Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/13/84TAPI:; # 14'7 UNAi-~PROVED DRAF'i' ~0000 CI7~' COUNCIL Ivik~u'ING MINtrlT_~ June 13, 1984 The regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Brererton, Washington, was held in the City Council Chambers, 239 Fourth Street, Brernerton, Washing- ton, Wednesday, June 13, 1984, at 5:30 p.m. with 'Council President Art Ander- son presiding. Also present were Councilmen E. L. Sturdivant, Bill Amo, Jim Adrian, Phil Drouin, Spencer Homing, Russ Johnson, Roy Mosely and Clyde Pacheck; City Attorney Bill Broughton and City Clerk F~thleen McCluskey. The meeting opened with the Pledge of Allegiance and the invocation was given by Councilman Amo. CONSENT AGENDA President Anderson noted items 2B, 2-C, and 2-E had been pulled frcm the Con- sent Agenda. 1~le minutes of May 31, 1984, LID Hearing, should be amended on page #2, 5th para. "Bob SnxDck ccraments" to read "He did not feel a new Admin- istration w~s ready to direct this project", and minutes'~ June 6, 1984, amended on page 4 - "Olympic Kidney Center Hearing" change Mr. Adkins to Bill Palmer and "Gold Mountain Fee Structure" - Steve Miller should be changed to Mike Stoltz. M/S/C/U/(Mosely/Sturdivant) to approve Minutes of May 31, 1984, as amended, and ~inutes of June 6, 1984, as amended, and Bid Call Request for Golf Course Equipment, ~AB84-305, and #AB84-302. Bid Call Request Roof Repairs: Mr.' Dave Patnon gave a narrative of costs on anticipated roof repairs for City Hall, Police Squad Roan, Fire Stateion #1, and Sheridan Park buildings. Several questions regarding costs, estimates, etc., were addressed by the Council and concerns regarding priortizing repairs. Councilman DroLLin asked whether there was enough money to do work schedduted? Mr. Patnon said there is money for those proposals. He further stated he had no information on City Hall but it is not funded. Council- man Anderson stated that maybe we couldn't do City Hall but get estimates. Mr. Patnon said contractors are relunctant to bid on jobs not intended for award. Discussion and concerns continued with Councilmen Homing questioning the estimate of $15,000 for City Hall roof and did the n~w estimated $60,000 include some structural repairs? Allan Kane, City Engi- neer said City Hall would be a ccmplete job because it was inpossible to deterre/he where leaks exist. #AB84-303 M/S/C/U/(Adri~/}lorning) to refer to Mr. Fane and Mr. Prisk for further review. ~0724 #0923 C. Bid Call Request - City Hall Elevator: City Engineer Kane stated the location determined for the elevator is where the existing stairs are situated. Other possible sites were reviewed but eliminated for various reasons. CounciLman Anderson noted time frame when the installation should be cc~pleted. Councilman Sturdivant asked if this was the most feastble location? Councilman Johnson asked if public will have access to Police Department. Mr. Kane answered yes to both questions. · bVS/C/U/(Adrian/Sturdivant) to approve request for bid for elevator. #AB84-304 E. Bid Award - Micro/Word Processing Hardware: #AB84-306 Data Processing Manager, Steve Perry, gave a narrative of the bids received by the two firms, "Financial Systems" and "Burroughs Corporation". City Council approvedrequest for bid call on May 2, 1984, for an 18 month purchase agreement. He said the proposal from Burroughs offers the city an initial savings of at least $2,550 and additional savings of approximate- ly $700 per system, ever and above proposal received frcm Financial Systems. His reccmmendation was to accept ~e Burroughs proposal at the earliest possible date. Councilman Sturdivant asked if the city was locked into Burroughs should addi- tional equiFremt be needed in the future? Mr. Perry stated no as we have the Option to buy non-Burroughs hardware. · M/S/C/U/(Johnson/Sturdivant) to approve bid award for an 18 month agree~_nt to Burroughs Corporation. City {Council ReV. Mtg. Minutes Jlmle 13 1984 Pg. 2 of Ut~IPPRO~D DPj~n'i' TAPE #147 (cont.) #1034 · #1370 PUBLIC RECOGNITION President Anderson opened the meeting for any public input. forth. NO one CEuTe MAYOR'S REPORTS - CML SERVICE APPOINTMENT #AB84-310 Ms. McCluskey stated in the Mayor's absence, she ~kas presenting a request by the Mayor to appoint Mr. John Law to the Civil Service Ccrruission. President Anderson asked Mr. Law to step forth. City Attorney stated Mr. Law was an excellent member of this conmunity. M/S/C/U/(Drouin/Mosely) to approve Mayor Dawkins appointment of Mr. John Law to the Civil Service Conmission. L.I.D.IF3tRING - "DOWN~DWN REDEVELOPMENT" #AB84-309 Mr. Joe Gero, Planning Director, noted