Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/21/89TAPE #647 COUNOL JUL 5- lcJBg UNAPPROVED DRAFT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JUNE 21, 1989 #0015 #0032 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 21, 1989 at 5:30 p.m., with Council President Spencer Horning presiding. Council members present were Lon Overson, Shirley Marry Crutcher, Lynn Horton, Morris Dawkins, C. R. "Tiny" Collins, A1 Colvin, Russ Johnson and Hank Waibel. Also present were Assistant City Attorney Laura Anderson and City Clerk Kathleen McCluskey. The meeting opened with the Pledge of Allegiance led by Council President Horning and Invocation was given by Chaplin Ben Belcher of Harrison Memorial Hospital. CONSENT AGENDA A. Minutes of Meeting - May 31, 1989, #AB89-165 B. Minutes Of Meeting - June 7, 1989, #AB89-166 M/S/C/U(Crutcher/Waibel) to approve Consent Agenda as presented. CLAIMS/WARRA/T~ 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 which has been made available to the council. M/S/C/U(Colvin/Crutcher) on June 21, 1989 the Council does approve for payment those vouchers included and further described as follows: 43961, 43967 through 44100 in the total amount of $155,734.20 and Regular Payroll in the total amount of $350,639.26. COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS Mr. Crutcher stated he met with Mayor Lobe today to discuss crime in the downtown area and the need for more Police patrols. He noted he is recovering from being mugged and robbed last weekend in the downtown area as he was on his way to work. He emphasized the importance of acting now to take back the streets from thieves, drug dealers and prostitutes. Mr. Crutcher thanked the officers who assisted him after the assault. Mr. Waibel reported he received a number of calls regarding the condition of the Utility's reservoir at 19TH and Ironside. Mr. Duffy, Utility Director, was contacted and he will be removing the barb wire, mending the fence or removing it, selecting a different paint color covering and getting rid of the weeds and tall grass. Mr. Waibel attended a meeting Tuesday evening of members of City Councils through out the County. A presentation was made at this meeting by the City Planner of the City of Kirkland on the proper way to move through annexation procedure. Mr. Johnson reported he artended the AWC Conference in Spokane, which he found very interesting. Following are some information items he brought back: 1. Problems with fishing pier...through DOE there is a grant program and a loan program. The State has set aside money for relatively small estuary clean up in Puget Sound. The money is loaned at low rates or interest free for a 30 year period. It appears as yet there have been no applications for the small estuary programs. Mr. Johnson has contacted Ms. Ohlde who will be getting together with Connie Devaney to look into the possibility of a grant application for this type of project. 2. Recycling waste management - State has set aside money to be used for recycling used tires (this being a huge problem in Washington State). There is information out that asphalt can be TAPE #647 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes June 21, 1989 Page 2 of 16 reused, mix it up with shredded tires and relay it as a street surface that will last longer, has better traction, etc. Mr. Baker, City Engineer, and Todd Corelli, Council Intern, have been contacted to pursue some type of program, possibly with the private sector, to make Bremerton a "demonstration city" for how this can be used and resolve the repair and maintenance of some feeder streets in the City. Recycling - discussed with the Director of Department Ecology and DOE Program Manager for Waste Management/Recycling concerns of getting yard and garden waste out of the waste stream. Previously Mr. Johnson had suggested a local program for Bremerton/Kitsap County compost pile and possibly work in with a retraining program with rehabilitation centers around the State. Recycling - the current Bill requires that the City have curbside pickup of recycled materials. The City of Spokane had put a recycling program into effect prior to this law being passed which has source separation by the consumer/resident but they do not have curbside pickup. They worked out ways with service clubs, schools, churches, etc., with receiving receptacles in parking lots which provides for smaller collection sites all over the City. Then, the recyclable materials are picked up by the local garbage company. The difference in the cost to the resident is the difference between 25 cents per garbage bill and $5.00 per garbage bill. Therefore, there are ways to get outside of curbside pickup if there is a good program to supplant that. Energy Code - the Energy Housing Code will probably go through the State Legislature next year. If a city is an early participant in this program there is grant money available to help find out how best to implement it in the community, train building inspectors, inform the public, etc. Mr. Mumma, City Building Official, is taking a lead on this at the State level and Bremerton has already been identified as an "early sign on" to the program. People throwing yard waste and grass clippings into Puget Sound - this happens periodically in Kitsap Lake which is very bad due it creating weeds, etc.. It is also important not to dump these types of waste into Puget Sound, particularly in areas with low tidal action. Not only does this create stinky grass cuttings on peoples beaches but it also may be putting weed/feed, pesticides into the bay. Mr. Colvin artended the AWC Conference in Spokane and while there participated in a Fun/Run/Walk-A-Thon. He enjoyed sharing ideas with other elected officials and determined that our City is not any worse off than many other cities. The Washington State Department of Community Development has several programs, one being a Low Income Weatherization Program and he hoped someone in our area can take advantage of it. Also, there is a Housing Trust Program, established by the Legislature in 1966, which provides loans and grants for local governments and non-profit organizations and public housing organizations to increase availability of affordable housing. There are also Emergency Shelter Programs which provides federal funds for local governments and non-profit organizations to provide rehabilitated and repair of emergency shelters that are in need. Mr. Colvin reported there are funds available for a Local Emergency Management Program and the deadline for submission of applications for funds is July 7. During the conference a Resolution was passed