Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/09/83~o~91 Tape 5 Unapproved #0382 Minutes Regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Bremerton, Washington, was held in the Council Chambers, 239 Fourth St., Bremerton, Washington, Wednesday, March 9, 1983 at 5:35 p.m. with Council President Anderson presiding. Those present were: E. L. Sturdivant Spencer Horning Clyde Pachek Roy Mosety Art Anderson Phil Drouin Bill Amo Jim Adrian Russell Johnson Mayor Dawkins City Attorney Broughton City Clerk McCluskey The meeting opened with the Pledge of Allegiance and the invoca- tion was given by Phil Drouin. CONSENT AGENDA A. Minutes of February 28, and March 2, 1983 AB 83-129 B. Bid award recommendation for Pavement and Street Signing Materials for year ending December 31, 1983 as follows: Sections I, III& VI to Traffic Safety Supply; Sections II through VI to Traffic Control Signs, as to specifications and low bid. Motion by R. Mosely and B. Amo to approve the consent agenda Items A & B, carried unanimously. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS t 5,5oo; Campbell In amount of $S2,500 and George & Mary Black in amount of $65,000. Clerk stated all above claims are due to failure of Alexander Dam and have been sent to insurance and adjuster. CLAIMS/VOUCHERS AB 8~-132 Vouchers and expense reimbursement claims audited and certified by the auditing officer as required by RCW 42.24.090, have been recorded on a listing which has been made available to the Council. Motion by P. Drouin and C. Pachek as of this date, the Council does approve for payment those claims as follows: Salary Fund in amount of $197,967.59 and FICA in amount of $10,498.84 for payroll period February 27, 1983 and those vouchers included in the warrant register further described as follows: Warrants 8715 and 8716 in amount of $586.20 and vouchers 08720 through 09009, excluding vouchers 08812 in amount of $183,862.16, carried as follows: 7 affirmative, 2 abstentions, (Amo and Sturdivant). MAYOR'S REPORT Mayor Dawkins read a letter from Larry Eyer, Executive Director of KCAP commending Wastewater crew and Parks Supt. for their efforts in resolving backup and overflow at the outside cleanout at Smith School Bldg. The letter also expressed appreciation of City Design Engineer for attempting to resolve the h~lding's ~'oof leaks. The Mayor discussed intentions of appointing Jean Johnson, President of Westpark Housing Tenets to Citizens for Advancement of Physically Handicapped Committee, to address problems of Council Chambers access for the handicapped, as well as other issues. #0626 ~o955 #1092 #1163 #1332 #1h66 #16h9 City Council Meeting Minutes March 9, 1983 Page Two PUBLIC RECOGNITION Walterine Taylor, 2708 Callaghan Dr, discussed not being able to pay water bills at the Perry Ave. Mall asin the past. Mayor Dawkins stated he would check into this. Ms Taylor discussed possibility of EarbaRe being picked up twice monthly for people with limited garbage. J. Adrian suggested coordinating with neighbors to share a can. The Mayor suggested contacting Brem- Air. Ms Taylor discussed distance required between street lgihts. The Mayor stated he would check with the Street Dept. and the Power and Light Co. RUth Davie read from pamphlet on open government regarding avail- ability of public records and charging for copies, and states she has been denied access to City records as defined by the pamphlet. She discussed City Treasurer providing accurate financial records on the 15th of the month, and City providing a copy of the budget to the libraries. Ms Davis discussed City's requirements for programmer and programmer/analyist. Art Anderson stated one employee quit and has not been replaced; there is only one job to be filled. Marty Comford, Olympic College engineering student, discussed ~amage to waterfront due to ferry design and speed of ferries. He stated the ferries maintain 18 knots to keep to the schedule. It was his contention the ferries cause beach and bulkhead damage. Don Hawkins, 1010 Hewitt Ave, discussed responsibilites of the Council members and voiced his displeasure with his district's representative, C. Pachek for his voting record thus far. Mary Lou Lon~, 2433 E. Phinney Bay Dr., supported Ms Davie,s contention of difficulties with receiving copies of City docu- ments and objected to being charged for same. Ms Long discussed spreading of sludge on City watershed and the agreement with McCormick Land Co. Ms Long submitted a petition with 500 signatures regarding requesting assistance in dealing with problem of raw humane waste flowing into surrounding waters. Don Proctor, Wastewater Supt., stated the City is not now, nor ever has spread sludge on City watershed. Mr. Proctor stated sludge is transported to private land owned by McCormick Land Co. He stated the cost for transport is 1/3 as much as for the next best alternative. Francis Morgan discussed inaccessibility of Council Chambers for the handicapped. She stated Council Chambers has been illegal for years and suggested using Sheridan Park Bldg. for the Council meetings. Morgan Stith, discussed "orange" street lights, and stated he objects to the new lights as they do not aid traffic and deter crime as the old lights did. Mr. Stith discussed fees