HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/14/83 BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL
SEWER RATE HEARING
FEBRUARY 14, 1983 1:00 PM .
A special public hearing was held by the City Council of the City of Bremer
Meeting was held at the Community Room of Great Northwest Saving & Loan,
500 Pacific Avenue, Bremerton, Washington, February 14, 1983, at 1:00 PM,
with Council President Anderson presiding. Those present were:
E. L. Sturdivant Bill Amo
Spencer Horning Jim Adrian
Roy Mosely Russ Johnson
Art Anderson Mayor Dawkins
Phil Drouin City Clerk McCluskey
Clyde Pachek
The meeting was opened with the Pledge of Allegiance and the invocation was given
by Phil Drouin.
Art Anderson introduced Mr. Bob Card, representing CH2M Hill, and asked him
to proceed with the presentation. Mr. Card started with the Project History which
con~enced in 1947 withthe development of the existing plants - moving to
1972 when Public Law 92-500 (Clean Air Act) which set legal standards and the
necessity for communities to have Secondary systems for sewage treatment was enacted. THis
law allowed cities to study and prepare a plan as to how they were going to
meet these regulations. In 1975 the Bremerton plan for Secondary treatment
of sewage was completed. In 1978 an Environmental Impact Statement was prepared
evaluating water quality and in 1979 the facilities plan was approved by the
City of Bremerton and agencies involved. A 50% grant from the State was offered
in 1982 along with a court order putting a stop to all expansion of users on the
present sewer system. (Plant design was completed 1981-82) Looking to the future,
if the proposal is approved, plant construction will commence 1983 and be completed
by 1986.
Project Planning Goal ....... To determine the least expensive method of protecting
water quality, as defined by law.
Sources of Pollution ....... Inadequate treatment; combined sewer overflow(CSO) of raw
sewage.
Level of Treatment .......... No treatment allows 100% pollution; presently we are
using Primary Treatment which takes 45% of the pollutant
bodies out; with the Secondary Treatment it would allow
85% pollutant free treatment.
City's System Diagram ....... Showing flow of sewage through treatment system.
Primary And Secondary Treatment Plant...as proposed in layout form.
CSO Condition .............. Now annual average overflows - 8150 overflow hours per year
125 million gallons of sewage
After improvements - no overflows at less than 0.15 inch/hour
rainfall. Annual average overflows: 690 verflow hours per
year, 3.3 million gallons of sewage.
Map of Existing Overflow Locations
CSO Control Alternatives .... Storm water inflow source reduction
On-site treatment
Storage, transportation, and treatment
transportation and treatment
Combined Sewer and Separate Sewers: present system allows combined storm drains
to flow into sewer system. Separate storm sewer would
eliminate overflow problem in regular sewer system.
Map of proposed Sewerage Improvements.
System Cost ................ Reve~'.~ Program desired:
Cash and carry program (4 years)
Bond financed (2 years)
Bond Financed - capitalized interest
$18.00 single family 1983-1984
$??.00 single family 1985
Mr. Drew Barton, Rate Economist with CH2M Hill outlined the procedures required
to determine sewer rates. Classifications of rate users as defined by Ordinace
3700.
~I~TMBTIMONIES
· be ~ro~t forward to the Council today.
Secondly, I object to the sepe~ration of rate hea~Tings from the former hes_rir~ that
Mr. Card presented with the sa~e information at the City Council Chambers which was
in violation of the law, which I can't site right now, but it made it unavailable
to many disabled people who wez~ not able to go up the stairs and that is one of the
reasons they are holdin4 the meeting here in this room so that it qualifies as being
legit.
I object also to the lower rates for the multi-family dwellings. I think that this
is indicating an advants4e for your apartment operators association, and a disadvantage
for all the single family dwellings - people- we are going to be paying the high per-
centage of this project.
I also object to the quotation or saying that the Navy's paying their fair share with
5.1 million dollar participation in this project. I think thejr share should be much
larger. The originsl sewage treatment plants that were built in the City of Bremerton
were funded 100% by the U.S. Navy because they needed something to take care of their
sewage. We have a new steam plant that will be built in the Shipyard and it has not
been incorporated into the projected flow and use by the Navy.
I object highly to the calculations proposed today and also think we should press for
high Navy participation in payment for this particular plant. One last closing
suggestion - there are petitions posted all over the walls of this room and I would
hope that everyone here will sign the petition asking the Department of the Navy,
U.S. Surgeon Genersl, Army Corl~s of Engineers for their analytical, tecb_nicsl and
financial support in this ly~oject. I think we need someone ~1 s~ that does not have
inside influences evaluating this whole project.
Ms. Long presented a letter which will be sent to our legislators enclosing a
petition. This is on file in the City Clerk's office.
Walterine Taylor, 2708 Callaban Rrive. I too would like to know who determined how
much the Navy is to pay. The bottom line is this - this is a place where people
retire - we don't have it to I~Y, now that's a fact. I don't understand all those
facts and figures but I know. it means money out of my pocket·
Robert E. Madden, 1128 N. Monl~omery. Mr. Madden questioned why sewer money is going
into the general fund and when it will stop. He stated certain people at City Hall
did not know it was going into the general fund and asked when it would be taken care
of. Mr. Anderson responded that this Council did not make up present budget and
it would be ts~en care of at the next budget.
Leo Olney, City ~Teasurer. The only portion of the water or sewer funds that go
into the general fund is the 20% tax that the city has for years imposed upon utilities
to go to subsidize general city government the other 80% does go into the sewer fund.
That amounts to about 1/2 million dollars between water and sewer and if you take that
out the Council would have to decide what services to discontinue or what other taxes
they can raise to balance the budget,
Bob Card, CH2M Hill. Whether or not rates go into the general fund is a matter for
this City and this Council, it is done differently in different places. But, without
trying to take sides on either issue there are services rendered by other city
departments on behalf of the sewer department and I believe the rate structttre that is
currently up for adoption coneins a justifiable support showing how other departments
like police, fire and what have you are contributing services to the sewer without
being reimbursed. ~ course the Council cam change that any way they please but there
is some ~chp for the rate that would ts.ke affect if this one is adopted. The other
thing I know some of you may be confuse4 when the Sewer Ordinance 3700 was shown,
is the fact that there hasn't been any rate action by this Council, that Ordinance
was adopted by the Commission approximately July of last year. As I recall, you are
not being kept in the dark by any actions that have been taken by this Council, it
has all been discussed here today.
John Rk~att, 504 Olympic Avenue. I live on a fhed income and I object to the sewer
rates. I do not know how. I cs_nmake it. I object to this hearing and the ones coming
up later in the month.
Elizabeth Buell, 1722 High Avenue. All this thing talks about is monthly and I want to
be sure it means bi-monthly. If this is monthly does it mean it will be double in
our bill? Why does the whole city have to be done at once? Why can't we use the
present plants and what happens if we can not finance this?
