Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/26/91TAPE #930 UNAPPROVED F' IT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JUNE 26, 1991 JUt :I. 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, June 26, 1991, at 5:30 p.m., with Council President Lynn Horton presiding. Council members present: Lon Overson, Wayne Estes, Spencer Horning, C. R. "Tiny" Collins, Morrie Dawkins, A1 Colvin and Russ Johnson. Councilman Hank Waibel was absent. Also present were City Attorney Ian Sievers and City Clerk Kathleen McCluskey. The meeting opened with the Pledge of Allegiance led by President Lynn Horton and the Invocation given by Reverend Thalmadge Wilson of the Charleston Baptist Church. President Morton announced Items 6B and 7B had been pulled off the Agenda for one week. CONSENT AGENDA A. Minutes Of Meeting - June 12, 1991, #AB91-165 B. Minutes Of Meeting - June 19, 1991, #AB91-166 Bid Award Recommendation - Awarding Of Bid For Telephone System Upgrade To Contel In The Amount Of $43,863.81, #AB91-167 Bid Award Recommendation - Awarding Of Bid For Telephone Dictating System to Dictaphone Corp. In The Amount Of $30,851.33, #AB91-168 #0042 M/S/C/U(Johnson/Colvin) to approve Consent Agenda as presented. CLAIMS/WARRANT REGISTERS Vouchers audited and certified by the auditing officer as required by RCW 42.24,080, and those expense reimbursement claims certified as required by RCW 42.24,090, have been recorded on a listing that has been made available to the council. #0052 M/S/C/U(Colvin/Dawkins) on June 26, 1991, the Council does approve for payment those vouchers included and further described as follows: 131632, 131648 through 131652, 131656, 131658, 131663 through 131795 in the total amount of $712,367.16; and Regular Payroll for the period ending June 15, 1991, in the total amount of $402,832.77. COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS Mr. Estes announced August 2 has been selected as the date for the Saratoga Memorial Ceremony, at Ivy Green Cemetery. He noted this is the only "Unknown Sailors"' grave in the world and a special TAPE #930 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes June 26, 1991 Page 2 of 22 ceremony is being planned to commemorate the installation of the new memorial. He also announced Candidate Filing will be July 22 through July 26. He urged people, who were complaining about City Government, to put their name on the ballot. He emphasized there is no filing fee for City Council positions. Mr. Morning reported he attended the Association Of Washington (AWC) Conference, held in Spokane, this past week. He felt his time there was well spent; and he had the opportunity to tour a Pre-Release Correction Facility in Medical Lake. He came away from that tour feeling it was a very non-threatening prison site. Mr. Horning noted the sad news of Retired Admiral Petrovic's passing on this date. Mr. Johnson reported in the area of solid waste management in Kitsap County, there is an item that will be affecting everyone - proposed increase in landfill tipping fee. Public hearings are planned to bring this item before the public. Council will hold its public hearing on this issue on July 31. Information on solid waste issues was provided at the AWC Conference, and discussions were held with representatives from other Solid Waste Districts. Kitsap Lake - he was pleased to see the lake being used this past Sunday, however, he felt there was a major safety hazard due to the large number of uses going on in the lake at one time. Those uses were: fishing, water skiers, paddle boats and canoes, jet skis, hydroplanes, seaplanes and helicopters landing on the shore. He reminded everyone there are speed limits on the lake and urged everyone to follow those rules. He congratulated Sherry Appleton, City of Poulsbo Council member, on her appointment to the AWC Board Of Directors. He felt her representation on that board would be of great benefit to the Kitsap Peninsula. He displayed a tee shirt that he received as a participant in the AWC Fun Run/Walk and questioned the whereabouts of his fellow Council members and City staff, who did not show up for this event. Mr. Colvin reported he had the opportunity to hear Jeffrey Pomeranz, Port Angeles City Manager, speak during a Bremerton Central Lions Club meeting this date. After the meeting, he gave Mr. Pomeranz a tour of Bremerton. Mr. Pomeranz suggested the City of Bremerton consider establishing a "Sister City" relationship with the City of Port Angeles. Mr. Dawkins reported last week the City was contacted and requested to provide some assistance to the residents of Olongapo, who suffered much devastation from a volcano eruption. Due to the Mayor being out-of-town, he met with local residents to help--~ coordinate publicity to collect clothing, canned food and cash donations. City Fire Stations were offered as collection points and transportation of those goods would be coordinated through the military. TAPE #930 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes June 26, 1991 Page 3 of 22 Mr. Collins reported he also attended the AWC Conference and one of the most impressive parts of that conference was a Seminar Breakfast presented by the City of Chimanous. Their presentation had to do with how they turned around their local economy. Their City had many parallels to the City of Bremerton and he found it inspiring to learn how that community had brought about a dramatic change. Mr. Collins noted that Bremerton had already undertaken some of the same types of things to bring about a rebirth and he suggested that the City bring Mr. Schultz in for a Study Session to learn more from their success. Mrs. Morton reported she also attended the AWC Conference and found it to be a real learning experience with opportunities for networking. She was very impressed with Spokane's river front park and how it enhanced the downtown area. One of the programs she attended was on "National Issues" that dealt with issues that are federally mandated without any financial assistance to implement those requirements. Emphasis was made that municipalities should keep the pressure on their federal legislators, letting them know that if federal programs are mandated they cannot expect them to be implemented without some federal funding. Recently the City of Bridgeport, Connecticut went bankrupt and part of the cause was attributed to programs they were mandated to carry on and finance while fighting a shrinking economy. Another topic during this seminar had to do with "banking" and right now there is a banking policy, Reinvestment Act, that require local government dollars be reinvested back in local communities. Now, the federal government is loo~t changing that so if the best investment happens to be a factory in Korea all of the citizens dollars could go into that investment in Korea. She found this possibility very frightening and without that reinvestment of funds the communities will dry up. She thanked Councilman Dawkins for chairing the meeting last week and the other Council members for taking care of City business while she and the others attended the AWC Conference. PUBLIC RECOGNITION Mayor Mentor thanked Councilman Dawkins for his assistance to the Olongapo group this past week. One weekend next month he will tour the City of