New Page 2

12/03/98 Unfinished Business: 1998 Comprehensive Plan Amendment

Request, Kelly Samson SPA 06-30-98-8, Amend Water Resources

Council Element (Expand Service Area of Sewer District No. 7):

Councilmember Maron, referring to a memorandum he had previously

circulated to all Councilmembers, explained he would like Director

Warren to answer the following questions: …..What would be the

estimated time and cost to establish a Special Planning Area for the SE

portion of the Island which could include Port Blakely property, Blakely

School and Pleasant Beach? Answer: No answer was given.



Morrie Blossom asked that discussions regarding sewer should include a

review of additional needs at Lynwood Center.



Sarah Lee Bourlier, Sewer District No. 7 Commissioner, stated we must

determine the overall look for the south end of the Island by including a

statement in the Comprehensive Plan Amendment that says we will

study the south end. She suggested that a small group, which might

include the sewer district commissioners, compile the information which

has been collected addressing south end issues. She explained when the

group has completed its task, the public process can begin.



Kathy Blossom, New Sweden Avenue, explained there is a major sewer

problem on the south end of the Island.



03/04/99 Public Comment: Sarah Lee Bourlier, Sewer District No. 7

Council Commissioner & Kathy Blossom, South Bainbridge Water System

addressed the importance of the meeting being conducted on March 16,

at which south end planning will be discussed.



City Administrator's Report: City Administrator Nordby presented a

report addressing the following issues: 2) South End Sewer Planning

Meeting - key participants will begin discussing the planning of the

south end sewer service area on March 16, at 2:00 PM in the City Hall

Conference Room. He asked for the participation of Councilmembers at

the meeting. It was determined that Councilmembers Curtis, Murray and

Wooldridge will attend.



03/18/99 City Administrator's Report: City Administrator Nordby stated the

South End sewer service meeting was held March 16. He identified

Council South End areas that could potentially be served by Sewer District 7. He

asked Councilmembers whether the City should request that Sewer

District 7 begin an analysis of a possible service area expansion. The

Council unanimously favored such a request. There was discussion

which included Kit Spier, Sewer District 7 Commissioner, regarding the

expenditure of Sewer District 7 funds on a study that will not benefit its

current customers and the danger from failing septic systems to the

salmon stream located near Lynwood Center. On motion by

Councilmember Curtis, second by Councilmember Llewellyn, Sewer

District 7 was unanimously asked to proceed with studies and

discussions with appropriate agencies and potential developers whose

projects will be serviced by sewers.



03/29/99 Council Agenda Item (4-14-99) – Sewer System Professional Services

PWTC Agreement – R. Esvelt



04/14/99 City Administrator's Report: City Administrator Nordby reported a

Council meeting was held on March 16 to discuss the potential to serve areas of

the Island's south end with sewers. He recommended the City fund a

study conducted by H.R. Esvelt to determine the feasibility of providing

South End sewer connection in conjunction with the study already being

performed on the Winslow system for $5,000.00.



Following brief discussion during which Councilmember Llewellyn

recommended that the City contract with both Bill Isley in an amount

less than $5,000.00 and H.R. Esvelt for $5,000.00, Item D, Professional

Services Contract with H.R. Esvelt, was removed from the Consent

Agenda for discussion later in the meeting.



Consent Agenda Item D., H.R. Esvelt Professional Services

Contract: Following discussion regarding the scope of work and the

window of time available for provision of sewer service to the South

End, Councilmember Halligan moved to approve consent agenda Item

D, which she later withdrew. Councilmember Wooldridge moved to

award 2 contracts: One with Bill Isley, one with H.R. Esvelt in the

amount not to exceed $10,000.00 to study the expansion of Sewer

District No. 7. The motion was seconded by Councilmember Robison

and approved with Councilmembers Curtis, Llewellyn, Murray, Robison

& Wooldridge in favor. Councilmembers Halligan & Maron opposed.



05/26/99 Presentation: South Bainbridge Island Sewer Service Study: Bill Isley

Council explained that he & Rick Esvelt jointly prepared the South Bainbridge

Sewer Study & that Mr. Esvelt studied the treatment plant & that he

analyzed the planning needs. Rick Esvelt addressed issues raised by the

Sewer District No. 7 Commissioners regarding the proposed expansion

of the sewer treatment plant by stating expansion of the facility will not

increase density. He explained the next steps are for the City to draft a

general sewer plan and for Sewer District No. 7 to prepare a facility plan

for the upgrade. He explained that upgrade of the system will take 2 or 3

years.



Bill Isley explained the geology inherent on the south end of the Island

is of poor quality and is the main reason for failing septic systems.

Following a brief question & answer period the South Bainbridge Island

Sewer System Study issues was referred to the Operations &

Intergovernmental Coordinating Committee.



06/09/99 Additions/Deletions: Mayor Sutton added Resolution No. 99-17,

Council Accepting the South Bainbridge Sewer Service study dated May 19,

1999, to which Councilmember Maron objected the addition of.



Resolutions: AB 6380 Resolution No. 99-17, Accepting The South

Bainbridge Island Sewer Service Study Dated May 19, 1999.



Sarah Lee Bourlier, Sewer District No. 7 Commissioner, explained it is

time to approve the resolution.



Councilmembers discussed the window of opportunity available; the

fact that there has been no public process which engenders distrust; and

that there is no urgency to approve the resolution.



Councilmember Llewellyn moved to approve Resolution No. 99-17,

Councilmember Murray seconded the motion. Councilmember Curtis

moved to table consideration of the resolution to the meeting of June 23.



Nick Chrisman, South Bainbridge Community Association, expressed

support for the resolution stating the content of the resolution addresses

many of the concerns raised but stated that he could not speak for all

others.



Jack Swanson, The Review, explained he has not seen the proposed

resolution and that the study has not received public debate.



Councilmember Curtis reiterated her motion to table consideration of

resolution No. 99-17, to the meeting of June 23. The motion was

seconded by Councilmember Wooldridge and approved with

Councilmembers Curtis, Halligan, Llewellyn, Maron and Wooldridge in

favor; Councilmembers Murray and Robison opposed.



06/14/99 South Bainbridge Island Sewer Service Study



PWTC Jim Llewelyn met with SD#7 this week and Bill Isley had some good

ideas. He suggested that they work out a detailed interlocal agreement.



06/23/99 Resolutions: AB 6380 Resolution No. 99-17, Accepting The South

Council Bainbridge Island Sewer Service Study Dated May 19, 1999:



On motion by Councilmember Murray, second by Councilmember

Wooldridge, Resolution No. 99-17, was unanimously removed from the

table.



Jim Smith, South Bainbridge Community Association, stated his support

for sewer (installation) and continued public process but urged the

Council to be careful how sewers are supplied to undeveloped property.



Ivar MacDougall, SBCA President, endorsed comments made by Jim

Smith regarding public process and explained that density must be

controlled. He also expressed the concern of SBCA members regarding

installation of sewers in the upland properties.



Frank Stowell, SBCA, concurred with the two previous speakers.



Ron Kinney, 5350 Ruby Place NE, explained the need to make sewer

hook-up cost effective. He also addressed the issues of estuary

contamination and the need to develop a process for controlling density.



Don Schulte, Pleasant Beach, stated there is an immediate need to

expand the sewer district because this is a health and quality of life

issue.



Kelly McDonald, Ruby Place, explained raw sewage stands in her yard

for 6 months of the year, therefore, the Emerald Heights area is in dire

need of sewers. She stated density will not be controlled by withdrawing

sewer.



Eric Kortum explained even though he lives 1500 feet from the

treatment plant he and his neighbor’s septic systems have failed along

with several others in the area. He urged that the immediate problems be

addressed to preserve the environment.



Zintra Zommers, 5341 Ruby Way, addressed the issue of failing septic

systems in the Emerald Heights area.



Marilyn Stephens, Emerald Heights, concurs with statements made by

Ron Kinney. She stated her fear that her septic system will fail again and

asked the City Council to determine the assessment to hook-up to the

sewer.



Matt Klous, Emerald Heights, stated he is very concerned about the

failing septic systems in his neighborhood.



Rick Esvelt explained the study conducted by he and Bill Isley was not

comprehensive in nature and was meant simply as a beginning of the

process. He stated the next step in his plan is the development of a

General Sewer Plan which will address most of the questions raised this

evening. He explained Sewer District 7 Commissioners made it very

clear that there will be no growth as a result of sewer installation.



Kelly Samson, Taylor Avenue, asked whether his request to provide

sewer service rather than septic systems to one of the properties he is

developing will require a Comprehensive Plan Amendment? He

explained the study done by Esvelt/Isley was the best that could have

been done for $5000.00 and asked where we are in the process?



Chris Llewellyn, Park Board member, explained trails and parks will

lower density. She suggested that a performance bond be required of

future developers.



Mayor Sutton suggested that Section 2 be amended to read: The City

Administration is directed to develop the general sewer service plan and

a plan to promptly remedy existing failing septic systems as outlined in

the Esvelt/Isley report and under State law. The Administration is

further directed to prepare a description of the process for the

information of Council and the public.



Councilmember Wooldridge proposed that Section 6 read: The City of

Bainbridge Island will require that whenever development densities are

proposed for less than is allowed under current zoning, and the proposal

is approved by the City, in return for sewer service.



There was discussion regarding the development of the general sewer

plan and the need for a new Interlocal Agreement with Sewer District

No. 7.



On motion by Councilmember Murray, second by Councilmember

Curtis, Resolution No. 99-17, Accepting the South Bainbridge Island

Sewer Service Study dated May 19, 1999, prepared by HR Esvelt

Engineering and William Isley, Architect & Planner, as amended above,

was unanimously approved.



07/06/99 Agenda says "South-end Sewer Report by R. Esvelt", although, I did not

PWTC find any mention under discussion items on the notes. It’s possible, the

report was just passed out.



07/14/99 City Administrator's Report: …he distributed a memo from Bill Isley

Council and H.R. Esvelt regarding their proposal to develop a plan for expansion

Sewer District No. 7, and asked for comments.



07/28/99 City Administrator's Report: Rick Esvelt and Bill Isley briefly

Council discussed the process to determine the services that will be provided by

each of the consultants whose contracts are being considered.



Sarah Lee Bourlier, Sewer District No. 7 Commissioner, urged the

Council to approve the contracts in concept and review the public

process.



On motion by Councilmember Maron, second by Councilmember

Halligan, Rick Esvelt and Bill Isley will be paid their hourly rates up to

the amount of $2,000 to develop a schedule for implementing the South

End Sewer plan.



08/11/99 City Administrator's Report: City Administrator Nordby reported he

Council met with the consultants designing the south Bainbridge Island sewer

expansion to address the sewer emergencies, the general sewer plan & to

outline responsibilities. He asked the City Council to provide him with

comments regarding the formation of a Local Improvement District to

solve specific problems.



08/25/99 Additions/Deletions: Mayor Sutton announced…the proposal for the

Council South Bainbridge Island Wastewater collection facilities planning &

LID formation has been added….



09/08/99 City Administrator's Report: Mayor Sutton presented City

Administrator Nordby's report addressing Professional Services

agreements for the South Bainbridge Sewer Expansion which Sewer

District No. 7, has endorsed to enable the expansion to go forward to

solve the problem of failing south end septic systems & to realize the

South Bainbridge sewer plan. There was discussion regarding the

potential funding necessary to complete the expansion and the need to

coordinate activities with Sewer District No. 7.



On motion by Councilmember Robison, second by Councilmember

Wooldridge, the amount of $112,676.00, the balance to implement the

agreements for the consultants developing the South Bainbridge sewer

extension sewer plan (William Isley, H.R. Esvelt, American Engineering

& Lynn Taylor) and process was unanimously approved & Mayor

Sutton was authorized the sign the agreements.



10/13/99 City Administrator's Report: City Administrator Nordby reported he

Council has distributed the Winslow Wastewater Treatment Plant report drafted

by Rick Esvelt City Council. He recommended referring the report to

the Public Works Committee.



Councilmember Llewellyn announced that Mr. Esvelt has already been

invited to the next Public Works Committee meeting.

10/27/99 City Administrator's Report: City Administrator Nordby reported he

Council has included in the Council packet his memo regarding the meeting held

at Blakely School to discuss the south end sewer planning with the

community. He asked the Council to provide him with direction on the

following issues: 1) Continuation with the general sewer plan for S.

Bainbridge Island and the interlocal agreement with Sewer District No.

7; 2) Authorization to begin discussion of preliminary LID investigation

for the Emerald Heights, Pleasant Beach N. and Rockaway Beach

neighborhoods currently expressing the most consensus and need for

sewer.



Councilmembers expressed their support for the proposal.



Kit Spier, Sewer District No. 7 Commissioner, explained the sewer

district has incurred expenses of $4000 to $5000 to date.



On motion by Councilmember Llewellyn, second by Councilmember

Curtis, unanimous approval was given to proceed with the

aforementioned items contained in City Administrator Nordby’s memo.



01/12/00 Consent Agenda: Item O, AB 0011 Financial Advisor Contract, Steve

Council Gaidos Consulting (Bond Issuance).



Councilmember Llewellyn explained costs for the south end sewer LID

will be tracked separately so they can be charged to the 200 proposed

connections, not the City.



On motion by Councilmember Murray, second by Councilmember

Curtis, consent agenda item O, was unanimously approved.



01/19/00 SOUTH END SEWER STATUS: The South End Sewer Planning and

OPS Neighborhood LID project includes Emerald Heights, Pleasant Beach,

and Rockaway Beach neighborhoods. Lynn Taylor, Rick Esvelt and Bill

Isley, the consultants, have conducted neighborhood meetings with each

of these neighborhoods. Some residents of Emerald Heights have

contacted Councilmembers to say that they were not aware of the

process and just found out that the cost for the sewer connection would

be approximately $15,000. According to City Administrator Nordby, the

Consultants have conducted public meetings with the three (3)

neighborhood groups at which Rick Esvelt provided explanation of the

process and the costs. It appears that all 3 neighborhood groups

expressed interest. The Consultants are currently working on a status

report and are moving forward as authorized. The City prepares the

Petitions and map.



Issues for discussion: 1) Who votes on it---is it the area residents or all

island? (This is a flaw of I-695.); 2) Who is responsible for the basic

infrastructure; 3) Will there be pressure to zone for higher density? Can

the document include conservation easement or development rights? It

was mentioned that Sewer District 7 resolution contained a policy

statement that they would not approve use if it produces greater density.



Follow-up: City Administrator is working with Consultants to prepare

the status report and plan.



01/26/00 City Administrator's Report: …He explained that Council has

Council received a status report drafted by the South Bainbridge Sewer Planning

consultants…



02/16/00 South Side of Eagle Harbor Sewer Process: The concern by the

OPS residents on Rockaway Beach is that if they go with the LID, the Health

District will require immediate action to replace failing septic systems.

Concern was expressed that Sewer District 7 may want to extend to

include more users. According to the agreement, they do not want to.



03/01/00  Additional Discussion Items:

OPS South End Planning: Not included in the 2000 Goals.





04/05/00 South End General Sewer Plan Status: Interlocal agreement

OPS



04/19/00 South End General Sewer Plan Budget Amendment: City

OPS Administrator Nordby reported that the Public Works Committee

recommended to approve the All American Engineering contract as

consultant. The LID is currently being worked drafted, with a provision

regarding future use of the sewer plant.



04/27/00 Council Agenda Item ( 4-26-00 ) South Bainbridge General Sewer Plan

PWTC - American Engineering Budget Amendment



06/21/00 General Sewer Status (South End): There may be a change in

OPS priorities, since only 150 hook-ups are available from Sewer District 7.

Need to consider Sewer Septic Summit.



07/05/00 South End General Sewer Plan: City Administrator Nordby stated that

he is working with the Consultants and finalizing the report for

OPS readability. The Consultants made recommendations to technical issues,

but not the financing issue. City Administrator Nordby to discuss the

financing issue with Financial Advisor. The committee discussed the

allocation of the cost to be shared with each sewer district area being

consider (e.g., Rockaway and Emerald Point). Councilmember Nasser

noted that the Land Use issues were not addressed adequately and asked

whether the City needed to expand the report or to do it separately.