Bob Card, CH2M Hill. Let me repeat the questions, the first one was "why do we have
to do the whole city at once?" The answer to that is that the requirement was that
by a certain time which actually is some time past the City was to upgrade its
facilities to secondary treatment and so the whole city in terms of treatment system
did have to be done at once to satisfy regaliatory requirements. Now the two obvious
alternatives you mentioned is why can't we do the two treatment plants and forget
about this transmission back and forth between the plants. ~he reason is that it is
less expensive to transpor~ water or sewage between the plants than to upgTsxle both
plants. The other logical question you might ask is this some gold plated thdnag, s~re
we throwing away what we have and building brand new and the answer is no. The exist-
ing facilities, and I would encourage any doubters in the crowd to go tour them, are at
a point where something should have been done to them years ago and I thirLk anyone
who tours them will be able to understand the fact that the existir~ plants have been
long outdated and we looked at ushg whatever facilities were in place today into the
future and we have reused when possible. However, most of them would cost more money
to try and incorporate them into the new facility than to build new facilities.
What will happen if you don't do it? As a minimum eventually the treatment plants
will continue to decrease in performance, overflows will increase, there are broken
pe~ts in the system not functionel today so water quality in the inlet, if you do
nothing, will continue to deteriorate until eventually just raw sewage without dis-
infection or anything is going into the inlet. If you do noz~al repair type activities
then the cost will be subs~antial and you will not be grant eligible under the existing
grant program because the funds are siresHy allocated for that. If the City does not
ts_ke the grant theft is being offered to~y it is unlikely that they will be eligible
to receive grant funds in the future under this program. We do b~%ve people from the
Department of Ecology who can respond to specific questbns about that. In terms
of enforcement action the City would be subject to some enforcement action. The
first step is the court order that has been placed on the Lebo plant. I would like
to turn this over to the Department of Ecology representative to discuss that.
Glen Fieidler, Department of Ecology. Information relating to the establishment of
the Clean Water Act and requirements necessary to live within its restricts were
given by Mr. Fieidler. He explained the Department's position and how the cities
must me. ke necessary adjustments to their existing plants or provide new plant
facilities.
Elizabeth Buell cont. Why is this for 20 years, could~t it be for 30 or 40 so the
rates wouldm't be so high?
Bob Card, CH2M Hill. Over the years the standard desigu~ life of these treatment
facilities, principly the mechanical machinery, has been 20 years. Various
communities including yourself have managed to extend that considerably but to increase
the design on purpose beyond 20 years would require use of more exotic materials
in construction which you would find would ~d substantially to the rates you are now
facing. The facility you are presently using you are headir~ to 40 years right now
and with good operation and maintenance and low to moderate growth rate in the City,
you might see these facilities go beyond 20 years. However, in terms of capacity
the DOE has restrictions that they will only fund facilities for current use. So,
as this happens the city is getting some breathing room on growth ~cause a great
majority of the capacities required for combined sewer overflows which are much
larger demand on the system then people. So some growth will still be possible with
this plan for 20 years but if you grow at the rate you have in the past then in 20
years you will be at capacity and some sort of exl~ansion will be required. Ln terms
of paying off the bonds over 20 years I thi~Lk there are options there. It depends
on what the Council feels is the best financial package considering the City's future
interest.
Carl Rhodes, 2513 Reid Avenue. 8omethir~ that has not been mentioned here but has
been in the newspaper is the fact that maybe Port 0rcha~ could get in on this
sewer system. I thi~Lk Department of Ecology had problems with sewer system between
Port 0rchs_rd and Bre-~rton. At present they are contemplating a holding tank. If
we build a sewer what will we be getting - their garbage?
I am paying at present for using water during the summer and the btg businesses pay
lots of money but what is being done about the blacktopped areas they have with heavy
run offs into the sewers. I e~m sure they ~re not paying for that.
Art Anderson, Council President. We are not in with Port Orcha~. DOE said to Port
Orchai~d and Bremerton to go their separate ways. We have nothing to do with Port
Orchard in this project.
Richard B. Chrisinger, 337 N. Lefayette. I recently moved into my father's house,
who passed away this past year. I am aware from bygone years how the house appreciated
by going on city sewer. I kmow for a fact that a num~r of my neighbors are still on
septic.
I was reviewing some past bills for water consumption and sewerage. Up until just
recently sewerage fees stayed at ~7.70 for the 2 month operating period. All of a
Richaxd B. CbrisLnger, Cont.
sudden this last one jumped to $15.84 just for sewers. Being a property owner in
other sates and other cities in the State of Washington I have had to pay for storm
drain as well as sewnge and water. I was not aware of the fact that s/1 this so
called money went into the general fund, it should never gotten there in the first
place. I think the City Council had better go back and ta~e a look at it. We, you
and I, as present rate payera, senior citizens, retired, or whatever, I'm on a
fixed income too. And I can't see paying $20, $30, $40, $50 or my son who will
inherit my place from me. What about the bonds? ~he State of Washington is in a
mess because of W!~.
John Ryan, 1536 High Avenue~ We've been told here that someone with a single family,
busbend and wife, living in a duplex uses less water than a couple living in a house.
I do not believe this. I see most of you look like me, are retired and two of you
living in a house. I don't see why we should have to pay more for living in a house
rather than apartment. I don't see how they can substantiate this.
Bob Ca~, CH2M Hill. ~he City keeps records of water consumption of various users.
F~equently apartment dwellers will use a laundromat to do their laundry and other
things using less water than a single family. Regardless of whether or not they do
i~ fact use less water, a husband and wife living in an apartment using the same
water as a husband and wife living in a single dwelling will pay the same rate under
the new rate. In other words, there isn't any subsidy for multi-family dwellir~s.
~ it happens, when ycu examine the flows that go into multi-family dwelling~ they
frequently reflect fewer people per dwelling and the rates appear to be lower. You
typically don't see hushand, wife and four children living in an apartment. There
are many situations where they are in a single family dwellir~. So, the g-~eat bulk
of the difference comes from the number of people living in the dwelling rather thwart
other habits.
I~ew Barton, CH2M Hill. In terms of the rate we showed you, the only difference
between a single family dwelling and multiple family dwelling paying same customer billir~
cb~e and paying the same rate per 100 cubic feet of water used is the fixed charge
amount per account. It is based on the average amount of water consumption for a
single family and multiple family so the average single family class is about 800
cubic feet per month and the average multiple family usage is 550 cubic feet per month.
People out there who are above average users would pay more if it were variable rates
and there are people out there who have less usage and they would pay less if there
were variable rates. Where there is a fixed charge per account you have little inequity.
Mark Peterson, 1511 5th Street. With the proposed higher sewer rate I think there
will be people who will not be able to pay these payments. What I want to know is
the bottom line what will happen to them and what kind of gTace is the City offering.
l~il Drouin, Councilman. The City is looking into a "life line rate" to help the
economic distressed. ~'ne progl-am has not been figured out and there are various
grants, which the Mayor has indicated might be available, but limitations will be
the fact that you will b~%ve to come in and apply every six months and pay a small
fee and give your financial history. WeE, a lot of people do not want to do that
because they have a few bucks socked away and they don't want everybody to know
about it. One thing I noted with all due respect to Mr. Fieldlet of DOE, when the
qusstion was asked "what would happen if we don't do anything"? Well in conscious
I have to say if I were a p~operty owner on Dyes Inlet, I'd sue you. Because if you
are dumping raw sewage in my water, flushing it up onto my beaches and you have a
court oz~ier which we ~ve and you are not doing anything about it I'd see you in court.
We have all these sewer overflows on the M~anette peninsula and every time it rains
we are dumping 20,000,000 gallons per day.
