HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/08/02 AGENDA cou.c,. FILE
MAY 8, 2002
239 4th Street · Bremerton, WA 98337 · Phone (360) 478-5280 · Fax (360) 478-5251
1. PRE-COUNCIL STUDY SESSION: 5:00-5:30 P.M.
A. General Council Business
2. CALL TO ORDER: 5:30 P.M.
A. Pledge of Allegiance
B. Invocation
3. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Minutes of Meeting - April 17, 2002 (#AB02-086)
4. CLAIMS/CHECK REGISTERS
5. COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS
6. MAYOR'S REPORT
7. PUBLIC RECOGNITION - (Comments limited to 3-minutes)
8. NEW BUSINESS '": '7
A. Budget Adjustment No. 2002-6 to Renew City's Abatement Li'he of Credj. t · '
(#AB02:087)' · -
" B. Bid Av~ard for Lions Park Tennis Court Reconstruction'(#AB02-088)~ . ' J
C. WB-3 Pump Station Upgrade Pump/V.F, D Equipmen. t Purbhase (#AB02-0~9')-
D. Construction Contract Award to Stan Palmer Construction for Callow Priority 5
CSO Reduction (#AB02-090)
9. PUBLIC HEARINGS - RESOLUTIONS & ORDINANCES
A. Resolution No. 2858, regarding Recovery of Fees for the Abatement of Garbage
and Debris on the Property located at 927 Highland Avenue (#AB02-091) II
B. Ordinance No. 4799 (Second Reading), Amending Chapter 2I .02 (Zoning Code)
~~_of the Bremerton Municipal Code (BMC)regarding PL02-001 for Compatible
Residential Infill Development and Front Yard Setbacks (#AB02-083)
C. Ordinance No. 4800 (Second Reading), Amending Chapter 21.02 (Zoning
/
~',~-JT.,'.,, ,~.¢Code)of the Bremerton Municipal Code (BMC)regarding PL02-003 allowing
k,4:)r~,,,,,,~.~--~ flexibility and innovative design pursuant to a "Plan-in-Lieu" (#AB02-084)
D. Ordinance No. 4801 (Second Reading), Amending Chapter 2.04 of the
---r"~ f'). ~ Bremerton Municipal Code (BMC) relating to City Council meetings and publication of Council Salary Schedules (#AB02-085)
E. Ordinance (First Reading), Amending "2002 Rate Tables" for Parks & Recreation ~"~
and Administrative Services Departments (#AB02-092/
!0. ADJOURNMENT OF MEETING
~ ~, , v.c .3r~ ne ton..'.,a..~s
rz-?¥~o~i: ::i.,vcouncli@ci.';)r~.mer+o:-~...vc:.u$ .,V;--.D: v',.,v~, · ~
CITY COUNCIL ~,.EETING
MAY 8, 2002
SPEAKERS LIST
If you wish to make an announcement, inform the Council of an issue, or ask a general question...Please
provide information below so staff will be able to contact you.
Thank you.
NAME ADDRES S/TELEPHONE TOPIC
1. I',~1~ ~,~l~
3.
Reminder: The next Council Meeting will be on Wednesday, May 15TM
Questions for Mayor and Council of Bremerton
1) With the new pay raises going into effect, how many of the current
council members will qualify for a state retirement?
2) Are there any current or past council members who already qualify for a
state retirement?
3) What RCW or state guidelines determine the qualifications for a council
member who receives state retirement?
4) Concerning the weed / lawn/yard ordinance, does the city have two sets
of rules? One for able bodied citizens, and another for disabled citizens?
5) What was the total cost for the mayor's office during the last year of
Mayor Horton's term (2001)? This should include her salary, car allowance,
staff, attorneys, supplies, travel expenses, etc.
6) What is the total cost of Mayor Bozeman's office for the first five months
of his term? This should include salary, car allowance, staff, attorneys,
supplies, travel expenses, etc.
Del Knauss
139 Olympic Ave.
Bremerton, WA 98312
THE PUBLIC'S RIGHTS ARE BEING TAKEN AWAY, ONE PIECE AT A
WITH REGARD TO LAND USE PROPERTY RIGHTS.
To be presented before the Bremerton City Council on Wednesday, May 08, 2002
By Helen Miller
THESE COMMENTS APPLY TO ORDINANCES 4799 AND 4800
ZONING LAWS WERE ORIGINALLY PUT IN PLACE TO BENEFIT THE GENERAL
PUBLIC AND TO PROTECT WHAT IS MOST DESIRABLE AND ATTRACTIVE ABOUT
OUR COMMUNITIES.
THIS PROTECTION IS NOW BEING SYSTEMATICALLY DESTROYED - APPARENTLY
FOR THE BENEFIT OF A FEW WHO DO NOT WISH TO COMPLY.
IT IS BEING DONE UNDER THE GUISE OF THE RECENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENTS (POLICY) AND CURRENT IMPLEMENTATION OF THAT POLICY BY
CHANGES OF THE ZONING CODES - WHICH ARE GOING TO PUT US BACK A
SCORE OF YEARS TO THE DAYS OF PRE-ZONING CONFUSION AND
EXPLOITATION.
RAMPANT DISRESPECT AND DISREGARD FOR STATE AND LOCAL STATUES ARE
THE TOOLS OF THE CURRENT ADMINISTRATION IN ACCOMPLISHING THEIR
AGENDA AND IN AN ATTEMPT TO DISFRANCHISE THE PUBLIC BY REMOVING
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 1N CONTESTING THE CITY'S PROPOSED LAND USE
DECISIONS.
IT IS ALL CONVERGING AT THE POINT WHERE THE CITIZENS WILL NO LONGER
HAVE ANY VOICE IN THEIR NEIGHBORHOODS - AND ALL DIRECTION WILL
COME FROM A NON-ELECTED OFFICIAL IN THE BUILDING AND PLANNING
DEPARTMENT.
UNLESS YOUR COUNCIL MEMBERS VOTE FOR THE CITIZENS AND LIMIT THE
AUTHORITIES GRANTED IN THE ORDINANCES BEING PRESENTED TO THEM FOR
APPROVAL - THEY WILL NO LONGER BE ABLE TO PROTECT OR REPRESENT YOU.
THIS BECAME EVIDENT WHEN COUNCIL MEMBERS WERE DENIED THE
OPPORTUNITY TO DELIBERATE ON THE KEY "COMP PLAN AMENDMENTS" -
ALTHOUGH MR. HUGO HAS SINCE TAKEN LIBERTIES WITH THE TRUTH WHEN HE
STATES THAT THE COUNCIL DELIBERATED ON ALL OF THE COMP PLAN
AMENDMENTS AND THEREFORE THE COUNCIL IS NOW OBLIGATED TO
CONTINUE TO APPROVE THE CURRENT ZONING CODE CHANGES IN SUPPORT OF
THE "POLICY" WHICH THEY WERE NOT ALLOWED TO STUDY AND DISCUSS.
WHAT EVER HAPPENED RECENTLY 1N OUR CITY - TO TRASH THE OLD CONCEPT
OF "GOVERNMENT OF, BY AND FOR THE PEOPLE" ????
Helen Miller P.O. Box 788 Bremerton, WA 98337
AGENDA BILL
BP,,EMERTON CITY COUNCIL
1. SUBJECT: FOR AGENDA OF: ~qP, Y 8, 2002
ORIGINATING DEPT: CiTY COUNCIL
MINUTES OF MEETING - APR! t. 17, 2002 ORIGINATOR: CAROL ARENDS, PRESIDENT
DATE SUBMITTED: aPRIL 25, 20O2
2. CLEARANCES: (Comment on back if necessary) 3. EXHIBITS:
ENDORSEMENT [--] INFORMATION [~] APPROVED FOR SUqJMITTAL BY
COU~.CIL PRESIDENT:
MAYOR: '"~"
4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND.REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION:
5. RECOMMENDATION: ' "
6. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL:
ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL:
EXPIRATION DATE:
REVIEW DATE:
7. NOTICE OF ACTION:
PULLED [~] TABLED ~ APPROVED [-] DISAPPROVED 7] AMENDED ['~ DATE:
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE:
8. AGENDA BII_L NO.: O,~- 08(o
9. IMPACT OF NON-PASSAGE:
10. IMPACT ON STAFFING, BUDGETS, FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCES:
11. RESEARCH SOURCES:
TAPE ¢¢1828 UNAPPROVED DRAFT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
April 17, 2002
The weekly meeting of the City Council of the City of Bremerton was called to order in the City Council
Chambers, 239 4th Street, Bremerton, Washington, Wednesday, April 17, 2002, at 5:30 P.M., with
Council President Carol Arends presiding. Council members present were Mike Short, Will Maupin, Eric
Younger, Mike Shepherd, Ed Rollman, Daren Nygren, Cecil McConnell, and Wayne Olsen. Also present
were City Attorney Roger Lubovich; Deputy City Clerk Paula Johnston; and Council Liaison Lori Smith.
The meeting opened with the Pledge of Allegiance led by Council Member Cecil McConnell, followed
by the invocation provided by Deacon Roy Mclnnis of Sinclair Missionary Baptist Church.
President Arends made the following announcements:
(1) The regular Pre-Council Session, which was open to the public, was held in the Council Conference
Room to discuss general Council business from 5:00-5:30 P.M.
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Minutes of Meeting - April 10, 2002 (#AB02-072)
B. Budget Adjustment Request 2002-07 Regarding Project Manager (#AB02-073)
#0035 M/S/C/U (McConnell/Olsen) Move to approve the Consent Agenda as presented.
CLAIMS/CHECK REGISTERS
Vouchers audited and certified by the auditing officer as required by RCW 42.24.080, and those
expense reimbursement claims certified aR required by RCW 42.24.090 have been recorded on a listing
that had been made available to the Council. "
#0055 M/S/C/O (Younger/McConnell) On April 17, 2002, the Council does approve for payment those
vouchers included and'further described as follows: Check numbers 270032 through 270237 in the
amount of $712,461.66.
COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS
Cecil McConnell announced the Rotary Club of East Bremerton would be hosting the 13th Annual "Blast
from the Past" on Saturday, April 27 from 7:00 P.M. at the Kitsap Pavilion, which will include a 50's
dance with "Johnny Limbo & the Lugnnuts". All proceeds to benefit local charities.
Daren Nygren was pleased to announce the return of "World Changers" July 29th through August 2®,
where 250 kids from all over the United States pay their way to come to Bremerton to provide new roofs,
gutters, and outside paint to approx. 25 qualifying homes. Interested homeowners may apply with the
City of Bremerton through May 31, 2002, or contact Marylyn Waibel for additional information at 478-
5375. He also encouraged citizens to attend the next District 3 Neighborhood meeting on Saturday,
April 27, beginning at 10:00 A.M. to hear a presentation from the Fire Department.
Ed Rollman was pleased with the discussion on abatement issues at his recent District 4 meeting on
April 8, and thanked all those who attended. He encouraged citizens who wanted to provide their
comment or serve on a City Committee to deal with abatement issues to call Janet Lunceford at 478-
5213 or Jeannie Johnson at 478-5211. Lastly, he welcomed a new business, PIPS PRINTING.
Mike Shepherd announced his next District Meeting would be held on Thursday, April 25th beginning at
6:30 P.M. at Memorial Lutheran Church located at the corner of 10th & Veneta to discuss "Problem
Properties & Code Enforcement" and Tim Botkin will briefly discuss "Smart Growth" issues.
Will Maupin provided a report on the Puget Sound Regional Council Growth Management Board
meeting in Seattle, where he is working hard with other City officials to keep Kitsap County more of a
"player" in regional politics.
,3
TAPE #1828
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 17, 2002
Page 2 of 4
Mike Short provided information on the next District 8 & 9 meeting that is scheduled on Thursday, April
25th to hear representatives from Kitsap Transit present an "Overview of Services"; and also announced
the next "Shaping Bremerton" Public Hearing was scheduled on Tuesday, April 30 from 6:30 -8:30 P.M.
in the Max Hale Grand Room (old Elks Lodge) on the corner of 5th Street & Pacific.
Carol Arends was pleased with the attendance at the last District 6 & 7 meeting last Thursday, where
City staff members presented information on Nuisance Properties and Code Enforcement. It was
announced that anyone, who would like to provide comment on this topic, should call 478-5280. Lastly,
she reported on several meetings she recently attended including the Puget Sound Regional Council
Policy Board; and the Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council Transit Policy Board.
MAYOR'S REPORT
Mayor Bozeman provided updates on the following topics:
· Updated Code Compliance Ordinances;
· The Calthorpe Plan (which included Maritime Park; the Conference Center & Hotel; the Waterfront
Condominiums; the Government Center; and the Multi-Plex Cinema)
· The Coordinated Communication Plan & Committee to keep citizens informed
PUBLIC RECOGNITION
Jef~ Alvarado invite'd.the public to atten~l the 9th Annual "April Pools Day" to learn water safety on
· 'Satur'~lay, April 20, 2002 fr,.om 1:30 to 3..'30 P.M. at-the Glenn Jarstad. Aquatic Center. ..
· .Don Larson reiterated information on the Sinclair Inlet Clean-Up event on S'at~rday, Apdl '~0, ~'0'02 °
beginning at 11:00 A.M. He a.gai,n encouraged the City to plant.trees an'd to leav6 more.green space.'
Carol Atkinson di;cussed.a number of meetings already being held to plan 'upceming summer: events
including the Blackberry Festival and Concerts on the Boardwa(k.
Helen Miller referred to the announcement on the "World Changers" event, and asked if a map showing
the chosen applicants was going to be made available. President Arends suggested that a map would
be available after applicants were chosen.
8A - CONFIRMATION OF DRISCOLL & HUNTER AS LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER; AND
APPROVAL OF BUDGET ADJUSTMENT NO. 2002-08 (#AB02-074): Chris Hugo, Community
Development Director, stated that the City Council confirmed the Mayor's appointment of the Land Use
Hearing Examiner, and that the Mayor now proposes the appointment of Driscoll & Hunter under the
terms of the attached Professional Services contract. The contract proposes that services be provided
at a flat monthly fee. The contract also includes a provision for a review of performance after four
months to insure satisfactory service. This appointment also initiates termination of the contract for the
interim Hearing Examiner. Mr. Lubovich also clarified that each Hearings Examiner held a law degree.
#1030 M/S/C/U (Short/Olsen) Move to approve the appointment of Driscoll & Hunter as the City's Land
Use Hearing Examiner under the terms of the proposed contract.
#1050 M/S/C/U (McConnell/Olsen) Move to approve Budget Adjustment Request No. 2002-08.
8B - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION SMALL BUSINESS REVOLVING LOAN
PROGRAM (#AB02-075): Debbie Peavler-Stewart, Administrative Analyst, announced that Community
Development Staff requests $60,000 from old CDBG loan payments to support a Community
Development Corporation to be set up in conjunction with Kitsap County. The Corporation will develop
an economic development gap financing revolving loan program for businesses that qualify under the
TAPE #1828
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 17, 2002
Page 3 of 4
CDBG program and that have well thought out plans, ability, and records, The CDBG funds will be used
for the salary of the loan officer and for loans as needed. It was noted that one of the responsibilities of
the CDBG program is to assist small businesses.
There were no comments from the public.
Mr. Younger asked who would be eligible for the program. Mr. Shepherd asked what the loans would
be used for. Ms. Pearler-Stewart responded that the loans were for small businesses where either the
business owner was at 80% of the median income; or hired Iow-income employees; and clarified the
loans could be used to establish a new business or to expand an existing business.
#1180 M/S/C/U (Younger/Rollman) Move to approve award of $60,000 to support development of the
Community Development Corporation.
9A - PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDINANCE NO. 4794 (SECOND READING), AMENDING
BREMERTON MUNICIPAL CODE (BMC) 15.06 SETTING FEES FOR IMPROPER STORM-WATER
INFLOWS {#AB02-067): First Reading of this ordinance was heard Wednesday, April 10, 2002.
There were no comments from the public.
#1225 M/,S/CU (Shepherd/Nygren) Move to pass Ordinance No. 4794 on second reading.
,9B.;- PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDINANCE NO. 4.795 (SECOND READING), AMENDING THE
ZONING. CODE TEXT BY PROVIDING REGULATORY MEASURES FOR AUTOMOBILE : :
DEALERSHIP GROUP SIGNS, SUBJ[ECT TO CERTAIN 'CONDITIONS (#AB02-068): First R~ading of'
this ordinance was heard on Wednesday, April 10, 2002. ,,
There were'no comments 'from the public.
Mr. Olsen was concerned that this ordinance gave the appearance that small auto dealerships were
being discriminated against. Mr. Hugo responded that every dealer gets a full sign to identify their
franchise, and a wall sign. He explained that this proposal addresses multi-franchise ownership so that
an additional identification sign can be obtained to identify the group. Mr. McConnell asked if there was
a way to circumvent the purpose of this ordinance. Mr. Hugo stated no, that the dealership would have
to have an established operation at the location to qualify for the additional sign.
#1385 M/S/C/U (Maupin/Rollman) Move to pass Ordinance No. 4795 on second reading.
9C - PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDINANCE NO. 4796 (SECOND READING), AMENDING THE
ZONING CODE TEXT BY PROVIDING REGULATORY MEASURES TO PROMOTE THE ADAPTIVE
REUSE OF PUBLIC AND SEMI-PUBLIC BUILDINGS (#AB02-069): First Reading of this ordinance
was heard on Wednesday, April 10, 2002.
A number of citizens addressed concerns on this issue, stressing that the ordinance does not clearly
define what is allowed and what is not allowed regarding compatible use; and concern that the Council
would not maintain the opportunity for input or control over the final decision.
Mr. Hugo explained that these types of decisions would now be heard by the Hearings Examiner on a
case-by-case basis, and further elaborated that the proposed ordinance in front of the Council was to
amend the Zoning Code to allow adoptive reuse of public and semi-public buildings, under certain
conditions, all over the City of Bremerton.
Sherril Huff-Menees pointed out that neighbors surrounding a particular building being considered for
reuse must keep in mind what the former use of the building had been.
TAPE #1828
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 17, 2002
Page 4 of 4
#2608 M/S/C (McConnell/Shepherd) Move to continue this item on April 24, 2002.
Voted in favor of this Motion: Olsen, McConnell, Nygren, Shepherd, Younger, Maupin, and Arends
Voted opposed to this Motion: Rollman
Abstained: Short
Motion carried: 7-Yes; 1-No; l-Abstention
9D - PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDINANCE (FIRST READING) AMENDING SHORELINE MASTER
PROGRAM RELATING TO APPEALS TO HEARING EXAMINER; AND ORDINANCE (FIRST
READING), AMENDING BREMERTON MUNICIPAL CODE (BMC) CHAPTER 21.02 REGARDING
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING EXAMINER PROCESS AND PROCEDURES (#AB02-076): Roger
Lubovich, City Attorney, summarized that on October 17, 2001, Ordinance No. 4778 was adopted
establishing the position of Hearing Examiner. Since adoption of that ordinance, it was determined that
the additional code revisions were necessary to implement the hearing examiner process as intended. A
review of the city code and other ordinances and regulations has now been performed. Proposed for
consideration and adoption are two companion ordinances that are basically housekeeping measures.
The first ordinance amends the Shoreline Master Program and the second ordinance amends Chapter
2.13 relating to the Bremerton Mun~,cipal Code. These ordinances amend and update the Administrative
Hearing Examiner I~rocess and procedures for conducting, hearings, m.aking decisions and
recommendations and he~..r~ngs appeals of administrative decisions-'to .est~l~lish a oo~nprehensive
., Hearing Examiner system. "' '.'- .~ ", - ' '" ; -' .
There "were no comments from the 7oublic. ,- .~ ' -"
#2961 M/S/C/U (Younger/McCon~ell) Move to approve ordinance on first reading, .. ameh~ling the
Shoreline Master Program relating to the app'eals to the Hearing Ex.,=1~in. er. --'"
#2992 M/S/C/U (McConnell/Rollman) Move to app¢ove °rdiria'hc~ o'n first reading, amending Chapter
2.13 relating to the Hearing Ex'miner, the zoning code Title 21, and various other titles of the Bremerton
Municipal Code.
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 7:02 P.M.
Prepared and Submitted by:
LORI SMITH
Council Liaison
Attest:
PAULA JOHNSTON, Deputy City Clerk
CAROL ARENDS, City Council President
City of Bremerton
CA/PJ/Is/cge
c: Normal Distribution; File
AGENDA BILL
BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL
ORIGINATING DEPT:
BUDGET ADJUSTMENT 2002 #6 ORIGINATOR:
DATE SUBMITTED: Apd.~, 2002
2. CLEARANCES: Comment of back if necessary) 3. EXHIBITS:
Fire Chief ~~~ /' ....? / , -'
Operations Comm.
ENDORSE~ .'~ ~MATION APPROVED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FOR SUBMI~AL:
MAYOR ~~ ~-
4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION:
This budget adjustment provides ex~nditure autho~ty for.the renewal of the City's abatement line of credit, (LOC),
and for the current abatement a~iohs at Aresenal W~ and at Pennsylvania ~ve. At the conclusion of these
abatement a~ions, liens will be filed on the abated pmpe.ies. Monies obtaihed from enforcement o~those liens will
r~y. the funds drawn on the LOC.
