HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/03/91TAPE #906
UNAPPROVED DRAFT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
APR 17 199f
APRIL 3, 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, April 3,
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 Captain Tom
Morrow of the Salvation Army.
President Hotton announced Item 7B had been pulled off the
Agenda for one week.
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Minutes Of Meeting - March 13, 1991, #AB91-081
M/S/C/U(Waibel/Dawkins)
presented.
to approve Consent Agenda as
CLAIMS/WARRANT REGISTERS
Vouchers audited and certified by the auditing officer as
required by RCW 42.24,080, and those expense reimbursement
claims certified as required by RCW 42.24.090, have been
recorded on a listing that had been made available to the
council.
M/S/C/U(Colvin/Waibel) on April 3, 1991, the Council does
approve for payment those vouchers included and further
described as follows:12695, 126953 through 127076 in the total
amount of $277,768.96.
COUNCIL MEMBER REPORT8
Mr. Collins related an interesting story - during his recent
trip south he gave assistance to his relatives in installing
new low water use type toilets. People in that area of
California were encouraged to install the low-water use type
toilets and received a rebate on their purchase. Not only was
this a saving on water usage during a lengthy period of
drought, but with the rebate the toilets cost to resident was
about $25.00
TAPE #906
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 3, 1991
Page 2 Of 21=
Mr. Overson made an observation relating to garbage collection
while visiting Florida. The garbage trucks were equipped with
a steering wheel on the left and right sides of the truck and
a mechanical arm was used to lift up the garbage can and
dumped into the large truck. He announced Fiscal and Budget
Committee moved their meeting time to every Wednesday, 4:30
p.m., in the City Attorney's conference room.
Mr. Estes stated he was puzzled how Mr. Swanson, reporter for
The Sun, was able to determine Mr. Estes' vote on a particular
issue prior to his casting that vote? Because of a recent
problem in his District relating to "trapping cats", he
encouraged pet owners to please get their animals licensed as
it would make it much easier to have their animals returned to
them in the event they were picked up by the Animal Control
Officer. He also requested Mr. Swanson to give some publicity
to this concern so that everyone who had animals in the City
could protect them in this manner.
Mr. Horning reported he attended the Kitsap Planning Council
meeting this date. It was announced during this meeting that
the CAD (computer aided dispatch system of.911) is nearly on
line and will be of benefit to the City and County. He had
the opportunity to share concerns with Governor Booth Gardner
during a luncheon this date. He noted Bremerton was well
represented at that luncheon.
Mrs. Morton reported she also attended the Kitsap Planning
Council meeting as well as the Governor's luncheon.
PUBLIC RECOGNITION
Mayor Louis Mentor read a Proclamation recognizing Washington
tree resources and proclaimed April 7-13 as ARBOR WEEK and
April 10 as ARBOR DAY.
Mayor Mentor read a Proclamation recognizing Military
Reservists call up during the recent "Desert Shield" war
actions in the Gulf. Mayor Mentor proclaimed MAY 5, 1991, as
RESERVISTS ON ACTIVE DUTY RECOGNITION DAY. Bob Sauter, Sgt.
Major (Retired) accepted the Proclamation and stated we salute
all who served - they are our patriots.
Mayor Mentor read a Proclamation recognizing the bravery of
the men and women who became prisoners of War while serving in
the United States Armed Forces. Mayor Mentor proclaimedApril
6-9, 1991 as AMERICAN FORMER PRISONER OF WAR RECOGNITION AND
BATAANDAYS. Ike Esperito, President of the Filipino/American
Association of Kitsap County, accepted the Proclamation and
stated that as each April 1st comes around, new generations
TAPE #906
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 3, 1991
Page 3 Of 21
will remember the sacrifices made by theAmerican and Filipino
people at Bataan. Mayor Mentor announced there would be a
special ceremony at Bataan Park on Saturday, April 6, 10:30
A.M. Richard Chrisin~er, Officer Of The Day for the Bataan
Day Ceremonies, extended an invitation to every Veteran, Civic
and Fraternal Organization to participate at this event.
Gordon Byrd, 402 Chester St., #3, gave a report on his fund
raising effort to provide a shelter for the homeless.
Currently he had collected $11,087.85. He related an
interesting meeting with Governor Booth Gardner at the Olympic
College Campus.
Glenn Jarstad, 2823 Hefner, stated many people will miss Jimmy
Simmons, who recently passed away; and that Mr. Simmons was an
example to all citizens.
Don Larson 135 Rainier Avenue, Chairman of the Citizens
Advisory Committee for cleanup up Dyes/Sinclair Inlets,
reminded everyone of the Earth Day celebration on April 20.
Anyone wishing to help with the clean up along the shores of
Sinclair Inlet can participate by showing up at the Bremerton
Lumber site on April 20th at 10:00 AM. For additional
information he may be contacted at 373-5367.
Mr. Johnson invited Mr. Esperito, Chairman of the
American/Filipino Association of Kitsap County, to discuss
some plans for Bataan Park. Mr. Esperito displayed a drawing
showing some enhancements to Bataan Park. Those enhancements
included picnic tables, covered areas, benches, barbecue pits,
and landscaping. It is their desire to work with the City to
provide facilities at Bataan Park to be used by anyone.
Funding source for this project had not been identified,
however, they are accepting donations.
Mr. Collins stated he had reviewed the tapes of the past two
Council meetings, as he was out-of-town on those Council
meeting dates.
