Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/25/89T2~:~ #685~ #686~ #687 NOV 8 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 25, 1989 #0017 #0039 #0074 #0187 #0234 #0249 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 25, 1989 at 5:30 p.m. with Council Vice President Hank Waibel presiding. Council members present were Lon Overson, Shirley Marty Crutcher, Lynn Horton, Morrie Dawkins, C. R. "Tiny" Collins, A1 Colvin, and Russ Johnson. Also present were Assistant City Attorney Laura Anderson and Deputy City Clerk Gil Johnson. Council President Spencer Horning arrived later and Chaired the remainder of the meeting. The meeting opened with the Pledge of Allegiance led by Council Vice President Waibel and the Invocation was given by Councilman Colvin. CONSENT AGENDA A. Minutes of Meeting Held - October 11, 1989, #AB89-297 M/S/C/U (Dawkins/Colvin) to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. CLAIM/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 which has been made available to the Council. M/S/C/U (Colvin/Johnson) to revoke the motion of the October 18, 1989 meeting regarding check number 100775. M/S/C/U (Colvin/Horton) on October 25, 1989 the Council does approve for payment those vouchers included and further described as follows: warrants #100630 - #100780 inclusive in amount of $581,500.02, and payroll register in amount of $329,040.60. COUNCIL MEMBERS REPORTS Mr. Johnson discussed the progress with street renovation and inquired if there is a way to turn off the traffic lights on Park Ave. during the construction as there is no through traffic. Mr. Waibel asked the Clerk to check on this and report to Council next week. Mr. Colvin stated in response to the request from Pinewood Manor residents, Mr. Del Knauss has donated 45 daffodil bulbs and thanked Mr. Knauss for his generosity. Mr. Colvin stated Pinewood Manor residents have also asked him if he can help them get a flagpole for a flag which has been donated. Mr. Dawkins stated he attended the Prayer breakfast last Thursday morning. Mr. Collins stated he's heard repeated rumors that the City "is dead", and read from the Quarterly Report that B&O tax is at an all time high of $325,000 with 2600 businesses licensed in the City. Mr. Collins concluded that Bremerton is not dead. Mr. Overson attended the Fiscal and Budget Committee meeting and stated budget meetings are coming up shortly. Mr. Crutcher thanked the police and fire departments and Olympic Ambulance crew for their services over the weekend. Mr. Crutcher cautioned responsible officials about turning off the traffic lights on Park Ave. He stated people are crossing at those intersections and there could be an accident. TAPE #685 City Council Meeting Minutes October 25, 1989 Page 2 of 13 #0282 #0318 #0420 Ms. Horton attended the Senior Craft Fair last Saturday at the Parks headquarters which was a big success. Ms. Horton discussed Ms. Ohlde's resignation as Parks Director to take a position with the City of Edmonds. She stated their gain is our loss and wished Ms. Ohlde good luck. Ms. Horton stated following Council reports Fire Department staff will give a report on earthquake preparedness. Mr. Colvin stated he has received a good report on Red Cross activities during Hurricane Hugo and the San Francisco quake from their president. He stated they are staffed by volunteers who are doing a great job and worthy of our support. Mr. Waibel stated he received the study session agenda for November and the session has been moved to November 13, 6 - 9 pm. Mr. Waibel stated two weeks ago he was told that Mr. Mentor's parking plan would be a part of discussion at that session, and anyone with input regarding the parking relief at Olympic College would be able to speak then. He stated it is not listed on the agenda, there is a section for open forum from 8:20 - 9:00 and asked Mr. Johnson to make sure that time slot does include a review of parking solution for Olympic College. Mr. Waibel last reported on trying to reduce the increase in Bremerton's allotment for Kitsap Board of Health; the increase has been reduced from 16% to 3.4%. The figure the Treasurer was working with was slightly higher and he will give the Treasurer's office that allocation. This will not be approved by the full Board until next Wednesday. He stated in working with the budget this will give some relief. PUBLIC RECOGNITION Dennis Perkins, Bremerton Fire Department, stated three years ago he was tasked by the Mayor and Fire Chief to write an Emergency Operation Plan with the assistance of the City managers and department heads. Approximately one year ago that plan was finished which outlines general responsibility for heads of city government and department heads in case of a major emergency in the City. They evaluated the hazards in the City that could occur: earthquake; hazardous materials spill; wind storm, etc. plus possible environmental hazards. Mr. Perkins stated the plan is a generic plan and lists only responsibilities of department heads. The next stage is drawing up a series of SOPs (Standard Operating Procedures) that gives specific responsibilities of a major emergency and what people should know and do. Someone than can take the list of procedures and start operations. This includes everything from warning notification to evacuation, manpower resources, mass care, communication, law enforcement, military support, fire and many things encompassed in the community. Mr. Perkins stated they have established a resource list of over 250 outside resource agencies that can be called upon including both public and private including county, state and federal organizations. He stated that will give lead time before calling on outside agencies. Mr Perkins discussed the geographics of Kitsap County and stated in a major emergency we will be cut off from the rest of the state as Kitsap County is basically a land locked island except for the highway through Shelton. He felt we can expect that highway to be blocked as many highways were in the Bay area. He stated Kitsap cannot expect outside assistance for at least a week. He stated in the San Francisco area everyone was on their own for the first 72 hours if there were no major problems in the home, they had to take care of water, food, waste disposal, heat, electricity, all the basic needs. He stated that will also happen here and this comes under basic education to the general public. Tape #685 City Council Meeting Minutes October 25, 1989 Page 3 of 13 #0650 #0731 Mr. Perkins stated they are working with the American Red Cross, School District and outside entities to establish plans and the City's plan will be integrated with their plans. He stated they are also working on the drill; no matter how