Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 03/05/1991 1844 CITY COUNCIL MEETING Port Angeles, Washington March 5, 1991 I CALL TO ORDER - SPECIAL MEETING Mayor Sargent called the special meeting of the Port Angeles City Council to order at 6:04 P.M. II ROLL CALL Members Present: Mayor Sargent, Councilmen Cornell, Hallett, Lemon, Nicholson, Ostrowski (arrived 6:25 P.M.), Wight. Members Absent: None. Staff Present: Manager Pomeranz, AttorneyKnutson, Clerk Upton, S. Brodhun, M. Cleland, B. Collins, L. Glenn, K. Godbey, J. Pittis, B. Titus, L. Meyer, G. Kenworthy, S. Hursh, T. Smith, J. Hicks, K. Ridout, B. Jones. Public Present: E. Braun, O. Matthews, J. Ward, S. Trump, C. Thomas, L. Dyker, M. Thornton, Mr. & Mrs. C. Alexander, E. Tiemerson, A. Rose, Mr. & Mrs. Abbott, P. Milliren, K. Noonan, B. Philpott, M. Greubel, V. Nixon, J. Hare, S. Breakstone, T. Mata, J. Glass, D. Cebelak, J. Moore, M. McArthur, H. Whitney, D. Rudolph, T. Durham, C. Shurland, K. Wilbert. III ADJOURN TO EXECUTIVE SESSION Mayor Sargent adjourned the meeting to executive session at 6:05 P.M. to discuss matters of litigation and labor negotiation, for approximately one hour. IV RETURN TO OPEN SESSION The meeting returned to open session at 7:00 P.M. V CALL TO ORDER - REGULAR MEETING Mayor Sargent called the regular meeting of the Port Angeles City Council to order at 7:05 P.M. VI PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was led by Mayor Sargent. VII APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JOINT CITY/COUNTY MEETING OF FEBRUARY 12, 1991, AND REGULAR MEETING OF FEBRUARY 19, 1991 Councilman Ostrowski moved to approve the minutes of the joint City/County meeting of February 12, 1991, and the regular meeting of February 19, 1991. The motion was seconded by Councilman Cornell. Councilman Cornell offered a correction on page 18 of the February 19, 1991, - minutes, Korean Veterans Memorial, wherein Councilmen Cornell and Lemon voted in opposition to the motion. The minutes indicated the vote was unanimous. A vote was then taken on the motion, which carried unanimously, approving the minutes of February 19, 1991, as corrected. VIII FINANCE 1. Request for progress payment to Delhur, Inc., for Landfill construction of $111,216.75~ and retainage of $5,409.38 Councilman Cornell moved to authorize the progress payment to Delhur Industries, Inc., for Landfill construction in the amount of $111,216.75, with retainage to escrow of $5,409.38. The motion was seconded by Councilman Wight. -1- 1845 CITY COUNCIL MEETING March 5, 1991 At this time, Councilman Wight requested that future requests for progress payments include contract percentage of completion and the original contract price. A vote was then taken on the motion, which carried unanimously. 2. Modification to Street Materials bid award (paint) This matter is being returned to Council for consideration, in that Public Works discovered the bid submitted for traffic paint was an alternate bid, and the specifications did not meet the requirements of the City of Port Angeles. The recommendation is, therefore, made that the City Council rescind the award to Alpine Chemical Co. and award the bid to Morton International. Public Works Director Pittis distributed a revised memorandum to Council which included the addresses of the bidders. Councilman Ostrowski moved to rescind the award to Alpine Chemical Co. for failure to meet the specifications, and award the bid to Morton International in the amount of $5,259.57. The motion was seconded by Councilman Nicholson. Councilman Wight inquired as to whether the City would be authorized to give preference to in-state bidders. Attorney Knutson responded that State law allows for the City to take into account the effect sales tax would have but that, in this instance, there would be no effect legally in that the dollar amount of the purchase is below the required bid limit. Councilman Cornell inquired as to whether sales tax paid occurs at the Port Angeles location when doing business with a Portland vendor. The consensus was that yes, it is paid at the Port Angeles location. The price quoted is the delivered price. After further discussion, a vote was taken on the motion, which carried unanimously. 3. Request for final payment for City Light Operations Building roof 'replacement to Hoch Construction, Inc.~ of $2,203.00 and retainage of $2,333.90 Hoch Construction had been awarded the bid to replace the roof on the Operations Building. The original contract amount was $46,562.05; two change orders were approved for this project, totaling $3,756.83. Councilman Nicholson moved to declare Contract CL90-3 complete and authorize progress payment number 3 for $2,203.00 and the retainage payment of $2,333.90, after receiving the appropriate releases, to Hoch Construction, Inc. The motion was seconded by Councilman Cornell. Mayor Sargent inquired as to whether this was still the iow bid. City Light Director Titus indicated it was, in fact, the low bid and there was quite a difference up to the next highest bidder. Director Titus indicated the change orders would have occurred no matter who was awarded the bid. Councilman Hallett questioned the change orders and inquired as to whether correct representations had been made during the bid process. Attorney Knutson indicated that even if the correct representation had been made at the time, the City would still have incurred the expense. The City did not require the manufacturer to come out and look at the situation; there is no cause of action on the part of the City. Limited discussion followed, with a vote taken on the motion, which carried unanimously. 