Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/14/87TAPE #489 UNAPPROVED DRAFT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 14, 1987 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 14, 1987, at 5:30 p.m. with Council President Spencer Homing presiding. Council members present were Hank Watbel, Mottie Dawkins, Mary Lou Long, C. R. "Tiny" Collins, Shirley Marry Crutcher, Russ Johnson, A1 Colvin and Lon Overson Also present were City Attorney Ian Sievers and City Clerk Kathleen McCluskey. The meeting opened with the Pledge of Allegiance led by Council President Spencer Horning and Invocation was given by Councilman A1Colvin. President Horninu announced that Item 6B had been pulled from the Agenda and will be heard at a later date. CONSENT AGENDA A. Minutes of Meeting held October 7, 1987, #AB87-271 #0038 #0060 M/S/C(Waibel/Dawkins) presented. Vote: In Favor: Abstain: to approve Consent Agenda as Dawkins, Crutcher, Waibel, Horning Collins, Long, Colvin, Johnson Overson CLAIM/WARRANTS REGISTER 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(Colvin/Crutcher) on October 14, 1987, the Council does approve for payment those vouchers included and further described as follows: Regular Warrants numbering 32102, 32103, and 32109 through 32251 in the total amount of $138,294.73. Vote: In Favor: Johnson, Colvin, Collins, Homing, Waibel, Crut, cher, Dawkins, 0vetson Abstain: Long COUNCIL MEMBER REPORT Mr. Dawkins reported that the Ferry Rider's Coalition had met with Governor Gardner to discuss Ferry Service and the proposal under consideration was the one previously vetoed by the Governor but with a Sunset Clause of six years included. Mr. Crutcher described the merits of the Council's two Vice Presidents and the leadership provided under the Council Committees. He cited difficulties being experienced in City of Seattle between the Mayor and City Council and felt that the City of Bremerton had taken the lead in working cooperatively with the Mayor and staff. TAPE #489 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes October 14, 1987 Page 2 of 14 Mrs. Long expressed her concern over proper procedures in requesting bids for City items and services from local vendors versus those outside the area. Also, she felt that the ~Bremerton/Seattle Commuters Association should be recognized for their work in helping to keep and improve ferry service to Bremerton. Copies of the Association's newsletter were available from Mrs. Long if anyone wished to obtain a copy. Mr. Colvin thanked Mr. Horning and Mrs. Long for their participating in a recent Sheridan Neighborhood Association meeting. Mr. Johnson reported that some Vashon Island residents were not happy about Passenger only ferry service being added to their service citing it may attract more people wanting to live on the Island. Mr. Johnson questioned information provided by' the County Assessor's Office that valuation in the City of Bremerton has gone down $48 million and that people have been receiving reductions in property tax assessments. P~BLIC RECOGNITION GeorGe Allen, 1300 N.E. Dawn Road, expressed hi~ concern that because of Council's procedures currently used there is not an opportunity for a citizen to provide input after the conclusion of the public input time. In some instances he feels that the public may have additional information after Council members make statements regarding the subject and/or ask questions of staff. Also, he questioned recent Council action relating to the request by Ace Paving for a rock quarry, citing two RCW's which pertain to mining operations. Ian Sievers, City Attorney, stated that one of the RCW's referred to has to do with public nuisance which is concerned with an unprotected mine or shaft and a procedure for getting that public nuisance shared; the other has to do with the State overlay and a permit is required with steps to insure reclamation is planned and carried out...neither would prohibit the action taken by the City Council. Mr~ Allen questioned the City's authority other than enforcing the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Sievers stated that local Zoning and land use regulations must be complied with as well as obtaining State permits. 6A - RESOLUTION 12183 - SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL REQUIREMENT WAC 173-304 AND DISPOSAL FEE PROPOSAL, #AB87-272 At a recent Council Study Session, Brem-Air presented a discussion regarding current and future impacts on solid waste disposal in Kitsap County caused by 1985 action of Washington State Department of Ecology. The action resulted in new regulations governing solid waste disposal handling which were implemented by WAC 173-304 in late 1985. Brem-Air is proposing a rate increase to facilitate "pass through" of costs essential for compliance with WAC 175-304. The fee, identified as a "Disposal Fee" would be added to individual monthly customer billing. There would be no change in the basic collection service charge. Implementation is scheduled for November 1, 1987. Richard Dunlap, Parametrix Inc., speaking for the proponent, recapped the issues which were outlined in a letter from Brem-Air Disposal Inc., dated September 30, 1987. The existing conditions as they pertain to solid waste management