HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 11/04/1986Members Absent:
Staff Present:
Public Present:
III MINUTES
None
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Port Angeles, Washington
November 4, 1986
I CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Whidden called the meeting to order at 7:01 P.M.
II ROLL CALL
Members Present: Mayor Whidden, Councilmen Hallett, Hesla, McPhee, Quast,
Schermer, Stamon.
Manager Flodstrom, Attorney Knutson, Clerk Anderson,
P. Carr, M. Cleland, R. Orton, S. Brodhun, L. Glenn,
J. Pittis, D. Wolfe, G. Booth, S. Hursh, S. Hardy,
T. Smith, T. Reid, J. Abram, L. Cochran.
Mr. Mrs. L. Beil, R. Page, J. Page, B. Burnham,
P. Downie, J. McDonald, C. McDonald, D. Yager, E. Saenz,
L. Sunny, J. Newlin.
Councilman Hallett moved to accept and place on file as presented the minutes
of October 21, 1986. Councilman Stamon seconded and the motion earried.
IV FINANCE
1. Payment Authorized to Riddell Williams
Councilman Schermer moved to authorize payment of the October 16, 1986
Riddell, Williams bill in the amount of $1,126.15. Councilman Hesla
seconded and the motion carried.
2. Bid Awarded to Fremont Construction for City Hall Master Plan
Facilities
Councilman Stamon moved to waive any informalities in the bidding and to
award the bid to Fremont Construction Corporation of Seattle, Washington
for its base bid in the amount of $2,623,000 and for: Alternate No. A -1 in
the amount of $12,000; Alternate No. A -2 in the amount of $23,000;
Alternate No. 'A -4 in the amount of $54,000; Alternate No. A -5 in the
amount of $18,000; Alternate No. A -6 in the amount of $23,000. Councilman
Hallett seconded. Attorney Knutson noted that these amounts did not
include tax.
Councilman McPhee inquired if subcontractors were local. Manager Flodstrom
explained that some of the subcontractors were local and a list of subcon-
tractors would be required prior to finalization of the construction
contract.
Dan Berg, President of Fremont Construction addressed the Council. He
stated that Primo Construction, a local firm, was to be used for the
concrete work. He stated that the dirt work and framing would be subbed
out to local contractors or would be contracted with local hire. He stated
that the gypsum wall board would undoubtedly be contracted with a local sub
contractor. He stated that the bonafied low bidders for the mechanical and
electrical as well as the tile work were not local. He added that the
cabinet contractors were local. He commented that these were all proposed
contractors. He was hopeful that the major materials supplier for lumber,
etc. would be local.
Councilman Hallett pointed out that there had been three bidders, none of
them local.
Councilman McPhee stated that the final figure on this project, if
alternative A -3, the police package, was included (which he stated he had
trouble understanding why it was not included), would exceed $3.4 million
and stated that the project was $1 million over.
613
614
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
November 4, 1986
Attorney Knutson explained that none of the three bidders had submitted a
list of all of their subcontractors which was an informality in the bid
requirements specified. He stated that after speaking with Mr. Amdal's
(Amdal Construction) attorney and the attorney of the architects, he had
come to the conclusion that this particular omission clearly fell within
the law as an informality which the City had the discretion to waive.
Dean Amdal of Amdal Construction, addressed the Council regarding the bid.
Mr. Amdal indicated that his firm had submitted a list of 13 subcontractors
with their bid and that their competitor, Fremont Construction, had
submitted a list of only two. He felt there was a potential advantage to
not submitting all of the subcontractors at bid time. He stated that his
firm had inadvertently omitted one contractor. Manager Flodstrom then read
a letter submitted previously by Mr. Amdal to the City. Councilman Hallett
questioned Manager Flodstrom as to whether all of the bids received had
been in non compliance with regard to this specification. Manager
Flodstrom confirmed that all bids had been in non compliance. He also
clarified that there was nothing in the specifications that would prevent
the party who was awarded the bid from then changing and substituting
others that might be at that contractor's advantage. He also confirmed
that Council had to approve the list of subcontractors prior to the
execution of the formal contract. Manager Flodstrom indicated that after
execution of the contract, the subcontractors could only be changed with
the approval of the City Council. Attorney Knutson surmised that the key
element of the letter from Mr. Amdal, was whether the contractor was locked
in on subcontractors once they're listed in the bid package. He stated it
was clear that they were not locked in. He referred to case law in this
state which indicates there is no legal requirement locking in the
contractor with subcontractors that he has listed unless the contractor has
actually entered into a contract with the subcontractors. He stated Mr.