8. RECOMMENDATION:
Motion to approve Budget Adjustment Request 2002
9. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Treasurer
ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: Mayor
EXPIRATION DATE: 12/31/2002
REVIEW DATE: N/A
10. NOTICE OF ACTION
PULLEDcouNCiL DIRECTIvE:TABLED APPROVED DISAPPROVED AMENDED ~ A_
11. AGENDA BILL NO: O~ - 08'7
7
2. CLEARANCE COMMENTS:
5. IMPACT ON NON-PASSAGE:
The department will lack expenditure authority necessary to carry out these abatement actions and their related debt
service.
6. IMPACT ON STAFFING~ BUDGETS~ ~FACILITIES~ EQUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCES:
As documented in the attached Budget Adjustment Request.
7. RESEARCH SOURCES:
CITY OF BREMERTON
BUDGET ADJUSTMENT REQUEST
Requesting Department: ABATEMENT REVOLVING Adjustment Number: 2002 #6
Approval Authority Required:
r--]Treasurer ~-~Mayor [-- Fiscal & Budget ~-~Council
SOURCE OF FUNDS: USE OF FUNDS:
Description Amount Description Amount
Draw on Line of Credit 275,000 Abatement Actions 260,000
Interest & Related Costs 15,000
275,000
NARRATIVE:
This adjustment will create the authority necessary for the costs of renewing the City's abatement line of credit
(LOC) bond, paying the accrued interest on drawn funds at year end, and for the use of the LOC to finance the
abatement of the Sesko property on Arsenal Way. At the conclusion of the abatement action, a lien will be filed on
the pr.o, perty. Monies obtained from that lien will be used to repay the funds drawn, on the LOC.
Department Heart Signature Date Director Signature '" Date
Treasurer Comments:
.
~ Recommended ~ Not Recommended ~
Treasurer's Signature ~. _ ~
Mayor Comments:
~ Recommended ~ Not Recommended
~ Approved F-~ Denied
Mayor's Signature Date
Fiscal & Budget Committee Comments:
Approved ~ Denied
Fiscal & Budget Committee Signature Date
AGENDA BILL
BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL
1. SUBJECT: FOR AGENDA OF: May ~ 2002
Bid Award for Lions Park Tennis ORIGINATING DEPT: Parks & Recreation
Court Reconstruction ORIGINATOR: Jim Spencer, Director
DATE SUBMITTED: April 23, 2002
2. CLEARANCES: 3. EXHIBITS:
(Comment on back ifnece A _ -.
City Attorne.vSx~/~~--- ' * Bid list
City Xre era~T~." ~, _ · Conlxact
Purchasing Manager
ENDORS~ APPROVED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FOR SUBMITTAL:
MAYO~ COUNCIL PRESIDENT: d-~2/- -:~
4.SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION:
The 2001 earthquake damaged the Lions Park Tennis Court to the point that they are
· unplayable: Since then the City has been working ~ilh FEMA to get this damage repaired.
· ' Bids wbre opened on Monday, March 25, 2002, for the reconstruction of the fo.ur tennis
courts at Lions Park. Three (3) bids were received (see attached). Lqw bidder was Fihg
Construction, Kent,.WA. Lump sum bid'amount was $109,967.00. The 6~tal~ dontract
amount, including'Washington ~tate Sales Tax, is $119,314.00.
This project was budge[ed in Fund 112 (Pai'k Developmem) for. fy2002 for $250,000.
FEMA will reimburse the City for this contract.. '
8. RECOMMENDATION:
Motion to approve the low bid of Flag Construction, in the amount of $119,314.00,
including Washington State Sales Tax, and authorize the Mayor to execute the contract for
the reconstruction of Lions Park tennis courts, subject to City administrative policies and
procedures.
9. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Jim Spencer, Director
ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: Jim Spencer, Director
EXPIRATION DATE:
REVIEW DATE:
10. NOTICE OF ACTION ~ ~
PULLED TABLED APPROVED DISAPPROVED A
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE: DATE:
AGENDA BILL #: 0o~ -- ~8,~
/0
2. CLEARANCE COMMENTS:
$. IMPACT OF NON-PASSAGE:
The City Parks and Recreation Department would not be able to repair the four tennis courts.
They would remain closed.
6. IMPACt ON'~TAFFING, BUDG~gTS, FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT OR OTItER -
No impact on staffing, budget,'equipment or other resources. This project will b~ f~nded by
7. RESEARCH SOURCES:
CITY OF BREMERTON
BID TABULATION
BIDTITLE: {.---,~,,-~ ~Pr~K '""~~t~ ~.9~Z"i"' ' OPENEDBY ~,~
BIDDER aec'a ~ G~ ? ~ Sales Tax TOTAL
'; ~ ' I
.;
UMMARY TOTAL BID COM~E~T8
~eAaEr~T LaW UlDDER ENGINEER ESTIMATE (Incl Sales Tax)
tlR~ l OW BIDDER '
PUBLIC WORKS AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, is entered into between the City of Bremerton, a Washington
Municipal Corporation ("City"), and .Flag Construction Company, Inc.("Contractor").
The parties agree as follows:
1. CONTRACTOR SERVICES. The Contractor shall perform all work and furnish
all labor, tools, material and equipment necessary to construct LIONS PARK
TENNIS COURT RECONSTRUCTION AS PER SPECIFICATIONS.
All work shall be in accordance with the Technical Specifications for Tennis Court
Reconstruction attached hereto as Exhibit "A".
2. TIME OF COMPLETION. Contractor shall commence work within (10) calendar
days of the execution of this contract and shall complete the work within 60 calendar days from the
execution of this contract.
3. COMPENSATION. The City shall pay the Contractor according to the terms of the
contractor's proposal, attached as Exhibit "B", for the work and services contemplated in this
agreement. The Contractor shall invoice the City monthly. The City will pay for the portion of the
work described in the invoice that has been completed by the Contractor and approved by the City.
The City.payrhent shall n6t constitute a waiver of the City's right to final inspection and acceptance
of the project...
A. Performance Bond. Pursuant to Chapter 39.08 RCW, the {2ontractor, shall
provide the City a performance bond for the full contract anmunt: to b.e in
effect until sixty (60) days after the date of. final' accep'taffce, or until receipt
of all necessary releases from the State Departmefit of Revenue and the State
Department of Labor and Industries and until, settlement of any liens filed
under Chapter 60.28 RCW, whichever is later.
B. Retainage. The City shall hold back a retainage in the amount of five percent
(5%) of any and all payments made to Contractor for a period of sixty (60)
days after the date of final acceptance, or until receipt of all necessary
releases from the State Department of Revenue and the State Department of
Labor & Industries and until settlement of any liens filed under Chapter 60.28
RCW, whichever is later.
C. Defective or Unauthorized Work. The City reserves its right to withhold
payment from Contractor for any defective or unauthorized work. Defective
or unauthorized work includes, without limitation: work and materials that
do not conform to the requirements of this agreement; and extra work and
materials furnished without the City's written approval. If Contractor is
unable, for any reason, to satisfactorily complete any portion of the work, the
City may complete the work by contract or othe~vise, and Contractor shall be
liable to the City for any additional costs incurred by the City. "Additional
costs" shall mean all reasonable costs, including legal costs and attorney Fees,
EEOC DOCUMENTS TO
PUBLIC WORKS AGREEMENT- i or'7 r,t!,'il 23.
(Between Ct'ri' q/'Bremerton and F/ag Consn'uc~ion
13
incurred by the City beyond the maximum Contract price specified above.
The City further reserves its right to deduct the cost to complete the Contract
work, including any Additional Costs, from any and all amounts due or to
become due the Contractor.
D. Final Payment: Waiver of Claims. THE MAKING OF FINAL PAYMENT
(EXCLUDING WITHHELD RETAINAGE) SHALL CONSTITUTE A
WAiVER OF CLAIMS, EXCEPT THOSE PREVIOUSLY AND
PROPERLY MADE AND IDENTIFIED BY CONTRACTOR AS
UNSETTLED AT THE TIME REQUEST FOR FINAL PAYMENT IS
MADE.
4. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. The parties intend that an independent
Contractor - Employer Relationship will be created by this agreement, the City being interested
only in the results obtained under this agreement.
5. TERMINATION. The City may terminate this agreement for good cause. "Good
cause" shall include, without limitation, any one or more of the following events:
A. The Contractor's refusal or failure to supply a sufficient number of properly
skilled workers or proper materials for completion of the Contract work.
B. The Contrzlctor's failure to complete the work within the time specified in
this agreement.
C'. The Cdntr¢ctor's failure to make full and prompt payment to subdohtractors.
or for material or labor. : --
D. The Contractor's persistent disregard of federal, state or local laws', rules or
regulations.
E. The Contractor's filing for bankruptc'y or becoming adjudged bankrupt.
If the City terminates this agreement for good cause, the Contractor shall not receive any
further monies due under this agreement until the Contract work is completed.
6. PREVAILING WAGES. 'Contractor shall file a "Statement of Intent to Pay
Prevailing Wages," with the State of Washington Department of Labor & Industries prior to
commencing the Contract work. Contractor shall pay prevailing wages and comply with Chapter
39.12 of the Revised Code of Washington, as well as any other applicable prevailing wage rate
provisions. The latest prevailing wage rate revision issued by the Department of Labor and
Industries is attached as Exhibit "C".
7. CHANGES. The City may issue a written change order for any change in the
Contract work during the performance of this agreement. If the Contractor determines, for any
reason, that a change order is necessary, Contractor must submit a written change order request to
an authorized agent of the City within fourteen (14) calendar days of the date Contractor knew or
should have known of the t:acts and events giving rise to the requested change. If the City
determines that the change increases or decreases the Contractor's costs or time for peritbrmance.
EEOC DOCUMENTS TO
PUBLIC WORKS AGREEMENT - 2 of 7 (, tpril 23.
1
the City will make an equitable adjustment. The City will attempt, in good faith, to reach
agreement with the Contractor on all equitable adjustments. However, if the parties are unable to
agree, the City will determine the equitable adjustment as it deems appropriate. The Contractor
shall proceed with the change order work upon receiving either a written change order from the City
or an oral order from the City before actually receiving the written change order. If the Contractor
fails to require a change order within the time allowed, the Contractor waives its right to make any
claim or submit subsequent change order requests for that portion of the contract work. If the
Contractor disagrees with the equitable adjustment the Contractor must complete the change order
work; however, the Contractor may elect to protest the adjustment as provided below:
A. Procedure and Protest by the Contractor. If the Contractor disagrees with
anything required by a change order, another written order, or an oral order
from the City, including any direction, instruction, interpretation, or
determination by the City, the Contractor shall:
1. Immediately give a signed written notice of protest to the City;
2. Supplement the written protest within fourteen (14) calendar days
with a written statement that provides the following information:
a. The date of the Contract's protest.
b. The nature and circumstances that caused the protest.
c. The provisions in this agreement that support the protest.
' d. The estimated dollar cost, if any, of the protested...,work and
how that estimate was determined.
, e. An analysis of the progress schedule showing the schedule
change or disruption if the Contractor is asserting a schedule
change or disruption.
3. The Contractor shall keep complete records of extra costs and time
incurred as a result of the protested work. The City shall have access
to any of the Contractor's records needed for evaluating the protest.
4. The City will evaluate all protests, provided the procedures in this
section are followed. If the City determines that a protest is valid, the
City will adjust payment for work or time by an equitable adjustment.
No adjustment will be made for an invalid protest.
B. Contractor's Duty to Complete Protested Work. In spite of any protest, the
Contractor shall proceed promptly with the work as the City has ordered.
C. Contractor's Acceptance of Changes. The Contractor accepts all
requirements of a change order by: (1) endorsing it, (2) writing a separate
acceptance, or (3) not protesting in the way this section provides. A change
order that is accepted by Contractor as provided in this section shall
constitute full pa>qnent and final settlement of all claims for contract time and
for direct, indirect and consequential costs, including costs of delays related
to any work, either covered or affected by the change.
EEOC DOCUMENTS TO
PUBLIC WORKS AGREEMENT - 3 of ? t:ti~ril _'3. 2~2)
( Bel~t,een CiO, ~F Bremerton and F/ag Con.struction b~c.~ [ ~
D. Failure to Protest Constitutes Waiver. By not protesting as this section
provides, the Contractor also waives any additional entitlement and accepts
from the City any written or oral order (including directions, instructions,
i_nte_rpretations, and determination).
E. Failure to Follow Procedures Constitutes Waiver. By failing to follow the
procedures of this section, the Contractor completely waives any claims for
protested work and accepts from the City any written or oral order (including
directions, instructions, interpretations, and determination).
8. CLAIMS. The Contractor shall give written notice to the City of all claims other
than change orders within fourteen (14) calendar days of the occurrence of the events giving r/se to
the claims. Amy claim for damages, additional payment for any reason, or extension of time,
whether under this agreement or otherwise, shall be conclusively deemed to have been waived by
the Contractor unless a timely written claim is made in strict accordance with the applicable
provisions of this agreement; or, if (and only if) no such provision is applicable, unless that claim is
set forth in detail in writing and received by the City within seven (7) calendar days from the date
Contractor knew, or should have known, of the facts giving rise to the claim. At a minimum, a
Contractor's written claim must include the information set forth regarding protests in Section
7.A.2.a.-e.
FAILURE TO PROVIDE A COMPLETE, WRITTEN NOTIFICATION OF CLA1M
WITHIN THE TIME ALLOWED SHALL BE AN ABSOLUTE WAIVER OF ANY CLAIMS
ARISING IN ANY WAY FROM THE FACTS OR EVENTS SURROUNDING THAT CLAIM
OR CAUSED BY THAT DELAY. :' . -'
Contractor must, in' any event, file hny claim or brtng any suit arihng fro'm.or~'cohnected .. :
with this agreement within 120 calendar days from the date the. contract'work is complkte.
9. WARRANTY. The Contractor shall correct all defects in workmanship and
materials within one year from the date of the City's acceptance of the Contract work. When
defects are corrected, the warranty for that portion of the work shall extend for one year from the
date such correction is completed and accepted by the City. The Contractor shall begin to correct
any defects within seven (7) calendar days of its receipt of notice from the City of the defect. If the
Contractor does not accomplish the corrections within a reasonable time, the City may complete the
corrections and the Contractor shall pay all costs incurred by the City in order to accomplish the
correction.
10. INDEMNIFICATION. Contractor shall defend, indemnify and hold the City, its
officer, officials, employees, agents and volunteers harmless from any and all claims, injuries,
damages, losses or suits including all legal costs and attorney fees, arising out of or in connection
with the performance of this agreement, except for injuries and damages caused by the City's sole
negligence.
The City's inspection or acceptance of any of Contractor's work when completed shall not
be grounds to avoid any of these covenants of indemnification.
Should a court of competent jurisdiction determine that this agreement is subject to RCW
4.24.115, then, in the event of liability /'or damages arising out of bodily injury to persons or
EEOC DOCUMENTS TO
~ ..(~l~)
PUBLIC WORKS AGREEMENT - 4 of 7 r.qpri! 23,
( Benveen City ql'Bremerlon und Flag Conxwuction
damages to property caused by or resulting from the concurrent negligence of the Contractor and
the City, its officials, employees, agents and volunteers, the Contractor's liability hereunder shall be
only to the extent of the Contractor's negligence.
IT IS FURTHER SPECIFICALLY AND EXPRESSLY UNDERSTOOD THAT THIS
INDEMNIFICATION CONSTITUTES THE CONTRACTOR'S WAIVER OF IMMUNITY
UNDER INDUSTRIAL INSURANCE, TITLE 51 RCW, SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS
INDEMNIFICATION. THE PARTIES ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THEY HAVE MUTUALLY
NEGOTIATED THIS WAIVER.
The provisions of this section shall survive the expiration or termination of this agreement.
1 ~ INSURANCE. The c',,,,, .... ~'-'- shall t~o
agreement insurance of the types and in the amounts described below against claims for injuries to
persons or damage to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the
work by the Contractor, its agents, representative, employees, subconsultants or subcontractors.
Before beginning work on the project described in this agreement, the Contractor shall
provide a Certificate of Insurance evidencing:
1. Commercial General Liability insurance written on an occurrence basis with
limits no less than $1,000,000 combined single limit per occurrence and
general aggregate for personal injury, bodily injury and property damage.
Coverage' shall include but not be .limited to:. blanket contractual;
o.
,,,: .. products/completetl operations/broad ,form propei'ty damage; e>cpl.gslon,
, collapse and underground (XCU); and employer's liability. ~' .'
Any payment of deductible or self insured retention shall be the sole ?esponsibility of the
Contractor.
The City, its officials, employees; agents and volunteers shall be named as an additional
insured on the insurance policy, as respects work performed by or on behalf of the Contractor and a
copy of the endorsement naming the City as additional insured shall be attached to the Certificate of
Insurance.
The Contractor's insurance shall contain a clause stating that coverage shall apply
separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respects to the
limits of the insurer's liability.
The Contractor's insurance shall be primary insurance as respects the City, and the City
shall be given thirty (30) calendar days prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt
requested, of any cancellation, suspension or material change in coverage.
12. MISCELLANEOUS.
A. Nondiscrimination. In the hiring of employees for the performance of work
under this Agreement or any sub-contract hereunder, the Contractor, its sub-contractors, or any
person acting on behalf of such Contractor or sub-contractor shall not, by reason of race, religion,
EEOC DOCUMENTS TO
~
PUBLIC WORKS AGREEMENT- q of 7 f,4pr~/..3.
( Berweeu Cirl· r~t'Bremerton (md F/ag CollS[l'ltCfl'otl ]lie.)
color, sex, national origin, or the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability,
discriminate against any person who is qualified and available to perform the work to which the
employment relates.
B. Compliance with Laws. Contractor shall comply with all federal, state and
local laws, rules and regulations throughout every aspect in the performance of this agreement.
C. Work Performed at Contractor's Risk. Contractor shall take all precautions
necessary and shall be responsible for the safety of its employees, agents, and subcontractors in the
performance of this agreement. All work shall be done at Contractor's own risk, and Contractor
shall be responsible for any loss of or damage to materials, tools, or other articles used or held for
use in connection with the work.
D. Nonwaiver of Breach. The failure of the City to insist upon strict
performance of any of the terms and rights contained herein, or to exercise any option herein
conferred in one or more instances, shall not be constructed to be a waiver or relinquishment of
those terms and rights and they shall remain in full force and effect
E. Governing Law. This agreement shall be governed and construed in
accordance with the laws of the State of Washington. If any dispute arises between the City and
Contractor under any of the provisions of this agreement, resolution of that dispute shall be
available only through the jurisdiction, venue and rules of the Kitsap County Superior Court, Kitsap
County, Washington.
F. Attorney's Fees. To the extent not inconsistent with RCW .39.04.2.40, in any
claim or lawsuit for damages aris~ing from the parties' performa~nce of this agreement, each party
shall be responsible for payment Of its own legal costs and attomey's fees incurred tn de.f. endiixg or,
...
bringing such claim or lawsuit; however, nothing in this subsectioi~ shall limit the City's'right to
indemnification under Section 10 of this agreement. .'.
G. Written Notice. All communications regardirig this agreement shall be-sent
to the parties at the addresses listed on the signature page of this agreement, unless otherwise
notified. Any written notice shall become effective upon delivery, but in any event three (3)
calendar days after the date of mailing by registered or certified mail, and shall be deemed
sufficiently given if sent to the addressee at the address stated on this agreement.
H. Assignment. Any assignment of this agreement by the Contractor without
the written consent of the City shall be void.
I. Modification. No waiver, alteration, or modification of any of the provisions
of this agreement shall be binding unless in writing and signed by a duly authorized representative
of the City and Contractor.
J. Severability. If any one or more sections, sub-sections, or sentences of this
agreement are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, that decision shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portion of this agreement and the remainder shall remain in full force and effect.
K. Entire A~eement. The written provisions and tern-~s of this agreement,
together with any attached Exhibits, supersede all prior verbal statements by any representative of
EEOC DOCUMENTS 'FO
PUBLIC WORKS AGREEMENT - 6 of 7 (.4pril 23. '.002)
{ Ben~,ee, Cin' q/'Bremerrou ~md F/ag Co,swucIiou
the City, and those statements shall not be construed as forming a part of or altering in any
this agreement. This agreement and any attached Exhibits contain the entire agreement
parties. Should any language in any Exhibit to this agreement conflict with any language
in this agreement, the terms of this agreement shall prevail.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties below have executed this agreement.
CONTRACTOR THE CITY OF BREMERT(
Print Name: Print Name: CARY BOZEMAN
Title: Title: Mayor
DATE DATE
Notices to be sent to: Notices to be sent to:
CONTRACTOR: CITY OF BREMERTON:
Flag Construction Company, Inc. Purchasing Manager
P.O. Box 6579 City of Bremerton
Kent, WA 98064-6579 239 Fourth Street
Bremerton, WA 98337
., APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Bremedo'-nTi y
ATTEST:
Bremerton City Clerk
EEOC DOCUMENTS TO
PUBLIC WORKS AGREEMENT - 7 of 7 (,4pti! 23.
(Between CiO; r~/'Bremerton ~md Ir/ag Constructio~
EXHIBIT A
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS
Contractor will provide materials and perform the following tasks:
1. Remove fencing surrounding tennis courts as is necessary for completion of work.
2. Remove all asphalt on all four tennis courts.
3. Remove all eight concrete net post footings.
4. Dispose of asphalt and concrete debris off-site.
5. Level remaining base.
6. Instafl filter fabric over remaining base to mitigate future earthquake damage, as per
recommendations of FEMA.
7. Add a total of six (6) inches of crushed rock to surface of courts. Four (4) inches of rock is to replace
that removed in excavation, two(2) inches of rock is to mitigate future earthquake damage, as per
recommendations of FEMA.