were described, noting that Kitsap County TAPE #489 Clty Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes October 14, 1987 Page 3 of 14 and all incorporated municipalitles approved an update to the County's Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan in 1982r The Plan established two regional disposal sites to service Kitsap County through the mid/late 1990's; it recommended closure of non-conforming transfer station to serve South County residents and establish solid waste management as a County-wide responsibility. Several million dollars have already been spent to upgrade and meet the improvement requirements since 1982. Kitsap County, through their local Kitsap Health District, have undertaken hazardous waste planning effort and numerous recycling activities which have been mandated by the State. In 1985 the State of Washington Department of Ecology passed new regulations governing solid waste disposal (WAC 173-304) which went into effect late 1985 and would have a far- reaching and significant impact on solid waste management in the State. Estimated costs of implementation of these regulations for residents and businesses of the State of Washington is in excess of $650,000,000.00. The positive impact of this legislation is that they will require each /andfill or disposal site to upgrade operations to become environmentally safe and good neighbors in their specific 3urisdictions. A negative impact of WAC 172-304 is the economic impact on residents and businesses. Cost to implement the requirements in Kitsap County is estimated at $10,000,000 between now and 1991. That burden will have to be carried by all of the residents of Kitsap County and through the original commitment of of 1982 the City of Bremerton is considered a part of that program. Kitsap County Sanitary Landfills Inc., along with Kitsap County have undertaken an investigation and analysis and prepared documents which provide a basis for understanding what the specific commitments are in Kitsap County. This information was culminated in a rate proposal which was presented to Kitsap County in August 1987 for the purpose of increasing the cost of disposal at the regional disposal sites. Cost increase per cubic yard was calculated to be $3.80 - 83.70 and the Kitsap County Board of Commissioners approved a rate increase on October 12, with the new rates in effect at the two disposal sites of $7.05 for compacted waste and $6.85 for loose waste. Brem-Air Disposal evaluated the impacts to the various collection companies, specifically to City of Bremerton and notified the City, per letter dated September 30, that the rate increase would be 85¢ - 90¢ per month for the most common type of customer the City has...residential, single can, once a week pickup. 'Impact anticipated for the next most common customer - small commercial business or multi-family dwelling (1~ yard container )indicated cost would increase for once per week pick up by $7.86. The current rate for single can user is $7.62/month and with added 90¢ it comes to $8.52/month. The 1~ yard container costs is currently $59.28/month and would increase to 867.14/month. A statement showing comparable rates between City of Bremerton users and those outside the City but within Kitsap County was submitted to the Council for their information. Brem-Air's proposal is to pass through additional costs of disposal directly to the rate payer with rates being ad3usted with actual costs and that the increase be added as a Disposal Fee to the existing monthly bill. This mechanism is proposed because it does not require that the existing contract between Brem-Air, Inc., and the City of Bremerton be modified. It maintains the level of service at each of the customer class en3oy and wo~!d only increase the costs on the basis of actual disposal fee increases brought about by these new regulations. The rate increase being asked of the citizens of Bremerton is the same as that TAPE #489 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes October 14, 1987 Page 4 of 14 'APE #490 being assessed of all customers within the County in unincorporated areas. The disposal fee includes a 50¢ per cubic yard user fee that is being imposed by Kitsap County. The '50¢ per cubic yard is recognized as funding levels to support all of the solid waste management programs that are stipulated in the Comprehensive Plan. Bill KamDs, Attorney representing proponent, outlined how the County had undertaken an independent study, conducted by CH2M Hill· to verify information submitted with the rate increase proposal. The outcome of that study affirmed the identified costs and justification for the rate increase. Comparison figures were provided showing cost in the Seattle area vs lower rates in Kitsap County and stressed the only way to keep them at a lower rate would be to be able to have an economical disposal operation. By State Statute, effective July 1, 1987, landfill operators must comply with post closure requirements by depositing $5 million in a trust fund with the County as beneficiary. The Department of Ecology is preparing guidelines to carry out this requirement and upon completion the landfill operators will be bound by them. Mr. KamDs pointed out that Brem-Air has been a good neighbor within