HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/30/91TAPE #965
UNAPPROVED DRAFT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
OCTOBER 30 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, October 30,
1991, at 5:30 p.m., with Council President Lynn Horton
presiding. Council members present: Lon Overson, Wayne Estes,
Spencer Horning, Hank Waibel, C. R. "Tiny" Collins, Morrie
Dawkins, A1 Colvin and Russ Johnson. Also present were City
Attorney Ian Sievers and City Clerk Kathleen McCluskey.
The meeting opened with the Pledge of Allegiance led by
Council President Horton and Invocation given by Clinton
McCrea of Emanual Apostolic Church.
CONSENT AGENDA - None
#O~3Q
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/Estes) on October 30, 1991, the Council does
approve for payment those vouchers included and further
described as follows: 138473, 138478, 138479, 138648 through
138792 in the total amount of $305,534.85; and Retirees
Payroll for the period ending October 31, 1991, in the amount
of $55,886.98.
COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS
Mr. Overson reported as a result of Council's discussions last
week relative to some funds and waterfront access
requirements, the City will start a fund or line item within
a fund (possible title - Waterfront Access Mitigation Fund),
for collection of funds mitigating certain conditions. The
purpose of such funds will be to construct access to the
beach. The City's Capital Improvement Plan has a Senior
Citizen Center identified for downtown. He is seeking
volunteers to help and/or participate in any way on this
project. Funding is very limited and he was not sure how it
could be provided right now from public funds, but he
believed with contributions and everyone working together
along withassistance from similar centers, it could happen.
He announced the grand opening of a large new store in east
TAPE #965
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
October 30, 1991
Page 2 of 26
Bremerton - Eagle Hardware Store on October 31, 7:15 A.M.
Lastly, he attended a meeting with Amy Burnett, Kathleen
McCluskey, Director Of Administrative Services, Debbie
Goddell, Parking Manager, some downtown business members, and
representative from Bremerton Main Street to discuss new ideas
on the possibility of implementing a Merchant Voucher Parking
System in retail parking zones.
Mr. Estes stated he will start wearing a dress suit to Council
meetings starting next week for the second reading of the
Uniform Housing Code Ordinance. If that ordinance is not
passed, he promised to wear "dashboard" overalls the remainder
of his Council term. During this past summer, Council Intern
Michael Tanner developed a draft of a Council Operations
Manual. Mr. Estes will review that document and bring it to
Council for their consideration.
Mr. Homing wished everyone a Happy Halloween. Over the last
few days he met many people and promised someone in particular
he would say "Hi" during a Council meeting, however he forgot
who that person was. So, he extended a special "Hi" and
apologized for being forgetful; and he wanted that person to
know that what he asked Mr. Horning to do was in process. He
wished Council President Horton a "Happy Birthday".
Mr. Waibel pointed out that Eagle Hardware Store is inside
the City limits. He took the opportunity to watch the Town
Meeting and Candidate presentation on TCI Channel 29 Cable
Access, which he felt was very informative.
Mr. Johnson announced the Department Of Ecology has started a
new organization and information available that local
businesses may find interesting. As part of their effort in
the Waste Not Washington Act, in conjunction with the
Department of Trade and Economic Development, the idea is to
develop markets for recyclable materials. They have set up an
electronic bulletin board system, which anyone can call into,
and by a series of a dozen categories of products ranging from
paper to parks supplies, etc., receive names and phone numbers
of companies providing such products. There are other types
of information on the bulletin board that has to do with
ecology issues, etc. In reference to the "water access fund",
he supported the proposal to set up a special fund or line
item within a fund. He noted the amount of public access to
waterfront is not much and what is left will probably be
developed in small pieces over a long period of time. So, the
normal method, such as the dollar contribution to Kitsap Lake
Park improvement by the Dockside development, may not be
available in the future, but the City still needs to have the
TAPE #965
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
October 30, 1991
Page 3 of 26
means to gain access to the water.
Mr. C01vin wished Council President Horton a "Happy Birthday"
and stated he had the pleasure of viewing the video tape of
Council's meeting of October 23. He complimented his fellow
Council members on how good they looked and sounded on TV. He
was pleased with the Town Meeting program, which was aired on
October 29, 7:30 P.M. He appreciated all of the participants,
i.e. Kitsap County Treasurer Sharon Shrader, League Of Women
Voters, Andy Parypa, Mayor Louis Mentor, Councilman Wayne
Estes, Lena Swanson, TCI Cable, KBRO and Judge Rainey. He
received three citizen complaints recently which he is
referring to three different departments. He feels it is
about time the City establish one person.in the Council who
will handle complaints and refer them to the appropriate
department. One of those complaints was regarding the City
Charter and after talking with the City Attorney he learned
that the wording of Section 19 had been the same for 10 years,
which is out of focus of what is actually being done. He will
be requesting a written legal opinion on whether or not the
City will have any repercussions because of that wording.
Mr. Dawkins announced the new Eagle Hardware Store is located
in District #2. Today he attended a meeting in Tacoma and
found they also experience "parking" problems. He noted a six
block area around the Sheridan Hotel is almost nothing but
boarded up buildings. He did see a small amount of
redevelopment starting in that area. He reminded everyone to
"Vote" on Tuesday.
Mr. Collins emphasized the importance of several issues before
the voters of this City and State and urged everyone to Vote
on Tuesday. He complimented Sharon Shrader on her serving as
Moderator for the Town Meeting. Today he and his wife took
advantage of the Bremerton/Kitsap County Health Department
services where both of them received a preventative flu shot
and pneumonia shot. He urged citizens to use the Health
Department - you pay for it!
Mrs. Hotton reported today she participated in the second
Downtown Economic Seminar, sponsored by Bremerton Main Street
Association. Discussions during that seminar brought forth
good ideas and lots of energy relating to parking, housing,
waterfront events, arts and how to market Bremerton. She
reminded everyone that Halloween was coming up on Thursday and
to please drive cautiously while watching out for children
along the streets.
PUBLIC RECOGNITION
TAPE #965
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
October 30, 1991
Page 4 of 26
Mayor Louis Mentor read a Proclamation recognizing the
contributions of women who have served in the United States
Military forces and proclaimed the week of November 4 through
10, 1991, as WOMEN VETERANS WEEK, in the City of Bremerton.
Senator Leo Thorsness, Medal Of Honor Recipient and Vietnam
Prisoner Of War, accepted the Proclamation and stated his
appreciation to the City for recognizing the importance of
women in the military. He noted the people of Bremerton know
the value of the military and veterans and what they have done
for our Country. As freedom breaks out around the world, it
is beautiful to see what has happened to Communism in the last
two years, especially for those who have been standing alert
to provide protection in the event of a crisis. The one
caution-that military people will stress is that there will
always be bad guys around, as seen in the Middle East, and to
not lose sight of the fact that there will always be some
threat and to not scale back our military strength to the
point where we become weak in any way. He believes the world
will be less stable than it was two years ago and there could
be the threat of a black market on nuclear warheads very soon,
if the Soviet Union continues to crumble. He concluded with
the statement that there was no other job description in the
United States that indicated: "by the way, to fulfill your job
you might have to give your life to do it".