for licensing pets. ATTORNEY'S REPORT Mr. Broughton discussed hearing examiner report and stated he is circulating a draft for Council members comments. Mr. Broughton stated his office is working on ordinances for "abandoned vehicles" and "other weapons in taverns" Recess 6:25 until 6:30 p.m. T ~1862 ~1978 ¥2a62 -rape 6 City Council Meeting Minutes March 9, 1983 Fage Three HEARING - E. LARSEN AND SEATTLE REALTY AB 83-133 Clerk stated this. hearing is a request by E. Larsen for removal of condition 6 in Shoreline Permit #55-81 and request by Seattle Realty for removal of condition 6 in Rezone Ordinance #3682. This hearing was advertised and posted as required by law. A. Anderson asked if any Council member has a conflict of in- terest with this hearing or if any member of the public has objection to any Council member hearing this issue? There were no objections. City Clerk read letter from John Bishop, attorney for E. Larsen requesting condition 6 be removed from Shoreline Permit #55-81. Clerk also read letter from Dr. Brooks and Eileen Eaker opposing the revision requests and stated E. Larsen and Seattle Realty should be responsible for costs for repairs, breakdowns and other damages, if revisions are approved. K. Attebery, Planning Director stated this hearing concerns two issues; Seattle Realty for restaurant, motel, office building and future bank or office building at northwest corner of Kitsap Way and Shorewood Dr. and E. Larsen for motel and restaurant at northeast corner of Kitsap Way and Lower Oyster Bay Dr. Mr. Attebery stated the purpose of this hearing is a request by both proponents for removal of condition that construction not begin until auxiliary power is installed in sanitary sewer pump station #13. He discussed City's plans to to put in auxiliary power, hence the reason for the condition. It now may be 2 years or more before this is accomplished. Mr. Attebery stated cost of auxiliary power could be $400,000. Mr. Attebery summarized department and advisory group comments: no record of overflow resulting from power failure~ Conclusion is that it would be reasonable and appropriate to remove this condition. Discussion followed regarding number of pump stations with auxiliary power and possibility of overflow due to power failure. It was determined of 36 stations, ~ have auxiliary power. Mr. Proctor stated it is unlikely power failure in the area of station #13 would effect the station regarding overflow. He stated there have been overflows but not due to power failure. Bill Scoreup, President of Seattle Realty stated $~00,000 is a tremendous burden for two developers. He stated they are ready to build as soon as they can hook up to the sewers. In answer to an inquiry, Mr. Scoreup stated they are ready to start con- struction in three weeks. Maria Sagara, High Ave., asked how this would effect the system?' Mr. Anderson stated it would have no effect on the system. Discussion followed regarding number of pump stations handling large flow from areas such as Navy Hospital and Jackson Park. Mr. Proctor stated a total of 4 stations handle the flow from Nsvy Hospital and Jackson Park. In answer to an i~qairy, Mr. Proctor stated he is not aware of any overflows due to power failure prior to 1976 when he took over Wastewater Facilities. Francis Morgan discussed her concerns with additional sewer connections to pump station #13, and damage to Oyster Bay residents property due to overflow and breakdown to station 13. Mr. Proctor discussed damage to, and repairing of pump station due to piece of gift wrap paper in the sewer system. Ms Morgan commended Mr. Proctor for time spent with her discussing this situation #0O88 #070~ #1104 City Council Meeting Minutes March 9, 1983 Page Four HEARING - E. LARSEN AND SEATTLE REALTY CONTD Charles Ullock discussed the 1973 feasibility study of Kramer, Chin and Mayo. He discussed station 13 bein'g part of the treat- ment plant package if Funds are available. Mr. Ullock dis- cussed his con~erns regarding Oyster Bay and stated auxiliary power should be a consideration in event there is a power failure or the installation of an additional pump. Mr. Proctor stated there are two pumps now. Discussion followed regarding desirability of auxiliary power. Conclusion: This area is not covered by the moratorium; also is unreasonable to put this restriction on the developers when possibility of overflow due to power failure is remote. Motion by So Horning and B. Amo to remove condition 6 from Rezone Ordinance #3680, carried unanimously. Motion by B. Amo and R. Johnson to remove condition 6 from Shore- line Permit #55-81, carried unanimously. HEARING - ADRIAN AB 83-134 A. Anderson asked if any Council member had a conflict on interest with hearing this issue? J. Adrian excused himself from this hearing. Clerk stated this is a request for shoreline conditi6nal use and substantial development permit, located at 1956 N. Taft. This has been posted and advertised as required by law. A. Anderson asked if any member of the public objected to any Council member hearing this issue? Mary Lou Long discussed her objections to Council hearing an issue where any Council member improves his property for gain. She regarded Council hearing this issue as questionable. B. Broughton