8. Pave all courts with three (3) inches (2 inches plus finch for FEMA mitigation) of modified C mix or
equivalent.
9. Pave all courts with additional three (3) i.nches (2 inches plus ~ inch for FEMA mitigation)of G mix or
equivalent:.
1'0. AIIowfourteen (14) daYS. for asphalt,to cure before surfacing commences. ,. ..,., - ~
11. Install four (4) sets, one set per court, of three (3)inch post'Sleeves. Each steev~ hole to receive li3'
yard of concrete.
12. Install four (4) center anchors, one per court, set in concrete.
13. Install four (4) sets, one set per court, of Douglas tSrerrniere net posts or equivalent.
14. Apply one (1) coat of fortified Black Plexipave Resurfacer or equivalent to each court.
15. Sand courts with eighteen (18) inch floor sander and blow clean.
16. Apply three (3) coats of Dark Green fortified Plexipave or equivalent to entire surface.
17. Playing lines are to be taped and primed and then painted two (2) times by hand, color white.
18. Replace any fencing removed in item 1 above.
February 12, 2082 City of Bremerton - Tennis Page !4
EXHIBIT B
Note: FEMA have recommended certain additions to the basic repair costs as mitigation against future
events. These items are included in italics in items 6, 7, 8 and 9 in the technical specifications. We would like
these items (in italics) to be bid separately.
AND MATERIALS LISTED IN TECHNICAL SPECS.
BID FOR THOSE PORTIONS OF ITEMS 6, 7, 8,9
(RECOMMENDED B Y FEMA AS MITIGATION)
TOTAL LUMP SUM BID
R.E. Sc~ne±±7~ President ~ orlon
, .,, Contractor
Date: 3/18/o2
Flag Construction Company, Inc.
PO Box 6579
Kent WA 98064-6579
253-859-3870 phone
253-859-4550 fax
February 12, 2002 City of Brernerton - Tenms Page 15
KITSAP County - Effective: 3/3/02 Page 1 of 11
EXHIBIT C
State of Washington
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRIES
Prevailing Wage Section - Telephone (360) 902-5335
PO Box 44540, Olympia, WA 98504-4540
Washington State Prevailing Wage Rates for Public Works Contracts
The PREVAILING WAGES listed here include both the hourly wage rate and the
hourly rate of fringe benefits. On public works projects, workers' wage and benefit
rates must add to not less than this total. A brief descripUon of overlJme calculation
requirements is provided by clicking on the benefit code.
KITS^P County
Effective 3/3/02
Benefit Code Key
Prevailing Overtime Holiday Note
Classification Wage Code Code Code
ASBESTOS ABATEMEN'r WORKERS
JOURNEY LEVEL $29.67 1M 5D
BOILERMAKERs
JOURNEY LEVEL $38.71 lB 5N
BRICK AND MARBLE MASONS
JOURNEY LEVEL $28.37 1_
CABINET MAKERS {IN SHOP)
JOURNEY LEVEL $13.12 1_
CARPENTERS
ACOUSTICAL WORKER $35.31 1M 5~D
BRIDGE, DOCK AND WARF CARPENTERS $35.15 1M 5D
CARP E NTE R $35.15 1M 5~D
CREOSOTED MATERIAL $35.25 1M 5D
DRYWALL APPLICATOR $34.94 1M 5D
FLOOR FINISHER $35.28 1M 5D
FLOOR LAYER $35.28 1M 5__0_D
FLOOR SANDER $35.28 1M 5D
MILLWRIGHT AND MACHINE ERECTORS $36.15 1M 5D
PILEDRIVERS, DRIVING, PULLING, PLACING $35.35 1M 5D
COLLARS AND WELDING
SAWFILER $35.28 1M 5D
SHINGLER $35.28 1M 5D
http://www.lni.wa.gov/prevailingwagedjwages/20021/co 18.htm 4/23/2002
KXTS~a' County - Effective: 3/3/02 Page 2 of 11
STATIONARY POWER SAW OPERATOR $35.28 1M 5D
STATIONARY WOODWORKING TOOLS $35.28 1M 5D
CEMENT MASONS
JOURNEY LEVEL $36.15 1M 5D
DIVERS & TENDERS
DIVER $75.57 1M 5D 8A
DIVER TENDER $37.85 1M 5D
DREDGE WORKERS
ASSISTANT ENGINEER $35.67 1B 5D 8~L
ASSISTANT MATE (DECKHAND) $35.23 1B 5D 8~L
BOATMEN $35.67 I~B 5D 8~L
ENGINEER WELDER $35.72 1B 5D 8_~L
LEVERMAN, HYDRAULIC $37.11 I_BB 5D 8~L
MAINTENANCE $35.23 I_~B 5D 8~L
MATES $35.67 1B 5D 8~L
OILER $35.33 1B 5D 8~L
DRYWALL TAPERS
JOURNEY LEVEL $34.92 1J 5B
ELECTRICAL FIXTURE MAINTENANCE WORKERS
JOURNEY LEVEL $9.37 1_
..
ELECTRICIANS - INSIDE
CABLE SPLICER ' $4~.65 1D 6H
CABLE SPLICER (TUNNEL). $62.70 1D 6H
CERTIFIED WELDER $43.99 1D 6H
CERTIFIED WELDER (TUNNEL) $60.27 1D 6H
CONSTRUCTION STOCK PERSON $23.33 1D 6H
JOURNEY LEVEL $42.33 1D 6H
JOURNEY LEVEL (TUNNEL) $57.83 1D 6H
ELECTRICIANS - MOTOR SHOP
CRAFTSMAN $15.37 2A 6C
JOURNEY LEVEL $14.69 2A 6C
ELECTRICIANS - POWERLINE CONSTRUCTION
CABLE SPLICER $44.01 4A 5A
CERTIFIED LINE WELDER $40.40 4A 5A
GROUNDPERSON $29.62 4A 5A
HEAD GROUNDPERSON $31.13 4A 5A
HEAVY LINE EQUIPMENT OPERATOR $40.40 4A 5A
JACKHAMMER OPERATOR $31.13 4A 5A
JOURNEY LEVEL LINEPERSON $40.40 4A 5A
LINE EQUIPMENT OPERATOR $34.44 4A 5~A
POLE SPRAYER $40.40 4A 5A
http://www.lni.wa, gov/prevailingwage/jwagesd20021/co 18.btm 4/23/2002
l,d'rSAP County - Effective: 3/3/02 Page 3 of 11
POWDERPERSON $31.13 4A 5A
ELECTRONIC & TELECOMMUNICATION TECHNICIANS
JOURNEY LEVEL $12.07 1_
ELEVATOR CONSTRUCTORS
CONSTRUCTOR $31.29 4A 6Q
MECHANIC $42.25 4A .6Q
MECHANIC IN CHARGE $46.63 4A 6Q
PROBATIONARY CONSTRUCTOR $16.27 4_~A .6Q
FABRICATED PRECAST CONCRETE PRODUCTS
ALL CLASSIFICATIONS $13.50 1_
FENCE ERECTORS
FENCE ERECTOR $13.80 1
FENCE LABORER $11.60 1_
FLAGGERS
JOURNEY LEVEL $24.99 1M 5D
GLAZIERS
JOURNEY LEVEL $35.96 2E 5G
HEAT & FROST INSULATORS AND ASBESTOS WORKERS
MECHANIC $35.93 1F 5C
HEATING EQUIPMENT MECHANICS
MECHANIC ' $18.45' l_J.. ',5A
HOD CARRIERS & MASON TENDERS
JOURNEY LEVEL $30.15 1M 5_OD
INDUSTRIAL ENGINE AND MACHINE MECHANICS
MECHANIC $15.65 1
INDUSTRIAL POWER VACUUM CLEANER
JOURNEY LEVEL $9.07 l_
INLAND BOATMEN
ASSISTANT ENGINEER $30.70 1K 5D
CHIEF ENGINEER $31.57 1K 5D
COOK $26.58 1K 5D.
DECK ENGINEER, ABLE SEAMAN, OILER $26.58 1K 5D
DECKHAND $26.17 1K 5D
FIRST MATE $30.80 1K 5D
MASTER $33.74 IK 5D
MATE, LAUNCH OPERATOR $28.83 1K 5D
ME SSMAN $21.96 1K 5D
ORDINARY SEAMAN $23.28 1K 5D
INSPECTIONICLEANINGlSEALING OF SEWER & WATER SYSTEMS BY REMOTE
CONTROL
CLEANER OPERATOR, FOAMER OPERATOR $9.73
http ://www. lni.wa, gov/prevailingwagedj wages/20021/co 18.btm 4/23/2002
gaTSAP County - Ett'ective: 3/3/02 Page 8 of 11
MOUNT
DRILLING MACHINE $36.05 1T 5D 8L
ELEVATOR AND MANLIFT, PERMANENT AND $33.59 1T 5D 8L
SHAFT-TYPE
EQUIPMENT SERVICE ENGINEER (OILER) $35.69 1T 5D 8L
FINISHING MACHINE/BIDWELL GAMACO AND $36.05 1T 5D 8L
SIMILAR EQUIP
FORK LIFTS, (3000 LBS AND OVER) $35.69 1T 5D 8L
FORK LIFTS, (UNDER 3000 LBS) $33.59 1T 5D 8L
GRADE ENGINEER $35.69 I_~T 5D 8L
GRADECHECKER AND STAKEMAN $33.59 1T 5D 8L
HOISTS,. OUTSIDE (ELEVATORS AND MANLIFTS), $35.69 1T 5D 8L
AIR TUGGERS
HORIZONTAL/DIRECTIONAL DRILL LOCATOR $35.69 1T 5D 8L
HORIZONTAL/DIRECTIONAL DRILL OPERATOR $36.05 1T 5D 8L
HYDRALIFTS/BOOM TRUCKS (10 TON & UNDER) $33.59 1T 5D 8L
HYDRALIFTS/BOOM TRUCKS (OVER 10 TON) $35.69 1T 5D 8L
LOADERS, OVERHEAD (6 YD UP TO 8 YD) $36.49 1T 5D 8L
LOADERS, OVERHEAD (8 YD & OVE~) $36.99 1T 5D ~L
LOADERS, O~/ERHEAD (UNDER 6 YD), PLANT FEED $36.05 1T 5D 6L
LOCOMOTIVES, ALL ~ $36.05 !T 5D' 8L
MECHANICS, ALL $36.05 IT 5D 8L ·
MIXERS, ASPHALT PLANT $36.05 1T 5D 8L
MOTOR PATROL GRADER (FINISHING) $36.05 1T 5D 8~L
MOTOR PATROL GRADER (NON-FINISHING) $35.69 1T 5D 8L
MUCKING MACHINE, MOLE, TUNNEL DRILL AND/OR $36.49 1T 5D 8L
SHIELD
OIL DISTRIBUTORS, BLOWER DISTRIBUTION AND $33.59 1T 5D 8L
MULCH SEEDING OPERATOR
PAVEMENT BREAKER $33.59 1T 5D 8__LL
PILEDRIVER (OTHER THAN CRANE MOUNT) $36.05 1T 5D 81_
PLANT OILER (ASPHALT CRUSHER) $35.69 1T 5D 8L
POSTHOLE DIGGER, MECHANICAL $33.59 1T 5D 8L
POWER PLANT $33.59 1T 5D 8L
PUMPS, WATER $33.59 1T 5D 8L
QUAD 9, D-10, AND HD-41 $36.49 1T 5D 8L
REMOTE CONTROL OPERATOR ON RUBBER TIRED $36.49 1T 5D 8L
EARTH MOVING EQUIP
RIGGER AND BELLMAN $33.59 I___T 5D 8L
ROLLAGON $36.49 1T 5D 8L
ROLLER, OTHER THAN PLANT ROAD MIX $33.59 1T 5D 81-
ROLLERS, PLANTMIX OR MULTILIFT MATERIALS $35.69 1T 5D 8L
http ://www. lin.wa, gov/prevailingwagedj wages/20021/co 18. htm 4/23/2002
KITSAP County - Effective: 3/3/02 Page 9 of 11
ROTO-MILL, ROTO-GRINDER $36.05 1T 5D 8L
SAWS, CONCRETE $35.69 1T 5D 8L
SCRAPERS - SELF PROPELLED, HARD TAIL END $36.05 1T 5D 8L
DUMP, ARTICULATING OFF-ROAD EQUIPMENT
( UNDER 45 YD)
SCRAPERS - SELF PROPELLED, HARD TAIL END $36.49 1T 5D 8L
DUMP, ARTICULATING OFF-ROAD EQUIPMENT (45
YD AND OVER)
SCRAPERS, CONCRETE AND CARRY ALL $35.69 1T 5D 8~L
SCREED MAN $36.05 I~T 5D 8_LL
SHOTCRETE GUNITE $33.59 1T 5D 8~L
SLIPFORM PAVERS $36.49 1T 5D 8~L
SPREADER, TOPSIDE OPERATOR - BLAW KNOX $36.05 1T 5D 8__LL
SUBGRADE TRIMMER $36.05 1T 5D 8L
TRACTORS, (75 HP & UNDER ) $35.69 1T 5D 8L
TRACTORS, (OVER 75 HP) $36.05 1T 5D 8L
TRANSFER MATERIAL SERVICE MACHINE $36.05 1T 5D 8L
TRANSPORTERS, ALL TRACK OR TRUCK TYPE $36.49 1T 5D 8L
TRENCHING MACHINES $35.69 1T 5D 8L.'
TRUCK CRANE OILER/DRIVER i UNDER 100 TON) .- $35.69 1T 5D "~SL -'
TRUCK CRANE OILER/DRIVER (10..0 TON & OVER) $36.05... lT.. 5D 8~L'
WHEEL TRACTORS, FARMALL TYPE " $33.59 ...:' 1.T '· 5D .-- 8~L
YO YO PAY DO .ZER .. $36.05 1T --5D 8L
POWER EQUIPMENT OPERATORS- UNDERGROUND SEWER & WATER
(SEE POWER EQUIPMENT OPERATORS)
POWER LINE CLEARANCE TREE TRIMMERS
JOURNEY LEVEL IN CHARGE $29.97 4A 5A
SPRAY PERSON $28.35 4A 5A
TREE EQUIPMENT OPERATOR $28.75 4A 5A
TREE TRIMMER $26.62 4A 5A
TREE TRIMMER GROUNDPERSON $19.48 4A 5A
REFRIGERATION & AIR CONDITIONING MECHANICS
MECHANIC $27.68 1
RESIDENTIAL BRICK & MARBLE MASONS
JOURNEY LEVEL $16.91 1
RESIDENTIAL CARPENTERS
JOURNEY LEVEL $20.00 1_
RESIDENTIAL CEMENT MASONS
JOURNEY LEVEL · $12.81 1
RESIDENTIAL DRYWALL TAPERS
JOURNEY LEVEL ~20.00 1
RESIDENTIAL ELECTRICIANS
http ://www. lni.wa, gov/prevailingwage/jwages/20021/co 18.btm 4/23/2002
KITSAP County - Effective: 3/3/02 Page 10 of 11
JOURNEY LEVEL $14.00 1
RESIDENTIAL GLAZIERS
JOURNEY LEVEL $24.84 2E 5G
RESIDENTIAL INSULATION APPLICATORS
JOURNEY LEVEL $13.96 1_
RESIDENTIAL LABORERS
JOURNEY LEVEL $10.04 1_
RESIDENTIAL PAINTERS
JOURNEY LEVEL $10.00 1
RESIDENTIAL PLUMBERS & PIPEFrrrERS
JOURNEY LEVEL $18.40 1
RESIDENTIAL SHEET METAL WORKERS
JOURNEY LEVEL (FIELD OR SHOP) $26.23 1J 5A
RESIDENTIAL SOFT FLOOR LAYERS
JOURNEY LEVEL $30.60 1B 5A
RESIDENTIAL SPRINKLER FITTERS (FIRE PROTECTION)
JOURNEY LEVEL $16.18 1
ROOFERS
JOURNEY LEVEl_ $32.53 1R. 5A
USING IRRITABLE BITUMINOUS MATERIAL:~ $.35.53 1R ' 5A
SHEET METAL WORKERS ..
~)'OURNEY'.LEVEL (FIELD OR SHOP)" -, ".-' . $39.68 l_J 6L'
SIGN MAKERS & INSTALLERS (.ELECTRICAL)
JOURNEY LEVEL $20.58 1_
SIGN MAKERS & INSTALLERS (NON-ELECTRICAL)
JOURNEY LEVEL $9.27 1_
SOFT FLOOR LAYERS
JOURNEY LEVEL $30.60 lB 5_~A
SOLAR CONTROLS FOR WINDOWS
JOURNEY LEVEL $10.31 1B 50
SPRINKLER FITTERS (FIRE PROTECTION)
JOURNEY LEVEL $42,48 1B 5C
STAGE RIGGING MECHANICS (NON STRUCTURAL)
JOURNEY LEVEL $13.23 1_
SURVEYORS
CHAIN PERSON $9.35 1
INSTRUMENT PERSON $11.40 1_
PARTY CHIEF $13.40 1
TELEPHONE LINE CONSTRUCTION - OUTSIDE
CABLE SPLICER $24.74 2B 5A
HOLE DIGGER/GROUND PERSON $13.18 2B 5A
http://www.lni.wa.gov/prevailingwagedj wages/20021/co 18.hlm 4/23/2002
.27
KITSAP County - Effective: 3/3/02 Page 11 of 11
INSTALLER (REPAIRER) $23.66 2B 5A
JOURNEY LEVEL TELEPHONE LINEPERSON $22.91 2B 5A
SPECIAL APPARATUS INSTALLER I $24.74 2B 5A
SPECIAL APPARATUS INSTALLER II $24.21 2B 5A
TELEPHONE EQUIPMENT OPERATOR (HEAVY) $24.74 2~B 5A
TELEPHONE EQUIPMENT OPERATOR (LIGHT) $22.91 2~B 5A
TELEVISION GROUND PERSON $12.42 2_DB 5A
TELEVISION LINEPERSONIINSTALLER $17.02 2~B 5A
TELEVISION SYSTEM TECHNICIAN $20.54 2B 5A
TELEVISION TECHNICIAN $18.33 2B 5A
TREE TRIMMER $22.91 2B 5A
TERRAZZO WORKERS & TILE SETTERS
JOURNEY LEVEL $32.83 1H 5A
TILE, MARBLE & TERRAZZO FINISHERS
FINISHER $26.66 1H 5A
TRAFFIC CONTROL STRIPERS
JOURNEY LEVEL $27.67 1K 5A
TRUCK DRIVERS
ASPHALT MIX ( TO 16 YARDS) $33.48 1T 5D 8L
ASPHALT MIX (OVER 16 YARDS) -~ '~ $34.06 1T 5D 8L.
· ' DUMP TRUCK $19.60 I " "
DUMP TRUCK & TRAILER $19.60 1_ .
OTHER TRUCKS $18.37 1_
TRANSIT MIXER $20.79 1_
WELL DRILLERS & IRRIGATION PUMP INSTALLERS
IRRIGATION PUMP INSTALLER $13.17 1_
OILER $14.08 1_
VVELL DRILLER $14.40 1_
http://www, lni.wa, gov/prevailingwagWjwages/20021/col 8.btm 4/23/2002
K1TSAP County - Effective: 3/3/02 Page 1 of 9
State of Washington
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRIES
Prevailing Wage Section - Telephone (360) 902-5335
PO Box 44540, Olympia, WA 98504-4540
Washington State Prevailing Wage Rates for Public Works Contracts
The PREVAILING WAGES listed here include both the hourly wage rate and the
hourly rate of fringe benefits. On public works projects, workers' wage and benefit
rates must add to not less than this total. A brief description of overtime calculalion
requirements is provided by clicking on the benefit code.
NOTE: Any apprentice not registered with the Washington State Apprenticeship and
Training Council must be paid prevailing journey level wages. To verify apprentice
registration, call (360) 902-5324.