Mayor Mentor stated people with complaints can call his office
but they can also call his office with compliments. He
thanked Councilman Colvin, League of Women Voters and Sharon
Shrader for doing an outstanding job on the Town Meeting
program held October 29. He will participated in the
Halloween Party at the Sheridan Center on Thursday. On
Sunday, October 27, the Knights Of Columbus held a fund raiser
to benefit the Northwest Kidney Center, which was well
attended. He attended the Prayer Breakfast, held October 24,
and enjoyed the guest speaker's presentation. The USS Swanney
held a reunion in Bremerton over the past weekend.
In regard to the City's waterfront project, all the piling
have been driven in front of the Wheel House Restaurant and
are heading north. He wanted to assure everyone that there
was no truth in the rumor that this project was already one
million dollars over budget. He emphasized that currently the
project is on schedule as to cash flow and so far there are
two change orders: (1) extra length of piling - $5,635.00; (2)
undertake a few more test piles - $2,500.00. He noted the
contractor was going to try capping the bottoms of the piling
before driving them in place in hopes they won't drive so deep
into the ground. This action may save the project as much as
$25,000. A more complete report will be given in November.
TAPE #965
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
October 30, 1991
Page 5 of 26
Mr. Johnson stated in relating to the election issues, there
is one initiative sponsored by the State through the
Legislative process, which has received almost no publicity
locally or in the Seattle area. This initiative has to do
with "home rule for counties". There has been an option in
the RCW's where counties can adopt home rule charters and now
there is only one way to do that, which is a cumbersome
process. Very few counties have attempted such action based
on the fact that it is "too hard". The initiative being
proposed basically stated if approved, the State would set up
a Commission to define a number of acceptable forms of county
government, whether it be Executive/Council, etc., and then
counties could adopt that and take advantage of some of the
home rule advantages. He encouraged everyone to review this
item in the Voters' Pamphlet prior to election day. Mr. Waibel
stated one of the interesting aspects of that law is the fact
that it states specifically only one type of new government
can be on the ballot at any time. There will be five separate
ideas offered but never can more than one be offered the
electorate at any one time.
E. L. 8turdivant, 3231 Halverson, commended the City of
Bremerton and particularly Ian Sievers, City Attorney, and his
co-Counsel Mr. Rodgers, on their defense against the
condemnation proceedings brought by Olympic Collage. He noted
the City could be proud of the excellent job Mr. Sievers did,
win or lose. Winning to him is the refusal of condemnation by
the College. He hoped if the field is condemned that the City
will give as strong or stronger presentation for financial
remuneration reimbursement. He was not pleased over the fact
that there were no City elected officials present at any of
the hearings he attended. This particularly disappointed him
considering three of those officials are retired and many are
on flex time. In reference to Proposition 1, he felt it was
only fair to call attention to the fact that in the City
Charter there are approximately 12 different departments
listed, and with a City Manager there would still be
approximately 12 department heads. In taking a survey of the
cities of Vancouver, Yakima, Tacoma and Spokane, they too,
with a City Manger, have approximately 10 department heads.
Nothing was changed except for,another bureaucracy level. The
City of Vancouver spends $266,000 per year on City Managers'
salaries, i.e., 5-6 people in each of these cities' Manager
office. It made no difference whether the population was
50,000 or 176,000. The City of Yakima's City Mangers'
salaries have a minimum of $202,000. The City of Tacoma
spends $359,000 for six people directly under the City
Manager. The City of Spokane spends a minimum of $220,000 on
TAPE #965
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
October 30, 1991
Page 6 of 26
City Manager positions. Tacoma City Manager receives $90,000
plus a $7,500 deferred annuity per year. Spokane City Manager
receives a starting salary of $75,522, going up to $90,055.
He referenced a news article in today's Wednesday Magazine
written by one of the proponents of the new government: "if we
would have had a City Manager we probably would not have a
smell at the sewer treatment plant". That kind of a statement
irritated Mr. Sturdivant, who was part of the City Council at
the time the sewer treatment plant project was approved and
built. What that statement was saying is - "if there had been
a City Manager trained in construction", or "if we had a City
Manager trained in law we would not have any suits", or "if we
had a City Manager trained in finance the City would always be
on budget". He questioned whether someone could ever find a
City Manager with five or ten degrees with ten different areas
of experience?
George Cooritz, 1310 Park Avenue, stated a piece of property
across from his residence was recently purchased by Kitsap
Mental Health. He questioned if the neighborhood would be
informed if that property becomes a half-way house? .President
Horton requested the City Clerk to respond to Mr. Coontz's
question.
Frank Brontonia, 2804 Cascade View, congratulated President
Horton on her birthday.
Gordy Byrd, 402 Chester #3, reported as of today he had
collected $12,163.01 for his shelter for the homeless. He
urged people to vote "no" on Initiative 119 because it may be
a threat to handicapped people. He cautioned everyone to
study the issues and make an educated choice before voting.
Joe Murphy, 11906 Central Valley Road NE, Poulsbo, expressed
concern that Kitsap Mental Health Agency was not holding
"open" meetings". He has a 32 year old daughter, who attends
Holly Ridge Center and works in a sheltered workshop. He
served as Chairman of the Mental Health, Mental Retardation
and Drug Abuse Board in Kitsap County for many years. He and
Ralph Munro, Secretary Of State, wrote and co-sponsored
legislation that provides for establishment of group homes.
He is horrified that there is an agency that expends his tax
dollars and does not provide an "open meeting". He was
informed, by that agency, that he would have to give pre-
notice of his attendance at their meeting and any questions he
might have would have to be given to the Board in advance.
This agency states that they are a private, non-profit
organization which has no public scrutiny. When he attended
a meeting in Suquamish regarding the establishment of a group
TAPE #965
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
October 30, 1991
Page 7 of 26
home in that area, the discussion indicated Kitsap Mental
Health was seeing their position only as a landlord with no
liability attached. Mr. Murphy emphasized the intention of
legislation he and Mr. Munro proposed provided for some
monitoring, some say, input and some guarantee that a citizen
could participate in the processes under this agency's
jurisdiction. He questioned where could someone go that had
a question relating to activities of the agency and if he
couldn't go to the Board of Directors, who would help him? He
challenged the Council, as public servants, to find out what
is going on at the Kitsap Mental Health Agency. He will
continue to try and attend their meetings.
President Hotton announced Item 6B had been pulled off the
Council Agenda for two weeks.
