative response as to their using such a service; (13) increased noise pollution; (14) air pollution; (15) excessive lighting for residential area; (16) increased traffic congest onto already congested streets during peak commute hours; (17) 24-hour business activity near residential area that would infringe on peace and quiet of neighborhood during nightime hours; (18) loss of facilities for gymnastic classes. Mr. Wolford stated his presentation touched on most of the points brought out at the Planning Commission hearing as well as this meeting. He wanted one clear understanding on the site plan itself and the rezone recommendation that came to Council from the Planning Commission .... that the rezone be subject to a condition that the facility, as shown on the site plan at this time, was only facility to be built on the site. The overall major concern of the citizens seemed to be the access onto 5th Street from the site. This was also a concern voiced quite strongly and in the same manner before the Planning Commission and he felt they had done everything the City had recommended and the Planning Commission thought was adequate to deal with that particular situation. If that driveway was closed, it would create some circulation problems on the site, particularly when the tanker truck was on site and people were in the parking stalls on the west side of the building. He believed that must of the 'traffic going the wrong way on 5th Avenue was due to the fact people were coming out of the gymnastics school (no directional signs posted). Curtis Allen, 2123 5th Street, brought up the excessive noise of refrigeration trucks making deliveries to the site. He clarified that the people going to the gymnasium do not use the alleyway directly behind that building, they park on the street or the parking lot of the gym and leave going out on 5th Street. An electrical Company (Shipyard contractor) uses the alleyway for some of their parking and the neighborhood talked with them and discussed traffic safety for exiting their vehicles from that area. He believed the people who drive the wrong way on 5th Street came off of Naval Avenue due to backups at the light at the intersection. Mr. Collins noted he experienced a near accident this evening when he was traveling on the one-way portion of 5th Street becuase someone was driving down that street the wrong way. Due to the largest complaint being the existing of traffic onto 5th Street, he recommended that the 5th Street exist be closed off land have the fenced area continue along that side and around the corner. By doing this, it would hold in the integrity of the neighborhood. He felt ARCO did an #1770 TAPE #899 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 13, 1991 Page 16 of 34 outstanding job on the site plan and that it was a good planning, however there had to be some mitigation made for the neighborhood. Mr. ~stes stated the proposed exit onto 5th street was not safe nor wise. He requested that the applicant come up with an alternative suggestion to the 5th Street exist. wolford stated this was an issue at the Planning Commission hearing and it was one that the Planning Department voiced concern. However, asking the question is it absolutely necessary, the answer was no, it is an alternate route. But, when the 75 ft. tanker truck is on site it would interfer with the traffic flow within the service area. He understood traffic concerns and he agreed that during rush hour time periods the area was very congested. They viewed the 5th Street exist as a benefit to customers and residents in that area. He did express concern of extending the fencing along 5th Street, as he did not see the purpose for it. Mr. Oollins pointed out it would hold in the integrity of the neighborhood. Mr. Waibel questioned if there was anything the Street Department could do by placing a "directional island" in that area? Mr. Overson pointed out it was near impossible keeping people from going down a street the wrong way and he felt the best solution to the problem would to not have an exist onto 5th Street. Mr. Johnson thanked the developer for his presentation and the residents for their input. He saw the Council's job as putting in the best possible development and also supported the idea of eliminating the access off of 5th Street. M/S/C(Johnson/Collins) to approve the request for rezone at 2114 5th Street from "Central Business Residential" to "General Business" subject to the following conditions: 1. The site shall be developed substantially as shown on the site plan submitted as Attachment VI of the Staff Report with the deletion of all exists on 5th Street and that the existing landscaping along 5th Street be extended to what was previously shown as driveway. 2. That the applicant/developer shall record the site plan - Attachment IV, with the above modification with The Kitsap County Auditor as a binding site plan. 3. That the implementing ordinance be brought back to Council after it had been properly advertised and public notice given. Vote on motion: In Favor: Dawkins, Overson, Horning, Johnson, #2075 TAPE #899 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 13, 1991 Page 17 of 34 Opposed: Estes. Waibel, Collins Horton 6C - BUDGET1M~TUBTHENT REOUEST 91-3 RELATING TO THE 1991 G.O. FIRE BONDS - #AB91-060 This adjustment will provide budget authority for the issuance of G.O. Bonds and the Capital expenditures of the Fire Department projected to take place in 1991 as outlined in the attached cash flow projection. Rich Hanna, City Treasurer, stated this item had been before Council several different times in context of Study Sessions. The Fire Department presented