City Council - Regular Meeting

Welcome you on call to order the Port Orchard City Council regular meeting for April 14. And, I would like you to see actually, before we start, I'd like to remind us of our guiding principles and the actions we're about to take. Are we raising the bar in all of our actions? Are we honoring the past but not living in the past? Are we building positive connections with our community and outside partner partners? And is the decision making process building a diverse, equitable, and inclusive? Please stand and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of The United States Of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. New page on the website.

Seems we have a published agenda. Council Member Morrissey, I think you wanted to add an item?

Yeah. So right before business, I'd like to add an executive session, please.

Okay. There's a motion to add an executive session just ahead of our business items. Is there a second? Second. Second by council member Ternary. All in favor of adding that executive session just ahead of our business items, please say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? Hearing none, that has been added to our agenda. Any other modifications to this evening's agenda? Rose Pepe? May

I move to approve the agenda as amended?

Second. Motion

by council member Rose Pepe and was it council member? Was the second, to brew to approve the agenda as amended. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? And the agenda is set for this evening. We have, our first citizen comment period at this time. If anyone wishing to address the council, please step to the microphone and and identify yourself, and you have three minutes.

Did you wanna pass? Okay. Well, that's fine. That's fine.

Probably afterwards.

McGee. Over the past two months, I've watched this community speak clearly here. One of the most consistent concerns raised is the lack

of trust and culture here at city hall, and

it's largely shaped by individual actions. With only three minutes, I'll provide a few examples, but the pattern is undeniable. The public watch councilman Trenerly Trenerly mislead a widow about illegal drilling on our property, reframing it as a parking issue. This is a documented official e mail. It's not a misunderstanding. It's dishonest. The mayor has repeatedly claimed the trains left the station. Designs can't be changed. The GMA somehow requires us to bankroll Kitsap transit and permitting on the backs of our ratepayers. False.

Yet continue to be presented as fact echoed in this chamber as if repetition makes them true. Or maybe we should blame the green staff for that too. When falsehoods are repeated as truth from the dais, it's no wonder the public no longer trusts anything coming from it. Councilman Rosa Pepe stated waterfront transit center, not a thing. Public records show otherwise. That statement was false. Mister Rosa Pepe also voted for a sign ordinance, then repeatedly violated it during his campaign, triggering code enforcement and wasting taxpayer resources. That's not a mistake. That's willful disregard. Councilman Rosa Pepe and Deaner voted to enforce a pet licensing ordinance against a resident trying to comply.

Yet public records, which right here show going back to 2007, there's no licenses for your pets. To impose an ordinance on a resident that appears they themselves are violating is not just hypocrisy, it's an abuse of authority. Selective enforcement, plain and simple. Last meeting, council councilman Rosa Pepe used council time to support no king's protest opposing unchecked authority while demonstrating the very behavior those protests stand against. Rules for others, but not for you.

Whereas the accountability, there isn't any. If these records provided are accurate and appears they are, the residents and and the resident involved in this community are owed a formal apology from you two. Accountability is the minimum required when officials violate the very ordinances they impose because holding others to standards you appear to not be adhering to is exactly what kings do. Unacceptable. Maybe a motion tonight to repeal ordinances any of you are unwilling to follow, which by default means that they are unnecessary.

Frankly, that microchipping and nuisance laws are already in place. We don't even need these things. Or should removal of your pets be considered as you voted to apply to others? Anything less confirms what the public already sees. This is not about the entire council, but the consequences of actions like this are borne by the entire council and this entire community. And one and you wonder why nobody trusts city hall. You don't have a messaging problem. You have a dishonesty and a credibility problem, and you reap what you sow.

Thank you for your comments.

Thank you. Anyone

else wishing to address the council? Go ahead.

Good evening. I am Jennifer Forbes. I'm the presiding judge for the Kitsap County Superior Court, and I am here on behalf of the court and the county to talk about the road vacation ordinance that's on the agenda today. It's a pleasure for me to be back here in the Port Orchard City Council, where I previously worked as a city attorney here many, many years ago, and this is one of my favorite city councils to work with. In the past, I know the hard work that you put into the decisions that you make about how to use the resources that belong to the city on on behalf of the citizens and to make the best decisions for the citizens that you can.

I thank you for the opportunity to speak on behalf of the county on this ordinance. And I'm not here only on behalf of myself, the county, the employees who work at the Kitsap County Courthouse, but also on behalf of the members of the public who regularly use the courthouse on a day to day basis. We greatly value the city county partnership and are sincerely grateful for the time, the effort, and the collaboration that has taken to reach to this point of bringing this ordinance before you today. The thoughtful work behind this proposal reflects a strong shared commitment to serving the public. Expanding and improving parking in the courthouse area is an important step towards serving the public.

I don't know how many of you have ever had to go to the courthouse to get something handled, a divorce or something, a parking ticket, things like that. But oftentimes the people that we see at the courthouse are there on what is the worst day of their life. They are there to handle a parenting issue with the spouse. They're there to handle, if they're a victim of a crime, they may be a juror. They could be there for so many different reasons. And it's a stressful experience. And one of the stresses that we see time and time again is that they're coming into court. They're rushed. They can't find parking. Trying to find a place to park is just one step that we can take towards enhancing our court system and making it more user friendly.

The amount of stress that is imposed on the people who come before us can overwhelm them to the point where they can hardly function in the courtrooms. And so these little steps, these little things about making our court system work better for everyone, they're important. So vacating a right away is not a little issue as it might seem to some people. It's a big issue. It's important that we improve the parking for the courthouse.

It's important that we improve the courthouse facilities overall for members of our public. Limited parking adds an unnecessary strain to this process. And because of that, I thank you on behalf of the court, the courthouse users, the employees, and everybody else who's up at the courthouse for the time that you've given to this, your dedication to reviewing these issues, and your continued partnership with the county. I thank you for your time. If you have any questions, of course, about what's going on at the courthouse, I'm happy to assist in any way. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone

else wishing to address the council?

John Lackey. I'm here to speak about the courthouse parking also. That's hard to follow. I'm not a public speaker, so bear with me. County's been acquiring property for courthouse expansion for over twenty years. And I've been told, you know, over the course of the years I've lived up there, as you know, and been told that the county's gonna acquire property as it becomes available. I approached the county in 2018, sat down with Eric Baker, and asked if they were interested in buying, and they were not. I made a call to, Tory Brigidus in 2024. Never heard back. The county has never used eminent domain for the courthouse expansion, and I've always been told they never will.