addressed to the State Legislature which pointed out that the Legislature was setting mandates for cities but not providing any funding to implement such mandates. Mr. Dawkins reported during the Operations Committee Dick Mumma, Building Official, made a presentation on the new Energy Code, how TAPE #647 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes June 2!, 1989 Page 3 of 16 it will work and the Code will be brought before Council at the July 10 Study Session. The Governor will possibly call a Transportation meeting To pass a bill to get passenger only ferries out of dry dock and into operation before July 1. Port Orchard will start its Fathoms 'O' Fun Festival this Saturday, June 24 through July 4, ending with the fireworks display. He suggested that Bremerton should consider a fireworks display during Armed Forces Week celebration. Thursday starts the 9TH Annual Ladies Gold Mountain invitaticnal Golf Tournament (144 golfers from all around the State). M__r. Hornin~ stated he spent a most interesting Friday evening - he joined one of the Police Patrol officers from 9:00 PM to i:00 AM observing the emphasis patrol in the downtown area. He noted it was a real eye opener and after experiencing a fast response to a burglary alarm assured the Council that the City's new police vehicles are good and they stop where they should. He encouraged all the Council to make an effort to spend some time riding with an officer to truly get an idea of what they are faced with while on duty. PUBLIC RECOGNITION Rex Rudee, Hudson Studio, reported several crime related incidents in the downtown area recently and what appears to be a "feeling of fear" of some people who either work in or patronize downtown businesses. He hopes something can be done to eliminate this feeling which seems to be turning citizens off from the downtown area. He dmd compliment recent actions of Police officers who assisted in quieting down a group of young people. He expressed how pleased he is to have located his business in the downtown area and feels there is a real future for growth in BremerEon. Wayne Estes expressed concern over the fact that the City Council Chambers is not air conditioned and the effect upon citizens who attend City Council meetings during the warm summer months. He strongly urged the Council to look into funding to correct this situation and felt the City Council deserved to work in a more acceptable environment...TV lighting is very hot. Shannon Peterson, 202 Burwell #418, expressed concern over the use of the American Flag for advertising. She related several instances where corporate flags have been flown above the American flag or attached to the same halyard. She announced a protest over this issue will be held in front of the Wheaton Way McDonalds on Saturday~ June 24. James Peterson, 2C2 Burwell ~4i8, voiced his concern over the disrespectful way people/businesses use the American flag for advertising. He also noted. several businesses had been contacted regarding the respectful way to fly the American Flag and then took appropriate action to correct the situation. He acknowledged that action from the City Council office had also Lrougnt results of some business flying the flag correctly once they understood the proper format. Mr. Peterson announced that a protest will De held in front of the Wheaton Way McDonalds, i - 4 p.m., Sat., June 24. 6A -~ APPROVAL TO SUBMIT GRANT APPLICATIONS TO BUILD AN OVER-WATER BOARDWALK FROM FIRST STREET TO SECOND STREET AND A SOFTBALL FIELD IN A THE ANDY PENDERGAST MEMORIAL SPORTS COMPLEX, #AB89-167 Several opportunities to apply for State grants to aid in the impiementaticn of the Parks Comprehensive Plan and the Waterfront Access Plan are available. Staff has initiated pro-application procedures and recommends Council authority be voted to proceed with formal applications. GranIs are as follows: a. Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation (IAC) - funds to Duiid an over-water boardwalk from First Street to Second Street TAPE #647 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes June 21, 1989 Page 4 of 16 and/or funds to build a softball field in the Andy Pendergast Memorial Sports Complex. Estimated amount of grant funds is $150,000. b. Aquatic Lands Enhancement Account (ALEA) - funds to build an over-water boardwalk from First Street to Second Street. Estimated amount of grant funds is $75,000. Council approval is only to allow submittal of the grant applications. Matching funds required by the granting agencies are to be negotiated at a later date. Prior to grant receipt and implementation Council must authorize the Mayor to sign the grant contract and must amend the budget adding the grant funds. Amount and source of matching funds will be disclosed and discussed at that time. Mr. Collins questioned reference to Andy Pendergast Memorial Sports Complex - who named it? Connie Devanev, Grants Manger, stated it has not been named yet and she was premature in using that name. Mr. Collins requested this be stricken from the Agenda item as Council has not taken any official action to designate such a name. Jim Strait, 6530 Harlow Drive, President Kitsap Lake Neighborhood Association, questioned the name "Andy Pendergrast Sports Complex"...who named what? He pointed out it is not the Mayor's responsibility to negotiate the sale or transfer of property without the approval of the City Council. Mrs. Horton requested clarification why there are two applications for the boardwalk. Ms. Devaney stated there are two categories in which the City can apply for funding, one is the ALEA (Aquatic Land Enhancement and the other is the traditional category IAC (Interagency For Outdoor Recreation). The City is applying for the over water boardwalk in both of the categories. Potentially one may be pulled from the Federal category if it is not able to be strong in that category, but the IAC staff will make that recommendation to the City. Mr. Johnson questioned when would the funds expire if the City received the grants? Ms. Devanev stated the City would have two years to complete the projects. Notification of award of grants will not take place until November 1989. Mr. Johnson expressed concern that even if the City received the funds but not able to complete the projects on time, that the funding would disappear. Ms. DevaneY stated it is staff's job to see that the projects are completed. Mr. Johnson questioned if there is a definite plan where the boardwalk will go? Don Pratt, Director Of community Development, stated an Urban Renewal Plan has been adopted which identifies where the boardwalk will be located. At some