the different items of equipment and progress being made on acquisition of those items. Initially, they presented the proposed cash flow schedule through which these items would be acquired. The budget adjustment that is proposed includes all of the expenditures projected to be made during calendar year 1991. Several of the larger pieces of equipment, trucks and boat, will be ordered in 1991. Because delivery is not anticipated nor will be paid for in 1991, they are not included in the expenditure authority requested at this time. On the revenue side of the budget, they did include the sale of $1,500,000.00 of G.O. Bonds that was authorized by the voters in November, 1990. However, a good portion of that cash would be carried forward into 1992, when it would actually be spent upon delivery of those items. Public comment - none. Mr. Overson reported Council Fiscal and Budget Committee had reviewed this request and he noted the main point to remember was that each procurement would be reviewed by Council on an individual basis. The requested budget adjustment would establish an organized system for keeping track of the funds and having it available. M/S/C/U(Waibel/Estes) to approve budget adjustment request 91- 3. President Horton announced Item 7E was pulled off the Council Agenda for one week. 6D - AUTHORIZATION TO CALL FOR BID FOR FIRE RESCUE BOAT - #AB91-061 This action allows for the Call for Bid for a 25-foot aluminum fire rescue boat to serve in the waters within the City of Bremerton. The monies for this boat were approved by the #2215 TAPE #899 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 13, 1991 Page 18 of 34 citizens of Bremerton as part of the Fire Bond Issue. This action was directed to come before Council for approval by a recent Council Study Session. Miok McKinley, Deputy Fire Chief, explained the proposed boat would replace the City's current 1977, 19 ft. boat used for water rescue and limited fire fighting on the water. The proposed boat would further enhance the City's capabilities in both rescue..able to take on more weather conditions, and will have access to an on board fire pump, allowing them to fight fires safer than what they are currently able to do. The new boat would fit into the overall Emergency Operating Plan. In the event of an earthquake, the boat could be used to transport patients across The Narrows, if bridges were unsafe, and it provides the ability to transfer sea water from The Narrows to fire trucks in the event of water main collapse during the quake. They requested a "call for bid", which would allow the City to link up with another Fire Department to purchase two boats of the same design and saving $10-11,000 on the cost of the boat. Mr. McKinley noted there had been some questions raised regarding insurance and potential liability for the City and those questions would be answered through the Risk Management Department before a bid was awarded. Public comment - none. Mr. Dawkins questioned the process for calling for a bid? Mr. McKinle~ explained they would be advertising throughThe Sun, the City's legal publisher, and some trade magazines. Also, the boat manufacturer of the subject boat had shown interest to bid on the project. Mr. Dawkins questioned how long the bid process would take? Mr. McKinley noted he expected to have the bids closed by April 15, 1991. Mr. Estes point out this was strictly a call for bid and not an expenditure of funds. Mr. Overson noted asking for a bid did not obligate the City to make a purchase. In regard to the liability issue, initial indications reflect that it would not be excessive. M/S/C/U(Waibel/Horning) to approve the Call for Bid for purchase of a 25 foot aluminum fire rescue boat according to the specifications given to the City Council. 6E - BUDGET ADJUSTMENT 91-2 PUBLIC WORKS COMPLEX PHASE II - TAPE #899 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 13, 1991 Page 19 of 34 #AB91-070 This budget adjustment will allow the short-termborrowing and capital expenditures necessary for construction of Phase II of the Public Works Complex. Mayor Louis Mentor explained originally he had proposed a large Public Works complex, however, that design had been cut back and at this time he was proposing building three buildings instead of five. These buildings would eliminate the need for the Street Department building, located near Evergreen Park, and the old Water Utility building on Warren Avenue. Also, there would be cost savings for rental of buildings for Equipment Rental and storage space for Street Department equipment. He urged the Council to approve the Budget Adjustment as presented. Public comment - none. Mr. Estes stated one of the side benefits of this project would be the expansion of the recreation area of Evergreen Park and the demolition of the Street Department quonset hut. Mr. Overson stated he was not supportive of this issue because he believed more time was needed to work out the details. What was being proposed was to procure a portion of what would be needed without consideration for how the remainder would be funded. There is nothing available that reflects what the 1992 budget will look like and a project such as this will have a significant impact. His biggest aggravation was the fact that there are several projects planned with little activity happening, i.e., downtown waterfront project, USS Turner Joy, PSNS Centennial Plaza and the building to be demolished on Park Avenue. He also did not like the tieing of the Public Works Complex to the Street Department building on Park Avenue and the oldWaterUtility building on Warren. Mr. Johnson stated he did not want to go this direction because