As you know, as you just heard, the first phase, and this is an important phase, is increased parking. Currently, off street parking that meets city code, there are zero parking spaces available to the public that meets city code. The only available parking spaces that meet city code are for county employees. So I I agree. This is a big issue, and it's an important issue.

What has what the council county have been working on for the past two years has changed. December 2025, 12/16/2025, the mayor announced that the plan had changed. Instead of building in phases, now the county wants to build the entire project at once, and that was only four

months

ago. Unfortunately, they don't they don't own that property. You've been told otherwise. You have been in your staff report from the last council meeting. It says in the staff report that the applicant owns all of the property.

That's incorrect. So I have hired a representative to help me with negotiations with the county in a purchase and sale agreement, a relocation agreement. There's me, there's seven families that need to be relocated from that area, two property owners, three property owners. And the reason I'm here tonight is I'm frustrated because I would like to negotiate purchase and sale agreement, negotiate a relocation package, but I'm the county's stepping in and asking you to damage my property by removing access to it. So I'd prefer some kind of beneficial back and forth negotiation that would benefit me, benefit the city, benefit the county.

One of the options that you have tonight is you can request that the county come back to you with a plan. How are we going to relocate these seven families? How is this property going to be acquired? Once that is in place, then let's talk about the street vacations. But right now, it's premature, but this plan has only been on the books for four months. Thank you.

Comment. Thank you.

Else wishing to address the council?

Hello. My name is Todd Parkington. I'm the acting assistant director for capital facilities at Kitsap Yowie. I'd like to direct your attention to the letter that was sent by our attorney in response to the letter from mister Lackey. Some of the things he just said were a little bit factually incorrect.

It isn't as many families because we have an active purchase and sale agreement with one of them, and we are in the process of negotiating with the other and expect to have that signed shortly. The only outstanding property that has not been purchased is mister Lackey's, and we are I believe, we're intend to be in active negotiations, but I haven't spoken to mister Lackey, so I can't speak whether that's truthful or not. In the letter, we pointed out that the vacations will not affect mister Lackey's property rights. The alley he will he will get the property for the alley that's next to him, which is the only actual vacation. He has an easement through an adjacent property now owned by the county for sewer.

To a sewer main line in Austin Avenue, which will continue to be there in function. And there's no reason for any of his utilities to be blocked, and the county has committed to making sure that he continues to get utility access for as long as he owns the property. Thank you.

You. Anyone

else wishing to address the council? And if you're online, use the raise your hand feature and the clerk will bring you into the meeting. I see no one else, so I'm going to end the first citizen comment period. We go to our consent agenda. Is there a motion to approve our consent agenda?

Mayor, I move to approve the consent agenda as presented.

Second.

Motion by Councilmember Rospeffi, a second by Councilmember Fenton to approve the consent agenda. All in favor, please say

aye. Aye.

Opposed? Hearing none, the consent agenda has been approved. We are going to go into a brief executive session at this point, for ten minutes, do you think, miss Archer? Okay. Start with ten minutes anyway. And you wanna state the statutes?

Yeah. Absolutely. The council will enter into an executive session pursuant to RCW forty two thirty one ten subpart one subpart I for a period of ten minutes with potential action to follow, and I believe we'll have two recusals from this conversation.

We'll have two council members stay out here at the dais and the other five will join me join myself and the attorney in the executive session. Standing ten more minutes.

I said, I like pictures. I

like Yes.

Yeah. You can go ahead, I'll I'll I'll make note of it. These are all the animals that are licensed? Alright. We're back in session and two of our council members are recusing themselves for council member Warden and council member Deener since they need to recuse themselves from this matter, first So business we're back in session. We're to our first business item, which is an adoption of an ordinance vacating city right of way. Miss Wallace, this is you.

Alright. Good evening, mayor, council. So in 2025, the city received an application for a nope, not that one.

Interesting.

Alright. So actually on 12/17/2025, the city received petition materials to vacate city right away from Kitsap County, the petitioner, along with Steve Tyner of KMT LLC, the purpose of the vacations are for the construction of a new surface parking lots to serve a future courthouse expansion and remodel project. The project is phased and the first phase includes the construction of parking lots subject to all necessary permits. The petitioners together own more than two thirds of the abutting property as required by RCW thirty five point seven nine point zero one zero and our Port Orchard municipal code 12.080.01. The requested areas are grouped into sections, and section two is a portion of an alley off of Taylor Street near Sydney Avenue, which is approximately 2,450 square feet.

Section eight is most if not all of Austin Avenue from Taylor Street to Smith Street with approximately 8,434 square feet. Sections six and seven is most if not all of the alley off of Austin Avenue from Taylor Street and Smith Street, totaling approximately 8,434 square feet. Section three is a portion of an alley if not all of Division Street near Sydney Avenue, approximately 3,054 square feet. Section nine is most if not all of the alley of Smith Street to Taylor Street, is approximately fifteen forty square feet. Section four is a portion if not all of Sweeney Street off of Sydney Avenue, approximately 4,667 square feet.

Section 10 is most if not all of the alley from Klein Street to Austin Avenue, approximately 3,897 square feet. Section five is a portion if not all of the alley off of Sweeney Street and Sydney Avenue, approximately 4,667 square feet. And last but not least, section one, which is a portion, if not all, of the alley off of Klein Avenue near Taylor Street, which is approximately fourteen ninety eight square feet. The right of ways and alleys proposed for this vacation totals approximately 38,641 square feet. Pursuant to Port Orchard Municipal Code section 12.08 on March 2026, the city held a public hearing to take testimony on whether the council should vacate city right away.

During that public hearing, testimony was received from a property owner with property adjacent to the proposed vacation objecting that vacation. To confirm, all existing easements property rights pertaining to the utility access will not be impacted by this proposed vacation per Port Orchard Municipal Code twelve point zero eight point zero five zero subsection three, which states no vested rights shall be affected by the vacation. Additionally, the ordinance grants an easement for all public and private utilities located within the vacated area, including the ingress and egress. Pursuant to Port Orchard Municipal Code twelve point zero eight point zero one seven and Port Orchard Municipal Code twelve point zero eight point zero five zero authorizes the city to obtain an appraisal of the area proposed for vacation to assist the city council in evaluating proposed adequate compensation for proposed vacations. Compensation can include and in lieu of transfer of real property as well as other contributions of monetary value.