4. Consideration of bid award for distribution transformers Councilman Hallett moved to award bids for Items 1, 2, 3, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14 to Western States Electric; Item #4 to General Pacific, Inc.; and Items #6, 7, and 8 to WESCO, as presented. The motion was seconded by Councilman Cornell and carried unanimously. -2- 1846 CITY COUNCIL MEETING March 5, 1991 IX CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Sargent noted that Item No. 2 should reflect a request to go to bid for workstation computer equipment, software and maintenance services. Councilman Hallett moved to accept the items as presented on the Consent Agenda, including: (1) Request for approval of advance travel for City's DARE Officer to travel to World Drug Conference in Nashville, Tennessee; (2) Request for authorization to go to bid for workstation computer equipment, software, and maintenance services; (3) Correspondence from Washington State Liquor Control Board; (4) Vouchers of $2,248,309.72; and (5) Payroll of 2-17-91 of $281,645.64. The motion was seconded by Councilman Cornell. Councilman Hallett drew attention to the out-of-state travel request for the - DARE Officer to attend the Parent Resources and Drug Education (PRIDE) World Drug Conference. Councilman Hallett noted the Soroptimist Club should be recognized for contributing the amount of the air fare, which is $500, toward the effort to send Officer Schilke to this conference. The City will be paying the remainder of the expenses, in the amount of $448. After further discussion concerning the Consent Agenda, and specific items on the voucher list, a vote was taken on the motion, which carried unanimously. At this time, Mayor Sargent introduced Dottie McFarland, the new Administrative Assistant in the Administrative Services Department, who is being trained this evening to cover the next City Council meeting for Clerk Upton, who will be attending a meeting of the Washington Municipal Clerks Association. X ITEMS FROM THE COUNCIL/AUDIENCE TO BE CONSIDERED/PLACED ON THE AGENDA Kurt Sauer, Olympic National Park, requested he be allowed to speak to Item No. 1 under Legislation. Councilman Wight addressed the City Manager and requested that information pertinent to the compensation of City Councilmembers be presented, hopefully at the next meeting. In addition, Mayor Sargent indicated a discussion is to be held at the next meeting concerning City employees driving City cars to and from their homes. XI LEGISLATION 1. Consideration of Resolution denouncing destruction of public property Mayor Sargent read the Resolution by title, entitled RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Port Angeles denouncing the destruction of public property by arson. Kurt Sauer, representing Maureen Finnerty of Olympic National Park, addressed Council and indicated the Park's appreciation of the City's support. He offered for consideration an alternate resolution in conjunction with the destruction of public property by arson. Mayor Sargent read the new Resolution into the record, as follows: RESOLUTION NO. 5-91 A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Port Angeles denoucing the destruction of public property by arson and supporting Olympic National Park. WHEREAS, arsonists recently destroyed the Soleduck Entrance Booth and the Fairhold Ranger Station, buty located in Olympic National Park; at a cost to taxpayers of $89,000; and -3- 1847 CITY COUNCIL MEETING March 5, 1991 WHEREAS, Olympic National Park is a significant attraction and serves to enhance the economy of the peninsula through tourism; and WHEREAS, a large portion of Olympic National Park's employees are citizens of the Port Angeles area and deserve a safe working environment; and WHEREAS, the City Council of Port Angeles is using this resolution to publicly denounce the senseless destruction by arson of these buildings and any vandalism or arson to any public property; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council that our community supports Olympic National Park and will have no toleranc of illegal destruction of property by any persons and urge citizens to support this resolution by denouncing such pointless actions. Councilman Wight moved to pass the alternative Resolution as read. The motion was seconded by Councilman Nicholson and carried unanimously. 2. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. CONSIDERATION OF SHORT PLAT ORDINANCE AMENDMENT: revising standard improvements for short plats Planning Director Collins indicated Doug Wood wished to address Council on this matter, representing Joyce Rose and the Abbotts. One of the reasons this particular date was chosen for the public hearing was to allow the Abbotts or their representative the opportunity to speak. Director Collins indicated there was updated information in the Council packet delineating the differences between the various versions of the roadway standard: Gravel or bituminous (2-shot BST) surfaced roadway, in comparison to what currently exists, which is asphalt paving. Mayor Sargent opened the public hearing at 7:32 P.M. Doug Wood, P. O. Box 1831, expressed concern that the revised short plat ordinance does not allow for any variation in such matters as those being experienced by the Abbotts. In reviewing the Abbott situation, Mr. Wood related the unique circumstances of the short plat request involving large lots in a country environment, and a gravel road right-of-way owned by the Abbotts and their neighbors. It was intended to divide one large lot into two, with construction of one additional home. The wording of the ordinance does not allow approval, and Mr. Wood requested a more realistic approach to matters such as this. Director Collins indicated the proposed changes before Council do not address Mr. Wood's concern. The proposed ordinance still retains the same language, in that it does not include a mechanism for variances. The ordinance still includes the requirement that each lot shall abut a dedicated, improved, maintained City street. In the case of the Abbott short plat, this did not occur and, for that reason, the application was denied. It has been difficult to establish a resolution to the problem without affecting all other properties in the City. Public Works Director Pittis reviewed the history of the proposed changes, in that work on the ordinance had commenced over two years ago. The issue of the Abbotts is of more recent history and the purpose of