point the Mayor has decided the City needs to commence doing something on the waterfront and this is part of the plans adopted by the City council. Mrs. Horton stated currently the Waterfront Park Committee is looking into development of a park and at the last meeting they discussed the boardwalk as well as the park so that if and when it comes to pass it will be a phased in project so that the two will mesh. Mr. Colvin stated he did not object to a sports complex but questioned when did the Council or citizens vote that they wanted a sports complex? Mr. Overson explained the Council's 1989 Goals and Objectives tasked staff to develop a sports complex. This is a known and intended goal and he recognized concern over names but he also recognizes the grant application process is a significant step and urged passage of Council's approve on this issue. #1389 #1406 #1448 TAPE #647 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes June 21, 1989 Page 5 of 16 Mr. Colvin noted the project would require City matching funds and questioned if a source for those funds had been identified? Ms. Devannev stated this has not been discussed yet because it is not known which categories the grant applications will be submitted to. Each category has different requirements for matching funds, but any time matching funds are required, the City can use "in-kind" services, it does not have to be all cash. When IAC gives the City feedback on which categories the applications will be strongest in then staff will bring this back to the Council for discussion on funding. Mr. Colvin noted he knew Andy Pendergast personally and supported naming a sports complex after him, however, selection of the name should be done properly. Mr. Waibel pointed out it was the Council's desire to be better informed on grant applications being made by the City and this is a good example of the new process instituted under the direction of the Grants Manager. M/S/C/U(Waibel/Colvin) to approve making formal application for a grant of $150,000 to the Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation (IAC) for the construction of an over-water boardwalk reaching from First to Second Streets. Mr. Johnson questioned if the City did receive the requested grant but something happened and the sports complex did not come about could the City use those funds to build a ball field in Bremerton that was not in the sports complex? Ms. Devanev stated if that should happen it would have to be negotiated with the funding source at that time. M/S/C/U(Overson/Collins) to approve making formal application for a grant of $150,000 to the Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation (IAC) for the construction of a softball field in the Sports Complex. M/S/C/U(Dawkins/Crutcher) to approve making formal application for a grant of $75,000 from the Aquatic Lands Enhancement Account (ALEA) for the construction of an over-water boardwalk reaching from First to Second Streets. 6B -CLOSURE OF THE EAST END OF VALLEY DRIVE, ~AB89-160 Laura Anderson, Assistant City Attorney, stated that RCW 47.48 Closinu Hiuhwavs and Restricting Traffic provides the governing body of any city or town with authorization to close a city street to travel by all vehicles. The Council may approve a street closure by Resolution. The closure then must be completed pursuant to RCW 47.48 which requires that notice be given to the public prior to the closure of the street. Notice of the Council's decision must be published in one issue of the newspaper and posted at each end of the street on or prior to the date of publication. Actual closure of the street may take place no sooner than three days after publication. Mr. Colvin expressed concern if approval is given to this request the City may be flooded with other requests in the same general neighborhood. After reviewing the area he felt that making it a one-way street may be a better solution than a barricade. President Horninu stated he lives nearby and on many occasions he had seen near-misses with vehicles turning on to that portion of street and fully endorses the request. Mr. Colvin requested Mr. Baker's opinion on this request. Dave Baker, City Engineer, stated the closure was asked by the residents of the street because the section in question is a very narrow section of the street that goes from the lower side of the fill up to and intersects Marine Drive at a very flat angle. It is a very #1702 TAPE #647 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes June 21, 1989 Page 6 of 16 difficult intersection to maintain and an intersection which could be very dangerous to a driver. M/S/C/U(Dawkins/Colvin) to approve Resolution #2255, authorizing the permanent closure of the east end of Valley Drive at Marine Drive, following the procedure identified in RCW 47.48. 8A - PUBLIC HEARING - RICKMY ROAD ANNEXATION - TO CONSIDER A 75% PETITION TO ANNMX, REPRESENTED BY UTILITYAGREMMENTS, ANDTO ACCEPT PUBLIC COMMENTS PERTAINING TO THIS ANNEXATION AND RELATED ZONING, #AB89-171 The area is bounded by the City on three sides, is predominately served with City utilities and services, and the annexation will result in more uniform City boundaries. The area consists of about 41 acres, contains 214 dwellings, and is directly served by Sylvan Way and Pine Road. Annexation commitments represents more than 754 of the total assessed value. On March 1, 1989, the City Council considered the initial proposal and agreed to proceed. The Planning Commission conducted its public hearing on the matters of planning and zoning and has forwarded its recommendations. The Notice of Intent has been filed with the Boundary Review Board. The next step is the Council's public hearing and final decision. President Hornina asked the "Appearance Of Fairness/Conflict Of Interest" question with all Council members being seated. Ron Houah, Annexation Coordinator, provided view graphs showing the location of the "Rickey Road Annexation Area", which includes approximately 41 acres in a square configuration located south of Sylvan Way and west of Pine Road in the East Bremerton area. The area is bordered by the City of Bremerton on the north, east and south. The existing land uses include residential area in character with no commercial or industrial businesses. There are two apartment complexes, The Willows and Shadow Creek, which contain 179 dwelling units, or about 84 percent of the total units in the area. About 95 percent of the total units are located in the area between Pine Road and Rickey Road. The area west of Rickey Road contains ten single family dwellings, a group home and several vacant parcels. The