Following an appraisal, Kitsap County provided a statement of proposed compensations for the areas to be vacated including the payment of to the city of $30,000, the transfer of Veterans Park, which is 48 acres of real property located within the city, and dedicated public parking on the county's campus for special event parking where an event is sponsored or promoted by the city. A copy of the Kitsak County's proposal to compensate the city is included in this packet for tonight's meeting. Referenced in the draft ordinance and cannot be acted upon until after the public hearing and associated action by the council, if any. As set out in the ordinance, if approved, the monetary compensation would be paid prior to the recording of the ordinance with the non monetary compensation set out in an agreement and in a form accepted by the city attorney. Upon payment of the compensation, the property within the vacated limits, so vacated shall be to the abutting property owners, one half of to each.

Per Portage Municipal Code twelve point zero eight point zero five zero subsection three, Kitsap County owns most of the abutting property. For the portion of vacated areas abutting the property not owned by Kitsap County, the private property owner will receive half of the portion abutting their property up to the middle line of the vacated right of way. Lastly, consistent with the requirements of Port Orchard Municipal Code 12.08, staff has determined the following with regards to the Perot's Street vacation. So the area sought to

be

vacated was part of the incorporation of the town of Sydney in 1890. The city engineer has reviewed the street vacation petition, has indicated, one, that the area sought to be vacated is not needed for any public travel nor is it, needed for the foreseeable future. Second, the functionality of the area sought to be vacated for public purposes is nonexistent. Third, the vacation of the area would not adversely affect any utilities such as water, sewer, or storm provided there will be an easement required from the county to provide access to the city's existing utilities in the area. And four, the city, has not included any projects within the proposed vacation area as part of a six year road plan nor has the city, have any scheduled capital facility projects on this property.

In addition, the community development department, director stated that the vacation of the proposed areas do not create potential or actual land uses that are inconsistent with the growth plans and goals. This area has not been identified in the city's comprehensive plan. So therefore, staff recommends based on report provided to this council, staff recommends approving the street street vacation petition by Kitsap County as presented.

Archer, do you have yep. Please.

I do. I just wanna highlight two of the comments that clerk Wallace just mentioned. There have been questions about what happens to the property vacated by the City Council, and pursuant to the Porto Archie Municipal Code at 12.0805, when the City Council votes to vacate right of way, the portion of right of way is split in half right down the midline and each side of that midline is vacated to the adjacent property owner. So as was noted in the staff report, Kitsap County owns the majority of property that will be impacted by the street vacation, but we heard from a public commenter this evening, Mr. Lackie, that he also owns property adjacent to a proposed area for vacation, So one half of the right of way to be vacated, if you were to approve it, will go to Mr.

Lackey and will become a portion of his parcel and his parcel will grow in size by one half of the right of way adjacent to his property were you to approve the street vacation. The other issue we heard questions about that I wanted to reiterate from Clerk Wallace's presentation is existing easements, any private existing easements would not be impacted by the street vacation and that is pursuant to both Port Orchard Municipal Code and state law. No vested rights shall be affected by the vacation pursuant to POMC 12.0805. So if a property owner were to have a private easement that is located within the street vacated area, that easement still will exist. Similarly, the city as part of this vacation, if it were approved, would be reserving an easement for any public utilities or private utilities located in the roadway.

So if there is a main and a connection to that main in a portion of the area to be vacated, we the city will reserve an easement in perpetuity. An easement means that no one can build something that interferes with our ability to access those easements or for anyone who has an easement right to access. For example, Kitsap County couldn't build something that obstruct our ability to access those easements. They couldn't build a giant tower right on top of where our utilities are located, and that's very typical for street vacations. We reserve that right in order to preserve our access to maintain and operate utilities.

I wanted to clarify those two points for the council, and both Clerk Wallace and I are happy to answer any questions as well.

Mr. Morrissey. Yeah, Mr. Mayor. I move to adopt an ordinance vacating the right of way as presented.

Second. Motion by council member Morrissey, second by council member Trenary. Are there any questions or comments about this matter?

Yeah. I got some questions. For that the parking lot, what the county wants or the courthouse, is that a flat or are they building building on top of that or is it just a flat area? And then is mister Lackey I just wanna make sure he's gonna get compensated for his, property.

I'll answer that second part first. Yes, so any private property owner, if the expectation from Kitsap County is to take Mr. Lackey's property, that would require compensation by the constitution. Your action tonight is not taking any property from Mr. Lackey if you were to approve the vacation. You're actually giving him property in the form of the half of the street that's to be vacated.

Giving him more which is Giving him

more. Yeah.

There there are no buildings to be proposed in phase zero. Sir, please quiet. So there this is phase zero, what the county is acquiring, which is building of the parking lot. Future phases of the county campus is on other property, not on this property, for the county's new courthouse and other phases for county services.

And then along with this, you brought up with, the park 48 acres and you referred to back in, 1890 with, that was at the bottom of, '51. The area sought to be vacant was part of incorporation of the town of Sydney in 1890.

That's the streets that you're proposing to be vacated were part of the original platted city, the town. Right. So we just have to note that in our materials.

Oh okay. Because it seemed like it was pretty far oh okay. Yeah, it's very historic. Very historic, but I mean you can build a fence on someone's property and if it's been there for ten years then you get that property. So I just thought that was kinda I didn't really get it why it was so far back. That concept

yeah. That concept is referred to as adverse possession and people can't adversely possess public property, so no one could adversely possess from us as a public agency with very limited exceptions. So that concept is slightly different than what you probably commonly understand about.

Okay, yeah. I was like woah, that's pretty far away. I know, yeah, okay. Absolutely.