6A ORDINANCE (FIRST READING) AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP
FROM 8F-1 TO PS ON A 10 ACRE PARCEL NE OF THE INTERSECTION OF
MARLOW DRIVE AND CARR BLVD. (BRENTWOOD CIRCLE SCHOOL SITE
REZONE - RZ-10-90), #AB91-082
Bremerton School District owns a 10-acre site which was
purchased in anticipation of a future need for an elementary
school to serve the Kitsap Lake Neighborhood. The District
requested a Rezone on this site from its present designation
of "SF-i" to "Parks & Schools" (PS) - the City's zone which
was created specifically for application to public park and
TAPE #906
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 3, 1991
Page 4 Of 2t
school sites.
The City council conducted a public hearing on March 20, 1991,
at which time it approved the rezone as requested. The
proposed ordinance completes the rezone process.
Public comment - none.
Mr. Johnson stated he believed the site was appropriate for
location of a school, however, he felt there needed to be some
further discussion on transportation problems.
M/S/C/U(Johnson/Waibel) to approve Ordinance, on first
reading, amending the Official Zoning Map of the City of
Bremerton from "SF-i" to "PS" for a 10 acre parcel at the
northeast corner of Harlow Drive and Carr Boulevard.
(Brentwood Circle School Site Rezone: RZ-10-90).
6B - ORDINANCE (FIRSTREADING) REZONE,,CBR,, TO "GB" APPLICANT:
ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY, LOCATION: 2114 FIFTH STREET,
#AB91-083
After public hearing held on March 13, 1991, the City Council
passed a motion adopting the Planning Commission's Findings Of
Fact and Conclusions of Law approving the rezone of the parcel
located at 2114 Fifth Street from "CBR" to "GB" subject to
three conditions. Before such action is legally in effect,
the new ordinance for the subject rezone must be read two
times by the City Council and published in a local newspaper.
Public comment - none.
Mr. Johnson pointed out for the benefit of the public that the
site plan approved by Council would be binding and required to
be filed with the Kitsap County Auditor.
M/S/C(Waibel/Collins) to approve Ordinance, on first reading,
rezoning,subject to conditions, a lot located at 2114 Fifth
Street, Bremerton, from Central Bremerton Residential (CBR) to
General Business (GB).
Vote:
In Favor:
Opposed:
Overson, Estes, Horning, Waibel, Collins,
Dawkins, Colvin, Johnson
Horton
6C - ORDINANCE #4309 (SECOND READING) REVISING TITLE 15 TO
MEET REGULATORY AND OPERATION REOUIREMENTS FOR THE WATER AND
WASTEWATER UTILITIES, #AB91-054
Kathleen McCluskeV, City Clerk, noted a Summaryversion of the
Ordinance was included and needed to be approved along
TAPE #906
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 3, 1991
Page 5 Of 21
approval of the ordinance.
Bill Duffy, Utilities Director, explained the ordinance
contained the revisions discussed the previous week.
Public comment - none
M/S/C/U(Waibel/Estes) to pass Ordinance #4309, on second
reading, updating Title 15 of the City of Bremerton Municipal
Code and authorize the Mayor to implement the revisions to the
Code, subject to City Administrative Polices and Procedures;
and approving the Summary of the Ordinance for publication
purposes.
6D - ORDINANCE (FIRST READING) ESTABLISHING FEES, RATES AND
CHARGES FOR UTILITY SERVICE, #AB91-084
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. On March 27, 1991, Council
approved Resolution #2338 setting fees, rates and charges.
This ordinance would adopt that resolution and establish said
fees, rates and charges. The ordinance provides for rate
increase for water and wastewater service and for
miscellaneous charges for utility services.
Bill Duffy, Utilities Director, stated the fees, rates and
charges were the same as previously presented except for the
deletion of those relating to stormwater.
Public comment - none.
Mr. Johnson noted the City Treasurer's comment on this item
indicated there would be no change to the Utility's Funds
budget. He questioned if that meant the Utility was in some
kind of financial difficulty? Mr. Duffy explained that they
make general revenue estimates, therefore, he would not
require an adjustment to the budget.
M/S/C/U(Johnson/Colvin) to approve Ordinance, on first
reading, setting forth fees, rates and charges for utility
services and adding a new Chapter 15.09 to Title 15 of the
Bremerton Municipal Code.
6E - ORDINANCE #4315 (SECOND READING) AMENDING THE OFFICIAL
ZONINGHAP TO CORRECT ANERROR FROM "GB" TO "SF-3" ON THE WEST
SIDE OF MEATON WAY (BABRIE REZONE), #AB91-078
Public comment - none.
TAPE #906
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 3, 1991
Page 6 Of21
M/S/C(Dawkins/Colvin) to pass Ordinance #4315, on second
reading, amending the Official Zoning Map of the City of
Bremerton from "GB" to"SF-3" on the easternmost 150 feet of a
parcel fronting on the west side of Wheaton Way. (Barrie
Rezone - RZ-09-90).
Vote: In Favor:
Opposed:
Motion carried.
Overson, Estes, Homing, Horton, Dawkins,
Colvin, Johnson
Waibel, Collins
TAPE #907 7A - SECOND PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED PROPERTY EXCHANGE
BETWEEN OLYMPIC COLLEGE (BREMERTON LUMBER) AND THE CITY OF
BREMERTON (ROOSEVELT FIELD), #AB91-085
Kathleen McCluskeV, City Clerk, read the following proposal
into the record:
"The property exchange of Roosevelt Field for the Bremerton
Lumber property (appraisal at $805,000 with current annual
revenue stream of $75,000).