basis of this annexation is Outside Utility Agreements that had been signed with the City over a long period of years. The property owners came to the City and requested services (in this case sewer services) when the properties were outside the City limits. At that time, the City agreed to extend the sewer system to include them if they would agree to annexation sometime in the future. At the time the agreements were signed and sewer service extended, the issue of actually annexing the properties did not seem appropriate. Mr. Hough provided a view graph showing what the boundary would have been if the individual properties had been annexed into the City one at a time as they requested City services...a very irregular boundary line would have developed. In order to avoid a very irregular boundary an area was developed to form a more logical and straight annexation area which includes properties which had not specifically requested to be annexed. The 754 petition method is being used in this case, the Annexation Agreements themselves constituting the petition. Current zoning in the area is County R-5 five - 5 residential units per acre for areas west of Rickey Road. The area where The Willows and Shadow Creek are located is zoned R-18 and there is a small portion of R-24. The City, on the other hand, just outside the area has Single-family to the south, Single-family to the north, TAPE #647 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes June 21, 1989 Page 7 of 16 and Multiple-family along the east side. The recommended zoning, which is coming to the City Council by Resolution from the Planning commission, shows Single-family 2 (SF- 2) on the west side of Rickey Road (reason being is that is the zoning district most similar to the County's zone R-5, allowing a density of 5 units per acre). Residents and property owners who have artended the annexation meetings have stated they wish to maintain their current lifestyle and to continue them as they are. In response to their request, the SF-2 residential zoning is recommended. On the east side of Rickey Road an MR zone would be applied to the high density apartment complexes. At the northeast corner there is a little pocket of Single-Family 3 (SF-3) which is comparable to the duplex residential across the street. A Financial Analysis was provided to all of the property owners in the Annexation Area to give them an idea what the financial costs are coming into the City. Under the "Property Taxes" section it shows an increase of $38.00 per year as well as what City rates are for various services compared to County rates. Under the "Utilities" section it shows an increase of about $52.00, which is based on an average consumption and assuming that everyone has water, electricity, gas, phone and garbage. The total expense is about $69.35 or a little under $6.00 per month overall. City Council met on March 8, 1989, to consider this annexation (the 10% notice of intent meeting) and agreed at that time to proceed. Two neighborhood information meetings were held, February 14 and May 23. Part of this informational process involved responding to questions of neighborhoods/citizens which were responded to in a document titled: "Facts About ANNEXATION", which answered a series of 17 questions and included the Financial Analysis. This information was sent to all residents affected as well as others, such as Fire Districts, County Commissioner Billie Eder, etc. After the second neighborhood meeting Mr. Hough was notified there were additional questions which were not answered on the prepared document and those answers were provided in a follow up letter dated May 30, 1989. Mr. Houah requested that the document title "Facts About ANNEXATION" and his letter to property owners dated May 30, 1989, be entered into the record. The Planning Commission held its public hearing on issues of zoning and Comprehensive Planning on February 21, passing two Resolutions, one recommending a minor change in the Comprehensive Plan dealing with high density development that is there now and to recommend zoning as previously stated. Citizens and residents of the area had the opportunity to address the City Council when the 10~ request was made as well as the public hearing being held at this time. All City annexations must be submitted to the Kitsap County Boundary Review Board. If no one challenges the annexation or formally requests a review within 45 days, the annexation will be approved. However, if an affected jurisdiction, area owner, or other petitioners request a review, the BRB will have 120 days during which to conduct another public hearing and decide whether to approve, amend, or deny the annexation. Mr. Houah entered into the record a letter received from Fire District #15 opposing the proposed annexation. Bill Brouuhton, Attorney representing several property owners in the Annexation Area, stated he was somewhat limited, due to his just being contacted, in cursory review of what has taken place so far. He stated for the record that he was concerned about the legal procedure being used in the City's attempt to annex TAPE #647 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes June 21, 1989 Page 8 of 16 no Notice Of Intent To Annex actually filed, nor a Petition for annexation filed. Instead, the City has filed Outside Utility Agreements signed by owners of some of the properties in an attempt to justify a 10% Notice Of Intent To Annex as well as 754 petition. In his opinion, that will not suffice under the Statute, therefore, he believes the City, if they desire to annex these areas, needs to start over and have a proper Notice To Annex prepared and signed by property owners and further petition. He strongly urged the City's legal advisors to review this issue closely, make sure the correct procedure is followed rather than having it decided through the courts. Mr. Broughton also noted his clients have requested him to submit a request to the Boundary Review Board asking for a review. Mr. HouGh stated the City Attorney's office has reviewed the Outside Utility Agreements as well as other Court cases involving such agreements, including the Spokane case, and they feel the process is correct. Since the agreements do exist it has been determined that there is no need for a Notice Of Intent. Mary WaGner, 3125 Rickey Road, stated she believes her rights as a U.S. citizen have been violated. She pointed out property owners on the west side of Rickey Road only have 404 who have signed Outside Utility Agreements with the City and whether or not these are legal is a question in her mind. She is adamantly opposed to being