the revision was different from what is being addressed at this time. In response to an inquiry from Councilman Hallett as to whether this matter could be reconciled at this time and still rely on the ordinance for further planning, Director Collins indi- cated the ordinance would have to be changed. Councilman Nicholson indicated it was his understanding, at the time of the Abbott request, that Council originally denied the request without prejudice so the Planning Commission could address the issue, determine methods of resolution, and return to Council so the request could be approved. Councilman Wight related his interpretation of the short plat ordinance as being such that it was supposed to be to the highest and best uses. There have -4- 1848 CITY COUNCIL MEETING March 5, 1991 been loose interpretations as well as tight interpretations; he was concerned about the rigidity in considering the short plat ordinance. He felt this ordinance is no different than any other in that Council has the prerogative of making site-specific decisions in the public interest, and asked the City Attorney if this was correct. Attorney Knutson responded that the appropriateness of a variance procedure is a policy question. Legally, however, if the Council wishes to make site- specific exceptions with specific short plats, there is a need for an ordinance which allows for such discretion. With regard to the Abbott short plat appeal, the present ordinance did not allow site-specific exceptions to the required street standards that must be met. To give the City more discretion, either a variance procedure could be adopted or the minimum standards could be reduced and the short plat administrator could be authorized to require a higher standard on a case-by-case basis. In response to Councilman CorneliUs question, Planning Director Collins and Attorney Knutson responded that the appeal process is intended to allow for a different level of decision-maker to determine or interpret whether or not the standards are being met, rather than to allow the standards to be relaxed or changed. Councilman Hallett addressed the matter of changing the minimum standard for a surface treatment. Director Collins clarified the recommendation of the appointed committee was for a gravel surface; the recommendation of the Planning Commission was for a bituminous (2-shot BST) surface. Ken Schermer, 738 West Sixth, indicated a former City Council had agreed to appoint a citizen committee to work with staff in revising the short plat ordinance. He spoke in support of the revised ordinance, noting problem areas, particularly in the west end. He spoke of the initial cost restraints for citizens to develop a short plat. The proposed changes allow for future development of the area by the L.I.D. process which, in his opinion, would be the appropriate methodology. Councilman Hallett questioned Mr. Shermer~s comments regarding high initial costs and the use of the L.I.D. process. Mr. Schermer indicated most of the City's infrastructure, other than sewer and water, was put in place via the L.I.D. method. Areas lacking sidewalks are due to decisions made at the time not to install sidewalks. Councilman Hallett, in seeking clarification, queried as to lowered standards in terms of side- walks, curbs, and gutters resulting in less initial expense. Mr. Schermer agreed, by noting an ordinance could be adopted wherein the L.I.D. process included a requirement for sidewalks, curbs, and gutters. Harold Abbott, 3231 Regent Street, expressed the opinion that the short plat ordinance can be used for such developments as Ennis Creek, but it does not allow for utilization for individuals. Council should have more flexibility to use its judgment. Larry Leonard, former Chairman of the Planning Commission, indicated the biggest problem with the Abbott request is the requirement that it must abut a City street. Mr. Leonard felt this to be a reasonable requirement. The proposed ordinance change does not change the standards; it just changes the timeframe as to when it will be paid and when the standards will be met. Mr. Leonard referenced the non-protest L.I.D. provision in the ordinance; he supports the BST until the time an L.IoD. is financially feasible and can be accomplished. Lengthy discussion ensued concerning the L.I.D. process and the application of a non-protest agreement. In response to an inquiry from Councilman Lemon, Public Works Director Pittis explained the non-protest agreement allows for what is considered an affirmative vote during the L.I.D. formation. Once estimates and designs have been completed, the L.I.D. is again presented for a vote, at which time the property represented by the non-protest agreement is excluded from the vote calculations. With the remaining property included in the voting, the outcome must be a vote representative of 50 percent or more. At this time, Attorney Knutson referenced Page 4 of the proposed ordinance, Minimum roadway improvement standard, Section 2.H.; he suggested adding the words "consent and" before the word "non-protest" in the first line. Limited discussion followed. The Mayor closed the public hearing at 8:00 P.M. In the ensuing discussion, Public Works Director Pittis reviewed maintenance requirements of BST streets; he summarized the City's experience with annexed -5- 1849 CITY COUNCIL MEETING March 5, 1991 areas with 2-shot bituminous surface treatment. The City does not have the necessary equipment to maintain such a surface treatment. Director Collins indicated most substandard roadways were not installed in the last five years. Lengthy discussion involved the life of BST as compared to asphalt; also considered were the elements and cost of maintenance. It was then suggested that an addition to the proposed ordinance, Page 2, b.iii., third line, with the words "(2-shot BST)" added following the word "bituminous". Discussion ensued concerning the L.I.D. process. Mayor Sargent then read the ordinance by title, entitled ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City of Port