the community, helping the less fortunate, helping social organizations and voluntarily agreed to include EEO and Affirmative stipulations in their contract with the City when requested by the City. The following individuals spoke in opposition to the rate increase proposal: Art Anderson, 1712 Ohio; Kate Lacy, Northlake Way; Jim Adrian, 821 Washington Avenue; Glenn Vockrodt, 1409 N. Marlo; Elizabeth Buell, 1722 High. The following concerns wer~ expressed during testimony given by individuals named above: not enough information provided, Brem-Air contact with City should be opened for re-negotiations of other items Price Index in Contract · ~ should be reviewed to see if it is appropriate and to exchange it for another if desired; the City service costs should not be compared with County due to, County not having mandatory pick up, campaign contributions to all three County Commissioners and possible influence, inadequate public notice, additional special clean up periods should be held, developing a disposal monopoly and this is not healthy for County, Parametrix Inc., prepared County Comprehensive Plan...now Mr. Dunlap, of Parametrix is representing owner of Brem-Air, Inc., need to review financial statements to see if there is a real need for an increase, no time limit being set out for collection of additional charge, leeching of Olympic View Landfill being processed through City's waste treatment plant and causing some problems. George Cvitanlch, Executive Director Washington Waste Management Association, spoke in favor of the proposal and in particular the quality of service provided by Brem-Air Inc., to the citizen of Bremerton. On the issue of campaign contributions he was distressed that 'this type of information would be used to try and discredit the proponent. Bill Kamps, Attorney· stated, in response to the testimony given, that to his understanding it was the City who requested the specific Price Index that is included in the contract (note: during time of Commissioner form of government). Mr. Kamps disagreed with Mr. Anderson's comment that this is a Brem-Air contract question - this is a Kitsap County landfill issue and the need to pass through TAPE #490 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes October 14, 1987 Page 5 of 14 a cost to the citizens of Kitsap County. As a clarification of the DOE guidelines mentioned earlier, they are guidelines for ~andling the trust fund money as it accumulates over the years. The environmental standards are here and now and increased operational costs are being incurred. Not understanding significance of references made to campaign contributions, Mr. Kamps stated that people who care about their community do support candidates running for positions in local government. If additional information is required to support the rate increase Brem-Air will provide it, however, CH2M Hill has already studied the issue and has come out with an affirming position on increased landfill operation costs. In regard to an additional special clean up effort during the year, Mr. Lindren would probably support it if he were asked. Richard Dunlap, Parametrix Inc., stated that the operations at both Hansvill Landfill and Olympic View Landfill are subject to audit by the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission's right of affiliated business interest. This is different than any other type of auditing - the reason it exists is there is a 1938 statute which states there must be an arms length associations between a tariff holder under UTC Franchise and any affiliated business. All franchised collections routes are audited by the Utilities and Transportation Commission as often as rates are changed. There will be a rate request, similar as that proposed for the City of Bremerton, to all franchised collections in Kitsap County and that will trigger an audit and that will occur in 1988. For every month the rate increase beyond August I was not approved, the cost increased 6¢ per-cubic yard. That issue will be the same for the City of Bremerton - for every month beyond November I that the rate is not approved there will have to be a necessary increase. The full disclosure costs were not available for this date but a full outline of all customer classes in the City of Bremerton and resulting impacts will be provided within a few days. The rates cited as "pass through fee" are not subject to any other surcharge or taxation. The County has not removed its ability to replace the Hansville Landfill, they have the option to either build a new landfill or build a transfer station. The environmental risks of having a second landfill in Kitsap County are twice the risk of having all of the facilities located at one location. The dollars to deal with this are included in the rate increase up to the 1989. Hansvill Landfill as it exists must close - it canot cost effectively and environmentally meet the new regulations. Testimony given stated that adequate notice was not given to the public - for the past five months information has been given stating the needs and requirements that must be met by the operators of the landfill. Mr. Dunlap concluded that the rates between the City of Bremerton and Kitsap County users are very comparable once the City's