the voters turned down the proposal and it appears the idea was to scale back the project and fund through Councilmanic Bonds. However, he expressed concern that the Street Department had equipment sitting out in the rain and the two buildings cited for demolition were in very bad condition. He pointed out that any Council action at this time would not expand Evergreen Park. Mr. Dawkins pointed out a number of homeowners living on Park Avenue had complained about the unsightliness of the Street Department storage area and would welcome the City cleaning up the area. #2622 TAPE #899 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 13, 1991 Page 20 of 34 President Horton stated Mr. Overson was on target as there are several projects underway or ready to get underway and she felt the City needed a Project Manger to oversee these project. She suggested taking $10-15,000 from each project to fund such a position. Mr. Homing stated he would support a Public Works Complex ultimately, however, he would not support this proposal because it would make a commitment before being ready. He wanted to see action on other projects, such as the golf course, multi-fields, boardwalk, USS Turner Joy, before commitment to using up the City's Councilmanic Bonds. M/S/C(Waibel/Dawkins) to approve Budget Adjustment 91-2 Public Works Complex Phase II. Vote: In Favor: Opposed: Estes, Waibel, Collins, Dawkins, Johnson Horton Horning, Overson 6F - 1991 SPECIAL SALARY ADJUSTMENTS, ATTORNEY I AND II, PLANNING MANAGER, COMMUNITY SERVICES MANAGER, ASSISTANT CITY ENGINEER AND STREET SUPERINTENDENT - #AB91-070 The recommendations contained in classification reports for Attorney I & II, Assistant City Engineer, Community Services Manager, Planning Manager and Street Superintendent include adjusting the actual salaries for 1991. Classification Reports were distributed to Council Members and Department Heads under separate cover. Mayor Mentor stated for clarification it was felt the salaries for the subject six manager positions plus the one position approved by Council a week ago, were quite a bit out,of-line with reality and called for special salary adjustments. He assured Council he would not be bringing any other positions forward for this type of consideration and before anything else would be brought to Council he would have a complete revision of every manager's job description. Public comment - none. Mr. Estes questioned if he was correct in his understanding that these would be the last salary adjustments this year? Mayor Mentor stated he was not sure if it would be the last one, as it would depend on Council. However, the next time he came before Council with an item addressing Manager's salary rates, it would be a complete package, including job descriptions. TAPE #899 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 13, 1991 Page 21 of 34 Mr. Johnson stated he did not remember a budget line called Salary Adjustment. Kathleen McCluskey, City Clerk, stated the Salary Adjustment Reserve held funds budgeted for salaries for management, but not distributed to the various department budgets. Mr. Johnson stated he did not remember ever budgeting money to a Salary Adjustment Reserve Fund nor ever considering how large the fund should be. He questioned the current amount in that fund? Rich Hanna, City Treasurer, stated at the present time the fund held on the order of $240,000. This funding was discussed during the Budget Hearings in November, and set aside to meet a variety of issues that were not known at that time. Negotiations are ongoing with the Union representing the firemen and at the time the budget was prepared, they did not know what the outcome of those negotiations would be. Also, at the time the budget was being prepared it was not known what the increases would be for health insurance for 1991. Therefore, an estimate was made and those funds set aside until they were spread across department budgets to meet those expenses. The other item included in that funding was the salary enhancement to go with the Management Compensation Plan. Mr. Johnson stated he had some real reservations about this proposal and did not want these positions to be considered "bench marks" salaries. He cautioned, if this proposal passes, there would be no guarantee that at a later time he would be called upon to cut some of them. He did not want to be placed in the position to have to cut someone's salary and because of that he would abstain from voting on this issue. Mayor Mentor stressed the fact that these particular salaries were out of line with the existing managers' salaries. Mr. Johnson stated they may be out of line now but no one knows the answer to "how much out of line" in relationship to all the other positions. President Hotton stated if this requested was approved, she hoped the Mayor would make it very clear to the seven individuals in these positions that when the full managers' compensation range was adopted their salary could be subject to a drop. No promise was being made at this time. Mr. Homing stated he felt there were some good salary ranges, however if the City wanted to keep quality people the City needed to be competitive with other areas. He stated he would support this proposal. #3193 M/S/C(Horning/Dawkins) to approve the annual salary rates as follows: Attorney I $31,307 Attorney II (2) 34,557 TAPE #900 #0028 TAPE #899 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 13, 1991 Page 22 of 34 Asst. City Engineer Community Services Mgr. Planning Manager Street Superintendent 44,237 41,078 41,078 43,158 Vote on motion: In Favor: Horning, Collins, Dawkins, Overson Estes, Horton Abstain: Johnson, Waibel, 