Edith Miller, 143 N. Cambian. I really feel that this is going to hit the single
family very hard. By sir4Ele family I am talking about sidle people, busts%rid and
wife and retirees. I wonder if our gracious City Council had considered staying
within the $27,000,000 that they will have from the government grant s~ud the Navy.
And how much could be accomplished within that amount of money. I would also like
to know how many other companies were allowed to give a bid for this part and what
those bids were.
Art Anderson, Council President. No bids b~ve been awarded, CH2M Hill is the engineering
firm who designed the proposed project. The plans designed by CH2M Hill were given to
an engineering firm in Idaho and they evaluated it and came up with the same plan.
So these people are not building it - they are engineers of the design. Who is going
to build it - we'll probably get bids from all over the country because it is such
a large project.
Bob Card, CH2M Hill. %~ne question was~ "why can't we build a smaller project so it
is all paid for by the Navy and graf~ agency"? ~ne Navy's share and grant share is
Bob Card Cont.
of the project is reduced to some extent the City still pays the same percentage
of the project tb~%t they are paying today.
E. Hoffmsn, 527 6th Street. I've lived hiTe a long time, before we had sewers.
It has been not to long ago that we had to put some drainage from the streets into
the sewer, now why can't that water drain directly into the My. I know good s.nd
well with all this last rain no wonder the beaches have raw sewage because the plants
were not able to handle all the flow. Is there any way of diverting this water
into the bay through the Navy Yard down Park Avenue? I k_now these gentlemen are
doirhg thejr best sund we have to leave it up to them but also do our part as
citizens to help them.
Bob Card, CH2M Hill. One of the overheads shown showed the different kinds of sewer
overflow measures that were studied and one of those was doir~ sepe~ration that we are
talking about. And some of that is being done. Check the map in the back of the
room - we already had sewer in ground and want to get rid of storm water so City
storm sewers were plugged into the system to get rid of the water. If this separation
would have been done many years ago we would not have the problem today. In the
proposed plans there are many areas so indicated for this type of separation and
those are indicated by yellow squares and rectangles on the map. Most of them are
out on Manette Point and how it was decided whLh ones got done and which ones did not
was through a miniture study done on each one comparing the cost of separating
storm water from wastewater, cost of transporting it to the treatment plant and the
reason why so many of the separation project are out on Manette Point, it is the
furthest thing away from the treatment plant so it costs the most to make the system
big enouth to carry it to the plant. So on a case by case basis each of the cornlined
sl~ers were evaluated to decide if it was cheaper to go to this, than to make bigger
pipes to carry it to treatment plant. And so what you see on the map represents
what we believe as the least cost alternative for the City. Although as a policy
they could do this exclusively however instead of 48 million dollars it might be
60 or 80.
Mrs. Clark Fraser, 1028 Burwell. I am not one of the people who have, I'm one that
still has to work to eat. If you take $39.00 per month out of my paycheck it is
going to be a hardship on me and many others. I don't think we can afford it. What
is going to happen to a person in their home if they can't meet this...would there
be a judgement placed against their property?
Art Anderssn, Council President. That is a good question, I don't know the answer
or who can answer this question here tonight. I know there are different programs
where if you are older, are a]0ne, living in your own home there would be a lien
against your house as long as you live. You pass away, your house is sold and the
City takes out what is owed. Outside of this I can't say what the City would do at
this time.
Horace D. Dicks, 912 N. Montgomery. My question is regarding how the rates are
averaged. Last winter I had company which increased my water usage and made it
much higher than usual. Am I stuck with this higher average just because of that
situation and wLll I be billed for the whole year on that consumption rate?
Drew Barton, CH2M Hill. You ask about the highest months. Right now I think the
City's policy is the base is on the highest average of the winter months and carries
through the summer. It would require changing City policy on the administrative side.
Leo Olney, City Treasurer. If the Council saw fit they could change that Ordinance ,
to read the average of the three bi-monthly winter months. Right now it is the
highest and done each year - based on your highest winter consumption of the preceeding
winter,. So, each year it would be different.
Bob Card, CH2M Hill. I would like to add one other reason for setting up the average
or L,~ghest is to protect the rest of the rate payers from people who are fortunate
to get away to Arizona or wherever - during the winter. There was a comment made
a while back that someone cause in and complained that their sewer bill was 65-75¢
a month, that is because the person was away all winter and was billed on a very low
rate so there is a procedLkre to try and take care of this.
Willis R. Coffer, ?32 S. Summit Avenue. My question is "what kind of protection do we
have for cost overruns? ~erywhere you look...you see cost overruns. From my past
experience in the Shipyard this was faced continually. %'ne gentleman from CH2M Hill
tells me no, it is a fixed priced contract. It would not be affected that way. It
is important that we do all of this, hope you don't thLn_k I am here at the behest of
these people, but we can't keep dumping our sewage.. There were comments here why
doesn't the Navy pay for it, why doesn't the Federal Govel~lment pay for it, why
doesn't somebody else pay for it. Do you realize if everybody said that we would
in taxes be paying for what the Federal Goverrnnent would be giving someone else back
some place else. We tend to get the notion in our life today since along the ago
the Government's been doing so much for us we get the idea that all wealth resides either
Willis R. Coffer Cont.
big business or big government. Think about that a little bit you know that every
dime big business gets comes out of your pocket in the form of profits he makes on
what he sells to you, what Government gets out of your pocket is in the form of
taxes. Well, you may not pay the taxes now to pay for it, but your kids and g~andkids
will - let's pay for our own. Let's not be passing this on for our g~sn~ids to
pay later on because we asked the Feders.l Government to come fund it for us, so that
we would not have to pay for it now.
~ Anderson, Council President. The question was "what about cost overruns when
building the plant"?
Bob Card, CH2M Hill. As the gentleE said the typics_lly public works contracts are
bid in this state on lump sum basis where the contractor bid cash money on the barrel
head will build a facility for a set price. We s_ll have heard about WPPS - I believe
they have received a specisl vs~riance from the State to bid the project on a cost plus
fixed fee basis, which means the cost can ever escalate in the future. C~q a lump sum
bid the only cost overrun that can occur are things that a court would interpret the
contractor had no ability to foresee when the bid was done. Typically, those items
amount to about 5% of the lump sum bid ~nd there is an sdlowance taste, in the g~ant,
for exs~aple to cover what we c~_ll change o~lers in the rs~e of 5% - not the 3-~O0%
overrums you have hes~d about. Councilman Mosely has also asked me to elaborate on
the current bidding situation. A similar project was bid in Everett and the bids
came in approximately 20% below the en4ineer's esti~tes. It is impossible to gus_rantee
simLlar perforn~mce on this as it will depend on how m~ny other projects are bid
before yours. ~t when the rate economist - F~. B~on, was discussing earlier that
these numbers appear to be conservative that's because of recent bid results that
have come in which indicate perhaps today tb~t the biddir~ climate is favorable to ms~e
these bids. We've seen cases several years ago where the opposite was t~e, that's
why scheduling may be imporT~nt to your project in terms of the ultimate rate you pay.
Bill Amo, Councilman. This is in rega~ to the fixed charge the difference between
the single family and multiple family. During the recess I thought I heard that
the sidle f~mily rate was higher. Does that drive the single dweller - low income,
out when you have a fixed chs~ge?