franchise fee tax is subtracted. Mr. Collins stated that the State Legislature recently enacted legislation regarding this subject and he would need more time to study the issue before he could' make a decision. Mr. Johnson expressed concern that the Resolution spoke only to the single can users and needed additional information regarding commercial rates. TAPE #490 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes October 14, 1987 Page 6 of 14 #0338 #0850 Mrs. Lonq acknowledged that Brem-Air has been a good neighbor in the community and appreciates his good service. She would support and encourage more intense recycling programs and placing some type o-f responsibility back on the toxic waste manufacturer and not place the burden of costs on the single can user. Ms. Long also was concerned with a ~monopoly of services within the community. Mr. Hornin~ stated for clarification that the proposal presented is not one to open the City's Contract but to be added as a supplemental charge. If the City does open the contract then more study must go into the discussion. Mr. Johnson requested the City Clerk obtain a copy of Kitsap County's CH2M Hill study and include in the resolution an ending date for the surcharge - 12-31-91. M/S/C/U(Collins/Johnson) to continue this item for no less than 30 days. 6C - CONTRACT AMENDMENT - AlIA FLEET MAINTENANCE SERVICE, #AB87-274 Section 3.08(a) of the City's contract with ARA Managed Logistics Systems for fleet maintenance provides for annual budget adjustments. Improved management efficiencies have resulted in decreased operating costs. City staff and ARA have concluded that the target budget for the year beginning November 1, 1987, can be reduced by $21,842 to $431,641.00. All other terms, conditions and performance standards will remain in effect. Rich Hanna, City Treasurer,-stated the Operating Departments as well as Administrative staff have been very satisfied with the performance of the contractor for the first year which concludes at the end of October. The rate being proposed for the second year contract represents a savings in excess of $20,000.00 over the first year's budget. Mr. Waibel pointed out that in addition ~o the decrease in costs, the down time of City equipment has been reduced by 1/3 what had been in the past, the service is better, PM maintenance has been increased, all of the vehicles are in better repair than they have in 10 years and all accomplished for less money. M/S/C/U(Crutcher/Waibel) to approve Contract 2754 target budget of $431,641.00 for the year November 1, 1987 through October 31, 1988. ?A - ORDINANCE (FIRST READING) AMENDING ORDINANCE #1279 - SEC. 10.20.010 RULES AND REGULATIONS; MARKINGS POLICE CHIEF AUTHORITY, #AB87-275 Currently the City of Bremerton and the State of Washington are operating under the guidelines of the Manual in Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) which was developed to enhance vehicle pedestrian safety throughout' the United States. City Ordinance #1279, regarding signs and markings on or near public thoroughfares is not in keeping with language found in.the MUTCD. It is proposed that the ordinance be amended which will alleviate any confusion as to the signage being utilized by the City of Bremerton. TAPE #490 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes October 14, 1987 Page 7 of 1414 #0959 Ian Sievers, City Attorney, stated it is desired to have the Ctty's regulatory signs conform to the Uniform Code for liability purposes and to be consistent state-wide. Also the City's code reflected that the Police Chief had authority to install and maintain these devices and the RCW's require that it be the City Traffic Engineer and City Engineer. Mr. Johnson questioned who will regulate time limits for parking zones throughout the City and does this action put that responsibility under a single point of contract? Ian Sievers stated that now is lists the Police Chief and that responsibility should be in the Engineer's scope of responsibility. Now the Traffic Division of the Police Department make recommendation for placement of limiting signage and the City Engineer would have final authority on the decision. Ian Sievers reported that an Agenda item will come before the Council setting up a Traffic Safety Commission which is an interdepartmental discipline which will make recommendations on traffic flow and traffic devices to the Engineering Department. This Commission will incorporate Planning Department, City Attorney, Risk Manager, Traffic in Police Department and City Engineer's office. M/S/C/U(Colvin/Crutcher) to approve Ordinance on first reading amending Ordinance #1279, S.1 regarding signs and markings on or near public thoroughfares. ?B - ORDINANCE (FIRST READING) ESTABLISHING NEW PROCEDURES FOR TERMINATION OF WATER SERVICE AND REPEALING B.M.C. SECTION 15.04.184, 15.04.188 AND 15.04.410, ~ABSY,2&I This ordinance would establish first the City Water Department's authority to terminate a customer's water service; and second, new procedures for water termination. The major difference between the proposed and the current ordinance is that the latter does not provide procedures for appeal of water utility decisions. Under the new ordinance, the Utiltty's decision may be appealed