HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/10/91TAPE #910
UNAPPROVED DRAFT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
APR 2 4
#0048
#0067
APRIL 10 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
101991, 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, A1 Colvin and Russ Johnson. Also present were City
Attorney Ian Sievers and Deputy City Clerk Gil Johnson.
The meeting opened with the Pledge of Allegiance led by
Council President Horton and Invocation by Councilman A1
Colvin.
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Minutes Of Meeting - March 20, 1991, #AB91-087
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/Overson) on April 10, 1991, the Council does
approve for payment those vouchers included and further
described as follows: 127453, 127455, 127475 through 127627 in
the total amount of $228,437.02 and Regular Payroll for the
period ending March 31, 1991, in the total amount of
$398,848.63.
COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS
Mr. Overson stated he was glad to see the progress being made
on Park Avenue with the demolition and removal of the old In
and Out restaurant building.
Mr. Estes expressed concern that the community had become
decisive over the Roosevelt Field issue and hoped it would not
be a long lasting condition. He was not pleased with the
display of signs on Fourth Street following the Council
meeting of April 3, and felt it just added to the hard
feelings that were already out there and hoped they would be
removed by the end of the week. He noted if this issue came
TAPE #910
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 10, 1991
Page 2 of 31
back to Council, due to a court action, he hoped it would end
with a vote of the people. There needs to be unity in the
City. Instead of people being Council bashers, he encouraged
them to put their name on the line and sign up for one of the
Council positions that would be coming up on then General
election.
Mr. Colvin stated he felt there was nothing wrong with people
having differences of opinion on issues, which was different
than what he viewed in the Soviet Union when he visited there.
He had the opportunity to be a platform guest at the Billy
Graham crusade and found this experience to one of his most
memorable. He provided Reverend Graham and some of his
staff with City of Bremerton #1 pins. Mr. Colvin invited one
of Mr. Graham's crusade promoters to speak to the Council on
a special project planned for Kitsap County. On the Roosevelt
Field issue, he hoped the differences would be put "behind
US".
Mr. Dawkins reported in two weeks (April 20, 1991), "Christmas
In April" would be happening in Bremerton. A special program
has been developed by the Department Of Community Development,
coordinating a work force made up several different trades,
carpenters, plumbers, painters, etc., who would be making
repairs to four homes of low income residents. He emphasized
this was a people caring about people project.
Mrs. Hotton stated she had been keeping track of legislation
as it goes through Olympia and one in particular, HB1462,
regulation of dangerous and potentially dangerous dogs. The
intent of this bill would be to take control for Animal
Control Ordinances out of the hands of the local
municipalities and given over to State authorities. There are
several cities who had gone to banning certain breeds of dogs
and Bremerton implemented a Dangerous Dog Ordinance. If this
legislation is passed, it would then be a mandate from the
State as to how Animal Control Ordinances would be written to
address. The local community would not be given the latitude
to outlaw a certain breed of dog. If the State took that
control, then she felt they should be required to come in with
the State Militia and take on Animal Control in the various
jurisdictions. She supported keeping control such as this
within the local jurisdictions. If the public did not support
such legislation, she encouraged them to contact their
legislator and let them know their feelings.
PUBLIC RECOGNITION
Mayor Mentor reported on a very professional show held April
6, held at the Bremerton High School Performing Arts Center,
TAPE #910
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 10, 1991
Page 3 of 31
followed by a social gathering of attendees at the Amy
Bernette building downtown. He noted it was great having
100-150 people downtown late on a Saturday evening. He
announced it was anticipated the Turner Joy would be moved to
its new moorage on Friday, April 12. He attended the Bataan
Park ceremony on April 6. Mayor Mentor read into the record
a letter received from the Philippine Consulate, apologizing
for not making the meeting on time to receive the Proclamation
read on April 3. He thanked the Mayor and City Council for
proclaiming April 6, 1991, as American Former Prisoner Of War
Recognition of Bataan Days, and noted the historical
significance of that period of time to America and the
Philippines.
Mayor Mentor read a Proclamation recognizing the dedication of
telecommunicators throughout the nation and proclaimed the
Week of April 14-20, 1991, as NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATORS WEEK.
Brenda Hostetter, Director at CenCom accepted the
proclamation.
Mayor Mentor read a Proclamation announcingApril 22 will mark
the 21st anniversary of Earth Day; and the commencement of the
eighth annual state-wide clean up, recycling and
beautification event. Mayor Mentor proclaimed April 13-21 as
SPRINGRALLY '91 WEEK. Mayor Mentor outlined this years clean
up schedule, which did differ from past years. He outlined
when and where citizens could drop off yard waste and large
discarded items.
Dennis Gray, 1302 Lincoln Ave., representing Bremerton Eagles,
announced a fund raising event for the Bremerton Knights
Marching Band's trip to Washington, D.C. On April 14, 1991,
the Bremerton Eagles will host a Sunday Brunch, 11:00 AM to
2:00 PM, followed by special entertainment provided by the
Knights Jazz Band. The cost of the tickets for this event is
$5.00 donation. And, he suggested that some time in the near
future the City of Bremerton make a special Proclamation
honoring the Bremerton Knights On Parade.
Cecil McConne11, 2345 Almira Drive, spoke in reference to
Roosevelt Field and gave his impression of the City Council's
decision the previous week on the trading of Roosevelt Field.
He did not support Council action on this issue and felt there
were many environmental questions still to be answered.
Andy ParV~a , 2211 Hayward Avenue, stated he had a number of
things to clear up with this Council. To Mr. Horning and the
rest of the Council, he emphatically stated that he had never
threatened physical harmto any one in any way and hoped that
TAPE #910
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 10, 1991
Page 4 of 31
nothing he said or did in the past reflected such an intent.
Also, he assured the Council that just because he happened to
be included in a picture recently printed in The Sun showing
the signs protesting Council action on the Roosevelt Field
issue did not mean that he was responsible for any of the
signs or displays. He just happened to be at that particular
spot when the news photographer took the picture. He
questioned the intent of Councilman Johnson's "no" vote on the
Roosevelt Field issue? He expressed his opinion that citizens
feel it is useless to give input to the Council. He informed
the Council that he had personal knowledge of the proposed
land trade before it was made public and he had tried to
obtain some answers from his Council representative and Mayor
but was not successful. Had some of those questions been
answered to him and the public, he felt there may have been a
different response.
Don Larson, 135 Rainier Avenue, Chairman of the Dyes/Sinclair
Inlets Clean Up Citizens Advisory Committee, reminded everyone
of the activities planned for April 20, 10:00 AM, on the
Bremerton waterfront.
Michele Knauss, 139 Olympic Avenue, stated her unhappiness
with the City Council for their action the previous week
relating to Roosevelt Field. She emphasized the fact that she
believed the Council was not listening to what the citizens of
Bremerton wanted and made decisions that were not in the best
interest of the citizens. And, because of their actions, she
no longer had a trust in their decisions.
Darrel L. McDorman, Bremerton, again raised the issue of
parking problems in the Fir/Magnuson area and the fact that
the City had not done anything to help ease those problems.
President Horton requested Deputy Clerk Johnson to contact
Police Chief Del McNeal on this issue.
Roy McInnis, 2711 Maple Street, expressed concern over the
Roosevelt Field issue and felt the loud "no" vote given by the
public through a ballot measure plus the testimony given
during Council meetings was of no value to the Council when
they made their decision to trade Roosevelt Field. He
supported Mr. McDorman's concerns over parking problems in the
Fir/Magnuson/Maple Street areas. He was concerned that
someone would be hurt unless something was done to make it
more safe for pedestrian and vehicle traffic in that area.
Morgan 8teth, 3291 Wright Avenue, expressed concern with
governments from City all the way up to the White House. He
did not feel that the City Council was providing good
TAPE #910
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 10, 1991
Page 5 of 31
leadership. He made the following suggestions to conserve
water and help keep utility costs down for the resident: (1)
allow and encourage people to put in a septic tank that would
collect run off water and store it during the fall/winter
months, and then use it for lawn watering during the summer
months; (2) bring together a group of people who could discuss
problems affecting the citizens and have that group come up
with recommendations for solution of those problems for
Council consideration.