all display materials, including a large map (back of rcxlm) and charts (near back door) , were alrailable. He introduced Mr. C%arles McCauley, Appraiser; Norm Jacobson, Jacobson and Asso- ciates; Richard Cannon, Waisman, Dewar, Grout & Cannon, and Mr. David Lades with Boettcher & Cot%party, Investment Bankers. He stated the Mayor' s Ccrmlittee is meeting weekly at 9:00 a.m. and will be meeting again next week and a reporf should be forthccraing on rec~nmendations of street patterns and options of parking in the downtown area. He then requested the City Attorney to make ccr~nent. City Attorney Broughton stated there were ccmmonts made about the parking and he gave some visual background when this issue came before City Council 2 year~ ago, and there was a Steering Cc~m~ttee who met for approximately 8 consecu- tive weeks which consisted of property owners, merchants and City staff. Thee was a lot of discussion about parking and consensus of the Ccmmittee was that without s~ne downtown improvements and dcwntc~n redevelgpment, we would not have to worry about parking. He stated parking was not lack of supply but allocation (referring to long term parkers). When the report came out frcm the Project Team, they shewed approximately 3,000 parking spaces available. He thought one thing the City must do is work with the property owners and merchants to reallocate that parking for short tem parking. Property owners have been consulted about their views on parking and the discussions have been fruitful. The Parking Ordinance proposed by the Planning Ccr~nission is essen- tially a product of those discussions. It sets up a Parking Comnission, cc~n- prising property c~wners, merchants ~d staff. Another discussion suggested that the owners allc~v their lots to be leased to the City and have those lots used for retail shopping. Data fr~n the Jacobson report indicated 3/4ths of the spaces at the City Garage facility are used for shoppers. Craven Center lot is 100% long term parkers such as shipyard workers. The City can make a deter- miDat_ion to make those spaces available for short term parking. The project will take about 18 n~Dnths to ccmplete in which the problems of the parking issue, should be solved including use of regulatory power. Regarding the boundaries, the City Attorney noted suggestions and ccmments of changes that could be made in the boundaries. The Planning office, along with the City Attorney spent considerable time meeting with Mr. McCauley and Monday met with Mr. George ~ck, Attorney with P~berts-Shefelman about the LID boundaries. It was determined with the help of Mr. McCauley that the boundaries should not be modified. Charles McCauley, Project Team Appraiser, indicated that on June 6, 1984, he met with the City Attorney, Planning Staff, and concerned citizens in City Council Chambers, to discuss considerations with interested parties, about extending the boundary North along Washington Avenue to 6th, however, the existing City Garage provides a block frcr~ the project core even though it is providing parking to the N.E. corner of the development and whether it is special b~mefit to the area, is questionable. The City Garage is a barrier to the core area and the land is separated with Washington. Another considera- tion addressed was, extending the boundary along Pacific, across 6th. He felt that 6th Street was still the lcgical boundary because it is a State Highway. There was some consideration that the boundaries should extend West of Park Avenue. Again, he felt the street itself forms a naturalboundary and the area in question would receive general beefit rather than special benefit, therefore, it would not be upheld by changing the boundaries. In conclusion ~. McCauley recorm~nded that the boundaries be set as defined. .- City COkU~Ci! Reg. Htg. ;,thnutes ,knee 13, ]984 Page 3 of f INPdgPRO\,IID DRAFI' Councilman Adrian asked }it. McCauley to define a "special benefit". Mr. McCauley stated, one with regular benefit to all businesses, long-term. Mr. Adrian questioned whether we could define a "special benefit" as established by State Law? Mr. McCauley thought s6 but asked the City Attorney to respond. Mr. Broughton confirmed the definition given was proper. Lou Soriano questioned whether the owners and merchants would be altcx~ed to respond? President Anderson said yes. Councilman Amo aksed, if there is a business outside this area that does extremely well, because of the project, is that a general benefit? Mr. McCauley stated if the real estate itself was a unique type structure and it 's function was related to uses or development in the