Discussion also included the need to cite the City and Sewer District 7

policies in the report.



Action: On-going under City Administrator.



07/12/00 City Administrator's Report: City Administrator Nordby reported he

Council met with the consultants drafting the South Bainbridge Sewer Plan to

review the comments on the DRAFT, readability & grammar of the

document which should be completed by the end of the summer.



09/18/00 City Engineer Jeff Jensen stated that everything is on hold until the

PWTC outcome of (1) I-695, (2) adopting R. Esvelt's Sewer Plan and (3)

execute an interlocal agreement with Sewer District #7. Administrative

Secretary Joan Hecker stated that Rockaway Beach and Pleasant Beach

have submitted LID petitions.



09/27/00 City Administrator's Report: City Administrator Nordby reported the

Council City has received the draft schedule to implement the south end sewer

plan. He explained the schedule will be ready for review by the City

Council in mid0October and that public meetings will be scheduled with

final adoption is proposed for early 2001. He encouraged the City

Council to review dates in October when a work session can be

scheduled and a public hearing date announced.



Public Comment: Kelly McDonald, 5353 Ruby Place, read a letter

addressing the issue of sewer extension to homes located in the Emerald

Heights area and along Pleasant Beach and Rockaway Beach. She

requested the City implement the following actions: 1) Finalize the

general sewer plan for South Bainbridge; 2) Approve an ILA with Sewer

District No. 7; 3) Conduct public meetings to explain

specifications/plans/actual costs for the creation of Local Improvement

Districts; 4) Begin construction in each neighborhood no later than the

Spring of 2001.



10/25/00 Operations & Intergovernmental Coordinating: Councilmember

Council Robison…. the proposed schedule for implementation of the South End

Sewer Plan.



11/29/00 Operations & Intergovernmental Coordinating: Councilmember

Council Robison stated that at its October 25 meeting the Council approved the

South Bainbridge Sewer Plan, which, he believes, should be released to

the public for input with continued Council review. He explained the

City should enter into an Interlocal Agreement with Sewer District No.

7, and that all costs related to the availability of sewer should be

assumed by the users.



He moved to release the 2nd draft of the South Bainbridge General

Sewer Service Plan to the public no later than Friday, by the Executive

Department of City Hall. The motion was seconded by Councilmember

Llewellyn and unanimously approved.



There was discussion regarding the proposed schedule, Local

Improvement District process (petition or resolution), known

inconsistencies that should be identified, the revised schedule and the

adoption deadline of March 7.



On motion by Councilmember Murray, second by Councilmember

Nasser, the revised schedule for the South Bainbridge General Sewer

Plan as submitted on November 28, and revised to read "consider for

adoption on March 7", was unanimously approved.



Public Comment: Gayle Ashton, Sewer District No. 7 Commissioner,

stated the sewer district is an equal political entity in the South

Bainbridge Sewer Plan process and asked the Council to be sure to

include the commissioners in the planning stage and receive their

agreement to any proposals made.



Kit Spier, former Sewer District No. 7 Commissioner, explained that all

portions of the plan must be acceptable to the sewer district and there is

no point in discussing LID formation until the plan is complete.



10/18/00 South end Sewer Meeting on 10/25

OPS

Discussion: Meeting on the 25th was postponed. The committee also

discussed the District #7 Interlocal Agreement and the Point White

Developer Extension. Lynn Nordby explained the difference of the LID

and extension. It was noted that the City still needed to do a sewer plan.



Follow Up: On-going under City Administrator Nordby. Also, Lynn

Nordby will present the schedule of the South End Sewer Report at the

next council meeting under the city administration report.



11/22/00 South End Sewer Plan Process



OPS Discussion: There were several people in attendance from Pleasant

Beach, Rockaway Beach, Emerald Heights and Point White, who are

interested in sewer service, and are urging the City Council to release

the Draft South End Sewer Plan. The committee members present

agreed that it should be released fairly soon and that indeed there was

more discussion to be done about the plan, but there still were many

questions that councilmembers had, which was why they were still

reviewing it as a Council and had not yet released it to the public. At the

urging of several members of the audience, Councilmember Robison

indicated that he would at least propose that it be released at the next

Council meeting so that the councilmembers could discuss that and what

the process would be.



12/13/00 City Administrator's Report: City Administrator Nordby reported on

Council the following: initial workshop & hearing for processing & review of the

South End Sewer Plan should be adjusted to reflect the Council’s

decision at the retreat to hold extra meetings on Tuesdays in the new

year (study session Tuesday January 9th and public hearing January 30th

or February 6th) and asked that the council get back to him by Friday,

December 15th.



12/18/00 Public Works Committee Report: …The following topic(s) were

discussed….South Bainbridge Sewer LID's

Council



01/03/01 S. Bainbridge Island General Sewer Service Plan – Draft Plan ready

Council for public review – Plan available at BI Library & Custom Printing



01/09/01 City Council Work Session:

Council

Mayor Sutton provided a brief history of the events that lead to the

decision to develop a draft sewer plan for South Bainbridge. He stated

the consultants who have worked on the plan are present to provide an

overview of the proposed plan and answer questions.



City Administrator Nordby related the specific events considered by the

City Council prior to its decision to go ahead with the draft sewer plan,

which follow:



Reports of South Bainbridge septic problems early in 1998



 Petitions requesting sewers to solve their problems were

submitted to the City by Pleasant Beach and Emerald Heights

residents in July 1998

 Reports were received indicating raw sewage was present in

drainage ditches and some septic tanks had failed repeatedly

 Discussions were held in 1999 with the Department of Ecology,

Kitsap/Bremerton Health District, the State Health Department,

Sewer District No. 7, City Attorney Kaseguma to discuss the

City’s options

 During the Summer of 1999 Rick Esvelt and Bill Isley were

directed by the City Council to produce a preliminary study

 The City Council passed Resolution No. 99-17, in June of 1999,

accepting the preliminary study prepared by Esvelt and Isley and

authorized development of a process to provide sewage

treatment to portions of South Bainbridge in cooperation with

Sewer District No. 7

 The public information process began

 The city and the District adopted policy resolutions with the

following provisions: The Zoning Ordinance and the

Comprehensive Plan will define maximum density for new

development proposed for sewer service and in return for sewer

service, binding covenants will be required of new development

to provide public amenities such as trails and open space; new

development provided with sewer service proposing less density

than the current zoning requirements would exercise written

covenants that run with the land guaranteeing such density

reduction; when contracting with Sewer District No. 7, the City

will follow the sewer district’s policies regarding extension of

sewer service outside it’s boundaries, proposed sewer service for

new development and for emergency situations would be

addressed separately and proceed independently

 I-695 was approved in the fall of 1999 preventing

implementation of any Local Improvement Districts

 Sewer District No. 7, at a meeting in the summer of 1999,

reiterated its policies by approving a resolution that stated: Any

contractual arrangement with the City should not provide a

financial burden to its customers; that sewer service will not be

provided to increase density; that the City will own and operate

any collection and delivery systems to Sewer District No. 7’s

treatment plant for sewage treatment; and, that the hookups will

be intended to correct existing pollution problems or to create a

community benefit

 A public meeting was held at Blakely School in the fall of 1999

at which the City Council authorized continuation of the sewer

plan

 Three neighborhoods approached the City regarding extension of

sewer service, they were Pleasant Beach North, Emerald Heights

and Rockaway Beach. Since then the Point White neighborhood

has also approached the City and expressed an interest in

extending sewer service.



City Administrator Nordby stated the sewer plan contains all

requirements mandated by the Department of Ecology. He explained

that following the public hearing scheduled for January 30, the City

Council may determine whether to explore other alternatives. He

introduced consultants Rick Esvelt, Bill Isley and Lynn Taylor stating

that MacLearnsberry Engineering and American Engineering provided

technical services. Einar Gunderson, American Engineering, will also be

present this evening.



Rick Esvelt explained he will provide a summary prior to the public

hearing, that the SEPA Checklist is being reviewed by the Planning

Director; and, that the mandate by the City Council was to provide a

general sewer plan for South Bainbridge. He provided an overview of

the draft plan that encompasses 7,000 acres. He stated the sewer plan

does not require any resident to hookup to sewer. Should the City

Council determine to go forward with a sewer system the residents of

Point White Drive have decided they will proceed with a Developer

Extension Agreement, residents of Emerald Heights and Pleasant Beach

North have decided to form a Local Improvement District. He explained

the City will not require any resident to hook up to the sewer system.



Einar Gunderson, American Engineering, discussed the pros and cons

of septic and sewer systems stating the recommendation developed by

the consultants is located in Chapter 8.



Rick Esvelt explained the operation and maintenance of the proposed

sewer system will be provided by the City and Sewer District No. 7. He

stated the following steps remain to be completed: Conduct the public

hearing, SEPA Checklist, adoption of the plan, DOE submittal, financial

aspects. He stated a gravity interceptor will be required that leads from

Lynwood Center to Emerald Heights and to Blakely School within a few

years. Lynn Taylor addressed the issue of density increase by stating

most areas needing sewer are already heavily developed.



There was discussion regarding environmental issues and data

pertaining to those issues. Water quality was addressed, as was use of

the Sewer District No. 7 ERU’s and the issue of sewer leading to higher

density.



Councilmember Llewellyn stated that increased density would depend

on the following two events: 1) That the City Council passes new

zoning, which none of the present City Council will do nor will City

Councils in the next 10 years; 2) The state will mandate that because the

Island is an urban area that we accept greater density than we have in

our Comprehensive Plan, however, the state has accepted our Comp

Plan with the current zoning therefore the state will not make this

mandate.



Councilmember Nasser asked that the City Attorney be asked to assist

the City Council with the following issues: 1) What decisions has the

Growth Hearings Board made in the past; 2) What is the City’s legal

framework; 3) Is there a way to structure sewer service so that it does

not lead to (increased) density.



Councilmember Llewellyn stated the City Council should set priorities.



Following discussion the City Attorney was requested to provide an

opinion addressing the issue of land use/density.



There was additional discussion regarding financing of the sewer system

and a request to provide residents with information addressing possible

alternatives to a sewer system.



Councilmember Murray stated all alternatives and the costs should be

made available to residents.



Bill Isley defended the plan by stating the resolution approved by the

City Council provided a clear mandate to the team that there was a

problem that needed to be solved. That consultants listened to all

residents in the problem areas after having asked whether there was a

perceived problem. He explained the concept of sewer extension is to

solve environmental problems not to promote development. He asked

that a legal instrument be created to deal with the land use issue so that

the City can go forward with the sewer system.



Councilmember Pollock stated an increase in density cannot be provided

unless there is public benefit. He asked that the wording in the Sewer

District No. 7, Resolution No. 4, be improved.



Bill Isley explained part of the covenant will state that the property will

never be subdivided or sewer will not be provided. He read the language

provided by Sewer District No. 7’s resolution which he believes is clear.

He explained Don Miles, Kitsap/Bremerton Health District and septic

pumping companies have indicated that septic systems in the area are

failing and many are being pumped more frequently.



Councilmember Robison explained that representatives of Bainbridge

Disposal and Bill Arness stated to him that all 4 of the neighborhoods

(Rockaway Beach, Emerald Heights, Pleasant Beach and Point White)

should be hooked up to sewer.



Councilmember Murray explained there are a few lots along Pleasant

Beach and Point White and quite a few along Crystal Springs that are

divisible but not buildable because of the restrictions on the drain fields

and wells. If sewers are installed in these areas is that going to allow

owners of those properties to build on technically a legally buildable lot

which will increase density.



Councilmember Pollock questioned the issue of water quality stating

that the shellfish beds in the Point White and Crystal Springs area are

being re-certified and that Oysters are being harvested in Port Blakely

and there is not information existing that says anything to the contrary.

He explained the current around Bainbridge Island is 4 knots and

nutrient build-up is an issue.



Rick Esvelt stated the Department of Natural Resources produced a

report last Friday stating the water quality in Puget Sound is in trouble

that is primarily due to septic tank drain fields.



In answer to the question posed by Councilmember Murray, City

Attorney Kaseguma answered that waterfront lots would be allowed to

subdivide if they were hooked up to the sewer system and could be

platted within the zoning.



Councilmember Llewellyn stated each ERU will be allocated and we are

lucky that Sewer District No. 7, had the foresight to do such good

planning for its district.



Councilmember Nasser stated 150 people are not going to be able to

finance the amount of infrastructure necessary and the assumption is that

Sewer District No. 7, will expand and we will have 1700 hook ups to

help pay off infrastructure.



Rick Esvelt stated one of the components that must be addressed by the

Interlocal Agreement is the upgrade of the Wastewater Treatment Plant.

An engineering report will address the cost of upgrading the next phase

of the plant.



City Administrator Nordby explained local improvement district

boundaries will be drawn to include only a specific number of hook ups.

He stated as far as capacity is concerned, a local improvement district

would not include more people than could be served.



City Attorney Kaseguma explained the City Council will need to make

the decision whether the expense of its share of the line running from

Lynwood Center to Emerald Heights should be paid from the general

fund or the revenue fund from the sewer system which, according to the

City’s policy, does not pay for sewer facilities installed in other parts of

the City.



Councilmember Llewellyn stated he will not support any oversizing

because it is not the City’s sewer system it is Sewer District No. 7’s

sewer system. He stated it is his opinion that Sewer District No. 7 does

not intend to expand its plant for hookups outside its district.



Rick Esvelt stated the Interlocal Agreement will need to cover the future

plans of Sewer District No. 7.



Councilmember Pollock stated there seem to be two separate plans, one

to sewer the entire South end and one to provide sewer for 150 ERUs.

He asked what problems are evident?



Rick Esvelt explained effluent from the septic tanks runs down the

ditches and pools in backyards which is summarized in Section 4.1.2,

pg. 42.



City Administrator Nordby answered it was his understanding that the

Department of Ecology has required the elements that a plan cover.



There was discussion regarding the local improvement district process

as compared with the Developer’s Extension Agreement method.



Councilmember Llewellyn stated the plan is providing the City with the

information it needs to make decisions.



Councilmember Nasser distributed a list of Local Improvement Districts

managed by the City provided by Director Eells and a letter written by

Eric Olanie, a Point White resident, who represents the residents who do

not wish to hook-up to sewer.







Lynn Taylor stated the consultants were asked to provide a plan that

encompassed the next 20 years providing a long-range plan rather than a

plan only relating to 150 hookups. She explained the consultants do not

recommend sewer for the entire south end of the island.







Councilmember Nasser recommended that the City’s Water Quality

Specialist obtain reports on Island water quality; that financing of the

proposed sewer system be discussed; and, her observation that 150

households cannot adequately finance the required sewer system

infrastructure. She provided the following list of next steps: 1) Provide

information to residents regarding alternatives to the sewer system, 2)

Provide additional environmental information/data, 3) City Attorney

provide an opinion on the land use issue, 4) Provide financial

information, 5) Request comment from the Planning, Public Works and

Finance departments.







Councilmember Murray asked whether her taxes will increase due to

this project and was informed by City Administrator Nordby that the

project will be structured in such a way that the cost will be recovered

from the people who hook up and the choices made by each of the

neighborhoods.







Councilmember Llewellyn stated he will not vote to subsidize any of the

150 hook ups.







Councilmember Wooldridge asked that research be done regarding those

residents who would continue to be interested in the project if they could

not subdivide their properties.







Councilmember Robison asked what is the status of the Interlocal

Agreement and that the financing be worked out.







City Administrator Nordby provided an explanation of the difference

between the total cost and assessment rolls for local improvement

districts Nos. 13 through 19 managed by the City.



01/10/01 Public Comment: Charles Schmid, 10677 Manitou Park Boulevard,

said he attended the South Bainbridge General Sewer Plan Workshop

last evening & is concerned about failing septic fields, high-tech sewer

field upkeep/maintenance & has concerns regarding the Health District

setting lot size for the Island.