good a plan is, if it isn't evaluated periodically and drilled with it, changed as needed, the plan becomes stagnant, people don't learn what to do. He stated basically that is where the plan is and where emergency operations are within the City. Mr. Waibel inquired if the drill includes something similar to a realistic drill in Pierce County involving a collapsed building? Mr. Perkins responded yes, they start with internal drills working with City managers. He stated a major problem will be communications, Cencom will probably be out of service for emergency communications and a secondary communications center will be needed as backup to receive telephone calls and dispatch units. Mr. Waibel stated the telephone at Cencom will be out but they have power backup and two locations for command posts. Mr. Colvin inquired if amateur radio communications will be utilized? Mr. Perkins stated yes, the Department of Emergency Management at the County level has react and CB transmission and they will draft people into working with our communications. Mr. Waibel stated in recent years there have been power outages on Bainbridge Island where there were unplanned drills and they relied on amateur operators for communications with Cencom. Mr. Waibel inquired where can people get the information on what they would need for 72 hours? Mr. Perkins stated the American Red Cross has an earthquake preparedness program they'll present to groups, they will be having a class early next year. Mr. Johnson stated he received a checklist from the Seattle Chapter of American Red cross of what to do which has a section on what to check on. He reasoned the Bremerton Chapter would also have a checklist. Clarence Land, 145 So. Lafayette, stated approximately a month ago the Planning Commission had a meeting on one of the items on the agenda tonight, all his neighbors received notice and he wondered why he didn't. A week later he received a letter from his bank which included the envelope from the notice of that meeting. He suspected the same would happen with the notice from tonight's meeting and questioned why anyone would think people reside at their bank. Mr. Land inquired if parking is free on those streets designated in the parking plan and if the new parking fines are being enforced? Mr. Waibel asked if there was information on the new parking tickets? Ms. Horton stated as of last Friday the new tickets were not being used. Mr. Waibel asked the Clerk to provide a report at the next meeting. 6A - INTERLOCALAGREEMENT FOR THE PURCHASE OF A NEW BACKHOE - WATER UTILITY, #AB89-298 The Water Utility is currently using a 1979 backhoe that is in need of extensive high-cost repairs. Considering the age and condition Of this equipment, the Utility wishes to purchase a replacement by utilizing an Interlocal Agreement with the City of Redmond, Washington. This is a scheduled replacement and has been approved for purchase in the 1989 Budget. Cost of replacement is $25,448 (trade-in of the 1979 backhoe is figures into cost). Bill Duffy, Utilities Director, stated the current backhoe has approximately 6,000 hours on it and in need of rebushing on the boom and backend, also it would need rebuilding of the cylinder. It would be more beneficial to replace it. Mr. Duffy stated there are monies in the budget to do so. M/S/C/U (Horton/Crutcher) to enter into an Interlocal Agreement with the City of Redmond for the purchase of a replacement backhoe. Tape #685 City Council Meeting Minutes October 25~ 1989 Page 4 of 13 #0856 #0900 Mr. Johnson inquired if this is the City's only backhoe, if not, is it compatible with the others? Mr. Duffy stated the City has 4 backhoes, 2 in his department; the new one is compatible and all attachments from the old will fit the new. Mr. Waibel stated the City has a maintenance agreement for vehicles and inquired if they look at equipment the City is considering surplusing to see if they can make repairs cheaper or just let the operator make that decision? Mr. Duffy stated the Ford dealership has given the estimate for repairs. M/S/C/U (Horton/Overson) to declare the existing backhoe surplus. Mr. Waibel stated it was decided in the Study Session to reverse the order of items. They will hear item 6C next, then 6B and 7E following in that order. 6C - PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT FOR RADIO REPAIR SERVICES - DAVE PATMON, #AB89-300 The Communications Department desires to enter into a professional services contract with Dave Patmon to provide radio repair services. Mr. Patmon, formerly the Communications Shop Department Head, is now retired and is very familiar with the operation of the department. Mr. Patmon will be providing services for the City's revenue generating contracts for radio repair. He will be paid $25 per hour. The contract shall terminate 12/31/89 and is not to exceed $5,000. The City charges $45 per hour for repair work. There are funds available in the Department Budget. Ken Brees, Street Supt., stated there are a number of pressing projects; Puget Power building, downtown signal cabinets are arriving and being tested, and they are getting behind on radio repairs. He stated the backup person is now with Cencom and not available, so they are in need of additional help in that area. Mr. Brees stated Mr. Patmon knows the equipment so there's no training and no need to check his work. He stated Mr. Patmon is over qualified for the work. M/S/C/U (Johnson/Colvin) to approve the Professional Services Agreement for radio repair services with Mr. Dave Patmon. Mr. Dawkins inquired if this requires a budget adjustment. Mr. Brees stated there is $10,000 in the budget so an adjustment is not needed. 6B - PARK BOARD REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL ON 10 ITEMS RE: SALE OF ROOSEVELT FIELD AND THE ATHLETIC COMPLEX, AB89-299 Mariwyn Tinsley, Chairperson of Park Board, stated over the past several years Roosevelt Field is an issue the Board has been aware of. She stated the Board created an Ad Hoc Committee to do research, and on August 9, 1989 City Council directed the Board to investigate a series of 10 questions which were comprehensive and in-depth. At the last three Park Board meetings and a retreat they have spent a great deal of time looking at those questions and now have a report to present to Council on their findings. Ms. Tinsley stated the Board consists of nine members and they have spent much time investigating the issue of Roosevelt Field. She stated the Board has taken their responsibility seriously and have spent a large amount of time to analyse a great amount of data in order to respond to Council. Ms. Tinsley introduced several members of the Board who were in attendance. Ms. Tinsley stated they have 4 motions to