dicussed legalities of Council hearing this issue. He stated Council can act on this as long as Mr. Adrian does not participate. Lengthy discussion followed regarding conflict of interest and appearance of fairness concerning Council members hearing this issue. A. Anderson determined Council would sit for this hearing per City Attorney's opinion. City Clerk read letter from Mrs. Calvin McDonald, 1930 N. Taft in favor of approving the permit. K. Attebery, Planning Director presented photos to Council and stated this hearing is for a shoreline conditional use and sub- stantial development permit, to build a bulkhead and dock. Mr. Attebery discussed conditions of the bank eroding and stated length of the dock will be 105 ft, which is comparable to other docks in the area~ Mr. Attebery summarized department comments with stipulation by Engineering that specific construction plans be submitted prior to construction. Mr. Attebery discussed state and federal comments. Corps of Engineers specified they will not issue permit until all local permits are issued. Mr. Attebery stated the following four criteria for issuance of a permit have been met. a. Use will cause no unreasonably adverse effects on the envir- onment or other existing or potential uses which are allowed outright in the subject environment. b. Use will not interfere with public use of shorelines. City Council Meeting Minutes March 9, i983 Page Five HEARING - ADRIAN CONTD #1498 gape 7 #0363 c. Design of the site will be compatible with the suroundings and the Master Program. d.Proposed use will not be contrary to the general intent of the Master Program. Discussion followed regarding depth of water at mean-low tide and distance from end of dock. Mr. Attebery stated mean-low tide is 6 ft. of water. He discussed annual visits by DNE to deter- mine that docks are not occuping their land. Jack Duepke, proponent and former owner, stated he did 90% of the preliminary work on the permit. He discussed his intentions of restoring the blukhead and dock for historical purposes when he 'purchased the property. He stated he was advised to contact the Corps of Engineers and spent 2 years on this process. Mr. Duepke stated when he sold to Mr. Adrian he expressed.a desire to see he blukhead and dock restored. He stated there is no navigational ~azar and n ha m to marine life. d o r Discussion followed regarding placement of a gate. In answer to an inquiry, Mr. Duepke stated he sold the property to Mr. Adrian approximately 1~ years ago. Bob Wheeler, 1924 No. Taft, Margaret and Wesley Shear, 2018 N. Taft and Mrs. McDonald all spoke in favor of the bulkhead and dock, as long as the dock is not used for commercial purposes. 'Mary'Lo'u~ng again expressed her opposition to Council hearing this issue while Mr; Adrian is a member of this Council and dis- cussed the dock being an "attractive nuisance" Conclusion: Has appr~v~li~With conditions of Planning staff, DNR, Dept. of Fisherlos and Corps of Engineers'has'-iden~ified no problem~ Motion by B. Amo and R. Johnson to grant shoreline conditional use and substantial development permit with conditions 1 through 8 as shown on Exhibit A with 9th condition: A safety gate shall be located on the pier approx. 45 ft. from the bulkhead; and 10th condition~ The pier and dock shall not he used ~o_r commerical purposes, carried unanimously. Recess 8:55 until 9:05 p.m. ORDINANCE #3823 Animal License Infraction AB 83-120 Clerk read AN ORDINANCE amending Ordinance No. 3746 to define penalties for animal license infractions which are not contested. Mr. Stith discussed license fees and inquired if Police budget was increased for animal control? Council clarification: this ordinance is for those persons in violation of licensing, and explained the City has taken over responsibility of enforcmen~ Motion by R. Johnson and B. Amo to pass Ordinancd 3823 on second reading~ carried unanimously. #05O4 #0603 ORDINANCE, 1st Reading --E~BLISH POLICIES TO. DETERMINE SEWER RATES AND CHARGES AB 83-118 City Clerk read AN ORDINANCE amending Ordinance 3700 relating to policies for determing equitable charges for users of wastewater facility system. P. Drouin stated this ordinance is to amend existing Ordinance 3700. D. Baker, Asst. City Engineer, stated this amendment is to bring Ordinance 3700 into compliance with the rate changes. City Council Meeting Minutes March 9, 1983 Page Six #0765 #0972 ORDINANCE - ESTABLISH POLICIES CONTD Ma~y Lou Long questioned bringing an ordinance into compliance when it has not been discussed or passed. Mr. Baker discussed necessary procedures in order to establish rates. Lengthy discussion followed regarding order of the ordinance on the agenda. Ms Long's contention was that the two ordinances were not in proper order or s~quenc. Bob Card, CH2M Hill, stated prior Commission passed Ord. 3700 in June 198~and has no effect on the average rate. He stated the original purpose was to establish classes or user, and to establish basic formual used in computing rates. Mr. Card briefly reviewed proposed amendments: Sec. 1. Clarify volume of waste and how flow is computer based on water service and computing rates for those without water meters. Sec. 2. Establish.minimum charge; advantage to low users is to have low