Drew B~rton, CH2M Hill. The fixed charge per month for single family is higher than
multi-family because the single family class uses more water. That means that some
people in single family residential class that uses more than average and some use
less than average. The fixed charge per dwelling that gets lost in the rate so that
fixed charge is per dwelling unit and it is the difference in the flow for single
family on average and multi-f~mily on average. Whether a $3.00 difference ~r month
will drive someone out of their home, I don't know. There is no way to ~nswer that.
Alice McIntyre, 2422 H. Wycoff~ When does this go into effect. There is no vote
as far as I can understand.
krt Anderson, Council President. The testimony in the hearings are the beginning of
an evaluation of proposed project and the City Council will vote on it. We will be
making up our minds from the facts and testimony of the people.
Colleen Wachter, 208 S. Hartford. Why do the citizens of Bremerton have to be
responsible for other l~st City Officials mistakes? This should have been thought of
years ago and hopefully the Council we have now will have foresight to look out after
Bremerton's citizens. And sdso, this is going to be a hardship on a lot of people,
I'm not saying us especially, but I feel sorry for these people - you are getting it
every which way, government, city, Olympia. When is it going to end:
Monroe Smith, 619 N. Charleston.. I was very unhappy to hear about the money I was
payin4 in for the sewers was going into the general fund. It should have been
used exclusively for sewers. E~erybody is getting ripped off - since 1973, gas,
sugar, electricity, you name it we are gettir~ ripped off. People on fixed income
might be able to pay it now but what about in 15 years. I am against the whole
project. I'm sure they can come up with a cheaper system.
H. Brooks Snyder, 419 S. Lefayette. Question - isn't the debt service already on the
current sewer bills? At least that's what I've heard people mention these 15-18
year assessments were included in the current sewage bills and now learn that these
monies ~e going into the general fund, and lost somewhere. Hopefully it can be
retrieved and put back. Another questio~ - what alternatives were studied before
this issue boiled down to this one final plan? I'm not sure. ~Tom the response
of the people everyone seems hopeful that some other s_lternative can be employed.
Whether it is reassessment of what exists at the present time or whether the public
just says no to this whole project so something fu_v~her can be done. I'd like to know
(?)
H. Brooks Snyder, Cont.
r am also wondering about the feasibility of retaining both treatment plants for
future possibility. Wouldn't there be the possibility leaving one plant, on the
east side, where it is and the one here with some juggling of construction using
both of them with less cost? What is the comparison of diluting sewage during
storm run off. You talk about method of secondary treatment during the run off
100 gallons of water racing through the sewage system would certainly compare to
the amount of water that is necessary to trsat this sewage. For example, if there
is defeciation in a mountain stream after a period of time of flowing it is pure
again. Now, even when a sewer is separated what is the chance that combined pressure
of a pump station: may also flood and overrlm another pump station? What is the
possibility of re-evaluation by the US Covernment on the Trident impact to this
particular community?
Bob Card, CH2M Hill. Many alternatives were studied and they are contained in the
three volumes of documents and they are public documents so anyone who wo~id like
to view them may. The alternatives included reduced levels of treatment at locations
where there were more favorable receiving water conditions. ~hey included alternatives
to combined sewer overflow problems, included utilizing existing plants, different
processes for implementation at existing plants. A number of thing~s were evaluated
and this system was determined to be the least costly system. There is no premonition
about this is the way it should be. None of the old Commission members, in place at
that time, or City staff said this is the plan I want, make this come out cheapest.
So, I feel it was a very fair evaluation and is in fact least costly unless you want
to change the rules. The gentleman is right - there is a great deal of dilution of
sewage during run off, how much dilution is acceptable depends - people might not
feel comfortable if a single house was dumping into your water shed so that's a
very extreme case of dilution that might not be acceptable. It depends on the ability
of the receiving waters to naturally process the wastewater. That is why Seattle
Motto has a huge plant that may not have to go to secondary treatment because they
have tremendous assimilative conditions in their discharge that you don't have here.
So the dilution is a relative thing and the study indicates that the dilution is
inadequate.
George Goetz, 4138 G. Street. His question was read as follows:
we should have to pay for future expansion to upgrade the system.
accounts pay for it.
I do not believe
Let the new
Henry Streutker, 1004 ~Tenton Avenue. His question was read as follows: What has
been done regsurding senior citizens?
Mayor Morrie Dawkins,. There is help available to Senior citizens. We've all seen
it in the energy packages Seattle City Light is working on. Right now we are an
entitlement city and we have $400,000 comir~ in basically under block grant program.
We are repairing roofs, putting foundations under houses of'. low income people
that are the ones concerned about how they are marking these payments. We cannot
directly make the payments per month per say for the individual for the sewer program.
However we can, we believe.and are researching, use the money to put a cost against
each property and pay a certain amount of it. The helpline is being used lots of
different ways. We feel we can do something l~Xie this in this area. We don't b~ave
the exact figures and we've talked to government agencies and they want to know what
is it going to cost - they want to know what is the dollar figure you are asking for
and there are hundreds of government agencies helping in various wsJs. We will
definitely have some way of helping the low income. We are not going to let someone
who is living on $300-$210 per month come up and ms~e these p~y~ents. The Bremerton I.
Housing Authority has around 900 low income units. Those people will not be affected
by this program whatsoever, the Housing Authority is a Federal agency and does not
pay any sewer on a monthly basis - they pay a yearly grant. Another thing we are
going to try and identify is how many people are in the low income area.
Robert Stricker, 2011 N. Wycoff Avenue. Looking ahead and looking backwards we see
OPEC raised the price of oil and that increase was passed on to us by the oil
companies. It seems true of this system also. If enterprises have to pay more they
will just raise their prices so we not only pay in increase in our water bill but
also on merchandise we buy. This is something we have to think about. We will pay
twice instead of once. I hope it doesn't happen.
Lillie H. Willjams, 142 N. Cambrian. Her comment and concern revolved around what
is to happen to stop sewer backups during heav"y storm run off.
Recessed 4:00 until 6:00 p.m.
FEBRUARY 14, 1983
6:00 PM
Meeting was reconvened by City Council President, Art Anderson. Mr. Anderson introduced
the other members of Council - E. L. Sturdivant, Clyde Pachek, Roy Mosely,
Spencer Horning, Bill Amo, Jim Adrian, Phil Drouin, Russ Johnson.
Two representatives from Department of Ecology were present and CH2M Hill Engineering
Firm Representatives.
A presentation was given by Bob Card and Brew Barton, respresentatives of
CH2M Hill, outlining the proposed project in the same manner as at the 1:00 PM
hearing.
Mrs. Sagara, 1203 High. Basicall3~ one of the things you are doing is cutting our
water to a minimum rate by 80% and doubling the cost. Who ever heard anything like
that. Where was the City of Bremerton in 1972 when costs would have been one half?