Chimanous to learn first hand what they have done to revitalize their city. Considering the fact that Olympic College started condemnation procedures for acquisition of Roosevelt Field, he questioned if it might be wise of the Council to put the sale of Roosevelt Field on the ballot and let the people make that decision. Mayor Mentor read a news release denoting the City of Bremerton had been honored for its outstanding Investment Policy by the Washington Municipal Treasurers Association. In recognition of this achievement, the.WMTA presented Rich Hanna, Bremerton City Treasurer, with this Investment Policy award. This is one of the TAPE #930 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes June 26, 1991 Page 4 of 22 highest awards given by the WMTA and presented to public entities who have adopted written policies covering the prudent investment of public funds in a manner which produces a maximum possible return while providing the greatest security against loss. He commended Rich Hanna for a job well done. Mayor Mentor read a Proclamation proclaiming the month of JULY as American Heritage Month. A1 Duke, Fire Department Medical Officer, invited citizens of Bremerton to take advantage of the Fire Department's CPR Training program. Classes are free and are held the second Tuesday of each month. Mayor Mentor and A1 Duke made "Commendation Awards" to the following citizens who provided life saving CPR techniques to a person in need: Postal Carrier Norm Hall/CPR assist at 2133 E. Highland on April 12, 1991; Matt Dudley/CPR assist at 2641 Stevens Drive; and Dave and Polly Hegland/CPR assist at 806 McKenzie. Police Chief Del McNeal introduced Debby Goodell, newly hired Animal Control and Parking Control Supervisor. He noted when this position was proposed he doubted he would find someone who had parking regulation and animal control experience. He was pleased that Debby had extensive experience in both of those areas. Debby Goodell stated she was pleased to be part of the City staff. Wade Lieseke, 426 Bremerton Blvd. W., voiced his opposition to the way the City bills for water/sewer services. He lives outside the City limits but does receive City water and sewer service. He did not think it was fair to base sewer cost on the amount of water used. In regard to the refurbishment of the Admiral Theater, he questioned where would people park when they attended events at the theater, if the intent is to draw in large crowds? Del Knauss, Olympic Avenue, stated he was proud that he and his group, Open Spaces, had the courage to fight the City of Bremerton and Olympic College over the trade of Roosevelt Field for a parking lot. And, that it was the City's duty to defend park open space in open court and to hire the best land-use attorney money can buy. 6A - INFORMATION ITEM ONLY - FLAGSHIP'S REVENUE ANALYSIS, #AB91-169 Ed Sheldon, President Flagship City '91, stated he would be speaking on behalf of Scott Wetzel, Chairman of the Bremerton Revenue Task Force. The report he will be reviewing was part of the contract between the City and Flagship and was identified as: "Evaluate current City Government revenue sources and make recommendations on techniques to improve that revenue". The Study Topics covered the following: ANNEXATION 'AS A SOURCE OF REVENUE TAPE #930 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes June 26, 1991 Page 5 of 22 COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF GENERAL FUNDS TAXES AS A SOURCE OF REVENUE HOTEL AND MOTEL TAXES BUSINESS AND OCCUPATION TAXES CITY INVESTMENTS AS A SOURCE OF REVENUE PARKING AS A SOURCE OF REVENUE PRIVATIZATION OF CITY SERVICES LOCAL OPTION TAX PACKAGE STATE SHARED REVENUES JOINT BREMERTON/KITSAP COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY COLLECTION OF OUTSTANDING FINES AND LEVIES A copy of the Analysis Report is on file in the City Council Office and available for public review. Mr. Collins pointed out an important fact that not all the taxes people pay go to the City, but are divided between the City, state and County. He questioned what would be the best way to publicize this fact? Mr. Sheldon stated that kind of information would best be delivered through a "public education" process. 8A - PUBLIC HEARING - TO ACCEPT PUBLIC COMMENT REGARDING A REZONE REOUEST FROM "DR" TO "MR" AT THE SE CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF PREBLE STREET AND MCCOLLUM IN WEST BREMERTON, #AB91-173 The owner of the property at the SE corner of Preble Street and McCollum Avenue requested a rezone from "Duplex Residential (DR)" to "Mixed Residential (MR)" for the purpose of constructing an apartment building on the vacant site. Rezones require public hearings before both the Planning Commission and City Council. The Commission conducted its hearing on May 21, 1991, and has forwarded its recommendation to the City Council. The Council may approve the rezone, approve a rezone to a lesser zone, or deny the rezone. The Commission's recommendation is for denial of the rezone. President Hotton asked the "Appearance Of Fairness/Conflict Of Interest" question with all Council members being seated. Ron Houqh, Planning Manager, provided a view graph showing the location of the property at the corner of Preble Street and Yantic. The Assessor's map shows Yantic on the south side of Preble as McCollum Avenue, and that portion of the roadway is outside the TAPE #930 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes June 26, 1991 Page 6 of 22 City limits. The subject property is on the corner of McCollum, about 1/3 of an acre, currently vacant and covered with a combination of trees, shrubs, vines, etc. This property is located in one of the City's highest density Comprehensive Plan designations. Surrounding land uses and zoning: the property is in a predominately single family residential neighborhood. Areas to the north of Preble Street are zoned Duplex Residential. Within 300 feet of the property, there are about 18 single-family homes, one duplex and no other multi-family structures. Areas to the east and south of the property south of Preble are also zoned Duplex Residential. Within 300 feet are 14 single-family homes, 2 duplexes and no other known multi-family structures. Preble Street provides the main access to the site with a right-of- way width of 65 feet, pavement width of 18 feet, two travel lanes, rolled curbs and partial sidewalks, a fairly steep hill and the existing curbs and sidewalk, according to the Engineering Department, are in poor condition. There is a visibility problem at the peak of the street and the general road way condition was categorized as poor (on the City side). Also, there is an intersection problem at Cambrian and Highway #304, near the shipyard, due to it being on a curve and heavily impacted by Shipyard traffic. Following the Planning Commission's public hearing on May 21, 1991, they concluded the request did not meet the minimum criteria for approval of the rezone and voted to recommend denial. Reasons for that denial are as follows: 1. The proposal was not consistent with the existing neighborhood density and land uses in the neighborhood nor the neighborhood character; and, would allow levels of development that have a high probability of being incompatible with the area. At that public hearing, a number of neighborhood residents gave input describing changes in the neighborhood that tend to make it more valuable to them as "single family". 