to Bremerton Municipal Court and then Kitsap Superior Court. However, Municipal Court may assign the appeal to the Office of the Hearing Examiner. The City Council would hear no appeals relating to termination of water service. This ordinance would affect current B.M.C. Sections 15.04.184, 15.04.188' and 15.04.410. Ms. McCluskeV, City Clerk, stated that the Court Administrator, Kathleen Johnston, had concern regarding the jurisdictional authority to hear these matters and it was to be researched by the Municipal Judge. Ian Sievers, City Attorney, stated that it was determined that the question regarding jurisdiction was clarified and that they could hear this type of item. Ian Sievers stated for correction a statement made on the Agenda Bill, noting the next to last sentence which read: "The City Council would hear no appeals relating to termination of water service", - as procedures stand presently, a second appeal can be brought to the City Council. Mr. Sievers indicated his support of the Hearing Examiner process, however, he also felt that a less costly method to hear appeals, which did not usually involve large sums of money, would be feasible through the Municipal Court system. TAPE #490 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes October 14, 1987 Page 8 of 14 Bill Duff¥, Utilities Director, stated that the intent was to try and set up a mechanism that was both efficient and affordable to the general public. Sue Motcan, 327 S. Charlott, questioned whether or not this would overload the Court, and if the decision was found in favor of the person appealing, who pays the charges, what is the filing fee and would they be required to have an attorney present. Ian Sievers stated the Court would not be over burdened, citing only one or two cases to be heard per month and there is no need for an attorney to be present - they are informal with no strict rules of evidence and a Judge is not required to hear the appeals as the Court Commissioners can serve in this capacity. The filing fee is $25.00 regardless who hears the appeal, Municipal Court or Hearings Examiner and in the event the appeal is upheld, the fee will be refunded. Pat Cater, Sheridan Neighborhood Association, asked if this ordinance is passed will this mean a Hearing Officer will be hired. Mr. Waibel stated that the City already has a Hearing Officer under contract. Hank Clark, 129 Sheridan Rd., expressed his concern that the issue as presented was somewhat confusing. He could not understand how a Judge would get involved in disagreements over water bills and did the City have a paid employee who served as Hearing Examiner? Mr. Horninc explained the City did have a Hearing Examiner and that the Court Administrator of the Municipal Court hear the appeals, not the Municipal Judge. Ian Slavers explained that presently there is no administrative appeal process through the City and the recourse for an appeals is through District Court or Small Claims Court. Under any appeals process the first step required is to try and work out the problem with the Department and if that is not successful then an appeal can be made, if this process by filing an appeal with the City Clerk and having the appeal heard within S0 days. Mr. Johnson expressed an opinion that no matter what type of appeal process is used, the citizen has the right to address the elected official. At the present the individual with a problem goes from the Department Head to Assistant Department Head to Superior Court. Also, there is concern about adding additional responsibilities to the Municipal Court to justify their continued function. Mr. Colvin stated that citizens should have the right to come before the Council at no cost to make their appeal. Mr. Collins pointed out that Council is a Legislative body just as Congress of the United States and the Congress does not hear court cases - nor should the Council. However, the Council can designate someone else or should be referred to the Mayor for resolution. Mrs Lonc supported a "chain of command" which included the Department, Mayor and then City Council, to act as the appeals process and eliminate a costly fee to the person appealing. Mr. Crutcher pointed out that Council Committees are available, along with staff, to hear any problems or concerns and that this system of communication can and should be utilized. TAPE #490 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes October 14, 1987 Page 9 of 14 #2117 Mr. Waibel asked how long does it take to hear a water dispute in an appeals process? Ian Sievers stated about 10 minutes depending on how technical a problem. Mr. Dawkins questioned how many complaints per month are -processed. Bill DuffV stated that there are about 250 delinquent accounts per month and that 99% of them are resolved before water is shut off and 15-20 per month that require additional research. The only thing that is required is that the customer submit their request in writing. Of those 15-20, one customer may be turned down. Two full-time staff members are needed to handle the billings. Mr. Johnson expressed concern that this is setting a precedent - this is the first administrative appeal being directed to the Municipal Court and possibly within five years, if precedent is set