minimum charge (200 cu. ft. per mo; 400 cu. ft. bi-mo.) Sec. 3. Clarify no charge for lawns and gardens. Sec. 7. Decribes how capital costs are allocated: breakdown portions of project, which certain cost for various pollutents in wastewater flow stream, can be allocated to develope a fair cost. Establish 4 components of rate which is basic operation/ maintenance, volumetric operation/maintenance, fixed capital and variable capital and how Computer. Sec. 5. Late comers fees: provision for charge to developer to "kick in" amount for privilege to hook up to the system. Sec. 6. Clarification of a definition. He stated this amended ordinance is basically a "housekeeping" measure. Ms Long inquired if the amendment is directly related to the Sewer Treatment Plant? It was determined any rate change would be related to the plant. Ms Long stated this amendment is "putting the cart before the horse". #1363 #1629 #1679 B. Card and B. Broughton stated it does not make any difference which ordinance is voted on first. Motion by E. Sturdivant and R. Mosely to table item 9B and move on to item 9C, failed as follows: 5 opposed, 3 affirmative (Sturdivant, Pachek, Mosely) 1 abstention (Amo). Mary Lou Long requested Mayor Dawkins to veto any rate decision made by Council. The Mayor stated he can only veto passed ordinances. Leo Olney, City Treasurer discussed Sec. 3 and past problems and asked for a change to read "not to exceed the average". Mr. Olney discussed having one high winter bill, stating this is paid for all summer. D. Proctor stated someone being out of state all winter, will not pay anything in summer if the wording is changed. D. Baker stated there are appeal procedures in cases for people with one high winter bill. Motion by P. Drouin and C. Pachek to approve on first reading, AN ORDINANCE amending Ord. 3700 relating to policies for determin- ing equitable charges for users of wastewater facility system, carried unanimously. It was determined copies of Ordinance 3700 would be available prior to next week's meeting. #2076 ORDINANCE, 1st Reading - ESTABLISH SEWER RATES & CHARGES AB 83-119 Clerk read AN ORDINANCE establishing rates and charges for sanitary sewer service and repealing Ord. 3809. Clerk also read a letter from G. C. Holmberg objecting to the proposed sewer rate increases. P. Drouin briefly discussed the rate hearings and history from 1975. He discussed Ord. 3700 setting out how, what, when and where to charge. He discussed building plant now or in the future and grant funds being available now. ape 8 ~0057 ¥o2a2 ~0364 ~0555 0635 City Council Meeting Minutes March 9, 1983 Page Seven ORDINANCE - ESTABLISH SEWER RATES & CHARGES CONTD B. Amo expressed his dissatisfaction with capital charges and ra~ for multi-family units being less than single family. Discussion followed regarding studies that indicate multi- family dwellers basica].ly use less water: rates for sewer arc based on water consumption. There was discussion on capital charge or sewer connection, which is not applicable to multi- family dwellings. Discussion continued regarding raising rates now. Concern was expressed by the citizens that rates would remain at this level even if the plant isn't built. It was stated if the plant isn't built, this ordinance would be amended or rescinded. It was stressed raising rates now is essential to a successful bond issue. Maria Sagara discussed lowering minimum monthly volume from 400 cu. ft. to 200 cu. ft. as she felt this will cost low water users more. Mr. Baker stated the lower minimum would save low water users money as they would be charged only for water used up to 200 cu. ft. He gave an example: $10.61 at 200 cu. ft. minimum and $11.77 at 400 cu. ft. minimum based on actual water used. They would not be paying for the difference they did not use. Francis Morgan discussed the Navy paying their fair share and a recent conversation with Don Moos, DOE Director regarding addi- tional Navy money for the plant project. Ms Morgan urged the Mayor to accompany Mr. Moos to Washington D.C. for this purpose. She stated if this can be accomplished the City's share could be 25% instead of 50%. Charles Ullock stated his concerns are with connection and con- struction charges and discussed those charges in.Sec. 3A and inquired if this is structured for existing sewers. Mr. Ullock discussed his concerns regarding what waterfront property owners pay to what upland property owner pays between Class B & C. He discussed waterfront property owners granting easements, having sewer lines on beach property and paying twice as much for sewer connection. He felt there are inequities in construction and connection fees as well as sewer rates. D. Baker discussed portions of the ordinance now in existence as interim until the new system is constructed. At that time construction and connection charges will be addressed. Suggestion was made if this is an interim ordinance it should be so stated. Cal Leictman, 205 High Ave, discussed charges to the Navy for the line across the bay. He also discussed the Navy building their own facilities if they don't wish to pay their fair share. Don Hawkins, 1010 Hewitt, discussed cost overrides and questioned if this has been taken into consideration in the proposed