01/30/01 Public Hearing on Draft Sewer Plan – Council Chambers – 7:00

Council

PM:



Mayor Sutton provided a brief history of the process that led to the

creation of the sewer plan. He explained no decision has been made and

there will be no decision made this evening. He stated the City Council

will conduct a workshop tentatively scheduled for February 22,

regarding alternative septic systems. He asked speakers to confine their

comments to 3 minutes, 7 minutes if representing an organization. He

announced that written comment is welcome until March 1.



Councilmember Nasser introduced Sewer District No. 7, Commissioners

Sarah Lee and Emily Sato and acknowledged the presence of Evelyn

Klinckmann, Planning Commission Chair.







Councilmember Curtis announced Jerry Deeter and Don Miles from the

Bremerton/Kitsap Health District are present to answer questions

following the public hearing.







Mayor Sutton opened the public hearing.







Eric Olanie, Point White Drive, stated there is not enough data available

for the Council to make a decision; that septic systems are better to the

environment than sewer; sewers lead to increased density. He suggested

that the City charge a $50.00 annual fee for septic system inspection by

its staff.







Bill Cairns, 3440 Point White Drive NE, stated support for sewer

because most of the septic systems in his neighborhood are old,

ineffective, close in proximity to each other and wells. He predicted

those that have been repaired will fail again. He stated sewers are more

cost effective and permanent.







Tom Wilder, 4470 Rockaway Beach Drive, stated the pollution problem

is real and asked the City to take responsibility for the environment and

is, in essence, currently denying residents the use of their property.







Don Schulte, 4325 Pleasant Beach Drive, stated he is supportive of

sewers and urged the Council to accept the plan and move forward with

the 4 neighborhoods where there is no support for increased density. He

noted there has been significant improvement since Lynwood Center

was hooked up to sewer.







Jim Cairns, Pleasant Beach Drive, stated he favors the proposal. He

explained the treatment plant protects the environment and that many of

its expenses have already been incurred. He urged going forward.







Carl Hansen, 3720 Point White Drive, supports going forward with the

sewer plan.







John Herber, Point White Drive, stated his neighbor Bill Cairns said it

all in summarizing the opinions of many Point White Drive residents.







Jeff Moore, 353 Wallace Way, stated the City’s record for promoting

Comprehensive Plan policies is not good. He addressed the issues of the

School Impact Fees and development pressures.







Chet Richmond, 4452 Rockaway Beach Road, stated providing sewer to

Rockaway Beach will not increase density. He explained the lots are

small, the soil is impervious and drainage from properties above has

created failing septic systems and by implementing the sewer plan the

City can stop the pollution.







Rudy Meyer, 4675 Tangleberry Lane, who was a resident of Rhode

Island asked the City to be careful what it wishes for and to study all

options carefully.







Charles Hawk, 4460 Rockaway Beach Road, representing 3 residents,

stated sewers will be mandated at some point and their cost will then be

more. He explained all 4 neighborhoods are built up and that if the 150

hook ups are not used now it may increase the density.







Kelly McDonald, 5353 Ruby Place, stated a group of citizens

representing several neighborhoods originally came to the City

requesting assistance in the facilitation of a permanent sewer distribution

facility because there was no other solution to the problem. She asked

whether a Comp Plan amendment is necessary to go forward with sewer

system? She explained the water table is high in the Emerald Heights

area and the soil impervious. She urged polling of residents living in the

affected areas and that the City move forward if a majority of those

residents favor the proposal.







Charles Pollmar, Arrowpoint Drive, designer of septic systems, stated

sewers produce more pollution than septic systems it is just not as easily

seen. He stated 10 residents in Emerald Heights are having problems

with their septic systems that sand filters costing approximately

$150,000, could repair.







Bill Chester, 8080 BE Beck Road, representing his client residing at

5342 Rockaway Beach Road, stated the home was purchased by his

client in 1966, the septic system is old, that storms have eroded his

property, and, that he has a definite need and supports the project.







Lafe Myers, 4372 Point White Drive, stated he bought his property in

1998 and that the property has bad sewage problems. He recommended

that the Health district require annual testing of septic systems.







Ted Spearman, 8261 NE Blakely Heights Drive, stated his concern

regarding the process initiated the data compiled and the legality of the

process. He explained there is no rush for a remedy and urged that the

process be slowed. He requested that the City employ staff to totally

audit the proposal.







Marilyn Stephens, 6357 Ruby Place, stated all possible avenues to solve

the problem in Emerald Heights have been exhausted. She explained

residents are being held hostage because they are unable to sell their

homes due to current circumstances. She stated the residents of Emerald

Heights need help.







Ron Kinney, 5350 Ruby Place, expressed support for installation of a

sewer system.







Rich McDonald, 3066 Point White Drive, favors installation of a sewer

system because any septic system installed will be marginal.







William Gilbert, 4360 Rockaway Beach Road, stated he has a persistent

problem. He explained 12 years ago he replaced his septic system which

is no longer adequate. He stated he is in favor of installing the sewer line

that will cost less, be more environmentally friendly and make for a

better neighborhood.







Linda Olson, 3780 Point White Drive, stated many of the septic systems

in her neighborhood are 20 to 30 years old and are located within 50 feet

of the shoreline. She stated 54 shoreline residents are willing to pay for

the sewer. She urged the City Council to make a decision by March 7.







Iver MacDougall, President of South Bainbridge Community

Association, 10618 NE S. Beach Road, stated support for hooking up

those in immediate need. Endorses Ted Spearman’s and wonders why

Charles Pollmar’s comments have not been included in the study. He

asked the Council to look closely at the plan.







Recess



The special City Council South Bainbridge Sewer Plan public hearing

was adjourned for a 5 minute recess. The meeting resumed immediately

following the recess with the aforementioned Mayor and City

Councilmembers present.







South Bainbridge Sewer Plan Public Hearing (Continued):



Carolyn Gangmark, 6655 NE Tara Lane, stated her opposition to

sewering Point White and south Bainbridge in general; that the plan

offers anecdotal information; that the sewer system is a development

project, and; that Charles Pollmar has never failed to repair a septic

system.







Scott Strickland, 6655 NE Tara Lane, stated he has been very involved

with the estuary and in monitoring the water quality of the stream he has

found no pollution and has seen no evidence of pollution from failing

septic systems. He stated there is no environmental reason to install

sewers.







Victor Martino, 8424 NE Beck Road, stated his love of the rural

character and his belief that the sewer plan conflicts with City policies to

promote on-site treatment, does not address alternatives and would set a

dangerous precedent.







Constance Albrecht, 3698 Point White Drive, stated her septic system

was installed in 1934 and that she supports the sewer system.







Nick Chrisman, 8687 Oddfellow Road, stated Sewer District No. 7 does

not have the capacity to sewer all of south Bainbridge and proposed

implementing current RCWs and WACs to create a mixed district

(sewer & septic systems) thus making it possible to develop a process

for inspection of septic systems.







Julie Schulte, 4325 Pleasant Beach Drive, thanked the City Council for

taking the time to listen. She quoted Resolution No. 99-17, and urged

the Council to move forward.







Marcie Daley, 1646 Jeanette Place, representing Wayne Daley, stated

the plan lacks critical/accurate information; that the monitoring process

should be expanded; that sewer should be provided to shoreline

residences.







Charles Schmid, 10677 Manitou Park Boulevard, representing

Association of Bainbridge Communities, stated the City should provide

education and inspection management; that sprawl and high density

follow sewer; that the top priorities indicated by a recent survey were

farms and open space, not sewers.







Dave Lindsey, 4912 Rockaway Beach Road, stated he is a strong

advocate for moving forward to install sewer, which is readily available.

He stated 74% of the Rockaway Beach neighborhood supports sewer.







Jim Mooney, 4187 Pleasant Beach Drive, stated agreement with

comments made by the Schultes and Jim Cairns but is not asking to

sewer all of south Bainbridge. He asked the Council to take steps to help

solve the problem.







Mike Whalen, 3748 Point White Drive, stated his home was built in

1956, that it is only a matter of time before his septic system fails and

cannot be re-installed in its current location or anywhere else on his

property. He supports the Developer Extension means of financing the

sewer.







Mike Baggett, 3863 Pleasant Beach Drive, stated the sewer line from

Lynwood Center runs in front of his home; that the lots along Pleasant

Beach Drive are not large enough to provide for high density, and; that

the City is not being asked to pay for the sewer only to help solve the

problem.







John Ferguson, N. Madison, stated his wife recently inherited her

parent’s home located on Pleasant Beach Drive and this is a wonderful

opportunity to hook-up 150 homes and clean up the sound. He stated if

50 people tell you their septic systems are failing that should be enough

evidence. He stated that by doing nothing the City is condemning the

properties for which it will need to pay market value.







Dave Berry stated his support for providing sewer to Rockaway Beach,

Point White and Eagledale via the City’s treatment plant and Sewer

District No. 7. He explained Lake Washington was very polluted prior to

the installation of sewer interceptors.







Lois Andrus agreed with comments made by Iver Macdougal and Ted

Spearman regarding the process. She stated her concern that the GMA

Hearings Board could increase density due to sewer installation. She

urged the City to examine the reasons for septic system failures.







Matt Klous, Emerald Heights, stated his children will not play on the

north side of his property because of the odor present. He explained the

Emerald Heights neighborhood has followed the process set out by the

City to solve the problem of failing septic systems.







Gale Cool supports comments made by Nick Chrisman. He explained

there may be designs that can lower costs. He stated the estuary was

designed as a low flow system and may be impacted by sewer

installation. He urged the City to be creative.







Sarah Lee, Sewer District No. 7 Commissioner, stated the sewer district

is a separate entity forced by DOE to construct a treatment plant because

68 homes in Fort Ward did not comply with the Clean Water Act. She

explained if the following policies are followed, the Board will provide

up to 150 hook ups: it cannot cost their rate payers anything; it cannot be

used for the purpose of increasing density; it has to be either a sewer

emergency or create public benefit. She invited the public to attend the

monthly Board meetings.







Mayor Sutton closed the public hearing.







Councilmember Robison stated Don Miles and Jerry Deeter from the

Bremerton/Kitsap County Health Department are present to provide

additional information and to answer questions.







Don Miles stated this situation reminds him of a problem that occurred

in Gorst and urged the City Council to listen to its constituents.







Councilmember Curtis asked whether septic systems act as a recharge in

the areas around the edge of the Island?







Don Miles answered the south end of the island contains solid rock and

hard pan that does not allow water to percolate through, aquifers are

very deep and that actually there should be some concern with installing

septic systems in areas of high recharge.







Jerry Deeter stated the 4 neighborhoods mentioned are all close to the

water and don’t recharge along the shoreline. Failing septic systems

empty into the water. He explained the Health District has never

required a resident to hook up to sewer within 2 years unless a newly

installed septic system failed. He stated the Health District only provides

annual inspection for alternative systems, that it is the responsibility of

individual residents to inspect their system every 3 years.







Councilmember Llewellyn stated that Washington Code may allow

variances or other means to repair septic systems.







Jerry Deeter stated the function of the Health District is to attempt to

provide a solution and that almost every replacement system has used

Table 6 in the regulations (non-conforming repair). He stated these are

not permanent fixes and cost $10,000 to $15,000.







Councilmember Robison asked whether the Stormwater Surface Runoff

tax funding has aided the Health District.







Jerry Deeter answered the O & M Program does receive some funding

which is the reason Kitsap County has a maintenance program. He

stated the district also uses a pollution identification program that allows

for the monitoring of significant numbers of homes and corrects

problems.







Councilmember Pollock asked how the City can obtain necessary data

from residents without their fearing repercussions from the Health

District?







Jerry Deeter stated residents need to understand the Health District is

trying to help them solve their problem.







Councilmember Pollock asked whether the City can do testing without

the Health District being involved?







Jerry Deeter asked what the City would do if an independent contractor

provided testing and found systems to be failing? He stated that

eventually it would come back to the Health District anyway.







Councilmember Nasser asked whether the Health District has

information addressing the 4 neighborhoods discussed this evening.







Jerry Deeter stated inspectors often talk about the problems occurring in

the Emerald Heights and Point White Drive neighborhoods. He stated

Rockaway Beach is probably the worst because of the small lots and the

amount of water present from upland drainage.







Councilmember Nasser asked that a written report or summary be

provided by the Health District to the City.







Don Miles stated the State Department of Health has concluded that the

quality of the rain water sampled is good, however, water tested in the

ditches along the roads and curtain drains show a high bacterial count.

Septic Systems along the shoreline were also inspected and were

reported as being "suspect". He explained a report is being prepared and

will be circulated in several weeks.







Councilmember Pollock asked whether the 70 septic events that have

been reported were partial or total failures?







Jerry Deeter explained maps of the 70 septic failures have been supplied

to the City and spanned a 2-year period. He stated some of the systems

were partially failing and needed a new drain field or a new leg of the

drain field.

02/14/01 City Administrator's Report: City Administrator Nordby distributed

Council information regarding the South Bainbridge Sewer Plan stating the City

Council needs to discuss the following: 1) the history leading to the

number of ERU’s requested; 2) the need for an engineering study to

determine capacity; 3) whether or not a Comprehensive Plan amendment

is required. Council Chair Curtis stated the City Council will discuss

these issues at its next meeting.



02/28/01 Public Comment: Carolyn Beach, representing the residents of

Council Rockaway Beach, Point White, Pleasant Beach and Emerald Heights,

reiterated support for the formation of LID’s to provide sewer to the

neighborhoods mentioned above and simultaneous adoption of a

Comprehensive Plan Amendment if that is required.







Charles Huff, representing the residents of Rockaway Beach, Point

White, Pleasant Beach and Emerald Heights, addressed the issue of the

"Pink flyer" distributed to South Bainbridge residents stating the flyer

contains erroneous information.



03/07/01 Council to consider revisions to the plan.

Council



03/14/01 Unfinished Business: AB 0179 South Bainbridge General Sewer

Plan

Council

Councilmember Curtis asked that the following scheduling steps be

discussed this evening: 1) We will propose a Comp Plan amendment by

May 1; 2) We will direct the administration to set up a schedule of the

steps to be taken to consider the formation of LID’s in the areas which

have petitioned us to do so; 3) We will direct the administration to

negotiate an agreement with Sewer District 7 for a number of

connections or for a number of gallons which they will accept from the

city and devise a method of allocating available connections; 4) We will

direct the authors of the South Bainbridge Sewer Plan to add language

that clarifies the city’s position as to long range sewer expansion: that

future sewer service depends upon request of the area needing the

service, upon availability of service from Sewer District 7, upon

confirmation by the Health District of the presence of conditions which

make on site sewers difficult to design and maintain. Inclusion in the

Sewer Plan does not indicate intention of the City to promote expansion

of service to a given area.

City Administrator Nordby stated the Comp Plan SEPA process and an

Engineering report on the Sewer District No. 7 capacity should be added

to the process.







Emily Sato, Sewer District No. 7 Commissioner, reaffirmed the

commitment for 150 hookups to Sewer District No. 7.







There was discussion regarding controlling density issues, ADU

connections, how and by whom the Comp Plan amendment will be filed

and limiting the General Sewer Plan.







On motion by Councilmember Murray, second by Councilmember

Pollock, a Comprehensive Plan Amendment proposed by May 1, was

unanimously approved.







There was discussion regarding the areas proposed by the draft sewer

plan, the areas that may need to be added and the process of identifying

hookups in each of the areas.







On motion by Councilmember Curtis, second by Councilmember

Murray steps 2, to schedule the steps that should be taken to consider

the formation of LID’s in the areas that have petitioned & 3, to

negotiate an agreement with Sewer District No. 7, were unanimously

approved.







City Administrator Nordby recommended that the Council make a

general policy statement regarding hookups.







Councilmember Pollock moved to remove those neighborhoods that

have not requested sewer service and limit the process only to those

neighborhoods requesting sewer service. The motion failed for lack of a

second and the consensus was to roll No. 4, into the Comprehensive

Plan process.