Anticipation of future development of this site with the net
proceeds dedicated toward park land acquisition and
development in a 'trust fund'. In the event the property is
sold, proceeds will also be dedicated to this fund. This
revenue stream will not affect future General Fund budgetary
allotments to the Bremerton Parks and Recreation Department.
This proposal includes the intention of using the $75,000
($750,000 - 20 year revenue bonds) to go toward expansion of
Evergreen Park.
The expansion will involve the present Street Department
property and may involve the Port Of Bremerton. Preliminary
dialogue with Port Officials indicate an interest toward joint
participation. The Port has been interested in development of
Smith Cove and the acquisition of adjacent property.
It must be noted that this area does have environmental
concerns that must be addressed.
REPLACEMENT CRITERIA
1. Replace downtown open space.
2. Replace playing fields in core area.
3. No loss of play.
TAPE #907
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 3, 1991
Page 7 of 2L
Additionally, based on Council's and Mayor's prioritization of
the sports complex, our staff has begun initial work on plans
and it is our intention to be playing on those fields by
August of 1992.
To insure Criteria #3 of no loss of play, the property
exchange would not take place until August".
Ms. McCluskey read into the record a letter received from Dr.
Wallace Simpson, President of Olympic College to Council
President Lynn Horton:
"Several persons have commented to me recently that they, and
perhaps some members of the Bremerton City Council, do not
believe that Olympic College and the State Board of Community
College Education will actually pursue condemnation of
Roosevelt Field. These persons are mistaken.
The Board of Trustees of Olympic College is committed to
offering educational opportunities to people of this district.
The demand for these courses and programs far exceeds the
college's small site capacity. It's present 21 acre site is
so small that it is a serious impediment to people who wish to
attend.
After several years, in which the Board of Trustees has
reviewed countless alternatives and in which proposals have
been discussed and negations carried on with the City of
Bremerton in good faith, a successful agreement has not been
concluded. The Olympic College Board of Trustees is faced
with three alternatives as it seeks to serve people on the
Bremerton campus:
1. Negotiate an agreement with the City of Bremerton.
2. Down size its campus in Bremerton. (As the college
constructs satellite campuses, new population growth will be
accommodated at those sites.)
3. Condemn the City property adjacent to thecampus to create
space for urgently needed access in Bremerton.
The Olympic College Board of Trustees is committed to
maintaining an educational presence in Bremerton with vital
and high quality programs. The College has completed, with
citizen input, a long range campus master plan that
illustrates this commitment. Land owned by the Bremer Trust
has been taken off the market to use in a negotiated
settlement with the City. The several offers including land
TAPE #907
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 3, 1991
Page 8 of Zl
exchange have been discussed with the City, but efforts to
reach an agreement have been unsuccessful.
Only because people who wish an education are being denied
access is the Board of Trustees so committed to an Olympic
College presence in Bremerton.
Barbara Stephenson and John Mitchell have correctly
represented the position of the OC Board of Trustees when they
have told you and other Council members that condemnation will
promptly follow a failure of the City Council to reach an
agreement for the transfer of the field to the College.
Copies of the OC Board minutes requesting condemnation, and
copies of the State Board Minutes requesting the Attorney
General to commence condemnation are enclosed. Olympic
College has received State Board permission to condemn the
property.
We much prefer negotiation and cooperation to condemnation,
however, maintenance of a vital OC campus in Bremerton
requires the inclusion of Roosevelt Field."
Mayor Louis Mentor thanked the Parks Board for their work and
their decision as well as the pressure they experienced during
this deliberation. He also noted he was aware of the
tremendous pressure the City Council was under on this issue
and knew they had a tough decision to make. He believed
Council had to be concerned with the majority of the people in
the City and there was no way to make everyone happy
regardless of the outcome of this issue. He was extremely
disappointed with the letter from Dr. Simpson. He felt
because of the breakdown of negotiations between the City
Council and the College early on, it put undue pressure on the
Council. He felt City Council members must vote their
conscious and integrity of their office.
His position on this issue is as follows: when this
controversy first came up he and several Council members felt
$460,000 was not enough money for Roosevelt Field replacement.
He also stated many times that he hoped Olympic College would
grow and if they do grow they will need more properties than
just Roosevelt Field. The people of the City own Roosevelt
Field and he believed they also support the College just as
they have for the past 45 years. He also believes that the
citizens would be willing to sell Roosevelt Field if the
following things would happen: (1) replace open park space in
the vicinity of Roosevelt Field; (2) maintain a youth field in
the vicinity of Roosevelt Field; (3) replace lighted fields
for league and tournament play. It appears that there may be
TAPE #907
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 3, 1991
Page 9 of .21
funding available for lighted fields at the new sports
complex. Expansion of Evergreen Park would provide the City
with a beautiful park, marina and youth fields. The
possibility of rebuilding the American Legion Field in
cooperation with the Bremerton School District and Olympic
College would help the hard ball program in the City.
He was not a part of the on going negotiations, but he had
been an advocate of this type of settlement. He believes that
the citizens of Bremerton, if these above mentioned concerns
were met, would support the trade. If the City Council
believed this was what the citizens desired and the Council is
convinced that these things will happen and the City Council
is totally committed to development of the sports complex,
expansion of Evergreen Park and uninterrupted play at
Roosevelt Field without jeopardizing other City projects, then
the trade for income property to help reach our goals is in
order. If they are not committed to this, then he urged them
to vote their conscious.