rates? Mr. Anderson stated 10% has been built in for overrides, and if possible there will be rebates back to the system. Discussion followed regarding interim/F~rmanent aspect. It was stated these are permanent rates if the plant is built. If plant isn't built the ordinance would be revoked. Mr. Card discussed rates normally being considered interim as rates are usually adjusted annually depending on needs. Discussion followed regarding capital charges for customer outside the city limits and KCSD #l at l~ times charge shown, and effect on rates to Bremerton if reduced to outside users. It was stated the results would be to increase rates about $1 to $1.50. There was discussion regarding same rates for borderline county residents, who may be potentional city residents, and concern with having good working relations with the county. It was stated we require a surcharge for outside residents and if rates are the same, city is subsidizing for the surcharge. It was stated purpose of the surcharge is basically to encourage annexation. People outside the city are usin~ the city without paying taxes. #0958 #Zo60 #zlo6 #11a3 #1203 City Councll Meeting Minutes March 9, 1983 Page Eight ORDINANCE - ESTABLISH SEWER RATES AND CHARGES CONTD Ruth. Davie discussed percentages of tax monies county and city receive. She stated county receives approx.. 22% with 7% divided between the cities, and felt sewer charges for outside customers should be more than city residents. Ms Davie discussed the Shipyard receiving 31% surplus amount of all water city supplies, and inquired how that comes to 25% sewerage? Francis Morgan discussed sewer and construction charges and inquired if there is anything in an account for this? Leo Olney discussed construction charges for line extensions stating this was done with city crews and materials and residents were then charged for construction. Discussion followed regarding single famiZy units and multi- family units average cubic foot consumption per billing period: single family consumption per month is 786 cu. ft: multi-family consumption per month is 546 cu. ft. B. Amo discussed his opposition to charging less for multi-family units. He felt that single family, low income and elderly are not treated fairly. Walt McKinney, 1539 NW Eldorado Blvd. discussed the possible reluctance of multi-family developers to build in the city if they were to be charged equal amount per unit as single family units. He discussed charging strictly on consumption. Mary Hawkins, 1010 Hewitt Ave., discussed the possibility of monthly billing instead of hi-monthly. Mary Lou Long discussed her objections to lower rates for multi- family units. ShQ disCUssed the fact that there has been no firm committment from the Navy for specified funding. B. Amo discussed capital charge of $7.05 for single family units and his contention that lower volume users subsidize high volume users. Mr, Drouin stated the fixed capital charge of $7.05 is for no volume, it is for sewer hook up. E. Sturdivant discussed continued seeking of funding from other sources. He also discussed working with the County. Motion by P. Drouin and E. Sturdivant to change language pg. 2, sec. 2 (2 places) to reflect not to exceed 1.15 times. P. Drouin discussed original study where outside users would pay same rate as city, however, stipulated additional charges to cover fixed capital cost may be possible. J. Adrian and S. Horning requested a copy of the document. B. Amo stated the issue is a local plant, regional plan was when 90U funding was available. He felt lower rates should be an incentive for borderline residents to annex to the city. R. Mosely discussed the original regional plan which calls for even dis- tribution between city and county. Discussion followed regarding changes in the rates if this amendment is passed. B. Card stated rates would probably be modified at a later date. Motion was withdrawn. Second on the motion remained. Question called, failed as follows: 4 affirmative (Sturdivant, Pachek, Mosely, Drouin) 4 opposed (Anderson, Amo, Adrian, Johnson) 1 abstention (Homing). There was discussion regarding original proposed regional plan and rates being equal. Discussion continued regarding proposed plant having the capacity of a regional plant. Mr. Amo stated his opposition to the ordinance as written with inequitable multi-family - single family rates. #254O Tape 9 City Council Meeting Minutes March 9, 1983 Page Nine ORDINANCE - ESTABLISH SEWER RATES AND CHARGES CONTD Motion by R. Mosely and C. Pachek to approve on first reading, AN ORDINANCE establishing rates and charges for sanitary sewer service and repealing 0rd. 3809, carried as follows: 8 affirmative, 1 opposed (Amo). Mr. Adrian encouraged Mayor Dawkins to work with the county on a regional plant. RESOLUTION #1966 AB 83-135 Clerk read A RESOLUTION indicating Bremerton City Council's intent to establish a program for credits to the capital portion of sewer service accounts for certain low income, handicapped and elderly persons. B. Broughton stated his office is requesting Council direction regarding low income persons. Discussion followed regarding definition of low income: Handicapped, elderly, needy. Discussion continued regarding gross income and proof of income. Suggestion