Angeles, Washington, allowing bituminous surface treatment (BST) rather than asphaltic concrete (AC) streets in short subdivisions and amending Ordinance No. 2222 and Chapter 16.04 of the Port Angeles Municipal Code. Councilman Wight moved to adopt the ordinance as read by title, inclusive of the additions of "consent and" and "(2-shot BST)", as proposed, and to publish the ordinance by summary. Councilman Nicholson seconded the motion. In the following discussion, Councilman Hallett expressed concern about relaxing standards wherein the City will experience a patchwork of streets which must be addressed by future Councils as to methods of repair. He urged Council to maintain proper planning throughout these deliberations and to retain the ordinance with its present verbiage. Councilman Lemon agreed; he indicated his willingness to relax standards concerning curbs, gutters, and sidewalks, but not road surface treatment, particularly due to long-term maintenance costs. Councilman Cornell inquired as to the possibility of a developer recovering costs at a future date. Public Works Director Pittis reviewed different concepts being explored, such as a type of latecomer fee or possibly a transportation improvement area, which has certain disadvantages. A vote was then taken on the motion, with Councilmen Wight and Nicholson voting in support of the motion, and Councilmen Hallett, Ostrowski, Cornell, and Lemon voting in opposition. The motion, therefore, failed. Councilman Lemon moved to change the surface treatment from 2-shot Bituminous Surface Treatment to a 2-inch Asphalt Surface and to have the revised ordinance returned to Council at its next meeting for consideration. The motion was seconded by Councilman Wight. In the following discussion, Attorney Knutson was asked to research the non-protest L.I.D. process as discussed, and Public Works Director Pittis was asked to research the possibility of a developer receiving credit for costs incurred in street improvements. A vote was then taken on the motion, which carried unanimously. B. CURBSIDE RECYCLING AND SOLID WASTE RATES Public Works Director Pittis presented information pertinent to a bid solicita- tion for curbside recycling; bids for curbside recycling were referred to the Utility Advisory Committee for review. The apparent low bidder, Environmental Waste Systems, Inc., had agreed to extend the bid; the other bidder declined to extend. A cost-of-service study for the Solid Waste Utility was authorized in conjunction with the bid in order to develop a rational method for distribu- tion of recycling and other utility costs to the appropriate customer rate class. The firm of Economic and Engineering Services was engaged to assist with the cost-of-service study. The results of the study, in the form of proposed rates, were published in order to receive public input at this public hearing. The Utility Advisory Committee reviewed rate comparisons, inclusive of residential and commercial 90s, commercial 300s, and Landfill tonnage, which included rate considerations with and without recycling. Director Pittis reviewed the different rates being presented, noting the rate without recycling is higher than the existing rate, primarily due to the introduction of the five-year capital improvement program, as well as the closure of the cells at the Landfill. Other operational needs, not previously known, are also included. -6- 1850 CITY COUNCIL MEETING March 5, 1991 It is proposed that free use of the Landfill by City residents be eliminated; that yard waste be accepted at the Landfill at no charge; that tires and appliances will be charged on a per-ton basis; that handicap and special door collection service be continued at no charge; that Christmas tree collection be continued at no charge; that spring clean-up and beach clean-up be supported at no charge; and that household hazardous waste collection be continued. The major basis for the distribution of the costs is essentially the Landfill tonnage. Director Pittis reviewed the breakdown of refuse tons at the Land- fill: 46.2% - County; 10.8% City Commercial collected; 16.5% paid Commercial, 4.6% free City residential; and 21.9% City residential collected. The total tonnage percentage is used as the basis for the distribution of curbside recycling costs, with the logic being that the resulting benefit will be the extension of the life of the Landfill over a period of time. Director Pittis indicated that possibly the most controversial issue will be the discontinuation of free Landfill usage by City residents. This particular service is worth approximately $2.00 per customer. Applying that amount to the proposed rate, the net increase to a customer is approximately $1.75 per month. Director Pittis reviewed elements of the recycling contract: the contractor provides curbside collection of separate recyclable materials in three containers and coordinates Landfill recycling and provides collection of commercial cardboard. An issue to be addressed is whether collection takes place in front of a home or in the alley. It was noted a City employee will continue the operation of the Landfill chipper. The composting program will be revisited after a determination can be made as to applying a mixture with sludge in order to create fertilizer. After the signing of the recycling contract, the curbside collection program could commence in approximately sixty days, allowing the contractor time to acquire delivery of necessary materials. The earliest the contract could be implemented would be approximately mid-May or early June. During the interim, a public awareness program would be instituted. Lengthy discussion followed and Councilman Hallett reported on the lengthy involvement of the Utility Advisory Committee in the issue of recycling. He noted the UAC would be coming to Council anyway for a rate increase, due to the operation of the Landfill; it was determined more realistic to find a way to incorporate recycling at the same time and adopt a rate which would be supported more fully by the public. The