One of the things I complained about before was the fact people who are using less
than minimum amounts were paying full rates. And I thought at that time if you were
to cut it just a little bit instead of 1,O00 units or 500, you cut it 20%
and were able to lower it a bit for the people who don't use it. Now I think the
average single person household, as I am, uses between 250 - 350 units or let's
say approximately 800 units in a two month period, and give us a break. So what did
they do to us - upped the sewer rates as well as the water rates. They don't think
about us, they don't think about single people with limited income, they don't think
of the senior citizens who live on a very limited budget, they don't figure anybody
under the age of senior citizens, say like my age bracket between 40-55~who don't
have quirkes like some of the older ones get and the younger ones can afford because
they are making good money. The ones who are able to pay these bills are people
who are making $20-30,000+ and it won't bother them but what about the people
who have $200-250 per month. How are they going to pay the rates.
You tell me how we can pay a b~ll $35.00 every two months? If ~ use 400 units
a month my bill is going to be $19.60 - a $40.00 b~ll coming up every two months.
That is my eati, ng money - that is food out of my mouth. I'm lucky to have $200
per month income . I just had to go out and borrow money to pay my gas bill -
doing everything possible to keep my heat down so I don't get it shut off.
Now you tell me with the rates going up for heat, electricity and then you won't
even give us water - what are we going to do. The people who aren't here at this
hearing aren't the people who are worried about how they can pay .
How many businesses are you going to drive out? Especially the small business.
People in authority positionshad better start doing something for the people who
live here. If I had the money I'd leave this city.
The Navy uses a lot of water and the Navy puts money into the town but the Navy
takes a lot out of the town. The Navy has to come up with more money. The one
thing I have to give Bob Stewart credit for - he got them to pay more water bills.
But something has to be done for us little guys.
Phil Drouin: Talked about the Lifeline Program and the possibility of using
Block Grant funds in the amount of $400,000. A way to use these funds indirectly
for the low income is being looked into by the Mayor.
Kay Charleston, 1009 Ironside. The reason we don't have a lot of senior citizens
here this evening is because they do not have a way to get here - can't afford
c~rs, buses do mL mn - I'm talking about several thousand who live in town. These
people are working so hard to stay in their own homes as'it is the cheapest
alternative there is. It i~ so desperate to add that much to these people's
homes . I'd be interested to know (1) does this cover the cost of building
the project does it also cover the cost of maintenance this bill we are facing.
Will the money used to help Senior citizens who have trouble staying in their
homes in fact be a loan against their home? You acn't know!
Art Anderson: We can't answer that right now.
Kay Charleston - I don't envy you people you were suddenly confronted with the
pieces left over in 1972 which should not have been left over. And now we
are down to the wire. .My understanding is the one way to help these guys in facing
the wire and that is l~t everyone know we can't pay it and them maybe the [cology
people will give us time to find a better or cheaper way.
My health is good, but there are frail people who live in their own home and we
need to protect those people.
Lena Swanson, 2123 Snyder. I do not fit in the low income bracket, I'n not one of
those who make $22,000 per year but I do care about Bremerton. I brought my children
home 4,000 miles to raise them in Bremerton. My information is that less than one
half of the employees of the Naval Shipyard live in Bremerton and I assure you if
they don't live inside the city limits of Bremerton they don't spend their money here.
They drive over our streets, they park on our sidewalks but they bail out as quickly
as they can get out. I would like to ask as to why when 90% Federal funds were
available were Bremerton and Port Orchard 14th and 15th on'the priority list? Then
when 90% funding was no longer available you slapped a moritorium on us. Now I
know about the Clean Water Act - how much has Rocky Point and Marine Drive and
boat marina contributed to the pollution of our waters inside our area. Were
there any arrangements for these people to pay their share of the cost? Perhaps
we cannot afford the U.S. Navy any more did you ever stop to think about that.
They pull a bluff on us - with all due respect - without the Navy there would not be
a Bremerton - everytime we have hit them up for money they come back and say
you know we can always go elsewhere. Maybe we have reached that point where we
can't afford the U.S. Navy if they are not willing to come up with their fair share .
They have been the benevolent benefactor over the years but we are now facing a
situation that should have been corrected years ago. In all due respect I must say
something about the former administration, they are perfectly able to defend themselves -
I happen to be married to one - and he would not vote in a $40 per month sewer bill
to the citizens of Bremerton. The majority of our citizens are retired, living on
fixed income, also the working poor and they have not taken them into consideration.
They donst qualify for any welfare or lifeline grant and the $400,000 block grant
money will be based on $300 or less income per month. I am not saying and I
acknowledge and everybody knows how bad condition our sewer system has been in for
years, but all alternative proposals, if my understanding is correct, that the
Department of Ecology, other than this one, has either been refused or ignored.
Cost overruns - in all due respect to CH2M Hill they did a magnificant job and are
tremendous salesmen - they have done their job, I suggest they step aside and let
the City employees, engineers and superintendents answer the questions. I have a
question of appearance of fairness. These people stand to make approximately
$2.8 million dollars if this project is sold. Therefore, they are selling us.
I think they have done a good job and should now stand aside.
I don't know about secondary treatment plant and don't know about sewers, but I
do know that this problem will not resolve the storm separation on the west side.
I have a proposal to make which you might want to consider and Mr. Director of
Ecology I'd like for you to take into consideration the fact the repair has to be
done - no question about it. But, let us do it on a phase in basis/pay as you
go and I think the citizens of Bremerton, even hurting, could pay $15.00 per month
sewer rate, that is $30.00 bi-monthly, but we know it is a fixed figure. That
would be for strictly construction of the sewer. $2.00 would be for separat~
storm drain utility for those who do not have separate sewers and 70~ per month
for operation and maintenance for those sewer lines already in and operating. I've
already paid for mine. I can pay this bill that they have proposed, ladies and
gentlemen we do need new treatment plants - of that there is no question. If the
Department of Ecology will lock in that $22,000,000 in trust for us and let us come up
with our share of $15.00 per month, I suggest to you that we could, between us
and the businesses, build the primary treatment plant first, build the secondary
transmission lines next and the secondary treatment plant at the end and we won't
have to spend 30 years paying for this thing. I am not even talking about a bonding
issue. Now where that comes in and where the problem comes in is the State
Department of Ecology, the enforcing arm, are saying that if you don't come throug~ with
this we are backing off with the 50% funding, and suggest to you that there isn't
anybody in the State of Washington in our situation who can afford that 50% funding.
Maybe there are some developers sitting outside of Bremerton who'd like to come in
and re-do it. I believe that if this Council does not have the courage to stand up
and be counted and defend its people I suggest you will run a bunch of people out 'f
town like elderly people who can't afford their homes. I urge you to reconsider.
I have heard rumors that your minds are made up and that this is the only alternative.
I wouldn't like to think that is so, especially since the other public hearings have
not been held yet. Failure by the Department of Ecology to lock in the $22,000,000.
they have that authority, the State did not force them to put down priorities in
writing. So, the Department of Ecology has at their disposal the right to say yes or
no to anybody they want to. I have written all my representatives, Secretary of Navy,
Senator Jackson and Congressman Dicks, asking them to have representatives at this
meeting. This is my home. I suggest that only through placing pressure on the
Department of Ecology, locking in that 22 million dollars for the City of Bremerton,
and consideration of an alternate proposal will the citizens of Bremerton be able
to afford this poject.
No one has addressed yet cost overruns and who is going to pay them.