now, next will come business license, sauna parlor, etc., and then the case load would increase and bring about requests to increase size of the Court. Ian Sievers stated that he had thought of utilizing Municipal Court for business license appeals in addition to the water issues, but that other appeals boards are necessary to hear issues on building and fire safety, etc. Mr. Johnson questioned Court Administrators having the proper skills to hear water bill issues. M/S/C( Overson/Collins)To approve Ordinance on first reading establishing new procedures for termination of water services and repealing B.M.C. 15.04 i84, 15.04.188 and 15.04.410 - Vote: In Favor: Overson, Dawkins, Crutcher, Waibel Homing, Collins Oppose: Long, Colvin, Johnson 7C - ORDINANCE (FIRST ~ING) ANNEXING UTILITY OWNED LANDS - ANDERSON CREME, GOLD MOIINTAIN GOLF COURSE AND ADJACENT PROPERTIES, #AB87-2&4 In order to annex properties, the City Council must adopt the implementing ordinance. Ian Sievers, City Attorney, stated this is a re-first reading With a reduced area of annexation based on the original intent of the department in requesting annexation of Utility properties - the Utility excluded a portion of land that was involved in a land trade with McCormick Inc. Mr. Sievers explained that Council would not be going through the 10~ and 75% petition process because once Council accepted 3urisdiction through the 75~ petition names can not be removed from previous petitions. State law does allow Council to adopt less than the proposed annexation in the petitions. Ken Hu~hes, annexation staff, stated his support of the first reading of the ordinance, noting that there was a property exchange and removal of 160 acres was important to accomplish that action. Sue Morgan, 327 S. Charlotte', questioned if the portion of land to be excluded was the same piece of property that was just annexed into the City. Ian Sievers stated that the City approved on first reading annexing of properties that TAPE #490 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes October 14, 1987 Page 10 of 14 #2865 did include a piece of property that is being exchanged with McCormick Inc., however annexation has not be completed and this proposal excludes the exchanged piece of property from the Annexation process. M/S/C(Collins/Colvin) to approve ordinance on first reading, providing for annexation of certain territory to the City of Bremerton and incorporation the same within the corporate limits. Vote: In Favor: Oppose: Overson, Dawkins, Crutcher, Waibel Homing, Colvin, Johnson, Collins Long 7D - ORDINANCE (FIRST READING) AMENDING THE BLDG. & FIRE SAFETY CODE; REPEALING ORD. #4087; AND READOPTING AND AMENDING SECTIONS OF ORDINANCE #3966, #AB87-276 This ordinance repeals Ord. #4087 and re-adopts provisions of the former Building and Fire Safety Code enacted by Ord. 3966. As outlined below, some amendments incorporate changes made in Ord. 4087, some changes in that ordinance are not continued, and some sections common to both 3966 and 4087 are stricken due to restrictions placed on local jurisdiction authority to deviate from the State Bldg. Code. In addition, Appendix Chapter I, Division I to both the Building and Fire Codes which had been passed in both 3966 and 4087 is amended for policy reasons. Ms. McCluskeV, City Clerk, pointed out a correction in ordinance, which should read... Section 10. Window awnings supported by an exterior wall of Group ~, Division 3, and Group M Occupancies when projecting not more than 54 inches. President Hornin~ questioned if he should step down due to a possible appearance of fairness. Ian Sievers, City Attorney, stated that because it is a legislative decision and not on a particular piece of property that there is no appearance of fairness/conflict of interest. Richard Muma, Building Official, stated the reasons recommended changes are being proposed is not to change the intent of Ordinance 4087 which was adopted by Council, but to clarify some of the sections, remove some of the existing language in the ordinance, create some consistency between the City's and County's codes and comply with some State regulations. The first item proposed is to re-adopt.of 1985 codes as mentioned in Ordinance #4087 and to implement them verbatim. (2) Chanaes administration of Appendix, Chapter 70, Excavation and Grading from the EnGineer to the Building Official. The Engineering Department will review all plans but the Building Official will be the permit authority. (S) Substantive changes to ventilation, foundation requirement of UBC are stricken... currently are not in compliance with State law, the State requires that the Building Code not be amended without approval of the State Building Council for codes that address i to 4 dwelling units. (4) Permit fee exemptions for small storage buildinG, fences under 6', certain repair work valued at less than $5.00.00 installation of flooring, permits for identical buildings - also presently not in compliance with State law~ and action is desired to reinstate these exemptions. (5) Sprinkler reauirements for Group R occupancies is added i this is ~opied verbatim from Ordinance 4086 and re-adopt without any change. (6) Appendix - I, 1 Life Safety ReGuirement for Existing BuildinGs is amended