The following individuals spoke in favor of the proposal:
Gene Nelson, 323 Dora; Olga Soto, Student -6985 Old Military
Rd.; Glenda Anderson, 1619 Trenton; Tim Tyan, 10570 Seabeck
Hwy. NW; Harriet Spencer, 2372 NE Blossom P1.; Ray Norton,
3910 Fairway Ln. NE; Doug Betget, 2926 Pawnee Dr.; Jack
Beusch, 1325 Lakehurst Dr.; John Stockwell, 1813 NE Rustic
Ln.; Gar~ Kuntz, 607 Pacific Ave.; Margaret Stanley, 2836
Halverson; Donna Roed, 16075 St. Hwy. 305, Poulsbo (moving to
Bremerton); William Harvey, 615 N. Lafayette; Ray White, 371
NWMosher; Duey McBride, 1337 Lower Marine Dr.; Tim Quigley,
635 N. Lafayette; Reglneld Robinson, 1412 17th St.; Charlotte
Strand, 2742 Maple St.; Jim Robinson, President Bremerton Area
Chamber Of Commerce; Ed Sheldon, 721 Woods Place; Bill Enger,
2348 NE Blossom P1.; Clint Schinkle, downtown businessman and
Olympic College Trustee.
The following comments were made by those in favor of the
proposal: (Note Olympic College will be referred to as "OC".)
(1) OC will end up with Roosevelt Field unless we seize the
opportunity; (2) waterfront park would be enjoyed by future
generations; (3) 1990 informal poll showed 76% of the people
supported the sale/trade of Roosevelt Field; (4) the people of
Vancouver B.C., made some good decisions when they developed
their waterfront park as did the people of Norfolk, VA; (5)
people don't want promises, they want something substantial
like a waterfront park that could be enjoyed by all; (6) the
proposal .is a giant step for our generation and future
generations; (7) OC is good for the City and childrens' future
college opportunity; (8) many students must come one hour or
TAPE #907
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 3, 1991
Page 10 of 21
more before class time to obtain a parking space; (9) this
area could use a 4-year college opportunity; (10) there must
be a way for OC and students to help promote parks; (11)
adequate parking is necessary for proper access to education;
(12) proposal is outstanding example of people with different
attitudes working together; (13) availability of extended
education through OC better choice for local students; (14)
OC brings new people to live in Bremerton; (15) students spend
money in Bremerton; (16) whole parks system will have
opportunity to get upgraded; (17) make human minds more
important, don't turn back now; (18) OC should be given
Roosevelt Field; (19) safety of students walking to class
during evening class hours.
The following individuals spoke in opposition to the proposal:
Bill 8lath, 4868 NW Eldorado; E. L. 8turdivant, 3231
Halverson; Mr. Donway, 1115 Naval Ave.; Richard Weld, 319 Yew
St.; Glenn Jarstad, 2823 Hefner Ave.; John F. McDonald, 2206
Burwell P1.; Howard E. Mathison, 1520 N. Lafayette; Guy
Beckett, speaking for Paul Schmitt 16th & Perry Avenue; Earl
Nelson, 313 Olympic Ave.; Walt Nordleaf, 1554 Ohio Ave.;
Austin M. Clark, 3109 13th St.; Dusty Rhodes, 2513 Reid Ave.;
Hank Clark, 129 Sheridan Rd.; Juanita Deitchler, 1718 N.
Lafayette Ave.; De1 Knauss, 139 Olympic Ave.; H.O. Pickard,
2307 8th; Curtis Allen, 2123 5th; Pat Zwick, 2114 N. Wycoff;
TAPE #908
The following comments were made by those opposing the
proposal: (Note: Olympic College will be referred to as"OC".)
(1) only a temporary solution to OC's parking problem as they
will most likely build on Roosevelt Field; (2) Roosevelt Field
can be replaced but not enough details on the rest of the
proposal; (3) City always ready to help solve OC's parking
problems why can't they do the same for PSNS; (4) Roosevelt
Field is irreplaceable; (5) where in the central city area is
there 7+ acres of open space available?; (6) City Council
members and Mayor have a legal and moral mandate to uphold
City ordinances; (7) why ignore your appointed Parks Board?'
(8) why does Flagship carry more weight than Parks Board?;
(9)$75.000 purported annual income does not match recreational
value and income potential if Roosevelt Field retained by
City; (10) how will city justify asking for State and Federal
funds for parks if they get rid of 7+ acres open space in
central city area?' (11) whether or not to sell or trade
Roosevelt Field should be voted on by the citizens of
Bremerton; (12) environmental issues have not been identified
or addressed for those properties identified in the proposed
trade; (13) Roosevelt Field belongs to the people of
Bremerton; (14) OC should condemn and/or buy up older houses
around college campus; (15) City would be in good position to
TAPE #908
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 3, 1991
Page 11 of 21
beat condemnation process; (16) Roosevelt Field worth at
least 1.5 million dollars; (17) say NO to trade; (18) question
as to City's ability to transfer park land? (19) cannot
violate Common Law on dedicated park land; (20) City Council
must affirm that Roosevelt Field was surplus; (21) Resolution
#1131 passed in 1961 never repealed; (22) if transfer of park
land is done it will require a SEPAPc~eck C h e c k 1 i s t
completed...the current SEPA is out-of-date; (23)appraisal of
Roosevelt Field is faulty; (24) proceed with condemnation
process, not convinced it will be successful; (25)Roosevelt
Field is shinning star in parks system; (26) OC's long range
plan dated 1973 - 1990 did not include acquisition of
Roosevelt Field; (27) City should tell OC what to do, not the
OC telling the City; (28) OC should provide a shuttle service
from school to work areas; (29) Mr. Bremer still ruling from
his grave; (30) OC only interested building not parking; (31)
not enough parks as it is for children; (32) OC has used
students as a smoke screen; (33) elementary school children
have to walk farther than college students.