Recycling Committee has reviewed various types of recycling over a period of the last three years and this proposal is the sum of those efforts. If the recycling proposal is approved, it does not preclude other future activities in terms of change and the Council could be flexible in those instances. Councilman Hallett referenced considera- tion underway for a Solid Waste District wherein recycling efforts throughout the County could be enhanced and further extend the life of the Landfill. It is hoped the public will support this first step to be good stewards of the environment. Mayor Sargent reminded Council of the "Three R~s"~ Reduce - Reuse - Recycle. The Mayor then opened the public hearing at 9:26 P.M. Ken Schermer, 738 West Sixth Street, spoke in support of the concept of recycl- ing; it was his suggestion as a former Councilmember to form the Recycling - Committee. However, Mr. Schermer expressed opposition to the present recycling proposal due to feelings that recycling should save the City and its residents money; residents should not have to pay in order to recycle. Mr. Schermer felt certain measures must first be taken, such as a Solid Waste District, before a formal recycling program is put in place. Further, Mr. Schermer felt each household should be provided with its own 90-gallon container so as to provide a means to monitor individual recycling; there should be a zero garbage incentive program. Mr. Schermer cited the success of the Seattle recycling efforts and spoke to certain dimensions of that program. He urged Council to delay action on the recycling proposal until after the time other measures have been taken to provide a means for a more successful program. Louise Meyer, 2629 Franklin Lane, addressed Council, not as a member of the Citizens Recycling Committee, but as a citizen dedicated to the preservation of the environment for future generations. Ms. Meyer indicated curbside recycling will not bring money into the City's pockets; it will cost the individual residents and the City a not inconsiderable sum. However, the 1851 CITY COUNCIL MEETING March 5, 1991 dollars spent today and tomorrow will extend the life of the Landfill, thereby saving dollars. Ms. Meyer urged Council to approve curbside recycling, to begin at the earliest possible date. Mayor Sargent then complimented Ms. Meyer on her efforts in recycling at City Hall. Ron Farrington, City resident, spoke in support of providing City residents with individual garbage containers. He expressed concern that maintaining the larger dumpsters would encourage residents to continue filling the dumpsters with yard debris and the like. Mr. Farrington felt there is no incentive in place for residents to recycle. He also expressed concern about collection of recyclables in the alleys, due to traffic congestion. Steve Breakstone, 430 East Lauridsen Boulevard, spoke as a member of the Recycling Committee. However, he expressed concern at the lack of meetings since he joined the membership. Mr. Breakstone expressed his impatience with the lack of a formal recycling program, and he urged Council to move forward in this arena as quickly as possible. He expressed the opinion that no recyclables should be destined for the Landfill. This particular effort addresses only 25% of the flow to the Landfill. The remaining 75% should be given immediate attention and, in that regard, Mr. Breakstone felt the proposal does not go far enough. In addition, he expressed willingness to pay a little more in order to accomplish recycling. Mr. Breakstone indicated his desire for Port Angeles to be the leader in the area of recycling; he urged Council to proceed in a rapid fashion and also urged more information provided through the media. Virginia Leinart, 3002 South Peabody, indicated the schools in Port Angeles are ready to actively participate in the recycling effort. She inquired as to the City's ability to include the schools in this particular proposal. Public Works Director Pittis responded the contract provides for a case-by-case development of commercial recycling, into which the schools would fit. City Manager Pomeranz indicated conversations have been held with Superintendent Pope, who indicated a desire to work with the City on recycling. Pat Miller, 1626 West Eighth Street, spoke in favor of curbside recycling, but expressed concern about the rates. Ms. Miller felt there is no incentive. She asked Council to consider the frequency of collections, in that residents should have less trash because of recycling, thereby requiring less frequent collection. Rates should then reflect the fewer number of collections. Ms. Miller cited a similar program in Bellingham and the specific attributes of that effort. Mert Thornton, 919 Glenbrook Circle, Principal of Jefferson Elementary, spoke on behalf of the School District Recycling Committee. The District is looking at the "Away with Waste" program, sponsored by the Department of Ecology, which is a hands-on program for training K-12, focusing on recycling. The schools are very supportive of the recycling program; it is hoped the schools can be included in this particular effort, as it serves as an excellent means of educating the children as to their future responsibilities. Ed Brown, 1724 West 13th Street, questioned the current dumping of plaster at the Landfill and wondered about the possibility of recycling materials such as the plaster. He indicated he had confirmed this occurrence with the Port and subsequently showed Council a letter he received from Public Works Director Pittis. Mr. Brown felt curbside collection of recyclables will result in more litter being strewn on the street. Further, Mr. Brown indicated there is no incentive to the public to recycle; private recyclers will be directly impacted by this effort. Carl Alexander, 1712 West Fifth Street, questioned the status of appliances and tires at the Landfill. Public Works Director Pittis clarified the tonnage rate to be charged under this proposal. Mr. Alexander expressed the opinion that recycling in Port Angeles should be