Amdal had not indicated he had done so. Manager Flodstrom also emphasized
that the City wanted as many local subcontractors on the project as
possible. He stated that Fremont Construction had made a committment to
the City to acquire as many local subcontractors as possible. Following
lengthy discussion, Mr. Amdal readdressed the Council urging them to either
reject all bids or award the bid to his firm. Following further lengthy
discussion, Councilman Stamon urged the Council to follow the advice of
legal counsel and proceed with the award of the bid to Fremont Construc-
tion.
Councilman Hallett commented on the closeness of the bidding. He also
stated that the City had extended the bid opening date in an effort to
encourage more local bidding. He supported awarding the bid as
recommended.
Councilman Hesla was concerned with waiving informalities. Attorney
Knutson explained that the intent behind requiring a list of bidders was
basically to speed up the process. He stated that it did not change the
substance of the requirements that will apply to this contract, it only
affected the timing. He emphasized that a list of subcontractors would be
submitted and the City would have the chance to make reasonable objection.
He stated this was why it was considered to be an immaterial irregularity.
He stated that nonetheless the Council did have d to reject all
the bids on that basis. He explained that the statutes were very clear
that the Council could either waive the irregularities and award the bid or
reject all bids.
Councilman Quast then moved to amend the motion that the bid be awarded to
Fremont Construction subject to the submission of a complete list of
subcontractors on or before Wednesday, November 12, and the approval of
such list on November 18, (deadline subsequently removed), by the Council.
Councilman Stamon accepted this as a friendly amendment. Councilman
Hallett concurred, feeling that it was a moot issue but for the sake of
having it as a matter of record. Councilman Stamon directed Manager
Flodstrom to review a breakdown of costs, specifically those costs that
were directly associated with the construction of the City Hall versus
costs directly associated with the mall area, Vern Burton Center, as well
as repairs and construction at the pool. She stated that much of this
construction was being done at the same time but was not related to the
construction of the new City Hall. Councilman Schermer favored calling for
the question prior to providing the breakdown. Attorney Knutson requested
the council reconsider approval of the list of subcontractors on a
specific date. Councilman Quast then withdrew the November 18th date from
the motion, still requiring Council approval of the list of subcontractors.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
November 4, 1986
On call for the question, the amended motion carried with Councilman McPhee
voting "No
Manager Flodstrom then provided the breakdown requested. Councilman McPhee
left the meeting room temporarily. Councilman Stamon was particularly
interested in explaining that the City Hall did not cost $3.4 million.
The breakdown was as follows: City Hall, $2,402,781; Pool and repairs,
$74,324.00; The Vern Burton Memorial Community Center, $192,06.00; the
landscaped mall, $300,569.00. Councilman Stamon emphasized that these
projects had been lumped together the sake of expediency and cost
effectiveness.
3. Asbestos Removal at Vern Burton Memorial Community Center bid awarded
Councilman Hallett moved that the bid of Long Services Corporation in the
amount of $16,976.34 including sales tax be accepted; a contract be issued
for the asbestos removal project; and that funds come from the Hotel /Motel
tax funds. Councilman Schermer seconded. Councilman McPhee was not present
during this vote.
Upon inquiry, Public Works Director Pittis explained that the City cannot
leave asbestos in the facility while construction is taking place. He
stated the City was not required to remove it all, but since large amounts
were going to be removed, it was felt it should all be removed for safety
purposes. The motion carried.