2. When the Comprehensive Plan was written 5-6 years ago, this neighborhood was in a state of deterioration and looked at as an area where high density would be suitable to upgrade the area. However, the neighborhood residents felt this neighborhood was in transition, but not in that type of transition and now turning back to residential through home improvements. 3. The rezoning of a small parcel under single ownership within a low-density neighborhood would be a "spot zone". TAPE #930 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes June 26, 1991 Page 7 of 22 4. Preble Street has several problems that discourage the approval of a rezone to allow higher density. 5. There is a possibility that development of this site could assist the relocation of households in the PSNS expansion area. However, that benefit is not great enough to overcome the potential impacts of a multi-unit apartment structure within a stable low- density single-family neighborhood. Those impacts may include additional' traffic, increased noise, increased traffic and pedestrian hazards on Preble, and by-pass traffic on other residential streets as drivers attempt to avoid the Preble/SR 304 intersection. 6. Most required services and facilities are available to this site but some are marginal. Off-site stormwater facilities are not available. Streets and sidewalks are in need of repair, there may be a water pressure problem and major shopping, employment are not within easy walking distance. 7. The option of approving a lesser rezone to "MF" rather than to "MR" would have most of the same impacts on this area, but to a slightly less extent. 8. Under the current "Duplex Residential (DR)" zoning, this property could be developed with three single-family homes or a home and a duplex, either of which would be consistent with the neighborhood character. James Walls, representing applicant, stated due to the tremendous amount of misconception of what was to be done on the property site during the Planning Commission's public hearing, he wished to submit an artist's rendering of the proposed use. President Morton questioned if she was correct in her understanding that the Planning Commission did not see this specific exhibit? Mr. Walls stated she was correct, however, it came to his attention, after the public hearing testimony, that people had the idea they were looking at a density of 15-25 units, etc.; and, the basic information contained in the exhibit was given during the hearing. Mr. Johnson pointed out the exhibit would be irrelevant because the zone applied would go a lot longer than a specific use. Mr. Hough stated during the Planning Commission hearing, the Planning staff described the zone and what density would be allowed on the property (up to 15 units). Mr. Walls stated at that time that.he had no intention of building 15 units and was looking at something smaller than that and at a lower height. Mr. Walls did not have a sketch at that time, but described generally what he had in mind. Mr. Hough supported Mr. Johnson's statement that the zoning allows what the zoning allows, and in this case if a particular plan was being considered that would then be a Planned Unit Development or a binding site plan, which would be considered all the way through TAPE #930 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes June 26, 1991 Page 8 of 22 the process. President Morton ruled that since the specific exhibit was not used at the Planning Commission hearing it would not be admissible at this time. TAPE #931 Mr. Walls emphasized the housing shortage in the Bremerton area now and in the future and how the proposed project would contribute toward solving some of that shortage. He referenced the recent U.S. Navy Study on housing needs and overall low vacancy rate. He had discussions with Merrill Wallace of the Bremerton Housing Authority on the need for Section 8 housing in Bremerton. In response to the reasons for denial, he believed the proposed project was compatible and would foster civic pride in the existing neighborhood. The proposed site is not directly adjacent to an industrial area, which is one of the criteria for a MR zoning, but is a mere seven block walk to PSNS and within 1500 feet of the proposed Navy annexation area. He pointed out several grocery/gas/service type businesses within walking distance from the site (approximately 5 blocks away), with the West Hill Elementary School approximately 12 block away from the site. He stated he was not aware that walking distances were a requirement for higher densities, such as to a major shopping center. In reference to surrounding uses, he noted there were several properties in close proximity of the subject site that had multiple mail boxes, which would indicate that multiple housing units existed. It was his belief that some of the large houses in the area were operating more as "boarding houses" rather than single family dwellings. He stressed the fact that the neighborhood had been targeted for higher densities. He did not agree with the allegation that multiple housing would lead to a higher crime rate and did not know on what basis that determination was made by the neighborhood residents. Residents gave testimony that at one time the subject property was donated to the City of Bremerton for a playground or park purposes only. (note: Mr. Hazelwood acquired this property through a land trade with the City of Bremerton). Land Title Company provided a title search, which gave no evidence of any dedication of the property to the City or that it was to be used as park land and/or playground. He also checked with Vicki Vanneman, Director Of Parks and Recreation for the City, and she was not aware of any such agreement. He urged the Council to take the information he presented into consideration when making their decision. The following individuals spoke in opposition to the proposal, followed by their areas of concern: John Gensburg, 3307 Preble St.; Charles Sanders, 747 S. Summit Ave.; Marvin T. Brooks, 520 Yantic Ave.; Anna Laurie, 800 S. Summit Ave.; Judy Krause, 723 S. Hartford Ave.; Willis Coffer, 732 S. Summit Ave.; Robert McCleod, 3210 Preble St.; Cecil McConnell, 3245 Almira Dr.. City Council Reg. June 26, 1991 Page 9 of 22 Mtg. Minutes (1) view will be ruined; (2) Preble Street cracked and needs to be rebuilt; (3) traffic hazard; (4) Navy people living in substandard housing need to help themselves through their military assistance program; (5) crime rates do increase in low-income, multiple housing facilities; (6) desire to retain residential (single family) neighborhood; (7) impact on City services not known, i.e., street repair, storm drainage, etc.; (8) homes in this neighborhood have been purchased and improvements made thereby changing the character from a neighborhood in transition to a more stable single family residential neighborhood; (9) multiple family projects do not mix well with residential neighborhoods; (10) if approved this would be a spot rezone, which is unlawful; (11) problems with stormwater flooding/sewer backups. Mr. Collins stated he lives near the subject area and supported