mandatory. In response to an inquiry as to the tonnage to be recycled, Councilman Cornell indicated estimates are 2,000 tons. Superintendent of Solid Waste Jones also offered further information on the amount of tonnage to be saved in the Landfill. Mr. Alexander urged Council to establish a goal of decreasing Landfill tonnage by 50% because of recycling efforts. Additionally, he supported the concept of destination sorting. Terry Heindl, Port Angeles School District, queried as to whether there is a clause in the contract if the market goes up for paper, and whether there would be a rate adjustment. Councilman Hallett indicated the rates are based on -8- 1852 CITY COUNCIL MEETING March 5, 1991 tonnage use at the Landfill and not by what may or may not be gained by the sale of recyclables. Public Works Director Pittis indicated the City will realize 75% of the revenue from the sale of recyclables, a figure which has been factored into the rate structure presented. Mr. Heindl then requested the means by which the School District can be involved in this effort. Superin- tendent 3ones responded the contract allows for individual arrangements with commercial entities on a case-by-case basis; the Contractor has been encouraged to work with all businesses in this regard. Mayor Sargent closed the public hearing at 10:25 P.M. Mayor Sargent then recessed the meeting for a break at 10:26 P.M. The meeting was reconvened at 10:40 P.M. Councilman Lemon moved to continue the agenda. Councilman Hallett seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Councilman Lemon suggested conducting a work session on this matter, as he has several concerns. Councilman Hallett indicated the matter has been under consideration over the past three years and nothing new has been introduced this evening. The first decision to be made is whether to award a contract and, if not, then perhaps the contract needs to be rebid at some later date. Councilman Hallett noted this is not a perfect proposal, but opined it is a good first step. More will be accomplished by proceeding as opposed to waiting for the ideal program. The adoption of the program does not preclude Council's future ability to make changes, such as eliminating collection containers in alleys, incentives, penalties, or anything else. Councilman Wight felt the present dumpsters being used are a detriment to a recycling program; however, the City does not have the latitude to reduce the number of collections to less than one per week. To purchase smaller, individual containers, the City would incur a great expense, which may also include the purchase of more collection equipment. This is a problem the City cannot be expected to solve in the immediate future. In addition, the proposed rates for Landfill tonnage should serve as an incentive for residents to decrease the usage of the Landfill. Councilman Wight feels it appropriate to get the recycling efforts started by adopting this program. Councilman Nicholson agreed the proposal does not have all the answers; more incentives need to be provided and consideration may need to be given to making certain things mandatory. He felt it important to proceed and make appropriate modifications in order to make the program successful. Councilman Hallett moved to adopt the Utility Advisory Committee recommendation to award the recycling contract to Environmental Waste Systems, Inc., and the respective rates be placed into ordinance form and returned to Council on March 19, 1991. The motion was seconded by Councilman Wight. Councilman Lemon focused on certain existing problems which he felt need to be addressed. After the time the 300s were introduced to the City, the Landfill tonnage increased by 37% and the matter of recycling was not addressed at that time. He cited a lack of incentive to encourage people to discontinue the use of the 300s as opposed to recycling. He indicated it would be inappropriate to charge people to recycle. Councilman Lemon anticipated a defeat of the recently adopted program with the Boy Scouts; he also indicated local recyclers would possibly be put out of business. In response to an inquiry as to when curbside recycling will become mandatory, Superintendent Jones indicated it could be as early as 1993. Councilman Ostrowski queried whether Council was perhaps rushing into the program. He expressed concern about the rate increase for Landfill tonnage and thought it might be helpful to have the matter referred back to staff for analysis. Councilman Cornell summarized the message from the public hearing in that the City should look at the efficiency of the dumpsters and should research the possibility of destination recycling, which would involve all of the waste stream. Councilman Cornell felt there are some advantages to the alternatives available and he expressed the inability to commit to the proposal, having not heard the reasons for not pursuing other possibilities. He expressed concern that, by adopting this proposal, Council would exclude consideration of other worthwhile alternatives. Mayor Sargent urged the adoption of incentives, perhaps through the use of ooupons. She felt the containers being provided would, in themselves, serve -9- ~f~COUNCIL MEETING March 5, 1991 as an incentive. Further, the Mayor cited the many requests from citizens to implement a recycling program. A vote was then taken on the motion, with Councilmen Nicholson, Wight, and Hallett voting in favor of the motion, and Councilmen Cornell, Lemon, and Ostrowski voting in opposition. Mayor Sargent cast a vote in favor of the motion. The motion, therefore, carried by a majority vote. 3. Request from Olympic Disposal regarding spring clean-up Mayor Sargent reviewed a request from Olympic Disposal requesting financial assistance from the City to again accomplish a spring clean-up in Clallam County, which is tentatively scheduled for April 20 to 21, 1991. During the last such clean-up, Olympic Disposal incurred costs in excess of $7,000 for Landfill fees. It was requested the City split the cost with Olympic Disposal. Councilmembers expressed the opinion that it would be inappropriate for the City to help finance the cost of the Landfill fees incurred because these costs directly relate to a service provided to County residents and not City resi- dents. Accordingly, Councilman Ostrowski moved to deny the request and refer the matter to the County for consideration. The motion was seconded by Councilman Cornell and carried unanimously. 