present to Council that were passed unanimously at the Tuesday evening Board meeting. Tape #685 City Council Meeting Minutes October 25, 1989 Page 5 of 13 Motion #1 - We the members of the Bremerton Parks and Recreation Board stand opposed to the sale of Roosevelt Field to Olympic College, both on principles and for practical reasons. Motion #2 - The Bremerton Parks and Recreation Board recommends that the City Council formally request the Olympic College Board of Trustees to adopt a resolution that states, whenever possible, College resources, i.e. gym, library, audio-visual equipment, etc., shall be available without cost to Bremerton Parks and Recreation Department. Motion #3 - The Bremerton Parks and Recreation Board recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution stating that Roosevelt Field parking lot be available to the public without charge. Motion #4 - The Bremerton Parks and Recreation Board recommends that the City Council endorse the "Parks Protection Ordinance of the City of Bremerton". Principles and practical reasons for the above stated four motions are included in Exhibit "A" attached. Ms. Tinsley stated that question #3 of the series of 10 questions given to the Board "Assess the intent of Resolution #684 and #1131 vis-a-vis the dedication and obligation to replace with equivalent assets nearby and determine whether or not the resolution needs to be amended or modified"; is the rationale for Motion #4 that the Parks Protection Ordinance exceeds Resolution #1131 and believe Council should consider that as a viable option for protection of parks land. Ms. Tinsley assembled a notebook of documentation which includes references to all the items of the 10 questions reviewed. Ms. Tinsley stated the Parks Board feels very strongly that through the issue of Roosevelt Field that a two-way communications system has been opened with City Council and they feel that is a positive step, and she further stated she appreciates the opportunity to come before Council and share how they feel about parks and also let Council know they wish to maintain this two-way communication, and come back to Council when they can spend time discussing the 1990 Goals they've adopted and help improve the quality of life for all Bremerton. Mr. Johnson stated this is a very comprehensive report and the appendix contains much good information and background of the impact of Roosevelt Field and the Parks system in response to Council. He asked if the answer to the 10 questions could be summarized? Ms. Tinsley summarized the answers, which are contained in the Appendix of Exhibit "A" attached. Mr. Johnson thanked Ms. Tinsley and expressed opinion that this was not an emotional recommendation as there clearly is a great deal of research and logic behind the motions. Mr. Johnson stated Council may want to accept the report without approving everything recommended by the Parks Board and Planning Commission. He felt it was an outstanding job and thanked the Board for the report. Mr. Colvin agreed with Mr. Johnson and commended the Board for a very thorough report. Mr. Horning arrived at this time. Tape #685 City Council Meeting Minutes October 25, 1989 Page 6 or 13 #2422 Mr. Crutcher stated Boards and Commissions are important, thanked the Parks Board and expressed opinion this should have gone to that Board first. He stated Council should be the last to hear an issue. Mr. Waibel stated he is very impressed by the documentation and background information in the report and glad the Parks Board looked at the Comprehensive Plan and how it affected this and recognized the importance of this in the long-term. He felt the Planning Commission should review the Comprehensive Plan and if zoning isn't based on the Comprehensive Plan it has not been thoroughly research. He asked the Planning Commission to amend their report to include what they feel the Comprehensive Plan says about zoning. The ground work has been laid by the Parks Board report. Mr. Waibel stated they did add O.C. parking problems to the study session agenda for November and he asked that the sub-committee of the Parks Board that worked on that item be invited to the Study Session to give their input. Mr. Dawkins stated when he was on the Parks Board they never had an issue that generated this kind of interest. He stated this is an excellent job and they are all to be commended. Mr. Johnson asked that a copy of the report be forwarded to Olympic College. Mr. Colvin stated he was particularly impressed with the one-way street idea and asked how many parking spaces that would accommodate on angle parking. Mr. Bartonia, Ad Hoc Committee, stated he worked with John McConnell and that at least 100 spaces could be accommodated. He stated 4 compact cars can fit into the space of 3 large cars. Compacts should be placed down the middle and large cars outside, and they could gain over 200 spaces without more land. Mr. Bartonia stated an additional amount of parking could be created inside the fence of 100 spots. He stated there are positive opportunities, and felt this could be a project for the engineering students at O. C. M/S/C/U (Waibel/Collins) to accept the Parks Board report and for Council to do whatever deliberations are necessary. 7E - RESOLUTION #2276, REFERRING PARKS PROTECTION ORDINANCE TO BE PLACED ON THE BALLOT FOR THE FEBRUARY 6, 1990 ELECTION, #AB89-289 This item was before the City Council on October 18 and tabled for one week. Jim Adrian, Friends of the Bremerton Parks and Open Space, stated the Parks Board endorsed this Resolution with one change to para. 3. Also several section are unlined where the word "lease" was added. He stated the Parks Board endorsed the provision for getting involved in all major decisions in changing use or surplusing parks assets. One issue presented by the Parks Board is they were looking forward to this report setting a precedent enhancing communications with Council. They feel by the mandatory requirement in the ordinance that will happen; any major issue with parks land will start at the proper Board. An enabling section has been provided based on the City Attorney's concurrence, section 2.1, which provides that City Council at any time can add additional parks assets. Mr. Adrian stated his group agrees that dedication in itself is not strong enough and believes this will give supplemental protection. Tape #685, #686 City Council Meeting Minutes October 25,1989 Page 7 of 13 Tape #686 Letter from Kevin, McCook, Captain, Supply, U. S. Navy, was read which in part states "For any majority to impose an ordinance that would require all Council members to vote unanimously on an issue would act as a permanent barrier to revitalization of this dying City. Good public stewardship