was made that affidavit of and copy of income tax form be required. Motion by P. Drouin and S. Homing to adopt resolution enabling transfer of sewer department funds to low income service rate subsidy account and to be qualified as so determined by ordinance, carried unanimously. ORDINANCE 1st Reading - MINOR CONSUMPTION OFFENSE AB 83-136 Motion by P. Drouin and B. Amo to approve on first reading, AN ORDINANCE amending Ord. 3529 to provide specific penalties for the offense of Consumption of Liquor by Minor, carried as follows: 7 affirmative, 2 opposed (Sturdivant, Homing). Mr. Sturdivant and Mr. Homing opposed due to difference from state statute. Recess 11:50 p.m. until 12:00 midnight. RESOLUTION - SUBMITTED BY MARY LOU LONG AB 83-137 Mary Lou Long read resolution re: Storm Sewer Construction Fund, Exhibit "B" attached. Conclusion by Council: While there are a number of good points, there are many invalid points and guesses, and some facts and figures are inaccurate. Ms Long stated she worked hard for this nine member Council form of government and is Just attempting to get the facts before the public. The Council thanked Ms Long for her effort. Motion by B. Amo and J. Adrian to accept this document as guidance, carried unanimously. Ruth Davie strongly voiced her objections to Council's reactions to Ms Long's resolution. TIMBER SALE AB 83-138 Motion by S. Homing and C. Pachek to approve bid call for timber sale #2-83 Powerline Thinning, with a minimum bid of $5,500 per contract documents, carried unanimously. MONTHLY PARKING RATES, CITY GARAGE. AB 83-140 Clerk stated current rates are $20 roof, $24.64 4th floor and $26.89 3rd floor. AMPCO is requesting two rates, one for covered and one for roof. $25.95 is average of two existing covered rates. Motion by J. Adrian and R. Moselv to approve the rate structure change, carried unanimously. E.P.A. ASSISTANCE-AMENDMENT AB 83-141 Clerk stated this amendment to Grant #C530851-01-03 for design of Sewerage Improvements increases grant amount by $77,378. The amendment provides the means by which the City will get the necessary work performed for 10% as opposed to 50%. Motion by P. Drouin and C. Pachek to approve this amendment and authorize the Mayor to execute the documents, carried unanimously. City Council Meeting Minutes Mar~'h 9, 1983 Fa~e Ten MANAGEMENT GRANT AMENDMENT AB 83-142 Clerk stated amendment proposed by DOE is designed to relive the City and DOE from numerous grant budget revisions which occur during the period of a grant project. Presently the City cannot exceed any line item by more than 5% without a formal change requiring Council and DOE approval. The proposed amendment would allow greater than 5% deviations in a line i~em provided the total deviation did not exceed 5% of the total grant budget. However, under the DOE proposed amendment it could take place with out a formal amendment. Motion by J. Adrian and R. Johnson to approve DOE amendment and authorize the Mayor to sign, carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned March 10th, 12:45 a.m. APPROVED: KATHLEEN L. McCLUSKEH, C~'y~Clerk ATTACHMENT Exhibit "A" F. Recommendations and Conditions The Shoreline Permits requested should be approved with the following conditions: This Shoreline Substantial Development and Conditional Use Permit is subject to the various requirements contained in the Bremerton Area Plan, the Bremerton Zoning Ordinance, the Uniform Building Code, the Bremerton Shoreline Management Master Program and other applicable laws and regulations. It is the responsibility of the developer to assure compliance with the applicable provisions contained therein. The site shall be developed essentially the same as the site plan labled Exhibit "A" except as modified to meet conditions of approval listed herein. Any changes, revisions or additions which constitute a significant departure from the approved site plan shall require approval of the City Council under the requirement of WAC 173-14. The construction permit application shall contain provisions which comply with the Bremerton Shoreline Plan requirements for land fill,. water access and moorage facilities and ~oreline c~fense v~rkS. The design of the bulkhead and fill shall meet the Department of Fisheries guidelines titled "Criteria Governing the Design of Bulk- heads, Landfills and Marinas in Puget Sound for Protection of Fish and Shellfish Resources" dated February 5, 1971. Written evidence of Corps of Engineers and Department of Fisheries Permits which are required for construction shall be provided to the City prior to the issuance of City Construction Permits. 7. Open pile and float construction shall be required for pier, dock and moorage facilities. Prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit a public pedestrian access easement shall .be gran~d ~ ~he City and filed with Ih~ County Auditor along a~d over any tidelands on or adjacent to the site over which the developer has control. 9. A safety gate shall be located on the pier approximately 45 feet from the bulkhead. 