Morrill S. Pope, 720 Pennsylvania. I am the owner of ~he Village Laundromat
down on Charleston. I understand the other side, ~f this goes through it will
close my doors. I agree that the sewers need to be done. We cannot pass that
raise onto the customer. Presently itS~osts me $6,200 a month to keep the doors
open, now with the raise in water I'll be facing $7,100 cost per month to keep
the doors open. People will just take their needs out into the County and I'll
lose.
R. P. Miller, 1524 Lyle Avenue. We are talking about a problem of sewage and sewage
disposal I am sorry but I feel you, CH2M Hill are ripping us off. In years past
we had a larger population that we do now. At that time we use to swim in the
local waters a~d no one was hurt by it. Why did we not have a sewage problem then
and we do 'now? Is it because you guys want to make a few bucks. I don't think
there is a problem but maybe there is.
Bruce Day, 3410 Rogers. I have lived in Bremerton since 1974, got married out here
and purchased my home. Do you realize the costs they are showing on the screen here
is a monthly total. Now, they are averaging for a single family resident customer
about $12.00 per month. It is fine to see fixed charges and variable charges
capital, variable charges for capital plus this and that. When you get your water
billl it says water, sewer and then there are those of us who have "construction charge".
I know some people who do not pay it. I get my bill and it is on it, making it
considerably more. Now I am not using more water than those people are, not using
more sewer than those people are so why am I pay the construction charge. For those
of you who are not paying a construction charge on an average bill it is $3.00.
It is $6.00 per billing, "If 20,000 p~ople ~n Bremerton are being billed $6.00
that will give you $720,000 per year. I've lived in my house 6 years. Construction
charges on water bills for 6 years for 20,000 would come to 4 million 320 thousand
dollars. If you would cut that in half and say well only 10,000 people paying construction
charges - you are talking about 2 million 160 thousand dollars. Ok, now if they want
to raise the water rates half again what they are now then those of us who are paying
construction are still going to be paying construction costs. Now some people who
are not paying the construction charge might say, well when your house was built there
was construction going on . Well, I know people who are moving into houses in East
Bremerton now are not paying construction charges. My neighbor right next door to
me does not pay a construction charge even though his house was built the same year
mine was.
So, in taking one half again how much the water bill is going to be in 1983 =$11.94
add $3.00 construction cost that comes to $14.94 per month making a bi-monthly billing
$29.88. That is not $24.00 every two months, that is $30.00. Construction charges
do not seem limited to people my age (younger) or people who are working. I am a
Federal employee getting pay raises, practicing Christian and tith which means money
going out in this manner. Government has kicked in employees paying medicare - meaning
more money out of my wages plus State in March wants to give us a 1% income tax.
Increases in water, electricity, food, garbage rate pretty soon you are getting into
rates that will make people like me questions why do I live here.
What I would like to point out basically is that I realize that w~ do need some kind
of water treatment. I am for water treatment improvement~ My family just purchased
a water purifier after experiencing some stomach upsets. After we used this purifier
a short time we checked the filters and they were clogged with impurities from the
water. This was water not from the hot water tank...but directly from the cold water
tap. So, we do need treatment and we are going to have to pay for it somehow.
Some kind of investigation needs to be done on who is paying construction charges
and who should be paying. Go home and look at your water bill and see if you have
two entries.
Art Anderson: -Can anyone from the City explain the construction cost on billings -
it is a L.I.D.
Elena Murphy, 2116 E. 24th St. I Own Sunshine Cleaners. Presently we are paying
$862 every two months. We cannot afford it now and we cannot pass the added cost
to our customers. If the water goes up our business goes under. ~le bouoht new
dryers to economis~ to cut down our operating costs ndw with the water w~at are we
going to do . If we have to leave we will because there are towns around that pay
less and charge the people less to do their cleaning.
Mary F Hawkins,t e ns
bill ~oes into 1.5 million per year.) Is that approximately
20%? My next questions is if the system that does not get separated on this new sewer
plant and it comes times to separate those systems who will pay for it. If it is to
be an L.I.D., then the people will be paying twice. Why should we have to pay
for a sewer system, which I agree we need, but I don't think we are going at it in the
right way. I think it should be a city-wide change I don't think it should be a downtown
If we did have a separated system for all of Bremerton what kind of impact would
that put on the new sewer? We'd be putting less flow through it - correct.
This sewer plan is supposedly good for only 20 years, if the system goes like yc~
have proposed- we will have to update it after 20 years. We'll be p~ng for a system,
that is good for 20 years, for 30 years possible ~ 25 years versus the 20 years
and then we'll have L.I.D. 's to separate the old systems on top of that· It would help
the plan to be able to keep that same plant we will be paying for for better use
by not letting the rain water run through it.
Bob Card, CH2M Hill. One point was that the facilities could be smaller if we hsxl
the separation system. Yes, they could be much much smaller but the cost would be
much greater to separate the sewers and build a smaller system than to build the
system as ~oposed. Ln terms of the design life of the facilities, the design
is fo~ 20 years, however, that is principally a growth related desig~q. ~he
facilities as you know, the one you have has lasted approximately 35 years so it
is kind of like a car that is suppose to last 4 but we see a lot of 1950's
vintage cars around and then some people trade in every year. So, it is kind of
a relative thing. How long you take.to pay for this sXstem is like ing for ~
car. You pay for it in one year and if the bank was will~,g you c0u~pay for ~t in
l0 years even though it might only last 3. So the financing is somewhat ~ncoupled
depending on your prospective in terms of the design life of the facility.
~aary F. Hawkins (cont.). ~ying a car is t~y choice, this sewer project is nc~
Marshall Castroni, 310 S. Constitution. We tried for 20 years to get sewers and
finally did 6 years ago. They told us we could pay cash 'for it and there would not be
any charge and all we would be chsurged for was water. Ok, my bill shows $9.63
on water, $9.87 for sewer, $6.00 construction - but I alreaay paid $1,800 in cash for
it and they talk about 20 years. I don't think I'll live to pay it off. I
think the best thing for me to do is sell out and get out of town.
Wayne Perkins, 3322 Ward Avenue. I am one of those working now. I have a job as
a church custodian - I have higher skills but right now that is the job I have.
I have a family with his, hers and ours I am not lookir~ at a $6.00 water bill,
I looking at over $100 per month water and sewer. This is 10% of gross income
for water and sewer. Not only that, in an effort to make ends meet we plant a
garden and we are going to be charged sewer rates for every drop of water we put
on that garden.
Don Hawkins, 1010 Hewitt. I just have one question - I agree we do need a sewer
system, but are the streets and gutters going to be torn up and will this be an
additional cost or will this be another L.I.D.?
Bob Card, CH2M Hill. The streets, gutters and whatever else is disturbed by the
construction process will be returned to existing condilions whatever that.may be.
If it happens to be paved with chuck holes it will probably be paved. If it is not
paved then it will not be paved, and if paved it will be repaved. New concrete
sidewalks ~er, e concrete sidewalks were broken. To clarify the ~yrevious gentleman's
comment, you can read this on the rate handout, that lawn watering or other vegtible
gardenlug will not be reflected in your sewer bill unless you do it winter ~onths.