by public officials demands that they leave flexibility to govern wisely in the hands of their successors. The proposed ordinance would tie the hands of present and future city governments. It is a bad idea. Please share these thoughts with the Council as they debate this issue." Dusty Rhodes, 2513 Reed Ave., discussed a newspaper article regarding Olympic College saving $450,000 to acquire Roosevelt Field for parking, which started this initiative ordinance to help save Roosevelt Field. He stated many people have spent many hours to stay united in this effort and save Roosevelt Field for the people. Clarence Land, wondered if Captain McCook is acting in his official capacity as Commanding Officer of the Supply Center or as a private citizen in writing this letter. Mr. Collins responded the letter is on official letterhead. Mr. Crutcher thanked Mr. Adrian and his committee for a superb job. He expressed opinion an elected official's responsibility to try and do what the people want. He stated he votes according to what his district wants. He thanked the Parks Board for their efforts and report. Ms. Horton stated she had spoken with the City Attorney and he informed her he'd been working with a group who were coming up with their own ordinance; this was prior to the "Friends" group. Mr. Sievers forwarded an ordinance, that has a lot of merit. It addresses; different types of parks and open space, minimum standards for parks and open space, acquisitions, park land retention, much good information in this document. Ms. Horton asked Council that before they pass the ordinance submitted by the "Friends" group, they send this ordinance of Mr. Sievers' to the Parks Board and see if this could be refined or combined with the one the citizen group drafted, at least get some recommendation on this one. Ms. Horton stated she is not attempting to circumvent anything, she just reserved this and Council nor the public has had an opportunity to review it. Mr. Horning asked Ms. Anderson if Council accepts the citizen group ordinance to put it on the ballot, and forward the other document to the Parks Board, and the Parks Board comes back and says "including the citizens ordinance that sounds like a good idea" can tonight's action be pulled back, modified, etc? Ms. Anderson stated the City can pass two ordinances, but she will research for a more definite response. Mr. Collins expressed opinion enough time has been spent on this issue. M/S/C (Collins/Waibel) to pass Resolution #2276 as presented by the Friends of Parks and Open Space. Mr. Johnson stated Mr. Collins' motion is proper and he anticipates Ms. Anderson will say until the filing period for the February election an item can be withdrawn. He feels this should go on the ballot and stated his agreement with Ms. Horton that this other ordinance defines with legitimacy some goals the City should be going for in the community for various types of parks. That is the type of information that should be included in the Parks Comprehensive Plan and the City's Comprehensive Plan. There are other parts that perhaps should be a stand alone ordinance. Tape #686 City Council Meeting Minutes October 25, 1989 Page 8 of 13 Mr. Johnson expressed opinion they have a good relationship with all the groups and feel they can work together and come up with a good ordinance. Mr. Colvin agreed with Ms. Horton and felt a copy should be sent to the proponents of this ordinance and perhaps they would suggest incorporating some of the positions in the ordinance they are supporting. Mr. Dawkins stated they have worked this over as much as any issue has been worked over and it is time to vote on it. Mr. Overson stated everyone should have been listening to the letter from Captain McCook; it's accurate. He stated some act as though we have a City in fine condition, financially capable of going on. Mr. Overson stated he lives downtown and discussed an incident in downtown last Saturday where an individual was assaulted and stated the City can't afford a traffic division; the City hasn't made as many DWI arrests this year as they used to make in a month. Mr. Overson stated Council is wrong to give away their ability to do anything in the future by a unanimous vote. Mr. Crutcher stated he has never agreed with a unanimous vote, but feels the people should be allowed to vote on this issue. Ms. Horton stated she is not pleased with the unanimous vote. The committee that did the research said there was a precedent for it, the precedent came from the Parks district, which has it's own taxing authority, their sole job, sole purpose is to administer the parks system, it isn't to allocate funds between fire district, police department, parks system and every other entity of the City. She stated in that light she thinks a unanimous vote is appropriate, but not in a situation as ours where our funds are appropriated and allocated. Ms. Horton felt a unanimous vote on one issue opens the gates for other special interest groups; there is nothing that says another special interest groups cannot spear head a drive to say we need X number of police per thousand and we don't care how the City pays for it, we are going to take it before a vote of the people. She stated is could go on and on until this community is tied into a knot. Mr. Waibel stated Mr. Overson and Ms. Horton referred to the letter from Captain McCook and to the concept that's involved is apparent. He stated the message is that the City may be in dire straights, but the citizens do not want Council to consider parks as a land bank to solve the City's problems. In our situation we do have the possibility of a conflict between those kinds of lands and other kinds of lands that is not precedence to the municipal Parks Board and probably more necessary we protect those lands from encroachment from other types of activities. Mr. Waibel stated the people are saying those are special to the City and are not to be used to solve the problems, that's the point of this and feel there is no conflict. Mr. Horning stated he is not in favor of a unanimous vote, but it appears that is what the people want and therefore he will support it although he isn't in favor. He stated it's important the people have the opportunity to speak to that. Ms. Anderson stated she finds nothing prohibiting Council from repealing the Resolution if they choose to. In response to an inquiry, Mr. Adrian stated 45 days prior to the election is the deadline to submit or withdraw; that would be 12/21/89 for the February 6,1990 election. Tape #686 City Council Meeting Minutes October 25, 1989 Page 9 of 13 #0455 #0603 Question: Affirmative - Crutcher, Waibel, Horning, Collins, Dawkins, Colvin, Johnson Opposed - Overson, Horton Recess 7:20 - 