Councilmember Wooldridge proposed that the City work toward the

goal of final hookups of all systems by September 2002.



03/21/00 South Sewer Plan



OPS Discussion: Item #1) Sewer Comp Plan Amendment – draft: Council

member Lois Curtis suggested that a group of three council members get

together to discuss preliminary changes for the Comp plan amendment

dealing with of the sewer plan. Interested members of the council to get

together next week. Council member Michael Pollock suggested that the

Comp Plan Amendment address the criteria on how to allocate. The

committee suggested a joint hearing with Planning Commission to

expedite this process. Item #2) Allocating the capacity granted by Sewer

District 7: Need to clarify what was offered by Sewer District 7 and

what the allocating capacity is for SD7. Item #3) Sewer District 7

Interlocal Agreement: SD7 has proposed some changes to the agreement

to combine with Lynnwood Center. L. Nordby stated that the ILA could

be done fairly quickly if SD7 include the proposed changes already on

the table. Item #4) Modify the Draft South Bainbridge General Sewer

Plan: City Administrator Nordby spoke to the consultants regarding

some modifications to the proposed plan. The consultants stated that

they can make the changes quickly. Item #5) Formation of LIDs:

Nordby will meet with Public Works Director Witt and Planning

Director Warren regarding the LID process. The city can proceed with

the preliminary steps to create a LID. L. Nordby noted that if the City

hopes to establish the sewer system by the Fall of 2002, there wasn’t

much time. The committee discussed whether the LID properties must

be contiguous. L. Nordby to discuss with City Attorney Kaseguma. Item

#6) Timeline: L. Nordby and Public Works Director Witt will work on a

timetable for the south end sewer plan.



Follow Up: The Comp Plan Amendment and the Formation of the LID

will require the most time to accomplish. Council Chair Curtis will

submit their input for the Comp Plan Amendment by the April 11

Council meeting. City Administrator Nordby will submit an update on

Items 2 to 6 by next Ops meeting.



04/04/01 South Sewer Plan

OPS

Attending Guests: Charles Hawk, Bill Cairns, Linda Olsoe, and William

Gilbert.



Discussion: The committee discussed with Charles Hawk et al on the

formulation of the language for the Comp Plan Amendment of the South

End Sewer Plan. (See attached memo dated April 2, 2001.) The group

also expressed concern on the prorated costs of the LID if property

owners decide not to participate. Council Chair Curtis will meet with



Councilmembers Wooldridge and Pollock to work on the language for

the Comp Plan Amendment. Councilmember Wooldridge acknowledged

the public members stating that the committee heard them and will be

working on modifying the plan with their suggestions in mind. City

Administrator Nordby suggested that the Council allow the

Administration to set the allocation, following Council criteria. He

stated that the parameters were set 2 years ago in the Council Sewer

District resolutions. Mr. Cairns asked the committee on a timeline and

what would be the



first day to get a permit.



Follow Up: Council Chair Curtis will present an update on the

suggestions for the Comp



Plan Amendment language at the next council meeting on April 11. City

Administrator



Nordby will meet with SD7 to discuss the amount of gallons allowed. L.

Nordby will



continue to work on a timeline to include the SEPA process.







04/18/01 Language for the Comp Plan Amendment for the South End

OPS

Discussion: Update by Council Chair Lois Curtis.



Follow Up: Discussion at next committee meeting regarding the

elements that need to be included in a proposed Comp Plan Amendment,

or if the condition should be in the agreement with Sewer District #7 or

in the LID formation process. Report that Planning Commission would

be willing to deal with a succinct/geographically limited Comp Plan

Amendment.



04/25/01 Unfinished Business: AB 0179 South Bainbridge General Sewer

Council Plan



Councilmember Curtis explained Charles Hawk distributed a

memorandum urging that the City proceed with a Comprehensive Plan

Amendment.







Councilmember Robison explained the City made a commitment to

come forward with a Comp Plan amendment by May 1. He referred to

the flow chart he prepared detailing the amount of time it will take to

complete the Comp Plan amendment process, the Interlocal Agreement

approval process, sewer plan approval, allocation of flow to

neighborhoods, preliminary local improvement information, finish

engineering and to start construction. He moved to approve the language

drafted by Councilmember Curtis for the Comprehensive Plan

Amendment. His motion was seconded by Councilmember Llewellyn.







Councilmember Nasser explained 2 Councilmembers who have been

involved in this issue are absent, that she received a courtesy call 2 ½

hours prior to leaving for the meeting saying this subject would be

discussed this evening. She asked that language she drafted last week be

considered along with Councilmember Curtis’ language and the

language prepared by Mr. Hawk.







Director Warren explained that Comprehensive Plan amendment process

begins with submittals May 1, however, the Planning Commission will

probably not act on those amendment requests until its first meeting in

July.







Councilmember Wooldridge stated several Councilmembers believe

each issue should be voted on separately. He moved to table discussion

of this issue to the May 9, City Council meeting. His motion was

seconded by Councilmember Nasser and approved with

Councilmembers Curtis, Nasser and Wooldridge in favor;

Councilmembers Llewellyn and Robison opposed.

Councilmember Robison read a letter he drafted for his fellow

Councilmembers in which he asked that the City follow through on its

commitment to submit a Comprehensive Plan amendment thereby

beginning the process.







Councilmember Nasser asked that the Council set aside 1 hour at its

next meeting to discuss the Comp Plan amendment language submitted

thus far and come to a conclusion at the meeting of May 9.



05/08/01 City Council Workshop – 7:00 p.m. – Council Chambers

Council

Mayor Sutton explained the topic of this evening’s workshop was to

consider an amendment to the comprehensive plan dealing with the

sewer situation in the south end of the island, get some specific elements

for inclusion into the proposed CPA and lay out general features so that

staff can put it into some workable form for council consideration.







Councilmember Nasser volunteered to work with Planning Director

Warren tomorrow morning so that a useful product would be available

for discussion at the regular city council meeting scheduled that evening.







Councilmember Pollock said that this is a very difficult process that

we’re working with & there are many issues at hand (land use,

environmental, taxation, fair allocation of costs, etc.). He explained that

citizens have until the end of June to submit their own comprehensive

plan if they feel that they have to or perceive the city is moving too

slowly in their own process.







Councilmember Robison expressed concern as to the timeline that was

originally agreed to & explained how complex the process is.







Councilmember Pollock briefly explained that there is early &

continuous public involvement in the process as it goes to the Planning

Commission, back to the City Council & for citizens to comment.

Councilmember Curtis reminded everyone that the council tabled a

motion for a proposed comprehensive plan amendment at the last

meeting & suggested that they don’t deal with that tonight but with the

discussion points & issues complied by Councilmembers Nasser &

Wooldridge.







Councilmember Nasser explained that she took written questions &

suggestions to come up with the discussion points for this evening.







Questions:







Question 1: Should we adopt the entire South End Sewer Plan or accept

only those portions that relate specifically to areas which we are

considering for current excess sewage treatment plant capacity (i.e.

Lynwood Center, the four neighborhoods, Blakely School)? Comments:

wait until we get some recommendations regarding modifications to the

draft plan (Chapter 8: The Recommended Plan), deal only with the areas

that have come forward, DOE time-line approval, home on Fort Street &

Blakely School being included, size of proposed LID boundary areas,

Emerald Height’s segments were discussed. Motion: Council endorsed

Lynwood Neighborhood Service Center, Blakely School, one house on

Fort Street & the four neighborhood who petitioned for service. All in

favor.







Question 2: Should we submit CPA language that extends sewer service

only to the neighborhoods in question, to the entire south end, or Island-

wide? Motion: To submit the CPA language that extends sewer service

only to the neighborhoods in question. All in favor.







Questions 2a: If neighborhood specific, should we remove "Port Blakely

site" from the list of possible areas? Motion: Remove "Port Blakely site"

from the list & from the existing comprehensive plan language. All in

favor.







Question 2a: If neighborhood specific, which areas are we considering,

and what are the boundaries? Should we consider putting "maps" in the

comprehensive plan & should this level of detail be included in the

Comprehensive Plan Amendment? Comments: maps from previous

comprehensive plan amendments, Winslow Water System Plan, what

are the boundaries, level of detail, difficulties in map interpretation,

maps versus general language were discussed. Questions 2a rephrased:

Should we provide in the proposed amendment? Motion: maps should

be included in the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. All in favor.







Question 3: Should sewer service in the petitioning neighborhoods be

mandated for all properties within their boundaries, or should these areas

be considered to be appropriate for either sewer or on-site septic

treatment? Comments: health department regulations, LID requirements

& processes, developer extension agreements (septic sewer district),

properly maintained septic systems, some on sewer/some on septic,

economic & affordability concerns, septic workshop, hybrid sewer/on-

site septic neighborhood concept options were discussed. Question 3

rephrased: Should these areas be considered to be appropriate for either

sewer or on-site septic treatment? Motion: Yes. All in favor.







Question 3a: If appropriate for either, should properties owners who

decide to maintain their septic system rather than hook-up to sewer incur

costs associated with the provision of sewer service to their neighbors?

Comments: construction costs only for LID, developer extension

agreements, assessed & fair market values, gift of public funds, creative

LID formation possibilities were discussed. Motion: No, they should not

be required to incur costs. Councilmembers Nasser, Pollock &

Wooldridge in favor; Councilmember Robison abstaining;

Councilmember Curtis against. Motion passed.







Question 3b: If appropriate for either, should language be added to SSP

2.1 to allow "hybrid service areas" in existing sewer service areas (i.e.

Winslow)? Comments: people on sewer should not be allowed to go

back to septic, health department regulations were discussed. Motion:

No, do not consider the question at this time. All in favor.







Question 4: Should the CPA language specify that those receiving sewer

service must apply to the City and pay all direct and indirect costs

associated with the service? Question 4 re-phrased: For the areas that we

agreed to under Question 1, should the CPA those receiving sewer

service be required to apply to the City and should they pay all direct

and indirect costs associated with the service? Comments: need to

establish costs, votes of principle were discussed. Motion: Yes. All in

favor.







Question 4a: Should the language specify that "if a majority of property

owners in these areas desire sewer treatment, they may petition the city

for establishment of LID’s or may enter into a Developer’s Extension

Agreement to pay the costs of connecting to Sewer District #7? Motion:

Strike the question. All in favor.







Question 4b: Should this refer only to the south end process, or also to

sewer extensions in existing sewer service areas (i.e. Winslow)? Motion:

Yes, only to the south end process. All in favor.







Question 5: Should the CPA language specify that "the existence of

sewer service should not result in development where it would not have

been possible under present zoning and before sewer service"? Question

5 re-phrased: Should the CPA our policy specify that "the existence of

sewer service should not result where it would not have been possible

under present zoning and before sewer service?" Motion: Yes. All in

favor.







Question 6: Should the CPA language specify that "in areas not zoned

for urban densities, the sewer extension must provide a net

environmental benefit beyond sewage treatment" (this could include

improved vegetative covering on a property in lieu of drainfield and

reserve, covenants preventing future property subdivision; no net

increase in impervious surface, etc.)? Question 6 re-phrased: Should the

CPA Is it our policy language specify that "in areas not zoned for urban

densities, the sewer extension must provide a net environmental benefit

beyond sewage treatment" (this could include improved vegetative

covering on a property in lieu of drain field and reserve, covenants

preventing future property subdivision; no net increase in impervious

surface, etc.)? Comments: would be very hard to administer, what would

constitute "net environmental benefits list", Sewer District #7

requirements were discussed. Motion: question 6 would read: Should

the CPA language It is our policy in areas outside of the Lynwood

Neighborhood Center Service areas are not zoned for urban densities,

the sewer extension must provide a net environmental benefit beyond

sewage treatment. All in favor but Councilmember Curtis.







Question 7: Should the following, suggested general Amendment be

proposed:







Goal 2:

Ensure that

sewage is

collected,

treated, and

disposed of

properly to

prevent

public health

hazards and

pollution of

ground

water,

surface

water, and

the

surrounding

waters of

Puget

Sound, and

to promote

recharge of

waters of

Bainbridge

Island

(added

language is

underlined).

Motion: All

in favor of

adding

underlined

language.







Question 8: Should the following, suggested general Amendment be

proposed:







SSP 1.1 –

Properly

designed

and

maintained

on-site

wastewater

disposal

systems that

are Health

Department

approved are

a permanent

solution to

sewage

disposal

outside

existing

local sewer

service

areas.

However,

there may be

areas of the

island

determined

to be

unsuitable

for on-site

wastewater

disposal

systems due

to geological

conditions

(such as

steep slopes,

type of soil),

lot size, or

proximity to

the

waterfront.

(added

language is

underlined).







1st Motion: Question rephrased: Properly designed and maintained on-

site wastewater disposal systems that are Kitsap County Health

Department approved are a permanent solution to sewage disposal in

most areas of the Island. However, there may be areas of the island

determined to be unsuitable for on-site wastewater disposal systems due

to geological conditions (such as steep slopes, type of soil), lot size, or

proximity to the waterfront. (added language is underlined). In favor:

Councilmembers Pollock & Wooldridge. Against: Councilmembers

Curtis, Nasser & Robison. Motion failed.







2nd Motion: Approve everything as noted in first motion but add back in

the second sentence only deleting "or proximity to the waterfront." In

favor: Councilmembers Nasser, Pollock & Wooldridge. Against:

Councilmember Curtis & Robison. Motion passed.







After a brief discussion on proposed criteria for allocating hookups, it

was decided these issues are a little premature & that the topic be

continued until tomorrow night’s regularly scheduled meeting.







05/09/01 Additions/Deletions: Mayor Sutton announced the addition under

Council Unfinished Business, South Bainbridge General Sewer Plan

Comprehensive Plan Amendment Process







Public Comment: Linda Olsoe, 3780 Point White Drive, addressing the

South Bainbridge Sewer Plan Comprehensive Plan Amendment, asked

that the issue regarding payment by participants included in LID be

reviewed and that the Comp Plan Amendment language not be sent to

the Planning Commission until this issue is resolved. She asked that the

sentence located in SSP22.4, that reads, "Those properties receiving

service shall pay for all direct and indirect costs for the sewer service",

be eliminated. She stated those who wish to pay for the community

service line can do so without having to hook-up to the service and those

that don’t wish to pay can make their wishes known during the LID

hearing process.



William Gilbert, Rockaway Beach, representing 4 neighbors, referred to

the City Council workshop held Tuesday, May 8, stating he believes the

following clarification is necessary: All participants of the proposed LID

will pay for all of the costs, whether they connect to the sewer or not.

All LID participants will pay their share of the cost of construction of

the main trunk line through the LID. Those who hook up will pay for

their onsite equipment and installation as well as a hook up charge.

Those who have a good functioning on site septic system and do not

wish to hook up will pay only their main trunk share (approximately 1/3

of the charges paid by those who hook up) over 10 – 15 years and will

benefit from the added real estate value derived from the main trunk and

potential for hook up.









Tom Wilder, 4470 Rockaway Beach, asked that the City Council

maintain open minds and have respect for the long standing petitions for

the formation of LIDs or Developer Extensions.



Ron Kenny, 5350 Ruby Place, stated his agreement with Comprehensive

Plan Amendment language proposed. He explained that lack of decision

is impacting the sale price of homes in the Emerald Heights area.

Carolyn Gangmark, Point White Drive, commended the City Council for

drafting the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment language and

asked that the language go forward including SSP22.4. She stated most

south end residents have not been involved in the public process.







Julie Shulte, Pleasant Beach Drive, stated public meetings began 4 years

ago and that waterfront property owners should be listened to. She asked

that the City move forward with LIDs and the Comprehensive Plan

Amendment process and not limit property rights.



Iver McDougal, 10618 NE South Beach Road, President of South

Bainbridge Association and representative for the 4 neighborhoods

requesting sewer service, stated his concern that installation of sewers

will encourage increased density. He stated residents should not be

asked to pay for their neighbor's problems and that to do so creates

stress and dissension thus breaking up communities.