6A - CHANGE ORDER NO. 2/A.H.POWERS, INC. - SNYDER AVENUE/PORT
WASHINGTON NARROWS CROSSING WATER TRANSMISSION MAIN PROJECT,
#AB91-274
Attached for City Council's consideration is Change Order No.
2/A.N. Powers, inc., contract for the Snyder Avenue/Port
Washington Narrows Crossing Water Transmission Main project.
The change order provides for the following changes as noted:
Item #1: Provides for an increase in the contract unit price
for Schedule A in the amount of $11.08/foot for a total
increase of $37,572 for the installation of 18" ductile iron
pipe and fittings associated with the Snyder Avenue portion of
the project.
Item #2: Provides for an increase in the contract lump sum
price for Schedule B in the amount of $69.87/foot for a total
increase of $112,134 for the installation of 18" ductile iron
pipe and fittings associated with the Port Washington Narrows
portion of the project.
Summary:
Original Contract Amount
$1,057,918.00
Add: Change Order #1
Change Order #2
Revised Contract Amount
0
149,706.00
$1,207,624.00
Total revised contract amount including
7.8% WA Retail Sales Tax on revised
contract amount
$1,301,818.67
Bill Duffy, Utilities Director, stated this change order was
TAPE #965
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
October 30, 1991
Page 8 of 26
necessitated by the permit conditions set forth by the
permitting agency for the protection of the environment. The
permitting agencies include: City of Bremerton/Shorelines
Permit, US Army Corps Of Engineers, Department of Natural
Resources, Department of Ecology, Department of Health and
Department of Fisheries. The conditions set forth the
construction techniques that the City needs to adhere to and
the availability of time when work can be done within the
marine waters. Consequently, these conditions have increased
the contract price for this project.
Public comment - none.
Mr. Dawkins questioned if the piping had been increased in
size to 18 inches? Mr. Dully stated no, it is still 18 inch
piping, which replaces an older 12 inch main that was located
near the Warren Avenue Bridge that failed about 6-8 years ago.
The new main is being installed west of the bridge and will
transmit the Narrows from 25th and Snyder to Tracyton
Beach/Sheridan Road area. Mr. Dawkinsquestioned if there was
enough water pressure on the east side to take care of City
needs during the summer? M~. Dully stated yes, during high
flow periods, particularly in July and August, they have had
difficulties in recent years keeping the east side reservoirs
full.
Mr. Collins requested Mr. Duffy to recount some of the
oddities he encountered with some of the permitting agencies.
Mr. Dully stated in obtaining a Hydraulics permit from the
Department Of Fisheries, they encountered certain periods of
time during the year when no work may be done in order to
protect migrating fish runs from the areas. There is also the
protection of existing marine life that resides year around,
i.e., gooeyducks, etc. and the City has to provide some
mitigation cost for replacement of that habitat. They will be
paying a fee in lieu of mitigation for gooeyducks ($1,800.00).
Mr. Collins noted because we seem to have so many people
looking over our shoulder, it is difficult to accomplish
anything. Mr. Dully stated it took longer to obtain the
necessary permits than it did to design the project.
Mr. Johnson stated as a point of clarification - we started
with a million dollar project but the mitigation of all these
ecological issues amount to 1/4 million dollars.
Mr. Waibel stated in a bidding situation he did not like to
see someone low-ball a bid and under bid everyone else being
awarded the bid, and then come back with Change Orders to make
the money they need. He expressed concern that of the three
TAPE #965
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
October 30, 1991
Page 9 of 26
bids on 18 inch ductile, the contractor awarded the bid had an
amount one half of the highest bid. The City accepted that
bid at that rate and now that contractor is coming back and
saying he needs more. Mr. Dully stated he considered
rebidding the project as they went through the Permit process.
When they obtained the contractor's figures they compared them
to the Engineer's estimate as well as the other bids. This
contractor's bid is still lower than the second bid. That,
together with going back through the Permit process and the
cost of bidding, were the reasons he chose to use the change
order route. Mr. Waibel stated Mr. Duffy came up with the
only reason why he was willing to do that and even with the
raise in cost that contractor is below the next bidder on this
particular item. He was not sure how this fit into the total
bid, but if that made the difference in the overall bid to
make him under everyone else, he would not accept this
request. Mr. Duffy explained these conditions were not
included in the original bid. They had used the document from
the sewer main that was installed two years ago as the
criteria. Since that time, the environmental conditions have
become much more stringent.
Mr. Overson stated in reference to the seven permitting
agencies, possibly Council should take this as a key to talk
with the State to attempt to consolidate some of the agencies
in order to reduce some of the bureaucracy. He will pursue
such an idea.
Mr. Colvin questioned if the reason for the increase of cost
of the contract was due to change in price of the 18 inch
ductile pipe? Mr. Dully stated the unit price was based on
the cost of pipe installed, which includes both material and
labor. The majority of the cost is actually associated with
the digging and additional barges required to store the
material, as well as restrict the amount of trench that is
open at one time.
#2040
M/S/C/U(Dawkins/Collins) to approve Change Order No. 2/A.H.
Powers, Inc., contract for the Snyder Avenue/Port Washington
Narrows Crossing Water Transmission Main project and authorize
the Mayor to execute the same subject to City Administrative
Policies and Procedures.
7A - ORDINANCE (SECOND READING) DECRIMINALIZING VIOLATIONS OF
BUILDING AND FIRE SAFETY CODES AND PROVIDING THAT SUCH
VIOLATIONS 8HALL HENCEFORTH BE CONSIDERED CIVIL INFRACTIONS,
#AB91-271
Public comment - none.
#2079
TAPE #965
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
October 30, 1991
Page 10 of 26
M/S/C/U(Johnson/Estes) to pass Ordinance #4348, on second
reading, decriminalizing violations of building and fire
safety codes and providing that such violations shall
henceforth be considered civil infractions.
7B - RESOLUTION NO. 2365 SETTING HEARING DATE FOR VACATION OF
THE NORTH 1S FEET OF FIRST STREET LOCATED 71 FEET TO THE EAST
OF BRUEN AVENUE, #AB91-276
Larry David, an adjoining property owner, is requesting the
vacation of the north 15 feet of First Street located 71 feet
to the east of Bruen Avenue. 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.
Ian Sievers, City Attorney, stated there was a question raised
during Council's Study Session as to the purpose of this
Council action and whether the merits of the vacation should
be discussed. It is his opinion that a street vacation is
similar to a rezone and is a quasi-judicial action. Citizens
have the right to make application for either of these
actions, if they pay their application fee. Part of the
process is to go before the Planning Commission and City
Council for a hearing. State law requires this mid-stream
action by the Council in setting a hearing date by Resolution,
but is only a technicality and this matter should not be
prejudged until the hearing before Council, which this
Resolutions sets.
Public comment - none.
#2169
M/S/C(Waibel/Colvin) to pass Resolution #2365, setting hearing
for First Street vacation on November 20, 1991, at 6:00 P.M.
or later.