annexed, questions the legality of the process being used and does not want to accept the debts of the City. She also expressed concern over the down zoning of property. Jerry Wagner, property owner in Annexation Area, stated he had previously mentioned during public hearings on this issue, the question about down zoning properties. Some of the larger pieces of property will be devalued if the recommended zoning is adopted. He also questioned if it is within the City Council power, at this meeting, to change the boundaries of the proposed annexation. Mr. HouGh stated yes, boundaries can be decreased but not added to. Mr. WaGner stated in view of that, it would seem reasonable of the Council to change the boundaries at this time to please the people who are objecting to the annexation. It does not seem reasonable that an area as small as it is - area west of Rickey Road - is going to benefit the City so much as it will benefit the people who live there and desire to stay outside the City. Chris Bower, 3209 Rickey Road, state she has been lead to believe that the Spokane incident involved filing a 104 Notice Of Intent To Annex as well as a 754 petition. Currently she lives in a rural environment and does not understand how the City of Bremerton can help her. Most of the property owners on the west side of Rickey Road do not actually live there and probably are not familiar with what is being proposed with the annexation petition. She re- emphasized that she is opposed to the annexation, that the procedure being used is undemocratic and urged the City Council to exclude the west side of Rickey from the annexation area. Chris Search, west side of Rickey Road, stated she did not believe the widows who live in the Annexation Area can afford the increased costs to come into the City. Mary WaGner, 3125, pointed out that there is no access or easement to the west 20 acres on the west side of Rickey Road, only easements of 15 feet from the east to the west. From Sylvan Way there is a 40 ft., private driveway into the Group Home. On the south side there is a road that goes in 100 ft., to Greg Brown's residence. The other 550 ft., of the south part of the 20 acres has no access. Bill Brouuhton, Attorney, stated he had read the Spokane decision TAPE #648 TAPE #647 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes June 21, 1989 Page 9 of 16 and there was a Notice Of Intent To Annex filed as well as a petition. Also, an important fact in that case that is not part of this proposal is that the Outside Utility Agreements signed by the property owners that were annexed in were signed after the original Notice Of Intent To Annex was presented to the City. In the discussion of the case it talks about what the people could have anticipated at the time they signed the Outside Utility Agreement...because in Spokane they had already given notice by way of a Notice Of Intent To Annex as to the terms and conditions of the annexation it was held to be enforceable. This factual situation is not present with this current proposal. And, he will follow up his statement with a letter to the City Attorney. Mr. Overson pointed out that annexations have their pros and cons and people do have the right as Americans to speak up for what they believe, it is their right to be apart of the City and have the services available. Kathleen McCluskev, City Clerk, read into the record a letter received from Chief Wayne Olsen, Chairman of Kitsap County Fire District #15, stating their opposition to the annexation of Rickey Road to the City via the methods utilized through the Outside utility Agreement. Mr. Crutcher requested legal advise from the City Attorney regarding the legality of the process being used. Laura Anderson, Assistant City Attorney, stated it is the opinion of the City Attorney's office that the City is in full compliance with the law. The case that Mr. Broughton has addressed is "People/Spokane", a recent decision only decided June of 1988, and in that decision the Washington State Court Of Appeals did in fact find that these Utility Use Agreements could be used in lieu of signatures on a petition to annex. And that is exactly what has happened in this instance. There are a couple differences in the cases, one being that all of the signatures for the 75~ petition are being utilized through the Utility Use Agreements. That is an important difference in the opinion of their office. Ian Sievers, City Attorney, is confident in the City's ability to withstand any legal challenge. Noting a couple principles in the Spokane case - the Court upheld those Utility Agreements as valid contracts from the citizens that owned the properties that entered into the agreements when they contracted for utility services and in return gave the City their promise to support annexation. In that case, three of the people who signed the Utility Agreements opposed the actual annexation when it came to the City council and the Court founded a very important fact that those citizens did have a right to come before the Council and voice their current opposition to the annexation. But, the important point was that it did not, in fact, void their contractual obligation and thus the City's ability to use the Utility Agreement as a basis for or in lieu of their decision to support the petition. Mr. Waibel questioned if it is the Attorney's Office opinion that when the people signed the contracts stating that there was the possibility of future annexation could they reasonably expect the City might at some future date annex the property. Ms. Anderson stated absolutely. Mr. Crutcher expressed concern that those property owners who signed the Utility Agreements really knew what they were signing and how it obligated them to future actions by the City. Mr. Waibel stated one of the tenants of democracy is "the majority rules". President Hornina questioned what does a person receive when a person signs a Utility Agreement? Mr. Houuh stated in this case it was sewer service. Basically the City's policy was to not TAPE #648 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes June 21, 1989 Page 10 of 16 extend services outside the City unless there was some possibility of eventually annexing those areas into the City. So, a way to get around an immediate annexation was to delay it through this sort of agreement. President Hornina questioned if there would be any difference for properties that do not have sewer service if the annexation is accepted? Mr. Houuh stated there is no difference, if they remain outside the City there is a sewer nearby and if their current system failed they would be required to hook up to the