the testimony given by the residents. He views that neighborhood as one that was a transition area but due to individuals purchasing single family homes and upgrading them has brought about a revitalization that takes it out of the transition category. Kathleen McCluskey, City Clerk, read into the record letters opposing the proposed rezone from the following individuals: John Berkley, Attorney representing Pauline Webster; Alex Roose, 721 S. Summit. Mr. Estes stated he is very aware of the concerns expressed by the neighborhood residents as his own neighborhood experiences many of the same kinds of conditions. He supported preserving a single family residential neighborhood and to not allow multiple housing development within them. Mr. Homing stated he did not support generalizing that multiple family housing was bad...but the subject neighborhood is an area that is being revitalized as a single family residential neighborhood. He noted he would support the Planning Commission's recommendation for denial and urged his fellow Council members to do the same. Mr. Johnson pointed out for the record there are significant concerns voiced by the Bremerton School District. He did not support development of housing where it did not provide a safe access for children going to and from school. Another concern was some difficulty with utilities and street design in that area, therefore, he also supported upholding the recommendation of denial. President Horton stated she would support the Planning Commission's recommendation, however, she believes that high density does not mean it equates to crime, corruption and horrible living conditions. She noted care needed to be taken when selecting sites #1050 TAPE #931 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes June 26, 1991 Page 10 of 22 for high density, making sure those high density units have quick access to services and ideally within walking distance or easy transit to those services. M/S/C/U(Collins/Colvin) to uphold Bremerton Planning Commission's recommendation of denial for this rezone request. 8B - PUBLIC HEARING - SHORELINEMASTER PROGRAM AMENDMENTS,#AB91-174 The Bremerton Planning Commission is recommending approval of amendments to the Shoreline Master Program covering the following issues: Public Access, Shore Modification, View Protection, Joint- Use Moorage, Kitsap Lake & Kitsap Bog, Housekeeping Items: General Provisions & Procedures, Map Amendments, Annexation Areas. Shoreline Master Program amendments are effective only after adoption by the Department Of Ecology (DOE). DOE is responsible to ensure that the City's Master Program is consistent with the Shoreline Management Act and Kitsap County's Master Program. To initiate DOE review and adoption, the City Council forwards a "Resolution Of Intent To Adopt" to DOE. DOE makes its decision after hold at least one public hearing and considering comments of the State Ecological Commission. After DOE approval, the .City Council passes an Ordinance to.adopt the amendments. This final review and approval stage takes 3-6 months. Kay Wilson, Sr. Planner, stated in 1988 the City Council and Planning Commission held a number of hearings on a set of major amendments to the Shoreline Master Program. Those amendments have been in affect for 2 1/2 years and at this time she is proposing some refinements to this program. The refinements cover a limited number of subjects that have surfaced in the last 2 1/2 years. The amendments fall into three categories, the first being "Unfinished Business". These are items that were left over from prior actions. About a year ago the City Council adopted a Waterfront Access Plan, which included policies that needed to be translated into regulation form in the Shoreline Master Program. As a result there is a new Public Access Section to implement the Waterfront Access Plan. In 1988 there were three issues that Council decided to carryover and study further: "View Protection", Joint Use Moorage and Question of Kitsap Lake and Kitsap Bog. PUBLIC ACCESS TO IMPLEMENT THE WATERFRONT ACCESS PLAN - the Major issues in this new section would be a requirement that would expand the existing requirement for public access. It provides that all shoreline development must provide public access of some kind, whether it is a walkway to and from the shoreline, view point, etc. TAPE #931 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes June 26, 1991 Page 11 of 22 Uses that would not have to provide public access are: single family resident or any other residential project with four or less dwelling units, a subdivision with four or less lots, and a minor project. The first three of these are directly out of the adopted Waterfront Access Plan. The last is an issue that came up in the last 2 1/2 years because any time a project is done along the shoreline of more than $2,500 a Shoreline Permit is required and a strict reading of the City's regulation would say that all projects, whether minor remodel or major developments would have to provide public access. This provision would provide that a minor project, as defined in the amendment, would be exempt from providing this public access that otherwise might be required. There is no substantial change to the existing requirement that commercial and multi-family units of 5 or more units provides public access. The amendment includes a Chart, which is a summary only of the kinds of public access that would be required for each of the various uses or activities that are addressed by the master program; and whether they would provide general public access, defined in the plan typically as a view point and possibly an easement along the beach, or provide approved public access, defined as a hard surface walkway to the shoreline and along the upland adjacent to the shoreline. This does not require that the pathway go along the beach and is on the upland side of the beach area. View Protection - currently there is a 40% open area requirement for residential uses and no requirement other than zoning side yard setbacks for other uses, i.e., commercial, industrial, etc. The new requirements replace the open area with a view corridor requirement for both residential and commercial uses. The industrial and most other uses still go by zoning setbacks. This amendment would no longer require someone to leave 40% of their lot width open to public views (on a 100 ft. lot 40 feet of that would have to be open, which could be distributed on both sides of the house and could create a hardship for a 40-50 foot wide lot). This is replaced with a view corridor, which is on one side or the other side of the house with the zoning setback providing whatever open area is on the other side of the house. Provision For Non-conforming Outdoor Advertising Signs - these are considered to be view obstacles along shorelines. Currently, no new signs are permitted so there is an additional provision that would say these signs have to be removed within two years if they are not brought into conformance with the regulations. The Planning Commission recommends that provisions for Kitsap Bog, rather than establishing shoreline setbacks, view corridor and height requirements in the Table, simply be determined when a TAPE #931 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes June 26, 1991 Page 12 of 22 Conditional Use Permit is granted for any use in this area. A further provision for view protection is if heights of buildings are kept under 20 feet the view corridor width is only 25%. If the building height is between 20-35 feet, then a 35% view corridor is required and if a building is over 35 feet in height, which is not usually permitted on the shoreline but can be under certain conditions, the 40% open area requirement would be in affect. The Planning Commission felt this was a good way to reward people for keeping their buildings low. JOINT USE MOORAGE - currently the City's requirements are not clear...they say that new subdivisions could provide joint use moorage community docks and that individual docks should not be allowed. This is a very confusing regulation for the public as well as City staff. The need here is to be more clear on when individuals would be allowed docks. The Planning Commission has recommended that new subdivisions provide a location for a community dock, which does not have to be built immediately, but a location designated and that no docks would be allowed on those new lots in the future. In the meantime, the old lots, which had been subdivided prior to adoption of this new regulation would be allowed one dock per lot. KITSAP LAKE AND KITSAP BOG - the issue being is there enough protection in the current requirement. The Planning Commission made the following suggestions: (1) Kitsap Lake Neighborhood - any reference to Kitsap Bog be changed to Kitsap Lake Wetlands (the term "bog" carries the connotation of low value and the term "wetlands" is understood to denote a high value in that sort of vegetation and wetland area); (2) any setbacks, heights and view corridors would be determined by Conditional Use Permit (advantage -a Conditional Use Permit must come before the Planning Commission and is appealable to the City Council). SHORE PROTECTION - the City discovered here were no regulations permitting them (types of shore protection), prohibiting them or describing how they should be done. If someone desired to do an "enhanced beach" there needs to be regulations to tell the developer and staff what is required. Beach enhancement amounts to placing sand, gravel, vegetation and other natural materials that may be appropriate on a beach to not only protect the shoreline but to provide better public access to the water. Lions Field is a world class example of how that can work. The new regulations contain beach enhancement and they courage such development any time possible. Currently, bulkheads are permitted but the requirements are not clear on not permitting them until the affects on the adjoining landowners are determined. The new regulation would allow bulkheads and riprap but first the burden of proof would be on the owner to show that beach enhancement or other TAPE #931 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes June 26, 1991 Page 13 of 22 natural protection is not feasible. This is probably the case when small lots are involved. Another requirement in the text is for bulkhead setback to setback a minimum of 25 feet from the ordinary high water line, if there is that much room. Any time there is a bluff, this requirement would not work, but the idea is to keep those structures as far up the shoreline as possible due to possibility of creating more problems than what it solves, i.e., undermining of beach, affect neighbors beach and erosion. The requirement for lake shores would be at least one foot up from the ordinary high water line (applying to Kitsap Lake and any rivers). HOUSE KEEPING AMENDMENTS - items that have come up within the last 2 1/2 years: (1) General Provisions And Procedures (no significant change but do improve ordinance); (2) designate Annexation Areas on the map. Ms. Wilson outlined the lengthy process required for making an amendment to the Shoreline Master Program and how inefficient that process is when annexing property into the City. The proposed amendment would predesignate areas that would be looked at as potential annexation areas, being designated residential and predesignated conservancy in the Kitsap Bog area. Another annexation area programmed for the coming year is Sinclair Heights area and would be designed residential (south of the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard along Hwy. 3). The final potential annexation area is in the Jacobson Blvd. area, located on the Manette peninsula, which would be designated residential. These predesignation would not take effect until annexation took place. In conclusion, Ms. Wilson pointed out there is a recommended motion to continue this public hearing to either July 31 or August 2 and to instruct staff to prepare a Resolution Of Intent to adopt the proposed amendments. This would allow the amendments to be sent to the Department Of Ecology by their August 20 deadline. Also, staff recommends if Council identifies issues that need a great deal of revision to set those issues aside so they could be programmed in the 1992 Planning Budget. Tom Bastian, 2701 N. Lafayette, expressed concern that people along the waterfront had control over the height of buildings and could impact views of homes in back of those dwellings. He questioned if there was some type of regulation that would require the waterfront homes to maintain the trimming and or removal of trees and vegetation that may grow back and infringe upon views of the homes located in back of such properties? Mr. Johnson emphasized that any City Utility or other properties situated on the waterfront would meet the same requirements as the general public. However, some of the Utility properties do not lend themselves to enhancement as public access, i.e, placement of TAPE #931 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes June 26, 1991 Page 14 of 22 sewer lines etc. He was concerned that public access to the shoreline might allow access to polluted water/shoreline. He felt it was important to use the funds first to clean up the water and beach areas before allowing public access. He questioned if there was a way to bank the Utility's liability for fixing public access making sure such access was the most desirable by the public and to put a priority on cleaning up that area? Ms. Wilson stated there is a provision she had not mentioned during her summary, which provides for a payment in lieu of public access. This would allow the City and the property owner to come to an agreement. If an acceptable public access is not found or a way to build public access, the City would accept a payment in lieu of this public access requirement. Currently, that requirement does not say where that money should be spent, but during Council's Study Session it was suggested that a provision be added to designate the money collected by this fee would be spent in a nearby area. Mr. Johnson stated in the event that it involved Utility property possible the Utility could work with the Department of Ecology and Dyes Inlet clean up program instead of siting access in a specific place. Ms. Wilson questioned if Mr. Johnson was talking about something different than the "fee in lieu" provision? Mr. Johnson stated yes, he was addressing requirements mandated when the Utility developed