V CONSENT AGENDA
Councilman Schermer moved the Council accept the items listed under the
Consent Agenda including: (1) Vouchers of $1,363,752.42; and (2) Payroll
of 10/19/86 of $222,453.71. Councilman Quast seconded. Following
discussion, the motion carried.
C UB-( IICI I II k 1 ee- U -S I er, sl✓r I
VI ITEMS FROM THE AUDIENCE TO BE PLACED ON THE AGENDA
None.
VII LEGISLATION
A. Ediz Hook Rezone RZ86(10) rescheduled
1. Letter from neighbors on 2000 block of 14th and 15th Streets regarding
dirt bike problem
Upon request, Police Chief Cleland urged folks who were having trouble to
call the Police Department. He stated in the last six months there had
been five calls from the area and that none of those had been from the
individuals who had signed the letter. He requested citizens call the
Police Department when summer time returns and this becomes a problem
again. He assured them that the Police Department would do whatever was
necessary to resolve the issue. Councilman Schermer suggested a
neighborhood council meeting be scheduled for the neighborhood. Manager
Flodstrom agreed to send a letter suggesting this to all of the ind
who had signed the letter of complaint. Councilmen Schermet rand Hallett
volunteered to attend. 0. e,u c_,,,x-N.,,
1. A. Presentation by Leonard Beil of the Clallam County Fair Board
Leonard Beil, President of the Clallam County Fair Board updated the City
Council on accomplishments of the Clallam County Fair in 1985 and 1986.
The Council reviewed a packet of information submitted by Mr. Beil relative
to these accomplishments. Also considered were projections for upcoming
years. WYlrt; cam,
a l� t9c
2. Public Hearings:
Councilman Hallett moved to reschedule the public hearing on the Ediz Hook
Rezone RZ86(10) until November 18, 1986. Councilman Stamon seconded and
the motion carried.
Attorney Knutson discouraged those wishing to comment from addressing the
Council tonight. Councilman Stamon noted that written comments which would
be considered a part of the record, could be submitted if attending the
November 18, 1986 council meeting created a problem.
615
616
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
November 4, 1986
B. Gund Plaza Condition Three of Street Vacation revised
Planner Carr reviewed the request before the Council and a drawing of the
proposed project. He explained the request for clarification of intent of
Condition #3 of the Gund Plaza project approval in light of the proposal to
construct multi family residential units on the east half of the site.
Condition #3 of the Gund Plaza project approval currently read, "to reduce
light and glare, noise, land use conflicts between residential and
commercial use, and to decrease visual impacts of the development, a
natural landscape buffer, utilizing the existing native trees and shrubs,
shall be provided to a depth of at least 50 feet from the rights -of -way of
Eighth Street, "G" Street, "I" Street and along the north line of the 9/10
alley" [emphasis added].
Mayor Whidden then opened the public hearing and asked for comments from
the audience.
Mr. Page, 918 South "G addressed the Council. Mr. Page was opposed to
decreasing the 50 foot setback requirement as his backyard abutted the
proposed project. He urged the council to retain the 50 foot setback
requirement around the entire project.
Jean Page, 918 South "G" Street, also opposed the removal of the 50 foot
setback. She stated there was constant noise from Shane Park located near
the proposed project, and there was also lighting late at night. She felt
this would not be a good atmosphere for senior citizens to live in.
Larry McLean, 1411 West 10th, addressed the Council. As previously
indicated by Mr. Page, Mr. McLean emphasized no trees existed adjoining the
proposed project and stated he had access to his garage from the alley. He
stated he was totally against losing the 50 foot buffer zone.
Mr. Page readdressed the Council asking who had approved the revisions in
the alley and in the ingresses to the proposed project.
Beverly Burnham, 1405 West 10th Street, was opposed to the plan as
proposed. She preferred the 50 foot setback.