7A - ORDINANCE (FIRST READING) CREATING THE FIRE DEPARTMENT CAPITAL FUND - #AD91-063 The proposed fund will be used to provide a discreet accounting of the proceeds of the City's 1991 G.O. Bonds and their expenditure on the Capital Assets of the Fire Department as authorized by the voters in November, 1990. Rich Hanna, City Treasurer, stated the fund created by this ordinance is called a "capital project" fund and would only exist until all the items that the voters authorized last November would be purchased from the bond proceeds. Any remaining balance would be applied to the retirement of those bonds issued. Public comment - none. Mr. Johnson questioned if it would be appropriate to include an emergency enactment clause to allow the department to purchase the needed equipment at the best price? Mr. Hanna stated an emergency reading was not necessary. Mr. Waibel suggested including a "10 day" effective date in the ordinance. M/S/C/U(Waibel/Horning) to approve Ordinance, on first reading, providing for the establishment of a fund to be known as the Fire Department Capital Fund, including a 10 day effective date. 7B - ORDINANCE (FIRST READING) DRUG LOITERING - #AB91-051 The proposed ordinance makes illegal the loitering in public places for the purpose of soliciting, inducing, enticing or procuring another to sell or purchase a controlled substance. Circumstances which may be considered in determining whether a person is guilty of the illegal acts described, are set forth in the ordinance. A conviction under this ordinance would constitute a gross misdemeanor. TAPE #900 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 13, 1991 Page 23 of 34 Leila Mills, Assistant City Attorney, stated what she was proposing was an effort to help curb illegal drug activity in Bremerton. This would involve making it a gross misdemeanor for any person to remain in a public place for the purpose of soliciting, inducing, enticing or procuring a controlled substance. This means an individual would not have to be seen, observed or witnessed actually selling or accepting drugs. What does have to be observed is that the person was there for the purpose of conducting this illegal drug traffic. Currently, the City did not have any legislation that would make that type of activity illegal and she felt the proposed legislation would be appropriate to help curb drug activity in Bremerton. Circumstances to be looked at in determining whether or not a person was in a public place for that purpose were listed in the ordinance. She proposed a change to Section 9.89.010 (7). to read as follows: "The area involved is a high drug activity geographic area". She urged Council to approve the ordinance as presented, including the suggested change. Police Chief De1 McNeal stated he felt this ordinance would give the Police one more tool to use in the field when they had an area that was causing problems for the community. He also urged Council to pass the ordinance. Public comment - none. Mr. Waibel questioned how Ms. Mills would describe "furtive fashion" under item #8? He suggested a change be made to Section 9.89.010(8) to read as follows: "Such person repeatedly transfers small objects or packages for currency". Ms. Mills stated the suggested change was a possibility, however, the only problem she saw was if a person was trying to deal drugs in the street they may not have a lot of sales in one evening. She was not sure, in a practical sense, if that would occur. It was her feeling that "furtive fashion" was something being done secretly, in a suspicious fashion, etc. She pointed out none of the elements in and of themselves would mean that a person was guilty under the ordinance, but merely aspects that could be considered and the prosecutor would have to prove that the purpose of loitering on the street was to deal illegal drugs. President Hotton stated she could see the word "repeatedly" deleted, but she felt there were probably a lot of people who carried out drug activities in very theatrical ways. She suggested striking the wording "furtive fashion". Ms. Mills suggested wording that sentence as follows: "Such person transfers small objects or packages for currency.", and then leave it up to the Judge and/or Jury to consider whether or not that would be one of TAPE #900 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 13, 1991 Page 24 of 34 the elements of guilt. Mr. Estes stated this would provide a good tool for the Police Department and questioned how the Police Officers would be trained to enforce this ordinance so that they would not abuse it? Chief McNeal stated he would take the Ordinance to the various line ups and review it with the officers. It was their intent not to harass the public, but to go to the locations were they where having problems. Mr. Collins suggested making one more change to Item #8...that being dropping the wording "for currency". Under Item #9, he questioned what difference would it make if the person had a warrant out for drug related activity or any other cause for a warrant, wouldn't the person be picked up just because there was a warrant out on them? Ms. Mills stated that was true, but it would add to the element that they were in that particular area to conduct illegal drug activity. Chief MoNeal stated if someone had a warrant out on them, they would be picked up. However, it could be used as one of the elements to allow the officer to come into a known drug trafficking area and become involved in discussions with others, who may also be involved in such activity at that time. It would give the officers more ability than just taking in one person on an outstanding warrant. Mr. Dawkins