7:42 p.m. Mr. Colvin left the meeting at this time. 8A - PUBLIC HEARING - ALLEY VACATION - SIXT}] STREET JUST WEST OF VENETA AVENUE, APPLICANT: OUR LADY STAR OF THE SEA CHURCH, #AB89- 302 On September 19, 1989, the Bremerton Planning Commission held a public hearing as requested to vacate a portion of alley adjoining Our Lady Star Of The Sea Church. On October 4, 1989, the Bremerton City Council set the date for this hearing by adopting Resolution #2273. The City Council may uphold, amend or reject the recommendations of the Planning Commission Mr. Horning asked the standard conflict of interest appearance of conflict question. Willis Coffer, representing Star of the Sea, expressed opinion Mr. Dawkins should step down as he is a member of the church. Mr. Coffer also felt Mr. Horning should step down as his daughter attended the school at one time. Ms. Horton stated she is listed on the membership rolls and her daughter was baptized there, that is the extent of her participation in Star of the Sea. Ms. Anderson stated it would be in best interest if Mr. Dawkins stepped down. She saw no conflict on the part of Mr. Horning or Ms. Horton. Mr. Dawkins stepped down for the hearing with all other members remaining seated. Dave Baker, City Engineering, gave an overlay presentation of the area north portion of an east/west alley lying just west of Our Lady Star of the Sea school. The alley consists of approximately 1,442 sq. ft. is 103 ft. long, 14 ft. wide. The need as put forth by the applicant is to develop a playground area. The Engineering Department felt there is access to the interior of the block and there is no actual need for that alley. However, the Planning Commission recommended a motion of denial. Using the overlay, Mr. Coffer described the area and location of the school, convent, parking area and two gates and multi-purpose facility. He stated sometime ago a good portion of the playfield was taken up by the multi-purpose facility, which is available to anyone in the City. He discussed purchase of two homes across the alley in question, one on 6th St. and one on 5th St., with the school's superintendent living in the house on 5th St. He stated if they can tie the one home together with the school then they can do some reasonable planning for the school and are requesting vacation of that portion of the alley. Mr. Coffer stated they contend there is no need for that alley. He discussed the alley running west to east from High St. intersecting the T alley from 6th St. to 5th St. and contends because of the high volume of traffic on 6th St., most cars exit that alley on 5th St. Since the Planning Commission meeting, Mr. Coffer has spent time observing traffic in the alley and has never seen residents use the 6th St. exit. Mr. Coffer maintains it is easier to turn right rather than left from the west/east alley and exit on 5th St. He stated during Sunday services some parishioners park in the school lot. Some neighbors complained that those people leave using the alley to High St. Mr. Coffer conducted a survey and found the least number exit by way of High St. Mr. Coffer discussed the issue of parents dropping children off for school and using the alley toward High to exit the area. He stated the custodian said only 4 or 5 cars to that. If the vacation is approved they are prepare to permanently close and lock the gate immediately opposite the main alley where it intersects with the Tape #686 City Council Meeting Minutes October 25, 1989 Page 10 of 13 #2742 alley that runs from 6th to 5th streets. He stated the garbage trucks serve all but 3 homes from 5th and 6th Streets and felt those homes could be serviced from their respective streets. Mr. Coffer made a slide presentation of the area showing easy exit to 5th St. from the alley, width of the alley, etc. Letters from residents of the area, Beverly Larabee and Patrica Boyne opposing the alley vacation were read. Jerry Soriano, 1520 5th St., stated there must be certain needs to vacate an alley and as has been stated there are people on 5th & 6th that use that alley. The alley that runs adjacent to Star of the Sea property used to be one way from 6th to 5th. He stated many people who park in the church recreation area do use all the exits; the alleys are narrow, there isn't room for vehicle to go in both directions at the same time. If one alley way is cut off it will create a mess. He stated most homes have oil heat and those truck do use the alley. Mr. Soriano says all the residents use the alley ways and doesn't see the necessity to vacate the portion requested for vacation. Fanny Bigelow, 1523 & 1521 6th St., stated all driveways for the 1500 block of 5th & 6th are off the main alleyway with one exception. There is a steep hill at the High St. end which makes it difficult to see, house, garages, trees and fences crowd the alley and make it impossible for cars to pass in certain areas. She stated cars are parked on both sides of High St. most of the time and it is a narrow street at that point. Using High St. it is difficult to turn onto 6th St. as the view is blocked by a house. Concerning the 5th St exit of the T alley, it is an accident waiting to happen. There is a high hedge that makes it impossible to see anyone on the sidewalk, you can't see or hear oncoming traffic that comes across Veneta toward Naval. She stated twice this summer a car she was in coming up 5th St was almost hit by people coming from that alley. Ms. Bigelow argued before the Planning Commission that that portion of the alley is narrower than the north end, since that time someone has cleaned up the south portion and now it is wider, but there are still the shrubs and the north end hasn't been cleaned up. There is no problem in seeing traffic when exiting onto 6th St. as the houses are set back and there is a clear view. When exiting onto 6th there are four lanes, when exiting onto 5th there are only two lanes and some big cars have a problem turning either way. Ms. Bigelow stated there is a lot of traffic in the main alley and a lot of that traffic is not related to the residents. That traffic is generated by people dropping their children off at school and they drive at excessive speeds. She stated she also made a survey of people dropping off their children at school and most of the cars exited on 6th St. Ms. Bigelow also discussed people using her yard to cut through and feels if that portion of the alley is closed her property will in essence become the alley; it is the only property not enclosed. She also wondered how an alley can be given to anyone. Mr. Coffer stated oil trucks cannot make the turn in the alley toward 6th St. He stated the problem could be solved by making the alley one-way and speed could be controlled by