Elaborate on that if you would like for me to. So the the there's another section of the code that states that if the plat was incorporated prior to the existence of the city and it stayed the city for ten year or stayed within the county within ten years, then there's what they call a bar of lapse time, which means that they wouldn't be able to it's they already own it. They the city couldn't get compensated because they already owned it. Mhmm. But because this plot was plotted in 1890 and was part of the original city incorporation, there's no bar lapsed time. So it has always been part of the city. It's part of the plat, so that's where that 1890 comes into play. That it's been within the city 1890. It was never owned by the county. It was always the city.

So because it's always been incorporated and platted as part of the city, the city is by state law required to get compensated for that part, the vacation of the right of

way.

So one more thing. When we say yes we're giving up the right of way, I think we're saying yes we're giving up the right of way to the county?

Again you're giving it up to the adjacent property owners. So the county owns most of the adjacent property but not all of it. So one half of the roadways will go to each adjacent property owner and so in most instances both halves will go to the county because they own both sides, but in certain spots, one half will go to a private property owner, Mr. Lackey, and the other half will go to the county.

Councilmember Dedman, go ahead.

Anne, just so I can clarify sort of the negotiation terms, one of the things that we're negotiating is a park, is to assume, ownership of Veterans Park. So, you know, one of the things I was concerned about is that it adds a cost to, the residents of this city. But from my understanding, and and maybe you can tell me to clarify this, my understanding is that should we find that we don't have the money in like nine years that the city isn't in a position to assume it, we will not assume the park.

Correct. It's an option that we're obtaining to obtain the park, and the purpose of that is my understanding is it was negotiated amongst council members and council members feel free to speak to this is, once we have the fund financing in place to be able to successfully operate it, that's when the city would consider taking it on. But this gives us an option for a significant sized parcel in the city.

Okay, councilor. Yeah. No. I just wanna take the opportunity. I don't have any questions because I've been a part of the process, and council member Chenieri and I got to work with the county in this negotiation. So I just wanted to say thank you to the county for hosting us, I think now months ago.

November.

Was it November? I was trying to recall earlier today when that was. So thank you. I appreciate it. It's it's not an easy task, and this has been a long time in the coming in the making. So thank you for being here tonight and and presenting to us as well. Councilmember Rose. Becky?

Thank you, mayor. I would ask that the county come back and give us an update on the county project. Most of the council wasn't here the last time, because I believe that was before COVID, when we received it. So it'd be it'd be a good idea to let the the full council know what the what it looks like. I will thank, council member Trenary and Morrissey for the negotiations along with the mayor.

However, I am was not happy with the compensation the way it was ended up, for some past reasons, and I'm gonna let those past reasons go. There was substantial money, because I believe Veterans Park will be an asset to the city in the future. So I'll see it as a win win and move on, with goodwill between the county and the city. But, again, please give us an update at some point in time. Thank you.

Right. You'll be voting on adoption of an ordinance vacating city rights of way. All in favor please say aye. Aye. Any opposed?

Nay, I'm up in the air,

Okay, so I believe that's four to one. Alright, we're gonna invite our other members back.

Do you all need to introduce yourselves again?

It's settled. Alright. We're to item b now, adopting an ordinance, amending the official zoning map of the city of Port Orchard, reclassifying property located at 4385 Sydney Road Southwest from commercial corridor to commercial mixed use. Mister Bond, this is you.

Yes. Good evening, mayor and members of council. In 2025, the city received an application for a site specific rezone of 6.9 acres from commercial corridor to commercial mixed use for two adjoining parcels located at 4385 Sydney Road Southwest in Port Orchard. Pursuant to Port Orchard Municipal Code section twenty point four zero point zero four zero and twenty point two four, the application was routed to the hearing examiner to hold a noticed public hearing on the site specific rezone and to make a recommendation to the city council as to whether the proposed rezone meets the criteria in POMC 20.4203. On 01/28/2026, the city's hearing examiner held an open record hearing on the Sydney Road Investment Storage Facility rezone.

Notice for the public hearing was provided consistent with the border municipal code. At this hearing, staff presented a staff report to the hearing examiner. The hearing examiner's role was to determine whether the proposed rezone meets the criteria outlined in the code or to and to issue findings and conclusions of law and to make a recommendation to the city council. At the 03/24/2026 city council meeting, the city council held a properly noticed closed record hearing to consider the hearing examiner's recommendation, was included in the city council's packet along with the entirety of the record considered by the hearing examiner. The public was notified of a closed record hearing on the Sydney Road Investment Storage Rezone as scheduled before the city council on 03/24/2026.

Only the parties including the applicant and any member of the public who provided testimony at the public hearing held on January 28 were permitted to provide testimony at the closed record hearing. After holding the closed record hearing and considering all testimony and deliberating, the city council voted six to one to affirm the hearing examiner's recommendation and to to direct staff to prepare an ordinance amending the city's zoning map to rezone the parcel the parcels at 4385 Sydney Road Southwest from commercial corridor to commercial mixed use. This ordinance was prepared in compliance with that direction. The zoning change is exhibit is illustrated on exhibit a to the adopting ordinance included in the packet. And consistent with the direction from the city council on March 24, staff prepared an ordinance amending the official zoning map of the city of Port Orchard, reclassifying the property at 4385 Sydney Road Southwest from commercial corridor to commercial mixed use.

Diner. Mister mayor, I moved to approve an ordinance amending the official zoning map of the city of Port Orchard, reclassifying the property located at 4385 Sydney Road Southwest from commercial corridor to commercial mixed use.

Second. Motion by council member Deener, a second by council member Rose Pepe. Any questions for mister Bond on this matter? I'm not hearing any. So we will you'll be voting on adoption of an ordinance, changing the zoning from on property located at 4385 Sydney Road Southwest from commercial corridor to commercial mixed use. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Is there anyone opposed? Yes. Okay. That passes six to one. We are to item c, adoption of an ordinance creating the position of a compliance program manager and the setting the salary for the position. Miss Lund?

That's more warden. In other cities, who does parking enforcement fall under?

And I could say here at the city of Port Orchard, at least in my time, this is really coming full circle. At one time it was in public works, then it was in the police department, then it went to DCD, and now it's coming back to public works. So it just depends on workloads. And and this is it really is kind of a square peg in a round hole, putting it in public works. But I I need to get some things off Nick's plate over in DCD with the things he's trying to to get going over there. And we have somebody that has done this job before, and it was just know, can can provide better oversight for these employees probably than anybody else in the city could.