LID boundary, the real estate will see impact and benefit. However if it does not fit in the decision it will be needed to determine best use. Generally real estate outside the boundaries would be general benefit in answer CounciLman Sturdivant asked Mr. McCauley if they resolved anything regarding tj~e area down on 6th & Park and whether the other side of the street ~Duld see a special benefit? Mr. McCauley stated, across frown Park or West side of Park, it would be difficult to extend the boundary but hopefully it will increase their general values. Councilman Adrian asked how "best use" of property is determined? Mr. McCau- ley sauid best use is described in categories of uses such as c~nlnercial proper- ties, apartments on long tenm leases such as 20 years, would have added bene- fits. Mr. Gero concluded staff cc~ments, mentioning that a number of people did ccme in last Wednesday and further, a number of people met with staff privately and he hoped that their questions were adequately answered. He ccmmented on a nationally recognized program - "Washington Downtown Main Street" which the city of Bremerton might be able to cclnplete. If approved, it may be a way of bring- ing sc~e more technological information to our dc~4ntown owners and merchants with the possibility of business assistance grant to hire a manager for the program. President/~derson called for input frcr~ the public. Mr. Lou Soriano, 2119 E. 17th Street; met with Staff Gero, Broughton, Mr. McCauley along with Mr. Weir and hoped that the staff was enlightened about their concerns. He felt the concern of the city was only if it was defendable in court. He stated many of the businesses would not honor the assessment. He said beth the Wheelhouse and Topside will beefit, but are not in the assess- ment area, however, owners have indicated to him they would participate. He refere~ced his interest in the Ccnm~Ddore Hotel and still questioned why the Rainier Bank was excluded and Great Northwest was included. He asked Mr. McCauley and City Attorney Broughton, wouldn't Rainier Bank's business decrease if the downtown did. McCauley and Broughton both agreed that the Bank could decrease. Mr. Sofiario questioned, why the 510 Washington building was not in the assessnent, as it is of the same character of the area assessed? His closing conFents were that if passed, there are those who will not agree with the decision, and wilt is defensible in court is not the concern of the prO- petty owners. Mr. Herb Effron, 5827 Lenea Drive N.W. (outside the city); stated that no one has determined whether the citizens will ccme down and utilize the area. He questioned who was accountable for the dollars if the develoF~nent does not bring in the revenue dollars. If an increase in revenues do not support assess- mets - what happens? He stated you cannot solve marketing problems with eng- ineering decisions. He felt the public must have inputs and support the pro- ject. Mr. Gero responded in part and referenced the Mundy-Jarvis report. He stated the original proposal is not what we have tonight. He noted the business areas drop in sales could mean tax losses of approximately $500,000 annually into the City' budget, which is 1/20th of the total. If somefig isn't done to improve downtown, the city will be forced to cut services, people will continue to move out of the area, and a trend to balance the budget dowllward will be established. He called for the need of a structure and project manager and a Business Improve- ment Association to study marketing. He felt parking could be improved today !;it'z' Cduncil Rekg. Mtq. Minutes .kme i~, 1984 Page 4 of UNAPPROVED DPAFT #2550 ~2654 TAPE #148 #0000 ~0413 #0482 ~0576 ~0664 #0759 and hoped that the Council is supporting the anticipated waterfront develop ment, esFecially in view of recent events. ~. Gene Kennedy, Chairman-Task Force; stated a survey was done by the Chamber of Ccrmerce and the public supported the project. He knew of 20 owner/merchants who would be deadset against inclusion in the project if the boundaries are enlarged. They were tt~ same individuals against the project 2 years ago. As far as tourism, we have the Bremerton Visitor' s & Convention Bureau and they could market our downtown and are trained to do so. Mr. Jerry Soriano, 509 4th Street; He stated that extending boundaries would include further Soriano properties, hc~qever, he wanted boundaries changed. He questioned staff to name one business that has c~rnitted to coming in should the LID be approved. He criticized that all consultants were from out of town and they confuse areas and are not kncwleable