Ruth A. Davie, 13~l Pa~k Avenue. Being in the mid income bracket and buying our
house our payments are probably higher than some in the lower income level. However .
those who have house paymen~ of $35~D - $500 l~r month with utilities on top of that
may find it prohibitive to own a home if you are just sta~ing out. Point 2,
I noticed a couple of years ago that Pope and Talbot, a private corporation, got
EPA to fund raw land - 90%. ~virnnmental Protection Agency funded their sewer
90% - why? Now I realize the Federa/Government is in trouble right now but still
ha~ several trillion to blow on stuff to blow us up with and it looks -ike to me
that maybe the Navy or no - that maybe we have a right if they can fund Bucklin
Hill - the top of it, Pope and T~/bot is a coml~ny that is going to build property,
· make money . If the EPA will fund them at 90% then there must be some of that
money around today to fund existing projects. What it seems to me that is beir~
done here is that first of all no one has answered the question why was the 1977
90% funding dropped? Where are the answers to these questions, what did you do
with the money that was suppose to be set aside. In a City C~dinance drafted in
1958 that said your sewer money was suppose to be separated out to restore sanitary
and storm drains. As far as I'm concerned this cannot be accounted for. Where
is it? A landloxd can pass the cost off to the tenant, the business can pass it
off on the customer but there isn't ~myone the single family can pass it to.
Adella L. Bowman, 1101 N. Montgomery Ave. People on Civil Service retirement and
social security were told that they would not get a cost of living increase which
was due last October. Now we hear that it will not come until next October.
Now if the garbage goes up every month and the water and sewer goes up and the
electricity and phone go up, we have a state income tax, tax on our homes,
insurance, medical expenses these people on limited income they are not going to
be able to pay thedr utilities each month. What are people thinking of. Do they
think we are a bottomless pit that they can keep getting money out of us. We know
things need to be done, we are not stupid. Some of us have been to college and
maybe have as high intelligence quotient as some others. But, what I am coming
down to there are so many in this city who are on social security or retirements,
who are not going to be able to pay that high a utility bill. How will people
make ends meet?
Cordon McKay, 4140 D. Street, Grants are not free. Every grant comes out of your
pocket like taxes. EPA says you have to do this and that - that is how wpps got
into trouble . There is no body who is going to pay a cost override. This can be
built for one third what you priced it . Let's get common sense and build it as
we go.
LeRoy Willtams, 3729 E. Street. I would only caution you gentlemen that this
project that we are embs~rking on is much needed. Obviously we have a problem
right now ~nd I don't think you will go to jail because you decision is not made
when DOE says it has to be. Yotbr intent is to get the best product and I urge
you to take time in deliberating this decision. I reaj in the brochure the cost
of the project will be equal to some of your ~eighbors. I don't think it is a
good reason to enter into a project jut because someone else is also faced with
a similar situation.
Mayor Morrie D~wkins. Spoke to evening session on the "helpline program".
Albert M. Sutter, 2615 Perry Avenue. A letter received from Mr. Sutter was read
as follows: The sewer and water taxes have about 3 times or 300% increase since
1960. If the retired people are to absorb more of the cost of government, they
should be given interest free mox~gsges on their homes and sell them bonds till
the required money for sewers is collected. Our house taxes have doubled in the
past 2 years and that doesn't qualify as tax deductable. The idea of creating
money by simple tax collection is less efficient than selling bonds. Talk tq the
bankers. They have the money.
Veronica Metcalfe, 1535 High Avenue. The issue of repairs and improvements has
been neglected for too long. We as citizens of Bremerton have an obligation to
preserve our environment and health. The cost is minimal compared with the
benefits. Respectfully (letter read at hearing).
Kathy Patterson, 1315 N. Cambrian. I was born in this city and I am getting out.
My last water/sewer bill was $15.70. The Salvation Army paid it as I am without
money and do not have a job. You had better save me a place in jail as I will
be digging an outhouse and collecting rain water.
Kal Leichtms_n, 205 High Avenue. At last months meeting you hsxi a figure of
'8,160 hours of overflow for the year. That is 93% of the year we were in an over
flow situation. You promised to come up with some information on those figures
by this meeting.
Bob Card, CH2M Hill. There was a question last time if this was continuous hours
of overflow or overflow hours per overflow. In checking into the data it is
overflow hours per overflow. So if there are 13 overflows over an hour there are
13 overflow hours. It is not quite the same span over the year as stated earlier.
It is more like 40-50% of the year overflows occur.
Kal Leichtman cont. Much of what was said tonight was said more forcibly than about a
month a~o. The point, that even with help from the government with the $400,000
that can only go so far. I am sure if that money were to come through it would
also have to go to pay for increased electric bills. The City is also proposing
increased water cost of $5% then this giantic sewer is coming our way - there
aren't very many people who can afford this.
Mrs. Sagara - 2nd response. I spoke to several of you gentlemen during the break
and I wish to make just one statement. Some of the places in the midwest
only bill 3 times a year and what I am suggesting is that there is the possibility
of saving money and manhours reducing the number of times billings go out. The
rems.rk was also made that some people would not be able to pay the amounts billed
for a 3-4 month period, my answer to that is people would have to budget for it.
Mary Lou Long, 2433 E. Phinney Bay (2rid time). Question - if people use less
water will the estimated base charge go up? I think that the'kproblem has existed
quite a few years and I want to know why this has not been brought to the people's
attention in the past. Why has the problem increased since the population has
decreased? How is it that ollr outflow is so critical? Where is the increase flow
coming from? Is it coming M~rom the outside utility hookups in the county? Is
it coming from the Navy or is it just ill thought or over satUration of the
estimated flow? Is this just ~remerton's problem or is it a regional problem?
Why don't sewer districts get together and organize to resolve this problem?
Why don't we do an equitable tax base on property county-wide. I still want the
City Council to work and insist that the established fund for sewer monies collected
be designed as intended for separation of storm waters and household sewers.
There is nothing for the west ~emsrtcn people. You will be chasing people out of
town. Their property values are goir~ to be going down. I have a couple of
suggestions - I think there is the possibility of a natural resources district being
established by the County. The City of Bremerton had better give a #1 priority
for additional funding. I~ue people on Hewitt Avenue are not included in this
proposal.
Mr. Stetson, Del~rtment of Ecology. The original facility plan - 1975 - did
encompass Bremerton, Port Orchard, Kitsap Sewer Distr. 5. ~he proposals and
alternatives were evaluated and these municipalities chose to implement their
separate efforts on each side of the inlet.
Mary Lou Long. ~tv question was not the single plant. It was the funding problem
we have. Why isn't the county assisting in the funding. The EPA had 90% funding
for Bucklin Hill Rd., the contractors and developers are going wild up there now
they can sell properties with sewers now we are not able to get funding why didn't
they push hazel for Bremerton too.
Mr. Stetson, IDE. Back in the early days of construction grants program in early
1970's this percentsge funding by the Fedez~ government was 75%. At that time the
State added 15% for a total of 90% funding. So grants that were issued at that time
frame were issued for 90%. E~e to Fedez~ cut~%cks as well as state cutt~%cks the
city's funding has dropped. At the present the all the money we have from the
Federal government is committed to various projects, and the offer we made here
out of Referendum 39 is state money through that progra~ at _50%.
Lena Swanson (2nd the). In regard to the DOE - speaking with the gentleman
during the break he indicated that the problem with the proposal I had talked about
earlier had been turned down because the secondary treatment plant was not built
first. I believe a ~ompromise must be ~aade. Cost overruns - ~CH2M Hill aide you
ready to assume responsibility for cost overruns, not passing it on ~o the consumer.