sewer system. Mr. Waibel questioned if the cost of sewer hook up varied? Mr. Hough stated that cost is varied...if inside the City it is less costly than if the property is outside the City. Mr. Collins questioned under paragraph 2 (Utility Agreement), the validity of the City having the authority to inspect or require building permits from property owners when in fact the property is located in the County? Mr. Houuh noted he was not clear on this statement and it may reference some other type of permit rather than Building Permits. Bill Duffy, Utilities Director stated the permits referenced were related to water and sewer. Mr. Collins questioned if any of the property owners who had signed an Outside Utility Agreement signed any kind of petition for annexation? Mr. Hough stated no, they had not signed a separate petition. Mr. Collins pointed out that the Utility Agreement so states that this would be required by the City. Mr. Hough stated the Agreement does state that but the City Attorney's office determined that the Utility Agreement constitutes the petition itself and is in lieu of actually signing a petition Mr. Colvin questioned if the Agreements would be binding on future property owners? Ms. Anderson stated yes, the Agreement binds future owners of the property...it runs with the land. Mr. Colvin questioned if the City had shown beyond a reasonable doubt annexation would not affect their present life style? Mr. Houah stated several neighborhood meetings have been held where the pros and cons of the proposed annexation were discussed. Basic services provided by the City are at least as good as they are receiving now if not improved...City Fire Station is 1.3 miles away from the area on Olympus, emergency medical services available, lower water costs, lower sewer connection fees, greater number of Police Officers per area than can be provided by Kitsap County. Also, zoning is being proposed which would maintain their current life style with most of the property owners desiring to maintain the rural atmosphere,i.e., retain their farm animals, etc. However, there is another group of property owners who felt that their property values would be down zoned and objected to being restricted in the uses of their land. Mr. Houuh requested the letter from Chris Bower, 3209 Rickey Rd., dated April 10, 1989, be made part of the record. Ms. Bower's letter contained a number of questions relating to: City's indebtedness, mandatory sewer hook up, keeping livestock and fowl and possibility of down zoning. Mr. Colvin stated he felt the City should clarify questions raised by the citizens and Mr. Broughton before further action is taken by the Council. President Hornin~ questioned if the residents of the Annexation Area currently receive Rescue 1 Service from the City? Steve Bi~elow, Fire Chief- Fire District #15, stated the residents pay 25 cents per $1,000 and are served by Meadowdale Rescue Service. Mr. Johnson noted this is one of those instances that shows what happens when the City gives away its benefits before people are asked to annex. The utility services were provided in good faith to the property owners and he feels "in good faith" the people TAPE #648 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes June 21, 1989 Page 11 of 16 the cents er paa e lc cover the cos~ of StY%000 sent o ro some of the Fire District, in a year or two, will find out what it really costs to get services from Bremerton through a contract. He noted his support for the direction of proposed boundaries for the Annexation area, it is becoming an urban area and served with urban services from the City. Mrs. Horton pointed out residents in the Annexation Area already use City services, such as: City swimming pool, streets to get to ferries, etc, and it is becoming an urban area. Mr. Waibel asked the Assistant City Attorney if the Boundary Review Board would approve an irregular drawn boundary including only those properties owned by individuals who signed a Utility Agreement? Ms. Anderson stated technically it could be allowed but the general public policy is certainly against that type of boundary. Mr. Collins stated his support to delay a decision on this proposal for two weeks in order to answer questions presented by the citizens. President Hornina questioned if the opposing property owners in the audience lived in the area north of the property identified under Utility Agreement 80-127 Mr. Waaner stated no, they are located about parallel with the identified property. #08,8r./ M/S/C(Johnson/Horton) to approve the Rickey Road annexation as proposed. Vote: In Favor: Opposed: Abstain: Overson, Horton, Waibel, Horning, Dawkins, Johnson Colvin, Collins Crutcher #0841 M/S/C(Waibel/Horton) to approve the minor amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Map, as recommended by the Planning Commission. Vote: In Favor: Opposed: Abstain: Overson, Horton, Waibel, Horning, Collins, Dawkins, Colvin Johnson Crutcher Mr. Johnson stated he feels SF-3 zoning designation fits better and desired to avoid the down zone situation. President Hornina noted another point of view was cited in preserving the current quality of life for the residents on the west side of Rickey Road. Mr. Collins noted it has been the "unspoken policy" of the Council during annexation to accept into the City those zones which are the very closest to the existing zone and he felt this should be continued in this instance. Mrs. Horton questioned why was the small property, identified as R-24, zoned SF-3 and the property identified as R-18 designated as MR...why would this be included in the SF-3 zone rather than the MR zone? Mr. Houuh explained the small parcel contains four fairly recent single family homes (not multi-family or high density), therefore they fit more suitable into the SF-3 zone. Mr. overson questioned if these citizens have a right to petition the Zoning Errors and Correction Committee? Don Pratt stated the Error Review Board's last day for acceptance of applications was May 11. TAPE #648 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes June 21, 1989 Page 12 of 16 #0986 M/S/C(Overson/Colvin) to approve the City zoning, as recommended by the Planning Commission. Vote: In Favor: Opposed: Abstain: Overson, Waibel, Horning, Collins, Dawkins, Colvin Horton, Johnson Crutcher 8B - PUBLIC HEARING - TOWNE ZONING REVIEW - TO CONSIDER A ZONING REVIEW COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION FOR THE CORRECTION OF AN ERROR ON THE ZONING MAP NORTHEAST OF THE WHEATON WAY/SHERIDAN INTERSECTION, [AB89-172 Upon adoption of the new Zoning Ordinance, the City council established a "Correction