The following individuals took a neutral position on the
proposal: DeWayne Boyd, Superintendent Of Bremerton School
District; Ruth Kean Yates, 2130 Warner NE; Don Wright, 1311
Harlow.
The following comments were made by those taking a neutral
position on the proposal: (1) City needs assurance that
replacement play field and ball fields will be built; (2)
Bremerton School District wants to see OC grow and continue to
provide opportunities for their high school students; (3)
Bremerton School District offered the idea of the City and
School District cooperating together to use vacant land sites
for parks and open space; and to assist OC with some of their
parking needs; (4) Council should do what is best for
Bremerton.
Kathleen McCluskey, City Clerk, read into the record a letter
from Jim Adrian. Mr. Adrian's position was as follows: (1)in
the event a trade was negotiated that certain conditions be
required to insure uninterrupted playing time; (2) that a
Resolution be passed outlining the parameters of the trade,
including the dedicated cash flow parameters;(3) to explore
other opportunities of recreational and open spaces in
cooperation with OC and Bremerton School District;(4) if the
vote was not unanimous then proceed to place the matter before
the voters; (5) aggressively work through AWC, IAC and other
citizen groups throughout the state who care about parks and
open space to lobby the State Legislature to enact legislation
that would force any State agency to respect and fully comply
TAPE #908
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 3, 1991
Page 12 of 21
with the rules and regulations within the local jurisdiction.
Mr. Johnson questioned what Dr. Simpson meant in his letter
when he stated: "continue to have an educational presence in
Bremerton"? Dr. Wallaoe 8impson, President of Olympic College
(OC), stated OC has a long range plan that had been shared
with the Council and Community. Part of the plan is to
maintain a very strong presence in Bremerton, which means that
at the present time they are serving 7,200 -7,500 students
and the campus is equipped to serve 3,000 - 3,500 students.
To maintain a vital presences in the community would mean that
we would at least continue to serve students at that level.
Our other option was to down-size to the point where they
could actually begin to serve students with access parking,
amounting to about 3,000 students. Maintaining a vital
presence in the community, they would like to serve the same
number of students currently served. Mr. Johnson questioned
if the main campus would be maintained in Bremerton? Dr.
Simpson stated the decision to keep the main campus in
Bremerton had a lot to do with the decision made on the
proposal before Council. They are currently looking to three
satellite areas, Shelton, Port Orchard and North Kitsap.
Mr. Colvin stated many citizens were upset over Dr. Simpson's
letter of intent to proceed with condemnation of Roosevelt
Field. However, Mr. Colvin pointed out it was President
Horton who requested Dr. Simpson to address that issue in
writing. Dr. Simpson stated what Council President Horton
requested was for the College to state the position of intent
of the Board Of Trustees of Olympic College. They had already
gone through the request to the State Community College Board
for condemnation of Roosevelt Field.
President Horton requested Mr. Sievers respond to some of the
comments made by previous speakers.
Mr. Sievers stated one of the issues raised was complying with
SEPA. When the City was the proponent of the trade, at the end
of Mayor Lobe's term, there was a Declaration of Non-
significance issued by Mr. Pratt in 1989. The. City is now on
the receiving end of a condemnation action and it was very
important to the City as to how to legally proceed that we
clearly understood what the College's intent and position was.
He requested such a letter from the State Attorney General,
who represents the College. One issue it clarifies is that
there are a number of cases that hold that SEPA is not allowed
as a collateral attack on condemnation proceeding.
Another issues raised by Mr. Beckett was the common law
dedication of park property. This was looked into in August
TAPE #908
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 3, 1991
Page 13 of 21
1989. Under City Resolution #684, it clearly demonstrated
this property was acquired by the City's General Fund when it
was acquired by the Garbage Utility and transferred to the
Parks Department management when they had no further use of
it. There are clear cases that say when property acquired by
the General Fund is not dedicated even though put to a
specific use for any period of time, the City Council is free
to change uses at any time in the future.
The more complex point has to do with compliance with the
Parks Protection Ordinance voted in by the people and whether
or not the Council was complying with the ordinance. The
Council does not take lightly comments made that they are not
complying with their own ordinances. The Council asked for
comment on this since it has come up a number of times. He
believed they can proceed with the proposal based on two
grounds: (1) That ordinance does not do what the people hope
it can. It addresses voluntary sale following surplusing. He
believed to cast the current proposal in that light would take
the most superficial view of what had been going on for the
past few months. The merits do not matter as it had more to do
with the positions of the parties. As mentioned earlier, in
1989 there was true negotiations going on by Mayor Lobe and
the College to reach a voluntary agreement on transfer and
exchange of properties. At that time, they were very
concerned with following all City Ordinances and policies on
surplusing of property, including Comprehensive Policy under
Resolution 1131. This was extensively reviewed by the Parks
Board as well as the Planning Commission and recommended back
to Council. At that time, the Council rejected the voluntary
exchange. He believed from that point on it was beyond
dispute that the City Administration, Council and College have
been adversaries and the City resisted any attempt to lose
Roosevelt Field and made every attempt to keep it. The
College, on the other hand, has followed the route of
condemnation after a voluntary sale or transfer was not
successful. They College Trustees voted on September 5, 1990,
to seek approval from the State Board Of Community College
Education to exercise condemnation. That was a 4-0 vote. The
State Board did find that it was necessary for the College to
condemn and said that it could exercise the power to condemn.