One more thing I wanna add. I talked to Director Ryan yesterday and he told me that currently we do not have our code enforcement cannot enforce in right of way. That's accurate?

It depends.

But for the most part,

You don't have anybody to do it. Correct.

Right. So additional job duties that I'm not sure her name I apologize but that she'll be doing would be right away

Correct. Right away enforcement.

Enforcement as well. Yes. Even though we could just change the code so they could enforce that. But that's going to be additional duties that she'll have. These two individuals yes.

Just to add to that I think right of way enforcement typically involves public works certain aspects of it anyway. So Yep.

Yep. Sidewalks, all that good stuff.

So when we've done, for example, when we've done encampment cleanups in the right of way, we've had code enforcement and public works work together. So that's why I said it depends. Yeah.

So this position has taken on more than just parking. She's taken on other duties and staff and writing citations or enforcement actions and all that as well. So, yeah, her job's growing.

Councilor Rosepepe.

Mayor, I'd like to make a motion. I move to adopt an ordinance authorizing the creation of the position of compliance program manager, establishing general qualifications and duties for the position, and setting the salary range for the position.

Second. Motion by councilmember Rosepepe, and a second by councilmember Morrissey. Go ahead, councilmember Rosepepepe.

Debbie, this is kind of a tangent, and I apologize. Since this is a promotional opportunity for this employment, is there a breaking point somewhere in additional duties where the person would need to reapply for the position, or is that I don't mean to be subjective, but just trying to find out since we're going, I realize a person's doing some of these duties now, but I was just curious, where does that fall? I told you it was a tangent. You. Councilor Morse.

Yeah. Miss Lund, I just wanna make sure, when we're making this update, we're making it for the person, not the position, because that position may not have these same duties afterwards. And you're right. We are we are doing this because this person has those skills. And if this person left the city, which I hope she doesn't, she's been here a heck of

a long time, we have to relook at this. And maybe the wheel turns again and the chief's gonna cringe, but then maybe it's in the police department. Or then maybe it's going back to DCD because we've got our challenges solved over there. But right now I really don't have anybody else to manage this. Excuse me. This person, we talked to this person, she's excited about this opportunity, a little bit of a promotion for this individual, and she's got the right skills to do it.

I'm following all that. I just wanna make sure we're talking person not position.

I 100% am on the same page. It took me a while to get here because I do not like doing things that are based on the person rather than the position. Right? I got there because there's a handful of compliance related tasks that although they're kind of separate buckets, there is a correlation in the skill set needed to manage those programs. That's how I got there. It's not a perfect science, but

Okay. Just wanna make sure I

I was crystal clear. We're making a salary exception right now for this person and not the position.

We needed the position. We found the person internally.

I understand what you're saying because you're saying I have to set this based off of that position.

If if we didn't have the right pieces in place, we wouldn't be here tonight to ask you for

I guess I wanna make sure that I'm clear that I'm saying, if this person left and we hired a new person and they no longer oversee traffic enforcement, are we still leaving that salary range left for that person? I'm increasing a salary range that's gonna have a budget effect. I'm okay with doing it because this person's the right fit for what we're doing right now, but I don't wanna just blanketly sign that I every can't remember her actual job title now. But that person's going to continue receiving this benefit because we're making this today.

There are actually additional programs this person could be in charge of that we don't wanna pile on at this moment. So if that scenario was to happen and she left the city, the city would have to look at what is the right mix of job duties. If it's not appropriate, we bring the position down

as well. To better answer your question here, if this person left and we attempted to recruit it and we couldn't find somebody that could fill the skill set, we do this all the time. We bring back to you guys, hey we need to look at this job differently. And it it it might it might be a higher level position and we're gonna add other things to it, or we could be bringing it back to a lower level positions because we're gonna hire somebody with some clerical skills to do pieces of this and it might get broken it up to other ways.

I'm following all of that. Again, my question comes back to is when we hire the next person, what is there language in what we're here to this ordinance tonight

that

says that we're making a one time exception to this job.

It's it's not an exception. You're you approve the job description and or excuse me, the job duties at a high level and the salary associated therewith. So if we were to take any of those duties away, your approval does not exist any.

That's what I need to know. Thank you.

Absolutely. Thank you. I thought I saw another hand. No? Okay. Councillor Wittrink.

Definitely an interesting interwinding of supervisory capabilities. Thank you for explaining it more fully, miss Lund. Parking enforcement, storm water enforcement, it's like but I do see the advantage of doing that with when you have someone with so many years of parking enforcement skills sitting here. Thank you, council member Morrissey, for, bringing up the fact that we're not really creating a new position that we can't claw back later if this person leaves. That makes me feel much more comfortable with this vote coming up.

Councilor Moran?

Yeah. One last question without coughing my head off. Sorry. How do you intend to divide up like billable hours with storm water different buckets?

We do this for all our employees when we identify the cost allocation is what you're speaking to. And so Director Ryan will fill out the survey of what his employee will be doing and where it would be appropriately billed for and from.

Because StormWire can get a pick back then.

Yeah, so there'll be a piece to the general fund, a piece to Storm, probably a piece to other utilities, however he allocates it and decides those duties.

So we're gonna bill based on the time spent doing the different activities to the different funds. And we do it with all kinds of employees here at City Hall. Council Member? Yeah.

Yeah. So this person is not just traffic enforcement, it's overseeing storm water and maybe employees or like are they full time right now and then we're just paying them more for full time?

So this is the the position was originally designed as an office position that would just make sure we have submitted all of our state reports and did all of our paperwork related to our permits for storm water. What turns out is this individual, because of her skill set and interest, she's out collecting water samples. She's out working out in the streams and doing public education at farmers markets and things like that, way beyond what was expected when we wrote her job description. She's gonna continue to do all of that. She's gonna take some of her office duties and give them to other office existing staff well within their current job descriptions and then take on the supervision of the parking enforcement.

Thank you for a little bit more of that clarification. Wait, Farmers Market? Okay. I probably should know her.

I don't know. But anyway

Any other questions or comments? Alright. You'll be voting on adoption of an ordinance creating a position of compliance program manager and setting the salary for the position. All in favor please say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? Hearing none, that the ordinance passes. We're to item d, approval of a contract with Granicus for the SmartGov system improvements. Mister Bond, this is you.