KITSAP County
Apprentices
Effective 3~3~02
Benefit Code Key
Prevailing Overtime Holiday Note
Stage of Progression & Hour Range ... Wage Code Code Code
ASBESTOS ABATEMENT WORKERS
ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL PAINTERS
1:0 - 1000 Hours - 50.00% $15.31 1M 5D
2:1001 - 2000 Hours - 60.00% $17.70 1M 5D
3:2001 - 3000 Hours - 75.00% $23.09 1M 5D *
4:3001 - 4000 Hours - 90.00% $27.04 1M 5D
LABORERS
1- 0 - 1000 Hours -60.00% $20.10 1M 5D
2:1001 - 2000 Hours - 70.00% $22.49 1M 5D
3:2001 - 3000 Hours - 80.00% $24.89 1M 5D
4:3001 - 4000 Hours - 90.00% $27.28 1M 5D
BOILERMAKERS
1.0 - 1000 Hours - 70.00% $30.83 lB 5N
2:1001 - 2000 Hours - 75.00% $32.14 lB 5N
3:2001 - 3000 Hours - 80.00% $33.46 I~B 5N
4:3001 - 4000 Hours - 85.00%" $34.77 I~B 5N
5:4001 -5000 Hours-'90.00% $36.08 I__B_B 5_HN
http ://www. lni.wa, gov/prevailingwagodAppwages/20021/co 18. btm 4/23/2002
KITSAP County - Effective: 3/3/02 Page 2 of 9
6:5001 - 6000 Hours - 95.00% $37.40 lB 5N
BRICK AND MARBLE MASONS
1' 0 - 750 Hours - 50.00% $14.19 1
2:751 - 2250 Hours - 55.00% $15.60 1_
3:2251 - 3000 Hours - 60.00% $17.02 1
4:3001 - 3750 Hours - 70.00% $19.86 1_
5:3751 - 4500 Hours - 80.00% $22.70 1_
6:4501 - 5250 Hours - 90.00% $25.53 1
7:5251 - 6000 Hours - 95.00% $26.95 1-
CARPENTERS
ACOUSTICAL WORKER
1:0 - 1000 Hours - 50.00% $17.59 1M 5D
2:1001 - 2000 Hours - 60.00% $24.23 1M 5D
3:2001 - 3000 Hours - 68.00% $26.45 1M 5D
4:3001 - 4000 Hours - 76.00% $28.66 1M 5_D
5:4001 - 5000 Hours - 84.00% $30.88 1M 5D
6:5001 - 6000 Hours - 92.00% $33.09 1M 5D
BRIDGE, DOCK AND WARF CARPENTERS
~': 1st PeRod - 60.00% *' '* $20.26 1M ' 5D
2:2nd Period-65:00% $25.51 1M ~ 5D
3: 3~ Pedod - 70.00% $26.89 1M . 5D'
4:4th Pedod- 75.00% $28.27 1M 5D ,~-
5:5th Pedod -80.00% $29.64 1M 5D
6:6th Period - 85.00% $31.02 1M 5D
7:7th Pedod -90.00% $32.40 1M 5D
8:8th Pedod -95.00% $33.77 1M 5D
CARPENTER
1: 1st Period - 60.00% $20.26 1M 5D
2:2nd Pedod - 65.00% $25.51 1M 5D
3:3rd Period -70.00% $26.89 1M 5D
4:4th Pedod -75.00% $28.27 1M 5D
5:5th Period- 80.00% $29.64 1M 5D
6:6th Pedod -85.00% $31.02 1M 5D
7:7th Period -90.00% $32.40 1M 5D
8:8th Pedod - 95.00% $33.77 1M 5D
DRYVVALL APPLICATOR
DRYWAll, METAL STUD, AND CE~LING APPLICATORS
1' 0 - 700 Hours - 50.00% $17.41 1M 5D
http ://www. Ini.wa. gov/prevailingwagedAppwagesd20021/co 18.htm 4/23/2002
KITSAP County - Effective: 3/3/02 Page 3 of 9
2:701 - 1400 Hours- 60.00% $24.01 1M 5D
3:1401 - 2100 Hours - 68.00% $26.19 1M 5D
4:2101 - 2800 Hours - 76.00% $28.38 1M 5D
5:2801 - 3500 Hours o 84.00% $30.57 1M 5D
6:3501 - 4200 Hours - 92.00% $32.75 1M 5D
MILLWRIGHT AND MACHINE ERECTORS
1' 1st Period -60.00% $20.86 1M 5D
2:2nd Pedod -65.00% $26.16 1M 5D
3:3rd Period -70.00% $27.59 1M 5D
4:4th Pedod -75.00% $29.02 1M 5~D
5:5th Period - 80.00% $30.44 1M 5D
6:6th Period -85.00% $31.87 1M 5D
7:7th Period -90.00% $33.30 1M 5D
8:8th Pedod - 95.00% $34.72 1M 5D
PILEDRIVERS, DRIVING, PULLING, PLACING COLLARS AND WELDING
1:1st Period -60.00% $20.38 1M 5_D_D
2:2~d Period -65.00% $25,64 1M :, 5D
. 3:3rd Period - 70.00% .,' : $27.03' 1M 5D
4:4th Period -75.00% " $2~.42 1M ' 5__0_D
5:5th Pedod- 80.00% .:.' $29.80 1M 5D
6:6th Pedod -85.00% $31.19 1M 5D
7:7th Pedod -90.00% $32.58 1M 5D
8:8th Period -95.00% $33.96 1M 5D
CEMENT MASONS
1:0 - 1000 Hours - 50.00% $22.82 1M 5D
2:1001 - 2000 Hours - 60.00% $25.49 1M 5D
3:2001 - 3000 Hours - 70.00% $28.15 1M 5D
4:3001 - 4000 Hours - 80.00% $30.82 1M 5D
5:4001 - 5000 Hours - 90.00% $33.48 1M 5D
6:5001 - 6000 Hours - 95.00% $34.82 1M 5D
DRYWALL TAPERS
1:0 - 1000 Hours - 50.00% $21.62 l_J 5B
2:1001 - 2000 Hours - 55.00% $22.95 l_J 5B
3:2001 -3000 Hours- 65.00% $25.61 l~J 5B
4:3001 - 4000 Hours - 75.00% $28.27 1J 5B
5:4001 - 5000 Hours - 85.00% $30.93 l_J_J 5B
.6:5001 - 6000 Hours - 90.00% $32.26 l_J 5_B
ELECTRICIANS - INSIDE
htt~://www, lni.wa, gov/prevailingwagedAppwages/20021/co 18.htm 4/23/2002
KITSAP County - Effective: 3/3/02 Page 4 of 9
1:0 - 1000 Hours -40.00% $16.80 1D 6H
2:1001 - 2000 Hours - 50.00% $20.12 1D 6H
3:2001 - 3500 Hours - 55.00% $24.86 1D 6H
4:3501 - 5000 Hours - 65.00% $28.74 1D 6H
5:5001 - 6500 Hours - 75.00% $32.62 1D 6H
6:6501 - 8000 Hours - 85.00% $36.50 1D 6H
ELECTRICIANS - POWERLINE CONSTRUCTION
JOURNEY LEVEL LINEPERSON
1' 0 - 1000 Hours - 60.00% $26.62 4A 5A
2:1001 - 2000 Hours - 65.00% $28.12 4A 5A
3:2001 - 3000 Hours - 71.00% $29.93 4~A 5A
4:3001 - 4000 Hours - 81.00% $32.93 4A 5A
5:4001 - 5000 Hours - 85.00% $34.14 4A 5A
6:5001 - 6000 Hours - 89.00% $35.33 4A 5A
7:6001 - 7000 Hours - 93.00% $36.54 4A 5A
POLE SPRAYER
1' 0 - 1000 Hours - 85.70% $34.35 4A 5A
2:1001 - 2000 Hours - 89.80% $35.58 4A 5_~A
3:2001 - 3000 Hours - 92.80% , $36.48 4A 5A
ELECTRONIC & TELECOI~IMUNICATION TECHNICIANS
1:0 _ 1000 Hours - 55.00% $6.90 1_ '.
2:1001 - 2000 Hours - 60.00% $7.24 1_
3:2001 - 3000 Hours - 65.00'% $7.85 1_
4:3001 - 4000 Hours - 70.00% $8.45 1_
5:4001 - 5000 Hours - 75.00% $9.05 1_
6:5001 - 6000 Hours - 80.00% $9.66 1_
7:6001 - 7000 Hours - 85.00% $10.26 1_
8:7001 - 8000 Hours - 95.00% $11.47
FLAGGERS
1:0 - 1000 Hours - 60.00% $20.10 1M 5D
2:1001 -2000 Hours -70.00% $22.49 1M 5D
3:2001 - 3000 Hours - 80.00% $24.89 1M 5D
4:3001 - 4000 Hours - 90.00% $24.99 1M 5D
GLAZIERS
1' 0 - 1000 Hours - 45.00% $17.72 2E 5G
2:1001 - 2000 Hours - 50.00% $19.38 2E 5G
3:2001 - 3000 Hours - 55.00% $21.04 2E 5G
4:3001 - 4000 Hours - 60.00% $22.70 2E 5G
5:4001 - 5000 Hours - 65.00% $24.35 2E 5G
6:5001 - 6000 Hours - 70.00% $26.01 2E 5G
http://www.lni.wa, gov/prevailingwage/Appwages/20021/co 18.htm 4/23/2002
KITSAP County ~ Effective: 3/3/02 Page 5 of 9
7:6001 - 7000 Hours - 80.00% $29.33 2E 5G
8:7001 - 8000 Hours - 90.00% $32.64 2E 5G
HEAT & FROST INSULATORS AND ASBESTOS WORKERS
MECHANIC
1' 0 - 1000 Hours - 50.00% $21.40 1F 5C
2:1001 - 2000 Hours - 55.00% $22.85 1F 5C
3:2001 - 4000 Hours - 65.00% $25.76 1F 5C
4:4001 - 6000 Hours - 75.00% $28.66 1F 5C
5:6001 - 8000 Hours - 85.00% $31.57 1F 5C
HOD CARRIERS & MASON TENDERS
1' 0 - 1000 Hours -60.00% $20.10 1M 5D
2:1001 - 2000 Hours - 70.00% $22.49 1M 5D
3:2001 - 3000 Hours - 80.00% $24.89 1M 5D
4:3001 - 4000 Hours - 90.00% $27.28 1M 5D
INSULATION APPLICATORS
1:0 - 1000 Hours - 50,00% $17.51 1M 5D
2:1001 - 2000 Hours - 60.00% $24.13 1M 5D
3:2001 - 3000 Hours - 75.00% $28.27 1M 5D
4:3001 - 4000 Hours - 90.00% $32.40 1M 5D"
IRONWORKERS -- " '~ '
1' 0 - 1000 Hdurs -65.00% ." $21.13 lB SA.
2:1001 - 2000 Hours - 70.00% $22.42" 1B 5A
3:2001 - 3000 Hours - 75.00% $30.72 1B 5A
4:3001 - 4000 Hours - 80.00% $32.01 lB 5A
5:4001 - 5000 Hours - 90.00% $34.59 I~B 5A
6:5001 - 6000 Hours - 90.00% $34.59 1_~ 5A
7:6001 - 7000 Hours - 95.00% $35.88 1B 5A
8:7001 - 8000 Hours - 95.00% $35.88 lB 5A
LABORERS
1:0 - 1000 Hours -60.00% $20.10 1M 5D
2:1001 - 2000 Hours - 70.00% $22.49 1M 5D
3:2001 - 3000 Hours - 80.00% $24.89 1M 5D
4:3001 - 4000 Hours - 90.00% $27.28 1M 5D
LABORERS - UNDERGROUND SEWER & WATER
1' 0 - 1000 Hours - 60.00% $20.10 1M 5D
2:1001 - 2000 Hours - 70.00% $22.49 1M 5D
3:2001 - 3000 Hours - 80.00% $24.89 1M 5D
4:3001 - 4000 Hours - 90.00% $27.28 1M 5D
LATHERS
1:0 - 1000 Hours - 50.00% $17.41 1M 5D
http ://www.lni.wa. gov/prevailingwagedAppwages/20021/co 18.btm 4/23/2002
$3
KIT8AP County - Effective: 3/3/02 Page 6 of 9
2:1001 - 2000 Hours - 60.00% $24.01 1M 5__D_D
3:2001 - 3000 Hours - 68.00% $26.19 1M 5D
4:3001 - 4000 Hours - 76.00% $28.38 1M 5D
5:4001 - 5000 Hours - 84.00% $30.57 1M 5__D_D
6:5001 - 6000 Hours - 92.00% $32.75 1M 5D
PAINTERS
1' 0 - 750 Hours - 55.00% $13.86 2B 5A
2:751 - 1500 Hours - 65.00% $15.79 2B 5A
3:1501 - 2250 Hours - 75.00% $17.72 2B 5A
4:2251 - 3000 Hours - 80.00% $19.45 2_BB 5A
5:3001 - 3750 Hours - 85.00% $20.47 2B 5A
6:3751 - 4500 Hours - 95.00% $22.50 2B 5A
PLASTERERS
1:0 - 500 Hours - 40.00% $15.61 1R 5A
2:501 - 1000 Hours -45.00% $16.84 1R 5A
3:1001 - 1500 Hours -45.00% $22.14 1R 5A
4:1501 - 2000 Hours - 50.00% $23.37 1R 5A
5:2001 - 2500 Hours - 55.00% $24.59 1R 5A
6:2501 - 3000 Hours - 60.00% $25.82 1R 5A
7:3001 - 3500 Hours - 65.00% $27.04., 1R -., ,5A
8:3501 - 4000 Hours - 70.00% ' - , $28.27. ' 1R~ . 5A '
9:4~01: 4500 Hours - 75.00% $29.50 1R 5A"
10:450'1 - 5000 Hours - 80.00% $30.72 1R 5A
11' 5001 - 5500 Hours - 85.00% $31.95 1R 5A
12:5501 - 6000 Hours - 90.00% $33.18 1R 5_~
13:6001 - 6500 Hours - 95.00% $34.40 1R 5~A
14:6501 - 7000 Hours - 95.00% $34.40 1R 5~A
PLUMBERS & PiPEFITTERS
1:0 -1000 Hours - 45.00% $16.01 lB 5A
2:1001 - 2000 Hours - 45.00% $16.01 1B 5A
3:2001 - 3000 Hours - 55.00% $23.60 lB 5A
4:3001 - 4000 Hours - 60.00% $25.20 I~B 5A
5:4001 - 5000 Hours - 65.00% $26.81 lB 5A
6:5001 - 6000 Hours - 70.00% $28.42 I_B_B 5A
7:6001 - 7000 Hours - 75.00% $30.03 1B 5A
8:7001 - 8000 Hours - 80.00% $31.63 1B 5_~A
9:8001 - 9000 Hours - 85.00% $33.24 lB 5A
10:9001 - 10000 Hours - 90.00% $34.85 lB 5A
POWER EQUIPMEN? QPERATORS
ALL EQUIPMENT '
1' 0 - 500 Hours - 55.00% $23.40 I~T_T 5D 8L
http://www.lni.wa, gov/prevailingwage/Appwages/20021/co 18.btm 4/23/2002
3¢
KITSAP County - Effective: 3/3/02 Page 7 of 9
2:501 - 1000 Hours -60.00% $24.77 1T 5~D 8L
3:1001 - 2000 Hours - 65.00% $26.13 I__T_T 5D 8L
4:2001 - 3000 Hours - 70.00% $27.50 I_T_T 5D 8L
5:3001 - 4000 Hours - 75.00% $28.86 1T 5D 8L
6:4001 - 5000 Hours - 80.00% $30.23 I_T_T 5D 8L
7:5001 - 6000 Hours - 90.00% $32.96 I_T_T 5D 8~L
POWER LINE CLEARANCE TREE TRIMMERS
TREE TRIMMER
1:0 - 1000 Hours -65.00% $18.41 4A 5_~A
2:1001 - 2000 Hours - 75.00% $20.51 4A 5A
3:2001 - 3000 Hours - 80.00% $21.56 4A 5A
4:3001 - 4000 Hours - 90.00% $23.68 4A 5A
REFRIGERATION & AIR CONDITIONING MECHANICS
MECHANIC
1' 0 - 1000 Hours - 50.00% $13.84 1_
2:1001 - 2000 Hours - 55.00% $15.22 1
3:2001 - 3000 Hours - 60.00% $16.61 1
4:3001 - 4000 Hours - 65.00% $17.99 1
5:4001 - 5000 Hours - 70.00% $19.38 1
6:5001 - 6000 Hours -.~5.00% '" $20.76 1_ ~
7:6001 - 7000 Hour~ - 80.00% -.- ' . $2'2.14:."' 1-' .... '
8:7001 - 8000 Hours - 85.00% ' $23.53 .-. 1_
9:8001 - 9000 Hours - 90.00%' $24.91 ' .1_
10:9001 - 10000 Hours - 95.00% $26.30 1_
RESIDENTIAL CARPENTERS
1:1st Period -60.00% $12.00 1_
2:2nd Pedod - 65.00% $13.00 1-
3:3rd Period -70.00% $14.00 1-
4:4th Period -75.00% $15.00 1-
5:5th Pedod- 80.00% $16.00 1_
6:6th Pedod- 85.00% $17.00 1
7:7m Pedod- 90.00% $18.00 1-
8:8th Period- 95.00% $19.00 1_
RESIDENTIAL ELECTRICIANS
1: 0 - 900 Hours - 50.00% $7.00 1-
2:901 - 1800 Hours - 55.00% $7.70 1
3:1801 - 2700 Hours - 75.00% $10.50 1_
4:2701 - 4000 Hours - 85.00% $11.90 1_
RESIDENTIAL PLUMBERS & PIPEFITTERS
http://www. Ini .wa. Boy/prey ai Iingwage/Appwages/20021/co 18. htm 4/23/2002
KITSAP County - Effective: 3/3/02 Page 8 of 9
1' 1st Period - 50.00% $9.20 1_
2:2nd Pedod - 55.00% $10.12 1_
3:3rd Period - 60.00% $11.04 1_
4:4th Period -70.00% $12.88 1_
5:5th Period - 80.00% $14.72 1
6:6th Pedod -95.00% $17.48 1_
RESIDENTIAL SHEET METAL WORKERS
1' 0 - 1000 HOURS 50% $13.39 l__JJ 6L
2:1001 - 2000 HOURS 60% $15.42 l_JJ 61_
3:2001 - 3000 Hours - 65% $18.42 l_JJ 6L
4:3001 - 4000 Hours - 70% $19.44 l_JJ 61_
5:4001 - 5000 Hours - 80% $21.48 l_J_J 61_
6:5001 - 6000 Hours - 85% $22.49 l_JJ 61-
ROOFERS
1:0 -820 Hours -60.00% $20.18 1R 5A
2:821 - 1630 Hours - 67.009,~ $21.94 1R 5A
3:1631 - 2450 Hours - 74.00% $23.70 1R 5A
4:2451 - 3270 Hours - 81.00% .~ $27'.'76 1R · 5A "
5: 3271. -. 4080 Hours - 88.00% " $29.52 1R 5A
6:4081 - 4899 Hours - 95.00% $31.27 1R 5A
SHEET METAL WORKERS
1:0 -2000 Hours-45% $16.69 1J 6L
2:2001 - 3000 Hours - 50% $22.80 1J 61-
3:3001 - 4000 Hours - 55% $24.44 l__J 6L
4:4001 - 5000 Hours - 60% $26.08 1J 6L
5:5001 - 6000 Hours - 65% $27.73 1J 6L
6:6001 - 7000 Hours - 70% $29.37 1J 6L
7:7001 - 8000 Hours - 75% $31.02 1J 6L
8:8001 - 9000 Hours - 80% $32.66 1J 6L
9:9001 - 10000 Hours -85% $34.31 1J 6__L~L
SOFT FLOOR LAYERS
1: 0 - 750 Hours - 45.00% $15.51 1B 5A
2:751 - 1500 Hours - 50.00% $16.88 1B 5A
3:1501 - 2250 Hours - 60.00% $19.62 1B 5A
4:2251 - 3000 Hours - 70.00% $22.37 1B 5A
5:3001 - 3750 Hours - 80.00% $25.11 1B 5A
6:3751 - 4500 Hours - 90.00% $27.86 lB 5A
http ://www. lni. wa. gov/prevailingwage/Appwages/2002 !/co 18. htm 4/23/2002
KITSAP County - Effective: 3/3/02 Page 9 of 9
SPRINKLER FITTERS (FIRE PROTECTION)
1:1st Pedod - 40.00% $15,64 lB 5C
2:2nd Period - 42.00% $16.27 1B 5C
3:3rd Period - 44.00% $16,90 1B 5C
4:4th Period - 47.00% $17.85 lB 5C
5:5th Period - 52.00% $22.12 lB 5C
6:6th Period -57.00% $23.69 lB 5C
7:7th Period - 62.00% $25.52 lB 5C
8:8th Period - 65.00% $26.46 lB 5C
9:9th Period - 75.00% $30.11 1B 5C
10:10th Period - 80,00% $31.68 !.B 5C
TERRAT~'O WORKERS & TILE SETTERS
1:0 - 1000 Hours - 50.00% $18.51 1H 5A
2:1001 - 2500 Hours - 55.00% $19.77 1H 5A
3:2501 - 3500 Hours - 60.00% $21.04 1H 5A
4:3501 - 4500 Hours - 70.00% $23.58 1H 5A_
5:4501 - 5500 Hours - 80.00% $26.11 1H .' 5~A
6:5501 - 6250 Hours - 90.00% : $28.65 1H 5~A .:'~ ..
· 7:6251 - 7000 Hours "95.00% $29.92 ,,-I'H 5~A
TILE, MARBLE & TERRAZZO FINISHERS. ' ' '
FINISHER
1:0 - 1000 Hours - 50.00% $18.11 1H '5_~A
2:1001 - 2500 Hours - 55.00% $19.33 1H 5A
3:2501 - 3500 Hours - 60.00% $20.56 1H 5A
4:3501 - 4500 Hours - 70.00% $23.02 1H 5A
TRAFFIC CONTROL STRIPERS
1:0 - 500 Hours - 60.00% $12.68 1K 5A
2:501 - 1000 Hours - 60.00% $15.48 1K 5A
3:1001 - 2333 Hours - 60.00% $17.76 1K 5A
4:2334 - 4666 Hours - 73.00% $20.98 1K 5A
5:4667 - 7000 Hours - 88.00% $24.70 1K 5A
TRUCK DRIVERS
ALL TRUCKS
1' 0 - 700 Hours - 70.00% $13.72 1_
2:701 - 1400 Hours - 80.00% $15.68 1_
3:1401 - 2100 Hours - 90.00% $17.64 1_
http:ttwww.lni.wa, gov/prevailingwage/Appwages/20021/¢o 18.htm 4~23 ~2002
AGENDA BILL
BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL
1. SUBJECT: FOR AGENDA OF: t~ ax{,. ~, ~. o ~--
WB-3 PUMP STATION UPGRADE ORIGINATING DEPT: Public Works & Utilities
PUMP/VFD EQUIPMENT PURCHASE ORIGINATOR: Pat Coxon, WWTP Manager
DATE SUBMITTED: April 16, 2002
2. CLEARANCES: (Comment on b~ 3. EXHililTS:
Director PW&U .c._.~_~~. · Bid Form
City Attorney .~ ----~_ "_ D- ~,~- 7 * Bid Tally Sheet
O. perations Committee ' ~..~.~'~¢?¢e.'/~-~ ~
Fiscal & tludget Comm. .c?