questioned if other cities had adopted an ordinance such as this? Ms. Mills stated the cities of Tacoma and Seattle had similar ordinances. Mr. Johnson stated he would not support the proposal as presented due to the fact the legal battles over such an ordinance in other cities had not been concluded as yet. He felt it would tie up the City attorneys' time with litigation over arresting on this criteria and felt the City needed to wait and see the outcome of the cases currently being tried. Ms.Mills stated the constitutionality of such an ordinance had been raised in Tacoma and a Superior Court Judge ruled that it was constitutional. Chief McNeal pointed out this ordinance could be modified when and if it was determined that it was not enforceable as currently written. Ian Sievers, City Attorney, stated usually the City prefers to wait to see if ordinances such as these are challenged and are upheld. In the drafting of this document a number of elements were considered but not included that were included in other cities ordinances that fringed on the point of #0396 #0633 TAPE #900 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 13, 1991 Page 25 of 34 constitutionality, i.e., associating with gang members or wearing known gang colors. M/S/C(Waibel/Dawkins) to approve ordinance, on first reading,prohibiting drug related loitering and prescribing penalties therefore, and adopting a new Chapter to Title 9 of the Bremerton Municipal Code, including the changes to Items #7 and #8 as follows: #7 - The area involved is a high drug activity geographical area. #8 - Such person transfers small objects or packages. Vote on motion: In favor: Overson, Estes, Horning, Waibel, Horton, Collins, Dawkins Opposed: Johnson 7C - ORDINANCE (FIRST READING) AMENDING THE SCOPE THE CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL PROTECTION ORDERS - #AB91-064 The proposed amendment broadens the scope of the current ordinance, making it unlawful to violate the terms of a domestic violence protection order as well as a restraining order issued by a court as a part of a dissolution proceeding. Both offenses constitute misdemeanors. Leila Mills, Assistant City Attorney, recommended the following change: Under RESTRAINING ORDER - STATE STATUTES ADOPTED BY REFERENCE. RCW Chapters 26.50 and 26.09.300 are adopted by reference. And to delete the designation "10.09,030 DESIGNATION PROCESS, which was a typing error. The intent of this ordinance was to amend the ordinance to allow officers to cite and enforce Restraining Orders. Restraining Orders are orders for Superior Court issues during dissolution proceedings. Under State law, it is a misdemeanor to violate such an order. The City's current ordinance only refers to RCW26.50, which is the Domestic Violence Protection Order and did not refer to the Restraining Order in a civil dissolution case. And, it was Ms. Mills' intent to have the Restraining Order be enforced under the Municipal Code and that it be a misdemeanor to violate those provisions. Public comment - Mr. Waibel questioned if any language needed to be added stating "as amended"? Ms. Mills stated she did not believe that would be necessary. M/S/C/U(Waibel/Estes) to approve Ordinance, on first reading, amending the scope of the criminal penalties for violation of civil protection orders, and amending Bremerton Municipal Code 9A.32,080, including the changes as outlined above. TAPE #900 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 13, 1991 Page 26 of 34 7D - ORDINANCE (FIRST READING) ADOPTION OF BREMERTON MUNICIPAL CODE "PROHIBIT FIREARMS IN CERTAIN PUBLIC PLACES"- #AB91-065 The proposed ordinance prohibits the possession of firearms in locations including courtrooms and judge's chambers during judicial proceedings, and in bars and taverns. Leila Mills, Assistant City Attorney, recommended the following change: under Section 9A.24.220(a) It is unlawful for any person other than a Law Enforcement Officer, to enter the following places when he or she ..... ". When the ordinance was first submitted, it did not take into account the Court Room was often the place where Police Officers were required to testify and they would have their guns on them. Similarly, if Police Officers were on patrol and had the need to enter a tavern they would also be armed with their weapons. Ms. Mills pointed out the tension that could be evident during a court room proceedings and the possibility of an individual being under a nervous or angry condition would not lend itself to a more calm situation of their carrying a weapon and could pose a threat to those within the court room area. Secondly, the situation of an establishment classified by the State Liquor Board as off limits to persons under 21 years of age, if the person was drinking and had consumed alcohol there was the possible they would not exercise the same responsibility and sane sense they might have exercised if they were sober. It would be a precautionary and safer environment not to permit fire arms in those situations. Police Chief De1 McNeal stated his support of this ordinance. Not long ago, in the Judge's Chambers, the Judge had a microphone thrown at him and had the person been carrying a weapon it might have been a more violent situation. Public comment - none. Mr. Overson questioned how this would affect people who had a permit to carry a concealed weapon? Chief McNeal stated there was no provision in the Ordinance or State Liquore law, however, it was preferred to not have guns in taverns and when people apply for a concealed weapons permit they are informed of the ordinance that restricts carrying guns into taverns. As Ms. Mills stated, after