Vote:
In Favor:
Abstain:
Waibel, Dawkins, Colvin, Johnson, Overson,
Estes, Horning, Horton
Collins
Councilman Estes left the Council Chambers.
8A - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - PRELIMINARY PLAT OF OYSTER BAY
ESTATES, APPLICANT: CHAFFEY CORPORATION, LOCATION: SE
SHORELINE OF OYSTER BAY WE8T OF SUNDOWN DRIVE, #AB91-277
President Hotton questioned Mr. Colvin if he reviewed the
tapes of the previous Council meeting. Mr. Colvin stated yes
he did. President Hotton stated because Mr. Colvin was absent
from the last Council meeting but subsequently listened to the
tape of that meeting, she will again ask the appearance of
fairness/conflict of interest question. Mr. Waibel stated he
TAPE #965
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
October 30, 1991
Page 11 of 26
was also absent from that meeting but did watch the live
telecast of that meeting. Ian 8levers, City Attorney, stated
Mr. Waibel qualified to be seated. President Horton asked the
"Appearance Of Fairness/Conflict Of Interest" question with
all remaining Council members being seated.
Jack A11ingham, Current Planning Division, stated this hearing
was continued on the October 23rd City Council meeting pending
additional information and resolution of primarily four
issues. The first issue was the access to the site via Lower
Marine Drive, which is a relatively narrow, substandard road.
The Planning Commission heard public testimony during their
meeting on this issue and did not require any improvements to
Lower Marine Drive, with the City Engineering Department
concurring. One option that was discussed amongst staff that
might improve pedestrian/auto conflicts on Lower Marine Drive
would be to make Lower Marine Drive a one-way street, which
would open up more area on the road for pedestrians.
Apparently this area is not on the Six Year Transportation
Improvement Plan and currently the Planning Commission and
City staff are not recommending any improvements to Lower
Marine Drive due to the proposed project.
The second issue regarded access to the site from Kitsap Way.
The developer designed an access from a cul-de-sac that is
part of the plat itself onto Kitsap Way. The Engineering
Department does not approve of this access and the applicant
feels creating a pedestrian access and not vehicular access to
Kitsap Way would be of more benefit to the project.
The third issue regarded a recommendation by the Planning
Commission to not require a public beach access element to
this project. Council questioned if there were other
locations within the immediate vicinity or within City that
might serve as public beach access. It appears that there is
not any designated public beach access locations in the near
vicinity of the project. NAD Marine Park or Evergreen Park
seemed to be about the two most designated public access
locations to the shore line in west Bremerton. The City is
working to develop a beach enhancement project at Evergreen
Park that might serve as a project for the proponent to
provide a fee in lieu of dedication of a public beach access.
However, it did not seem like that would mitigate beach access
in the subject neighborhood. So, current recommendation is to
require only a public use easement and not develop an improved
public access so that development of beach access would be
reserved for the future.
The fourth issue related to a couple of internal roadways in
TAPE #965
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
October 30, 1991
Page 12 of 26
the plat itself. It is proposed that the two drives be
private roads to serve four or fewer lots. Council was
questioning if they should be dedicated public right-of-ways
or private roadways. City staff feels they are essentially
driveways serving the lots and recommend that they be under
the same ownership as the lots, which they serve, and that
they be constructed to City standards for road bed
construction but not required to meet the necessary standards
for right-of-way width. And, that those roads be allowed to
grant pedestrian easements across these lots from the lots
they bisect. Finally, that the plat have a maintenance
agreement clearly stating who is responsible for repair and
maintenance of those internal access drives.
Council has been provided a revised "model" motion and
revisions to the recommended conditions subject to this'new
information.
Norm Olson, N. L. Olson & Associates representing Chaffey
Corporation, stated the developer agrees with the staff's
original conditions and those supplements presented at this
time with the exception of Item #3, public beach access. They
do agree to build a pedestrian access to Kitsap Way and they
still stand by their volunteering U.L.I.D. aid for anything
that is done on Lower Marine Drive. They feel strongly that
the access to the beach is wrong in this location for the
following reason: (1) the liability of this on private
homeowners that would have to suffer that easement is
ludicrous. Should Council require the access to the beach,
they would ask that the City also accept the responsibility
and liability of such access and have a "hold harmless"
agreement with the developer and the homeowners for future
liability caused by pedestrians, etc.
Staff has mentioned that the easement be granted but not
constructed. He noted that might be very good if everyone
forgot the easement existed. However, five years in the future
someone may come in and want to build an access across
someone's front yard. They do agree to come up with a fee in
lieu of dedication. He has a dollar figure in mind, however,
he requested Council to come up with a figure.
They agree to adhere to other items listed on the resolution
concerning utilities, stormwater, fire, subdivision design and
private roadways and dedication.
Wanda Mosbar~er, 3910 Valley drive, stated the City has a
responsibility to help the residents make Lower Marine drive
a safe place. There has been talk abut opening the Six Year
TAPE #965
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
October 30, 1991
Page 13 of 26
Transportation Plan, that the City take responsibility for the
road and the citizens would take on a L.I.D. for construction
of sidewalks. If those steps were taken, the majority of the
neighbors feel it would be a reasonable plan. In her opinion,
the Planning Department's idea of making Lower Marine Drive
one-way was one of the most ludicrous ideas ever coming from
that department. During the winter time when there is snow or
trees are blown across the roadway, there is only one way to
exist that area. It would also add 1/8 mile for each resident
of that area leaving that area and if a tree fell across the
road it would leave only one way for the residents to get out
of the valley. She asked council to please not make Lower
Marine Drive one-way.
Mr. Frederick Salmela, 1309 Lower Marine Drive, stated he felt
the refinements made since the last Council meeting were a
real improvement, especially developing a pedestrian access to
Kitsap Way in lieu of a City street. He was not supportive of
having the public beach access in the development and pointed
out the location of Forest Avenue, next to Bayshore
veterinary, which was an access to the beach on the south
shore of Oyster Bay. He did not support the idea of making
Lower Marine Drive one-way. He felt the idea of opening the
Six Year Transportation Plan to include improvements to Lower
Marine Drive had merit.
Jim Lane, 3927, Valley Drive, stated he believed this project
was the best use of the subject property. He expressed
concern that people living in the valley may be restricted to
too few exits, taking away some of what they currently have.
He again stated that in his opinion the City's Engineers had
treated the residents of the valley as an adversary.as well as
peacemealing information to them. He hoped Council would
approve the proposed project and at the same time make
provision for the improvement of Lower Marine Drive through
the Six Year Transportation Plan, and L.I.D. along with the
residents.
Kathleen McCluskey, City Clerk, read a letter from Robert J.
Macht, Manager of South Ridge Condominiums, which stated
members of the Homeowners Association oppose any public access
provisions being incorporated into the approval of the subject
subdivision. As stated before by the Planning Commission, any
such public across private land will pose potential future
trespass, security and liability concerns that reach beyond
the subject property.