Yes. The city operates the SmartGov permitting system to manage its permitting workflow. During a 2025 lean process improvement exercise, the city mapped its permitting process and documented several permitting system bottlenecks and inefficiencies. To address these bottlenecks and inefficiencies, the city interviewed various software providers, conducted staff and applicant surveys, and determined that activating additional features within the SmartGov system was the fastest and most cost effective way to improve the permitting process for its customers. Kranikis, who owns SMARTGov, has provided a proposal that includes one time fees as well as additional annual subscription fees to upgrade the city's software.

The proposal includes employee training, project management support, a financial connector, a connector to the city's Bluebeam software, a connector to the city's laser fish archiving system, and consulting hours to help the city configure and activate these new features. The total cost for the contract is $29,383.56 and that's the $20.26 cost. The annual fees will be added in future years. With this expenditure, the city will launch its online permitting portal and will more seamlessly be able to accept permit applications, fees, and route permits for review. The ongoing annual cost for these features will be $4,066.84 annually to be added to our existing subscription cost of $25,916.1 annually.

These costs will be offset by the city's elimination of the Camino application portal, a platform that is not integrated with SmartGov and which currently costs the city $15,000 per year. The 2026 subscription costs are prorated for the remainder of 2026, And the annual subscription costs are subject to increases by the vendor each year. And I did want to note that there is a printout of the contract on your desk. We had them add those annual increases directly into the contract rather than as a bullet item on which had previously only been on Page two. So page three of that, packet is new and just clarifies information that was in the original draft in your packet. The staff recommendation is to approve the agreement as presented.

Council Member Deener.

Mister mayor, I move to approve a contract with Granicus for smart gov permit system improvements.

Second.

Motion by council member Deener. Second by council member Fenton. Any questions for mister Pond? Go ahead, council member

Diener.

Not a question, but just a comment. So I'm familiar with smart gov. I use it in another capacity. It has lots of tools and features that can be unlocked just with more dollars. But I find it to be rather efficient way to move permits especially when you start unlocking more of those features. So I'm looking forward to the improvements that DCD can make using more of the enhanced features that are available by Smart.

Pastor Ward?

Yeah I too use it every day and it's a fantastic tool to have. Does that cover all the licensings that we how many staff members can have a license?

It does cover all of our licenses. I think we have 15 or 16 in DCD and I think another 10 in public works that use the platform. But I don't recall how many licenses are in the overarching contract.

That's the first step in that process improvement that we've been asking for from DCD. I know a couple of you have asked me for an update on timelines and things and I've got that from Nick and I'll share it with you guys at the retreat on

Friday. I'll just

add to that linking up with Bluebeam is a very smart move. I think that'll be critical to review of plan sets.

Alright. Any other comments or questions? Alright. You'll be voting on a contract with Granicus for SmartGov System Improvements. All in favor, please say aye.

Aye. Anyone opposed?

Hearing none, the contract is approved. We are to item e, the approval of the March 17 City Council work study minutes. Is there a motion to council member Trenary? Ahead.

Yeah. Mister mayor, I'd like to approve the, what's the date on those? 03/17/2026 City Council work study meeting

notes. Second.

Motion by Council Member Trenary, second by Council Member Morrissey to approve March 17 work study meeting minutes and I believe Council Member Deener will abstain. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. All opposed? And one abstention. Alright. We are to we don't have any discussion items. We're to our council, committee reports, and economic development and tourism did not meet. Utilities

were postponed.

Second time in a row.

Okay. And utilities did not meet tonight either. Help believe.

No. Agenda

either. Finance meets next week. Transportation, I don't believe met either. Land use? Tomorrow night. Tomorrow evening. Alright. Nothing on lodging tax, I'm certain. And sewer advisory, I think go ahead.

Right. Yeah. Just thank you mayor. We just haven't changed. The location will be at the Lumsden Building, and not at the West Sound Utilities District. That's not till June.

Okay. Awesome. Your ad hoc committee, is there anything to report there?

We met, and we have another meeting on this Sunday, on that, and we're making progress, and we'll bring something back to the Council of Work Study, June. That's where we're shooting for.

Okay. Jumping to the mayor's report. I have the fundraising consultant contract is out on the street and that will close in a couple of weeks and we'll bring that to hopefully negotiate a contract back to you soon. Can get going.

How person find that?

What's that, Casey?

You said it's out there? How does

the person find that?

It is advertised on our webpage and I've also put it in the hands of the executive director of or at least made her aware of it at Kitsap Community Foundation because Tina O'Brien travels on those circles and has a number of contacts in that area. And then we use what's the

The Daily Journal of Commerce and then of course our newspaper of record.

Yep. So those are the means that we use and website and social media. We've got that community service cleanup day coming up on Saturday, May 16. So hopefully, we can all go and participate in that. And last week, I believe it was, or two weeks ago, I was at the Puget Sound Regional Executive Board meeting, and we've got a presentation there.

And for the first time so in 2025, for the first time other than COVID, since 2008, which was the the real estate crash and and COVID was an anomaly, we lost jobs in the Puget Sound region for the first time. 15,000 jobs in the Fujifilm region. Part of that presentation showed that from business competitive rank we have gone from twenty eighth in the nation to forty eighth in the nation. And that is measured by doing the cost of business, taxes, and regulatory complexity. And so PSRC is engaged in a process and a plan to address our human capital talent and how does the region grow and retain world class talent in the right sectors, livability, infrastructure and affordability, and are we adequately improving livability and affordability in the region and how do we go about that.

Innovation into the ecosystems, do we do we have a culture and a support network encouraging entrepreneurs, founders and investors, at this time I don't think we do, and improvement to the business environment and creating do our state policies work the fast track decision and to maintaining the competitive cost of business. So there's it's data out there that shows some of the decisions that are happening in Olympiad are affecting our region and our state. Anyway, we've got some work to do there. So that ends my Mayor's report. And where are we on this agenda?

Department directors. Slun, do you have anything more to share other than we're gonna have a labor session at the end of the after the meeting?