4. Consideration of decision on Ennis Creek Estates Planned Residential Development Mayor Sargent referenced the motions passed at the recently held public hearing which brought specific matters back to Council for consideration. She suggested each matter be addressed individually, with a goal established for Council to reach consensus on each. It had been proposed that Lot #1 be changed to a 42-bed congregate care facility. Planning Director Collins offered more appropriate language, in that the facility can be considered a congregate elderly housing building. By consensus, Councilmembers agreed to incorporate this change. With reference to Lot #4, it had been proposed that a 150-foot buffer be main- tained and the lot changed to a development of single-family and duplex mix. By consensus, Councilmembers agreed to incorporate this change. Discussion then ensued about Lot #1 and the fact the community center and the tennis court would need to be moved. Planning Director Collins indicated the developer had indicated they could be moved slightly to the north. After lengthy deliberation, Councilmembers reached consensus in that the trail is to remain in the plans, with the provision that certain restraints be placed on the developer as to minimizing environment impact. Should environmental problems arise, Council suggested the option of having an agreement wherein the trail would be closed down and the area would be dedicated to the City. Discussion then followed concerning the multi-family structures on Lot #16; more specifically, the 36-unit multi-family structure. By consensus, it was subsequently agreed to bring the height and mass of the 36-unit structure more into compliance with the surrounding area so as to not dwarf the other struc- tures; the means of accomplishing this goal are to be at the developer's discretion, to be reviewed by Council. Councilman Cornell moved to direct staff to formalize these changes into appropriate language so the Planned Residential Development can be approved, and to request the developer to return with revised design plans to be critically evaluated by the Council, with the intention being that with the changes approved tonight, the Council will approve the PRD. Councilman Ostrowski seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. 5. Planning Commission minutes of January 23, 1991 (Continued) A. SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PERMIT - SMA-90(02)113 ITT Rayonier, North Ennis Street (continued consideration) The Planning Commission had recommended approval of a Shoreline Permit for ITT Rayonier, Inc., to allow the demolition of two existing structures, including fill to grade at the site of the demotion, and modification of an existing chip -10- 1854 CITY COUNCIL MEETING March 5, 1991 transport system. Due to a lengthy SEPA review process, the Council was unable to act on the item from the Planning Commission minutes at Councilts February 19, 1991, meeting. The time period has passed for appeal proceedings with no appeal of the Determination of Non-Significance. Therefore, Council may now take action based on the Planning Commission minutes. Councilman Ostrowski moved to concur with the recommendation of the Planning Commission to approve the Shoreline Permit, subject to the following condi- tions, and citing the following Findings and Conclusions: CONDITIONS: (A) Demolition of the existing buildings will require a demolition permit; (B) A hydraulic permit must be obtained from the Fisheries Marine Division for any repairs to the bulkhead/retaining wall and fill drainage; (C) Upon completion of demolition, submit to the Public Works Department a grading plan which clearly shows the location and amount of fill to be placed on-site. Additional retaining walls may be required, based on the City's review of the grading plan; (D) Submit to the Public Works Department a sketch and cross section of the bulkhead/retaining wall and a letter from a licensed engineer stating the bulkhead/retaining wall will support the additional load created by the fill; FINDINGS: (1) The proposal does not involve a new use or improvement to the property; (2) The proposal does not involve any discharges of waste materials to surface or ground water; (3) The precise amounts and location of fill required will not be known until demolition has occurred; CONCLUSIONS: (A) The proposed work is a relatively minor modification to the existing industrial use; (B) The proposal is consistent with the policies and regulations of the Port Angeles Shoreline Master Program, the Port Angeles Comprehensive Plan, and the Port Angeles Zoning Code; (C) Submittal of a grading plan to the City prior to conducting the fill operations will ensure the existing bulkhead/retaining wall, with any additional support, is adequate to support the loads created by the fill; (D) The grading plan can also be used to determine if additional retaining walls are necessary, to be consistent with Policy F.12.e of Article 17 of the Shoreline Master Program, which requires the perimeters of fill areas to be provided with retaining walls. The motion was seconded by Councilman Nicholson. After brief discussion, a vote was taken on the motion, which carried unanimously. At this time, because of the lateness of the hour, Mayor Sargent inquired as to whether some of the agenda items should be held over to the next Council meeting. After brief consideration, it was agreed that Items 9, 10, 12, and 13 would be held over to the next meeting. 6. Planning Commission minutes of February 27, 1991 Councilman Cornell moved to accept and place on file the Planning Commission minutes of February 27, 1991. Councilman Hallett seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. 