someone had been drinking alcohol they do not think the same way as when they were sober and it could present a danager to the public. Mr. Overson stated to his understanding the major injury problems in a tavern come from people wielding knives, not people shooting off guns. He questioned if restricting carrying knives should be included in the ordinance? Chief McNeal stated pool cues could also become a dangerous weapons. He noted "dangerous weapons" was #1010 TAPE #900 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 13, 1991 Page 27 of 34 another way to approach the problem and theoritically if someone was carrying a large knife and concealed it on their person they would be in violation of State Concealed Weapons law. One problem with knives is that there is no law where knives are regulated. Mr. Estes questioned if City buildings should be included to protect elected officials as well? Ms. Mills stated her only concern was that it is a right for someone to carry a fire arm. She suggested doing further research on this issue and determine whether or not City buildings could be included without taking away someone's right to carry a weapon, if properly permitted. Mr. Estes questioned if the Council Chambers could qualify as an area to protect? Ms. Mills stated she would research further to see whether or not it could be included. Mr. Hornlng encouraged Ms. Mills to research this issue as there had been Council members and Mayors killed in similar situations. This Council had been threatened this calendar year and he took this as a serious situation. Ms. Mills stated she would give this serious consideration and the reason she only addressed the Judge's Chambers and taverns was due to the RCW's stipulating four situations where fire arms were prohibited, which contained these two plus two referring to mental institutions. President Hortonquestioned for clarification if Council added something to the ordinance at this time but deleted it during second reading, would that be changing it to the point of requiring a first reading again? Ian Sievers, City Attorney, stated he did not believe that would affect the second reading. Mr. Johnson questioned if the State Legislature had any ruling such as this and felt including City Council Chambers when Council or other boards or commissions were in session would be appropriate. Chief McNeal stated he would encourage, if Council wished, to added in that context. He did not want to put people, who had the proper permit to carry a concealed weapon, in jeopardy of having them in violation if they just walk into City Hall to conduct business, such as renewing their concealed weapons permit. Mr. Dawkins questioned if the Planning Commission hearings could be included? Ms. Mills stated she would include that in her research. Mr. Johnson encuraged Ms. Mills to include in her research any place that an official city public meeting. was being conducted. M/S/C/U(Waibel/Collins) to approve ordinance, on first reading, with the modification of 9A.24.220(a) and modification as follows to 9A.24.220(a)(1): "A courtroom or TAPE #900 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 13, 1991 Page 28 of 34 judge's chamber, while either is being used for any judicial proceedings or the City Council Chambers when it was being used for any Council or official City Board or Commision proceeddings ..... ". 7D - ORDINANCE #4307 (SECONDREADING) CLASSIFICATION FORNEWLY BUDGETED POSITIONS - ORDINANCE AMENDING THE MANAGEMENT AND PROFESSIONAL STAFF COMPENSATION PROGRAM - #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. Public comment - none. #1081 M/S/C/U(Dawkins/Estes) to pass Ordinance #4307, on second reading, amending the Management and Professional Staff Compensiation Program by additng a new classification of Water Quality Manager to the Management and Professional Staff group and amending Chapter 2.50,020 of the Bremerton Municipal Code. Vote on motion: In Favor: Overson, Estes, Horning, Horton, Collins, Dawkins, Johnson Abstain: Waibel 7G - ORDINANCE #4308 (SECOND READING) AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONINGMAP FOR A 20-ACRE PARCEL WEST OF ALMIRADRIVEANDSOUTH OF RIDDELL RD. (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. Mike Hancock, representing Redicorp Inc., reported the preliminary site plan for the project had begun and they had their first preliminary meeting, on March 12, with a group of representatives from the neighborhood, i.e. Mr. Cannady of Petersville Road, Mr. Buehler of Vue Court, Del Knauss of BACON and A1 Mercer from Hollis Street. This meeting was real productive and they addressed all of the issues that were brought out in the original proposal and they are planning another meeting with the neighborhood representatives next week. Mr. Pratt requested that a member of staff be present at their future meetings to help facilitate the process and answer technical questions. Mr. Estesquestioned if there was any possibility of excluding TAPE #900 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 13, 1991 Page 29 of 34 any ingress or egress on Almira Drive? Don Pratt, Director Of Community Development, stated there were a number of issues being discussed and entry ways were part of that discussion. He felt it was unlikely that there would be no ingress or egress off Almira Drive. It was their belief that other things could happen on Almira Drive that could address some of the problems that were there whether or not the project was built. Mr. Johnson thanked the developer for his comments and noted it was that kind of dialogue that makes quality things happen. He felt it was very important that the neighbors of the