E. L. Sturdivant, Bremerton resident, spoke on the Roosevelt
Field issue and pointed out there was a difference in
negotiating on a level field than negotiation on demand. When
the Council was threatened in negotiations that's negotiations
on demand. He noted the buzz word "visionary" had been
bantered around even when he served on the City Council and a
number of issues had come up that eventually got voted down
that were termed "visionary opportunities". He commended
Councilman A1 Colvin for standing up for what he believed in
his decision on Roosevelt Field. He admonished the Council
for not even knowing what their vote meant when they voted to
trade Roosevelt Field to Olympic College. He stated he
believed that the City Attorney should be fired. he noted that
he was aware that the City Attorney had input in drafting the
Parks Protection Ordinance. Mr. Sturdivant did not believe he
did a very good job in helping draft that Ordinance and he
also believed that the loophole was not there.
Lorraine Inabbinette, Project Family, stated Project Family
was dedicated to the prevention of child abuse and neglect.
She gave out national and local statistics relating to the
numbers of child abuse cases and the fact that they are
increasing daily.. This group will hold their Annual fund
raising Radio-thon on KITZ on April 11 and 12. She encouraged
everyone to listen and to participate for this worthwhile
cause.
Don Mansford, 182 J Russell Rd., questioned what the money
source was to fund construction of the Public Works complex?
On the issue of Roosevelt Field, he suggested the City condemn
Olympic College and provide parking for the Shipyard.
President Horton requested Mr. Johnson, Deputy City Clerk, to
contact the City Treasurer and have him respond to Mr.
Mansford's concerns.
6A - PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT, #AB91-088
The extension to the contract with Diamond Parking expired on
3/31/91. Diamond Parking operates the City Parking Garage and
lots at 300/301 Park Avenue. An extension of the contract
TAPE #910
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 10, 1991
Page 6 of 31
under the same terms is recommended. Diamond Parking works
cooperatively with the City, they are experts in the field of
parking and are able to provide service at less cost than City
operation due to the number of lots they manage. At the May
study session, Council will receive recommendations regarding
security measures at the parking garage. Diamond Parking has
worked closely with the City developing alternatives. The
contract contains a 90 day termination clause.
Gil Johnson, Deputy City Clerk, noted Council had received
correspondence from Diamond Parking outlining their goals and
objectives for the extension period.
Public comment - none.
Mr. Colvin questioned the differences between the proposed
contract and the previous contract? Mr. Sievers, City
Attorney, stated it incorporates all the other terms of the
previous contract and extends the term for an additional year.
#2748
M/S/C/U(Colvin/Dawkins) to approve one year extension to
contract with Diamond Parking to 3/31/92.
6B - INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF
BREMERTON AND WHATCOM COUNTY, #AB91-089
The approved Utility Budget for 1991 provided for the purchase
of a wheel loader for the handling of wastewater solids at the
Utility's wastewater solids handling facility.
Attached for City Council consideration is an
Intergovernmental Agreement between Whatcom County and the
City of Bremerton for the purchase of a wheel loader utilizing
Whatcom County's purchasing contract.
Bill McKinney, Utilities Forester, stated he would be
available for any questions Council.may have.
Mr. Overson stated funding for this equipment was budgeted in
the 1991 budget and he supported approving the proposal.
Mr. Estesquestioned if this piece of equipment was similar to
a Michigan loader? Mr. McKinney explained it was a
caterpillar with a front end loader, with rubber tires.
#2857
M/S/C/U(Overson/Horning) to approve the Interlocal Cooperative
Agreement between Whatcom County and the City of Bremerton for
the purchase of a wheel loader for handling of wastewater
solids and authorize the Mayor to execute said agreement
subject to City Administrative Polices and Procedures.
TAPE #910
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 10, 1991
Page 7 of 3I
6C- LID PETITION - LAKEHURST DRIVE, #AB91-090
The attached LID Petition was received from Lakehurst Drive
residents on 3/29/91. The preparation of a preliminary
assessment role requires a significant amount of engineering
work. It is City policy to determine Council interest in the
LID prior to directing Engineering Department to expend time
on preliminary assessment. If Council chooses to proceed, a
hearing will be set by resolution at a later date, notice will
be sent to all affected properly owners and the hearing will
commence on the preliminary assessment role at that time.
Public comment - none.
Mr. Overson noted the following comment had been made under
Item #6 of the Agenda Bill: "to be discussed at the time of
the hearing", relating to staffing and budget impacts. He
questioned if now was the time to address that comment? Jan
Stemskoski, Assistant City Engineer, stated they were staffed
well enough to undertake this job.
Mr. Johnson stated he was proud of these folks for stepping
forward and doing the LID. He noted it was an extremely nice
neighborhood with the misfortune of being on the last rabble
street in the City of Bremerton. He was not all that pleased
that getting the street fixed be totally up to the residents,
considering the fact that the City went to the expense of
putting up useless stop lights and using Street money in other
ways when in fact this street could have been improved. He
hoped that other residents will step forward through the LID
process for making major improvements to their neighborhood.
He noted this area was #53 on the Street priority list.
Mr. Colvin requested an explanation of what an "LID" meant?
Ian Sievers, City Attorney, explained an LID was a means of
financing public improvement by the property owners who
benefit from that improvement. The residents pay for the cost
of the improvement, including attorney's fees, engineering
costs and a small amount of money set aside in a contingency
fund. Usually the improvements are of a localized nature and
the City as a whole would not benefit greatly. Mr. Colvin
questioned what kind of improvements would that include? Mr.
Sievers stated it could pertain to sidewalks, curbs and
gutters, streets and any local improvement. There are also
Utility Local Improvement Districts for utility improvements.
Mr. Oversonquestioned theactual location of the proposed LID
as it relates to the map included in the Council Agenda
packet? Mr. Stemkoski explained that County Road 205 was
Lakehurst Drive and it ends up against the new Dockside plat.
TAPE #910
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 10, 1991
Page 8 of 31
#2993 M/S/C/U(Waibel/Johnson) to direct the City Engineer to prepare
Preliminary Assessment Role for Lakehurst Drive LID.
TAPE #911
6D - PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT SOLID WASTE CONTRACT
NEGOTIATIONS - MATRIX MANAGEMENT, #AB91-091
Attached is a Professional Services Agreement with Matrix
Management for development and negotiation of a new solid
waste hauling and recycling contract with Brem-Air Disposal,
Inc. Matrix will work with the City's negotiations team
developing standards and policies for each service to be
provided by Brem-Air; evaluate and select a rate structure and
billing system; and assist the City in negotiations.
Public comment - none.
Mr. Johnson pointed out Matrix Management are not the
negotiators for the contract, they are in fact advisors to
professional City staff who are actually conducting those
negotiations. Their services would fill a void of expertise
that the City cannot afford to have on board as full time
staff right now to put together state-of-the-art full service
garbage and solid waste management, including composting,
options, recycling, drop-off stations, etc.
Mr. Overson noted this City stands at a wonderful position to
take advantage of this kind of effort with all the new
environmental protection things coming out, the experience of
other cities and their implementing their environmental
recycling, etc. However, a large part of that would be the
actual contract and he was concern that the proposal did not
relate to that contact. ell Johnson, Deputy City Clerk,
stated the proposal was the contract for Matrix Management
consultant services and the contract with Brem-Air would be
pieced together, component wise, and would not be available
for public review until late May or early June.
President Hotton questioned if Matrix had agreed to the
amendment of the amount against professional liability for
errors and omissions? Mr. ell Johnson stated yes, and it was
accepted by the City's Risk Manager as well.