property that would fall within the shoreline public access program. Just because they may do some work on the shoreline, they will be required to have improved public access and improved views. He was suggesting that it may be more beneficial if the Utility contributed some funds towards the Dyes Inlet Clean Up Fund rather than develop access in an area that was less than desirable. Ms. Wilson questioned if what Mr. Johnson was looking for was an option in the Utility Section, specifically providing for an alternative arrangement. Mr. Johnson stated that was correct. Mr. Johnson stated he was still concerned with the west side of Kitsap Lake, which was a steep hillside that was totally undeveloped at this time, but he expects it to be developed within the next few years. He questioned since the State of Washington approves the City's Master Plan, is there a way to write it so that the County Planner and County Government are responsible for what runs down that hill and dumps into Kitsap Lake? Ms. Wilson stated she was not aware of any way the City could do that. She felt this might be one of those tough issues that needs more research. Mr. Johnson stated he was aware that the City of Poulsbo was working on a situation where streams flow through part of their City and they would like to clean them up but were concerned they were not clean when the water flowed initially into the City. Mr. Wilson stated the answer to that issue may not be in the Shoreline regulations and may be a separate ordinance or agreement. Mr. Johnson stated he noticed there was not an EIS and it was his TAPE #931 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes June 26, 1991 Page 15 of 22 understanding that the amendments made did not require it. President Hotton requested Ms. Wilson to incorporate the easy housekeeping type changes, suggested during Council's Study session, into the amendment document and the more difficult changes be highlighted to come back for the next round of amendments. In reference to what Mr. Johnson was discussing relating to Kitsap Lake, she suggested getting some dialogue going between the City and Kitsap County regarding the runoff if they do develop that area on the west side of the lake. Mr. Colvin questioned if Mr. Bastian's question had been answered? Ms. Wilson stated in reference to the comment of review. protection from growing trees and shrubbery, the Planning Commission did discuss this issue. They dismissed the idea of requiring a view corridor where one had not existed before. They did discuss the idea of controlling vegetation and there are communities who have such requirements, typically having a process for neighbors to petition the City with an appeals process through the City Council and Courts. Another way some communities handle this is to require the neighbors to make a good faith effort to get together and come to an agreement, however, if they cannot reach an agreement then the City provides a mediator, with the last resort being the Planning Commission and City Council process. She felt the City and other communities would be looking at such types of requirement in the future. The most difficult part of this process would be the demand on staff time. President Horton requested that item be added to the list for next amendment review. #3064 TAPE #932 M/S/C/U(Johnson/Collins) to continue this hearing to July 31, 1991, and instruct staff to prepare a Resolution Of Intent to adopt the proposed amendments for consideration at that time by the City Council, with the inclusions of the easy changes discussed during the Council Study Session. 6C - PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR LEGAL SERVICES OF DAVID H. ARMSTRONG, #AB91-162 This contract is for legal services to defend City officials named as defendants in Johnson v. Mentor, et. ux., et. al. By ordinance, the City is' committed to defend and indemnify its employees and officers for actions arising out of the good faith performance of their duties. We consider the activities challenged in this suit to fall within this coverage. Outside Counsel will be retained in adversarial proceedings involving the court to avoid conflict with our role as prosecutor for the City in criminal matters. Due to a conflict of interest, Council President Lynn Horton and Councilman Collins stepped down from hearing this issue and Council TAPE #932 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes June 26, 1991 Page 16 of 21 Vice President Morrie Dawkins chaired the proceedings. Ian Sievers, City Attorney, stated the City does have an Indemnity Ordinance for the protection of its officers and employees in the event suits are filed against them, arising out of their performance of City business. This is an enforceable term of these individuals service to the City whether paid or unpaid. The City also covers members of Boards and Commissions under the same conditions. Indemnity Ordinances of this type should be liberally construed for good policy reasons. Especially, when getting into the policy making positions at the higher levels of the organization, these people's jobs function in an atmosphere of controversy and conflicting interests. If they were unprotected as far as defense costs and judgements because people disagreed with their actions or took it personally, it would be very difficult to attract qualified people into public service. The rule of liberal interpretation or construction is really the converse of the rule that applies in the private insurance area, where exclusions from insurance policies are strictly construed against the insurance company. In this case, we would continue to monitor information as it developed, but in the early stage of the proceedings it was his opinion that the allegations of the complaint do arise from doing City business and the ordinance does apply. Mr. Colvin noted it would be very difficult to find qualified people to serve if they knew they would not be protected for something they may accidently say or do. Mr. Sievers stated if there was not this protection he doubted if the City could find anyone to serve on the Boards or Commissions. Cecil McConnell, 3245 Almira Drive, questioned if a City employee could obligate the City by contract without Council action? Mr. Sievers stated yes, the authority to enter contracts is outlined in the City's Purchasing Ordinance and there are various delegations of authority to Department Heads and certain actions do have to be brought before the City Council for authority to enter into a contract. Mr. McOonnell pointed out the subject contract states that it will commence as of May 28, 1991, which is several days prior to any action taken by Council at this time. Mr. Sievers stated the amount of compensation for professional services under the City's ordinance can't exceed $10,000 and this contract is anticipated to go to $20,000 for this calendar year. Also, the contract does call for Council ratification of expenses paid prior to the agreement. Mr. McConnell stated after reading newspaper articles on the suit filed in this case and the content of the Agenda Bill, he felt the City Attorney was stretching the point of"good faith performance". He felt there needed to be some type of protection for the taxpayers if the allegations are