of Errors" process to find and correct errors in the text of the new Ordinance and in the application of zoning to specific properties or areas. Mr. Ray Towne requested that a review be conducted of the zoning of the shopping area northeast of the Wheaton Way/Sheridan intersection, which consists of five lots and several businesses. The suspected error was reviewed by the Zoning Review Committee on May 30. The Committee's conclusions and recommendation are now being forwarded to the City Council for a public hearing and final decision. President Horninu asked the "Appearance Of Fairness/Conflict Of Interest" question with all Council members being seated. Ron Houuh, Planning Department, provided view graphs showing the location of the zoning review - at the northeast corner of the intersection of Sheridan Road and Wheaton, bounded on the north and east side by Bremerton School District property and across the street to the west is the Sheridan Plaza Shopping Center and to the south the old Olympic View School. This district includes five lots and five different owners. The subject area is shown on the City's Comprehensive Plan Map as "Commercial". It does not have the designation "N" which is often applied to areas intended for neighborhood commercial centers. The same designation has been applied to the shopping center on the west side of Wheaton Way. The previous zoning of the property was zoned B-2 and was part of the larger district that included the shopping center west of Wheaton. The present Zoning Map shows that the subject five lots were zoned Neighborhood Business when the new zoning was adopted. The types of uses that are presently located there are not inappropriate for a neighborhood center, with the exception of the veterinary business which has become a nonconformity as a result of the NB zoning. The applicant has more than 3,000 sq. ft. of vacant commercial space but he has found that prospective tenants can't meet the NB zone requirements. The types of businesses that wish to locate in this center are not of the small neighborhood variety. The Zoning Review committee met on May 30, 1989, and determined that an error had occurred in the application of Neighborhood Business zone and felt it was not a neighborhood center, the existing uses are not typically neighborhood type businesses. The location and other factors favor General Business. Therefore, the Zoning Review committee recommends the extension of the General Business district to the subject five properties. James Cartar, 2709 N. Lafayette, stated he owns property at 1204 Sheridan Road which borders Mr. Towne's property on the west side and he is very much in favor of proposal being presented. TAPE #648 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes June 21, 1989 Page 13 of 16 #1240 Mr. Johnson noted his agreement with the proposal, however, he did point out that the subject intersection is one of the most dangerous road intersection in Bremerton. He questioned how much more traffic would be generated with the General Business designation? Mr. Houah it is hard to say at this time as it depends on the types of business that locate in that area. M/S/C/U(Collins/Colvin) to approve the correction of the Zoning Map as recommended by the Zoning Review Committee. As approved, the subject five lots will be changed from Neighborhood Business (NB) to General Business (GB). 6C - 10% NOTICE TO ANNEX - TO MEET WITH PROPERTY OWNERS WHO HAVE REOUESTED ANNEXATION AND TO CONSIDER THE PROPOSED "SOUTH AUTO CENTER ANNEXATION", eAB89-168 Notices of Intent to Commence Annexation have been filed by the owners of nine properties in the vicinity of Werner Road and Auto Center Way. Based on these notices, a "proposed Annexation Area" is now being submitted for the City Council's consideration. This proposal includes 14 lots and portions of Werner Road, Auto Center Way and S.R. 3 in order to establish the most reasonable City boundary. This annexation is being processed in accordance with the Petition Method. This initial meeting is to consider the request, determine whether planning or zoning will be adopted, and to determine whether the petitioners should assume the City's indebtedness. President Hornina asked the "Appearance Of Fairness/Conflict Of Interest" question with all Council members being seated. Ron Houah, Annexation Manager, provided a view graph showing the location of the Annexation Area at the intersection of Werner Road and S.R. 3. The area includes 14 individual lots as well as portions of Auto Center Way, Werner Road and S.R.3. There is about 19 acres of public lands with a total of 30.6 acres. Notices Of Intent to Commence Annexation have been received from all but one property owner in the Annexation Area. The Central Kitsap Subarea Plan shows all unincorporated areas in this general vicinity to be classified "URBAN". That category tends to support a wide variety of uses up to maximum intensities and includes major commercial and industrial uses. Bremerton's Comprehensive plan shows the subject area within the category "Industrial/Business Park", at the southern end of the Auto Center Way business district. Although the County's Plan is "URBAN" category is considerably more general, the City's plan designation appears to be consistent. Presently the area consists of four different County zones: R-SMH Residential (incl. mobile homes) BT Business Trade BG Business General LM Light Manufacturing. Lands to the north and west of the proposed Annexation Area are in the City of Bremerton and zoned General Industry (GI). No City zoning has been proposed for the Annexation Area. The planning Commission will review the existing land uses, the Comprehensive Plan, and other factors, and will conduct a public hearing before forwarding a zoning recommendation to the City. This annexation is being processed by the "Seventy-five Percent TAPE #6~8 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes June 21, 1989 Page 14 of 16 Petition Method". .This is the most frequently used method of annexation and requires petition of the owners of at least 75 percent of the area's total assessed value. Council is now being asked to answer three basic questions: (1) whether to accept the proposed annexation; (2) whether to require a Comprehensive Plan amendment and/or zoning for the annexed area; and (3) whether to require the assumption of any portion of the City's indebtedness. #1588 #1821 #1853 Alice Moans, Sinclair Baptist Church representative, stated the church had just heard of the proposal on Saturday, June 17. She questioned if there will be public meetings where citizens will have a