I do have a couple things. Thank you, mayor. I am required to let you know when we change those job descriptions much like you approved tonight. There is an existing ordinance that allows the mayor to make minor modifications to those agreements and or to those job descriptions, which we do on a regular basis. So once again,

I have a long

list for you. We have done routine updates for accuracy formatting, chief of police, the lead court clerk, assistant city engineer, electrician, maintenance technician one, and our seasonal public works position. We've also updated policy hot off the press as of tonight. We have updated personnel policy 10.16, which is our personnel attire policy, our dress code. Hadn't been updated since at least 2010, and perhaps just a few things have changed.

So we have updated that to make that more applicable to today's work environment. I also wanted to share with you two pieces of good news. One, we have just recently finished the second round of our employee inclusion commission survey. This was done eighteen months after our initial employee survey. We just got those results last week.

So inclusion commission meets on Thursday of this week, and next thing they'll be working on of planning is their annual presentation to you, which we can share those survey results. And, I'm not sure if the mayor mentioned it in an earlier report. The city has once again received the Well City Award from the Association of Washington Cities. In doing that, we have a 2% discount on our health care insurance premium, which means last year, we saved over $30,000 in medical health insurance premiums. The city pays for our employees because of the work of a handful, six or seven dedicated employees on that.

Parker. What?

I just wanted to make sure everybody saw the email that came out from me sometime since our last meeting. We received our 2025 annual school impact fee report. We're required to provide a report pursuant to code to the city council documenting the revenue that was received and, what was spent. And so the school district per interlocal agreement provides us a report. The finance department and my department are working on our own report for transportation and park impact fees, which you should see, hopefully later this spring.

Just very briefly, just wanted to update you. We received two decisions out of the courts on the Public Records Act in the last month that were of interest. One, you may have heard me refer to a number of individuals in our community who utilize the Public Records Act primarily in their words for transparency, but to generate significant income. One individual who's earned over $800,000 in penalties, he lost a case recently so that was important moment where we had reiterated for that public agency the adequacy of a scope of a search which we use as guidance for our public agencies to ensure that we are doing adequate searches. On the flip side of that, the city of Seattle and Seattle PD in particular recently had an action that has clarified the methodology we can use as far as processing requests in sequence.

So in a recent case, Seattle PD used until this case a method that's known as grouping where received 10 requests from the Seattle Times they would process those sequentially by sort of grouping how do I describe this? So if the Seattle Times had 10 that came in on a Tuesday, but Como News submitted one on a Wednesday, they would go first Seattle Times request and then go to the Como News and then back to the Seattle Times and go in sequence so that one requester wasn't dominating the totality of our processing time. The court has said that process is not appropriate, that grouping is a method where you are looking at the requesters and differentiating based on the requester, which we are not allowed to do under the Public Records Act. And they also commented based on the order that we need to be processing more than one request at the same time. We can't be sequencing in this way, which your wonderful public records officer already does, but this is further guidance helpful to ensure that we are processing public records in accordance with the court, and Seattle did end up settling that case because of that finding.

I just always want to keep you abreast and always happy to talk about these cases over a cup of coffee. Thanks. Yeah?

Can you

clarify that just a bit? You're saying that they have to work on five at a time versus one and waiting until that one is finished? Is that what you're

saying?

Slightly, yeah. So in that case it looked like they were sequencing in order to ensure that resources were adequately allocated to different requesters so that one requester wasn't dominating the time. So we've always understood that the courts want us and the legislature wants us to process as quickly as possible, but to the extent there are we are let me put it this way, some agencies over time have developed policies that tell their public records officers you shall only allocate one hour of time per week to public records processing and that draws out the requests. I think that this guidance is going to call into question that approach to a certain extent depending on size, depending on resources. So I think we can infer from this that the court wants us to be grappling with them as quickly as possible as has always been the standard, but this method of not allowing one requester to dominate implies that we be have processing more than one at the same time.

Yes,

thank you Mayor and Counsel. Just two bits of good news. I just wanted to update everybody on our officer who was involved in the collision the other day. Incredibly tragic collision. There was loss of life. We are very fortunate that our officer was not seriously injured. He did come back today and he's gonna be be back with us at least on a late duty starting tomorrow. So we're very, very happy with that. On another piece of good news, we did have three new officers start with us yesterday morning. They've been in training the last couple days. So we have one who is certified that will be out on training in the field starting in a couple of weeks. And the other two, one has a date for the academy, I believe, in June and the other is July. So even though we're happy that they've started, they will be ready to go January or February.

Yeah. You know, this morning at our rotary meeting, we got a great debrief from deputy chief, Andy Brandon. Are there any plans for him to share his experience with our counsel?

Absolutely not.

Yes. There's

so much. You those of you that were on the council, I believe two years ago when actually sergeant Brandon at the time, sergeant Horstley attended the Northwestern University School of Police Staff and Command. Once their certificates frames come in, we'll have a presentation. And so he'll come in, we'll we'll present that formally to him in front of counsel and he can speak to his experience there. But yes, there is a plan for that. Just got to your rotary first.

Yeah. No. I just wanna make sure he gets it because the presentation does all the stuff. So Yep. Hopefully, we get to see some of that too as well as give him

Any day that thing shows up, it'll be the following Tuesday.

Please and thank you. Councilmember Ward, did your okay. Councilmember Fred.

Oh I should know this. How many police officers do we have?

We have 28

authorized. We have 28 FTEs. I believe with this latest batch, we're 27. Is that correct?

That's correct. You have one opening, I believe.

That that that being said, we we have one currently at the academy, three waiting for the academy, two on light duty, and one waiting to start FTL. But yes, we are we are only down one position.

Thank you. Roxanne.

Just as long as we're going through personnel in chief, so do we have any potential, well not potential, but anybody put in for retirement at this time?

I mean there are some that are eligible, yes, but I have not If heard

they haven't put in papers.

Not aware of any, Okay, thank you.

False? Yes,

so you've probably seen a couple posts either online or through emails about our public records request software. We have been live since April 1. Haven't had any hiccups as of yet, so it seems to be working just fine. And then as you may have seen tonight, we kinda tested our new system for agenda management. We got some improvement to to move forward with, but sent you guys some links that you guys can access as being part of the board. The public will also have some additional access that they currently don't have and as well as departments. Goal So is to go fully 100% live April 28 but no promises, we're getting there.

I have a question. Brandi, the new records request software, what does that do for us that wasn't happening before? How how what are the savings realized by that software?