A PROV CO CIL Pm SlI ST fOR S M TTAL.'
4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION:
This equipment purchase is for the improvements to wastewater pump station WB-3 as required by the City's CSO
Reduction Plan. Specifications and design documents were prepared and competitive bids were received for pre-
purchase of this equipment. Pre-purchase is required to meet the schedule for construction of the improvements
currently in design. Bids were opened April 15, 2002 with one bidder providing a complete equipment package per
specifications for a total of $5'33,603.00 including tax. Discussion with the design engineer confirmeO the bid price is
reasonable based on the specifications. It is reconanended that the City Council approve the award of the contract with
Harbor Pacific Contractors, Inc. for the WB-3 PS Upgrade - Pu~p~ Equipment Purchase as defined in the bid
document 'in the amount of $533,603.00 including tax.
8. RECOMMENDATION:
The City Council approve the award of the contract with Harbor Pacific Contractors, Inc. for the WB-3 PS Upgrade -
Pump/VFD Equipment Purchase as defined in the bid document in the amount of $533,603.00 including tax and
authorize the Mayor to execute the same.
9. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL:
ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL:
EXPIRATION DATE:
REVIEW DATE:
10. NOTICE OF ACTION
PULLED TABI ~ED APPROVED DISAPPROVED AMENDED
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE: DATE:__~
I 1. AGENDA BILL NO: 0o~ -- 19 8~
2. CLEARANCE COMMENTS:
~. IMPACT ON NON-PASSAGE:
The City will be unable to complete improvements to Pump Station WB-3 in accordance with the CSO Reduction Plan
and federal consent decree.
6. IMPACT ON STAFFING, BLIDGETS~ FACIIJTIES, EQLIIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCES:
This equipment will be incorporated into a construction contract for improvements to Pump Station WB-3 that is
included in the 2002 budget.
7. RESEARCH SOURCES:
CSO Redu..ction Plan, Engineers estimate. ..
{',970122_1 .ab}
CITY OF BREMERTON
BID TABULATION
DATE OPENED: z't- I_~ o2_ TIME OPENED: iO too ~ RECORDED BY (LL
SUMMARY TOTAL BID COM~'TS ;.:~
SECTION 0O300
BID FORMS
BID
BID TO: CITY OF BREMERTON (WASHINGTON)
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND UTILITIES
1. The undersigned Bidder proposes and agrees, if this Bid is accepted, to enter into an
Agreement with the OWNER in the form included in the Contract Documents for the
furnishing of the Goods and Special Services as specified or indicated in said Contract
Documents entitled "WB-3 PS Upgrade - Pump/VFD Equipment Purchase".
2. Bidder accepts all of the terms and conditions of the Contract Documents, including
without limitation those in the Notice Inviting Bids and Instruction to Bidders, dealing with
the disposition of Bid Security.
3. This Bid will remain open for the period stated in the "Notice Inviting Bids" unless
otherwise required by law. Bidder will enter into an Agreement within the time and in the
manner required in the "Notice Inviting Bids" and the "Instructions to Bidders," and will
furnish the insurance certificates, Payment Bond, and Performance Bond required by
the Contract Documents.
4. Bidder has examined c.opies of all the Contract Documents including the following
addenda (.receipt of all of which is hereby acknowledged): ...-
Number ~/k- Date r~Jr, u " ~ ' ~
Failure to acknowledge addenda shall render the bid non-responsive and shall be cause
for its rejection.
5. Bidder has familiarized itself with the nature and extent of the Contract Documents, site,
locality where the WORK is to be performed, the legal requirements (federal, state and
local laws, ordinances, rules, and regulations), and the conditions affecting cost,
progress, performance, or the furnishing of the Goods and Special Services and has
made such independent investigations as Bidder deems necessary.
To all the foregoing, and including all Bid Forms contained in this Bid, said Bidder further agrees
to the furnishing of the Goods and Special Services required under the Contract Documents
within the Contract Time stipulated in said Contract Documents, and to accept in full payment
therefore the Contract Price based on the Total Bid Price(s) named in the aforementioned Bid
Forms.
Harbor-Pacific Co'nt~.a~-~ors, Inc.
Dated: April 1 5, 2002 Bidder:...__....._--.---h .f . ., ~
(Si.qnat~rey~icT~olas 3~] De Vitis
Title: President ~
3120/2002 00300 - 1 WB-3 PS Upgrade - Pump/VFD Equipment Purchase
07260-017-002 BID FORMS
bid SCHEDULE
Schedule of prices for the furnishing of the Goods and Special Services of the WB-3 PS
Upgrade - Pump/VFD Equipment Purchase in accordance with the Contract Documents. All
Bid Schedule items must be completed by the Bidder. Failure to do so will render the bid non-
responsive and will cause its rejection.
Item Description
1. Furnishing materials, equipment, and services for the WB-3 PS Upgrade - Pump/VFD
Equipment Purchase, in accordance with the Contract Documents· The equipment to be
furnished under this contract consists of dry pit submersible pumps/motors; electrical
and instrumentation equipment; and VFD's, as identified and described in the Contract
Documents.
There shall be one supplier for all PLC hardware, motor control centers, and variable
frequency drives. Any Bid using different suppliers for PLC hardware, motor control
centers, and variable frequency drives shall be subject to rejection.
For the Lump Sum of $
(price in Figures)
2. Materials, equipment, and services of System Integrator. The System Integrator is
hereby identified as Custom Controls (Fife).
For the Lump Sum of $
(Price in Figures)
· ' - ~ ~ (Price in Words)
3. TOTAL BID PRICE (Items No. 1 and 2), exclusive of Washington State Sales Tax.
For the Lump Sum of $
(Price in Figures)
4. Total Estimate of Sales Tax (@ 8.5% of Item No. 3).
For the Lump Sum of $
(Price in Figures)
5. Bid Price with Sales Tax (Items No. 3 and 4), including Washington State Sales Tax.
For the Lump Sum of $~,
(Price in Figures)
3/20/2002 00300 - 6 WB-3 PS Upgrade - Pump/VFD Equipment Purchase
07260-017-002 BID FORMS
AGENDA BILL
BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL
1. SUBJECT: FOR AGENDA OF: May 8, 2002
CALLOW PRIORITY 5 - CONSTRUCTION ORIGINATING DEPT: PW&U Engineering Div.
CONTRACT AWARD ORIGINATOR: W. Eugene Sampley, Director
DATE SUBMITTED: April 22, 2002
I ,/~,,./
2. C LEARANrES:( connnent on back/~l/~~" /.2 3. EX HIIlITS
Dkector, Public Works/Utilities /t/,~_ 7,~ _ , A. Bid Tabulation Form
Council Budget & Finance Committee *~X'~/ B. Site Map
Council Operations Committee
ENDORS~~) r-""~~ APPROVED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FOR SUBMITI'AL:
MAYOP/~~ COUNCIL- PRESIDENT
4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION:
The Callow Priority 5 project is the final project in the Callow Basin CSO reduction effort. Bids were opened for the
Callow Priority 5 project on April 19, 2002. There were two bids received for this project. Start Palmer Construction
was the lqwest respor~ive bidder with a bid of $3,066,885.50. The Engineer's estimate for the project was a range of
$2.8 to $3.3 Million. This project is funded in part by an EPA Grant and requires EPA approval ofl~he low bidder
prior to comract aw..ard. EPA approval is anticipated by May 23. The requested action before the City Council is to
approve award of the Callow Pfi, ority 5 CSO Reduction construction comract-with Stan Palmer Construction.,,.
contingent upon EPA approval. -'"'
5. RECOMMENDATION:
The City Council approve award of the Callow Priority 5 CSO Reduction contract to Stan Palmer Construction
contingent upon EPA approval, for the amount of $3,066,885.50 and authorize the Mayor to execute the same.
9. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: City Engineer
ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: N/A
EXPIRATION DATE:
REVIEW DATE:
10. NOTICE OF ACTION
PULLEDcouNcIL DIRECTIvETABLED APPROVED DISAPPROVED D A~~-~. ~
l l. AGENDA BILL NO:
6. CLEARANCE COMMENTS:
5. IMPACT ON NON-PASSAGE:
The City. of Bremerton will not complete the Callow Priori .ty 5 project by December 31~ 2003 as required by
Federal Consent Decree.
6. IMPACT ON STAFFING, BUDGETS, FACH,ITIES, EQUIPMENT OR OTHE~R RESOURCES:
Staffing: Construction management is being performed by URS Consultants. No unforeseen impacts to staffing
will result from this award.
Budget: The Callow Pri?rity 5 project"is funded by a combinfi~ion of a Publie WOrks Irust:'Ftifici loan '~.nd'-
EPA grant funding. The project is included in the 2002 budget.
Facilities/Equipment: No Impacts
7. RESEARCH SOURCES
This project is included in the CSO Reduction Plan Update.
I~OCIIB AAO-~ ONOO~
]VIOl x~l ~elgS a,oaa
· NOllVqnavl OIg
N01~3~]~8 JO AIIO
AGENDA BILL
BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL
1. SUBJECT: Public Hearing FOR AGENDA OF: May 8, 2002
Resolution # ~Z~ 5 ~ , regarding recovery of fees for ORIGINATING DEPT.: Fire Dept.
the abatement of garbage and debris on the property ORIGINATOR: A! Duke
located at 927 Highland Avenue. DATE SUBMITTED:
2. CLEARANCES: (Comnl~t o~ back if 3. EXHIBITS:
Fire Chief: ( ,~_---~~ 1. Resolution #
City Clerk: --~O ~_ /
. 2. Clerk Report
City Att~.~ ~x~~~-~-- -- 3. Photos
ENDORSE~EI~__~/9RMATION __ APPROVED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FOR SUBMITTAL:
MAYOR x.---x..~f~~ ~~ COUNCIL PRESIDENT
SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION:
On March 18, 2002, Public Works removed furniture~, garbage and a collapsed stairway from the
property located at 927 Highlan~l. Avdnue after the owners, Linda Lobdeli Tissell, J, ghn Gray and Jerry
BOpp, failed to do so as ordered. The legal requirements for notice were met. Th~ cost of the action,
including administ~tive fees, ~otak~d $926.76. Council must now decide jf the fe~s are just and "
reasonable, and how they sho."~ld be collected., "'"' ' .... .'
RECOMMENDATION:
I move that Council, by Resolution # ~ ~5'~ , order that the fees in the amount of $926.76
incurred for the abatement of garbage, furniture and a collapsed stairway located at 927 Highland
Avenue be collected as reasonable abatement costs and become a lien against the property.
9. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: A! Duke
ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: A! Duke
EXPIRATION DATE: N/A
REVIEW DATE: N/A
10. NOTICE OF ACTION
PULLED TABLED APPROVED DISAPPROVED AMENDEDq A
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE: DATE:
11. AGENDA BILL NO.: 0~- d)?[
q7
2. CLEARANCE COMMENTS:
5. IMPACT OF NON-PASSAGE:
The City would forfeit the costs incurred for this action.
6. IMPACT ON STAFFING~ BUDGETS, FACILITIES~ EQUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCES:
The City's revolving abatement fund would suffer the deficit of not collecting these funds.
7. RESEARCH SOURCES:
N/A
RESOLUTION NO. ~k~
A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of
Bremerton, Washington, reviewing charges for the abatement of
garbage, furniture and a collapsed stairway on the property at 927
Highland Avenue and determining means of collection.
WHEREAS, the City of Bremerton incurred costs for the removal of
garbage, furniture and a collapsed stairway on the property located at 927 Highland
Avenue; and
WHEREAS, the Bremerton Municipal Code allows the City to recoup
these costs either by personal judgment against the property owner or as a lien against the
property; and
WHEREAS, the City Council is charged with determining whether the
fees are just, and how they should be collected; and has considered the. r..eport of charges
ffle~t by the Building Of Scial and any protests or objection filed; and
WHEREAS, the Building Official of the City of Bremerton recommends the fees
be collected as a lien against the property located at 927 Highland Avenue; NOW THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON,
DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. That the abatement charges included in the report of Building
Official in the amount of $926.76 for the property located at 927 Highland Avenue, Bremerton,
attached hereto, are just and reasonable.
SECTION 2. That the City of Bremerton will exercise its right to recapture
abatement fees by filing a lien against the property.
l
92 7 Highland A venue
SECTION 3. Severabilit¥. If any one or more sections, subsections, or
sentences of this Resolution are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not
affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Resolution and the same shall remain in full
force and effect.
SECTION4. Ef_fective Date. This Resolution shall take effect and be in force
immediately upon its passage.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Bremerton, Washington this __
day of ,20__
CAROL ARENDS, Council President
APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST:
ROGER A..IJdBOVICH,. City Attorney' " KATHLEEN MCCLUSKEY, City Clerk
.. , ~ ., _~>.~.
~ 'k:\LEGAL\Resolutions\927 Highland.doc
2
92 7 Highland ,4 venue
BREMERTON FIRE DEPARTMENT
817 Pacific Avenue * Bremerton, WA 98337 * (360) 478-5380 * FAX (360) 478-7257
April 16, 2002
Memo
To: Paula Johnston, Deputy City Clerk
FriXn: Jane. t Lunc.~ford, BDS II --'~
'CG: Al Duke, Fire Chief ..
Re: Public, Hearing, 927 Highland Avenue
On March 18, 2002, Public Works removed garbage, furniture and a collapsed stairway fi.om the
property located at 927 Highland Avenue at,er the owners, Linda Lobdell Tissell, John Gray and
Jerry Bopp, failed to do so as ordered. The cost of this action, per the attached interfund transfer
and including the administrative fee, totaled $926.76. I have scheduled a public hearing for May
8, 2002 for Council to decide iftbe fees are just and reason, able and how they should be
collected.
51
r CITY OF BREMERTON
INTERFUND TRANSFER
CITY DEPARTMENTS ONLY DATE 04/03/2002 TRANSFER# 10205
COMPLETE THIS FORM IN DUPLICATE AND RETURN TO ACCOUNTS PAYABLE
Fire Department (Fund 108)
~TO PW~-._S_T_.~_~T.D_~S.I_O_.N_ .............. ~FROM Abatement_s__/~_e_.m_.o_~o_~ .................................
(REVENUE DEPARTMENT) (EXPENDITURE DEPARTMENT)
DESCRIPTION TOTAL
Charges per attached summary for: March 2002 BLAB
LABOR $442.00
EQUIPMENT $116.00
MATERIALS $20.76
SALES TAX $0.00
TOTAL $578.76
ACCOUNT AMOUNT ACCOUNT AMOUNT
42-349.3900 $578.76 ~_~,_~ . &~ 0 ~,(4- -'~-~ ~! c~ _ c>-b,c~ O.
oooq ,
(Sign Here) (Sign Here) k..,~-~-~_, .~'~/.'~.,.
REVENUE DEPARTMENT SUPERVISOR EXPENDITURE DEPARTMENT SUPERVISOR
59,
Details Page 1
04:23:06 PM CITY OF BREMERTON PWO-STREET DIVISION
Customer: BLAB Fire Department (Fund 108) - Abatements/Demolitions
Date ID Numbers Description Regular Overtime Costs
03/18/02 sr)52oot3 520705 BLAB-Remove Stairs&Fum. at927 Highland.
0909 Brian Brewer 1.00 hr $34.00
3077 '95 3/4T FORD P/U 1.00 hr $8.00
0524 Colen Corey 1.00 hr $34.00
3075 '92 FORD RANGER 4x4 1.00 hr $6.00
1904 Jilll Iovinelli 2.00 hr $68.00
3015 '92 GMC 1-TON PFU 2.00 hr $18.00
0136 Dean Smith 2.00 hr $68.00
2371 Kent Gmnenfelder 1.00 hr $34.00
oum~'1?4 Dump Fees - Oly. View Sanitary Landfill 2.00 yd $20.76
03/21/02 5D520o14 520768 BLAB-Remove tree branches Lent Landing. c~ c~/~. '7 ~
oo51 Scott Corey 3.00 hr $102.00
19o4 Jim Iovinelli 3.00 hr $102.00
1907 1994 Brash Chipper, Vermeer 1250 3.00 hr $75.00
3015 '92 GMC 1-TON P/U 1.00 hr $9.00
$578.76
AGENDA BILL
BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL
I. SUBJECT: Public Hearinq &Ordinance to amend FOR AGENDA OF: ~, ,,
BMC Chapter 21.02 (the Zoning Code) by providing regulato~ DEPT. OF ORIGIN: DC~
measures that will promote in-character, urban infill and ORIGINATOR: Chris Huqo, Director
efficient use of land by allowing front yard setbacks of residential DATE SUBMITTED: April 16, 2002
development to reflect established setbacks of existing structures.
2. CLEA~NCES: (Comment on back if necessa~) 3. EXHIBITS:
DCD Director:~~ . , ~ -~~;,~: ~' ....
City Attorney: ~ ~/ - _ ~ o PC Minutes March 29, 2002
City Clerk: '~ --' ~/ . o Staff RepoA
Fiscal & Budget Council Comm.: ~~~ o Ordinance to amend Zoning Text
Operations Comm.: ~ ~~~/ ~o,
MAYO~ ~OUNCIL PRESIDENT ,:~~
4. SU~AEY STATEMENT ~ND REQUIREMENT FOE COUNCIL ACTION:
A ~ubstaptial number of residential structures in Breme~on were constructed prior to the adoption ~f current
setback reqbir~ts. In ~ome neighborhoods, the pattern of non-co~Qrmin~ front (str~t side) setbacks has
become pa~ of th~'unique character of ~e~ity. The*Gro~h ~anag~ment Act and Comprehensive Pla~ -' ' ~'~
· . * · encourage, the ef~Gent use o] land and,smaller lots, and in some instances, decreased front setbacks are an
.appropriate'way to promote such ~fficiency and consistency with ~xisting character. --
The Planning.Commission has reviewed this proposal, conducted a ~ublic hearing and.adopted Fihdings
Conclusions at their ~arch 2~, 200~ meeting, and recommends City Council'approval. On J~ly 17, 2~01 the
Planning Commission recommended approval of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment regardi'ng this matter. The
City Council conducted a public hearing on August 1, 2001 and approved the Plan Amendment. The Council
must conduct a public hearing prior to its final decision and action on this proposed Ordinance that will implement
the Plan Amendment.
S. RECOMMENDATION:
Move to pass the attached Ordinance # +7 ~ ~i
· on second readinq.
6. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Christopher R. Huqo
ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: Christopher R. Huqo
EXPIRATION DATE:
REVIEW DATE: ~
PULLED TABLED APPROVED DISAPPROVED AMENDED
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE:
9. CLEARANCE COMMENTS:
10. IMPACT OF NON-PASSAGE:
If the proposed ordinance is not approved, opportunities for compatible residential infill
development in some older neighborhoods will be diminished.
11. IMPACT ON STAFFING~ BUDGETS~ FACILITIES~ EQUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCES'
The proposed amendment will create no operational changes for the city with the possible
exception being residential infill development in older neighborhoods that might not be
possible without approval.
"'i~ESEARCH SOURCES ' '
"12. :
"- 'L;omprenens~ve Plan . .. ,:. '..'.'- . ,' ..
Zoning Ordinance .,.
File
57
ORDINANCE NO. ~ 7q q
AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of'
Bremerton, Washington, amending the Zoning Code, Chapter
21.02 of the Bremerton Municipal Code, by adding a new section,
Section 21.02.160 (d) entitled "Maintenance of Tradironal Front
Yards" to the front yard setback of' new residential development to
reflect the established setbacks of existing structures by allowing
setback averaging, subject to certain criteria.
WHEREAS, the City of Bremerton is comprised of numerous neighborhoods that
were developed prior to the adoption of current setback requirements and some of those
neighborhoods consist of relatively small lots; and
WHEREAS, in some of those neighborhoods, the pattern of nonconforming front
(street-side) setbacks has becom~ part of the unique character of the City; and
WHEREAS, the Growth Management Act and Bre~rtonComprehens~.y,e" Plan ']"'
encourage the efficient use 9f laod and smaller lof§ in urban areas; 'mad
WHEREAS, in some instances the ability to crnform to establish&d setback
patterns that may not be in compliance with current regulations will promote efficient land use
and enhanced compatibility with existing development patterns; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on a
Comprehensive Plan Amendment supporting compatible residential infill development on July
17, 2001 and recommended approval of that plan amendment to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on the Planning
Commission recommendation and approved said plan amendment on August l, 2001; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the subject
zoning code amendment on March 29, 2002 and has recommended approval of that amendment:
and
1
Setback Averaging
WHEREAS, the Bremerton City Council conducted a public hearing on April 24,
2002 to accept public comments pertaining to the proposed Development Regulation
Amendment to consider the Planning Commission recommendation; NOW THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON, DOES
HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION1. A new section, Section 21.02.160(d) entitled "Maintenance of
Traditional Front Yards" is hereby added to Bremerton Municipal Code, Chapter 21.02 to read as
follows:
(d) Maintenance of Traditional Front Yards: In SF zones, if properties with
either a house or garage/carport that is set back from the street less than the front yard
'" ': req. u, irement of the zone represent sixty percent (60%) or more of the'lineal feet fronting one side '.' "
-of a street within a numbered block, the average set back of these existing non-corrforming .
structures establishes the minimum front yard for all properties on the block, subj.ect to tile
following provisions:
(1) No structure need be set back more than five (5) feet further than a house or
garage/carport on an adjoining lot, and
(2) Regardless of(d)(1) above, in no case shall the minimum front yard set back be
less than five (5) feet.