right to speak on this issue? President Hornina stated yes, and suggested she meet with Mr. Hough to be briefed on the proposal prior to any public hearing. M/S/C/U(Johnson/Colvin) to accept the Notices of Intent and proceed with this annexation; require the annexed properties to assume the City's current indebtedness following annexation; and that a public hearing, considering the Planning Commission's recommendations pertaining to Comprehensive Planning and Zoning of the subject area. 6D - EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT FOR ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY I AT HIGHER THAN 90% OF MEAN FOR THE RANGE, [AB89-169 The Council approved an additional attorney position at its March 26, 1989 Study Session. Following a selection process, a starting salary of $28,000 was proposed to Kelly Rhinehart. This figure is only a slight increase over Mr. Rhinehart's current salary with a King County public defender corporation. This contract is submitted for Council approval since the starting salary exceeds $27,611.10, 90~ of the mean of Attorney I. Kathleen McCluskey, City clerk, stated in addition to approving exceeding the 90% Council is also requested to approve a Budget Adjustment for the position. Mr. Overson, Chairman of Fiscal and Budget Committee, stated the funding for the position has been validated by the City Treasurer. He noted one of the problems of a growing City is the increased work load and need for additional staff. Mr. Johnson noted in the Budget Adjustment as well as the Agenda cover sheet there may be some illegal language - the City Council does not "approve" anything at Study Sessions. M/S/C/U(Overson/Colvin) to approve to approve the Budget Adjustment as proposed. Mrs. Horton questioned the amount of the Budget Adjustment ($18,000) and the total salary requested is $28,000 - from what funding source is the difference coming from? Rich Hanna, City Treasurer, stated the funds in the Budget Adjustment request are adequate to fund this position from July I through December 31, 1989, so it is not required that the entire annual salary be included in the 1989 budget. M/S/C/U(Waibel/Crutcher) to approve the contract with Kelly Rhinehart for the position of Assistant City Attorney I. #1985 #2060 #2237 TAPE #648 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes June 21, 1989 Page 15 of 16 7A - ORDINANCE (FIRST READING) DISCHARGE OF SEWAGE FROM MOBILE TANKS, ~AB89-170 Ordinance amending Section 15.04,560 of the Bremerton Municipal Code which regulates the discharge of sewage from mobile tanks. The amended section will require haulers to provide records to the Utility with respect to the origin and strength of the sewage to be discharged at the Bremerton Wastewater Treatment Facilities and increase the fee(s) to a level consistent with other Wastewater Treatment Facilities in the area. Bill Duffy, Utilities director, stated in addition to the points previously noted, the ordinance also contains language that prohibits the discharge of sewage from outside the City's service area except for emergencies and approved by the Director. President Hornina questioned if the Utility accepts anything generated in the City's area? Mr. Dully stated everything with the exception of those items prohibited under the NPDS permit, such as debris, grease or hazardous waste, etc. Mrs. Horton question if Mr. Duffy did spot checks? Mr. Duffv stated yes, one of the reasons he wanted to set up a manifest is to find out where the sewage originates. He also has had some reports recently of some illegal dumping within some of the manholes of the sewer system and a search is underway to find out the responsible persons. M/S/C/U(Crutcher/Horton) to approve Ordinance, on first reading, regulating sewage discharge from mobile tanks and establishing fees for mobile tank discharge. 7B - ORDINANCE #4215 (SECOND READING) AMENDMENT TO TAXICAB AND SHUTTLE/BUS/LIMO REGULATORY LICENSE, #AB89-161 M/S/C/U(Crutcher/Colvin) to pass Ordinance #4215, on second reading, amending license regulations for businesses operating vehicles for hire, Chapters 5.54, CARRYING PASSENGERS FOR HIRE, and 5.98, SHUTTLEBUS AND LIMOUSINE, of the Bremerton Municipal Code. 7C - ORDINANCE #4216 (SECOND READING) CORRECTING COUNCIL DISTRICT LEGAL DESCRIPTION DUE TO ANNEXATIONS, CAB89-162 Kathleen McCluskey, City Clerk, stated this was not a redistricting of Council Districts, it is simply to add those areas that have been annexed to the closest Council District appropriate. However, today she learned that the Lilac Lane Annexation, which is in Councilman Johnson's district and contains about 12 people, is not included. Therefore, the legal description for District #9 will have to be changed to include the Lilac Lane residents. And, those residents will be added into Precinct #34. Mr. Johnson questioned if it would be legal to make a motion including the Lilac Lane Annexation subject to the City Attorney certifying that the legal description in that annexation met the modification? Mr. Waibel cautioned that this change would involve a rather definite change in the intent, because the legal descriptions would be entirely different, and would necessitate it being the "first reading" instead of "second reading". Laura Anderson, Assistant City Attorney, felt it was a borderline decision as to whether or not it would have to be taken as a first reading. Mrs. Horton questioned if Council could approve the proposed ordinance at this time and bring back an amendment for the portion left out? Ms. McCluskey stated if Council approves the proposed ordinance the entire ordinance needs to be published and if amended it would need to be published again which would be rather costly to the City. M/S/C/U(Waibel/Collins) to table this item for one week. TAPE #648 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes June 21, 1989 Page 16 of 16 Mr. Johnson noted he had received several calls from citizens regarding the redistricting process and he wanted to assure the public that the action just taken is not a redistricting of Council Districts. There will be a redistricting after the 1990 census and before that happens there will be a formal procedure put forward for how redistricting is addressed. Mrs. Horton stated she had an opportunity to discuss with Karen Flynn, Kitsap County Auditor, the issue of split precincts and Ms. Flynn stated the City could request precincts be contiguous within districts rather than split prior to the City redistricting. With no further business meeting adjourned at 8:26 p.m. KATHLEEN L. Y CLERK APPR D NCER H cil President cc: Normal Distribution File/Vault