enough. Mr. Isaac Soriano, 520 Bu~ell; Not against downtown redevelopment but wanted what is best for the City. Parking is a problen and he further stated many bu~sinesses are leaving town for that very reason. He objected to the City Attorney' s suggestions that parking lot owners surrender inccme or charge light fees. Mr. Howard Hager, Seattle; Stated he represents investors and has an interest in the Sear' s building on 4th Street and other structures. He noted risk of "not doing anything", "risk of loss", but noted that the statistics on risks are not in the Mundy-Jarvis report. He stated he has been a constant supportez of the downtown project but suggested that there could be value in drawing beundaries dcwn sc~e alleys. He felt both Park Avenue, 6th Street and possi- bly Washington Street (areas excluded) will benefit substantially with down- town project. He said he strongly believed that Bremerton properties have opportunity and wanted to attract new business. He is already negotiating a possible new tenant for the Sear' s structure. As far as "whats highest and best use of property", ~ should be asking the people who will pay the bill. He stated the people he represents, including himself are willing to shoulder their bill if approved. He was positive that the 20 year investment is a good tiling if they can realize a 5% return. He felt no major business would ccme in until the city, property owners, and merchants made a cc~tment to the project. Mr. Gero responded to input and said short tern parking can be solved by the c~nitment frcm the property owners. He said maybe 3 months frcm now, but he is dismayed that barrels are placed on over-tin~ parkers. He hoped that property owners will work with the parking committee. He mentioned a recent trip by Ms. Virginia McBride who has taken pictures of Ventura, California. There are new shops and a similar tent like structure that is now in place in that city. Merchants appear to have increases in sales because of the develop- a~nt. Mr. Te~nlis Dejong representing a property owner in town, cited Eugene, OR. end their $7,000,000 project and stated they are even providing free parking, however, merchants are less than happy and ccmplaining, vacating, and the park- ing facility is virtually empty. Mr. Hager felt that the parking problem downtown would be solved if the people have something to ccme downtown for. They will pay a higher parking fee which is docLmented in the city of Seattle. People here are accustomed to low fees but one day they will have to pay the going price. Mr. Isaac Soriano said he has heard many cc~nents franpeople who will be unable to pay the assessments, or the tickets they receive franparking viola- tions. Recessed 7:20 p.m. Reconvened 7:33 p.m. Mr. Pete Flynn, Municipal Awareness Cctm~ttee - Chairman, Chamber of Cc~tnerce, stated there is no time left. Brefaerton's growth depends on it. Mr. John McConnell, Bremerton, stated he worked for Diamond Parking and remem- bered his "free parking promotion" presented to a comnittee with City Staff. It was turned down. He said that the validation process of parking has worked City C,_l~cil Re~. Htu. Minutes Jtme 13, 198~ Pg. 5 of UINLA, PPRO\]T~ [)JEFf/' #0852 ~0961 ~1302 # ] 440 #1523 ~t625 ~2434 for Diamsnd in 30 other cities witkin the State and oould not understand why it isn't done here. WallyMiller, former Acting Planning Director/City of Bremerton, worked in the San Diego redeveloF~nent. He agreed with Mr. Hager's comments and stated the project doesn't have a chance unless the property owners are behind it. Mr. Richard Cannon, DesignEngineer/Project Team, explained that the merchants must market their products and noted that one year ago, the interest and involvement were not there. Getting the retail ccrmittee involved has made a big difference. He has worked with city officials to get another major in the project with Sear's leaving, however, majors will not cc~mit until they know Bremerton is really taking on their ccmmitment locally. Br~nerton cannot compete with aM all concept but has it's own opportunity to have it's own image. He felt people in Bremerton will support it and interest initially cane frcm the retailers, not the property owners. The retailers are learning about marketing and there is interest in Bremerton by developers if Bremerton is ready to ccrmit. Ms. Katie Penmann, citizen of Bremerton, feels as citizen she doesn't count. If retailers do not make profit they will pick up and move and who then fcots the bill. ~k. Norm Jacobson, Project Team, worked with Mr. Cannon on the design portion of the project and feels