TAPE #966
Mr. Johnson stated he was excited about the proposed project,
TAPE #966
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
October 30, 1991
Page 14 of 26
however, he was still concerned about people who will be
residing on lots #15 and #16 and how they'll get their garbage
picked up and mail delivered if their access is a private
road. Mr. Olson stated one of the items required by staff and
which the developer agreed to, was to create a roadway into
the project that would meet Uniform Fire Code provisions.
This would mean that in the area of Lots #15 and #16 a cul-de-
sac would need to be constructed to allow for large vehicles,
such as fire trucks and garbage trucks, to turn around. He
noted the developer would probably lose one lot in order to
provide such turn- around facility. Mr. Johnson stated when
he speaks about "beach access" he is saying that in a more
global sense meaning the whole community. He felt it was
imperative council look to the future and plan for access to
the water for future residents who do not live on the
waterfront. He also thought it was wrong to have public
access in single family waterfront areas. The solution to
that is to define an alternative area and he did not support
making it mandatory that it be placed in the subject
neighborhood. He is satisfied with the road, opening the Six
Year Transportation Plan and the L.I.D. for improvement of
Lower Marine Drive.
President Hotton pointed out that next year the City will be
addressing the City's Parks Comprehensive Plan and one of the
things that can be asked of the Planning Department and
Planning Commission is to look at a site in this general
vicinity for such a project.
Mr. Collins reminded Council that they passed a Shoreline
Management Plan which states there will be public beach access
for any project over 4 unit. He had no problem finding an
alternative location in the same general area. However,
unless we are going to adhere to the Shoreline Management Act
he suggested scraping that plan. When Council enacted the
Shoreline Management Plan, these very things were discussed.
He understood how the developer and residents of the subject
site would not want public access through their properties and
hoped that an alternative location could be found in order to
fulfill that requirement. In regard to the roadway, he found
no problems with what is being proposed as long as it is built
to a standard and not something that is just "scraped" across
the ground. He stressed the fact that this development will
impact a lot of people and he still felt those people being
impacted by the road should not have to pay the total L.I.D.
He felt such a L.I.D. would hit the individual residents, even
though there are more of them, than the developer. He did not
believe a solution had been found for the Lower Marine Drive
problem and putting sidewalks on it would not resolve the
TAPE #966
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
October 30, 1991
Page 15 of 26
problem. As he recalled, the next three years on the Six Year
Transportation Plan are loaded with some very sensitive
projects, such as the Marine Drive/Kitsap Way intersection and
questioned if we limit that improvement? Mr. Overson stated
not for $85,000. Mr. Collins did not believe Lower Marine
Drive could be "fixed" for $85,000.
Mr, Waibel stated he did not think the idea of making Lower
Marine Drive one way made any sense. He pointed out the
Manette area has Lower Shore Drive and Upper Shore Drive,
which allows them to be made one-way and is not in the same
situation as Lower Marine Drive. He felt the City does have
a problem with the beach access - he reminded everyone that
the Shore Line Management Act was required by State law. And,
one of the requirements of that law was that the City come up
with a Waterfront Access Plan, which had to be approved by the
State. He did not believe Council could violate the
provisions of that plan without appealing to the State to
waive that stipulation. That plan states that all public and
private developments will provide public pedestrian access
from the right-of-way to and along the entire waterfront with
the following exceptions, a subdivision containing four or
less units. The entire intent of the State Law was to
eliminate private ownership of the waterfront.
Mr. Colvin stated he agrees with his fellow Council members
that the Shoreline Management Act is a good act, but he also
believes there are places where one has to use "good common
sense". He did not support making Lower Marine drive one way
and felt the City should take advantage of the citizens'
desire to improve Lower Marine Drive with an L.I.D., and he
supported opening the Six Year Transportation Plan.
Mr. Overson stated Mr. Collins was correct in that the Six
Year Transportation Plan was very solid and there are a lot of
difficult decisions to be made if Council reopened it for
consideration of Lower Marine Drive improvements. However, he
felt the only way it could be added would be to have the
involvement of the residents of the area as well as the
developer. Also, he noted it seems like a contradiction that
the City's Water Utility has to pay such costs and fees of the
waterfront so that the public can have access. He supported
the idea that beach access should be handled through some kind
of fee to be set aside in a fund to be used at a time when
some of these other problems are solved.
President Hotton pointed out when council adopted the
Shoreline Master Plan there was a clause included that stated
if access to the shoreline at that particular location was
TAPE #966
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
October 30, 1991
Page 16 of 26
unfeasible for some reason, the City would accept a reasonable
sum of money in lieu of that access in order to provide the
same type of arrangement but in a different location.
Mr. Dawkins pointed out that NAD Marine Park is located
approximately 1/2 mile from the subject site and he felt it
would be appropriate to consider that as a future enhanced
park area. He also noted that the City should be prepared to
increase police patrol personnel because of the impact such
public access could bring about. He did not support the idea
of having beach access located in a residential area.
Mr. Johnson stated he felt he was on the same wave length as
Mr. collins and Mr. Waibel - he was trying to make sure
developers heard what Council was saying and as part of that
there are ways to mitigate situations that do not quite fit
the Shoreline Management Plan. If this is legal, then Council
can, by motion, set the steps in motion to negotiate a
mitigation fee that matches the City's ordinance to meet the
beach access requirement. In reference to the road, Council
can set, by separate motion, when and how to address the road
problems.
Mr. Colvin stated he believed Council should defer discussion
of the shoreline access at this time. Ian Sievers, City
Attorney, stated it would be difficult to do that due to the
need to set the conditions of the plat so that the development
can go forward and lots could be sold without designating if
there will be easement encumbering these lots.
Mr. Collins requested Mr. A11ingham read into the record
regulation #8 of the Bremerton Master Plan. Mr. A11ingham
stated the City Council had reviewed several documents lately
and in the winter of 1990 Council passed the Waterfront Access
Plan as an amendment to the Bremerton Comprehensive Plan,
which is a policy document. The passage that Mr. Collins'
referred to is: "require all public and private developments
provide public pedestrian access from the right-of-way to and
along the entire waterfront with the following exception, (1)
a subdivision containing four or less lots". Mr. Collins
stated recently Council discussed extending the boardwalk
around to Evergreen Park and to "bite the bullet" and say that
everyone will participate. He understands the idea of
mitigating this condition, however, he believed Council must
consider the intent of their past legislation and that was to
give everyone access to the beach.
Mr. Waibel stated because he was not sure the reasons the
exceptions were allowed under the policy for mitigation may
TAPE #966
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
October 30, 1991
Page 17 of 26
apply in this situation, he wants to make sure the motion
states that if that happens Council will revisit it and work
it out another way.