Mr. Colvinquestioned if there was a beginning and termination
time of the agreement? Mr. Gil Johnson stated the services
cost $20,000 and the project is broken down into several tasks
and sub-tasks. Task i would be to develop performance
standards for services, costing $10,000; Task 2 would be to
develop a rate structure, costing $5,000; Task 3 - the
ultimate contract negotiations, where they will provide
TAPE #911
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 10, 1991
Page 9 of 31
#0058
technical expertise will cost an additional $5,000. As each
of the tasks are completed they will be paid incremental. Mr.
Walbel pointed out that Task #3 would be billed on an hourly
basis and the actual costs incurred may not amount to the full
$5,000. Mr. G. Johnson explained implementation of the tasks
would begin as soon as the agreement was approved by Council
and the ending should come sufficiently earlier that the
September 1, 1991, current contract expiration date.
M/S/C/(Johnson/Collins) to approve contract with Matrix
Management for Solid Waste contract development and
negotiations.
6E - APPROVAL OF THE PUGET SOUND REGIONAL COUNCIL INTERLOCAL
AGREEMENT, #AB91-092
The Agreement if approved by 60% of all units of general
governments representing 75% of the population in Kitsap
County, Pierce and Snohomish Counties would establish the
Puget Sound Regional Council. There is a question on if this
threshhold for approval is on a County basis or region basis.
This would replace the Council of Governments presently
existing. The Regional Council would adopt goals, policies
and standards for regional transportation and regional growth
management in the central puget sound area based on local
comprehensive plans of jurisdictions in the region.
Don Pratt, Director Of Community Development, stated the
Growth Management Act of 1990 requires that all State
transportation expenditures must be in conformance with a
regionally adopted Transportation Plan. Kitsap County happens
to belong to two Regional Transportation Planning
Organizations (RPTO) agencies, one is the Peninsula Regional
Transportation Planning Organization made up of Clallam,
Mason, Jefferson and Kitsap Counties. The second is the one
being voted on at this time - Puget Sound Regional Council and
it includes King, Pierce, Snohomish and Kitsap Counties. No
State expenditures can be spent in any of these areas unless
it conforms with the plan adopted by the board of either one
of these RTPO's. It will take 60% of the local government
representing 75% of population present from each region to
approve it. In other words, you could vote no and still be
included. This is the so called "son of COG", succeeding
agency for the Puget Sound Council Of Governments (PSCOG) and
the vote structure for this organization is proportional.
Public comment - none.
Mr. Overson stated his biggest concern with the proposal is
TAPE #911
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 10, 1991
Page 10 of 31
that Bremerton will not have a "large City" vote on this
organization but may be charged "large City" fees. He
questioned if that was still under discussion or had it been
resolved? Mr. Pratt stated it was his understanding that a
budget had not been proposed for the new organization, but
there was an old budget from the PSCOG on a staff and
technical level that was rejected to a certain extent and the
budget for the new organization and fees have not yet been
established. Mr. Overson noted then Council really did not
know what they were passing. Mr. Pratt stated that was true,
however, if Bremerton does not approve the proposal it may
weaken the City's role at the table determining that. He
reminded Council that Bremerton could become a member even
with a negative vote if 60% of the other local governments
approve it.
Mr. Hornin~ referred to a letter from the Regional Organizing
Committee, dated April 2,... on Page 2, it says that
representation as well as membership dues would be a direct
result of population percentages. Under the original COG
format, Bremerton was considered a "Central City", now they
use the term "Metropolitan Center". By being a population
center, we do get certain benefits and certain
responsibilities, but they are not necessarily driven by
dollars. The City would not be charged as we are under the
"Central City" formula. Mr. Pratt stated that was also his
interpretation, but he would really like to say that the
letter was an expectation of what would come. What this does
is to establish a decision making body to implement that
letter and those expectations.
Mr. Waibel questioned if we get a bill based on a funding
formula that the City does not agree with, but in fact
requires Bremerton to pay a lot more and the City refuses to
pay that bill, what happens to the City's membership? Mr.
Pratt stated he believed there was a withdrawal mechanism in
the Interlocal Agreement and he could not definitely say what
"withdrawal" meant but it had implications to funding. Mr.
Homing stated there is a six month withdrawal, however, he
reminded everyone that Bremerton had been a receiver City and
receiver County from FAUS funds. He did not see the City
being "at risk" on this proposal.
Mr. Johnson noted he had never been a big fan on this and the
City receives approximately $100,000 per year through this
process. He felt that much money could be obtained from other
sources. Clearly, this new organization was being structured
to do nothing more than to improve the I-5 corridor. The new
TAPE #911
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 10, 1991
Page 11 of 31
voting structure lists 21 members, 19 votes with Kitsap County
getting one vote (1/2 County and 1/2 combination of all other
cities in the County), and Kitsap was the only County where
the largest City does not get their own vote. On the funding
issue, he did not find it clear at all, but the Interlocal
Agreement states the bill would not only be determined on
population but on the size of the City budget as well. He did
not find any kind of formula within the document that spells
it out and only allows a readjustment every three years. What
the City is giving up is not only the vote previously held
under the old COG, but the City also had a guaranteed seat on
the Executive Board. He felt it would be more of an advantage
if Bremerton worked with the governmental entities on the
Peninsula organization. He questioned if the City could
receive $100,000 from the Peninsula group as easy? Mr. Pratt
stated almost as much - the Puget Sound region will receive
more funding because of the size and the population base than
the Jefferson/Clallam/Mason County group will. The question
is what would be the City's share be if the bigger pie verses
our share as the biggest eater at the smaller pie? This is
getting into a policy area and he preferred deferring to
Council and their desire. Mr. Johnson questioned if the City
had received any funds from the Jefferson/Clallam/Mason
County group? Mr. Pratt stated yes, even without Bremerton
contributing any allocations this spring in their budget of
funds, which came only to three Counties, they distributed
between four Counties, and the governmental bodies in Kitsap
County received $6,000 for training to be spent before June
30. The Peninsula RPTO has not yet established a fee
structure, but would be in the near future.
Mr. Dawklns noted the agreement states the agencies shall make
Vision 2020 as the adopted regional growth management strategy
and questioned if the City was in favor of that? Mr. Pratt
stated yes, this Council adopted Vision 2020. Mr. Dawkins
questioned if the City could belong to both groups? Mr. Pratt
stated yes, by a special exception that was made by the
Department Of Transportation at the request of Representative
Schmitt, Kitsap County could be a member of two Regional
Transportation Planning Organizations, but funds, on your
behalf, would be in the amount as if you only belonged to one.
The City would receive a certain amount of money for being
part of a RTPO and would not get double that amount because of
the two memberships. Mr. Dawkinsquestioned what was the cost
of joining the Peninsula group? Mr. Pratt stated the dues
have not been made up, the Peninsula Transportation Planning
organization assumes that they will have a budget limited only
to the State funds that you all received so they are not
TAPE #911
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 10, 1991
Page 12 of 31
planning assessing a fee above what the State allocates on
your behalf. That has not been the case in the PSCOG and he
did not expect it to be the case in the Puget Sound Regional
Council. Mr. Dawkins questioned if there was an advantage
going with both over one? Mr. Homing stated yes, you keep
your options open. He felt strongly that Bremerton remain a
part of the Puget Sound Regional Council because if this area
expects to participate with Seattle through the ferries and
have a voice this is were it will be. Kitsap County may have
a very common relationship with the Peninsula group, and he
foresees this County sitting as a courtesy on their Council
and be a money player with the Seattle group. Ferries are
vital to Bremerton. Mr. Johnson questioned for clarification
how the funding allocation was determined? Mr. Pratt stated
there are two pies: one pie to do planning through RTPO's and
one pie to fund projects. When the Regional Transportation
Planning organization legislation was adopted it came with
State funding to help it get going and keep going. The
Peninsula RTPO had decided that was all the money they would
use and the local governments would not be asked to raise
funding above the State allocation. He ws not sure that would
be the same policy with the Puget Sound Regional Council. He
expects them to ask for fees over and above money granted by
the State. Money to do projects will only be issued through
one Regional Planning Organization and at some point Bremerton
will have to decide which one takes the City's Six Year Plan
into their overall plan and the one through which all
applications will be processed. Mr. Johnson questioned even
if it was a joint effort with one of the Peninsula counties,
such as improvement to the road to Belfair? Mr. Pratt stated
there is mechanism for regions to talk to each other. The
money that would be brought to a joint project would have to
come through the Puget Sound regional and then joined up with
the Peninsula region. Mr. Johnson suggested that Mr. Horning
address this at the Puget Sound Regional Council and
questioned how could something like this be put on the floor
for discussion? Mr. Pratt stated the way that was happening
was that each County received an allocation of FAUSS funds and
the County distributes those funds within that County. There
are a few large projects that you can compete on a region wide
basis.