On the other hand, Mayor Mentor had an extensive letter
writing campaign to the Legislators asking for support against
the action of the College and the State Community College
Board. The City spared no expense in preparing its opposition
to the hearing before the College Board, hiring two of the
most preeminent specialists on land use and condemnation for
that hearing. In fact, this Council and Mayor had continued
to advocate to the Legislators to modify the power of the
TAPE #908
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 3, 1991
Page 14 of 21
College Board to condemn properties under current city use.
It was essentially this Council that placed the Parks
Protection Ordinance on the ballot to give it most permanent
effect even without the required number of signatures for an
Initiative Ordinance; and, this Parks Ordinance does contain
Roosevelt Field. All of these actions could hardly be
considered anti-parks and particularly anti- Roosevelt Field.
Why then has the Council been negotiating and why continue to
act as a result of this negotiation? He believed the turning
point was when the State College Board gave approve for
condemnation and that was the essential battle. From that
point on, the City was not in the position to simply walk away
and conveyance of the property would go away if we stopped
negotiating. Basically, it was negotiation of the best
possible price to the City. To say that the proposal before
Council now was a voluntary sale that the City was willingly
participating in and that has to be preceded by surplusing
declaration, simply was not realistic. The position of the
College has been brought into focus by the letter from the
College's President. If the voluntary agreement on price is
not achieved, a lawsuit is imminent. He did not think the
surplusing policy of the City under 1-6 or the Parks
Protection Ordinance applied to what the proposal is here
tonight, which is settling a very definite lawsuit.
The second reason the Council can act on the proposal, even if
the Parks Protection Ordinance, or some other ordinance,
resolution or policy of the City, addressed transfer in lieu
of condemnation is because of any enactment of this type would
be inoperative and ineffective. The reason for this is
inherent in the structure of governmental powers. In a recent
memo he pointed out First Class Charter cities had broad
powers, but they could not conflict with general laws or
Constitutional law. One of those general laws is that eminent
domain is vested in the State Legislature and they have
delegated the power of eminent domain to a wide variety of
agencies. By the particular language of those statutes one
public agency can condemn the land in another public agency or
can disregard its regulations which may otherwise prohibit
that condemnation.
Even if the resolutions clearly addressed the subject matter
being faced at this time, he believed they would be
inoperative because of those local regulations, ordinances or
resolutions would conflict with the State general law.
Referencing back to the point about one public agency have the
right to disregard the regulations of another public agency,
he gave the example of a Sewer District, when locating a sewer
treatment plant, can disregard a County ordinance requiring a
TAPE #908
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 3, 1991
Page 15 of
Special Use Permit process simply because they have a broad
eminent domain power granted by the State. More on point, a
City Zoning Ordinance cannot be used to block condemnation by
a Community College for expansion of a baseball field for
other uses. The point here is that the Parks Protection
Ordinance even if it attempted to block condemnation or
transfer in lieu of condemnation would be ineffective because
it is simila[ to the Zoning regulations where cities try to
control the use of their property but the State has a need for
a prison, highway, etc., they simply do not have to comply.
No citizen can use it as a defense against the State agency
and certainly the City Council does not need to pursue a
futile ordinance of its own faced with that type of
condemnation action. The Parks Protection Ordinance was very
similar to zoning in that it tires to freeze the use of
certain City properties with as much permanency as possible.
Even if it clearly addressed this subject rather than a
voluntary sale following surplusing, Council, under common law
should disregard it and get on with the business of settling
this litigation.
Some may agree with these positions but one comment was that
it was still necessary to wade into the litigation itself
before we feel secure of the condemnation. That was one of
the reasons why Council wanted a clear position from the
College in the form of a letter. He did not support the idea
that the City had to be in litigation to settle and this was
an appropriate time for Council to act for two reasons: (1) if
the Council were to place the issue on the ballot under the
Parks Protection Ordinance, the College could sue either
before or after the election with the same result. Even if
the vote was against the proposal, the College would still
prevail in the lawsuit and the property would be transferred.
Parties, including cities, are not to required to follow
meaningless and futile administrative procedures; (2) having
to march in a lock-step fashion into litigation, after Council
feels weighing expert advice, that they would not prevail and
that they had the best settlement at hand and forcing the City
to go into an expensive litigation simply goes against the
judicial policy favoring settlement of disputes rather than
litigation.
Mr. Colvinquestion why do we have to go through the expensive
litigation...why not just let the condemnation process go
forward? Mr. Sievers stated that would be for the Council to
decide. Council could settle at some point but he did not know
what the offers would be if the College filed a suit; and
there would certainly be some expense even if settlement were
immediate. Mr. Colvin questioned if the City had to contest
TAPE #908
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 3, 1991
Page 17 of 21
block that. The ordinance has usefulness in all other
situations, for example where, under Mayor Lobe, the City
proposed a trade that would change the use of a park property.
Mr. Colvin questioned Mr. Sievers if he was sure of this fact
he just stated? Mr. Sievers stated everything is an opinion
and Mr. Colvin did not have to follow any legal advice or
opinion. However, the statement he made was his opinion and
there was nothing more he could do to clarify that opinion by
looking up something. Mr. Colvin noted then Mr. Beckett may
not be up on some of these issues? Mr. Sievers stated Mr.