#0871
M/S/C/U(Horning/Colvin) to adopt the findings Of Fact and
Conclusions of Law of the Planning Commission and hereby
approve the Preliminary Plat of Oyster Bay estates and
Shoreline Substantial Development Conditional Use Permit
subject to the following conditions: Item 1 - Lower Marine
Drive is accepted under the recommendation; Item 2 - Kitsap
Way access is as recommended - pedestrian access only; Item 3
- no beach access is required, however, if the State overturns
Council's decision it will be reopened and returned for
Council's consideration and a payment in lieu of dedication
will be negotiated between staff and developer, with Council
approval, and concluded and Council will be notified ofsame
before the Final Plat; Item 4 - private roadway is accepted
per recommendations (a) through (e).
Mr. Homing requested that the Six Year Transportation Plan be
brought back to Council before year end, for discussion of a
reopener on the Lower Marine Drive issue because of the
following extraordinary circumstance: (1) the developer and
neighbors would all like to participate in an L.I.D.
Mr. Johnson suggested having the Six Year Tranportation Plan
come before Council in mid November and concluding the issue
by December 31 as to whether or not Lower Marine Drive be part
of that document.
Mr. Waibel stated he did not want Council to violate any of
the notification requirements for hearing this kind of issue.
President Hotton stated based on prior hearings already set,
she did not anticipate it being scheduled before early
December.
Councilman Estes returned to Council Chambers at 7:56 PM.
8B - 80LID WASTE COLLECTION, DISPOSAL & RECYCLING CONTRACT,
#AB91-277
The purpose of the hearing is to take public testimony
regarding the solid waste collection, disposal and recycling
contract. Staff will make presentation.
Kathleen McCluske~, Director Of Administrative Services,
stated she has been part of the City's negotiation team on the
solid waste contract. Negotiations are still in progress and
the purpose of this hearing is to present some of the main
features of that contract as they stand at the moment and to
TAPE #966
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
October 30, 1991
Page 18 of 26
take public input.
Background - the negotiating team were tasked with
renegotiating the contract with Brem-Air and not going out for
bid. The City established a Solid Waste Advisory Committee,
chaired by Councilman Russ JohnSon, which included a number of
City residents. It was the Committee's recommendation to
renegotiate the contract with Brem-Air based on the past
quality of service and the City's desire to work with the
current provider.
Purpose - (1) to assist and design a broad based reduction,
reuse and recycling program that includes curbside collection,
composting and deals with a wide range of specialized
components of the waste stream. (2) Establish the true cost
of service for recycling and waste collection considering the
impact of one element upon the other. (3) Setting the rates to
cover the cost in a manner that is equitable and provides
incentives for greater recycling and waste reduction. (4)
Negotiate a contract that is fair and cost effective and
insures that recycling programs will be fully implemented.
Implementation of Resolution 2323 has guided the negotiations.
This Resolution was passed by the City Council with input from
the Solid Waste Advisory Committee and meeting requirements of
the State law, "Waste Not Washington Act", which mandates
recycling and other features.
SUMMARY OF FEATURES
Single family residences - owners provide cans, as in the
past, and a new feature has been added- a mini can (20
gallon). This couples in with the recycling component.
Weekly pick up will continue as is current practice.
Commercial and multi-family - containers would be provided by
Brem-Air (multiple cans or dumpsters). The container size
would be negotiated with the customer and frequency of
collection. This is a new feature and one that was changed
based on input from the public. Currently, the City mandates
certain frequency of collection and it was felt this was
something particularly a commercial customer should be able to
negotiate. Of course, health standards and City ordinances
will control if someone is trying to get away with service
that is less than acceptable.
Recycling Services - what is proposed is single family
residential curbside recycling, by-weekly collection, same day
service as other garbage collection, bin would be provided by
Brem-Air and operational by December 1992, and materials, i.e.
TAPE #966
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
October 30, 1991
Page 19 of 26
newspaper, magazines, aluminum cans, tin cans, glass,
plastics, would be the initial materials recycled based on
their marketability. This is the component of the contract
that is most "up in the air" at the moment because the City is
attempting to coordinate with the County. It may be more
costly if Bremerton starts recycling before the County. The
County is probably a year behind the City in their time line
to start recycling and there is also some concern as to by-
weekly or weekly recycling, which the County is currently
stressing. This is an area that Bremerton is proposing,
however, City officials will be meeting with County officials
to discuss this issue further.
Recycling Services for multi-family residential - by-weekly
collection, same day service, containers provided by Brem-Air,
operational by December 1993, and materials, i.e. newspapers,
magazines, aluminum cans, tin cans, glass and plastic. The
materials that are marketable are the ones we intend to
recycle and it will change as materials have a market.
Commercial recycling - pick up would be optional and is not
mandated by State law. Frequency would be negotiated,
containers provided by Brem-Air, service available in December
1993. This would take more time on the part of Brem-Air
because they would be negotiating with each commercial
establishment who elects to recycle.
Yard waste pick up - this will be an optional service and is
not mandated. What is proposed is bi-weekly in summer and
monthly during winter. Containers will be provided by Brem-
Air and serviced stated by July 1992. A rate of $5.00 per
month is proposed for yard waste pickup.
Drop off services - there are two options being considered at
this time:(1) in the city six days a week with charges to be
established and materials other than the standard curbside
recyclable items. In a recent proposal from Brem-Air there
was some discussion of an alternative to a drop- off site
disposal at the landfill by the citizen with a 30% rate
reduction on the normal price for Bremerton-Brem-Air
customers, that a site within City'limits be established and
charges would be 175% of the rate charged by the Olympic
Landfill for similar items.
Ms. MaCluskeV emphasized that recycling services will be
voluntary participation, although everyone will pay to cover
the cost of recycling. Brem-Air will market the recyclable
materials and a 50-50 split on income from such materials is
proposed. The City wants the hauler to have an incentive to
TAPE #966
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
October 30, 1991
Page 20 of 26
promote recycling and if there is a revenue stream associated
with that, there is some incentive. The City plans to use
whatever revenue is generated for recycling education
programs. The issue of "education" is not totally resolved
and the City wants to commit some funds to recycling
education. Currently Kitsap County has a division with
several people working in this area, which is funded through
the tax from the landfill, and the City desires to participate
with them in such recycling education programs.
Enforcement is an area where the City has received complaints
from the public and effort is being made to tighten up rules
and regulations for the City's responsibility and Brem-Air's
responsibility. The contractor would handle, as in the past,
inquiries and customer complaints. Disputes would be resolved
through a Hearings Examiner or board, which is a new feature.
In the past, citizens felt there was no method of dispute
resolution and the City intends to use the current Hearings
Examiner to hear disputes about quality .of service, etc.
Brem-Air staff will assist with ordinance compliance, which
means the drivers will have some kind of check list to monitor
non-compliance garbage strewn or littered in streets and
alleys; and they will work with the City Attorney on
enforcement and prosecution.