putting in speed bumps. Mr. Coffer stated they have not cleaned up the south portion of that alley. He also stated he didn't know the City gave property away, they would have to pay for it based on fair market value. Mr. Crutcher stated it is clear this is a right of way that should be kept open for the public as it is being used by the public. Mr. Waibel stated the question is whether the need of the private party is greater than the need by the public. Basically if a Tape #686, #687 City Council Meeting Minutes October 25, 1989 Page 11 of 13 #3027 Tape #687 playground was in place Mr. Coffer might be able to demonstrate that the use by the neighbors caused safety problems for the children, but the playground is not there. Actually the more residents use the alley the more the safety problem is created, as usage by the neighbors goes up the problem goes up. He stated they need to look at the general public and residents of the area as opposed to the individual church. Ms. Horton stated this alley is used by the residents and as Mr. Waibel pointed out, at this time there is not the need to vacate the alley. Mr. Collins stated the alley is public property used by the public and must weigh whether there is a greater need by an individual or church than by the public. He stated the convent goes almost to the alley with a house on the other side, the only playground there would be if the alley were vacated would be the alley. Mr. Collins felt the church hasn't demonstrated that there is a greater need by the individual than by the public. M/S/C/U (Johnson/Collins) to uphold the Planning Commission recommendation to deny the alley vacation. Mr. Dawkins returned to the meeting. 8B - PUBLIC HEARING - STREET VACATION - 201 SOUTHLAFAYETTE AVENUE, APPLICANT: JAMES E. SKIRVING, ~AB89-303 On September 19, 1989, the Bremerton Planning Commission held a public hearing as requested to vacate a portion of Coontz Street. On October 4, 1989, the Bremerton City Council set the date for this hearing by adopting Resolution #2275. The City Council may uphold, amend or reject the recommendations of the Planning Commission. Mr. Horning asked the standard conflict of interest, appearance of fairness question. Mr. Collins stepped down from the hearing with all other members remaining seated. Dave Baker stated Mr. Pratt, Director of Community Development, suggested making one presentation for both hearings. Mr. Skirving stated his intention to withdraw the request for the north portion. Mr. Johnson stated since it is on the agenda that isn't an option. Mr. Baker made an overlay presentation and stated the Planning Commission recommendation is to deny both vacation requests, as if both are vacated it would leave the width for right of way less than the 50 ft. required within the City. James E. Skirving, 1553 Marguerite, gave background information on the property. He stated on the north side it is rockery and has been for 57 years, the house if okay. On the south side it is a 34 ft. lot, the back porch and driveway are in the street. If the house burns or it is damaged in an earthquake, he can't rebuild. Due to encroachment he can't get title insurance. Mr. Skirving stated he wants to improve the property and is asking only to straighten out the street, not changing any right of way, not changing traffic. He stated he wants to be able to improve his property. Mr. Land stated this goes back a long time, when this area was developed it wasn't taken into account there would be many cars, parking, or that there would be zoning required in this area where you couldn't build on lots of certain sizes. He stated when Mr. Skirving bought the house he knew this encumbrance was there. Mr. Land felt this doesn't improve the neighborhood but improves Mr. Skirving's economic situation. He stated there is more traffic on Tape #687 City Council Meeting Minutes October 25, 1989 page 12 of 13 #0780 Lafayette than there has ever been, there is more parking than before and a yield sign on Coontz at Lafayette, but if you only yield you're looking for trouble. When this street was built they didn't take into consideration big trucks and campers. He concluded this is precedence setting. Letter from LaVonne Boddy, 3012 Coontz, opposing the vacation was read. Mr. Skirving stated Ms. Boddy lives on the north side and that is the area he wishes to withdrawn. Mr. Waibel stated he'd appreciate every map that is put in the packet has a north arrow. He stated it appears Mr. Skirving has withdrawn his application at 149 So. Lafayette and asked if they can take action on that and then address the rest? Ms. Anderson responded they can deny based on his desire to withdraw. Mr. Land stated that property is already using some right of way, it has already occurred and if you let the other side occur it is the same thing. Discussion followed regarding the portion that would project into the street if the vacations were approved and problems with ingress and egress. M/S/C (Waibel/Crutcher) to deny both applications. Mr. Horning stated according to the Attorney two motions are required. M/S/C (Overson/Crutcher) to accept the Planning's Commission recommendation for denial of the application at 201 So. Lafayette. Mr. Horning asked Mr. Baker if this condition has been in effect for over 50 years does that give Mr. Skirving right of imminent domain? Ms. Anderson stated that is not the issue before Council. In response to an inquiry, Mr. Baker stated the right of way is 60 ft in width, with 10 ft. removed for vacation, 50 ft. would be remaining, but not necessarily in a straight line. Question: Affirmative - Opposed - Overson, Crutcher, Horton, Waibel, Johnson Horning, Dawkins 8C - PUBLIC HEARING - STREET VACATION - 149 SOUTH LAFAYETTE AVENUE, APPLICANT: JAMES E. SKIRVING, #AB89-304 On September 19, 1989, the Bremerton Planning Commission held a public hearing as requested to vacate a portion of Coontz Street. On October 4, 1989, the Bremerton City Council set the date for this hearing by adopting Resolution #2274. City Council may uphold, amend or reject the recommendations of the Planning Commission. M/S/C (Waibel/Crutcher) to accept the Planning Commission's recommendation for denial of the application at 149 So. Lafayette. Question: Affirmative - Overson, Crutcher, Horton, Waibel, Horning, Johnson Opposed - Dawkins Mr. Collins returned to the meeting. 7A - ORDINANCE (FIRST READING) REZONE OF PROPERTIES LOCATED WEST OF GORST AND ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF SR-3, #AB89-301 On October 11, 1989, the City Council approved a rezone of City property. The subject property is located immediately west of the community of Gorst and on the south side of SR-3. Tape #687 City Council Meeting Minutes October 25, 1989 Page 13 of 13 #0838 #0910 #0970 M/S/C/U (Johnson/Crutcher) to approved on first reading An Ordinance rezoning a 20 acre parcel of City-owned property, located within the City limits west of Gorst and south of SR-3. 