Unfinished Business: South Bainbridge General Sewer Plan

Comprehensive Amendment



Councilmembers discussed the following: That the proposed

Comprehensive Plan Amendment language needs additional work,

language appearing in SSP 1.1 and 2.2 is redundant, language appearing

in SSP2.4 needs clarification, proposal to eliminate SSP2.4 & SSP2.5 to

provide a better Comp Plan Amendment and what steps are needed by

the Executive Department to begin the process for the Comp Plan

Amendment.







Councilmember Llewellyn moved to adopt the proposed language (Goal

2, SSP1.1, SSP2.2, SSP 2.3, SSP2.4, SSP2.5) and send it forward to the

Planning Commission for Phase I of the Comprehensive Plan

Amendment process. Councilmember Wooldridge seconded the motion.







Councilmember Curtis moved to amend the proposed motion to

eliminate the inclusion of SSP2.4 & SSP2.5. Councilmember Robison

seconded the motion.

There was discussion of the question raised at the workshop regarding

payment for the main and connecting pipelines by participants who are

part of the LID but are not hooking up to the system; sewer charges

versus taxes charged for schools and the ambiguities expressed by the

language contained in SSP2.4 & SSP2.5.







Mayor Sutton called for the question. He asked that the City Council

vote on the amendment to eliminate SSP2.4 & SSP2.5. The motion failed

with Councilmembers Curtis, Murray and Robison in favor of the

amendment; Councilmembers Llewellyn, Nasser, Pollock and

Wooldridge opposing the amendment.







Mayor Sutton asked that the City Council vote on the original motion to

adopt Goal 2, SSP1.1, SSP2.2, SSP2.3, SSP2.4 and SSP2.5. The original

motion was unanimously approved.



05/23/01 City Administrator's Report: City Administrator Nordby reported that

Council he met with Sewer District #7 Board of Commissioners last Friday

evening & began discussions about our relationship & amending the old

agreement for Lynwood Center to consolidate it with the new

agreements that may come out of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment.







06/06/01 South End Sewer Comp Plan Amendment



OPS The committee recognized the guest citizens attending the meeting.

They are Charles Hawk and Chester Richmond. On May 9, 2001, Mayor

Sutton asked the Planning Staff to review and make recommendations

for alternate language on the Comp Plan Amendment document. A staff

memorandum dated June 6, 2001, was submitted to the Ops Committee.

The committee discussed the which highlighted the following concerns:

1) The ambiguous language to allow for eventual future connection on

new construction; 2) Deletion of reference to Fort Street;



3) Clarification as to whether sewer service was extended for the

Lynwood NSC or the Lynwood Special Planning Area; 4) The new

policy SSP 2.4 be incorporated as a provision of SSP 2.3, to clearly

define that it applies to the south end areas and not the whole island; and

5) Funding for sewer service is addressed in the Capital Facilities

Element.







The committee agreed that the Council would like to make sure the

comp plan amendment is clear on the intent of the council. They

expressed that it would help to make it simpler and clearer before it goes

through Planning Commission. The council members of the Ops

Committee will review the changes to the proposed language, and

provide comments to Kathy Cook before submitting the final

recommended comp plan amendment to the full council. Other items

discussed included the information needed on LID. City Attorney Rod

Kaseguma is ready to give a workshop, which hopefully will be done

before dealing with the LID petitions. A workshop may be scheduled for

this summer.







Mayor Sutton stated that they were reluctant to accept the Comp Plan

Amendment as final until the staff has identified the pitfalls. Mr. Hawk

asked whether the committee had any questions for him on the 3

documents he submitted with suggestions for the Comp Plan

Amendment. He expressed concern that the longer it takes to get the

Comp Plan Amendment done, the longer it takes for them to get their

failing septic system resolved. Mr. Hawk stated, "if the Health District is

to be believed, everyday the Puget Sound is being polluted."







Follow Up: Ops Council members to review the memo. Schedule a LID

workshop with Rod Kaseguma.



06/27/01 Unfinished Business: South Bainbridge General Sewer Plan

Comprehensive Amendment

Council





Councilmember Robison expressed concern with Comprehensive Plan

Amendment language referred to the Planning Commission and stated

his hope that the process will take care of his concerns. He requested

that a Local Improvement Seminar proposed by City Attorney

Kaseguma be conducted prior to August 10. He asked that the general

sewer plan schedule for the 4 neighborhoods be begun, that the

Interlocal Agreement with Sewer District No. 7 be completed and that

the SEPA process begin.







The status of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment language

proposed at the June 13 City Council meeting and the process followed

were discussed.







City Administrator Nordby stated Chapter 8 of the General Sewer Plan

was amended to include only 4 recommended neighborhoods as stated

in his memorandum of May 17.







Councilmember Robison moved that City Council comments relating to

the General Sewer Plan be submitted to City Administrator Nordby by

July 6. The motion was seconded by Councilmember Llewellyn and

unanimously approved.



07/03/01 South End Sewer Plan: The Committee agreed that the City needs to

OPS work on the Emerald Heights Neighborhood since it is the most

impacted with failing septic systems. The Committee agreed that the

City needs to work on a fast track for this particular area. Council needs

to define the LID area and put that at the top priority. The Committee

would like to recommend that Council move on adopting the General

Sewer Plan and discuss the process in applying to the Comp Plan

Amendment.







07/11/01 Public Comment: Ron Kinney, Emerald Heights, stated there has been

Council quite a lot of testimony from property owners, septic system experts and

the Health District informing the City of the need for installation of

sewers in 4 south Bainbridge neighborhoods (Emerald Heights,

Rockaway Beach, Point White, Pleasant Beach). He asked whether

limiting growth is more important than the existing public health

problem and suggested that Councilmembers owning property on the

Island donate that property to the City.



Unfinished Business: South Bainbridge General Sewer Plan Update



City Administrator Nordby explained he met with Rick Esvelt regarding

South Bainbridge Sewer Plan comments received from

Councilmembers. He stated most of the comments have been

incorporated into the plan, however, some language suggested for

removal cannot be removed because of state law. He distributed the

revised plan to Councilmembers and asked that language appearing on

Pg. 1.2, Section 1.3 Ownership, Operation & Maintenance, paragraph

No. 2, be deleted. He stated a colored map will be prepared for the City

Council of the Lynwood Center area since there are presently 4 different

descriptions of the area.







City Councilmembers discussed the following: 1) Scheduling review of

the revised plan (discuss at the next City Council meeting on July 25); 2)

the status of the Interlocal Agreement with Sewer District No. 7, (not

submitted to the City by sewer district commissioners); and, 3) the date

the City Attorney’s LID Seminar will be presented.



07/25/01 Public Comment: Ron Kinney, Emerald Heights, stated a low

population is one of the last concerns expressed by Island residents in

the Community Values Survey. He cautioned the City Council to study

the Comprehensive Plan Amendment language submitted for the South

Bainbridge General Sewer Plan to ensure all legal requirements have

been met.







Mike Reuse, 5463 Lynwood Center Road, urged approval of the S.

Bainbridge General Sewer Plan…







City Administrator's Report: City Administrator Nordby reported

comments received from Councilmembers have been incorporated into

the South Bainbridge General Sewer Plan. He asked whether the

Council would like to retain the maps included in the first draft of the

plan which are not relevant, or if they should become an addendum to

the plan or be filed away. He stated the Intergovernmental Relations and

Operations Coordinating Committee discussed the draft map of

Lynwood Center at its last meeting and determined the Council needs to

look closely at that particular map. He explained that when these

problems have been dealt with the plan can be approved.







Discussion Item: AB 0241 Comprehensive Plan Amendment

Requests:



 Request to Amend the Water Resources Element submitted by

the City Council of the City of Bainbridge Island



Recommendation: Forward this amendment request to Phase II



08/01/01 City Administrator Nordby reporting that he is finalizing the SE sewer

OPS plan and is currently working on the maps. The current draft reflects the

removal of Blakely Heights and clarify the boundary of the Lynwood

Center Special Planning Area. The next step is to send the modified map

to the DOE.



08/06/01 South End Sewer LIDS – LID process

Council

Mayor Sutton reconvened the recessed regular City Council meeting of

July 25, 2001. He explained the meeting was recessed to allow

additional discussion of the Local Improvement District process. He

introduced City Attorney Kaseguma who gave the following

presentation.







City Attorney Kaseguma explained the seminar will include general

information addressing the Local Improvement District (LID) process,

rules for setting LID boundaries and assessment amounts, financing and

rules for payment by LID participants. He stated an LID is primarily a

financing tool/mechanism with assessments repaying the City’s debt. He

explained assessments are considered a special tax against properties

benefited by the construction resulting from the LID unlike the general

property tax. He explained there are two types of LID formation

methods: Petition method and Resolution method.







Petition Method: A petition must be signed by a majority of residents in

the area within the proposed LID; there is no protest right or the ability

for property owners to challenge the formation of the LID because a

majority of property owners favor the formation of the LID; the City

Council is not required to form the LID; if the percentage of property

owners supporting the formation of the LID is only slightly over the

majority, or changes to the method of assessment, benefited area

boundaries or scope of the improvements occur, it is recommended that

the resolution method of forming the LID be utilized.

Resolution Method: The LID is initiated by City Council resolution; the

formation of the LID can be stopped if protested by 60% or more of the

property owners comprising the total dollar value of the preliminary

assessments for the LID; protests may be filed by property owners

within 30 days after the passage of the LID formation ordinance; there

can be no protest if the City Council, by unanimous vote, finds that

sewer improvement is necessary to protect the public health and the

Health District files a report with the City Council showing the necessity

for the sewer improvement; the City Council may initiate an LID but is

not required to form the LID.







City Attorney Kaseguma listed the following LID procedures required

of the City:



 Determine extent of property owner support (petition)

 Establish proposed improvements

 Establish proposed LID boundaries

 Prepare preliminary assessment roll

 Adopt resolution setting date and time of formation hearing

 Mail and publish notice of formation hearing to all property

owners within proposed LID area

 Conduct formation hearing (City Council Committee or hearing

officer may hold hearing, filing recommendation with the City

Council)

 Complete SEPA review

 Pass Ordinance forming LID

 Publish formation ordinance in newspaper

 File the ordinance, LID boundary diagram and preliminary

assessment roll with the City Treasurer

 Post preliminary assessment roll on City Treasurer’s index of

LID

 Following expiration of 30-day lawsuit challenge period (30

days after the passage of the formation ordinance), prepare final

design of project, award construction contract and construct

project

 Authorize sale of short-term financing (usually LID notes)

 Close out construction project

 Prepare final assessment roll and file with City Clerk

 Adopt resolution setting date and time of assessment roll hearing

 Mail and publish notice of assessment roll hearing

 Hold assessment roll hearing

 Pass ordinance confirming assessment roll

 Publish ordinance in newspaper

 Following expiration of 10-day appeal period (10 days after

ordinance becomes effective) publish and mail notice to all

property owners that all or part of the assessment may be paid

without penalty, interest or costs

 Sell LID bonds after expiration of prepayment period







He explained property owners are now able to finance the cost of the

improvement construction as well as the City’s connection charges. He

addressed the issue of the City’s guaranty fund contribution stating the

fund must include 10% of the net outstanding obligation guaranteed. He

explained Special Benefit & proportionality, stating the cost and

expense of the improvement "shall be assessed upon all the property in

accordance with the special benefits conferred thereon" RCW

35.44.010; the assessment per lot cannot exceed "special benefit"

conferred on the lot by the improvement; that "special benefit" is the

difference between fair market value of the property before and after

construction of the improvement; that property must be benefited in

order to be assessed; the improvement can bestow general benefit as

well as special benefit (arterial streets, trunk lines and parks); the City

can pay for a portion of an LID if there is general benefit to the

community; assessments must be proportionate to one another. He

referenced LID No. 13, High School Road, stating the City contributed a

significant amount of funding to this LID because of the benefit derived

by the public. He addressed the issues of LID boundaries & assessment

roll parcels stating all property located within the LID boundary is

considered specially benefited by the local improvement and shall be

assessed to pay the cost and expense that may be chargeable against the

property specially benefited. If specially benefited lots are obviously

deleted the court will invalidate the LID formation and if assessments

are in excess of special benefits the court will consider the exclusion of

specially benefited lots with other evidence. He explained the various

methods of assessment stating the "Zone and Termini" method divides

the LID area into subdivisions or zones that parallel the improvement

and is rarely used; "Special Benefits" use any of the following methods

to reflect the special benefit to the lots: Front footage or area;

combination of frontage and area; units, for example, all residential lots;

special benefit study, used where lot sizes and uses differ substantially

or special benefit which is difficult to calculate.; "Lot Classification" –

classifications may be any that the City Council finds reasonable (office,

retail, residential, public); the City Council may exempt a class of lots

not specially benefited by the improvement; the City Council may

consider any or all of the following to determine the assessment: square

footage of the lot; permissible floor area; distance from or proximity of

access to improvement; private and public land use restrictions; existing

facilities on lot; any other factor the City Council finds to be a

reasonable measure of special benefits. He explained that if a lot

changes its lawful use after the confirmation of the assessment roll the

City Council can reclassify and reassess it. If reassessment reduces the

total outstanding LID assessments and bonds have been issued the City

Council shall reassess all other lots upward or provide for additional

funds to pay LID bonds. He stated when the City Council uses the "lot

classification" method it may describe the method in the notice for the

formation hearing and in the ordinance forming the LID. If so described

it is final and conclusive unless a lawsuit challenges the method within

30 days after passage of the formation ordinance or 30 days after

expiration of the 30-day protest period. He stated the City Council has

the authority to change the method of assessment up until confirmation

of the final assessment roll.







City Attorney Kaseguma addressed the issue of SEPA compliance by

stating that if the improvement consists of sewer lines that are eight

inches or less in diameter the LID is exempt from SEPA. However, if

sewer lines are more than eight inches in diameter, or facilities such as

pump stations are included, SEPA regulations must be followed and

should be completed prior to passage of the ordinance forming the LID.

He addressed the issue of options for forming an LID available to the

City Council, they are as follows: If the boundaries of the LID are

adjusted a new hearing should be held; the method of assessment can be

changed up to approval of the final assessment roll; if nature and scope

of the improvement is changed a new notice to schedule a new hearing

must be published, posted and mailed. He explained the City Council

may terminate the LID process if the LID is not formed, however, if the

LID is formed but the improvements are not carried out the City Council

may terminate the LID. He urged that if a contract is awarded for the

construction of the improvement the LID should go forward. He

explained LID Financing can utilize City general, utility or borrowed

funds for interim financing (usually notes) or for permanent financing

(LID bonds paid by assessments or guaranty fund). He stated financing

for more than one LID can be combined (Consolidated LIDs). He listed

the following information regarding payment of assessments:



 Following notification by the City Treasurer by publication and

mail all or a portion of the assessment may be paid within 30

days without penalty, interest or costs.

 The remaining portion of the assessment shall be paid in equal

annual installments of principal and interest usually over a period

of 10 to 15 years.

 An assessment may be paid at any time without penalty,

however, interest is due until the next due date of an annual

assessment installment.

 The interest rate charged is usually one-half percent above the

interest rate charged for LID bonds.

 Assessments must be paid whether utilizing the improvement or

not.

 If title to property is transferred the remaining assessment is not

due and payable, however, the institution lending funds for the

property purchase may require payment of remaining

assessment.

 The assessment plus interest and penalty is a lien against a lot

when the assessment roll is received by the City Treasurer and is

superior to all other liens and encumbrances except the lien for

general taxes.







City Councilmembers asked the following questions which were

answered by City Attorney Kaseguma:







Question: Who establishes proposed improvements.







Answer: The City Council following input from staff and property

owners.







Question: How are LID boundaries established?







Answer: Through the process listed in the outline provided by City

Attorney Kaseguma (notice, hearing, staff input, City Council

questioning, determination of boundaries.

Question: Assessment per lot cannot exceed special benefit conferred on

a lot by the improvement. Who determines that issue if the special

benefit is exceeded?







Answer: The City Council determines that which is presumed by the

Court to be correct. That assumption can only be overturned if the

property owners produces an appraisal report conducted by a qualified

appraiser.