Pat Downie, local project manager, then addressed the Council. Mr. Downie
stated the 50 foot buffer that was originally recommended had been
maintained around the commercial portion of the project. He stated this
project differed from regular multi family use in that it would be a senior
housing project and the residences would be occupied singly or at the most
by couples. Mr. Downie further described the proposed project and stated
that the multi family residential portion of the project was in full
compliance with residential multifamily zoning requirements pertaining to
projects abutting residential zones. Mr. Downie then discussed with
Council the proposed project at length, answering Council's questions.
Councilman Quast was concerned with traffic impact by revising the alley at
the 'lower portion of the project to a one -way alley. Project developers
emphasized that through traffic would be discouraged as much was possible.
Councilmembers then questioned staff on the project.
Doug Lloyd from Bunje, Buss and Lloyd in San Francisco, co- developer of the
project, addressed the Council. Mr. Lloyd answered Councilman Quast's
question as to why the alley which had originally been intended to go
completely through the project had been revised. He stated that this had
been at the request of owners of adjoining property because of concern
expressed by the owners regarding exposure to the commercial portion of the
project. He also stated this had been an attempt to discourage through
traffic.
Councilman Hallett inquired if the issue up for consideration was a
reconsideration of condition number 3 or if the whole site plan was before
the council this evening. Attorney Knutson stated that the announced
notice of the public hearing was for consideration of condition number 3,
however, this was not a very structured public hearing required by law, it
had been arranged at the request of the Planning Commission to give the
neighbors the opportunity to provide their views.
Mr. Lloyd then readdressed the Council, further reviewing the history of
the development. He urged the Council to approve the site plan as it
exists. Mayor Whidden closed the public hearing.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
November 4, 1986
Following lengthy discussion, Councilman Schermer stated that he felt there
were two alternatives. One was to approve the recommendation of both the
Planning Commission and the staff. He felt another alternative would be to
consider the zoning. He saw no reason for the zoning to remain commercial
when this was going to be used for multi family.
Following further discussion at great length, Councilman Quast moved to
declare the intent clearly that there be a 50 foot buffer around the entire
project, that this requirement could only be removed if a portion of the
project was rezoned. Councilman Stamon seconded for discussion, commenting
that she felt the Council did not have adequate information before them
tonight. She also felt if the condition were removed from the property and
the zoning remained commercial, future uses of that property are free and
clear in terms of any buffering. She felt the council had to at this point
protect the interests of the people living in that area.
Mr. Lloyd then readdressed the Council emphasizing that the plan presented
to the Council tonight was very specific. He urged the Council to
incorporate this, that Council's permission to intrude on the 50 feet
buffer be restricted to residential use. Councilman Schermer then inquired
of staff as to the procedure for rezoning. Planner Carr explained.
Following further discussion, Councilman Schermer spoke against the motion,
feeling that there was enough protection built in to the recommendations of
the Planning Commission that a 50 foot buffer would be required if in the
future the use of the property was changed back to commercial.
Pat Downie felt requiring a rezone now would be unfair, unnecessary, and
serve no purpose because the developers would then have to come back before
the Council with virtually the same plan intact and would have to go
through approximately three more months of hearings.
Councilman Quast felt that so long as the zoning of the property remained
commercial, the original intent would have to be maintained. Councilman
Hallett felt the same.
Mr. Lloyd then offered a concession which he felt would eliminate the
neighbor's concerns. He stated that carports would be eliminated returning
a 50 foot setback on lots in the southeast corner of the project, adjoining
lots containing the residences of those who had addressed the Council
tonight. He stated the project would have to be reviewed to be certain
there remained adequate parking. Following further lengthy discussion, on
call for the question, the motion failed with Councilmen Quast and McPhee
voting "Aye" and Councilmen Hallett, Hesla, Stamon and Schermer voting
"No
Councilman Stamon then somewhat reluctantly moved to accept the offer put
forth tonight to remove the requirement for 50 foot buffering on the area
to be used as residential multi family with the clear understanding that
this requirement be removed only if the property is used for residential
multi family, if it goes back to commercial, the requirement goes back in
place and with the further understanding that the project proponent agrees
to maintain a 50 foot buffering strip on the southeast corner of the
property adjacent to the four lots and three bome4 contained in that area.