the parking issue cm~ be solved. The covered tent establishes an image unique to the area. Fir. Gene Kennedy, noted since September 1981, there have been three years of studies, from covered shopping - parking, etc. If something is not done now it will be difficult to protect the 20 - 25% revenue generated frcmthe dcwntown into the city's budget. We should look at the decision as a "resurrection of ccnm~ity pride". }it. tierb Effron was in opposition to starting to build the final product. He criticized present city services as attitude that "no one cares" and until this attitude changes, the cc~mitment cannot be made. He stated you need the oonstituents behind it. Public ~put closed at 8:10 p.m. President Anderson asked that the Council members give input, after hearing staff and public comnent. Jim Adrian feels that concerns are legitimate on pints on boundaries but felt that the Council is not specialized to make that determination and it would only open a can of worms. He said project doesn't stop by Building a Mall, Waterfront develoFrnent, and parking. The risks are there, but not jm conparison to risk of not doing anything. He feels we will have something different to offer and will s port the pro~ect. He referred to a meeting Monday with four businessmen w~o indicated if the City does not move, we have to. Co~]cilm~ Russ Johnson, stated "going ahead is a better risk". He would have to vote for the project. Councilman Bill Amo, said the risk of not doing anything is too great and we must begin. He felt the risk was shared by the city officials, city govern- ment, property gwners and citizens. People speak with pride at going to Taco- ma to shop. He still has questions regarding boundaries but we t~red experts therefore he feels we do have to have downtc~n redevelo~t now. Councilman Anderson asked Mr. McCauley if it is possible to have a waterfront LID at a later date? Mr. McCauley had hopedwe would have it together. The problem is question of ownership of Washington properties and looking at highest and best use. Councilman Drouin referred to FIr. Lou Weir's concerns about the closure of 4th between Washington and Pacific and asked can we have access to store fronts. FIr. Gero responded yes, in that block. City Council PLug..qtg. ginutes Jume 1}, 1984 Page 6 of UNAPPROVED #2641 ~2971 #3029 TAPE #149 #0151 Councilman Mosely still has questions on boundaries and that there is a natural line of Cc~ercial both on 6th and Park Avenue as well as business near ferry. CouncilAnderson indicated much t/me has been spent on studies, hearings, etc., but we always stopped at the beginning of the process. He was for going ahead with the first and second steps and would have to vote that~ray. Councilman Pachek noted that time, years of work, input, consultants, etc., and felt we could continue to ask questions 50 years frc~now. He supports moving ahead. Councilman Homing felt that in the past, there was no cc~lnitment to go ahead with ~formation available and he would support the project. Councilman Sturdivant does not hear same cc~ments. He felt priorities are out of order and the parking issue, with 538 spaces now available. 700 spaces short is a problem. There is nothing in the project about developing the down- town waterfront. With vehicles on 4th Street, it would not be a Mall. The price of 4,000,000 for a roof, he felt, was out of line. He criticized the fact that phase II for 2,000,000 additional cost provides funding for parking problem but not in Phase I. He is concerned of the inequity in the boundary area mid would feel better if the property owners were more encouraging. Council Amo asked that, if approved tonight, is there a way to alter at a later date? City Attorney Broughton noted that the Ordinance would require 2 readings to be approved. · }p'S/E/(Adrian/Horning) that the City Attorney is hereby requested and instruct- ed to prepare for Council consideration an Ordinance for the follcwing purposes: A. To establish the boundary for the proposed downtown LID according to the proposed/recEded boundary line as set forth by Charles McCauley. B.Adopt the preliminary assessrent role as set forth by Charles McCauley. C. Adopt in concept the dcwntown develoF~nent plan entitled "Cross Sound Center; A RedeveloFment Plan for first reading and consideration." Further, the Cotmcil requests that the City Clerk place the proposed Ordinance on tj~e Council agenda on June 20, 1984, for first reading and consideration. Vote: In favor; (7), Johnson, Amo, Anderson, Drouin, Adrian, Pacheck and Homing. Against; (2); Mosely and Sturdivant Motion passed ~. Jerry Soriano asked