Question: Special benefit is the difference between fair market value of

the property before and after the improvement. Is that plural or is that

individual lots.







Answer: The special benefit is determined for every parcel, but usually

if one property is specially benefited the conclusion is that all are

benefited equally.







Question: Assessments must be proportionate to on another. Who

determines what is proportionate?







Answer: The City Council makes the decision. One property cannot pay

more than another. Assessments must be proportionate. No property can

bear a disproportionate share of the cost.







Question: If the City Council may exempt a class of lots that will not be

specially benefited from the improvement will the Council be required

to make this decision too?







Answer: Yes, if you choose this type of assessment method.

Question: Are water lines more than eight-inches in diameter required to

comply with SEPA requirements?







Answer: Yes. Water lines are treated the same way as sewer lines.







Question: Council options on forming an LID. Can we adjust the

districts?



Answer: You can properly adjust the boundaries to include only

specially benefited properties. You can adjust the boundaries and have

the option of reducing the improvement scope,

thereby, reducing the boundaries. However, enlarging the boundaries

requires new notice and a new hearing.







Question: LID Financing. Consolidated LIDs: Financing for more than

one LID can be combined. Might this term fit LIDs for which the city

has received petitions that are separated geographically?







Answer: Answer: Yes. The LID is a financial concept that can be

consolidated for the purpose of permanent financing.







Question: Do you mean that the costs would be all placed in one LID

and divided as though it was one?







Answer: No. The total of the costs of the LIDs would be financed with

one bond







Question: Assessment must be paid whether using improvement or not,

what does that mean?







Answer: That amount is the dollar figure for the LID assessment itself.

The other charges are referred to as connection charges which are paid

when the property actually hooks-up. Both the assessment and the hook-

up fees can be rolled together in installments.







Question: If the residence and property are inherited by an heir is that

heir expected to pay the assessment in full or will the heir assume the

assessment?







Answer: As far as the City is concerned the heir can assume the

assessment.







Question: Is there any way to postpone payment for low-income elderly

(65 or older)?







Answer: The payment can be deferred until the property is sold or

turned over to the heirs. The assessment is to be paid in the meantime by

the State of Washington. However, the interest accrued on the deferred

amount must be paid when the property is sold or transferred.







Question: Could the Hearing Examiner conduct the formation hearing?







Answer: Yes. However, it is helpful for the City Council to hold the

hearing to have direct input from the citizens.







Question: Is it correct that the final assessment is not done until the work

has been completed?







Answer: In most cases Cities, Counties and Districts have waited until

the project has been constructed to issue permanent financing, however,

in some cases in the past, often when the project concerns utility

improvements, the City, County or District has issued bonds before the

project was constructed. This is a risk because the total cost of the

project is not known until it is completed. Most financial institutions do

not favor this method.







Question: Is the trunk line cost incorporated into the LID or paid by the

property owner?







Answer: It is part of the LID paid by the property owner. The

assessment for a property that does not connect at the time the LID is

completed would not include the pump and grinders, however.







Question: If a property owner can show in an appraisal after the final

assessment that he or she receives no special benefit who pays their

assessment?







Answer: The City Council will pay the assessment from the General

Fund or by recalculating the assessments for the other property owners.







Question: Must someone who challenges the formation of an LID be a

participant of the LID?







Answer: Yes.

Question: Are the costs of forming an LID included in the assessment

roll?







Answer: Yes.







Question: How do you calculate ratio of public benefit?







Answer: When the cost of the improvements is very high and there are

vocal participants it is beneficial to hire an appraiser to calculate the

public and private benefits.







Question: If a property were excluded from the LID benefit area is it

possible to serve that property in the future?







Answer: The City Council should include language in the ordinance

forming the LID that any parcel connecting later should pay a charge-in-

lieu of the assessment (this can include interest and surcharge).







Question: If an LID for sewer improvement is formed and some

property owners do not want to participate and the line goes past their

property can they be excluded from the LID?







Answer: If the Lot Classification method of assessment is used a

specific property owner can be excluded, however, if the line goes past

their property the presumption is that they benefit. If the City Council

determines properties do not benefit and can not hook-up they will not

be allowed to hook-up. The lot classification method could be applied to

Bainbridge Island.

City Administrator Nordby explained the City Council will make its

decisions after having received full explanations from staff engineers

and engineering consultants. In response to a question posed by

Councilmember Curtis, he answered the shortest timeline is 6 months

from the date the LID is formed to its completion.







City Attorney Kaseguma announced that assessment roll proceedings

are quasi-judicial in nature, therefore, there can be no discussion

between the Mayor and Councilmembers and property owners.







Ivar McDougall, addressing the issue of special benefit, asked whether

there is any methodology used in an appraisal?







Answer: An appraiser measures the fair market value and compares

parcels with and without the improvement which is based on the

appraiser’s judgment.







City Attorney Kaseguma answered a question from Charles Hawk,

Rockaway Beach, by stating that in his opinion the Lot Classification

method could work for the South Bainbridge Sewer LID.







City Attorney Kaseguma answered Ron Kinney’s question by stating the

City Council can reassess other parcels if an omitted participant enters

the LID at a later time, thereby lowering the assessments.







Deborah Vann asked whether an LID petition is signed by the majority

of owners in the benefit area or the owners representing the majority of

the area?

Answer: By the owners of the majority of the area.







Tom Wilder stated special septic systems require annual maintenance,

service contracts and more frequent replacement. He stated his

understanding that the Health District requires a resident to hook-up if a

trunk line is installed in front of his or her home. He asked who receives

the funds provided by latecomer/charge-in-lieu fees. He stated there is

an RCW that allows people in dire financial situations to defer payments

for up to 4 years. He asked whether there are rules allowing only

property owners to comment on the formation of an LID?







Councilmember Nasser referred to a file of letters received from south-

end residents, some of whom do not wish to hook-up to the sewer

system.







City Attorney Kaseguma answered in response to Mr. Wilder’s question

that when the technical, formal hearing is held anyone can comment.







Julie Schulte asked when choosing the assessment method whether City

Attorney Kaseguma will recommend that one method be used by all

neighborhoods to which he answered, he will not recommend any

method that the City Council will give he and staff the direction in

which they wish to proceed.







Ms. Schulte asked what is the next step in the process and was informed

by City Administrator Nordby that the City Council needs to determine

whether to proceed with the LID formation during the Comprehensive

Plan Amendment process and to establish policies before proceeding.







Ron Kinney addressed the issue of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment

language he believes to be contrary and the issue that only homes with

failing septic systems have been included in the benefit area. He asked

that people be told what the expected cost will be and whether a time

limit has been set allowing a resident to hook-up who originally opted to

be excluded from the LID?







Kit Spier, former Sewer District No. 7 Commissioner, explained if your

septic system is not functioning properly and a trunk line is installed in

front of your home the Health District requires hook-up within 2 years.







There was discussion regarding the SEPA process which can be done

concurrently with the preliminary design and preliminary assessment

roll created for the LID.







Mayor Sutton thanked City Attorney Kaseguma for such an informative

seminar addressing the LID process.



09/26/01 City Administrator's Report: City Administrator Nordby reported the

Council city met with Department of Ecology (DOE) representatives to discuss

the South Bainbridge General Sewer Plan and learned that the city needs

to complete a State Environmental Policy Act process for the plan and

formally adopt the plan. Councilmember Robison asked when DOE will

forward its approval and whether the SEPA and moratorium will have

an effect on the timeline distributed at the last City Council meeting?

City Administrator Nordby answered effects of the moratorium will

depend on the comments received at the public hearing to be deliberated

by the City Council and that a SEPA has to be conducted for the

Comprehensive Plan Amendment and the Sewer Plan and that if both

can be done together there may be no change in the timeline.



10/10/01 Public Comment: Julie Schulte, Pleasant Beach, stated the Planning

Council Commission approved the South Bainbridge General Sewer Plan

Comprehensive Plan Amendment which will now go on for its SEPA

review. She asked why this item did not appear on tonight’s agenda and

urged that it be included on the agenda of the October 24 meeting.



Director Warren stated SEPA has been completed on the policies,

however, she was uncertain that SEPA has been done for the plan.







City Administrator Nordby explained that SEPA for the policies and the

sewer plan need to be conducted separately.







City Attorney Kaseguma explained a Local Improvement District cannot

be formed before the SEPA has been completed.







10/24/01 Ordinances: 1st Reading: AB 0281 Ordinance No. 2001-43, Phase Ii

Council Comprehensive Plan Amendment City Of Bainbridge Island, Water

Resource Element (South Bainbridge Sewer Plan).







Mayor Sutton explained Councilmember Curtis requested that the

Comprehensive Plan Amendment be discussed at the next City Council

workshop. The consensus of the City Council was to invite public

comment at the workshop on November 13.



11/07/01 South End Sewer General Plan



OPS Discussion: City Administrator Nordby reported that the text and maps

are completed. The draft has been reviewed by DOE and Engineering.

The entire process to adopt the plan may take up to 8 weeks, but

Committee hopes to target the Summer of 2002 to allow property

owners to begin construction.



Follow Up: L.Nordby to finalize the draft

by the end of the week for final review.







11-13-01 Council Workshop – South Bainbridge General Sewer Plan – Phase

Council II Comp Plan Amendment – Ordinance No. 2001-43







Mayor Sutton opened the public hearing explaining the purpose of the

meeting was to gather public comment on the proposed comprehensive

plan amendment.







Senior Planner Hudson explained council proposed a comprehensive

plan amendment dealing with a number of policies & one goal within

the Water Resource Element of the Comprehensive Plan; the Planning

Commission held a public hearing on September 27th dealing primarily

with sewer & recommended approval of the staff’s recommended

amendments (Goal 2 and Policies SSP 1.1, 2.2, 2.3 & the addition of

two new policies SSP 2.4A & 2.4B); the city would provide the sewer &

contract with Sewer District # 7 to provide the treatment; the areas being

proposed in Figure X include: Lynwood Center Special Planning Area,

Point White Drive, Pleasant Beach, Emerald Height, Blakely School,

Rockaway Beach & one property on Fort Street.







Councilmember Curtis said a draft geological map of the island shows

bedrock & shallow soil conditions which confirms problems south end

residents are experiencing.







City Administrator mentioned there was a minor omission on the map

linking the Lynwood Center Planning Area with the Point White area as

approved by the Council. He indicated there are 3 small lots that fit in

the area which link both areas shown in the General Sewer Plan which

need to be included in this map as part of the proposed ordinance.







Councilmember Robison asked that council walk-through the process so

that everyone knows where we are & where we’re going.







Dr. Wilder thanked the outgoing Mayor & Councilmembers for their

great service to the island; explained that folks are unable to use their

current water systems and stated the best solution is to be able to hook

up as soon as possible.







William Gilbert, Rockaway Beach resident, wanted to call to the

council’s attention that throughout this process there has been vitually

no negative public comment about these four districts in the south end

having sewer service & everyone understands that it’s going to be costly

for them, not the city or other residents outside the proposed area.

Linda Olsoe wanted to know how long this process would take (i.e.

SEPA).







City Administrator said the SEPA notice will be published next week &

that the comment period will start at that time.







Gretchen Seifert, Rockaway Beach resident, supported comments made

by Dr. Wilder & Mr. Gilbert, is in complete support of these efforts &

hopes council will look at it favorably.







Kit Spier would like to see other sources of pollution in the south end of

the island fixed, is not in favor of sewer being extending endlessly to the

rest of the island & hopes the council will go through with the plan.







Mayor Sutton closed the public hearing & asked the council if they had

any questions.







Councilmember Curtis wanted to make sure that the wording of policy

2.4B (page 115) would be in accordance with local improvement district

rules (that properties are assessed not only what they receive but the

improvement (increase) in the property value.







There was additional discussion regarding fully functioning septic

system being allowed to hookup to sewer, types of local improvement

district assessments methods, possible delays in process, current

timeline, timing to get consultant on board, hookup priorities.







City Administrator Nordby presented a brief timeline that indicated that

if there were no adverse comments received during the comment period

the Council could adopt the plan and forward the plan & SEPA

documents to Department of Ecology for approval, consultant section

process soon after & finalization of Sewer District #7 agreement.







Public Works Director Witt commented on setting standards on design.







Julie Schulte was concerned that we’ll have to authorize a consultant

even after all the work that have already been done (petitions,

boundaries, etc…) & asked if they can just go forward with what

they’ve already done.







City Administrator Nordby replied that an actual preliminary assessment

roll needs to be prepared where enough engineering is done to have an

amount closer to a final cost than we used in meetings before the

petitions went out & the engineer would need to certify this roll with the

city clerk prior to any hearing notices even going out.







Councilmember Robison asked that the timeline be updated to include

the new information received this evening.







Comments regarding the number of hookups, plant capacity & the Fort

Street property were discussed.







Ordinance 2001-43 will have for it’s third reading on November 28th.



11/28/01 Public Comment: Mr. Kortum, Fort Street, explained he has an

Council emergency situation because his septic system helped to create the

landslide on his property that has necessitated his moving from his

home. He asked that the South Bainbridge General Sewer Plan be

adopted with the addition of 5 hookups to 4 occupied and 1 vacant

property neighboring his which are all located on a hazardous slope.

Ordinances: 3rd. Reading: AB Ordinance No. 2001-43,

Comprehensive Plan Amendment - City of Bainbridge Island

(Water Resources Element)







Due to statements made by Mr. Kortum during public comment, this

item will be discussed at the next City Council meeting.



12/12/01 Ordinances: 3rd. Reading AB 0282 Ordinance No. 2001-43,

Comprehensive Plan Amendment – City Of Bainbridge Island

Council (Water Resources Element); South Island Sewer Facilities General

Plan & Engineering Report







Senior Planner Hudson explained the Planning Commission has

recommended approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. She

referred to the map entitled Figure 2B, stating it will be amended to

correct an error present in the Rockaway Beach portion of the map.







The following comments were made during discussion by the Council:



 The map used in the Comprehensive Plan Amendment for

Rockaway Beach should conform to the map contained in the

general sewer plan as pointed out by Senior Planner Hudson.

 Remove "Dead Carp Pond", located on Lynwood Center Road

N. of Baker Hill Road, from the Lynwood Special Planning Area

and use the map contained in the general sewer plan.

 Include only one connection for the Kortum property located on

Fort Street, an emergency situation, in the Comprehensive Plan.

 Propose to add the following sentence to SSP2.B: In conjunction

with the Kitsap County Health District the City shall establish

criteria for expanding sewer service to properties in the sewer

service area. The issue of establishing criteria was discussed and

the consensus was not to include the previous language/retain

language as is.

 Delete extraneous remnants of the red lines indicating portions of

service areas previously deleted by Council motion from the

sewer plan Map 14B of the Rockaway Beach area.

Councilmember Murray moved to go forward with the language in the

sewer plan as is and to approve Ordinance No. 2001-43,

Comprehensive Plan Amendment – City of Bainbridge Island (Water

Resources Element). Councilmember Llewellyn seconded the motion.







There was additional discussion regarding sewer plan map Figure 6-8,

which depicts more than one sewer line for each of several properties

located on Pleasant Beach Drive, conformance of Comprehensive Plan

and Sewer Plan maps.







Councilmember Murray withdrew her original motion and moved to

adopt Ordinance No. 2001-43, Comprehensive Plan Amendment – City

of Bainbridge Island (Water Resources Element), with the previously

recommended map changes. The motion was seconded by

Councilmember Wooldridge and unanimously approved.







South Island Sewer Facilities General Plan And Engineering Report



Councilmember Pollock recommended that the maps contained in the

sewer plan be redrawn to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan

Amendment just approved.







As requested, City Administrator Nordby explained the accepted South

Island Sewer Facilities General Plan and Engineering Report will be

sent to the Department of Ecology (DOE). DOE must approve the plan

before the City can consider a Local Improvement District. He explained

DOE uses criteria stipulated by RCW. He further explained that since

the General Sewer Plan is a feasibility study, throughout it the Plan

stipulates that the Comprehensive Plan is the controlling document.