10. The pier and dock shall not be used for commerical purposes. EXHIBIT "B" page 1 of 5 To the Bremerton City Council Whereas, it is stated in the municipal code of the city of Bremerton, chapter 3.16 of Revenues, Ordinance 2291, dated 1-1958, "The city treasurer is authorized and DIRECTED to establish a FUND for the city water Dept. to be known as the storm sewer construction fund for the purpose of constructing restoring, relocating and REPAIRING storm sewers in the city for the purpose of carrying surface drainage waters." Whereas, also this code further states in "Exclusion of storm water from the sanitary sewer system. It is essential for the efficient operation of the sanitary sewer system and sewage disposal plants that surface drainage waters, otherwise known as storm waters shall be EXCLUDED FROM ALL PARTS OF THE SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM and the sewage disposal plants." Whereas, the city is still suffering from lack of storm sewer separation after 25 years from the date of acceptance of Ordinance 2291, and the intent of the ordinance has not been fulfilled, Whereas, within this law of the city Ordinance 2291 it further states that the city treasurer shall transfer funds from the Reneral water fund to the strom sewer construction fund as directed by the Bremerton city council. Whereas, the present administration has not been directed to do so by the new city council, nor is there evidence that they are performing under the direction of former council , Whereas, the Bremerton water utility is presently collecting somewhere around the sum of $600,000 to $1,800,000 revenues annually on water charges using city resident use and the figures of $10 a month per user with an estimated population of 30,000 using only half that amount as households, (This does not include the outside utility hook-ups in the county. Nor does this reflect the charges to the U.S. Navy for their use through Navy Housing, the Navy Hospital, or the Shipyard) This figure is a rough guess / Whereas, in addition to this amount they have collected approximately $22,057,365.00 from water service to the PSNS, Navy Hospital and Jackson Park Housing over the past ten years, Whereas, this would be approxianately total $70,657,365 revenue to the city qver the past 27 years,, from which a portion could have been set aside to rebuild and repair our sewer system over the past 27 years since this city ordinance was instituted, Whereas, the original system was fully paid for and funds collected went for repair and replacement and operations, Whereas, in addition to the approximate $70,657,365 possible revenues collected by the city over the years for which a part should have Exhibit "B" page 2 of 5 been placed in the STORM SEWER CONSTRUCTION FUND, the city instituted additional charges on its citizens of a separate SEWER CHARGE for the purpose of creating revenues to repair and rebuild the Bremerton Sewer System in the approximate mount of $1,152,000 annual income ($10 per perso~ a month ~ith a populati~>n of 35,470 of which only 9,600 are hocked up to the sewer system). $1,151,000 times approximately 17 years of collection equals $12,584,000 then add this figure to the rough estimates of $70,657,365 water charges collected over the past twenty seven years and the city has had at its disposal somewhere around $83,241,365 to pull funds from and place in the protected storm sewer construction fund according to Ord. 2291, Whereas, these revenues have been continually placed in the general fund to be used for numerous other city expenditures, with little or no funds being placed into a protected fund for storm separation according to Ordinance 2291, Whereas, the city has been grossly negligent in conducting city business over these years either through umlfeasience or misfeasience to the point that the city sewer system is in disasterous and deplorable condition whereby the state has shut down growth on the east side of town and part of downtown Bremerton and will put a total moritorium on the city if it does not take steps to rectify its polluting condition and come into compliance with State Law, and created pain and suffering and great expense to the citizens of Bremerton, Whereas, the new sewage treatment facility and attendant projects do not address this storm separation system project, Wheras, there will continue to be a problem with backed up sewer lines and destruction to private property directly related to the lack of storm separation systems not being installed under the CH2MHILL project, Whereas, the present funding proposal for the construction of a new sewage system is inequitable, Whereas, only 9,600 citizens are participating in the distribution of the present funding schedule being calculated ou a user fee basis, because there are presently 9,600 hook-ups to the sewer system (city and county using sewer service), Whereas, it is not indicated how many future users will be added to the syste~ and how that will reduce the payments of the present participants in the distribution of funding, Whereas, the population of the city proper has been declining for the past ten years, Whereas, there is no significant evidence that the present trend of population decline will be reversed, Exhibit "B" page 3 of 5 Whereas, the flow [hrough the sewage plant has been mysteriously increasing over the past ten years, indicating ever increasing demands on the city sewer service by developers in the county, U.S. Naval