President Hotton stated assuming Bremerton was in only one,
such as the Puget Sound RPTO, would the City get more money
than if we were in the Peninsula RPTO or would we get the same
amount of money? Mr. Pratt stated the amount of money
Bremerton would receive is dependent on what the decision
making body for that region decided is Bremerton's share. If
TAPE #911
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 10, 1991
Page 13 of 31
membership is in the Puget Sound Regional Council they have an
immense pie and we are only one small player. But, that pie
is significantly greater than the pie in the Peninsula region.
At the Peninsula region, Kitsap County governments would be
the biggest player. He did not know what would be the
ultimate outcome from those memberships. Mr. Waibel reminded
everyone that there were two sources of funds, State funds,
and those are fixed, and Federal funds generated through the
functions of the RTPO's. Mr. Pratt noted planning funds were
a fixed amount, but project funds from the State were not
necessarily fixed. President Horton stated a memo had been
received from Bill Mahan that stipulates the executive board
has 67 cities and towns from the four Counties represented on
the executive board through an appointment process; those
cities and towns select five members to represent them;
representation as well as membership dues is a direct result
of population percentage. In the proposed Interlocal
Agreement it talks about the voting structure and she
questioned at what point did the executive board jibe with the
one outlined in Mr. Mahan's letter and what do they do? Mr.
Pratt stated he believed Mr. Mahan was quoting from a draft of
the By-Laws that are proposed and fairly strongly supported by
most members. What Council was acting on at this time is the
Interlocal Agreement. The By-laws cannot be adopted until the
Interlocal Agreements are in place and there is actually a
body to adopt the By-laws. President Hortonquestioned how do
these five fit in with this Interlocal Agreement executive
board? She questioned if there would be two bodies from
Kitsap County on the executive board? Mr. Pratt stated he did
not have that document and could not respond to that question
at this time. President Hotton questioned if Council should
ignore Mr. Mahan's memo? Mr. Waibel stated the five do not
refer to just Kitsap County, but to all of the cities in the
Puget Sound. Mr. Pratt stated it was his understanding the
five seats would represent the cities' interest on that board.
Mr. Waibel stated Kitsap County may not have any
representatives on that board. Mr. Collins directed
Council's attention to page 8 of the Interlocal Agreement,
Item A under Section VI. Mr. Johnson emphasized "General
Assembly" is every elected official. Mr. Pratt stated there
were six seats for other cities on the executive board but
they share only five votes, because Kitsap County gets 1/2
vote and Pierce County/other cities and towns gets 1/2 vote.
Mr. Waibel stated under Section XII Withdrawals; Dissolution
states: "member counties and major cities are parties to this
Interlocal Agreement agree that withdrawal will not absolve
them of responsibility for meeting financial obligations of
TAPE #911
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 10, 1991
Page 14 of 3t
#1007
annual contracts or agreements which exist between the State
of Washington or the federal government and the Regional
Planning Agency at the time of withdrawal". He outlined in a
hypothetically situation - if the City agreed to be a part of
this agency and at the first meeting they decide to commit the
agency to 6 billion dollars worth of light rail funds, then
Kitsap County's population has to contribute to the buy back
of those funds. And, if Kitsap County then decides to
withdraw from that organization they would still be obligated
for a share of those funds. He questioned if it would be
possible to obtain a "conditional" agreement at this time to
enter into the agreement based on the City wants to know what
the structure will be, what the By-Laws will be, funding
mechanisms and how much indebtedness the cities/counties would
be obligated for? Ian Sievers, City Attorney, stated he had
not reviewed the proposed By-laws. Some of the other issues
are matters that will be addressed and voted upon once the
organization was implemented. He agreed with Mr. Waibel's
understanding of the termination clause, the City could exempt
the annual assessment for dues if notice was given six months
ahead of withdrawal. But, long term obligations that are made
with the City/Kitsap County as members would be binding.
M/S/C(Horning/Dawkins) to continue this item for two weeks.
Vote:
In Favor:
Abstain:
Overson, Estes, Horning, Waibel, Horton,
Collins, Dawkins, Johnson
Colvin
Mr. Johnson urged the Council to set up a Study Session with
at least two lead persons in charge of getting this organized.
Mr. Homing suggested that Mr. Mahan and the representative
who helped
frame this agreement join the Council for a Study Session.
Mr. Johnson stated he would like to hear from the east side of
the Sound.
Mr. Colvin stated he abstained on the vote because the
"question" had been called too quickly. He expressed his
concern that not enough was known of the financial impact this
would have on the City.
8A - PUBLIC HEARING - TO CONSIDER A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE
ZONING ORDINANCES TO ADD A NEW "ZONING ORDINANCE EXCEPTIONS
PROCB8S", #AB91-095
At its regular meeting on February 19, 1991, the Bremerton
Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to consider a
proposal to amend the Bremerton Zoning Ordinance to add a new
TAPE #911
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 10, 1991
Page 15 of 31
"ZONING ORDINANCE EXCEPTIONS" process to Chapter
Commission voted unanimously to recommend City
approval of this amendment.
X. The
Council
If approved by the City Council, an adopting ordinance will be
prepared for final approval of this amendment.
Mr. Johnson questioned if his staying seated on this issue
would be considered a conflict of interest? Ian Sievers, City
Attorney, stated no, this is a Zoning text revision and had
nothing to do with a specific proposal or individual parties
and was applied City-wide. It is simply a Legislative action.
Ron Hough, Planning Manger, stated the City's Zoning ordinance
contains approximately 100 pages of fairly detailed
regulations for land use and development. These are hard
regulations in most cases and in come cases there is relief
built into the Zoning Ordinance, such as the Planned Unit
Development, which allows some flexibility in design, or
through a Special Use Permit or some other procedures. There
is also a group of development types that often come to
Planning staff as minor or unusual situations with property
lines or development on a small piece of property, that are
caught in the cracks and don't have an option and because of
that they have to be denied even though they may be good ideas
and do not have any adverse impacts on the neighbors, etc.
Also, in a lot of cases a variance is justified but a variance
requires a hardship dealing with the property, such as a cliff
or rock outcropping, stream through it or shoreline that
prevents development. In these situations, there may not be
a hardship involved but basically is a good idea.
When the third set of amendments to the Zoning Ordinance was
brought to Council a few months ago, they were asked to look
at a way to provide some relief for through lots, lots that
have a frontage on two streets. They did that and in the
process they also prepared Zoning Ordinance Exceptions Process
to allow for other types of situations as well. The City
Council did adopt an Exceptions process for through lots,
allowing through lots in certain situations with specific
criteria related to those. The next step was to outline an
exceptions process that could be added to Chapter 10 of the
Zoning Ordinance, and which would be similar to variances and
Special Use Permits. They can be processed administratively
in some cases, but if they are more complicated or there is
opposition then they would go to the Planning Commission for
a public hearing and could be appealed to the City Council.
The process is fairly simple and the criteria simple. There
TAPE #911
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes.
April 10, 1991
Page 16 of ~
are four criteria: (1) the proposal must be consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan; (2) must be a clear relationship to
the public interest and well being to the neighborhood or
community; (3) the exception will not result in a hazard to
health or public safety; (4) it is not a hardship type of
situation that should be processed through a variance. If
they meet these criteria they would be eligible to have their
Zoning Ordinance Exception processed, administratively.