Councilmember Wooldridge called for the question.

On motion by Councilmember Curtis, second by Councilmember

Murray, the South Island Sewer Facilities General Plan and

Engineering Report, was accepted with Councilmembers Curtis,

Llewellyn, Murray, Nasser, Robison and Wooldridge in favor;

Councilmember Pollock opposed.



01/09/02 Public Comment: William Gilbert, Rockaway Beach, addressed the

legal process involved in the formation of Local Improvement Districts

Council for the 4 south Bainbridge neighborhoods seeking sewer service &

asked that the 4 neighborhoods meet with the Executive Department to

clarify and all issues.



01/16/02 LID PROCESS



OPS Discussion: City Administrator Nordby reported that the South End

General Sewer Plan is in the hands of the Department of Ecology, but

the neighborhoods would like to proceed with the process of the Local

Improvement District (LID). The committee noted that the

Councilmembers needed to understand the LID process. Additionally,

Council Chair Pollock noted that there was the question of the sewer

district and boundary as noted in the plan.



Action: City Administrator to schedule a workshop on February 12,

2002.



02/04/02 Review Consultant Request for Qualifications

PWTC

South Island Sewer – Consultant Request for Qualifications



This is an implementation action of the South Island Sewer

Comprehensive Plan amendment. The work is generally described in the

South Island Sewer Service General Plan & Engineering Report

approved by Comp Plan amendment. The City of Bainbridge Island, at

the request of south Island property owners, is proposing to develop four

sewer service areas with wastewater treatment contracted with Kitsap

County Sewer District #7. Rockaway Beach, Emerald Heights and

Pleasant Beach are proposed to be funded with a local improvement

district. Point White Drive will use a utility extension agreement funded

either using cash or a latecomer’s agreement. Staff has prepared a

request for detailed statement of qualifications that provides background

information, anticipated work tasks and skills required. Staff

recommends that a statement of qualification be solicited from interested

and qualified consultant engineering firms on the City’s Consultant

Roster for the proposed work. From the statements provided, staff will

select and negotiate an agreement with the most qualified consultant to

perform the work. The agreement will be brought to the city council for

approval.



Randy explained that he would like the Request for Qualifications

(RFQ) to be reviewed and approved by City Council, as he wants to

receive clear guidance on this proposed project. Councilmember

Wooldridge asked if we have someone in-house with gravity and grinder

pump experience? Lance commented that Sewer District #5 has a

grinder pump and Public Works plans to take a field trip to their facility

in the near future. Councilmember Vann asked if we’re only dealing

with four areas (Rockaway Beach, Emerald Heights, Pleasant Beach &

Point White Drive) on this project? Randy’s response was yes, at this

time.



Decision: Approved for City Council New Business Agenda



02/20/02 South-Island Sewer Statement of Qualification

PWTC

This is an implementation action of the South Island Sewer

Comprehensive Plan amendment. The City of Bainbridge Island, at the

request of south Island property owners, is proposing to develop five

sewer service areas with wastewater treatment contracted with Kitsap

County Sewer District #7. Rockaway Beach, Emerald Heights, Blakely

School (Randy brought up as that the School District (Blakely) is now

wanting to be a part of the LID) and Pleasant Beach are proposed to be

funded with a local improvement district. Point White Drive will use a

utility extension agreement and cash or latecomers agreement for

funding. Staff has prepared a request for detailed statement of

qualifications that provides background information, anticipated work

tasks and skills required. Staff recommends that a statement of

qualifications be solicited from interested and qualified consultant

engineering firms on the City’s Consultant Roster for the proposed

work. Staff seeks council approval to make the request of qualifications.

Norm moved that this be approved for council new business agenda.

Unanimous vote.



Decision: Approved for Council New Business Agenda







02/20/02 South Island Sewer, Initiate Request for Qualifications:

Councilmember Vancil expressed concern that this was on the agenda.

OPS She noted that at the last Ops meeting, it was decided that the approval

from DOE was not given and that there was a request for a report on the

criteria. Councilmember Wooldridge noted that the reason to go forward

is because if it is slowed down again it may cause the neighborhood

property owners to file a complaint against the City. City Administrator

Nordby stated that the report was included in the committee agenda

packet. He noted that as you read the criteria report, the theme for the

criteria has been to protect the environment, public benefit, and to use

the Comp Plan. Nordby also stated that it was not discussed to hold up

on the work and that the South Island Sewer work need to continue on a

simultaneous track to begin construction as expected by the

neighborhoods. Nordby also noted that the request for qualifications is

to initiate the study to begin a LID process, that the Comp Plan

amendment states that the 4 neighborhoods are eligible to get sewer

service, and that the Council has control of the LID process.

Councilmember Vancil asked how can we give Council the knowledge

needed to understand the background and what needs to be decided for

the LID process. She asked if there would be a LID Workshop. City

Administrator Nordby pointed out that there has been a difference of

opinion on the Council as to whether there needs to be a workshop.

Councilmember Wooldridge noted that the proponents want everyone to

be included in the LID. But, Council wants to include only those that

want to do it. He also noted that the School District is interested in being

included. Nordby stated it could be included with Emerald Heights.

Mayor Kordonowy noted that another decision is how many hookups.

The Council members voted to have a workshop. Councilmember

Knobloch asked who pays for the LID. Nordby said the city would bear

all costs up to the hearing, if the council does not go forward. If a LID is

created, all the costs gets rolled into the costs of construction and

financing and gets paid by the property owners participating in the LID.

However, to proceed, the Engineer must certify the assessment for the

LID, and the Engineer will need to conduct additional surveys, and do

an accounting. That is the reason to initiate the Request for Qualification

of prospective consultants to conduct the initial survey. Action: Keep on

the Council agenda under New Business. Director Witt can present

further information at that time.



02/27/02 City Administrator's Report: City Administrator Nordby requested

feedback from the City Council regarding scheduling of a Local

Council Improvement District (LID) workshop.







The Council discussed whether to conduct the workshop or view a

video-tape of the workshop material, 5 Councilmembers expressed

interest in attending a workshop, the sense of urgency in scheduling the

workshop to prepare Councilmembers of the lengthy LID process ahead.

It was determined that scheduling of the LID workshop should be done

after the meeting.



03/06/02 South End Sewer: The LID workshop has been scheduled for 2 p.m.,

on March 13, 2002. If more than 3 council members attend, a notice

OPS needs to be posted. Sue Kasper will handle. Council Chair Pollock stated

that the city still needs to develop the criteria because of conflicting

maps and it needs to verify the number of sewer hook ups.

Councilmember Vancil suggested that the Planning Commission be

asked how long will they spend on the criteria for the sewer. The

committee discussed whether the city should move forward with

Emerald Heights since they are in the most need. The neighborhood

owners have worked together and have expressed that they want it.

Action: Follow up under City Administrator Nordby.



03/07/02 Department of Ecology approved South Island Sewer Facilities General

Informational Plan & Engineering Report.



03/13/02 Local Improvement District Process Presentation



Council



In the absence of Mayor Kordonowy and Council Chair Pollock,

Councilmember Wooldridge opened the Local Improvement District

process presentation prepared by City Attorney Kaseguma who began

his presentation by inviting Councilmembers to ask questions as the

presentation progresses. He asked how many Councilmembers present

have had experience with Local Improvement Districts (LID)?







Councilmember Vancil answered she has had experience only as a

Planning Commissioner.







City Attorney Kaseguma continued by explaining the mechanism of an

LID has been established by state law to fund improvements and there

are two methods of forming an LID, 1) petition of a majority of property

owners within the LID boundaries; 2) Resolution, which he

recommended using if the majority of property owners favoring the

formation is 50% or greater.







Councilmember Vann asked whether bond counsel is involved.

City Attorney Kaseguma answered if the City issues LID bonds or a

bond participation note a bond counsel will issue a legal opinion that

two things have occurred, 1) the City has properly created the LID, 2)

that the interest on the bonds are tax exempt.







Councilmember Curtis asked at what stage bond counsel becomes

involved?







City Attorney Kaseguma answered after the construction contract has

been awarded, however, the formation of the LID can be stopped if there

is a protest of 60% of the property owners.







Charles Hawk, Rockaway Beach, asked, in the case of South Bainbridge

Sewer, what the dollar amount will be.







City Attorney Kaseguma answered a preliminary assessment roll will be

prepared estimating the amount to be paid by each property owner. He

explained this is a statutory process with many rules and many steps.







Councilmember Vann asked who will start the process?







City Attorney Kaseguma answered property owners will work with a

City staff member to establish the LID boundaries. He further explained

that petitions to form an LID can become stale if not acted on in a timely

fashion because properties are sold and ownership is constantly

changing. He stated in the case of the Resolution method the LID

boundaries are established, a preliminary assessment roll is prepared, the

City Council adopts a Resolution setting a formal hearing date and

notification is mailed to property owners advising them of the hearing.

Councilmember Vancil asked whether this is the first time property

owners will be informed of their share of the cost to construct the LID?







City Attorney Kaseguma answered, yes, however property owners often

know the approximate cost prior to receiving the preliminary assessment

roll. He continued that the City Council usually presides at the public

hearing, however, the Council can designate the Hearing Examiner or a

committee to conduct the public hearing. He stated the SEPA review

process must be complete prior to the public hearing; following the

public hearing the City Council will approve an ordinance forming the

LID which is published in the newspaper; the boundary diagram and

preliminary assessment roll are filed; property owners have 30 days to

protest the formation and, if the percentage of protests is high enough, a

court appeal will be filed; the design of the LID will be created and a

contract will be awarded. He addressed the issue of financing stating

general or utility funds can be used as well as bonds. Either temporary

financing bonds with the anticipation that the note will be paid by a long

term bond issue or long term bonds will be used and the City will have

10 to 15 years to pay them back. He stated the process continues by

closing out the project, issuing bonds and preparing the final assessment

roll for which notification is mailed to each property owner within the

LID boundary, the notice is published, a public hearing is held and the

City Council determines whether to approve the formation of the LID or

not.







Councilmember Curtis asked whether the appeal period for formation

and the protest period leading to a court appeal are both 30 days.







City Attorney Kaseguma answered, yes.







Councilmember Vann asked whether the City can begin the formation

process prior to completion of the design?

City Attorney Kaseguma answered, yes, however, the City will need to

know the approximate size of the lines and the locations of pump

stations before the formation hearing. He explained anything relating to

the cost of the LID can be included in the assessments charged for the

LID.







Charles Hawk stated $7,500 connection/hookup fee is required by Sewer

District No. 7.







Councilmember Vancil asked what the $7,500 is to be used for.







City Attorney Kaseguma provided the example of the City’s sewer

facilities which include: main lines, pump stations, general facilities,

local facilities (lines running along the street). He stated the local charge

for a line running to each home will be different for each home plus the

$7,500 hookup fee and if a grinder pump is used a side sewer fee will be

included.







Councilmember Vancil asked whether the grinder pump can be shared?







City Attorney Kaseguma answered, probably.







Linda Olsoe, Point White Drive, stated if the City takes control of the

grinder pumps it will need an easement from each property to maintain

the pumps.







City Attorney Kaseguma explained the City will need an easement for

each electrical box as well. He stated the City will be required to provide

a guarantee fund contribution of 10% of the net outstanding obligations.

He warned the City Council that it should be prepared some people

believe a septic system lasts longer than it actually does. He explained if

a parcel is excluded without an adequate explanation it will be

considered an illegal and invalid exclusion. He continued that if a parcel

is receiving special benefit it should be included in the LID.







Councilmember Vann asked whether provisions can be made for low

income families?







City Attorney Kaseguma answered assessments are paid one time each

year and that if an owner is considered low income the assessment can

be paid back when the property is sold. He addressed the methods of

assessment noting Zone & Termini which are rarely used, front footage

which can continue past the improvement and the Special Benefit

method for which a study is prepared by a knowledgeable appraiser who

makes the determination whether the market value of properties

included in the LID increases because of the improvement. He explained

Special Benefit can be done before, during or after the property owner

receives the assessment.







Councilmember Vancil asked which method would be used for large

waterfront parcels?







City Attorney Kaseguma answered another method is entitled "Lot

Classification" and this method may apply to large waterfront parcels.







Charles Hawk stated that all property owners believe they will pay equal

amounts for the improvements made by the South Bainbridge Sewer

LIDs.







Linda Olsoe stated this method is more beneficial to small parcels.







Kit Spier, former Sewer District No. 7 Commissioner, stated large lots

can subdivide.







City Attorney Kaseguma explained that if land changes its use or the

property owner changes the structures located on the property the

assessment for that property can be raised or lowered. He stated that if

the City Council chooses this method it cannot be challenged again

following the 30-day appeal period after formation of the LID. He

suggested, in response to a question posed by Chet Richmond,

Rockaway Beach, that the City can probably satisfy most people and

that property owners in favor of the formation of an LID should discuss

it with their neighbors.







An unnamed citizen asked whether there is funding available to the City

to help defray costs of the improvements?







City Attorney Kaseguma answered, no.







Councilmembers Curtis and Wooldridge stated the City is funding

studies and the preliminary design and is already taking a risk.







Linda Olsoe, Point White Drive, stated grant funds are available for

mandated sewer systems, which she believes the Health District

supports.







City Attorney Kaseguma explained major grant funding is available to

clean up the raw sewage that has been dumped into the Columbia River.

He listed the options available to the City Council which follow: 1)

Adjust boundaries of proposed LID; 2) Change the method of

assessment; 3) Change the nature and scope of the improvement.

Addressing the issue of LID financing he stated combining the interim

financing issued for the LIDs proposed for the Emerald Heights,

Rockaway Beach and Pleasant Beach neighborhoods will be less costly.

He addressed the issue of payment of assessments.







Kit Spier stated that it is his experience that most LIDs are being paid

off faster than the allowable period because most mortgage companies

will not allow a lien to stand when a property has been sold. Addressing

the issue of density he stated Sewer District No. 7, provided only one

hookup to a 5-acre parcel thus preventing the owner from subdividing

the property.







There was discussion regarding the hookup fee charged by Sewer

District No. 7, to which Kit Spier answered the hookup fee is to ensure

continued maintenance and operation of the plant not expansion of the

plant.







Councilmember Wooldridge explained the plant contains redundancy

and can serve 4 times the amount of space. He stated his belief that this

scenario is the beginning of major up-zoning and sewering of

Bainbridge Island.







Councilmember Vancil stated the number of hookups cannot be limited.







City Attorney Kaseguma stated the number of hookups can only be

limited by the capacity of the plant.







Kit Spier stated increased density cannot be blamed on sewer because

the same thing will happen if a street is widened.







Linda Olsoe, Point White Drive, stated the Point White neighborhood

has chosen to employ a Latecomer’s Agreement process to connect to

sewer and that property owners need the City’s approval to hire a

contractor, which will occur on Monday, March 18.







There was a discussion regarding the boundaries of the LIDs.







City Attorney Kaseguma asked whether Sewer District No. 7, has

notified the City of the number of hookups available?







Councilmembers Curtis and Vancil answered there has been no response

to date, however, City Administrator Nordby and Commissioner Lee

have discussed the issue.







Following discussion addressing the number of possible hookups,

Councilmember Wooldridge asked that Councilmembers Curtis and

Nasser, City Administrator Nordby and Public Works Director Witt

meet with neighborhood representatives to ascertain constraints and, in

conjunction with Sewer District No. 7, identify the number of hookups

needed.









06/17/02 South Island Sewer Professional Services Agreement

PWTC

The South Island Sewer project is the result of an implementation action

of the South Island Sewer Comprehensive Plan amendment. The work is

generally described in the South Island Sewer Facilities General Plan &

Report. The City of Bainbridge Island, at the request of the south island

property owners, is proposing to develop five sewer service areas with

wastewater treatment contracted with Kitsap County Sewer District #7

(SD#7). Rockaway Beach, Emerald Heights, Blakely School and

Pleasant Beach are all proposed to be funded via a local improvement

district (LID). Point White Drive plans to implement a utility extension

agreement. Council authorized staff to select and negotiate an agreement

for the predesign, LID formation, design, plan review and construction

assistance work for the sewer service areas at the February 27, 2002

council meeting. The City solicited 11 consultants and received 8

statements of qualifications. After reviewing and scoring the proposals,

City staff selected Berryman & Hennigar as the most qualified

consultant for this project.