Rates - what is being proposed is a single rate for all
services but broken out for the solid waste collection,
disposal rate and recycling rate. It is desired to identify
all of those rates so good decisions can be made how they are
increased, their purpose, etc. In the past there was just one
rate and did not make it possible to break out the components.
Following is the rate structure currently under discussion:
Mini Can $5.68
One Can $7.24
Two Cans $9.16
(Note: costs for multiple cans and dumpsters increase
proportionately.)
The adjustment mechanism for rates (hauling and collection)
would' be an annual CPI based upon Class C Cities Western
Region Index. This CPI is one of the lower indexes in terms
of its increases and the City has put a lid of 6% on it,
however, providing for a five year review process. Should the
CPI continually exceed 6%, the contract would be reopened for
Brem-Air to present information as to why they should be
allowed to raise their rates beyond that 6%. The current 10
year contract did not include a reopener clause.
TAPE #966
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
October 30, 1991
Page 21 of 26
The disposal component of the rate: Mini Can- $2.41, one can -
$3.85, two cans-S7.70. What this would be is the total
hauling and disposal rate excluding recycling or taxes with
a base rate of: Mini Can-$8.09/month, one can $11.09/month,
and $16.86-two cans. As a comparison, the City's current rate
for one can (no recycling and tax excluded) is $8.21. The
mini-can rate is less than the current one-can rate without
recycling. The adjustment mechanism for the disposal rate is
different in that using a CPI for that did not seem
appropriate because the disposal rate has a number of other
factors affecting it. What is proposed is if the Utilities
Transportation Commission (UTC) approves an increase for an
affiliated hauler, then the City would accept that rate after
UTC approval. Another option would be if they did not go
through the UTC approval, that Brem-air petition City Council
directly for any kind of rate increase for the disposal
portion. The City would have the right to review whatever
figures they present and Brem-Air would have the obligation to
pay for that review. This gives the City some control over
those rates and to have an independent auditor review their
proposal. The third option would be rates charged by a non-
affiliated disposal site (if the City disposed elsewhere).
Weight base conversion - beginning January l, 1993, there will
be a change made from "cubic yard" to a "weight" based method
of applying charges for solid waste disposal. Contract
wordingwas included indicating, although that should not have
any impact on the contract, that we want to review it and make
sure there are no major changes when that takes place. Again,
the City would have a review of increases of 6% or more.
Kitsap County's Comprehensive Plan covers many recycling
issues and issues related to the landfill. The level of
service is set by County plan and City ordinances. There is
potentially economy of sale with County services and the City
needs to be aware of that. If we all recycle, the cost should
be reduced rather than just Bremerton being involved in
recycling.
Because not all recycling issues have been determined, there
are some interim proposals and one is to propose an interim
rate until the County has their program in place. Brem-Air
has proposed an interim recycling rate of $3.90, based on just
Bremerton recycling (5600 households). Recycling rates can be
adjusted after UTC approval for the County rates after they
have gone through that process, or adjusted based on an audit
or the program and actual operating costs at the end of a
period of time. Another option is to adopt an interim
contract for all other features, hauling, collection and
TAPE #966
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
October 30, 1991
Page 22 of 26
disposal contract and establish recycling rates later on
Russell Houge, Attorney representing Brem-Air Disposal Inc.,
stated during the negotiation process in developing the new
contract, there had been very little disagreement over the
major issues. He stated for clarification the level of
recycling service that would be provided to the residents of
Bremerton does not depend on the level of service mandated by
the County. Brem-Air is prepared to provide to residents of
the City whatever the City Council requests, within reason.
The only problem they are facing is economy of scale. The
City is taking the lead in this area in getting curbside
recycling started. They have no clear picture but their best
estimates are that it may be a year before the County
government mandates a curbside recycling program.
Drop Off Services - calling this "recycling" may be a bit of
a misnomer. Currently, there is a commercial buy-back
recycling service and the plan is to continue that facility.
If people choose to not recycle at curbside but want to make
some money off recycling or support a charitable organization
that is recycling, they can continue to do that. Other
materials, such as old appliances, pieces of wood from small
construction sites, are not readily recyclable, but they are
offering to deal with them as follows: (1) establish a drop-
off facility within the City (this would be an expensive
process); (2) to provide a service at the landfill subsidy by
Brem-Air, where someone could show their garbage bill and
deposit such items directly at the landfill.
Weight base conversion at the landfill - rates will switch
from a volume base of compacted cubic yard to a tonnage base
at some time in 1992. They will be going through a six month
review process to determine the conversion factor from
compacting cubic yards now to tonnage. It is anticipated
there will be no change in the actual rate, however, they do
reserve the right to adjust the rate as they determine what
the actual conversion factor will be.
The following discussion outlines the basis for their
proposal: Disposal component - comparing landfill "tipping
fees" with counties throughout the United States and the State
of Washington shows that Kitsap County has the lowest "tipping
fee of those landfills that had addressed environmental
issues. Rates in Pierce, King, and several other counties were
immature rates because those landfill facilities had not
addressed the concern that Kitsap County Landfill did; and it
was anticipated their rates would increase accordingly. The
rate for loose mixed municipal solid waste will be $10.00 per
TAPE #966
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
October 30, 1991
Page 23 of 26
cubic yard and for compacted waste the rate will be $15.55 per
cubic yard. This is the rate that will be in operation for
most of the solid waste accumulated and picked up in the City
of Bremerton.
Rates - all rates are broken down by distance from the point
of pick up (number of feet driver has to walk to pick up
garbage can) - most fall within the 0-20 feet at a cost of
$5.68 per mini-can. They are anticipating that as much as 50%
of the population will select a mini-can, which is a high
percentage. Experience in other counties have shown that
around 25% of residents select the mini-can sized container.
One-can rate will be $7.24, which is the current rate under
the old contract. There is, however, a cross subsidy to get
a desired spread between the mini-can and one-can rate, so
they added a little to the one-can and took away a little from
the mini-can. The idea is that people who use one-can could
be mini-can users and that would provide some incentive for
them to reduce the amount of their garbage.
Ken Wells, Recycling Manager for Parametrix, reviewed the
collection/processing program. There are approximately 8,000
homes in Bremerton that are eligible for single family
curbside collection. Among those homes they expect about 70%
of them to set out their container each collection period.
For this volume of service they plan to provide two trucks
(approximately $65,000 each), drivers, maintenance and
operation, collection bins and recycling information
materials. This works out to about $1.16 per month per
household as the base collection cost. This would not change
too much regardless of an increase in participating
households. Following collection costs is processing and that
includes equipment used to consolidate the collected items
into a form that can be transported to market. They require
a facility to carry out the processing activities, which
requires the lease of a building, assembling of equipment,
operations personnel - adding up to about $1.84 per household
per month. In order to implement this program funds would
need to be borrowed to finance the operation and that amounts
to 42 cents monthly costs to pay for the interest on the loan,
plus there are insurance requirements and return on the
investment from Brem-Air. All of this adds up to $3.90 to
carry out the program as described.