Councilman Schermer seconded noting concern about the wording. Following
discussion, Councilman Stamon restated her motion specifically to clarify
that Condition No. 3 applies to use of property as a commercial use and
that in the areas now being proposed as residential multi family, the 50
foot buffer be removed except in the southeast corner mentioned previously
and also with the clear understanding in all the records that the project
developers state there will, in fact, be a large amount of buffering on the
north and east sides of the property. Following other very extensive
discussion, Councilman Quast moved to table the motion due to inadequate
material before the council. Councilman McPhee seconded. The motion
failed with Councilmen Quast and McPhee voting "Aye" and all other
Councilmembers voting "No On call for the question, the motion
clarifying Condition No. 3 carried with Councilmen McPhee and Quast voting
"No" and all other Councilmembers voting "Aye
Councilman Quast then moved that Council make an inquiry with staff into
why the previous motion of Council that an alley going from "G" Street to
"I" Street was stricken. He stated there would be an in -house inquiry and
urged all Councilmembers who were interested to be present and all staff
that deliberated in this decision be present. Councilman Hallett seconded
and the motion carried.
617
618
3. Planning Commission Minutes of October 22, 1986
A. Jones /Priest interpretation returned to Planning Commission
Councilman Schermer moved that this item be returned to the Planning
Commission for some suggestions. Councilman Stamon seconded the motion
with the clarification that this be returned to the Planning Commission
emphasizing the original intent of Council to return the issue to the
Planning Commission in order that they may do a study of requirements prior
to land use modification; also requesting that the Planning Commission
develop some type of recommendation and regulations. Councilman Schermer
concurred. On call for the question, the motion carried.
B. Minutes accepted
Councilman Stamon moved to accept and place on file the minutes of the
Planning Commission of October 22, 1986. Councilman Hesla seconded and the
motion carried.
Mayor Whidden indicated that the time was now 10:00 P.M. Councilman Quast
moved to complete items on the agenda. Councilman McPhee seconded and the
motion carried.
4. Professional Service Contract awarded for Conservation Audit
Councilman Hallett moved the Council authorize the Mayor to execute an
agreement with Delta T, Inc. to perform sixty residential energy analyses
for the weatherization program. Councilman Stamon seconded and the motion
carried.
5. Ordinance adopted repealing street improvement funds for McDougal,
Craig, Porter and Campbell Avenue
Mayor Whidden read the Ordinance by title, entitled,
ORDINANCE NO. 2416
AN ORDINANCE of the City of Port Angeles
repealing the McDougal Street Improvement
Fund and the Craig /Campbell /Porter Avenue
Improvement Fund and Ordinances Nos. 2149
and 2175.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
November 4, 1986
Councilman Schermer moved to adopt the ordinance as read by title.
Councilman Stamon seconded. Following discussion, on call for the
question, the motion carried.
6. Contract Amendment No. 2 authorized for City Hall Architectural
Agreement
Councilman Schermer moved to accept the recommendation of staff and
authorize the Mayor to execute amendment no. 2 to the architectural
agreement. Councilman McPhee inquired as to i.em no. 7, Construction
Administration, and requested Public Works Director Pittis explain exactly
what that was.
Public Works Director Pittis explained that construction administration
included approval of materials, approval of substitution for materials,
discussions with contractor as to change orders, on -site inspections, etc.
Councilman McPhee stated this wasn't necessarily related to the pool.
Public Works Director Pittis stated that it involved the entire project.