The City negotiated an agreement with Berryman & Hennigar to prepare

the gravity sewer system design, grinder pump low-pressure sewer

system design, pump station design, Local Improvement District (LID)

formation, permitting, and rate setting. The first phase of the work will

develop information necessary to design and form the LID. Phase I will

provide the Council, Sewer District #7, and the public with an

opportunity to ask any questions they may have on the project and

enable the Consultant and the City a forum to answer and develop a

scope of work for future activities. This work is necessary to determine

the exact work requirements for the Phase II, (LID formation), work.

Phase I will also include meetings with Sewer Dist. #7 to discuss

availability, the City’s Comprehensive Plan, and to develop system

standards. A general scope of work for Phase III – Final Design, Phase

IV – Construction Administration, and Phase V – Final LID Hearings is

provided to show the anticipated workflow. A meeting with the

representatives of the proposed sewer service areas to review the

proposed work plan was held on June 10, 2002.







Staff recommends that the City enter a professional services agreement

with Berryman and Hennigar to perform Phase I and II of the attached

scope of work for an amount of $260,000.00. The scope and budget of

Phase II will be modified, (after the completion of Phase I), to reflect the

decisions of the City Council on the direction of the project(s). After

formation of the LID, staff will bring forward an amendment for phases

III, IV, and V of the contract.







Randy Witt explained the importance in following through with each

phase succinctly. Randy shared following each step will establish a

baseline as to how the City will approach and start the LID process as

well as when to begin Phase II of the project. Randy mentioned that

establishing a number of Council workshops will help answer questions,

check viability of alternatives, and be used to educate the Council,

Sewer Dist. #7, the public, and help establish a scope of work for the

rest of the project.







The public expressed concern with the way fees will be distributed with

this system. Will the City and consultant costs be fixed for each sewer

service area, will there be hourly billing, and what about Sewer Dist. #7

and latecomers? Randy explained that these issues have not been

discussed in full detail, but the ideas of fixing costs for review of the

Point White area will not be an option due to the way the City is set up

for charging hourly fees for review. It was expressed that the cost

distribution issue will be a topic discussed during scheduled workshops.







Councilmember Knobloch mentioned he has concerns with the time it

may take to complete this project. Randy and Gary Bourne with

Berryman and Henigar, explained that they see Phase I and II to take

about six months ( 3 months for phase I and 3 months for phase II ).

Gary Bourne mentioned that he would know more regarding time

frames when the project gets started. He also mentioned that he sees

construction starting as early as next year if this complex effort goes

reasonably smoothly. Connection issues were raised as a concern during

discussion. Gary Bourne mentioned that one of their duties as the

contracting agency with this project is to meet with SD#7, the Planning

Department, Engineering, etc. The City’s job is to negotiate terms and

establish how many connections are needed. Randy states that the

agenda bill needs to be changed to read $260,000 instead of $250,000

and placed on New Business.



Decision: PWTC unanimously recommends placement on the City

Council new business agenda.



06/26/02 NEW BUSINESS: A. AB 0179 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

AGREEMENT, BERRYMAN & HENNIGAR (DESIGN FOR

Council SOUTH ISLAND SEWER PROJECT)



Director Witt explained the South Island Sewer Project is the result of

the implementation action of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. That

RFP’s and SOQ’s were solicited. 8 were received and that staff selected

Berryman & Hennigar to perform Phases 1 & II at a cost of $260,000.

He stated once the costs are known the LIDs can be formed.

Councilmembers discussed the following: Assurance from the

neighborhoods that if the final costs are higher than originally estimated

they will still form LIDs; not approving the agreement until a meeting

can be scheduled with neighborhood leaders; discussing this agreement

at the next Public Works Committee meeting.



NEW BUSINESS (CONTINUED): A. AB 0179 PROFESSIONAL

SERVICES AGREEMENT, BERRYMAN & HENNIGAR

(DESIGN FOR SOUTH ISLAND SEWER PROJECT)



Director Witt explained that if the process moves more quickly the cost

will be less. He stated the Council will know after Phase I has been

completed whether to go forward with LID formation or not.







Councilmembers discussed with a representative of Berryman &

Hennigar contract costs, that the Public Works Committee should

discuss the Point White Drive paving issue, the possibility of the City

contracting with property owners to cover LID expenses and Point

White Drive in relation to the non-motorized transportation plan.







Charles Hawk, Rockaway Beach, stated Point White Drive residents will

pay less because of the developer extension method chosen. He

explained that if the Council does not go ahead with the proposed

contract that the $150,000 already spent by the City will have been

wasted because the contract will determine costs and the properties to be

included in the LIDs.







Julie Schulte, Pleasant Beach, asked that the Council keep the

momentum going since multiple cost studies have been conducted. She

asked that the process be streamlined and that the program be managed

well with performance objectives and penalties in place.







Ron Kenny, Emerald Heights, stated because of inaction by the City

property values in the Emerald Heights area have decreased. He asked

how much would this project have cost 4 – 5 years ago?







Director Eells explained that 2 decisions need to be made, they are: 1 –

approve the contract; 2 – who will pay for the project (costs can be

passed costs on to LID districts, charged to the City sewer fund, LID

participants can be charged sewer rates or the general taxpayers can pay

for it).







The contract with Berryman & Hennigar was referred back to the Public

Works Committee.







07/01/02 South Island Sewer Design Agreement

PWTC

Director Randy Witt noted that at the June 26, 2002 Council meeting,

this item was referred back to the PWTC for public comment. Staff

contacted representatives of the various neighborhoods and invited them

to attend today’s meeting to discuss their support of the proposed sewer

improvements.







Councilmember Norm Wooldridge explained that there has been two

underlying premises since the beginning which are: 1) The proposed

sewer project would not cost the city general fund and 2) All costs

would be paid for by the participants. Another criteria that has been

discussed recently is that only the LID participants that want the

improvements would be included within the LID with a few exceptions.

Norm pointed out that the city has already spent approximately $150k

for the engineering report to date.







1. The proposed sewer project would be paid for entirely by the

participants.

2. Only the LID participants that want the improvements would be

included within the LID, with a few exceptions. Norm pointed

out that the City has already spent over $150k for the

engineering report and other engineering services to date.

Norm also explained that the roadway in the proposed DEA for Point

White Drive would need to be resurfaced per city standards. He said that

the City plans to chip seal the east end near Lynwood Center and will

give them credit for that.







Norm explained that in order to get this project moving, we need to do

Phase I first to determine the preliminary estimates, boundaries, criteria,

etc. Norm explained that the City would like the participants to sign a

guarantee form stating that the signatories will pay for the Phase I costs

if neighborhoods withdrew from the process because of the project costs

(that would be flushed out in Phase I). He noted the percentages of the

prorata share of the Phase I costs, (based upon the prorata share of

participants) as follows: Emerald Heights @ 18%, Pleasant Beach @

14%, Rockaway Beach @ 35%, School District @ 9% and Point White

Drive @ 24%. Norm stated the Emerald Heights would be excluded

from paying the costs due to their needs situation. If the LID’s were

approved, all the Phase I costs would go into the LID assessments, and

the guarantee forms would not be used. Norm stated that one of the

reasons for the guarantee form is that the city has received numerous e-

mails stating that "if we don’t get this or that, we’re pulling out." Norm

asked the representatives to go to the neighborhoods by July 8th to get

yes or no votes on using the guarantee form and then staff will share this

information with the Council at their July 10th City Council meeting.

Norm envisioned executing the guarantee forms by July 15th if City

Council supported this approach.







In response to a question, Gary Bourne with Berryman & Hennigar

explained that a resolution method LID formation moves forward unless

a 60% protest is received.







There was a question about how Berryman & Hennigar was selected,

their expense and who will assure the city does not arbitrary expend the

funds and bill the neighborhoods? Director Randy Witt explained that

Public Works solicited qualifications statements from eleven consultants

from our consultant roster and selected Berryman & Hennigar as the

most qualified. Randy further explained that Public Works shared the

scope of work with leaders of the community and other council

committees for concurrence. Randy commented that the public needs to

have faith with the staff and engineering consultant that we will execute

the work in a timely and cost effective fashion, but noted that we could

share some level of budget reporting with community leaders as the

project moves forward. He pointed out that the effort to get this contract

approved is indicative of the work we will have to do on the project.







Citizens asked or made comments on the following questions:







 Point White representative said that he sent out letters today to

the Point White neighbors requesting support for the proposed

sewer improvements.







 Point White representative commented that the Point White

residents have already collected $57,000 and paid for an

engineering design for their proposed developer extension

agreement.







 Point White representative stated that they originally had 45

willing participants until the estimated costs arose above

$24,000. He also commented that if the costs go above $24,000

some residents may pull out.







 Citizen commented that he went through the whole

neighborhood requesting support and drew the boundary lines

around the smallest area of neighbors with "yes" votes.







 The proposed boundaries should not be non-contiguous because

this will drive up the costs. We need to have contiguous

boundaries to keep the costs under control.

 Citizen asked if the project terminates after Phase I of the

project, is Emerald Heights liable for the engineering expenses to

date? Norm answered no and that Emerald Heights is excluded

from paying for Phase I costs due to their need for sewer to

address health concerns.







 Citizen asked what if the consultant costs go over the agreement

amount? Randy explained that if any amendments go over 10%

of the agreement amount, Public Works would need to go back

to council for approval.







 Citizen asked how do you control costs? Councilmember Vann

mentioned that construction is like a home remodel where you

run into a lot of unanticipated items and that you will not know

the final costs until the end of the project. Randy reiterated an

earlier comment about professionalism of staff and consultant,

but noted that this is not a fixed fee agreement to perform the

work. He noted that the difficulty of this discussion is indicative

of the future discussions and that the agreement could increase if

decisions are not made in a timely fashion.







 Citizen from Emerald Heights stated that he has been involved

with discussions for the proposed improvements in their area. He

mentioned that everything seemed to be going along fine until

the decision was made that their area was to be "on-hold" until

the South-Island Sewer plan was complete which took a long

time and added unnecessary complexities.







 Citizen asked if the estimates in the report are accurate? Randy

responded that those costs are preliminary and were primarily

prepared for the Department of Ecology (DOE) information.

Randy remarked that the report costs are not at a level of detail

for construction cost estimates. Consultant Gary Bourne noted

that the report contained contingencies for cost increases. Both

stated that the Phase I work was intended to provide cost

estimates and LID boundaries which results in a cost per lot

which is the focus of the neighborhoods.







 Citizen suggested that the boundaries be contiguous and that if a

property owner opts out that they would pay for the piping only

and not connecting?







 Citizen stated that he heard that if the improvements are made

that property owners can not do anything with the property

where their drainfileds previously resided? Norm responded no,

although, agreed that this issue was discussed.







 Citizen stated frustration over the process and can’t believe that

the council is questioning the need after all this time. Citizen said

the sewer improvements have been pursued for four year now

and that they have gotten no where. Also, cannot believe that the

city is asking citizens to sign a "blank check" for the Phase I

improvements.







 Citizen stated that for three years now they have been trying to

address the Council’s objections at each turn and to move

forward with the proposed sewer projects.







 Citizen asked if the council could define the boundaries? Norm

commented that the boundaries will be defined as part of Phase I

of the design.







 Citizen remarked that he would like to add a clause of using

contiguous boundaries on the guarantee form and felt that this

clause would help the neighborhood have support for the

guarantee form if they had this assurance. Norm indicated he

would be willing to consider this, although, noted that setting

boundaries is done by the full council at the formation hearing.







 Citizen asked Gary Bourne if he has ever heard of a city

requiring LID participants to sign a guarantee form? Gary

responded that he personally has not seen this type of set-up in

the past, but that he has heard of it with developers forming a

LID to serve a track of properties.







Councilmember Bill Knobloch asked the respective representatives if

they have neighborhood support or not?



--Julie Schulte representing Pleasant Beach Drive stated "yes".



--Bill Cairns representing Point White stated "yes".



--Charles Hawk representing Rockaway Beach stated "yes".







Bill remarked that this process involves public trust but it also goes both

ways. He stated that it’s time to move forward and he will ask his

colleagues to consider this. Bill also stated that we should move forward

without any guarantee forms for Phase I.







Councilmember Norm Wooldridge responded that he doesn’t agree that

we should move forward without any guarantees especially after

receiving emails threatening to pull out if conditions are not met. Where

is the trust in that statement?







Charlie Hawk from Rockaway Beach said that with 30 participants their

estimates would be around $35k and with 45 participants @ $25k.







Randy Witt explained that many of the questions being asked will be

addressed in Phase I and we should have a better idea of the estimates,

boundaries, etc. and can move forward from there. We seem to be

seeking answers to these questions before we start the work.







Merrill Robison passed out to the PWTC a memo dated July 1, 2002

regarding his history and knowledge regarding the South Island Sewer

project and commented that he supports the project.







Sarah Lee said that it would be really great to see some city staff

members attend the Sewer District #7 commissioner meetings. Sarah

stated that the meetings are the second Thursday of the month, 7:00 p.m.

at Sarah’s house.









Decision: PWTC unanimously recommends that Phase I of the

professional services agreement with Berryman & Hennigar be

placed on the City Council Unfinished Business agenda in the

amount of $121,638.







PWTC, by a 2-1 vote, recommend that a group of property owners

from the Rockaway Beach, Pleasant Beach and Point White Drive

areas enter into a "guarantee agreement" to reimburse the City a

prorata share of the Phase I costs and request that the area

representatives indicate their ability to support this by July 8th so it

could be considered at the July 10th City Council meeting.









07/03/02 Contract with Berryman & Hennigar discussed at OPS but not put on

7/10/02 City Council Agenda. Special South Island Sewer Workshop

OPS scheduled for July 17th. - 6:00 p.m.







07/17/02 Special City Council Workshop – 6:00 p.m. – Council Conference

Room

Council







07/24/02 South Island Sewer Design Consultant – Phase I Design



Council



09-19-02 Special City Council Workshop - 6:00 p.m. – Council Chambers

Council



11/13/02 South Island Sewer - Design Consultant – Phase II



Council



12-02-02 Public Works & Transportation Committee - Review Resolution of

PWTC Intent and recommend placement on the December 11, 2002 City

Council Resolution agenda.



12/11/02 South Island Sewer – Resolution of Intent & Set Public Hearing Date

of February 26, 2003 (Resolution) 2002-34

Council



01/08/03 South Island Sewer – Consultant Agreement – Facilitation Services



Council



01/08/03 South Island Sewer – Consultant Agreement – Special Benefit Study.



Council



02/12/03 South Island Sewer – Inclusion of city lots located on Rockaway Beach

Road.

Council



02/12/03 South Island Sewer – Appeal Resolution # 2002-34 - February 26,

2002 Public Hearing date and reschedule public hearing date to

Council 4/15/2003 per Resolution # 2003-04.



03/03/03 Public Works & Transportation Committee

PWTC South Island Sewer Cost Sharing Proposal Presentation



3/12/03 South Island Sewer – South Island Sewer Cost Sharing Proposal

Presentation

Council

03/17/03 South Island Sewer – Repeal Resolution # 2003-04



PWTC



03/26/03 South Island Sewer – Appeal Resolution # 2003-04 - April 15, 2003

Public Hearing date via Resolution 2003-17. Construction is anticipated

Council for summer 2004. Another resolution setting a public hearing date will

be set in 2004.



04/29/03 Tentatively scheduled for the April 29, 2003 Public Works &

Transportation Committee – City Council Agenda Item for May 14,

PWTC 2003– Cost & Financing scenarios & Resolution of Public Benefit.



05/14/03 Presentation Agenda Item: Cost & Financing scenarios & Resolution

of Public Benefit.

Council