He noted it was difficult to anticipate what might come along
and these are unforeseen situations in most cases. Some
areas that Mr. Hough thought might qualify were situations in
the City where a property may be adjacent to a public right-
of-way, such as an arterial street being 10-20 feet higher
than the property, but because the property fronts on public
right-of-way, it is required to have a 20 ft. setback. In
those cases there are no sight distance problems, no adjacent
development and no reason to have that 20-ft. setback
requirement, which was intended for other reasons to protect
the neighborhood.. That might be a case for an exception to
the rule. Other cases are in areas that have been developed
for specific types of uses with certain characteristics of the
neighborhood. He used the example of a duplex neighborhood
which may be zoned for duplex but there is a minimum lot size
required for a duplex of 9,600 sq. ft. A duplex neighborhood
may have a vacant lot, totally surrounded by other duplex with
lots being only 8,900 sq. ft., and therefore could only
accommodate a single family house. That might justify an
exception to the minimum lot size for a duplex.
The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on this
proposal on February 19, 1991, passing it unanimously and
recommended approval to the City Council. He noted the intent
with the proposal is to make the Zoning Ordinance a little
more user friendly and address situations that fall through
the cracks.
Mike Leedy, Illahee Road NE, and owner of a lot in the
Sheridan Park Addition, stated he probably would not have
heard about this ordinance if he hadn't run into a problem
with the lot they own in Sheridan Park Addition. His first
thought was that he was conservative and questioned why did
the City have to get looser on regulations. He emphasized he
was very happy with the way the Planning Department was
working with them on their problem. However, he felt there
may be some confusion as to what Zoning was all about. One
example cited by Mr. Hough was duplex lot sizes and there are
people in the community right now who are buying lots that
TAPE #911
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 10, 1991
Page 17 of ~
they know full well are less than 9,600 sq. ft. They have
considerable assurance, in their own minds, that they will get
a variance. There is a lot adjacent to his small lot that was
twice the size of a minimum lot size, also zoned for a duplex.
And, he believes they plan to build a duplex on it. Whether
or not they move a building onto it and whether or not they
punch a hole through the wall and now call it a single
dwelling until they get their variance is one thing, but
other individuals start to bulldoze the land, move more soil
than they should, and put forms for foundations. It takes
someone going to City Planning complaining and sign a
complaint to get a stoppage of illegal activity. He believes
that a 9,600 sq. ft. lot minimum was fine and should be left
that way. He did not think there was a starvation of duplex
lots. He felt these people could apply several lots or
reshape a lot to meeting the minimum lot size. There are ways
to do it totally within the rules that are currently in place.
He was concerned that it was too easy for people to come up to
neighbors in a nice, friendly manner, requesting that they
sign off on some issue that would grant then a variance to do
something on their property that was not within the Zoning
Ordinance. He noted he had received a letter stating that the
houses moved out of Bremerton Gardens were seven years old.
From his experience of living on Wheaton Way for fifteen
years, he finds that hard to believe. He wished for the
establishment of good zoning sizes that they, as a property
owner, could count on. Mr. Leedy provided Council with
several pictures showing the soil preparation/foundation
laying on the lot he described above.
Roy McInnis, 2711 Maple Street, felt the proposal did allow a
smoother operation of zoning needs rather than having to bring
smaller issues, such as those included in the proposal, to a
public hearing process before the Planning Commission and City
Council.
Cecil McConnell, 3245 Almira Drive, stated he was somewhat
confused, particularly Item #4 under the Criteria. He
questioned if this was not a rezone function but would take
care of a situation where a property owner was caught with a
lot that was smaller than required under the new Zoning
Ordinance? Mr. Hough stated it was not intended to give a
rezone and it was not intended to allow uses that aren't
allowed in the zone in the first place. The "DR" zone allows
single family homes and duplexes, the only issue is how big
the lot is. In this case there might be an exception
justified in an area that was totally duplexes for a lot in
that area that was smaller than 9,600 feet to maintain the
TAPE #911
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 10, 1991
Page 18 of ~
character of that neighborhood. In other cases, if someone
wants to put in a duplex in another duplex zone in the City
that wasn't of that character, that would not be allowed.
Mr. Colvin questioned if Mr. Leedy was correct in his
statement that a foundation had been installed at the site he
described? Mr. Leedy stated it was his understanding that the
forms had been installed, without the benefit of a Building
Permit. Don Pratt, Director Of Community Development, stated
that was correct, Mr. Leedy made a complaint and he
immediately issued a stop work order not only for the
foundations but for the grading work that took place. Under
the City's UniformBuilding Code, if they want to restart that
work they will have to obtain a Building Permit and pay double
fees. Mr. Colvin questioned if this ordinance was approved,
could those people go ahead with their work? Mr. Pratt stated
it would have no bearing whatsoever on the Building Permit
that would be issued. The only bearing it would have is
whether the structures they put there would be considered as
a exception to permit them to be duplexes for single family
dwelling units. Mr. Leedv stated he was trying to convey that
there are people in the community who have considerable amount
of assurance, in their own minds, that they can get variances,
not exceptions. As the ordinance now states the people who
border must sign off on their agreement that a variance would
not have an adverse affect on them. A person who has a corner
lot may not necessarily be included under that requirement.
And, that was the case of the first problem area he
identified. Due to their not having a border on that corner
lot, then they had no right to complain.
President Horton requested Mr. Hough to address Mr. Leedy's
concern, is it valid as it pertains to this discussion and if
it is how do we take steps to correct it? Mr. Hough stated in
relation to the situation Mr. Leedy referenced, he was not
sure if there would be an application for a variance, but
generally if there is a financial hardship a variance would
not be approved. If there was a hardship involved in the
property, i.e., location of the building on the property, that
might be approved. If, in this case a variance could not be
approved then there would not be any other alternative but to
put a single family house on the property or not develop it at
all. The proposed process would give an additional
alternative. In reference to Mr. Leedy's comments regarding
"neighbors signing", that was only for having a process
administratively approved. He noted any administrative
decision can be appealed.
TAPE #911
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 10, 1991
Page 19 of 31
Mr. Dawkins questioned if all the neighbors agreed then
someone could put up a duplex? Mr. Hough stated no, if all
the neighbors agree it could be processed administratively.
If they didn't agree then the request would have to go through
the Planning Commission. Mr. Dawkins questioned if the area
being discussed by Mr. Leedy was a duplex area? Mr. Hough
stated yes. The City has a lot of old lots in the CBR zone
that are 30 ft. wide and 100 ft. deep, and a minimum lot size
in the CBR zone is 3,000. However, if one had a corner lot in
the CBR zone with 20 foot setback taking 2/3rd. of that
property, that would leave about a 10 ft. wide strip of land
to develop. If there was an old house on that property and it
was desired to remodel it, there would not be any room to do
that type of renovation. That might be a case for a Zoning
Ordinance Exception.
Mr. Homing stated for clarification that even if the
proposed ordinance was passed and a person applied for an
exception, unless it passes the four criteria it would not be
granted. Mr. Houqh stated that was correct. Mr. Homing
urged Council not to get sidetracked on one issue because
there are a lot of other exceptions and situations that need
to be addressed. He supported not taking away right to due
process.
Mr. Johnson related he believed he had a part in planting a
seed to address some of these unusual situations from his
experience of having to deal with a through lot situation.
The new Zoning Ordinance took away the back yards of houses
that are fronts and backs between two streets. This created
a number of problems for people if they wanted to make any
improvements on their property, such as putting a garage or
carport up. He noted there are hundreds of through lots
throughout the City, particularly along the water. In affect,
what the Council did without telling anyone was to down zone
hundreds of pieces of property and took away property value
and rights. It was his intention to fix it so that those
rights were restored. Now, the proposal as it is being
presented has taken a weird form. Under this proposal, if he
wanted to get his back yard back, administratively, he has to
get all adjoining property to agree to what he proposes. He
questioned what did "all adjoining property" mean, i.e, people
on both sides, across the street, etc.? Mr. Houqh stated
adjoining property meant those properties adjoining the lot on
each side and back and directly across the street. Mr.