if there would be a hearing on the assessments? City Attorney Broughton answered, yes, as required by State Law. He noted questions regarding closing of assessment roles, when the protest period is past, if the Council feels there is an error, and adjustments are all handled at the first assessment hearing. Mr. Isaac Soriano asked who has the right to hire the consultants and Presi- dentAnderson stated it was Council approval. Mr. Soriano asked when the Budget will ccme out and he was directed to contact the City Treasurer or the City Clerk for a copy. Ms. Katie Penmann was concerned about an "appearance of fairness" because city staff handed the Council a prepared motion, in print. Councilman Adrian said, certain facts must be contained in the motion. Councilman Johnson noted that there were 3 different motions on the draft, depending on the position of the Council. Recessed 8:48 p.m. Reconvened 8:58 p.m. MJ~TIF, K] - HOLLY TERRACE WEST-LONG SUBDIVISION #AB84-267 President Anderson asked the standard question if any of the Councilmen have a conflict of interest in this n~eting - all remained seated. }{r. Mosely was not present for the hearing. City C~l~lci] Req. Mtq, ~LLnutos J~ne 13~ 198~ Pa~e V of Ut@d°PROVED DP~AF2 #1166 The Holly Terrace West-long subdivision is approximately 10 acres of land to be divided into 27 residential lots. Planner Carol Saari gave a presen- tation of the packet provided to City Council, including the purpose of the suitdivision to include the 27 residential lots and one unplatted parcel. The location in W. on Sylvan frc~n Pine Road, north on Monticola Drive (in County). It adjoins Sugar Pine Drive and Bristle Cone Drive to the West (in the city limits). Not part of the packet was letter furnished to the Com~cil frc[n Fdtsap County Engineer Paul Dour, P. E. by Mr. Gero. It was 2] addend~n to memo dated May 14, 1984, regarding road surfacing. ~W. Cero noted that the Council has two options from the meeting held to- night. (1) to adopt the Planning Cannission reccnmendation to approve and all it's conditions or, (2) to schedule a formal public hearing by making any changes. Mr. Amo paraphrased for clarification, "we must accept as is or have a hearing", is that correct? City Attorney Broughton stated yes and mentioned that the statute is confusing. Council President asked if we needed to have slides. Everyone agreed that they were familiar with the area there- fore no one requested any. Ms. Saari continued her presentation, indicating that all departments have been contacted with Engineering, Fire, Police, and Traffic, along with Waste- water had same concerns. She noted the Planning Canmission conclusions on page #18, Item #7, Sec. A-G. A motion by the Planning Cc~mission to approve the preliminary plat with condi- tions, page #19, Item #2, Sec. A - G was passed. She stated that the applicant has already met sc~ne of the conditions. Mr. Jeo Gero, Planning Director, asked the City Attorney his opinion on the County's request to resurface the road (Monticola Drive). City Attorney Broughton t~s some questions whether we can ask the developer to do so. He thought the County would have to work with the developer. City Engineer Kane said it is custcfmmry for agencies to request conditions but not required to do so. He said ~e County was asking for greater improvement before the letter received yesterday. Councilman Sturdivant asked how many feet, if we were to accept that. Councilman Adrian stated it was acade~nic whether we can legally bind the developer. Mr. ~tike Pawell, 3612 Cedargrove and Bristle Cone, suggested o~g up the streets to spread out traffic flaw, and brought this up at last meeting. Mr. James Skowronski, with Packwood Engineering, does not agree with the City Attorney regarding statute. Councilman Amo had questions on access point and why it was rejected. ~ir. Jim Barner, Packwood Engineers, demonstrated on the map available, the two access concept and explained. It was then noted that item #2-A, page 19 of 19, "easef~_nt" that a 1976 doctment was drafted but never recorded and it will be corrected soon. He also stated that the City will have access to Tracyton Water District. City Attorney Broughton noted that according to the 1981 Statute, conditions for approval and disapproval interprets as "any changes must have a public hearing". Councilman Sturdivant asked about storm drainages, referring to page #19. Mr. Gero explained that the run-off will eventually enter the County. City Engineer Allan Kane said that drainage is down a canyon but water will leave corporate limits of the city and enter the County detention