proven true in court. He emphasized this proposal should be rejected. Dusty Rhodes, 2513 Reid Avenue, voiced his disapproval of this TAPE #932 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes June 26, 1991 Page 17 of 22 proposal and believed there was no justification for hiring an outside attorney. He felt it was a personal attack and not related to City business. He felt it was a "done deal" due to the May 28 date of the contract, which he did not support and urged Council to let those named in the suit take care of themselves. E. L. Sturdivant, 3231 Halverson, stated he felt it was the purpose and responsibility of the City Attorney's Office to defend the City and the financial interest of 38,000 citizens. It is the attorney's secondary responsibility to defend individuals. He believed in defending the financial interest of the City for citizens and that elected officials should be defended if they have been reasonable and prudent in the discharge and performance of their duties. Pre-trial costs in this suit are estimated at $20,000, trial cost could be $50,000 or more. If judgements are awarded, what could they be? He challenges the fact, with the staff in the City Attorney's Office, there should be enough to defend the financial interest of the City and its 38,000 citizens. All parties, the Judge, plaintiff, Mayor and Council members know the responsibility of the City Attorneys. He did not agree with the issue that there was a conflict of interest for the City Attorney or his staff of attorneys to defend the Mayor and Council members. Mr. Sievers stated he did not totally disagree with Mr. Sturdivant's views on use of in-house staff, however, if one compares the City's level of activity in handling litigation in- house, we do much more than other attorney offices. Some times it is a matter of resource allocation if they are too burdened or if there is a specialty area that they think the City would benefit from outside counsel. His department does not retain very many outside counsels and do carry a heavy litigation caseload in-house. In this particular case, where there are ethical conflicts, he did not have the choice and it is not based on resource allocation. He felt an attorney is in the best position to judge his conflicts. In this case, the plaintiff is at the department head level and during much of the last two years he had personally served in an attorney/client relationship. Ethical standards prevent attorneys' from switching clients readily without their consent. If the privilege were waived, then he would be a potential witness on some events over the last two years. These are two problems above and beyond our role of Prosecutor and having potential conflicts and ill feelings that result from adversarial proceedings when we have to present all the City's cases before the Court. Mr. Estes stated it was Council's responsibility to defend the Mayor and Council members in this instance. Mr. Horninq outlined the vulnerability of an elected official for whatever reason...the defense of that alone could bankrupt anyone. TAPE #932 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes June 26, 1991 Page 18 of 22 Just because someone alleges something does not make it true and in America we have to defend what is right. At this point no one can say what this litigation might cost, however, Council must stand up for our people and for the American way. We cannot let the hate people decide who is in office and who is not in office. He emphasized that statement was not in reference to the person bringing the lawsuit but simply a fact that lawsuits can be made without cause. He believed the Attorney's office was working under a mammoth workload. As a taxpayer in this City, he very much appreciated and understand that right will prevail and the bill to the taxpayers will be very small, but is a cost that must be paid to maintain the right of elected officials to represent people, to work and do what they, as Council members believe is right. Mr. Sturdivant stated for clarification he was not questioning the issue of defense, but rather who would be the defender. And, in his opinion that defender should be the City Attorney. Mr. Colvin requested Mr. Sievers to address the source of funding for this contract proposal since it was not previously budgeted and the statement that it was a "done deal"? Mr. Sievers explained the funding for something insurance related is budgeted in the Risk Management fund for the current years allocation. In reference to why an outside counsel...he would normally take this case as the claims are not that substantial, however, he does have ethical concerns and he could not have another attorney in his office represent the City where they have an ethical problem. As to a "done deal"...by the City's ordinance they are delegated authority to certain contracting powers and due to the need for quick action because time lines run once suits are filed he used that delegated authority to at least get some counsel on board until the item could be brought before the Council for approval of a larger amount. Mr. Johnson added he would like every member of every Board and Commission of the City to know if in the performance of their duty there is a lawsuit involving them, it is a "done deal"...the City will provide legal services to assist them. He pointed out over the years he had served as Council member he had received many notices of litigation from Warrant Servers, but most importantly he wanted to assure those serving the City they would be defended in the event of a suit. Being a federal Civil Service employee and serving on the City Council in a Military town, many times _ questions of ethics and standards of conduct or the appearance of such come up and the rule of thumb, as advised by Federal legal counsel, is "if you think you have an appearance of fairness or ethical problem then there probably is one". He used an example of conflict of interest that Municipal Judge Rainey would have to hire a Judge Pro Tem in the event he went before the Municipal Court on any issue, i.e., parking ticket, etc. TAPE #932 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes June 26, 1991 Page 19 of 22 Mr. Dawkins stated during his tenure as Mayor of the City he averaged 2-4 notices of lawsuits per month. Mr. Overson noted the City has a fine legal staff and this single case could eat up 50% of the entire A~torney Department budget, so the consideration for contracting out is not one of want to but have to. Mr. Colvin noted for clarification this legal counsel was not for any personal infraction outside of their duty as elected officials. Mr. Sievers stated Mr. Colvin was correct. #0705 M/S/C/U(Overson/Estes) to approve Professional Services Agreement to retain David H. Armstrong. President Horton and Councilman Collins returned to the meeting. 