Johnson stated he had a problem with that as the lot directly
across the street from him home did not line up with his
properly. Mr. Hough stated then it may require more than one.
Mr. Waibel stated the City would be a party to everyone of
TAPE #911
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 10, 1991
Page 20 of ~
these through lots because we are the adjoining property owner
for a lot of the lots. Mr. Hough pointed out the part
referencing through lots had already been approved by Council
and would be coming back to Council in the form of an
ordinance. He explained the criteria for through lots was
different than the criteria for "exceptions". Mr. Johnson
expressed concern that the proposed document did address
through lots as it is referenced throughout the proposal.
Mr. Waibel stated this proposal does not address through lots
because there is another section of the Ordinance that does
address them. There might be some exceptional cases desiring
to be an exception to the row of houses by having a front yard
when everyone else has a back yard. We are not taking away
anyone's rights by not passing this tonight. Right now they
do not have the right for the exception of any type, they have
the right to rezone and to request a variance. This proposal
would be adding rights. He noted this proposal would add a
Planning Commission process to the Zoning Ordinance. Mr.
Johnson stated he was not comfortable with the proposal as
presented. Mr. Waibel noted Mr. Hough indicated the proposal
was not intended to make exception to uses, but it certainly
does not say that. He could come in and say he had a better
use and more in tune with that particular lot than what it is
currently zoned for, not a hardship but it would be nice to be
able to do it. If it is intended to make these exceptions
limited and it was intended to limit it to not include uses
that should be part of the ordinance. He felt the proposed
document was too loose. Mr. Hough referred to the Variance
Section of the Zoning Ordinance: "A variance may be granted to
any provision of the ordinance except to any provision
establishing the uses permitted in the zone...". Mr. Waibel
pointed out this was an exception not a variance.
Mr. Overson stated he did not understand why Mr. Waibel stated
the Planning Commission would have trouble dealing with the
criteria...they'll never see them. A Zoning Ordinance
exception will be approved administratively by the Director.
Mr. Waibel pointed out if in fact everyone agreed that a
proposal for an exception was ok, then it could be acted upon
by the Director. Mr. Overson stated he strongly opposed this
proposal as it is worded because what that would do is take
the Zoning Ordinance out of the procedure. He felt this would
be very unhealthy for the City. Plus, now the Director has an
additional significant power for the decision that neither the
Council nor the Planning Commission will know about. He found
nothing in the document that indicated those decisions would
be recorded any where. Mr. Hough questioned if it would make
TAPE #911
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 10, 1991
Page 21 of ~
it easier if we excluded uses and density? Mr. Overson stated
yes, but he also had other concerns.
Mr. Colvin questioned if there was someone out in the
community waiting for this proposal to be approved? Mr. Hough
stated he did not know of anyone. Mr. Colvin stated it looked
like the Planning Department would encourage people to build
a foundation and get started without getting a permit and it
was his feeling that the individual would get approval to
build his development as described by Mr. Leedy. Mr. Pratt
stated that was a false statement. It was a true statement
that the foundation was started and it was a true statement
that a stop work order had been issued and under enforcement.
He stated there are people aware that this proposal is being
considered and are interested in what impact it may have to
their property. If approved, there may be some applications
to do exactly what Mr. Leedy described. Just as there are
other people in the community who would use it for other
reasons. This item was not intended at the request of a
specific individual who wanted to put a duplex on a lot that
was too small. This proposal was intended to simply allow
them to round off some sharp corners of the Zoning Ordinance.
What is being discussed at this time is the limits of that
rounding off.
Mr. Co111ns stated he basically concurred with what was trying
to be done, but he could not vote for the proposal the way it
was written. He hoped it could be written in a more clear
manner so that the general public had a good understanding of
words, such as "substantively". If the fourth criteria was
dressed down into the Kings English, it might be a very
valuable tool. Mr. Hough stated that terminology was in the
Shoreline document and other ordinances. Mr. Collins stated
the average citizen does not know what professional Planning
jargon is. President Hotton reminded Council this item would
come back in the form of an ordinance - Zoning Text Amendment.
She felt Council was making it more difficult than it needed
to be. She questioned if Mr. Hough understood the concerns of
the Council? Mr. Hough stated he understood the inference and
he hoped Council understood what they were attempting to do.
President Hotton questioned if Mr. Hough could take the
concerns of the Council and put in the proper form, as per
ordinance, and come back with a clearer proposal? She urged
Council to approve the proposal at this time, as per the
direction given Mr. Hough, and it would come back in ordinance
form. If Council did not like the reworked document, then
they could always vote no or amend what was presented. She
supported the proposal as a good idea and concept.
TAPE #911
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 10, 1991
Page 22 of 31
#3156
TAPE #912
Mr. Johnson suggested the following wording: under Section B,
adding another criteria was added which stated "There are no
changes to allowed uses or density of the parcel". Then, the
document would be talking about what the staff wants, which is
setbacks, etc., on whole lots. Mr. Waibel stated that was not
the place to insert it because those are only the ones that go
to Planning Commission. Mr. Johnson suggested inserting
something in Paragraph 3. Mr. Overson questioned if the
administration should be allowed to change adopted
requirements, change the height of fence requirements, change
a whole bunch of things in the Zoning Ordinance that was
passed and intended to be law. President Hotton stated she
placed a little faith in the Community Development director
and if it goes for administrative approval it does need the
signatures of the abutting property owners and if they don't
get their approval then it goes before the Planning
Commission. Mr. Johnson pointed out it could be appealed.
Mr. Waibel strongly suggested directing staff to come back
with wording that addresses Council's concerns and at this
point he was not willing to approve an amendment to the Zoning
Ordinance, even trying to engineering it from the podium.
He preferred having another hearing to discuss the issue.
M/S/C/U(Waibel/Johnson) to continue this item until the
Planning Department can return with the concerns addressed
during this discussion.
7F - RESOLUTION #2341, SETTING A HEARING DATE FOR VACATION OF
BRENTWOOD CIRCLE, #AB91-094
Bremerton School District is requesting the vacation of
Brentwood Circle Street right-of-way. RCW 35.79.010 requires
the setting of a hearing by Resolution not less than 20 days
nor more than 60 days after Council passage of the Resolution.
Don Pratt, Director of Community Development, stated the issue
presented was to just set a date for a public hearing to
vacate the right-of-way.
Public comment - none.
DeWavne BoVd, Superintendent, Bremerton School District,
stated the only thing they asked was to proceed as quickly as
possible due to their being on a very tight deadline to have
the school in place for fall of 1992.
Mr. Johnson stated he understood there is a committee formed
or proposed that would consist of some School District
TAPE #912
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 10, 1991
Page 23 of ~
personnel, City Traffic Engineering staff and citizens from
the area to work on ways to get children to school safety.
Mr. Pratt stated that was correct. The School Board endorsed
the concept and it was anticipated that a report would ready
for Council at the May 1 meeting. Mr. Johnson questioned if
Committee's recommendations would be available to Council on
May 17 Mr. Pratt stated he doubted Council would know what
the recommendations would be by the May 1 meeting. However,
at that time it should be known that the committee was
earnestly pursuing such recommendations. He stated he was
confident that a report will be made to the School Board and
the City Council and he agreed it would be nice to have it by
May 1. He highly recommended that Council not make it a
condition of vacation considering the commitment by the School
Board. Mr. Johnson stated this was the only leverage the
Council had to get this issue addressed, otherwise they could
build a school and the only way most of the kids could get to
school was to walk down Harlow Drive, which does not have
sidewalks or shoulders. Mr. Pratt stated it was his
understanding that the School Board not only has a moral or
political responsibility to see that there is safe walking but
they also have an element legal responsibility, as the City
does, to see that there is safe walking. Whether the School
District's consideration of safe was up to the City's
consideration of safe can be called in the question. He did
receive a commitment from several members of the School Board
and chief School Administrators to pursue this and the City's
Engineer was comfortable with it and convinced there is a
commitment to make it work.