project have an opportunity to give input on the design of the project, particularly those relating to the noted concerns. #1171 M/S/C(Waibel/Overson) to pass Ordinance #4308, on second reading, amending the Official Zoning Map of the City of Bremerton from "SF-3" to "MF" on a 20 acre parcel southwest of the interesection of Almira Drive and Riddell Road. Vote on motion: In Favor: Overson, Horning, Waibel, Horton Dawkins, Johnson Opposed: Estes, Collins 71 - RESOLUTION #2339 AUTHORIZING IMPREST CASH BALANCES - #AB91-067 City departments are currently using imprest cash accounts in an aggregate amount near the limit authorized in 1986 through Resolution No. 2108. This Resolution will provide authority to increase these accounts from time to time as necessary. These funds are used by the various City departments as indicated on the attached schedule for incidental expenditures and for change making. a resolution setting the aggregate amount of these accounts is required by statute. Rich Hanna, City Treasurer, stated impress cash was fixed balance accounts that are held by various employees of the City to be used as either Petty Cash or change making purposes by the cashiers. There is a rather obsecure State statute that requires the balance of these accounts be set by the legislative body through a Resolution. In the past, this was a rather burdensome process because each individual Petty Cash Account and change making account was established by a separate resolution and in 1986 this process was simplified by the Council giving an aggregate authority not to exceed an amount of $20,000. Because of changing circumstances and more TAPE #900 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 13, 1991 Page 30 of 34 business going on with City government, they were getting very close to that upper limit. Therefore, he requested that Council authorize that aggregate amount to be up to but not exceed $30,000. Public comment - none. Mr. Overson stated in his opinion that would encourage bad accounting and he preferred that it be refreshed more often. Mr. Collins stated he agreed with Mr. Overson in that it seemed there were two revolving accounts involving $5,000 each, which was a lot of money to just be revolving. He could see the use of impress funds for use of a lot of things but felt there should be one significant place, in the hands of the treasurer, where these funds are located. President Hotton pointed out the increase in inflation had hit most everything, including these accounts and Council needed to be cognizant of that situation. Mr. Dawkins questioned if the $5,000 accounts provided for an accounting of the funds before they are spent? Mr. Hanna stated yes, but after the funds had been expended. He referenced the Senior Center's revolving account that was used to put together trips for senior citizens. Typically the way this worked was that the trip is fully funded by the user charge passed on to the people participating in the trip. He noted this particular account could grow greater than $5,000 if the Senior Trip program was successful in putting together a tour to Hawaii. And, he pointed out the State Auditors audit these accounts on an annual basis and as of this date there had been no problems identified through those audits as long as Mr. Hanna has been with the City. Mr. Homing stated he supported keeping the limit at $20,000 with one exception. If the senior program worked out, he suggested they come back to Council and request an adjustment. He also was concerned with the SIU fund not being sufficient and he suggested raising it to $25,000. He would support going to $25,000 but not $30,000. Mr. Johnson stated he was not in favor of increasing the SIU fund and did not feel $30,000 limit was out-of-hand. Mr. Hanna stated the whole thrust of adopting this in an aggregate amount, as done in the past, was to get away from requiring a Council action on each individual Impress accounts. TAPE #900 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 13, 1991 Page 31 of 34 #1509 M/S/C/(Horning/Waibel) to approve Resolution No. 2339, setting a limit of $25,000 for impresss cash accounts. Vote on motion: In Favor: Estes, Horning, Waibel, Hortonl, Dawkins, Opposed: Collins, Johnson, Overson Councilman Russ Johnson left the meetingat 9:54. 7H - ORDINANCE #4309 (SECOND 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 Drinking 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 Administration, 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 Sessions 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. Mayor Louis Mentor explained the need to implement a Stormwater program due to the City being mandated by the State and Federal water quality management. This was the first step in taking care of two large issues: (1) improvements to sewer system on Park Avenue; (2) Keen Street and Rodgets Street flooding problems. He pointed out a change under Section 2.16.010, last sentence..."The Department shall be administered by the Utilities Director who shall be appointed by the May subject to Council confirmation; and under Section 2.16,020 AUTHORITY OF THE UTILITY - deletion of the part stating the Director would assemble necessary staff as that would be handled by the Personnel Department; under Section TAPE #900 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 13, 1991 Page 32 of 34 2.16,020(a) a change was made so that it would read: "Adopt standards, rules and regulations specifically allowed by this title. "' and the following sentence eliminating the word "rates" as that would be under the jurisdiction of the City Council, not the Utilities Director. Bill Dully, Utilities