I hope you will write to your legislators. Mr. F~ eldler said there
was a written priority list to some State department but he can't remember which
one. We can't do it, the people of the City of Bremerton - no matter what the
EPA says regarding their clean water act, the city cannot afford this project.
If this is voted in I'll start a recall petition on everyone of you.
Mrs. Miller, 1324 Lyle Avenue. If this is voted in and we have to do it there is
no doublt in my mind that we will lose some businesses. ~hey are already paying
higher rates. We have heard people speak tonight who indicated the difficulty they
will face with this rate increase. There are other businesses tb~t are havir~
problems staying in business right now. If these businesses close then the revenue
will not come into the City. Are we going to end up with a surcharge to m~e up
the difference of monies when these revenues are not comir~ in.
Drew Barton, CH2M Hill. The cost projections system and divy up of the revenue
and rates are made on reasonably conservative assumptions. There are several
ifs - if the project goes over the $48,000,000 then th~ rates would probably have
to be adjusted: if the revenue bonds are sold at ll%?
Bob Miller, 1524 Lyle Avenue. We had a recess and spoke to the Councilmen. We came
up with a estin~%te as to how much you esl-n per hour (Mr. Miller adcLress CH2M Hill
representatives) that being $~.00 per hour. This is what we are getting involved
with and having to absorb.
Dave ~ker, Assistant En~ineer. The question asked about the money that was voted
to be put into sewers (storm sewer) separation. I'm not sure about years previous
to the time I ca~e into the City of Bremerton but for the past two budgets there
have been around $300,000 in the City's budget and it has been used for storm sewer
separation. If you are interested come up tomorrow morning and I can show you on
a map where those sewers are. These funds have been used for storm sewers throughout
the city these past two years.
Wayne Perkins, 3322 Ward Avenue. I come from an area which is mostly desert and
wafer ~s q~i+~ ~rgcious to us. T can't ~lnderstand why it womld be so costly in an
Wayne Perkins (Cont.) anrea where it is so abundant. Since moving here we have
felt put - we can't ha~Ll away our trash, gaJrba~e pickup is mandatory. I
wonder why it has to cost so much more to live here?
Mary Hawkins, 1010 Hewitt (2nd the). I'd like to answer the lady in the back
regarding businesses leaving. If the businesses leave what are the Navy personnel
going to do and pretty soon our navy yard is goir~ to leave us and we will end
up with nothing. People will not be able to sell their property. Re second
question is to Mr. Ba~er - if all the areas already separated all the way around
sm area such as mine you have to tear up the unseparted system and the separated
system to connect the two. What do you do with the already separated system?
Rhoda E. Torsak, 1331 N. Wycoff.. (her question and response read in s~s follows)
I cannot afford it. State retirement has not had a cost of livir~ raise in
ten years. My property tax b~%s trippied. My car insurance has trippied, my
house and car insurance has doubled, My gas and electric have doubled ~nd trippied.
One person alone in a house does not use much sewer nor water. aremerton City is
made up of low income people. ~he well-to-do are way out where this will not
worry them. Bremertmwill fold up if this expense is piled on their backs.
Howard Wells, 2116 N. Callow. My questions is whether the gas company and power
company have been contacted to put their lines in at the same time. I know the
power company can save money if they go undergTound because they can use s~k%ller
cables. It would cost the gas company a lot less to come in at the same the
the sewer project is behg put in. I wonder if anyone has worked on this aspect
or if it is just idle tslk.
Ruth Davies (2nd time). I just
a recall petition. I am asking
the 30% funding. I don't think
to do it, and it isn't going to
alternative possible in the way
that chance. This is the first
want to let you know that I won't put my name on
DOE please con~der helping us any way outside of
there is a question as to if we do it - we do have
get cheaper. I do believe we have to~explore every
of funding. I don't think this community has had
that it has come to this level.
Ralph Butler, 707 Veneta. I wo~ld like to Row if you have any comparison fig~es
in relation to the amount of flow carried through the Navy yard, In terms of the
overall cost 25% has been said here to be carried by the Navy Yard of the $48,000,000 .
for this system.
Drew Barton, CH2M Hill. The Navy is paying a prorated share of the treatment plant
cost and they are paying a prorated share of the collection system. In addition
the capital costs associated with that they are coming up with 5.1 million dollars.
Ralph Butler. Will they be paying a certain amount for the amount of water that
they run out of every tap like the householders are? And just theoretical
suppose the Navy Yard had their own system would our system carry the needs of
the City without the Navy's participation.
Bob Card, CH2M Hill. The question was if all the people associated with the Navy left
would the system be ok. The answer is that much of the collection system might need
the treatment system even if there is only one person left in town wouldn't meet the
standards that the Federal Government established in 1972.
Ralph Butler. I would like to know if any efforts have been made to see if the
Navy will make a larger contribution because of their needs. Also what about the
possibility of the Navy providing their own sewer system.
Art Anderson, Councilman. Presently the City is in negotiations with the Navy, they
have been and will continue to be to arrive at a figure that the Navy should pay.
Mary Lou Long (3rd time). She referred to Chapter 3.16 of Revenue Ordinance 2291.
Discussion included using monies collected to be used for storm drainage separation.
What I want to know is why CH2M Hill willnot include West Bremerton when in 1958
they felt it was the lowest and most efficient method. What changed?
Bob Card, CH2M Hill. As stated earlier because the study that was started in 1975
in response to this Federal law our scope at that time was limited to studying ways to
mitigate the pollution problem as was defined by the agencies at that time. Therefore,
combined sewers that did not result in a problem that needed to be addressed
to protect the receiving waters were examined within the scope of that study. I
don't think a decision was made that it was a worthless problem just that it wasn't
funded to respond to Public Law 92500.
.(8!
Glen FieIdler, Department of Ecology. We are here tonight to hear your comments. This
is just a rate hearing which does not directly involve the Department of Ecology. I
assure you the DOE is not going to make a decision on what the rates should or should not
be. We do have a vital interest in this project. Several things have been said this
evening that are a concern like the fact that we have been insensitive many years to
what is going on here. I would take exception to that. There have been studies going
here since 1974, it has never been the positibn of our Department to dictate to local
governments what they should or should not do. We have certain responsibilities
of State law and certain responsibilities under Federal law and one of those is to
see that secondary treatment is eventually built to take care of water quality problems.
! feel we have been cooperating through the years and I pledge we will continue to
cooperate, trying to work our way through this. We have executed a grant for $22,000,000.
we have included some conditions in that grant which aren't normal, there is an escape
clause in there which basically says if the city after these types of proceedings finds
that this project can not be built for economic reasons they can escape from that grant
contract. We have not got the city bound forever in that contract and the final decision
is theirs. We will wait and see where the project goes under deliberation by the City
Council, we are willing to work with the City Council. If there is any way we can
assist you we will do so. This is a very difficult subject and I appreciate that
but at this point we are observers at the hearings and will see where all this winds
up after the testimony is in .
Art Anderson, Councilman. We have received cooperation from DOE. They gave us an
extension in December.
Meeting Adjourned. 9:00 P.M.
APPROVED:
KATHLEEN L. McCLUSKEY, City ClerP
AR%2 ANDERSON, Council President