Mr. Waibel noted the other item addressed during the original
hearing was whether or not the City would be able to exchange
lands rather than give away lands. He questioned if this
issue would be addressed at the May 1st hearing? Mr. Pratt
stated the City Engineer would be providing information on
that at the time of the hearing.
Mr. Colvin requested Field Ryan have an opportunity to speak
at this time. Field Ryan stated they had worked with Don
Pratt and they are eager to get going on walking areas. They
are, by law, required to designate the safest walking area to
the school. The School District is not able to go off the
site and develop the whole area around the school land. The
School District did commitment themselves to work with the
City and they have met with Mr. Baker, City Engineer, on the
vacation of land in order to provide the 50 foot right-of-way
on Lyle.
#0062 M/S/C/U(Collins/Colvin) to approve Resolution #2341, setting
TAPE #912
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 10, 1991
Page 24 of ~
a hearing date for Brentwood Circle vacation on May 1, 1991,
at 6:00 PM or later.
7A - ORDINANCE (FIRST READING) ESTABLISHING ROOSEVELT FIELD
REPLACEMENT FUND, #AB91-093
After a second public hearing held April 3, 1991, concerning
transfer of Roosevelt Field in lieu of condemnation by Olympic
College, the City Council passed a motion making said transfer
contingent upon creation of a trust fund to redirect proceeds
of the transfer into replacement assets to meet the
recreational and open space uses currently served by Roosevelt
Field. The proposed ordinance establishes such a fund.
Del Knauss, 139 Olympic Avenue, requested that Council
President Lynn Horton, Councilmen Johnson, C. R. "Tiny"
Collins and Hank Waibel step down from voting on this proposal
and any future items pertaining to Roosevelt Field or any
Agenda items relating to this trade. His reason for asking
them to step down was because they had met with Olympic
College Trustees for months negotiating the trade for
Roosevelt Field and then supposedly voted on the trade with an
open mind. He questioned how they could vote in all fairness
when they negotiated this trade. Also, these Council members
were acting as Administrative part of City government, not the
Legislative branch, which is their job. If these members
refuse to step down, he respectfully requested that the
Council President direct the City Attorney to address why this
is not a conflict of interest or a violation of the
"Appearance Of Fairness" doctrine. He requested a written
response to his request. He noted Spencer Horning had
previously stepped down from an issue less important than this
and at that time Mr. Horning frankly stated that any time
Council members were challenged they had an agreement they
would step down.
Ian Sievers, City Attorney, stated the issue Mr. Horning
stepped down on was a quasi judicial hearing and it was in a
gray area and he agreed to step down, although he, Mr.
Sievers, did not believe it was an "appearance of fairness,'
problem at that time. This issue is an administrative matter
that Council is handling and has to do with budgeting and
finances. The agreement to sell assets, which Roosevelt Field
is one, is also a quasi administrative function of City
Councils, typically. They have more than just a Legislative
role, This is legislation that affects the public but it does
deal with the assets of the Municipal Corporation and they are
dealing with those in a proprietary capacity. This is
probably closer to Legislation because it sets policies for
use of funds in the future. There is not an "appearance of
TAPE #912
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 10, 1991
Page 25 of 3!
fairness" problem since it is not a quasi judicial hearing.
Mr. Sievers offered to provide this explanation in a written
memo if desired. President Hotton requested that he do so in
order to address Mr. Knauss's concern.
Cecil McConne11, 3245 Almira Drive, requested that this
ordinance be made tighter than the Parks Protection Ordinance.
Mr. Gil Johnson, Deputy City Clerk, read into the record a
letter received from Jim Adrian, 621 Washington Avenue. The
following concerns were noted in Mr. Adrian's letter: (1) he
considered the language in Section 3.23,010 to be vague to
assure that future Councils understand the intent of the
public statements and promises made by the Council President
on behalf of the full Council. He suggested the following
wording: "There is hereby established an expendable trust fund
to be called the Roosevelt Field Replacement Fund. This fund
shall be used for the replacement of the following
recreational sporting actions which shall be located as close
as possible to the Roosevelt Field area.
1. Women's Co-ed Softball
2. Adult Soccer
3. Children's Soccer";
(2) that none of the funds set aside pursuant to this
ordinance shall be utilized to fund the Sports Complex.
Mr. Waibel stated in response to the request to make this
ordinance tighter than the Parks Protection Ordinance, Council
or citizens cannot enact a City ordinance that supersedes
State law. Apparently that was not communicated very well last
week, in fact the verbiage that communicated that well was not
heard over the TV due to a technical problem with the sound at
that time. Because State law cannot be superseded, that was
why Council was not able to put together an ordinance by the
initiative formthat would handle this particular condemnation
situation. Secondly, he looked at this fund as "visionary"
and he would like for this fund to be a long-term fund much
beyond simply the replacement of Roosevelt Field. We would
like to this fund establish first of all replacement of
Roosevelt Field adequately, finally to be a fund that will
help improve all park programs. He suggested the following
addition to Section 3.23,030: "Expenditures shall be limited
to park capital assets which address the community's
recreational and open space needs, financing cost, and
expenses incurred in the prudent management of the funds real
property assets. Community Recreational and open space needs
served by Roosevelt Field shall have first priority in fund
expenditure."
TAPE #912
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 10, 1991
Page 26 of ~
Mr. Overson pointed out that Mr. Adrian's letter had some good
points and he felt it addressed a lot of concerns that other
people felt about this issue, i.e., replacing some things that
are lost. He suggested using Mr. Adrian's statement but
include the following words in the second sentence: "This
funds shall be used initially for .... ", and adding to the last
sentence in that statement: "..., until the three above listed
items are replaced".
Mr. Johnson did not agree with Mr. Overson's suggestion and
emphasized this fund would go on much longer than anything
that had to do with replacing Roosevelt Field, assuming there
was not an economic depression, etc. He pointed out even as
addressed in Mr. Adrian's letter, the City would be building
adult soccer field at the Sports Complex and this did not add
up. If the City desired to put some children's play equipment
in the Smith Cove area, then that would not be funded until
all the rest was accomplished. He believed the Council was
committed to Phase I of the Sports Complex never using this
money. The intent is to build parks to take care of the needs
that are being served now and have been served on Roosevelt
Field. However, in about 10-15 years the average age of
citizens using parks would not be in the lower 20's/upper
30's any more - the average age will then be into the 40's.
He emphasized the demography of the whole United States,
including Bremerton is changing. He also emphasized that the
adult fields would be served by the development of the Sports
Complex land the youth fields would be more appropriately
located in the Smith Cove area.
Mr. Estes stated he believed the Parks Board should have some
latitude and start standing behind them. Mr. Adrian's
proposal would do more to tie the Parks Board's hands than
help them. He supported Mr. Waibel suggestion and felt it
would allow the citizens to propose and build an appropriate
type of recreational facilities that would suit the time and
needs of the citizens of Bremerton and surrounding area.
Mr. Colvin suggested that before Council passed this
ordinance it should be cycled through the Parks Board itself.
He believed this would improve public relations with the
Board. He stated he could not support voting on this issue at
this time due to many unanswered questions. He questioned how
much money was being talked about, how would it be generated?
He questioned what was meant in the statement relating to
locating fields close to Roosevelt Field? Mr. Walbel pointed
out that was not part of the ordinance. President Hotton
clarified for Mr. Colvin that this Ordinance would tie up the
funds from the exchanged property, Bremerton Lumber, from
TAPE #912
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 10, 1991
Page 27 of ~'
revenue generated or future sale into a trust fund account
that would go initially into a replacement of Roosevelt Field
but long-term it would be a parks land acquisition and
development capital fund. This action would not set the
parameters where the money goes, how far from Roosevelt are we
talking about, etc. She agreed that the Parks Board needed
some latitude to do their job in this process. Mr. Colvln
questioned if Council set up a trust could they also dissolve
that trust and if there was a guarantee? Ian Sievers, City
Attorney, stated the Trust Fund Ordinance would be
administered as adopted until the time that was amended.