7A - ORDINANCE (FIRST READING) AMENDING ORDINANCE #3964, CONTROLLING BUDGETARY CHANGES, #AB91-171 Council has directed, by SLI, that the Budget Control Ordinance be reviewed. As a result, staff and the Fiscal and Budget Committee have prepared the attached update to Ordinance #3964. The proposed amendments eliminate a number of technical improprieties in the existing ordinance but do not significantly alter its form or content. Rich Hanna, City Treasurer, emphasized that the proposed change did not change the primary focus or direction of the ordinance, but rather clean up some rather busy language. The proposal did expand the discretionary authority of both the Mayor and Fiscal and Budget Committee. Under Section 3, it does not increase the discretionary authority of the Mayor to adjust between the different expenditure categories within a given Department on an individual adjustment basis not to exceed $5,000 or 10% of the budget of the affected department. It did expand the discretionary authority of the Fiscal and Budget Committee, as noted in Section 4, to add and delete capital expenditure items from $2,000 to $5,000. He pointed out he did change the wording "Budget Unit" to "Budget Department", which was more in keeping with the Chart of Accounts. He requested a minor change reflecting that wording to Section 6. Public comment - none. Mr. Johnson expressed concern over expanding movement of funds by the Mayor between departments. He felt this could be construed in many ways and not leave a clear trail of fund use. Mr. Hanna stated that suggestion was made in Fiscal and Budget Committee by Councilman Waibel and under Section 1, first paragraph, the word "department" was inserted into the sentence to read: "The adopted TAPE #932 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes June 26, 1991 Page 20 of 22 annual budget of the City of Bremerton shall consist of various Funds and Departments within those funds as provided in the chart of accounts pursuant to statute". This would be consistent with both budgeting and financial reporting. There is clear definition what does constitutes each of the individual departments contained in the Chart of Accounts. Mr. Johnson questioned under what Department management would the Building Department be placed? ~r. Manna stated the Building Department is an individual department of the General Fund. Mr. Johnson felt if approved as proposed it would give away more authority that assumed. Another concern was, under Section 3, the deletion of the sentence: "Such transfer and expenditure authorization shall be accomplished in a manner which provides for audit review". He felt there must be adequate receipting to provide an "audit trail" of action items. Mr. Manna stated he thought it would be obvious that the way he does business in his office does preserve a proper audit trail and did not bear repeating in the ordinance. To make adjustments they specify in the ordinance that it is done by a Budget Adjustment Request and under Section 6 it states that the Director Of Administrative Services will develop policies that clearly delineate how those adjustment are to take place. Mr. Johnson stated he was concerned about the not so obvious things that either do or don't show up at the end of the year in ending cash. He used the example of revenues coming in during the year and expenditures made of those funds and not all income revenues or expenditures can be predictable. Mr. Manna stated he was somewhat confused by the examples used by Mr. Johnson as they were accounting transactions and the subject issue relates to a budget amending ordinance. Accounting transactions are driven by a body of State statutes and generally accepted accounting principals, regardless of the intent of this ordinance. Mr. Johnson questioned what if the Municipal Judge ruled to transfer all Court fines to be carried out as community service and how could the Council have visibility of those transactions? Mr. Manna stated he was not sure the Judge had that discretion or authority. In reference to the deletion of the sentence relating to audit review, he was not looking at it in a broad context. The language contained in Section 3, to his understanding, pertained solely to the activities as far as amending the budget - they do not speak to the broader context as to how they apply to generally accepted accounting principles and the other mandates by State Statute that he currently operates under. The context of that language was to focus on a much narrower part of the activities of his office, i.e, strictly the budget amendments that are processed by his office. He believed the existing policies and the way they are written, if the proposed amended ordinance was approved, would certainly lead to a very auditable series of amendments to the budget. Mr. Johnson also questioned the deletion of wording under Section 5 for the same reason. #1528 TAPE #932 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes June 26, 1991 Page 21 of 22 Mr. Collins expressed concern over unfilled authorized positions and how those budgeted dollars are used within the department. Mr. Manna pointed out under Section 1 the budget structure is defined and in the second paragraph of Section 1, four distinct categories of expenditures are defined as: Personnel, Supplies, Services and Taxes, Debt Service and Capital Expenditures. Therefore, they segregate within each department the expenditure authority among these categories. The Mayor has limited authority to move money, the upper limit being the lesser of $5,000 or 10% of one of those named categories, to another category group. Also, the Fiscal and Budget Committee, under Section 4, has the authority to add or delete capital items not to exceed $5,000. Mr. Collins questioned if that was where Mr. Hanna felt the checks and balances were built in by the dollar value? Mr. Manna stated yes. He affirmed Mr. Collins' understanding that unfilled authorized positions within a department are fully funded for the budget year. If every dollar was spent that was budgeted per department, that would leave "0" cash in the General Fund at the end of the year, which is not in the best interest to the City. Mr. Morning questioned how often could the Mayor move funds within a Department's budget? Mr. Manna stated the ordinance does not limit the number of times the Mayor may do that. He complimented Mr. Hanna as being one of the finest treasurers in the State, but for second reading of the ordinance he wanted to see a time line to define the flexibility granted to the Mayor. He hoped Mr. Hanna could come up some language to include at second reading to reflect his concern. M/S/C/U(Horning/Johnson) to approve Ordinance, on first reading, amending Ordinance #39564 setting forth Legislative and Administrative controls on the annual budget of the City of Bremerton, as amended retaining the statement: "Such transfer and expenditure authorization shall be accomplished in a manner which provides for audit review", found in Sections 3 and 4. Mr. Overson questioned if the motion included the correction under Section 6 to state Budget Department and a consideration to retaining the statement in Section 3 and 4 that stated: "Such transfer and expenditure authorization shall be accomplished in a manner which provides for audit review". Mr. Morning accepted that addition as part of his motion, Mr. Johnson, as second on the motion concurred. TAPE #932 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes June 26, 1991 Page 22 of 22 With no further business meeting adjourned at 9:40 p.m. KATHLEEN L. MCCLUSKEY, CITY CLERK APPROVED ~RT0~, Council President City of Bremerton KLM/LH/me cc: Normal Distribution File/Vault