Mr. Colvin questioned what would the "bottom line" cost be to
the citizens? Mr. Houge stated if the $3.90 figure is used,
which may be higher than it will be for the life of the
contract, cost of one-can with recycling would be $14.99. This
would compare with a rate of $13.75 now charged for one can of
TAPE #966
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
October 30, 1991
Page 24 of 26
garbage plus recycling service in the City of Seattle. He
pointed out one-can users are being penalized by $1.50 to
encourage them to use the mini-can.
Mr. Johnson requested input from residents relating to: hauler
providing the garbage cans; if they had a preference for the
type of recycling bin to be used; type of products city should
include in the recycling commodity list; desired frequency of
pick up recyclable materials. He noted garbage truck drivers
will become more involved with enforcement and helping
identify those who do not abide by City regulations relating
to "pick up". He emphasized Kitsap County's Solid Waste Plan
puts them about one year behind Bremerton's recycling
proposal. The County's plan must be approved by all the
cities in Kitsap County and those entities have urged the
County to step up implementation of their proposal. Also, in
that plan they have stated the need for a $2.00 charge on each
resident each year to fund recycling education, etc. The
City's position is to provide some incentive for people to
reduce their out put of garbage; and the more garbage they
produce the more it will cost to have it picked up.
Mr. Colvin questioned if Brem-Air would provide the garbage
cans and if so what would the charge be? Ms. McCluskey stated
it is proposed that the mini-can (20 gallon size) and standard
size ( 30 gallon) can be provided by the customer and
commercial cans and dumpsters be provided by Brem-Air.
Mr. Johnson questioned if it was cheaper how would the public
feel about the hauler providing the can? Mr. Colvin supported
the idea of having consistent cans for everyone.
The following individuals spoke in favor of proposed contract
with Brem-Air Disposal Inc.: Frank Bratonia, 2804 Cascade
View; John Paul Jones III, Executive Director WA Waste
Management Assoc. P.O. Box 1486, Olympia, WA 98507-1486; Dick
Fenske, 135 South Marion; RalPh Erickson, 3535 W. Matthews
Drive; Joe Murphy, 11928 Central Valley Rd. NE; Cap Demiero,
Bremerton; Tim Arnold, Bradley Scott & Assoc., 400 Warren
Avenue. The above speakers made the following comments: (1)
Brem-Air/Don Lindgren has been very generous in contributions
to many worthwhile causes within the community for over 20
years. (2) Washington State Management Association is proud to
have Brem-Air as a member and noted Don Lindren had also been
active in the National Solid Waste Management Association
where he serves on the Board Of Directors and is a member of
the Institute Of Solid Waste. Mr. Lindgren's activities at
the State and National level are respected throughout the
industry community. (3) Brem-Air has sponsored slow pitch
softball teams in the community.
TAPe #967
TAPE #966
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
October 30, 1991
Page 25 of 26
(4) Brem-Air worked with a neighborhood group to resolve
excessive noise generated at the Brem-Air Disposal site during
early morning hours. (5) Keep recycling collection type
activities outside of residential neighborhoods. (5) City
should consider a 50-50 split on recyclable materials after
the cost of delivery of goods is taken out. (6) Brem-Air is a
quality company who provides a quality service. (7) Brem-Air
provides better service to Kitsap County residents than other
companies in other areas. (8) Brem-Air Disposal Inc., provides
one of the best, if not the best solid waste pickup service in
the state. (9) Brem-Air has worked with commercial entities
to resolve problems and does provide excellent service to
commercial accounts.
Don Larson, 135 Rainier Avenue, pointed out the there was no
"exception" clause proposed to allow the exemption of people
who generate no garbage through total recycling efforts. He
felt the frequency of picking up recyclable materials could be
monthly or every two months and encourage drop off centers.
Elizabeth Bue11, Highland Avenue, stated she was not happy
with the fact that she is being billed per duplex rather than
one bill for six cans considering the fact the duplexes are
all located on one piece of property. She is billed for sewer
and water services on one bill for services to the duplexes.
She supports theidea of recycling and noted senior citizens
don't like changes.
Roy Hawker, 3311 Rodgers, brought up the issue of some
residents being given "Duracans" by Brem-air without any
additional charges even though they were a 60 gallon capacity
and replaced the use of 30 gallon cans. When he has put out
his garbage in the regular type container he has been charged
for any overage of garbage. He felt this was unfair and that
Brem-Air had not followed the City approved rate structure.
Since he currently does not recycle, he felt input from those
who do recycle and are successful at this endeavor would be
helpful to others. He supported the idea of having an
official body to judicate differences between the residents
and Brem-Air.
Jack Swanson, Reporter from The Sun, questioned if the rate
for the recycling component was $3.90? Mr. Johnson stated
that was an amount proposed by Brem-Air. Mr. Swanson
questioned how firm that figure was or if it was still under
negotiation? He pointed out Mr. Johnson had stated during a
Study Session that a rate over Seattle's collection rate of
$15.75 would be unacceptable for Bremerton. He questioned if
other Council members felt the same way as Mr. Johnson on this
TAPE #967
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
October 30, 1991
Page 26 of 26
issue? There had been no discussion at this hearing or during
previous study session as to the total rate people will be
charged and the affect of the excise tax that the City charges
residents on top of the rates. He questioned if the City
planned to charge a 20% excise tax? Ms. McCluskeV stated it
is intended to phase out the tax and that the tax rate will
stay at the same percentage during 1992 and from that point on
it will be rampod down. In reference to recycling components,
there is not a range being discussed at this point and the
$3.90 rate is being proposed by Brem-Air, which was based on
just Bremerton's recycling. The City is still looking at what
the rate might be if it were "County-wide" recycling. Mr.
Johnson stated he did not believe the City's position had
changed and the bottom line should reflect garbage collection
service costing less in Bremerton then it does in Seattle. In
reference to the Duracan issue, both City staff and Brem-Air
staff have asked him "what about the Duracan use in the new
contract". His response to that was simply if a resident has
a 60 gallon Duracan and there is a single can rate for a 30
gallon can, they now have a two can rate with a 60 gallon
Duracan. And, if someone has a 90 gallon Duracan, they would
have a three can .rate. He felt there would still be uses for
the Duracans through multi-family and other groups uses.
Mr. Waibel urged Council to get on with concluding the
contract negotiations and pointed out as of Friday the City
would not have a garbage collection contract. And, under his
interpretation of the Charter there is no garbage contract in
effect now.
With no further business meeting adjourned at 9:25 PM.
KATHLEEN L. McCLUSKEY, City Clerk
L~~NNHORTON, Council President
City of Bremerton
KLM/LH/me
cc: Normal Distribution
File/Vault