He stated that this $41,644.00 was spread throughout all portions of the
project including the pool, the Vern Burton Memorial Community Center, the
mall and the City Hall. On call for the question, the motion carried with
Councilman McPhee voting "No
7. Amendment to Rate Ordinance for Industrial Primary and Yard Lights
adopted
Mayor Whidden read the ordinance by title, entitled,
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
November 4, 1986
ORDINANCE NO. 2417
AN ORDINANCE of the City of Port Angeles
altering the rates for the sale of
electricity; amending the general provi-
sions applicable to all services; amending
Section 1 of Ordinance 2054 as most recently
amended by Section 1 of Ordinance 2137;
amending Section 6 of Ordinance 2054 as most
recently amended by Section 3 of Ordinance
2273; amending Section 2 of Ordinance 2173;
as most recently amended by Section 4 of
Ordinance 2273; amending Section 3 of
Ordinance 2173 as most recently amended by
Section 5 of Ordinance 2273; and amending
Sections 13.12.010, 13.12.060, 13.12.071 and
13.12.072 of the Port Angeles Municipal Code.
Councilman Stamon moved to adopt the ordinance as read by title.
Councilman Hallett seconded and the motion carried. Councilman McPhee
suggested information on yard light rates be included in the City's
newsletter.
8. Utility Advisory Committee meeting set to discuss Falls Creek Hydro
project and transformer disposal site
The Council scheduled a meeting of the Utility Advisory Committee for
November 17, 1986 at 4:00 P.M.
9. Councilman McPhee designated as representative for Victoria's
Remembrance Day celebration on November 11, 1986
The Council selected Councilman McPhee to represent the City of Port
Angeles at the Victoria Remembrance Day Celebration of November 11, 1986.
10. Parks, Recreation Beautification Commission minutes of October 16,
1986
Councilman Schermer moved to accept and place on file the Park Commission
minutes of October 16, 1986. Councilman Stamon seconded. Following
discussion, Councilmen Schermer and Stamon withdrew the motion. Councilman
Quast moved to place this item on the agenda of the next meeting further up
on the agenda. Councilman Schermer seconded and the motion carried.
11. Proclamation Operation Turkey Food Harvest Days
Mayor Whidden proclaimed November 1 December 24, 1986 as Operation Turkey
Food Harvest Days in the City of Port Angeles and urged all citizens to
contribute or deposit food wherever they might see "Operation Turkey"
signs.
VIII CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS /LATE ITEMS
Councilman Quast asked who was responsible for the globe lights downtown.
He indicated that there were eight or nine burnt out. Light Director Orton
made note of it.
Councilman Quast then asked who was responsible for the banners downtown
and stated there were five torn banners. Park and Recreation Director
Brodhun stated that those banners had been repaired on Monday. Councilman
Quast also instructed Public Works to install barriers on a mud road that
had been created by digging between Park Avenue and Lauridsen Boulevard.
Councilman Quast then moved to instruct the Planning Commission or staff to
postpone the hearing on the PBP zoning to November 26, 1986. Councilman
Schermer seconded and the motion carried.
Councilman McPhee mentioned a letter that had been received by the
Department of Ecology and felt it was negative toward the City. Upon
inquiry by Councilman Stamon, Manager Flodstrom indicated there were no
plans to respond to that letter.
619
620
Councilman Hallett discussed with Park and Recreation Director Brodhun the
placement of Red Cross drop boxes. Manager Flodstrom explained that the
Park Board could approve these placements and this would not necessarily
need to come back before the Council. Councilman Hallett also commented on
the draft regarding residential fire sprinklers presented by the Fire
Department. He felt this was a good project.
Councilman Schermer requested a report from the Planning Department on a
request for rezone on Race Street.
Mayor Whidden inquired of Park and Recreation Director Brodhun regarding
the status of the "All American City" log.
IX ADJOURN TO EXECUTIVE SESSION
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
November 4, 1986
The meeting was adjourned to executive session for the purpose of
discussing litigation and real estate at 10:29 P.M. The length of the
executive session was determined to be one -half hour to 45 minutes.
X RETURN TO OPEN SESSION /ADJOURNMENT
The meeting returned to open session and was adjourned at approximately
11:18 P.M.
Clark
Mayor