So they are no longer required to create an account. So they can just put in a request and and access it based on an email account basically. There's additional reports that we can have access for the state report. What else? The departments are allowed to or have the ability to manage the request within their own department meaning that they have different authority levels.

So there's a lead or a manager and then they can delegate a certain task to the department where before it was just one department and then you had to communicate offline. So now it's all internal. So a request can come into a department, look at it, and then sign three different staff for three different tasks and they can go in and complete it. And then I as I manage the the request and and send you through law enforcement request, we can now see real time as to where each staff person is on that request. So we can say okay DCD's done within building permitting and maybe maps.

Excuse my ignorance on the terminology within their department, but so we can get to that level to know where the status of the request is. I think it's more eye appealing to the requester on the page. Before it was kind of clunky and limited but now it's easier to communicate to us staff.

Think two of the biggest thing, the customer interface is better and Brandi has extensive reporting requirements back to the state and it has better tools in that aspect. Nice.

And ultimately you're responsible in making sure all these requests are met in a timely fashion so if you go to harass somebody then you can go do that.

Correct, designated as the city's public records officer. I receive them all and then assign them, a majority of them, to the police department and then the other half I manage the rest.

Okay. Thank you very much.

Appreciate that. Before I jump in, I wanna go to the order. Know Brandy is probably gonna touch on this later that there's some changes to law regard to public hearings. We have to notice them and hold them at a specific time, which can be awkward when they're in the middle of our meeting. So I think what we're talking about at the staff level is I think we're gonna do just like we've been doing in these land use issues, if we make them right at the beginning of the meeting, otherwise we might have to jump around in our agenda.

Because if we say we're gonna do edit at 07:00, if our meeting goes faster than that, then then we're we've gotta jump or jump around that because we can't do that action if we noticed it any time other than 07:00. So I think that the most efficient thing is gonna be to do is just to put public hearings at the beginning and then we might have a related business item later. But that will take a change to code and I just wanna give you guys a heads up that it's probably coming here soon. Cool. Anything else for the good of the order? Councilor Gardiner?

I got a couple things. So we got a document that we're gonna be looking at in land use tomorrow, but it's really it talks about our inspections and how many we have. So I thought for context, was really worth knowing what we how many inspections we had in 2025, and that number is 5,893. So nearly 6,000 inspections in 2025. So just for context, in the current environment of what's happening.

And then my next thing is, earlier tonight, a gentleman, mister McGee, called me out about dog licensing. I think mister McGee's fatal mistake was assuming that every household shares the same last name. I'm on this list. It's not under my name. So he accused me in public of being a dog licensed scofflaw. He could certainly apologize in public. So that's what I have to say about that.

Go ahead. I had her hand first.

Oh, okay. Thanks.

So I did put out an email in March 26 and it was regarding our municipal code for 512120. I believe that's the one. And I feel like we owe the business community and our constituents to talk about permitting or how we can be a little bit more better friendly in that and I just feel like we need a discussion. I mean I did talk to Nick Bond earlier and I know he's doing a great job and the mayor working with the whole department. But I feel like we too can talk about our municipal code and I feel like we should and bring it up and bring it to transparency because I think that we have that authority as city council.

And so hopefully we can put it on our next work study or in the near future.

Thank you so much. Just for transparency, your request for information about five twelve was forwarded to me and I was planning to provide you guys with information to facilitate discussion just like what you're describing. I apologize. My plate has been very full, I plan to get you that information as soon as possible and then facilitate a conversation about our business license chapter. Okay, great. Thank you. Yeah, absolutely.

A couple things. I apologize when we did our review of I forgot for out to site agencies that Kitsap Transit had a major milestone the other day, and I forgot bring this up to you, mayor, that we approved the contract for construction management of the Ruby Creek project. So that is moving forward. That's a pretty big pretty big move forward. So we'll be seeing construction out there fairly soon.

I would request that the councilman Rediner, at our last meeting, asked us to take a look at, the video and of our work study. I think there were some good, points made, but what I'd really like you to do is have on our our work study next week a thirty minute refresher on Robert's rules of order. I think that would help all of us, myself included. And last but not least, I'm on the list, and I will admit that I have not licensed my dog. And darn, that's an oversight on mine.

I just sent a note to Brandy saying I am in arrears. I will get that corrected very quickly, and there is no penalty for the city nor cost of license if I read the ordinance right. But I will Cost

a license.

And if there's a cost, it's not a big deal. But I will be also going to make amends by sending to Kitsap rescue a $50 check so I can clear my name. Anyway, I acknowledge it.

With that, we are going to go into, I hope, a five minute executive session. Talk about

Science? Okay. Yes. Yeah. Sorry.

It's not science. It's Sorry. Thank you. Performance.

Yeah. Absolutely.

Do you wanna do the second

citizen comment? Why why don't we why don't we do the second citizen comment period? Is there anyone wishing to address the council? Oh, yes. Let's see. No. And, one member in the audience is shaking his head no. And is anybody online, Brandy? Raising their hand. Okay. I will close the second citizen comment period. So we're miss Archie, you wanna seat the statutes? We're gonna well, I'm hoping we're gonna go into a five minute executive session.

Pursuant to RCW forty two thirty one ten support one support g to discuss the performance of a public employee.

Okay. And then from there, I'll adjourn the meeting, and then we're going to have a labor session with with miss Lund. I'm gonna take a two minute break, and I'll see you in the back.

You're only hanging out for five minutes,

chief.

We have we have

a executive session followed by a labor session.

Yes. Yeah. Okay. Good. I just wanna make sure I got

Just to confirm. The conversation. And then do

you want me to take that same email?

Yeah. And and you can get

the latest schedule. Oh, yeah.

And please Okay. So we would need to get all of them account.

I think we have, like, 50 licenses.

So I think we should be fine. But we're gonna have to show them how to log in and actually like Okay. Manage their their workflow.

Or if there's a a process that works better for internal and not external or maybe it's just external and an idea. Okay.

Yeah. She's she's the go to person.

Perfect. Awesome. Thank you. Mhmm. Okay. Where's that?

Let's see.

We're still recording.

Hold on.

K. We're we're in we're executive session is over, and our meeting is adjourned.

Okay. We're

we're coming in. You can come to the labor

session. Yeah.