7B - ORDINANCE #4245 (SECOND READING) LEVYING PROPERTY TAXES FOR COI,I,ECTION IN 1990, #AB89-294 Rich Hanna, City Treasurer, stated he has been informed by the County Assessor the deduction is due to re-evaluation of the downtown property. All residents are slated for re-assessment in 1990/1992. M/S/C (Horton/Collins) to pass on second reading An Ordinance levying Municipal taxes against all taxable property within the City limits for the year 1989 and approving the assessment roll made by the County Assessor to be collected in 1990. Question: Affirmative - Overson, Crutcher, Horton, Waibel, Horning, Collins, Johnson Opposed - Dawkins 7C - ORDINANCE #4246 (SECONDREADING) ADOPTING THE NORT}FWEST ENERGY CODE, #AB89-295 M/S/C (Waibel/Horton) to pass on second reading An Ordinance adding a new section to Sec. 17.04 of the Building and Fire Safety Code. Question: Affirmative - Crutcher, Horton, Waibel, Horning, Collins, Dawkins, Johnson Opposed - Overson Mr. Waibel left the meeting at this time. 7D - ORDINANCE ~4247 (SECOND READING) VACATING RIGHT-OF-WAY WITHIN BREMERTON GARDENS PUD, #AB89-296 M/S/C (Horton/Crutcher) to pass on second reading An Ordinance vacating rights of ways within Bremerton Gardens, PUD. Mr. Overson asked Ms. Anderson about the City's liability. Ms. Anderson responded that according to State statute in the RCW general municipalities will not be held liable. Question: Affirmative - Crutcher, Horton, Horning, Collins, Dawkins, Johnson Opposed - Overson With no further business meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. GILBERT W. JOHNSON, Deputy City Clerk APPROV, President C' m1 cc: Normal Distribution File/Vault EXHIBIT "A" October 25, 1989 To: From: RE: Bremerton City Council Bremerton Parks & Recreation Board Proposed sale of Roosevelt Field ,MOTION #1 ~We the members of the Bremerton Parks and Recreation board stand opposed to the sale of Roosevelt Field to Olympic College, both on principles and for practical reasons. The Principles as we see them are as follows 1. The sale of Roosevelt Field contradicts numerous goals and objectives set forth in the current City Comprehensive Plan and the recently adopted Bremerton Parks and Recreation Comprehensive Parks and Open Space Plan. 2. Public park land and recreation facilities are an essential component of the quality of life in the United States. Bremerton's park system is a sacred legacy to be enjoyed today and preserved for our future generations. 3. The proposed sale would set an ominous precedent and would send a highly negative signal to the Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation, which in all probability would jeopardize future state and federal funding for our community's parks and recreation system. 4. Roosevelt Field cannot be construed as surplus park property now or in the foreseeable future. Park lands should not be considered land banks. The practical reasons are covered in the attached appendix. 2 MOTION #2 The Bremerton Parks and Recreation Board recommends that the City uncil formally request the Olympic College Board of Trustees to adopt a resolution that states, whenever possible, College resources, i.e. gym, library, audio-visual equipment, etc., shall be available without cost to Bremerton Parks and Recreation Department. Bremerton Parks and Recreation programs often significantly complement Olympic College programs, and Olympic .College can significantly broaden its contributions to Bremerton residents' academic, vocational, and avocational education by adopting a policy of sharing its resources with the Parks & Recreation Department whenever possible. MOTION #3 The Bremerton Parks and Recreation Board recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution stating that Roosevelt Field parking lot be available to the public without charge. Olympic College has long been an important civic, economic, and cultural resource for Bremerton and only by formally implementing a policy of cooperation with the College whenever possible can the City of Bremerton ensure that the valuable quality of life services provided by the College will continue and will expand. MOTION #4 The Bremerton Parks and Recreation Board recommends that the City Council endorse the "Parks Protection Ordinance of the City of Bremerton". RESPONSE TO CITY COUNCIL 8/16/89 DIRECTIVE Review the impact on the neighborhood if Roosevelt Field is sold; 3 According to IAC, the more crowded the area, the larger the value of open space and nearby recreational opportunities· The MACPARS study predicts a 25 percent population growth in Kitsap County by the year 2000. The NRPA suggests that a park system, at a minimum, be composed of a "core" system of Dark lands, with a total of 6.25 to 10.25 acres of developed open space per I , 0 0 0 population. The size and amount of "adjunct" park lands will vary from community to community, but must be taken into account when considering a total, well-rounded system of parks and recreation areas· The Bremerton Parks & Recreation area includes approximately 500 acres of total parklands, which include 25 acres developed open space within the Central Urban Core, which is only 25% of the suggested national minimum standard. The SCORP/IAC - "Draft" regarding "Open Space & Green belt Preservat'ion Editorials" states that the 1990's will be a critical decade for open snace and greenbelt preservation in many areas of Washington State. "Satisfying' our open space needs will be a challenge." A study done on the property value effect of the Burke- Gilman Trail in Seattle estimated that the Trail increased the value of nearby homes by as much as 6.5 percent and increased the ease of sale of homes. Review lmpact of all sports activities on the field as it is currently being used or as it is projected to be used; Current use is 30,000 players per year with 2,000 of that total being youth activities. Roosevelt Field is the only multi-purpose, multi-field area that is centralized in the Bremerton area. The proposed sale would city recreational opportunities. decrease mid- Future use predicts increased need for the field with increased population and increased interest in sports. Youth soccer alone has been growing 23% per year and it .! appears that trend will continue· Roosevelt Field is within one mile of Bremertons four Pee Wee Clubs, which have a great need for more fields Phase I of the Athletic Complex does no~ include construction of soccer fields· If soccer play were disrupted at Roosevelt Field, it would be very difficult to relocate