Beckett was probably expressing his honest opinion and
attorneys differ all the time. Mr. Sievers was not sure that
Mr. Beckett had looked at the same cases he had and pointed
out that was why there were judges. Mr. Colvin requested Mr.
Beckett respond to this discussion. Mr. Beckett stated under
the Condemnation Chapter of Section 8.04 RCW in Washington,
the City had the statutory right of a jury trial in Kitsap
County to determine the value of the property which would be
condemned. It would not necessarily be up to a judge it would
be a jury made up of citizens from this surrounding area. Mr.
Sievers stated this had been discussed with Council previously
by their outside counsel on who would be the ultimate decision
maker on value and it would be pursuant to instruction from
the judge, And there would be some legal decisions by the
judge as well, directing the jury.
Mr. Horning stated we all need to remember that Mr. Sievers is
not the only opinion received, not just from our neighbors,
but from very high sources at the State level. If we want to
talk about what the dollar value of this we could go to state
law. He pointed out that Roosevelt Field was previously a
garbage dump of the City of Bremerton and State law says that
he who owns it and sells it will pay for the clean up. He
questioned do you want to know what Roosevelt Field is
worth .... replacement value was any where between 1.5 million
to 0 or potentially less. He was not willing under any
circumstances to take this City down the road at that high a
risk and he believed it was real. He believed this was the
best deal the City could make knowing that condemnation would
go forward. If we take the risk and get "0" for Roosevelt
Field he would expect the whole Council to resign. Mr. Colvin
questioned if that was a likelihood? Mr. Horning stated yes
that was very possible.
Mr. Estes stated 15-20-25 years ago Bremerton jerked around
people in the County and they had not forgotten this. When
this was over with the heavy handed approached the animosity
will hang on for years. He wished Dr. Simpson would let this
whole issue go to the vote of the people. He felt the City
TAPE #908
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 3, 1991
Page 16 of 21~
the condemnation? Mr. Sievers stated he did not believe so
and with the letter of intent from the College President they
could take that on face value. In fact, it was more an
observation than a legal position but he felt to proceed in
the face of that clear language from the College President,
who has the authority to speak for the college and proceed to
litigation might easily give the Council the appearance that
they think that the College was being deceitful or bluffing.
The letter from the College indicating their intent can be
relied upon and he did not believe the City had to wait for a
suit to be filed and incurring the City additional costs. Mr.
Colvin stated he did not believe the College was bluffing but
the judge would rule one way or the other and he believed it
would be equitable for the City. Mr. Overson stated that was
not necessarily so by the City's view point. They had already
received a thorough understanding of the valuation process
used for these types of condemnations and the result known so
far was $460,000 and he believed that was what caught the ire
of most of the citizens was the price as opposed to the actual
action. He did not know if a judge would consider a City
interest to be superior to a College interest. He related a
personal experience through the judicial process where he had
every indication he would be a winner, but in the end he lost.
That court action cost he and his family significantly for
many years because he believed the Court would be fair. Mr.
Waibel stated he did not understand the logic of having to go
to condemnation and not fighting it. Mr. Colvinquestioned if
the judge would rule on replacement value of Roosevelt Field?
Mr. Sievers stated no one knows that for sure and that is a
debatable issue. He reminded the Council that they had one of
the best experts in the area and they had taken his advise on
replacement value and College's right to condemn, in deciding
whether to take the risk of suit or settle for the agreement
on the table. Mr. Colvin questioned if he was correct in
understanding that Council did not have to abide by their own
ordinances? Mr. Sievers stated not these particular
ordinances given the circumstances and situation of this
proposal and the events over the past couple months. Mr.
Colvin reiterated that he did not understand why the Council
would not have to follow an ordinance that they put on the
ballot for the vote of the people. Mr. Sievers stated
Council was not breaking the law because the subject matter of
that ordinance was the same problem that Council was
addressing through this proposal. The situation is not the
Council's fault and there may be several ordinances that are
preempted by State Statute and Council would not be obligated
to enforce or pursue those ordinances. Under the Common Law
the College did have the power to condemn and no ordinance or
procedure that Council sets up can be used as a defense or to
TAPE # 90~
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minuts
April 3, 1991
Page 18 of 21.
would lose by being forced to go through this action. He
regretted the hard feelings within the community over this
issue that will last for many years to come. He did not
appreciate the pleas of the students as to lack of parking
because very few Universities provide parking for all students
that attend those schools. Lack of parking does not limit
access to a college education if a student is determined to go
onto high education. If he were a College administrator he
would take immediate action to provide adequate parking access
for handicapped students. He stated this whole project was
started as a sham and if developed properly it would have been
settled a long time ago. It is his desire to see the Parks
System whole after this action is complete. He supported the
motto "if all else fails try being honest".