SECTION 2. Severabilit¥. If any one or more sections, subsections, or
sentences of this Ordinance are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not
affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance and the same shall remain in full
force and effect.
SECTION 3. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force ten
(10) days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided by law.
Setback Averaging
APPROVED by the City Council the ~4q'h day of A {gf"~ I ,2002
PASSED by the City Council the day of ,2002
CAROL ARENDS, Council President
Approved this day of ,2002
CARY BOZEMAN, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
.Z~THLEEN MC,CLUSKEY, City' Clerk ROGER A. LUBOVICH, City Att. omey
PUBLISHED the -' da~, of .; ,2002 '
EFFECTIVE the day of ..'~ ' ,2002 '
ORDINANCE NO.
R:\LEGAL\Ordihances\Community DevelopmentXZoning Ordinance 4-11 .doc
Setback .4veraging
CITY OF BREMERTON
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT
2002 ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT
PROPOSAL: Proposed Zoning Code text amendment to add a new section to
BMC 21.02.160 (Front Yards) to promote in-character, urban irrfill
development and efficient use of' land by allowing the ~¥ont yard
setback of new residential development to reflect the established
setbacks of existing structures.
DATE OF REPORT: January t0, 2002
APPLICANT OR PROPONENT (FILE NUMBER): City of Bremerton (PL02-0001)
CONTACT: City of Bremerton Department of Communi .ty Development
(360) 478-5275
LOCATION O~PROPOSAL: Thig. prgp6sal applie...s to all property, within the City, of Bremerton that ..
is zoned SF-r, SF-2', or SF-3.
BACKGROUND: ~
A substantial number o£ structures and buildings in Brem. crton were constructed prior t~) the
adoption and enforcement o£ current laws and regulations pertaining to setback standards and now exist as
non-conforming structures. In many cases, setback standards were not an issue when they were built.
These long-standing conditions are part of the City's character.
The Growth Management Act goals and tile Bremerton Comprehensive Plan encourage the
efficient use of land for urban development, For residential use, this suggests that smaller lots, a higher
proportion of lot coverage, and decreased setbacks are appropriate in some neighborhood settings.
Madrona Point and Shore Drive are examples of older, established neighborhoods where these
characteristics are prevalent.
As the community continues to grow and strives to attract new residents to these older
neighborhoods, revised development regulations are needed to guide compatible inlill development of
residential properties. This is particularly critical for the front yard setback that is the most visible site
characteristic viewed frown public streets. Until a more comprehensive assessment of appropriate
development standards for infill residential development is conducted, a policy to maintain traditional front
yards will help insure that the new infill development fits tile character of tile area.
On July 17, 2001 the Ptanning Commission adopted written 5ndings recommending approval ora
Comprehensive Ptan amendment that supported a Zoning Ordinance amendment to address the above
circumstances. The CiD, Council conducted a public hearing on this plan amendment and adopted it on
August I, 2001.
STAFF REPORT- Compatible Residential Infill Zoning Text Amendment
January 10, 2002
Page Two
This proposed zoning text amendment implements that plan amendment in that it provides a
regulatory, mechanism that will allow the averaging of front yard setbacks under certain circumstances in a
manner that will promote compatible residential infill development.
PROPOSED ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT:
Amend BMC 21.02.160 by adding a new section that reads as follows:
"(d) Maintenance of Traditional Front Yards. Within SF zones, when fifty percent or more of
the lineal feet of properties fronting one side of a street within the same numbered block has structures set
back from the street less than the from yard prescribed for the zone and the majority, of the existing
setbacks are within a six-foot variation, then the average setback of those structures within the six-foot
variation establishes the front yard for new construction, except:
(1) no structure need set back more than two feet further than a structure on any adjoining lot: and
(2) no front yard can be less than five feet."
SEPA STATUS:
On April 29, 200 t a Determination of Non-significance was issraed regarding the subject
Comprehensive Plan Amendment and zoning'~exi"chan, ge. That DNS was 15ublished and circulated
· ~ pursuant to State law and the Bremerton Municip~l. Code., No comments were received purs.uant to that '
SEPA process and-no appeal was filed.
DECISION CRITERIA: ·
In order to approve a zoning text amendment, it must be found to be consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan and the amendment must be internally consistent with the balance of the zoning code.
The following findings of fact are pertinent to the subject code amendment:
FINDINGS OF FACT:
1. The Comprehensive Plan. in the "Planning Goals" Section (Element C), Goal # 1 (Urban
Growth) Goal D (page 2) reads: ".L.[axumze the City'x existing m-fill development potential ~o
ensure the most eJ~ficient use of existing utdi.tv i~frastructure and facilities."
2. tn "Element G - Housing", Section E (Housing Strategies. Table G-t), the Comprehensive
Plan lists as "Priority, Housing Strategies" (page i5'~ the following:
"1. Revise Development Standards: ,l,[odij..~; rote planning~bullding design requirements'
(setbac'lcs. street widths, etc. ) or allow performance based improvmnent standards to ,?crease
flexibtliW in housing deveiopmem. Reduce Ininimum site improvement standards idrainage.
street, pavement, parking etc.) to reflect actual projected usage and needs."
"4. Encourage [nfill Development: Develop incentives to encourage "thrill- development of
vacant sites tn developed areas and redevelopment c~/'ex[3'ttng sties. Give priori~' to programs
providing financial assistance to support inlill homeownership.
STAFF REPORT - Compatible Residential Infill Zoning Text Aniendment
January, 10, 2002
Page Three
3. On August 1,2001, the Cie' Council adopted a Comprehensive Plan Amendment allowing
the averaging of front yard setbacks under certain circumstances (File # PLO 143016). The
Planning Commission had recommended approval of this amendment on July 17, 200
4. The subject zoning text amendment allows averaging of front yard setbacks in SF zones,
subject to certain limitations including a requirement that a majoriky of front setbacks within
a block be non-conforming, that there be some consistency, in these non-conforming setbacks,
that setback patterns on adjoining lots be given priori¢', and that in all cases a minimum five
foot front yard must be provided.
5. Many neighborhoods and districts in Bremerton were develgped prior to the enactment of
current development standards, and many structures and properties within these areas are non-
conforming to these standards.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. The proposed zoning text amendment will allow residential infill development that is
consistent with established development patterns in certain circumstances, with an emphasis
on compatibili ,ty with existing front yard setbacks.
2. The proposed zoning text mnendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and in fact
implements a plan change approved bv the Citw' Council on August 1. 201)1. ·"
3.The proposed text amendment is internally consistent with the balance of the Zoning
Ordinance. .
4.The proposed text amendment promotes the public'interest and poses, h..o 3dv..ers~ impacts to
the community. "
RECOMMENDATION:
Based upon the background, findings of fact, and conclusions articulated above, it is
recommended that the subject zoning text amendment be approved.
Minutes for Approval
Special Planning Commission Meeting
March 29, 2002
I. Call to Order
In the absence of Commissioner Kosusko, Commissioner Dingfield agreed to act as Chair.
Commissioner Kennedy, the Vice Chair had a weak voice. The meeting was called to order by Acting
Chairman Dingfield at 5:37 p.m.
II. Roll Call
Those present were: Commissioner Buckingham, Commissioner Cockbum; Commissioner Dingfield,
Commissioner Kennedy, Commissioner Nelson, and Commissioner Wood. Quorum certified.
III. Approval of Agenda
Commissioner Dingfield introduced the agenda. A motion was made by Commissioner Cockburn
and seconded by Commissioner Kennedy to approve the agenda as written. Called for a vote:
Buckingham: yes; Cockburn: yes; Dingfield: yes; Kennedy: yes; Nelson: abstains' and Wood: yes. The
agenda ~as approved as written. - .. "
IV. 'App~roval of ~lint~tes , ..
The January 15. 2002, minutes were presented for approval by Commi'ssioner Dingfield. She then
asked if there were any comments on the minutes.' There was one question regarding the identification
of some of the public testimony. It was verified by Commissioners Dingfie~d and Kennedy (both
present at the January 15, 2002, Meeting) to be John Hall - recording secretary made note of it. A
motion was made by Commissioner Kennedy to approval of the minutes for the January 15, 2002,
as presented. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Cockburn. Called for a vote:
Buckingham: abstained; Cockburn: yes: Dingfield: yes; Kennedy: yes' Nelson: abstained: and Wood:
yes. The motion cames~ the minutes were approval as submitted.
V. Public Meeting
Chairman Dingfield moved directly to the public meeting portion.
A. Call to the Public (public comments on any item not on tonight's agenda). Commissioner
Dingfield seeing no public moved on to the Public Hear/ng portion of the meeting.
B. Public Hearing.
Planning Comrrtission Meeting March 29. _0{. Pa~e [ of [2
1. PL02-0001 - Front Yard Averaging. Proposed zoning text amendment to add a new
section to BMC 21.02.160 (Front Yards) to promote in-character, urban infill
development and efficient use of land by allowing the front yard setback of new
residential development (in SF Zones) to reflect the established setbacks of existing
structures. (City of Bremerton)
Commissioner Dingfield introduced this item and turned the floor over to Mr. Hugo.
Mr. Hugo stated that this item was introduced to the commission in the January meeting.
The proposal is to address the traditional character of Bremerton that represents a city
that grew over a number of years when there weren't either affective regulations or
established regulations and there were needs to get a lot of residential development in the
community. This set a patter of a lot of development happening very tightly on sites with
garages and houses and other structures being fairly close to the street. The thinking of
the future of an urban area that will always be urban and respect for people who have an
interest for infill development (coming into an existing lot or improving an existing lot)
where the character of the street is represented by this traditional building forum of
structures built fairly close to the sidewalk. This is being proposed as a way to promote
that kind of infill development that fits in with the existing streetscape of the
neighborhood.
It is a proposal to apply anywhere in the City. This discussion started with a policy
discussion last fall as part of the 2001 Comprehensive Plan Amendment. The
" Commission did ree'omm,end this policy to the City Coun'cil for adoption - which is to
,, .;'.: promote in-character urban infill development and effi.cient use of land' by allowing, the
front yard setback of new residential deyelopment to reflect the.:estabtished setbacks of
existing structm'es. 'That is no.w the policy in the Comprehensive.plan that was adop.ted
" in the City Council's annual Comprehensive Plan' update last fa,Il.
Now the implementing ordinance to realize this whole idea that was presented in one
form on January 15, 2002. With vour direction, some )nodifications were made. He then
read the current proposed language:
"An ordinance amending BMC 21.02.160 to add a new section:
(d) Maintenance of Traditional Front Yards. In SF Zones, if properties with either a house
or garage/carport that is set back from the street less than the front yard requirement of
the zone represent sixty percent or more of the lineal feet fronting one side of a street
within a numbered block, the average set back of these existing buildings establishes the
minimum front yard for all properties on the block, subject to the following provisions:
(1) No structure need set back more than five feet further than a house or
garage/carport on an adjoining lot, and
(2) Regardless of ( t ). in no case shall the minimum front yard set back be less than
five feet."
What this language is trying to say is. you look at xvhat the development pattern is - take
an average of it and then you get to setback new development or re-development in the
front yard to that new average set back line. There are a couple of conditions that if
everything is built closer than five feet from the street - that doesn't matter, in every
Planning Commission Meeiing March 29, 20()2 Page 2 of 12
case the set you must setback at least five feet. Mr. Hugo then gave several examples.
You wouldn't have to get more than five feet further back from adjoining setbacks even
if the average is further back than that - say 12 feet.
Mr. Hugo stated that in past pubIic comment, there continues to be a lingering thought
that this is designed to only deal with a couple of environments in the City where there
are shoreline property ownerships. That is not the intent, even though places like Shore
Drive and Madrona Point do have a characteristic development pattern of a lot of
structures close to the street. That is not the only place in Bremerton that this exists.
There are a lot of parts of west Bremerton where there are also streets with structures
close to the street. This is intended to deal generically with all those situations in the
City. This was the intent from the beginning. When we talk about the front yard, we are
only talking about the front yard in the zoning sense - not in the shoreline regulation
sense. 21.02.160 is in the Zoning Code, not in the Shoreline regulations. It is not the
other front yard that would apply in any shoreline environment.
He then entered the following written public comment into the record:
a. Letter from Dana R. Hamer, 511 Shore Drive, dated January 30, 2002. One of the
statements in this letter is, "I submit to you that everybody's concerns have been
suitably addressed no matter how frivolous." This is an indication that at that
time he was satisfied that the proposal could go forward.
b. Letter from Roland Cooke & David Grindstaff, dated March 13, 2002. This letter,.
is signed b~, sev. er~ citizens. Mr. Hugo could not read the signatures, but'read the
· .." addresses [1147 Shore Drive, I005 Shore Drive, 1017 Shore Drive and~1011 "
'"' Shore Drive], This is a letter supporting this proposed amendment ind.asking the
... - C ,o~'nmission to approve it.
c. Letter from Helen Miller, dated February 19, 2002. In 'her' letter she is taking
issue with the proposal and asking that you not act on it beck. use the policy itself
is currently under appeal to the Growth Management Hearings Board. I believe
that I reported to you in the past that it was the City Attorney's guidance to the
Commission that while that appeal is being considered by the Hearings Board that
the City could continue its business and implement a regulatory amendment to be
consistent with that policy that is under appeal.
d. Letter from John Hall, dated February [9,, ,. His letter is objectina the
amendment.
e. Letter from Mr. and ,,'vks. John Didio, dated February 19, 2002. This letter is
asking the Commission to deny the zoning amendment.
Commissioner Dingfield asked if there were any questions from the Commission for
*k. Hugo.
Commissioner Cockburn asked if there are requirements regarding what can be in the
five foot setback, example: if it is all concrete - is it stihl considered a front yard.
Planning Commission Meeting March 29. 2002 Page 3 or' [2
Mr. Hugo replied that there is no requirements about what can be done - other than as a
front yard you are not supposed to park your car in a front yard. (Commissioner
Cockburn asked further that if you concreted it, it would - in affect be a parking space.)
Mr. Hugo stated that you are not supposed to park in your front yard and actually, five
feet is not really enough to get a car out of the street. This proposal doesn't change any
of the other City requirements for development of property. It only changes the depth of
the yard. Until the City adopts a new development standard for streets that would require
at least a 3-foot or preferably a 5-foot pedestrian buffer strip (a planning area for street
trees) and then a sidewalk behind that in a new development or significant re-
development - that will provide a five foot pedestrian zone off the street and this 5-foot
setback would still accommodate that kind of sidewalk improvement. It maintains five
feet of walking space outside of the street although there might not be a formal curb or
sidewalk installed.
Commissioner Buckingham asked if there any language that accounts for parking on
new development in this type of circumstance.
Mr. Hugo replied that parking would have to be in a garage or carport that was at least
five feet back. Commissioner Buckingham asked further if there is language that
requires that in relation to this proposal.
Mr. Hugo said that the other parking limitations still apply. You cannot park in any
setback area, and any place that you are permitted to park has to be improved for parking.
In this case, it means that it has to be in a garage or carpo.rt and setback at least 5-feet , ~
from the street. The initial proposal, back in January, didn't really identify which
structures we wePe talking'about. So there was some. concern about other utility,,~ , .. ..., ..
buildings and in the end for new development or re-development, it was o.ur. assess'me~t '
oB listening to the Commission and other comments, that the o. nJy things' 4~e want tO d~at -
',,~;ith is the primary uses for residential (houSe and primary abcessor~ structure:, which is
where you put your car).
Commissioner Buckingham stated that in the minutes from previous meetings/hearings
on this there was some confusion regarding the difference between the watert¥ont front
yard and the street side front yard, I don't see that even in the revised version of this
provision that there is clear language separating the two. Is there some other language?
Nit. Hugo said that the reason for that is that the shoreline requirements are not in the
zoning code at all. Front yards are discussed throughout the zoning code but we never
say that these are not the front yards in the shoreline. No place in the zoning code do we
make that distinction because the way that front yards are defined in the zoning code only
make them apply to the zoning code. In the Shoreline regulations it says that there is
another yard- it is a yard that. applies on the water side and it is ONLY discussed in the
Shoreline regulations.
Commissioner Buckingham confirmed bv stating that what Mr. Hugo is saying is that
delineation is natural just between whether we are talking about a street-side issue or the
shoreline issue.
Commissioner Kennedy stated that the ordinance .does say it is setback from the street.
It is the front yard.
Planning Commission Meem~g March .,~). _00, Page 4 of 12
Nlr. Hugo explained further that the section that is put in relating to front yards in
general always talks about the street side. You might have two front yards in the zoning
code - but that is when you have a through lot and it fronts on parallel streets. The yard
discussion in the zoning code context can be fairly complex but it is always related to
streets and in the shoreline it is always related to the ~vater.
Commissioner Dingfield asked if there were any further questions for Mr. Hugo.
Hearing none she then opened this hearing to public comment of a neutral nature,
positive and/or negative nature. Seeing none she then closed the hearing to public and
opened it back to the commission for discussion, comments, and]or motions.
Mr. Hugo noted for the record that because of the glitch in the quorum on the February
meeting that there were quite a few people here that verbally testified and that is why we
have so many comments in written form. Everyone that commented verbally or in
writing were notified by letter about the problem that happened that night and invited to
either appear or submit new testimony. That letter went out several weeks ago.
Commissioner Dingfield confirmed that the commissioners received a copy of that letter
and letters that were submitted on or before the February meeting have been included in
our packets and are part of the public record for this special meeting in March.
A motion was made by Commissioner Kennedy and seconded by Commissioner
Nelson to appr. ove the revise~d language for PL02-0001 - Front Yard Averaging
Zoning Text Amendment. [Mr. Hugo clarified for the Commission, if you
approving this prop, osal - you are recommending it to.the City Counci[~] .Called for'a'
yore: Buckingham: YES,; Cockburn: yes: Dingfield: yes; Kennedy:- yes; Nel~dn: ye"?;'an, d
Wood: yes. The agend~t was approved as writ'ten. ,,
2. PL02-0003 - Plans-In-Lieu. A text amendment to the Zoning Ordinance (BMC 21.02)
to establish procedures and decision criteria to approve development plans in lieu of
compliance with zoning standards on the basis of superior or innovative design mat
results in specific public benefit. (City of Bremerton)
Commissioner Dingfield introduced this item and turned the floor over to Mr. Hugo.
Mr. Hugo stated that this item was first introduced in January, 2002. The idea came up
because of a perceived need to have some flexibility in the regulatory environment where
it is clearly evident that the public will benefit bv a different form of development on a
particular site. There is something already like this in the Bremerton Municipal Code - it
i~ a provision that I didn't like from the first time [ got here because it seemed too
arbitrary. Flexibility always dances around the problem of: Is it guided by the
application of discretion with objective criteria or is it just the misuse of discretion in ;tn
arbitrary way? What we ha~,e now is "Special Exceptions". As it is written in the zoning
code. "... is to apply to those cases where you want a deviation from standards where
there is not an existing physical lmrdship" (which is what the variance is for).
Traditionally, the variance mechanism is one of the most misused tools in the zoning
books and in the zoning toolbox. Variances are misused because people think that it
Planning Commission Meeting March 29. _00, Page 5 of
AGENDA BILL
BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL
I. SUBJECT: Public Hearinc~ &Ordinance to amend FOR AGENDA OF:
BMC Chapter 21.02 (the Zoning Code) by providing the DEPT. OF ORIGIN: DC~ ,-,,, J
regulatory measures allowing flexibility and innovative design ORIGINATOR: Chri; ~-uu.q~r
pursuant to a "Plan-in Lieu". DATE SUBMITTED: April 16, 2002
2. CLEARANCES: (Comment on back if necessary) 3. EXHIBITS:
· ,~~,~ o PC Minutes 3/29/01
City Clerk: "~ /,--7' . / o Ordinance to Amend Zoning Text
4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION:
There are situations when the strict application of the development standards articulated in the Zoning Code
does not promote innovative design and allow lan.~ use that best serves the public interest. There is a need for a
provision in the Code that will allow, after careful analysis, flexibility in the application of development standards
pertaining to setbacks, landscaping~ and signage. Approval of a Special Use Permit will be required in order to
demonstrate that the public interest will be better served b~;the application of this provision, which is defined as'a
The Planning Commission has reviewed this proposal, conducted public hearings, adopted Findings &
Conclusions at a March 29, 2002 meeting, and recommended City Council'approval. The Council must conduct
a public h. eariqg prior to its final decision and action on the proposed Ordinance in order to implement the zoning
text amendment.
5. RECOMMENDATION:
Move to pass the attached Ordinance # 'l on second readinq.
6. RESPONSIBLE OFFiCIAL:Christopher R. Hugo
ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: Christopher R. Huqo
EXPIRATION DATE:
REVIEW DATE:
7. NOTICE OF ACTION ~1~
PULLED TABLED APPROVED DISAPPROVED A
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE: DATE:
8. AGENDA BILL NO.: ,2¥- ~,~ :/
9. CLEARANCE COMMENTS:
10. IMPACT OF NON-PASSAGE:
If the proposed ordinance is not approved, the city will lose the capability of allowing needed
flexibility in applying current development standards pertaining to setbacks, landscaping, and
signage.