Hospital, and the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, and the Military Housing, the Whereas, the city is made up of 70% or more rentals and that the present funding will be unbalanced and fall a heavy burdon on these tenters, Whereas, there is no tenter representation for 70% of the citizen population of Bremerton since all our councilmen are landlords of several rental units or single family property owners, Whereas, the present funding mode is in favor of multi-family rental property landlords, Whereas, the present funding proposal also gives an unfair advantage by cutting their basic rates in half as compared to the single family resident property owner, Whereas, the city council and the administration have refused the public full disclosure of alternative funding proposals such as property assesments to cover a capital improvement of the nature of such a sewage treatment facility, Whereas, the DOE Washington State A~ency placed a lesser populated area of the county Bucklin Ridge Development,(raw county land), in a much higher priority above Bremerton with an existing population of 35,475 people with an existing pollution problem, Whereas, the U.S. Navy reserved 2 million gallons of capacity a day at the new Brownsville county sewer plant and that their use was estimated at 41.67I of the plant and that the U.S. Navy paid 41.67% of the project costs, Whereas, the present participation of the Navy is being estimated by the city as 5.1 million dollars of the estimated 48.8 million dollar project which constitutes 101 of the project and it has been calculated by CH2MHILL, the consulting firm that their use will be 25% of the plant, Whereas, after 18 months of waiting the Navy has not received a return verification from the city as to just exactly what percentage has been calculated as their fair share of this project, Whereas, the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard has been identified by a Gray and Osborne consulting firm to have used up to as much as 35% of the Exhibit "B" page 4 of 5 average annual water use, (this is not clearly defined as to whether this 3~I is of all water use or specifically the Navy'$ use or the mount of water identified as surplus water use.), Whereas, this amount of water usage would indicate far in excess of 25% of sewer waste water input unless the Navy is dumping direct, Therefore be it resolved, that the city council direct the city treasurer through the direction of the Mayor to define and account for all the money that has been collected to date for these aformentioned services (water charges and sewer charges collected by the Bremertou Utility to include all additional revenues collected on construction fees and interest on those fees since 1958) estimated to be around $70,657,365 and possibly more because this figure does not include construction fees or interest on these fees, Therefore, be it also resolved that the city of Bremerton revise the funding proposal to show a realistic evaluation of the cost of this sewer project to the citizens of Bremerton and their duely elected representatives the tit7 council so as not to be confused, or to be dealing with distorted facts and figures, causing the alienation of the public, that would keep them from pursuing the course that we should rightfully take to satisfy State Law and to resolve the pollution problem which we and in conjunction with the U.S. Navy', and numerous count7 resident now usin~ the city service share, and supply an alternate funding proposal such as a property assessment funding mode of the properly aportioned share for city residents, Furthermore be it resolved that the present city council do this post hast and present to the public for re-evaluation at Special public hearings as required by law, And furthermore be it resolved that the new tit7 council direct the city treasurer through the Mayor to imediately place all revenues from sewer charges and a portion of water charges into the protected Storm SewervFund per Ordinance 2291, And also he it resolved that in the event the city council or the Mayor and those department heads responsible for providing this vital information to council and the citizens of Bremerton do not take this resolution into consideration and take action on it, that those non-complient personel be held in contempt of the citizens of Bremerton and that their motives be understood to he action of malfeasience and misfeasience through deliberate obfiscation of facts by which ~hey may all be removed from their duties as public servants, so as ', allow the citizens of Bremerton an opportunity to elect new representatives law. Exhibit "B" page 5 of 5 more willing to comply with State and city And be it also resolved, that full disclosure of the U.S. Naval use of the proposed new sewage treatment facilities be accomplished and that notification be sent imediately to the Facilities Command in charge of negotiating with the city of Bremerton on this matter, and that the public be informed of that percentage of participation, Furthermore in that the development of a sewage treatment plant is a capital improvement that its funding be proposed in other than user fees, And that user fees be designated for operation and maintenance only.