7. Presentation by Chrys Cervinski of NOPVCB regarding Hotel/Motel tax legislation and recent activities of NOPVCB Chrys Cervinski reviewed recent activities of the North Olympic Peninsula Visitors and Convention Bureau. The 1-800 number has resulted in a significant number of inquiries being directed toward the North Olympic Peninsula; there has been a 67% increase in the number of inquiries over the last two years. Ms. Cervinski distributed some periodicals to Council which contain articles pertinent to the Peninsula and the types of tourism attractiveness. The NOPVCB has been working with the Downtown Association on a Visitorts Guide. Ms. Cervinski then reviewed certain legislation being considered, wherein expanded grant opportunities would be available to create infrastructure for tourism expansion. She requested written support of this legislation from Council. City Manager Pomeranz offered to write such a letter. 8, Consideration of consultant contract for Growth Management Act services Council had previously authorized funds to be allocated toward contracting with a consulting firm to supplement staff, in compliance with mandated State Growth Management requirements. The firm of Heninger and Ray is recommended to accomplish tasks which are required to be completed by the end of April, 1991. Heninger and Ray is serving the State of Washington in a supportive role of -11- 1855 CITY COUNCIL MEETING March 5, 1991 explaining growth management to local governments. Planning Director Collins noted Heninger and Ray has been engaged by the County to assist in a similar fashion. Councilman Wight moved to authorize the City Manager to sign a contract for the proposed scope of work for Option 1 with I{eninger and Ray in the amount of $19,500. The motion was seconded by Councilman Hallett and carried unani- mously. 9. Consideration of resolution establishing construction contract change order procedures Held over to March 19, 1991, meeting. 10. Consideration of changes to Nuisance Ordinance procedures Held over to March 19, 1991, meeting. 11. Consideration of City Policy for the Replacement/Addition of Fleet Equipment Central Services Manger Tim Smith presented for Council consideration a suggested policy for the replacement and addition of fleet equipment. Councilman Cornell inquired as to the methodology for defining industry standard cycles. Manager Smith indicated it has been difficult to obtain consistent information from other municipalities or industries in terms of service lives for similar classes of equipment. There are, however, some typical ranges. Normally, the ranges would be accepted inclusive of the City's history of that vehicle. The determination is made at the time the equipment is acquired. Manger Smith indicated the equipment fund, in approximately 1981, was depleted and, for that reason, an artificial inflation process was accelerated in order to move funds forward so as to avoid the necessity to borrow. There is approximately $1 million in reserves at this time. Councilman Cornell suggested the standar, d replacement cycle be added to the replacement criteria as one which could~s~and alone. He then questioned where the Service Garage personnel are consulted for input as to replacement or repair of equipment. Manager Smith indicated the Equipment Rental Division consists of the team of the Manager, Superintendent, and mechanics. Certainly, all are a part of the decision-making process. It was then suggested more specific language be added to the policy in this regard and that, as a prac- tical matter, the entire staff of the Service Garage be more involved in these deliberations. Manager Smith then distributed graphs depicting data pertinent to generalized ownership cost patterns, as well as ownership costs of the automobile. Councilman Cornell moved to establish the proposal as the policy for replace- ment of fleet equipment, incorporating the changes offered. The motion was seconded by Councilman Hallett and carried unanimously. 12. Request to set Rea]. Estate Committee to discuss: (1) request for extension of HOSPICE lease; (2) request for property suitable for mobile housing from Serenity House; and (3) request for more storage in Old City Hall from Food Bank Held over to March 19, 1991, meeting. 13. Request from Clallam County for Council to appoint City representatives to three advisory committees relating to Regional Growth Management Held over to March 19, 1991, meeting. 14. Consideration of increasing City Manager's salary based on six-month evaluation Mayor Sargent indicated each Councilmember had individually evaluated the City Manager's performance over the last six months. The overall evaluation was -12- 1856 CITY COUNCIL MEETING March 5, 1991 very good to excellent. Areas where the Council has observed marked improve- ments were: Employee morale and attitude; the hiring of a new Administrative Services Director; preparation of a budget and finance system which gives timely and detailed information and control; maintained excellent communica- tions with Councilmembers, other government entities, and the public; and is creative and innovative, and maintains a high energy level. In accordance with the employment agreement, it is appropriate to implement an increase in salary reflective of these achievements. Councilman Nicholson moved, in keeping with the evaluation and the agreement, that the City ManagerWs salary be increased in the amount of 4%, effective March 1, 1991. The motion was seconded by Councilman Hallett and carried unanimously. - At this time, Mayor Sargent inquired as to the necessity to continue the executive session. Attorney Knutson stated that due to the lateness of the hour, it would be acceptable to discuss the remaining executive session items at the next Council meeting. XII CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS/LATE ITEMS None. XIII ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 12:25 A.M. CC.207 Attachment -13-