system. M/S/C/U/(Drouin/Pachek) to approve the Holly Terrace West-Long Sub Division as recommended by the Planning Ccr~nission with the following conditions: A. Portray the Auditor's NuWoer for the easef~-~nt granted to the City for access to the Tracyton Water Shed; B. Portray the dividing line between Monticola Drive and Pristle Cone Drive; C. Contact the Kitsap County Public Works Department re- garding regttired improvements to Monticola Drive ROW. D. Revise typical roadway section to show right-of-way ljne behind sidewalk. E. Revise pavernent width shown to ccr~ply with the City Engineer's January 24, 1984, letter to PAC-TECH. F. Sukrfft detailed designs of utility systems for City Engineer's approval prior to cc~anencing work on site. City CI3uncil Req. Mtg. Minutes J~e 13, 1984 Page 8 of UNAPPROVED DRAFF #1482 #1527 ~1616 ~1698 Storm Drainage: The proponent must provide a binding legal agreement to insure the continued proper func- tioning of any detention facility installed. In view of the City/County involvement this agreement must be approved by both jurisdictions. }is. McCluskey stated for the record, under Mayor's reports, that tonDrrcw is Flag day and a program is planned at the Chamber of Ccr~nerce. Mr. Mosely returned to the meeting. COUNCIL REPOi~FS CounciLman Amo noted that the Charter comittee selected citizens to comprise the conr0ittee and they will be notified by mail whether or not selected. Councilman Sturdivant was concerned that the Councilmen had not been given a list of successful applicants. Mr. Amo said he will furnish each a copy this evening. Councilman Drouin tj~anked Councilman Pachek for chairing the Wastewater Faci- lities ccrnmittee during his absence. He had an opportunity to tour the Waste- water facilities in Bakersfield, California, on June 5, 1984, and noted infor- mation brought back. He viewed a very "efficient" operation where the Council meetings are run by a wcman Mayor with a police officer as Sgt.-at-Arms when the need exists. A'I~DRNEY ' S REPORT ~he City Attorney was pleased to report that the City was successful in obtaining the file back, under a protective order, frc]n the County. This was in reference to an Affirmative Action case file the county obtained re- cently. NEW ENjSll~ESS - ONE-STOP PERMIT #AB84-311 The City Attorney suggested to the Council that this issue be discussed in an "executive session" tc~ards the end of tonight's meeting. NEW BUSINESS - AE AS TO ASSIG~M[NT OF CCUNTY/CITY GRANT-DEFERRED PAYMENT LOANS #AB84-312 Colleen Donley, Ccnrmanity Block Grant Coordinator gave a short narrativ~ of the Rehab program as it applies to the city of Bremerton. This Agree- ment will transfer to the city of Bremerton, housing rehabilitation grants and loans generated with City Block Grant fund's during the period of 1979 to 1982. The grants and loans are currently in the name of the Bremerton Housing Authority, the agency that administered the City's housing rehabilitation efforts during that tin~ period. The Agreement also transfers frcm the Brener- ton Housing Authority to Kitsap County all County grants and loans generated during that same t/me period. Further, the Planning and City Attomey's offices are currently researching the list of City grant and loans (Exhibit attached) to determine it's ccr~pleteness. If not ccnplete, it will be updated by City staff at a later date. M/S/C/U/(Adrian/Drouin) to authorize Mayor Dawkins to sign this Agreement on behalf of the city of Bremerton. NEW HUSINESS - PRELIMINARY 1984 CENSUS ESTIMATE/STATE CF NASHINGTCN #AB84-328 RESOLUTION #2037 Mr. Gero, Planning Director, gave a short presentation on methodology to determine annual census figures and the problen facing Bremerton regarding aircraft carriers in transition citing that on April 1, 1984, when census figures are compiled, there were no carriers in port, however, the USS Ranger was pre-scheduled and due to arrive shortly. He req~ested a resolution that would call on the State to provide a factor for Bremerton for the USS Ranger ~md would establish a provision in general. He noted deadline for ccrm~nts was June 22, 1984. · M/S/C/U/(Adrian/Amo) to approve Resolution #2037. 9:44 Recessed for "Executive Session" on "Real Estate" matters. 9: 51 Reconvened. City Council Req. Htg. Minutes J~e 13, 1984 Page 9 of 9 UNAPPROVEI} rIP, APT TAPE #149 #1727 · NEW BUSINESS - ONE-STOP PERvLITCENTER #AB84-311 M/S/C/U/(Adrian/Drouin) to deny a request from the Plann/ng Departrent for a lease proposal with Rainier Properties, as discussed in executive session. KATMI.RFN MCCLUSKEY, ~k ART ANDERSON, President City Council City of Bremerton