11. IMPACT ON STAFFING, BUDGETS, FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCES:
The proposed amendment will create no operational changes for the city.
12. RESEAR, CH SOM. RCES; , ',,
Co~nprehensive Plan
Zoning Ordinance ·
'*~.
File .. ,, , .. .,.. . :, .~.
Experience with Land Use Applications .' .:'.:'" ' ..-
7o
ORDINANCE NO. 4800
AN ORDINANCE o£ the City Council of the City o£
Bremerton, Washington, amending the Zoning Code, Chapter
21.02 of the Bremerton Municipal Code, by adding a new
definition to Section 21.02.070 and a new section, Section
21.02.575 entitled "Plans-In-Lieu" to provide a mechanism to
allow certain flexibility and design innovation in the application of
setback and landscaping requirements.
WHEREAS, in the application of development regulations there occasionally are
situations where the literal application of zoning regulations does not result in utilization of land
in a manner that best serves the public interest and variance provisions are not a suitable method
by which to allow deviation from such zoning regulations; and
WHEREAS, there is therefom.a need for a provision in the Zoning Code that will
allow, after careful analysis, flexibility in'the application of developmeni standards pertaining to
setbacks and landscaping; and
WHEREAS, the proposed zoning code amendment provides that Special Use
Permit approval is required in the application of such flexibility, that only setback and
landscaping regulations may be addressed, and certain other parameters that must be met,
including a finding of public benefit; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the subject
zoning code amendment on March 29, 2002 and has recommended approval of that amendment;
and
WHEREAS, the Bremerton City Council conducted a public hearing on April 24,
2002 to accept public comments pertaining to the proposed Development Regulation
Amendment to consider the Planning Commission recommendation; NOW THEREFORE,
1
Plan-In-Lieu
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON,
DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Bremerton Municipal Code Section 21.02.070 entitled
"Definitions" is hereby amended by adding a definition for Plan-N-Lieu to be inserted in said
section in alphabetical order and to read as follows:
PLAN-IN-LIEU. An agreement and plan that does not fully comply with all of the
development standards of the zone in which the development is located but is approved on the
basis of superior or innovative design or resulting public benefit. Such resulting plan in lieu of
compliance is the result of a thorough analysis of a site, its environs and alternate development
plans (including development in compliance with the standards of the zone), leading to a
superior development plan that provides more public benefits than would be obtained by full
compliance with the prescribed development standards. A plan-in-lieu is not a variance from the
zone regulations based on hardship or practical diffic[lty inherent ir~ the site nor is it a procedure
to avoid meeting the public intent of the zoning Ordinance.
SECTION 2. 'A new section, Section 21.02.575 entitled "Plans-In-Lieu" is
hereby added to Bremerton Municipal Code, Chapter 21.02 to read as follows:
21.02.575 PLANS-IN-LIEU.
(a) By special use permit, development plans may be approved that demonstrate
benefits in the public interest that exceed those that would accrue from development as
prescribed by the dimensional standards of the zone in which the project is located. Deviations
from the prescriptive standards of the code may only be approved for the following standards:
setbacks, landscaping, and sign regulations.
(b) Decision criteria: A plan-in-lieu may only be approved if it satisfies all of
the following criteha:
(1) Total site area within setbacks shall be equal to or exceed that created by
adherence to the standard setbacks.
7& Plan-In-Lieu
(2) Total area of landscaping shall be equal to or exceed that created by
adherence to the standard landscaping and buffer requirements.
(3) There shall be a finding of public benefit that is consistent with the goals
and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Examples of public benefit include but are not limited
to:
(i) reduction of setback adjacent to a street or other public right of
way in exchange for increased setback from a development-sensitive environment such as a
wetland or an existing incompatible land use;
(ii) reduction of landscaping in one area to create a more useable or
effective massed landscape area in another area.
(4) The development plan shall not be inconsistent with the intent of any
provision of the Zoning Code.
SECTION 3. Severability. If any one or more sections, subsections, or
.?
.. ? sentences of this Ordinance are'hbld' to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not
affect-the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance and the same shall remain'in full
force and. effect.
SECTION 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effe6t and be in force ten
(10) days from and after its passage, approval and publicatioh as provided by law.
APPROVED by the City Council the ,~2~¥1c dayof ~£[[ ,2002
PASSED by the City Council the day of ,2002
CAROL ARENDS, Council President
Plan-In-Lieu
'13
Approved this day of ., 2002
CARY BOZEMAN, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
KATHLEEN MCCLUSKEY, City Clerk ROGER A. LUBOVICH, City Attorney
PUBLISHED the day of ., 2002
EFFECTIVE the day of ,2002
ORDINANCE NO.
R:\LEGAL\Ordinances\Community Development\Plan-in-lieu 4-12.doc
4
'~ q Plan-hi-Lieu
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
ZONING CODE TEXT AMENDMENT
STAFF REPORT
PROPOSAL: Zoning Code text amendment to establish procedures and
decision criteria to approve development plans in lieu of
compliance with zoning standards on the basis of superior or
innovative design that results in specific public benefit.
DATE OF REPORT: JANUARY 4, 2002
APPLICANT OR PROPONENT (FILE NUMBERS): City of Bremerton (PL02-0003)
CONTACT: Chris Hugo, Director- Department of Community Development Phone: 360/478-5243
LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: This proposal applies to the entire city.
.o
BACKGROUND: The primary mechanism in the Zoning Code to allow flexibility in project
design.is the Planned Unit Development (PUD). The current provisions for a PUD
project are cumbersome and complex. The Zoning Code also allows deviations from
prescriptive zoning dimensional requirements by a provision for "Special Exceptions,"
an authority assigned to the Director to grant "relief" from standards with no objective
basis.
Zoning as commonly experienced primarilY seeks to provide a safeguard of public and
private interests. It lays down a common set of "protections" to preserve property values
and promote a basic set of development expectations by the public. However, zoning
rules cannot anticipate every site and context condition in the generic expression of
development standards - what is good for all may not be the best for any one.
The proposed Plans-In-Lieu mechanism allows the City's review of project plans to
consider the overall context of the project and allow adjustments to requirements that
will clearly produce a visible benefit to the surrounding area. This opportunity is limited
to three requirements: setbacks, landscaping, and signing. Through the special use
permit process, the Director and Hearing Examiner are given authority to approve a
development plan that meets specified criteria. Among these criteria is a requirement
that total setback and landscape area shall be greater under a plan-in-lieu and total sign
area shall be less.
75'
PROPOSED ZONING CODE AMENDMENT:
A. Add to the following definition to BMC 21.02.070 DEFINITIONS:
A plan-in-lieu is an agreement and plan that does not fully comply with all of the
development standards of the zone in which the development is located but is
approved on the basis of superior or innovative design or resulting public benefit.
Such resulting plan in lieu of compliance is the result of a thorough analysis of a
site, its environs and alternate development plans (including development in
compliance with the standards of the zone), leading to a superior development
plan that provides more public benefits than would be obtained by full compliance
with the prescribed development standards. A plan-in-lieu is not a variance from
the zone regulations based on hardship or practical difficulty inherent in the site
nor is it a procedure to avoid meeting the public intents of the Zoning Ordinance.
B. Add the following new section to BMC 21.02:
21.02.575 PLANS-IN-LIEU
~ (a') By special use permit, the Hearing Examiner ma~ approve
development plans that demonstrate benefits in the publiC"ir~tere!~t that exceed" "
.... those that would accrue .[rom development as prescri~)ed by the dimensidn&l
"' standards of the zone in which the project is located. Deviatiohs from.thb
"° · prescripti~/e standards of the code may only be approved for the following
dimensional standards: setbacksl landsc~iping, and sign regulati0hs.
(b) Decision criteria: A plan-in-lieu may only be approved if it satisfies
all of the following criteria:
(1) Total site area within setbacks shall equal to or exceed that created by
adherence to the standard setbacks.
(2) Total area of landscaping shall be equal to or exceed that created by
adherence to the standard landscaping and buffer requirements.
(3) Total sign are shall be equal to or less than the allowed sign area
standards.
(4) There shall be a finding of public benefit that is consistent with the goals
and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Examples of public benefit
include but are not limited to:
i. reduction of setback adjacent to a street or
other public right of way in exchange for
increased setback from a development-
sensitive environment such as a wetland or an
existing incompatible land use;
ii. reduction of landscaping in one area to create
a more useable or effective massed landscape
area in another area;
iii. an increase in the area of a single sign in
consideration of limitations on the size and
number of signs otherwise allowed.
(5) The development plan shall not be inconsistent with the intent of any
., pro. vision of the Zoning Code..'
DECISION CRITERIA: (As proposed in the ordinance)
ZONING CONSISTENCY.' The approval criteria for amendments to the Zoning Code text
relate to internal consistency. The proposed zoning text amendment is intended to
implement the recently adopted adaptive reuse policy and maintain regulatory
consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. The amendment must also be found to be
consistent with all other provisions of the Zoning Code.
Mr. Hugo explained further that the section that is put in relating to front yards in
general always talks about the street side. You might have two front yards in the zoning
code - but that is when you have a through lot and it fronts on parallel streets. The yard
discussion in the zoning code context can be fairly complex but it is always related to
streets and in the shoreline it is always related to the water.
Commissioner Dingfield asked if there were any further questions for Mr. Hugo.
Hearing none she then opened this hearing to public comment of a neutral nature,
positive and/or negative nature. Seeing none she then closed the hearing to public and
opened it back to the commission for discussion, comments, and/or motions.
Mr. Hugo noted for the record that because of the glitch in the quorum on the February
meeting that there were quite a few people here that verbally testified and that is why we
have so many comments in written form. Everyone that commented verbally or in
writing were notified by letter about the problem that happened that night and invited to
either appear or submit new testimony. That letter went out several weeks ago.
Commissioner Dingfield confirmed that the commissioners received a copy of that letter
and letters that were submitted on or before the February meeting have been included in
our packets and are part of the public record for this special meeting in March.
A motion was made by Commissioner Kennedy and seconded by Commissioner
Nelson to approve the, revised language for PL02-0001 - Fi:on/Yard Averaging
Zoning Text Amendment. [Mr. Hugo clarified for the Cctmmission, if yo:9 are
approving this' proposal - you are recommending it to the C. ity' Council.] Cfi.lied for a.
, vote: Buckingham: yes; Cockburn: yes; Dingfield: yes; Kbn. nedy: yes.; N~lson." yes; and
Wood: yes'. The agenda was approved as written. . ., .. ,
2. PL02-0003 - Plans-In-Lieu. A text amendment to the Zoning Ordinance (BMC 21.02)
to establish procedures and decision criteria to approve development plans in lieu of
compliance with zoning standards on the basis of superior or innovative design that
results in specific public benefit. (City of Bremerton)
Commissioner Dingfield introduced this item and turned the floor over to Mr. Hugo.
Mr. Hugo stated that this item was first introduced in January, 2002. The idea came up
because of a perceived need to have some flexibility in the regulatory environment where
it is clearly evident that the public will benefit by a different form of development on a
particular site. There is something already like this in the Bremerton Municipal Code - it
is a provision that [ didn't tike from the first time [ got here because it seemed too
arbitrary Flexibility always dances around the problem of: Is it guided by the
application of discretion with objective criteria or is it just the misuse of discretion in an
arbitrary way? What we have now is "Special Exceptions". As it is written in the zoning
code." .. is to apply to those cases tvhere you want a deviation from standards where
there is not an existing physical hardship" I which is what the variance is for).
Traditionally, the variance mechanism is one of the most misused tools in the zoning
books and in the zoning toolbox. Variances are misused because people think that it
Plannin~ Commission Meetim, March _9, _00, Pa~e 5 of [2
means that you can vary any part of the zoning code - you can even vary the uses. The
variance in reality is a very narrow relief from a hardship exists on a property, not of an
individual's own doing.
For example: You have a lot in a piece of platted subdivision. You have the only
triangular lot, it was the residual piece of property. When you apply the setbacks that
everyone else can build under your lot doesn't have any buildable land left. Mr. Hugo
gave several other examples and stated that a variance applies to these types of
idiosyncrasies.
In places that don't like the discipline of working under the codes the variance
mechanism is so limiting that it doesn't provide any relief from political difficulties that
you have when you're doing code administration. The Special Exception was put in the
Bremerton Municipal Code some time ago to allow the Planning Director to get out of
political hotboxes. In Mr. Hugo's opinion this provision made the Planning Director too
powerful because it allowed the him/her to grant relief if someone couldn't fit into the
code requirements. Too arbitrary and not treating everyone equally.
One of the criteria for approval of the Special Exception is that you must show that the
property development will substantially benefit by the granting of the approval. If
someone is saying that they want less setback or more building height - of course the
development is going to benefit. You are going to get more on the site, it is a no brainer.
It is actually working against the whole intent of height limitations, setbacks, and lot
coverage ,an~.~,verything. The criteria are inherently contradictory to the whole intent of
the zoning code. Mr... Hugo stat,ed that since he h,xs been here in Brem, erton, he has
refu.,sed to grant a single SpecN1 Exceptiol~. He said that he.has talked to our;attorneys'"
·
about it and.they a~ree that the Spe~c~al E~,ccept~on mech~inism is not good. '
However, it would lSe nice t0'lSave something that is more objecfi~,e'lv based. So, we are
PL02-000o, Plans-In-Lieu. it's like submitting development plans in lieu'
proposing this
of following ihe prescriptive standards of the code. The hope is that we have crafted the
mechanism properly we could at least identify public benefits that would come out of this
deviation from standards and still stay within the realm of intent of the code.
He then read from the current proposal:
"By special use permit the heanng examiner may approve the development plans that
demonstrate benefits in the public interest that exceed those that would accrue from
development as prescribed by the dimensional standards of the zone in which the project
is located. Deviations t'rom the prescriptive standards of the code may only be approved
for :he following dimensional standards; setbacks, landscaping, and sign regulations.
Proposed decision criteria are:
A Plan-In-Lieu may only be approved if it satisfies all the following criteria:
!) Total site area within setback shall be equal to or exceed that created bv adherence to
the standard setbacks.
2) Total area of landscaping shall be equal to or exceed that created by adherence to the
standard landscaping and buffer requirements:
3~ Total sign area shall be equal to or less than the allowed sign area standard.
Planning Commission Meeting March _9 ....... Page 6 of 12
4) There shall be finding of public benefit that is consistent with the goals and policies of
the Comprehensive Plan. Examples of public benefit include, but are not limited to:
a) reduction of setback adjacent to a street or other public right-of-way in exchange
for increased setback from a development sensitive environment such as a
wetland or existing incompatible land use,
b) reduction of landscaping in one area to create a more useable or effective mass
landscaping area in another area,
c) an increase in the area of a single sign in consideration of limitations on the size
and number of signs otherwise allowed.
5) The development plan shall not be inconsistent with the intent of any provision of the
zoning code."
Mr. Hugo explained the following in regards to Plans-In-Lieu:
* Since the set-backs must be equal to or greater than those as prescribed by the
standard - this doesn't give the applicant more developable area. May be granted a
smaller setback on one side but they would have to compensate somewhere else on
the site. The overall building footprint cannot get bigger.
* Since the total amount of landscaping must be equal to or greater than that prescribed
by the standard - you can't get less, there must be at least as much, even though it
may be in different places.
Mr. Hugo stated that he, a~ director, and the staff could follow these guidelines in
reviewi'n~ ~ropo3ai~'that would go through an administrative review process· ,'
He then asked the commission if they have discussed the ~$pecial. Use Per0.' ll~,'always , ,
going through the Hearings Examiner or was it changed. H~. exp!ained that ther. e are two
kinds: One is done administratively and the other goes through'the tmblic hearink process "
to the Hearings Examiner. There was a short discus, sion on whether to have all Plans-In-
Lieu go through the Hear/ngs Examiner or ff the commission would rely on the other
criteria for all other Special Use Permits to apply to this as a Special Use Permit process.
~Mr. Hugo explained how this works in the code:
Administrative Special Use Permits
We send notice to surrounding property owners
· Provisions in the notice for appeals
o This would then automatically go to public hearing before Heanngs Examiner
·There is discussion of changing this to a letter request to go before Heanngs
Examiner
The director, using his/her disccetion at the beginning of the process and direct it to
the Heanngs Examiner process.
Hearing Examiner
· Advertising for public hearing
· Appeals would go to court.
Mr. Hugo explained that this is how tine zoning code is already set up for alt classes of
Special permits.
Planning Commission Meeting March 29.2002 Page 7 of t2
go
Commissioner Dingfield explained, for the benefit of the new commissioners that the
Hearings Examiner is a new function for Bremerton. The Planning Commission sat in a
quasi-judicial capacity by having the public hearings and make the decisions. The
applicants could then appeal to the City Council. Now the Hearing Examiner hears all
the quasi-judicial hearings, making the final decisions and the appeals would go to court.
Now the Planning Commission and City Council functions are to set the policy
perimeters under which both the Planning Department and the Hearing Examiner
operator.
Mr. Hugo explained that the Planning Commission makes all the legislative proposals in
the community development environment to the City Council, All plans and all proposed
ordinances to implement the Comprehensive Plan go through the Planning Commission
and as the City gets more proactive, I plan to propose that all capital programs come
through the Planning Commission. Capital programs are the other part of
implementation - there is regulation and then there is spending. Then the Planning
Commission will certify all city capital pro,ams each year.
Mr. Hugo said that was the end of the staff report on the Plans-In-Lieu proposal and that
there was no letters on this proposal and no public comment.
Commissioner Dingfield asked if there were any questions from the commission. \
Commissioner Buckingham asked if there was a definitive language regarding what
makes a project important enough to put through the hearing process.
., ...~ ~Ir. Hugo explained that no. He said that the only safeguard is. the ability ~o appeal, and
there is still notice: We d'o .the administrative process. If we did that without notice, it
would be a pr9blem. -Then 'that would be a decision made that no one was aware of..until ..
it would be perfected and then be too late. The ability, to appeal .is an important
· ' safeguard. '"
Commissioner Buckingham then asked if Mr, Hugo could give him some examples of
the Plans-In-Lieu (4 a and b).
Mr. Hugo gave the following examples:
l) Example of 4 a) - A project in a commercial district with a landscape requirement
that puts a landscape edge between two adjoining commercial properties - there is
something about their operational issues [size of the parcel, the way they're trying
to accommodate parking, etc.] For this project they say they need another foot to
meet the minimum parking standards. So they may use this provision to ask if they
can reduce their rear yard landscaping by one foot and we will de more than that
where we have some more visible landscaping up front, on the street OR on the side
property line, which is against a residential project.
The prescriptive standards would not allow this. The Plans-tn-Lieu would give the
director the t~exibilitv to access that this would be a win-win situation and allow
them to submit plans for as requested.
Example of 4 b/- A commercial development with 20 tenants, strip commercial
site. In this development each business is allowed their own free-standing pole sign
Planning Commission Meeting March 29.2002 Page g of 12
going down the street. Instead the developer of the whole project request to put in
one larger, free-standing monumental sign and everyone's identity goes into that
sign. So instead of having 20 signs marching down the street, you have just one
larger sign at the entrance.
Commissioner Dingfield asked if there were any further questions. She commented that
this gives discretionary power to the Planning Director. but it is power that is not
inconsistent with the other ldnds of discretionary powers that the director has. it becomes
a normal exercise in judgment with an automatic ability for the public to request a
different type of hearing.
Commissioner Nelson commented that he agreed that the appeal process lends itself to a
fair way of handling it.
Commissioner Kennedy suggested a change in the language because it now implies that
it automatically goes to the Hearing Examiner. There was then a short discussion of
exactly how to revise it. As a result of the discussion, the first sentence should read as
follows, "By Special Use Permit, development plans may be approved that demonstrate
benefits in the public interest that exceed those that would accrue from development as
prescribed by the dimensional standards of the zone in which the project is located."
Mr. Hugo explained further that the thing that distinguishes Plans-In-Lieu from the
SpeCial Exception - the Special Exception actually allowed greater utilization of property
than the zoning c~ntrols would allow. This does not. allow more use of property. You
are allowed t6 'u~e the site in different ways, but yofi. canno't use more of it. You cannoi
., do less landscaping, you don't l'iave less setback area, and yo'u don't get more ,~{gn"~.ge.
.., ' This is an important distinction - it does not deviate frora the overall intent of .the zoning ..
code. -,
Commissioner Ding'field asked if there were any other questions Of the Mr. Hugo.
Seeing none, she opened PL02-0003 to the public for any comments of a neutral, positive
un,or negative nature. Seeing none, she closed the hearing to the public and opened it to
the commission for deliberation and determination.
Commissioner Kennedy stated that in her opinion it is absolutely critical that we have
something in place that allows flexibility with some of the plans - but not so flexible that
it is perceived that there are no zoning ordinances, which has been the case in the past.
This also allows for public comment. This provision will be very important as we get
more commercial infill in the downtown area, and redoing some of strip malls. She said
she thought this would be a great thing because we can see a lot of landscaping - no more
footprint but maybe we could have more landscaping and buffeting. Commercial areas
from the residential areas have always been an issue while trying to do commercial
development. This will be a wonderful tool that the Planning Department can use to
make it a win-win situation for the developers and their neighbors.
Commissioner Wood said that she thought this is a very logical text and that it makes
sense for people to be creative in a positive way to improve the communitx,. This is a
good thing.