it. The complex fields would not be ready and existing fields are fully scheduled with other activities· 3. Assess the intent of Resolution #684 and Resolution 11131 vis- a via the dedication and obligation to replace with equivalent assets nearby and determine whether or not the resolution needs to be amended or modified; A. The Board has determined that it is the intent of Resolutions #684 & #1131 to protect park lands and open space. Changes need to be made to make the legal interpretation of Resolution #1131 support the intent to protect park lands and open space· The precise interpretation of several phrases have recently been debated and they can and should be made more explicit. The language of Resolution #1i3i should be state~ in Ordinance form. 4. Review the Impact on the college if Roosevelt Field is sold and also if it is not sold; The Sale of Roosevelt Field to Olympic College would allow 300 additional parking spaces; the additional spaces would decrease the lack of spaces expressed by the college and student association· If Roosevelt Field remains a recreational facility, the college and community will retain 7.5 acres of park lands to be enjoyed by both students and community in years to come. As O.C. continues to expand its educational programs, it will be even more important to retain Roosevelt Field for both educational as well as recreational purposes. 5. Evaluate the desirability of dedication of this and all other park assets and determine what that process should be and if it should be implemented in this situation; Dedication of park lands is not protection against encroachment based upon legal opinions and R.C.W. law. 6. Evaluate and comment on the EIS Checklist for Roosevelt Field and the proposed area for the sports complex; A. Refer to the Planning Commissions Report. The EIS prepared by the City of Bremerton is only reflective of the proposed sale of the field; A new EIS will be prepared by the purchaser of the property and the document would then reflect the proposed changes of use and the impact to the site· 7. Evaluate the college's assessment that Roosevelt Field is the only alternative by analyzing the relative merit of other methods of providing parking for the college and analyze the relativesmerit of other methods of funding the sports complex. Mike Connolly reported at the Sept. 19, 1989, Parks Board Meeting that Olympic College would go ahead and acquire residential property with funds presently appropriated if Roosevelt Field were not available for parking. A review of other parking alternatives of offer Olympic College an immediate solution to parking. Which are: l) The purchase of the Engineering Dept. property, which is only one block from the college, would provide 150 parking slots· A redosign of the parking lot adjacent to Roosevelt Field would allow for an additional 100-150 parking slots. a. Restripe for compact cars. Relocate motorcycles to the cement area by Roosevelt Field. Establish a one-way traffic pattern along 16th & Chester to allow for angle parking. s) Secure a lease from Bremerton School District for the property on llth & Lincoln, which would offer 150 parking spots. 4) Using the proposed alternate parking plan, Olympic College would gain 400-450 parking slots for immediate student use. The proposed sale of Roosevelt' Field for parking, would provide 300 parking slots, which would not be available for at least 2 years or until Phase I of the Sports Complex is completed. Acquiring residential property for parking would require significant time before parking could be available to students. Although the sale of Roosevelt Field would provide some start up money for the sports complex, it is not the only method of funding the complex. To lose Roosevelt Field, is too great a price to pay for the Sports Complex. Alternate funding sources provide a viable and reasonable approach to the Sports Complex· 1. Stage I: 5 softball fields and 2 practice fields Est. Capitol Construction Cost ................. $1,183,859 ESTIMATED REVENUE Donations/In-Kind .............................. $200,000 Local Capital Funds ............................ $ 30,000 I.A.C. Grant ................................... $150,000 Motel Motel Tax ................................ $150,000 Expected Donations ................... i ......... $300,000 Balance remaining to be funded .......................... $353,859 Balance of $353,859 could be funded with General Obligation Bond Option at 6.5~. Annual players fees of $30,000 and dedicated tournament revenue of $350,000 would allow the G.O.B. to be paid off annually for 15 years. Revenue Bonds at 8% could be secured with signed agreement with players to secure long term committment or documentation of dedicated revenue via historical documents. i. 8. Evaluate the zoning for not only the Roosevelt Field area, but also potential sports complex to make sure the zones are correctly Identified; A. See Planning Commission Report of Oct. 17, 1989. 9, Look at the two actions in light of the Comprehensive Plan; The policy set forth in Bremerton's Comprehensive Plan under Parks, Recreation and Open Space #18 states, "protect areas designated as open space and recreation purposes from conversion to other land use." The sale of Roosevelt Field would be in conflict with the protection of open space and recreational facilities stated in the City Compre- hensive Plan. Number 19 of the Bremerton Comprehensive Plan under the section, Parks, Recreation and Open Space, states "require adequate compensation to replace lands diverted from open space or recreational lands or in- kind replacement of such lands." The appraisal of Roosevelt Field at $465,000 does not offer adequate compensation to replace 7.5 acres of open space within the City. The Olympic View Elementary School, 5 acre site located at I231 Sheridan Road was appraised at $935,000 with a rezoned classification to pro- fessional offices, and yet, the 7.5 acre Roosevelt Field site received an appraisal by the same firm, Richards & Association at significantly lower prices. If the City is truly looking to require adequate compensation to replace lands, a rezoning to Pro- fessional offices might significantly increase the value of the site. 10. Review the differences of procedures tthat would be followed for a private sale; The Park Board recognizes that sale or lease of park lands needs to follow a separate process in comparison to general way surplus of lands. The process outlined in the proposed "Parks Protection Ordinance" sets up a mechanisim by which the park board can review proposed park lands sales. They would oresent the findings and make a recommendation to City Council. The Council would then rule unanimously on the proposed sale and lease.