to re---define the purpose TAPE #490 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes October 14, 1987 Page 11 of 14 APE #491 intended in providing minimal improvement for standard buildings. The appendix is not to be applied to all existing buildings, but only those which are determined to be a~ hazard to life or property in some respect. This is the same power to correct given the Fire Marshal in UFC 1.103. Compliance schedules for all existing buildings which is impossible to enforce with limited staff. Ordinance 4087 added various nuisance enforcement powers not related to structures. This regulations shall be re-adopted under Title 9. This proposal designates the Building Official and the Fire Marshal choose which buildings need attention and they then set a time schedule depending on the severity of the problem. Also, this amendment will be made in the Uniformed Fire Code (7). (8) No chanqe in the Uniform Plumbinq Code - to be adopted as written. (8) A chapter requlating political siqns is retained from Ordinance 4087 and is in the Sign Code adopted by the City - Administration does not feel this is an appropriate area for this political sign ordinance. Building Department should deal with issues of clearance, construction of a sign, height of sign, area and design but not the location and type of sign. (9) Dangerous Buildin~ Code - it is desired to adopt this code as it is written with some changes, to include certain areas of RCW that would address the way liens are placed against properties. Mr. Muma stated that Ordinance #4087 is a 51 page document which only represents only amendments to the Codes that have been adopted the proposal before Council, condensed into an 8 page document, that still performs the same function but allows a more efficient enforcement process. Staff recommends adopt as presented except for the removal of the Political Sign section. Andrew ParVpa, 1122 Hayward, stated for clarification that the proposed changes would allow installation of a fence not over 8' without a variance .... question - from what would one measure from? Richard Muma stated that the Building Code Ordinance addresses the structure of the fence and wind shear capabilities. There is a statement in the Ordinance which states: "that this shall not exempt other requirements of any other provisions of the Code or other laws or ordinances of this jurisdiction". So, the Zoning or other requirements still comply. Mr. ParVpa cited the 8' hedge at 11th and Perry, thought trimmed it did block vision, does this proposal allow this property owner to build a 8' solid fence without.a variance. Mr. Horninc stated for' clarification that the individual would have to obtain a permit, however, there would be no fee. Mr. Pratt, Planning Director, stated that a building permit would not be required but it cannot be built under the Zoning Ordinance and would be up to the Zoning enforcement to take any action. Mr. Muma stated that what is trying amend the Uniform Building Code by deleting this section and it cannot be amended without the State Building Code Council's approval - this section is now in the Building Code and it would require them approving the City's amendment before the City could adopt it. Elizabeth Buell, 1722 High, questioned by her neighbor could have a hedge that is 9 ft., when she cannot have a fence 9 ft.? Don Pratt stated the current Zoning Ordinance defines a fence adequately and is probably an interpretation whether the hedge functions as a fence or as a tree or vegetation and he was not sure if the new proposed Zoning Ordinance addressed this issue. Since a hedge is not a structure it is not covered by the Building Code. Mrs. TAPE #491 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes October 14, 1987 Page 12 of 14 Buell asked what could be done with the hedge which is hanging over the sidewalk and her property. Mrs. Long suggested that Mrs. Buell speak with Mr. Pratt as the City can do something about a hedge blocking sidewalks. George Allen, 1300 NE Dawn Rd., supports adoption of Codes just like they are written, however, he foresees problems with the Planning Department and Planning Commissioners over definitions. Mr. Horning requested an explanation of the Sprinkler Requirement section. Mr. Muma stated staff is recommending re-adopting 6(h): "Group R, Division I Occupancies. An automatic sprinkler system shall be installed in Group R, Division 1 of Occupancies of 10,000 or more square feet or having five or more dwelling units". What this means is an apartment house or motel that is in excess of 10,000 square feet or has more than 5 dwelling units will be required to have an automatic sprinkler system installed. Mr. Homing questioned if that requirement was presently in force and how long ago? Mr. Muma stated yes approximately a year ago. Mr. Collins reported that the Council Operations Committee had reviewed this proposal and recommends a do pass on this item. Mrs. Lona stated she agrees with the Planning Department that Section9 relating to Political Signs does not belong in the Ordinance. Mr. Johnson expressed conceTns relating to the fixing up of older buildings in Bremerton and in the past the Council has taken a strong position to support legislation in order for