Director, outlined the following changes made after first reading of the ordinances: Under Section 15.07.030 - ACCOUNT MAINTENANCE, some revisons were made that will mitigate some of the concerns regarding duplicate billing and responsibilities of billing. Under Section 15.07,040 BILLING STATEMENT - this sets a precident in regard to collection of fees and prioritization of accounting for those fees. Under Section 15.07.050 -BILLINGAND DUPLICATE BILLINGS - Mr. Duffy noted the billing statements would be mailed to the address requested by the property owner. A duplicate billing sent to a different address was addressed as well as the charge for such such billing processing. Under Section 15.07,070 - DESIGNATED AGENTS - there was a requirement for a notary and after discussing this with the City Attorney it was determined that only the proper form needed to be filled out and signed by the owner. Mr. Duffy handed out copies of sample water bills, noting the appeals process was printed on the form for the benefit of the tenant or landowner. Ian Sievers, City Attorney, pointed out a change in the appeal process, i.e., adding the word "tenant", due to existing case law that states utilities are property inate. Also, he added the effective date section on second reading because it was part of Councilman Johnson's motion that the effective date of the ordinances be 10 days after passage. He noted this may create a problem in that the rate Resolution was extended to the end of March, and this ordinance repeals the current title that includes rates and fees, the City may be out of sync. Field Rvan, Director Of Finance & Operations for Bremerton School District, stated they did not have a particular concern on the ordianance, but they were concerned with the fact if the ordinance was adopted a fee schedule would follow. It appears that the ordinance would set the fee schedule in place prior to the time anyone would know the cost to implement the #1978 TAPE #900 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 13, 1991 Page 33 of 34 ordinance. They want to know what it will cost the General Fund of the School District in operating costs for this type of program. They did receive a preliminary draft of what could be the proposed ordinance and it was their interpretation that it could mean an additonal cost of $10- 30,000 to the School District. They were not sure that was correct and he questioned Council if they knew what the affect would be on the different user categories? President Hotton explained Council would be holding a Public Hearing on water rates on March 27. Mr. Ryan suggested Council look at the fee schedule at the same time the ordinance was adopted or delay adopting the ordinance until further study had been given to the proposed rate schedule. Upon review of the materials available, he could not find a category indicating "schools" and if calculations were based on square footage it became a concern due to the fact that the High School alone had 193,000 sq. ft., and approximately 66,000+ sq. ft. was in roof and twice that in parking area. And, the Middle School was probably greater in square footage than the High School. Mayor Mentor stated he did felt the City had to move forward and pass this ordinance no matter what. The fees are a separate issue, however, the City was being forced to move forward on issues relating to Federal and State water quality laws. M/S/F(Waibel/Horning) to table the second reading of the ordinance until a Saturday Study Session could take place in order to coordinate all of the concerns addressed. Vote on motion: Motion failed. In Favor: Horning, Waibel, Collins, Opposed: Horton, Estes, Overson Abstain: Dawkins Mr. Homing stated he had reviewed the proposal very closely and he had major problems with the way it was presented and did not support approving the ordinance without further study. He supported the idea of holding a separate Study Session to go over each item of concern. President Horton pointed out Council had already held at least one Study Session and she did not support a delay of action at this time. Mr. Overson stated the ordinance was flexibible and could be changed. He believed that the payers of the existing system were supporting people like the schools, recognizing that there could be an impact on the schools. The intent of the new Stormwater System was to separate out the stormwater from the sewer treatment system. TAPE #900 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 13, 1991 Page 34 of 34 President Horton stated Mr. Duffy had indicated to her that he wished to treat this ordinance in the same way the Zoning. Ordinance was handled -it was passed in total, identifying areas to review through a Corrections of Errors process. Mr. Waibel pointed out if approved at this time there would be no income due to the lack of a rate structure. Mr. Sievers suggested a change to the Effective Date section as follows: "Section 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effecitve ten (10) days from passage and publication or the effective date of a Resolution adopting fees and rates, whichever is later". Mr. Homing stressed the importance of giving people the opportunity to speak up on this issue. #2288 M(Dawkins/ ) to pass ordinance 4309, on second reading. Motion died for lack of second. #2307 M(Waibel/ ) to adjourn the meeting. President Hotton announced as Council President she would schedule a Study Session on Monday March 18, 6:00 PM at the Water Utility Office. With no further business meeting adjourned at 10:15 p.m. KATHLEEN L. McCLUSKEY, ~ Clerk LY~NHORTON, Council President City of Bremerton KLM/LH/me cc: Normal Distribution File/Vault