Mr. Colvin questioned if Council could amend it at any time?
Mr. Sievers stated he believed so. Mr. Waibel questioned how
Mr. Colvin would guarantee such a trust? Mr. Colvin stated he
still wanted this ordinance cycled through the Parks Board to
get their input. Mr. Dawkins pointed out the ordinance
specifically states the Parks Board would be involved with the
expenditure of the funds. And, when the Sports Complex was
built it would include adult fields and adults have vehicles
to get to those field.
Mr. Johnson suggested putting more teeth into the 5-Year Parks
Comprehensive Plan, which is in fact how Council decides to
divide up funds when they are available. The Comprehensive
Parks Plan should have priority given to replacement of lost
capability from Roosevelt Field. Mr. Waibel suggested
continuing that referenced sentence to read:
"...recommendation of the Parks Board following the
Comprehensive Park Plan". Mr. Johnson stated what he desired
was that when Council passed the budget every year to be able
to structure Council's authorized expenditures in accordance
with the 5-Year Parks Comprehensive Plan and not have to go
back through a whole set of hearings in December. He
suggested putting Council's faith in the Comprehensive Plan
and it would provide a good mechanism to make improvements.
Mr. Johnson stated he had intended to include some wording
stating "we should consider guidance contained in the Parks
and Recreation Comprehensive Plan".
Mr. Estes related how the University of Washington had been
able to capitalize on their investments in downtown Seattle,
which included the Olympic Four Seasons Hotel, with those
funds being designated towards the University's building
program. He viewed the subject proposal in the same manner
and saw it as a Park Building Fund. He did not want to
restrict use of those funds to certain small areas because
attitudes and needs change.
President Hortonquestioned if Mr. Johnson's concerns over the
TAPE #912
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 10, 1991
Page 28 of ~i~
Parks Comprehensive Plan were addressed in Mr. Waibel's
motion? Mr. ~ohnson suggested the following wording for the
second and new third sentence under Section 3.23.030: "All
monies received by the fund together with investment earnings
thereon, may be expended by the authorization of the City
Council. The City Council, when approving expenditure of
these funds, shall consider guidance contained in the
Bremerton Parks and Recreation Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Overson stated with the added wording to Section 3.23.030
he felt it's intent was along the lines of what Mr. Adrian was
wanting included.
President Hotton requested the Parks and Recreation Director
provide the Parks Board with a copy of the proposed ordinance
for their input by second reading of the ordinance.
#0546
M/S/C/U(Waibel/Estes) to approve Ordinance, on first reading,
establishing a trust fund for replacement of recreational and
open space uses of Roosevelt Field, including the changes:
second sentence under Section 3.23.030: "All monies received
by the fund together with investment earnings thereon, may be
expended by the authorization of the City Council. The City
Council, when approving expenditure of these funds, shall
consider guidance contained in the Bremerton Parks and
Recreation Comprehensive Plan." And, addition to the last two
sentences of Section 3.23,030 as follows: "Expenditures shall
be limited to park capital assets 'which address the
community's recreational and open space needs, financing cost,
and expenses incurred in the prudent management of the funds
real property assets. Community Recreational and open space
needs served by Roosevelt Field shall have first priority in
fund expenditure.
7B - ORDINANCE #4316 (SECOND READING) AMENDING CITY'S CODE OF
ETHICS, #AB91-079
Public comment - none.
Mr. Co111ns stated during earlier discussions with Mr.
Sievers, he had two specific points of concern: (1) that this
ordinance does not put the Mayor, who is the Administrative
head of the City, whd all employees work for, into the ethics
enforcement process; (2) that it uses the ethics ordinance to
supplant personnel procedures and good personnel practices.
Ian Sievers, City Attorney, noted Council did receive an
amended copy of the proposed ordinance which contained a
couple minor changes made during first reading of the
ordinance.
Mr. Sievers noted Council was provided a handout prior to the
TAPE 911
#1174
TAPE #912
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 10, 1991
Page 29 of ~
Council meeting that contained several changes made at the
time of first reading of the ordinance. Under Section
2.96.070 (a) third line changing the word "City Attorney" to
"Mayor" and deleting the next reference to City Attorney in
that sentence. He noted by removing the word City Attorney it
would equally serve the purposes discussed by the Ethics
Committee. He believed the committee's original intent was to
substitute a third disinterested person to monitor the process
of the investigation to make sure action was taken or an
investigation was concluded. He believed the Mayor was
removed enough from the day-to-day workings of the department
and also had individual responsibilities of his office. The
second proposed change, under Subsection (c), second sentence,
would read as follows: "The responsible official(s) will
promptly perform, or arrange for, an investigation of the
complaint in cooperation with the City Attorney and Mayor and
take appropriate personnel action if a violation is
established. He noted the "City Attorney" referenced needed
to remain in the sentence as a number of the ethics violation
involve criminal violations and the investigation has to be
closely coordinated in order to not undermined or erode the
success of the possible of filing criminal charges. He
related a recent case where he had a conference with the
County Prosecuting Attorney and even following his best
advice it was challenged in the pretrial hearing. It is
important that the employee disciplinary procedure be
coordinated with possible criminal proceedings. Mr. Collins
stated he concurred with both of those changes.
President Horton questioned if the changes recommended by the
City Attorney changed the intent of the motion to require it
to go back to first reading? Mr. Slevers stated it did not
change the intent and the recommended changes were discussed
with members of the Ethics Committee..
Mr. Estes stated he believed the ethics Ordinance, as
proposed,is a workable document and will serve a function.
M/S/C/U(Collins/Dawkins) to pass Ordinance #4316, on second
reading, revising the Code of Ethics for the City officials
and employees; and repealing Chapter 2.96 of the Bremerton
Municipal Code.
7C - ORDINANCE #4317 (SECOND READING) AMENDING THE OFFICIAL
ZONING MAP FROM 8F-1 TO PS ON A 10 ACRE PARCEL NE OF THE
INTERSECTION OF MARLOW DRIVE ANDCARRBLVD., (BRENTWOOD CIRCLE
SCHOOL REZONE RZ-10-90, #AB91-082
#1286
#1294
TAPE #912
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 10, 1991
Page 30 of 31
Public comment - none.
M/S/C/U(Johnson/Estes) to pass Ordinance #4317, on second
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)
7D - ORDINANCE #4318 (SECOND READING) REZONE "CBR" TO "GB"
APPLICANT: ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY, LOCATION: 2114 FIFTH
STREET, #AB91-083
Public comment - none.
M/S/C(Johnson/Colvin) to pass Ordinance #4318, on second
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:
Oppose:
Overson, Estes, Horning, Waibel, Collins,
Dawkins, Colvin, Johnson
Horton
7E - ORDINANCE #4319 (SECONDREADING) ESTABLISHING FEES, RATES
AND CHARGES FOR UTILITY SERVICE, #AB91-084
Public comment - none.
Mr. Johnson stated he felt the Council received a good
suggestion for retention of run off water and whatever was
done as to a Stormwater program he hoped something like this
could be worked into the ordinance. Mr. Waibel pointed out
there was something in the proposal presented to Council that
allowed a credit for retention.
Mr. Horning stated he was in favor of the increase and
emphasized that many years ago he and Council members Dawkins
and Johnson were faced with a major problem where the City did
not have the funds to do the work on existing City systems for
wastewater and ultimately water. By keeping the rates in line
where they need to be that major problem should never revisit.
He stated he was proud that Council was continuing to address
current and future needs of the utility systems.
#1321
M/S/C/U(Waibel/Colvin) to pass Ordinance #4319, on second
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.
With no further business meeting adjourned at 9:44 p.m.
TAPE #912
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 10, 1991
Page 31 of ·
Clerk
LY~~HORTON, Council President
City of Bremerton
KLM/LH/me
cc: Normal Distribution
File/Vault