them to be improved .... is the City now backing off on this commitment? Mr.Muma stated no, in fact the Ordinance as written now states that the owner has a period of three years to correct any problems in a building as amended in Ordinance #4087. The proposed change allows a schedule that meets the Building Official requirements which could be a shorter period of time for compliance, so that the City can become tougher if desired. Mr. Johnson questioned if the three year period would apply in addition to the suggested amendment? Mr. Muma stated that the three year period would not apply. Mr. Johnson raised question - how much fixing up has been done? ME. Muma stated none to his knowledge, however, there are other Code sections which allow taking very rapid action if desired. The Dangerous Building Code will address unsafe buildings, the Housing Code will address buildings of not sufficient stature for dwellings and the Nuisance Code will address areas not maintained well. If it is determined that there is a life threatening situation in any buildings the City can demand that they be correct within 60 days. Don Pratt stated building enforcement comes under the Planning Director's administrative responsibility and the stimulus for making the massive changes was the frustrations felt by Mr. Muma and himself at not being able to use the existing ordinance to bring abatements and enforcement to fruition. A drastic change from current practice is that Mr. Muma will be empowered to write citations Just as a Police Office is to write traffic violations. Previously the issue had to be handled by the City Attorney and then wait for a court docket. Mr. Johnson supported continuing the three year period unless directed to take action sooner in the ordinance. Mr. Muma stated he did not object to the concept TAPE #491 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes October 14, 1987 Page lS of 14 but did object to the mandate that all buildings shall comply and they are concerned they do not have the resources to iDventory all the buildings in the City and tell every property owner that they will comply within a three year period. If it is included in the code it is leaving the City open to liability because the Code is mandating that these buildings must all comply. #0828 Mr. Hornina, Mrs. Long and Mr. Overson supported delaying any action until further study of this issue can be made. M/S/C(Waibel/Colvin) to approve ordinance, on first reading, revising the Building and Fire Safety Code, B.M.C. Chapter 17.04, by adopting 1985 editions of uniform construction codes and modifying administrative provisions of the code, except for Section 17.04.205. #0913 7E - ORDINANCE #4124 (SECOND READING) AMENDING ORDINANCE #4052 TO INCREASE TAXICAB 'FLAG DROP" FEE, #AB87-268 M/S/C/U(ColvAn/Long) to approve Ordinance #4124 amending Ordinance #4052, S3, to increase the permissible taxicab "flag drop" fee from $1.00 to $1.50. #0942 ?F - ORDINANCE #4125 (SECOND' READING) CHANGE IN LAND USE RESTRICTIONS (CLUR) TO ORDINANCE #38?5, (RZ-17-86), APPLICANT: TON & LINDA BARRETT/PENINSULA DAIRY QUEEN, INC., #AB87-270 M/S/C/U(Waibel/Long) to approve Ordinance #4125 repealing subsection I - Conditions #6.f.l(a) and 6.f.1(c) of Section i of Ordinance No. 3875 amending Ordinance No. 3682, previously amended by Ordinance No. 4096, relating to conditions imposed on the rezone located at 5000 Kitsap Way. 7G - ORDINANCE (FIRST RMADINGJRELATING .TO SCHEDULING OF REGULAR MEETINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND AMENDING MUNICIPAL CODE 2.04,010, #AB87-2YY Ian Stevers, City Attorney, stated that the present ordinance requires that the regular meeting if it falls on a legal holiday or election day will be rescheduled for the first business day following. Council has indicated that it would be more convenient for their scheduling and Council Agenda packet deadlines to have flexibility to set that before the regular meeting if it falls on a holiday or election day. The change allows flexibility to schedule meetings any time during that week and following procedures used for "Special Meetings" Mr. Hornin~ questioned if this would bring Council in to conformity with the City Charter? Mr. Sievers stated yes. Sue Moraan, 327 S. Charlotte, questioned if there would appropriate notice given of meeting date changes and is there a time limit for the notices? Ian Sievere stated that it is set by State law - 24 hours prior notice. Mr. Johnson suggested that the ordinance be changed to allow Councll to change meeting dates for reasons other than just holidays and Election Day. ~ .e'~----ers~J~L~/suggested inserting the wording "or is requested by a majority of Council" after the word "held" and remove the work "or" after the word "holiday". TAPE #491 City Council Rpg. Mtg. Minutes October 14, 1987 Page 14 of 14 #1118 M/S/C/U(Dawkins/Waibel) to approve ordinance on first reading, relating to scheduling of regular meetings of the City Council and amending Municipal Code 2.04.010. Vote: In Favor: Overson, Dawkins, Crutcher, Waibel Homing, Collins, Long, Johnson Oppose: Colvin With no further business meeting adjourned at 9:22 p.m. EATHLEEN L. MCCLUSKEY, CIT~ CLERK iAEPOPPRO D err ' President KLM/SH/me cc: Normal Distribution File/Vault