TAPE #909
Mr. Collins stated he was realizing, after the testimony
given, that it had become an emotion issue that divided people
either in favor or against the proposal. But he visualized
something different than either being for or against he
believed there was an opportunity to do something that had not
been done well in Bremerton...to take advantage of
opportunity. What would happen have happened if the bridge
had been located across Snyder instead of Warren? Would we
have this same kind of uprising, he thought not. What can be
gained from this whole thing. The first thing that has been
gained is that on a number of occasions his room had been
filled with people talking to their government and he felt
this was wonderful and necessary. And, through this trade the
City controls the entry to the City of Bremerton. It would
provide the financial ability to do something that would
improve Bremerton. It would also provide the financial
ability to take and leverage a piece of property to enhance
the Parks. System. We, the Council, have said we are for any
proceeds from this action going into the Parks Department with
no change to the General Fund. Anything that comes from this,
whether leveraging money for a greater amount to buy property
or whether it is the $75,000/annually, it would be fore the
enhancement of the Parks program. We can build a much better
parks system than we have now. Because of the conversations
with the College and the School District, there is a dialogue
going on that has never gone on before. What Dr. Boyd offered
this evening was something that had not been offered before.
The City had committed 1/2 of a Planner to the College for
planning purposes in an effort to understand how better the
College and City could relate; and this offer was accepted by
the College. He views this whole thing not whether Roosevelt
Field will be lost or whether we have parking lot, but
opportunities to provide for additional parks along the water
and the opportunity to control the gateway to the City.
TAPE #909
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minuts
April 3, 1991
Page 19 of 2b
Mr. Dawkins stated he spent about 35 years on Roosevelt Field
and has many memories from those years. He related incidents
that brought about the removal of the wooden grandstands from
the field. He pointed out the problem of air pollution of the
Roosevelt Field area due to the large number of vehicles that
travel across Warren Avenue Bridge. When the field was built
it was not known that a four lane bridge would be located
adjacent to it and when placing future parks, no one would
pick such a site. He supported the proposal and looked
forward to developing youth field in the Evergreen park area.
He viewed this proposal as a big opportunity for the City and
supported moving forward on it.
Mr. Waibel stated putting it simply the City had a gun to its
head and it had to decide whether or not to pull the trigger.
He stressed that Council had expert opinions from condemnation
specialist and they agreed with the advice given by the City
Attorney. He agreed with the City Attorney in that the
question of whether or not the College would go to
condemnation had been sufficiently resolved for him. He did
not want to put the City in the position of having to clean up
a garbage dump site. If the City were to only get $460,000
for Roosevelt Field through the condemnation process, that
would not be sufficient to keep the parks program going or add
improvements. He viewed the proposal as an opportunity to
revise and revamp the parks program
President Horton stated as President of the City Council she
believed it was he job to try to move the City Council
forward, certainly with a cooperative effort, and it was her
job to see that the maximum potential for the City was
received. She noted wars had been started over issues like
this and she did not believe anyone wanted that to happen in
this instance. She stated she had to do what she felt was
best for the City of Bremerton. She listened to people taking
about the Bremerton Lumber, waterfront property, not having
any value. She was very disappointed that people thought
that not only in this room or in the community. The reason
she ran for the position of the City Council was that she had
more faith in people in this community and the community. She
was ashamed of the image that was being portrayed as people
coming out of beer taverns who were covered with tattoos and
had cigarettes hanging out of their mouths. She objected to
that image and she still does. She believes the City has an
opportunity and should not pass up that opportunity. She
believed the City waterfront and Bremerton can become the
"gem" of Puget Sound. She refused to allow people to put me
or this community down. She pointed out citizens had not
TAPE #909
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minuts
April 3, 1991
Page 20 of 21'
supported Park Board measures and believed this was the one
opportunity whereby funds could be obtained and marked for
park enhancement for future years to come.
Mr. Colvin stated he had extenuating concerns. HB2929 has
mandated that Cities increase their density and from past
experience in other cities throughout the nation have causes
problems in the inner city. One of his major concerns is
doing away with open space. Mr. Boyd presented a good
alternative and if this proposal passes he hoped Council would
consider that its first priority would be to get back the 7+
acres of open space. He was concern of what the City would be
getting into if Park funds were used to clean up the Smith
Cove area. President Horton stated Council was committed to
making the parks system whole and complete.
M/S/C(Waibel/Collins) that the Mayor be directed to execute a
real estate agreement conveying Roosevelt Field in lieu of
condemnation by Olympic College for the follow consideration
and under the following conditions:
1. transfer of clear title. except for easements of records,
to those four parcels south of the vacated alley in Block 2,
Original Town of Bremerton currently owned by the Bremer Trust
and commonly known as the Bremerton lumber site.
2. Change in possession of the parcels involved in this
exchange shall not occur until closing on August 1, 1992.
3. Each parcel shall be transferred without warranty except
as to title, and each party shall assume the costs of
demolition, abatement or regulatory compliance associated with
the parcel received in the exchange so long as no material
alterations occur prior to closing.
4. The agreement shall recite a finding by the Council that
the City has no opportunity to block the conveyance to Olympic
College given its powers of condemnation, the exercise of that
power by the State College Board and the notification from the
College President that suit is imminent if current
negotiations over price fail. Therefore procedures for
surplusing property in City Policy No. 1-6 and Ordinance No.
4283 are waived or inapplicable.
5. The Mayor shall not execute this conveyance agreement
prior to the effective date of the ordinance creating the
Roosevelt Field Replacement Fund.
Vote on motion: In Favor: Overson, Estes, Horning, Waibel,
TAPE #909
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minuts
April 3, 1991
Page 21 of 21-
Opposed:
Horton, Collins, Dawkins
Colvin, Johnson
Motion carried.
With no further business meeting adjourned at 10:15 p.m.
\~~ _~,~ ~.
KATHLEEN L. McCLUSKEY, C~ty~lerk
L~TON, Council President
City of Bremerton
KLM/LH/me
cc: Normal Distribution
File/Vault