Planning Commission Meeting March 29. 2002 Page 9 of 12
Commissioner Dingfield stated that this is still keeping developments within the intent
of the zoning ordinances. This is not allowing deviations outside those, just allowing
more creative ways of using the same things. She also said that giving the director this
kind of discretion is not out of line at all, but is in fact part or his/her job.
Commissioner Nelson said that every piece of property certainly doesn't have the
perfect footprint and he thought that this provision will allow us some flexibility. He
believes that this will encourage people to develop properties that are not perfect and
gives us some discretion. The appeals process makes it fair for both the City, the
developers and private citizens that want to build.
A motion was made by Commissioner Nelson that PL02-0003, the Plans-In-Lieu, be
approved as modified. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Kennedy.
Called for the question: Buckingham: yes; Cockbum: yes; Dingfield: yes; Kennedy: yes;
Nelson: yes; and Wood: yes. The motion carries.
VI. Business Meeting
A. Chair Report:
1. No report from the chairman.
B. Director's Report, " .. .. .
Mr. Huo. o gave a brief Director' s Report:
1. Comprehensi~k Plan Process - Staffing The depart'rnznt,..still doesn't ~ave eno.ugh stiff. ' '
We are still .overloaded on the current planning side_. The building side of the department is
fine arid housing and block gi'ant is fine. The planning side is still w~ak. He stated that he
has received a commitment from the Mayor to add another two staff. He thinks it is great
we can build up the capacity of the Planning Department to support the goals and the
mission that the Commission has. Getting those people on board is still a challenge - we're
looking for the Planning Manager and a long-range planner, in the interim we will trying
to keep Jim Svensson around, even though he is in retirement. The part time schedule
seems to be working for him and us.
2. New Zonin~ Amendment - Senior Housing in the City This new zoning amendment
would allow senior housing in the City under different standards than regular multi-family
or regular sub-divisions. Many communities have provisions like this to vary some
standards like the number of parking stalls, availability of other facilitie~ - to allow senior
!qousing into environments that wouldn't normally allow multi-famdy housing as long as it
doesn't interfere with the character of the surrounding neighborhood.
3. Request to have City Council Suspend Comprehenxive Plan Amendments The Citv
Attorney is working on a formal request to the City Council for some action by the end of
the month. There has been some claim that on the first of .April the amendment cvcle
officially starts - we cannot find an,,, written record that there is any official start date. This
request will ask the Council ~o rake an action that will take care of whatever historv that
Plannim, Commission Meetin.o March 29. ";~f)' Pa~oe i0 of i2
AGENDA BILL
BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL ~a ~.,, ~ 2 oo 52_
1. SUBJECT: ~ FOR AGENDA: ~
ORDINANCE NO. ~O~,- -- -. READ I NG) ORIGINATING DEPT: Legal
AMENDING CHAPTER 2.04 of the BREMERTON ORIGINATOR: Roger A. Lubovich
DATE SUBMITTED: April 12, 2002
MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO CITY C0UNCIL
MEETINGS AND PUBLICATION OF COUNCIL SALARY SCHEDULES
2. CLEARANCES: (Comment on back if necessary) 3. EXHIBITS:
~~--~'"~--~ ORDINANCE NO. 4~ O}
'R(~ER A..LLTrBOVICH, City
I -
~YOR~~_~ ~ CO~CIL P~S~ENT t'-~,
4. SU~Y STATEMENT ~D ~QUI~MENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION:
~ ordinance amen~i[g Chapter 2.04 of the Breme~on Municipal Code re}ating to CiW Council
meetings and p~bliyafion of council sala~ schedules. The propped ordinance would allow the CiW
Council to util~e ~fferent formits for conductingjts regular meetings rather than.the agenda format set
forth in Chapter 2.04. It Would also remove language relative to the publicaOon of sala~ schedules
established by the Sala~ Commission.
8. RECOMMENDATION:
[MAY 8, 2002] MOVE TO PASS ORDINANCE NO. ~0~ ON SECOND READING.
9. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Roger A. Lubovich
ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: Roger A. Lubovich
EXPIRATION DATE:
REVIEW DATE:
10. NOTICE OF ACTION: ~ D
PULLED [--] TABLED [~] APPROVED ~-] DISAPPROVED [--] AMENDI
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE:
ll. AGENDA SILL NO.: 0:~.- ,../:~¢
5. IMPACT OF NON-PASSAGE:
6. IMPACT ON STAFFING~ BUDGETS~ FACII,ITIES~ EQUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCES:
None.
7. RESEARCH SOURCES:
ORDINANCE NO. ]'~ {B(~) I
AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of thc City of
Bremerton, Washington, amending Chapter 2.04 of the Bremerton
Municipal Code relating to the City Council by amending
provisions of said chapter regarding City Council meetings and the
publication of council salary schedules.
WHEREAS, the current provisions of Chapter 2.04 of the Bremerton
Municipal Code relating to the City Council provide for the conduct, time, and place of
City Council regular and special meetings and for council salary schedules; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to update the provisions relating to City
Council meetings in order to provide for conducting business meetings and study sessions and to
amend the provisions relating to publication of salary schedules established by the Bremerton
Citizen's Commission on Council Salaries; NOW THEREFORE,
....
. ,. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON, .~:.
DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: '-
SECTION 1. Chapter 2.04 of the Bremerton Municipal Code entitled "City
Council" is hereby amended to read as follows:
Chapter 2.04
CITY COUNCIL
2.04.010 TIME AND PLACE.
The time and place of the regular meeting of the City Council required by Charter
shall be each Wednesday at five-thirty p.m. at the Council Chambers or City Council OflSce,
City Hall, Bremerton, Washington. Provided, however, if such meeting day falls upon a legal
....,,.,,,J-~,,,:;"";' .... ,,,c ,,.~,,,,. c,..,,~,,,,,,,,,.;~ then pursuant to the Charter, such regular meeting ...... may_ be
rescheduled during the same week following the procedures for setting a special meeting as set
forth in section 2.04.020 below, except that punic notice must be given one week in advance of
the meeting.
City Council
A regularly scheduled City Council meeting shal! consist of may consist of a
business meeting and/or study session or any other format as established by the city council.
Notices of agendas of all regular meetings shall be posted at City Hall and delivered to the local
television station and local newspaper of general circulation by mail, facsimile or other similar
means.
5. Mayor's Rep~
2.04.020 ~SPECI~ MEETINGS.
~,~ .........~ ........ Pursuit to RCW 42.30.080, special m~etings of the city
council ,,~1 ay b gi
......................... after public notice has been ven, at a time
.......... d ..... ........ ~:~
and place as specified in the notice of meeting
.... * .... a by
....... ............. w ........ ~ law.
2.04.030 P~COUNCIL SESSION.
The city co~cil shall meet at 5:00 p.m. on the sine day, immediately prior to the
regul~ weekly council meetings ~' r~ ;. c~,;~ ~ a~ a~ 9 h .... c for a precouncil session to
discuss the agenda for such regular meeting angor other administrative matters.
2.04.040 COUNCIL MEMBER SALARY SCHEDULE.
Council member salary_ schedules shall be established and filed with the city
clerk by the Bremerton Citizen's Commission on Council Salaries pursuant to the Charter.
City Council
SECTION 2. Severabili(y. If any one or more sections, subsections, or
sentences of this Ordinance are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not
affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance and the same shall remain in full
force and effect.
SECTION 3. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force ten
(10) days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided by law.
APPROVED by the City Council the day of ,2002
PASSED by the City Cptmcil the day of .. ,2002
CAROL ARENDS, C. ouncil President'
Approved this day of ., 2002
CARY BOZEMAN, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
KATHLEEN MCCLUSKEY, City Clerk ROGER A. LUBOVICH, City Attorney
PUBLISHED the day of ,2002
EFFECTIVE the day of ,2002
ORDINANCE NO.
R:\LEGAL',,Ordinances\City Council Ordinance.doc
city Co..ci/
AGENDA BILL
BRF~m~ERTON CITY COLR~CIL
· 2002
1 SUBJECT: Public Hearing and FOR AGENDA OF: May 8,
Ordinance amending 2002 rate ORIGINATING DEPT: Admin. Services~/
tables for Parks and Recreation ORIGINATOR: Paula Johnston ~.
and Administrative Services DATE SUBMITTED: April 23, 2002 u
Departments
2. CLEARANCES: (comment on back 3. EXHIBITS:
if necessary)
Ordinance
Admin Services~
City Attorney ~~~
Parks & Rec '~ ~
Fiscal & Budget
Operations
E NDORSEM~ ~ ~'~PPROVED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FOR SUBMITTAL:
MAYOR ~ ~~ COUNCIL PRESIDENT ~~/{
4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION:
The 2002 rate tables for user fees need to be amended to reflect
changes in Administrative Services fe~s for copies, and Parks and
Recreation user fees· ~
8. RECOMMENDATION:
Motion to approve Ordinance amending 2002 Rate Tables for Parks and
Recreation and Administrative Services on first reading.
Motion to pass Ordinance No. on second reading.
9. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Admin Services
ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: Admin Services
EXPIRATION DATE:
REVIEW DATE:
10. NOTICE OF ACTION ~_~
PULLED TABLED APPROVED DISAPPROVED __~AM~D
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE: DATE:
aGENDA BIlL NO:
2. CLEARANCE COMMENTS (cont.):
4. SUMMARY STATEMENT (cont.):
5. IMPACT ON NON-PASSAGE:
Rates for copies will not reflect RCW.
6. IMPACT ON STAFFING, BUDGETS, FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCES
7. RESEARCH SOURCES
DRAFT 4/4/2002
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of
Bremerton, Washington, amending Section 3.01.070 and Rate
Tables A, F, and F1 of Chapter 3.01 of the Bremerton Municipal
Code updating Administrative Services and Parks and Recreation
Department Rate Tables.
WHEREAS, the current provisions of Chapter 3.01 of the Bremerton
Municipal Code relating to Rates and Fees were adopted by the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to update the rates and fees for
Administrative Services and the Parks and Recreation Department; NOW THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON,
DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Section 3.01.070 of the Bremerton Municipal Code entitled "P...arks
..and Recreation Department - Rate Tables F and Fl" is hereby amended to read as follows:.
3.01.070 Parks and RecreatiOn Department - Rate Tables F and Fl. ' '
Facility Use Rental Rates
Sheridan Community Center
Bremerton Sr. Citizens Center
Jarstad Aquatic Center
Evergreen Park Shelters
Athletic Field
Blueberry Park - Pea Patch
Program Fees and Charges
Jarstad Aquatic Center
Athletic Programs
Bremerton Sr. Citizens Center
Recreation Programs
Ivy Green Cemetery
Gold Mountain Golf Complex
Rate Tables
DRAFT 4/4/2002
SECTION2. Rate Table A of Chapter 3.01 of the Bremerton Municipal Code
entitled "Administrative Services - Rate Table A" is hereby repealed and a new Rate Table A is
hereby created as set forth in Exhibit A of this Ordinance.
SECTION3. Rate Table F of Chapter 3.01 of the Bremerton Municipal Code
entitled "Parks Recreation Dept - Rate Table F" is hereby repealed and a new Rate Table F is
hereby created as set forth in Exhibit B of this Ordinance.
SECTION 4. Rate Table F1 of Chapter 3.01 of the Bremerton Municipal Code
entitled "Parks & Recreation - Rate Table F(1) Gold Mountain Golf Complex Green Fees" is
hereby repealed and a new Rate Table F1 is hereby created as set forth in Exhibit C of this
Ordinance.
SECTION 5. Severabili~. If any one or more sections, subsections, or
sentences of this Ordinance are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not .
affect the validity of the remaining portio.n of this Ordinance and the same shall remain in full' .. '
for~e and effect.
SECTION 6. ~__ffective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force ten
(10) days from and after its passage,.approval and publication as provided by law.
APPROVED by the City Council the day of ,2002
PASSED by the City Council' the day of ,2002
CAROL ARENDS, Council President
Approved this day of ,2002
C~r~Y BOZEMAN, Mayor
Rate Tables
DRAFT 4/4/2002
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
KATHLEEN MCCLUSKEY, City Clerk ROGER A. LUBOVICH, City Attorney
PUBLISHED the day of ,2002
EFFECTIVE the day of ,2002
ORDINANCE NO.
R:\LEGAL\Ordinances~new form.doc
Rate Tables
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES - RATE TABLE A
All Rates Listed Are "Not To Exceed" Fees
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
REGULATORY LICENSE FEES 2002 RATE
BMC 5.76 Advertising $192/yr or
$40/30 days
BMC 5.50 Ambulance Co.
Ambulance Inspections $57/veh/semi-
annual
BMC 5.17 Charitable Solicitation
Non-Profit $12/60 days
Professional Fundraiser $645/60 days
BMC 5.25 Christmas Tree Lots $65/Iot/yr
BMC 5.22 Dance/Public $254/yr or
$65/30 days
BMC 5.96 Erotic Dance Studios $645/yr
Dancers $65/yr
BMC 5.30 Farmers Market $439/yr
~BMC 9.48 Fireworks Stands ~-' $100/stand/yr
BMC 5.42 Hotel/Motel $34+$2/rm
BMC 10.24 Housemov[ng/Oversize Loads $517+$65/m[le
to .10 of'a mile
BMC 5.98 Limousine Service $131/veh/yr
BMC 5.16 Mobile Food Vendor $131/veh/yr
BMC 5.10 Pawnbroker $645/yr
BMC 5.16 Pedlers $65/yr or
$12/30days
BMC 5.04 Petshops $321/yr
BMC 5.10 Secondhand Dealer $131/yr
BMC 5.98 ShutUebus $131/veh/yr
BMC 5.36 Special Events:
Profit $645/event
Non-Profit $63/event
EXHIBIT NO. "
Table A - A1
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES - RATE TABLE A
All Rates Listed Are "Not To Exceed" Fees
REGULATORY LICENSE FEES 2002 RATE
BMC 5.20 Street/Sidewalk Vendors $195/yr
BMC 5.54 Taxicabs $300/veh/yr
Taxi Drivers $65/yr
BMC 5.16 Temporary Merchant $300/30 days
BMC 5.38 Theatre $260/yr
BUSINESS LICENSE FEE 2002 RATE
BMC 5.02 $50/yr.
PARKING 2002 RATE
One-Street Locations Not to Exceed
$20/3 hfs
$30/10 hrs
Off-Street Location Not to Exceed
$20/3 hfs
,, $30/10 hrs
Parking Garage Not to Exceed
$100/mo
DOCUMENT REPRODUCTION FEES 2002 RATE
Per Page $. 15lpg
Audio or Video Tapes Cost of Tape
+$8.50
Computer Disks $8.50
Certification $3
Blue Prints- Aerial Photos, Drawings, Maps $7/pg
Documents:
Medical Records $19/lSt 5 pages
$.83/Pgs 6-31
$.63/Pgs 31 +
Fire Reports $. 15/pg
Budget $25
Annual Report $25
CHECK HANDLING FEE $40
Table A - A2
PARKS RECREATION DEPT - RATE TABLE F
All Rates Listed Are "Not To Exceed" Fees
NON-RESIDENT FEE - BASE FEE PLUS 20%
FACILITY USE RENTAL RATES
Facility use policies apply.
Appropriate taxes are included in rates unless otherwise noted.
SHERIDAN COMMUNITY CENTER - ROOM RENTAL RATES 2002 RATE
(Group A) NON-COMMERCIAL - Rental Rates
Recreation and/or educational purposes only.
Four (4) hour sessions per reservation unless noted.
Daytime (Monday- Friday: 7:30 AM to 5:30 PM)
Lounge $16.75
Room A, B, C, or Conference Room $12.00
Above room plus gym - add $12.00
Gym (Auditorium Use)- $62.00
each additional hour $12.00
Gym (Sports use)- per hour/1 hr min. '$12.00 "
Eveninqs (Monday-'Thursday: 5:30 PM to 10:30 PM)., ,.
Lounge ' $22.50
Room A, B, C, or Conference Room $15.50 "
Above room plus gym- add $15.50 '"
Gym (Auditorium Use) - $62.00
@ additional hour $15.50
Gym (Sports use) - per hour/2 hr min. $15.50
Friday eveninq, Saturday & Sunday
Lounge $48.25
Room A, B, C, or Conference Room $39.00
Above room plus gym - add $39.00
Gym (Auditorium Use)- $93.50
@ additional hour $39.00
Gym (Sports use) - per hour/2 hr min. $39.00
(Group B) COMMERCIAL - Rental Rates
Recreation and/or educational purposes only.
Four (4) hour sessions per reservation unless noted.
Daytime (Monday- Friday: 7:30 AM to 5:30 PM~
Lounge $45.00
Room A, B, C, or Conference Room $29.50
Table F-F1 EXHIBIT NO. "
PARKS RECREATION DEPT- RATE TABLE F
All Rates Listed Are "Not To Exceed" Fees
SHERIDAN COMMUNITY CENTER- ROOM RENTAL RATES 2002 RATE
Above room plus gym - add $29.50
Gym (Auditorium Use)- $150.00
plus @ additional hour $29.50
Gym (Sports use) - per houri1 hr min. $29.50
Evenings (Monday - Thursday: 5:30 PM to 10:30 PM)
Lounge $52.75
Room A, B, C, or Conference Room $35.75
Above room plus gym - add $35.75
Gym (Auditorium Use)- $150.00
plus @ additional hour $35.75
Gym (Sports use) - per hour/2 hr min. $37.75
Friday eveninq, Saturday & Sunday
Lounge $79.25
Room A, B, C, or Conference Room $62.00
Above room plus gym - add $62.00
Gym (Auditorium Use)- $240.25
plus @ additional hour, .: $62.00
Gy.m (Sports, usg,)- per hour/2 t~r min. '~': ... $62.00
.:.
BREMERTON SR, CITIZENS CENTER - ROOM RENTAL RATES 2002 RATE
Golden refers to Senior events recognizing individuals, couples, and
groups age 55 years and older.
(Group A) NON-COMMERCIAL - Rental Rates
Room Rental Fees - per hour, 2 hour minimum
Cardroom $10.75
Cardroom (Golden) $10.75
Meeting Room $10.75
Meeting Room (Golden) $10.75
Main Room $16.50
Main Room (Golden) $10.75
Main Room & Kitchen $21.75
Main Room & Kitchen (Golden) $10.75
Main Room, Kitchen, appliances $26.75
Main Room, Kitchen, and appliances (Golden) $16.50
Additional staffing per hour $10.75
Additional time per @ 20 minutes $10.75
Table F- F2 ~'7
PARKS RECREATION DEPT- RATE TABLE F
All Rates Listed Are "Not To Exceed" Fees
BREMERTON SR. CITIZENS CENTER - ROOM RENTAL RATES 2002 RATE
(Group B) COMMERCIAL - Rental Rates
Room Rental Fees - per hour, 2 hour minimum
Cardroom $16.25
Cardroom (Golden) $16.25
Meeting Room $16.25
Meeting Room (Golden) $16.25
Main Room $24.75
Main Room (Golden) $16.25
Main Room & Kitchen $32.50
Main Room & Kitchen (Golden) $16.25
Main Room, Kitchen, appliances $40.25
Main Room, Kitchen, and appliances (Golden) $24.75
Additional staffing per hour $16.25
Additional time per @ 20 minutes $16.25
JARSTAD AQUATIC CENTI~R . " 2002 RATE
(Group A) NON-COMMERCIAL - Rental Rates
Private - Non-Profit
Up to 50 participants Per hr $52.00
Staffing each added hour $10.00
51 - 100 Per hr $62.00
101-150+ Per hr $72.00
Team
Deep Lanes Per hr per lane $3.00
Shallow Lanes Per hr per lane $2.00
Staffing Per hr as needed $15.00
School Lessons
Up to 35 students $52.00
36 - 45 students $60.00
46 - 55 students $72.00
(Group B) COMMERCIAL - Rental Rates
Commercial Per hr $60.00
Deep Lanes Per hr per lane $6.00
Shallow Lanes Per hr per lane $4.00
Staffing Per hr as needed $15.00
Table F-F3 q~
PARKS RECREATION DEPT - RATE TABLE F
All Rates Listed Are "Not To Exceed" Fees
EVERGREEN PARK SHELTERS - RESERVATION FEES 2002 RATE
Four (4) hour sessions per reservation unless noted.
Note: Shelter fi4 is not reservable. Use of shelter #4 is on a first come/first served
basis.
Parties who have reserved the other Evergreen Park shelters may not use this shelter
at the same time.
(Group A) NON-COMMERCIAL - Rental Rates
Shelter 1 $25.00
Shelter 2 $11.50
Shelter 3 $11.50
Shelter 4 (not reservable) no charge
Uncov. Tables $6.00
Shelter 5 $11.50
Shelter 6 $11.50
(Group B) COMMERCIAL- Rental Rates ,
· Shelter 1 $37.50.
Shelter 2 '~ $17.00
Shelter 3 $17.00
Shelter 4 (n~t reservable) no charge' ",.
Uncovered Tables $9.00
Shelter 5 $17.00
Shelter 6 $17.00
PARK RESERVATION PROCESSING FEES 2002 RATE
Four (4) hour sessions per reservation unless noted. $6.00
ATHLETIC FIELD - RESERVATIONS 2002 RATE
Per hour unless noted
(Group A) NON-COMMERCIAL - Rental Rates $11.00
(Group B) COMMERCIAL- Rental Rates $16.25
Game Fee - Softball $21.50
Game Fee- Soccer $30.00
BLUEBERRY PARK- PEA PATCH ANNUAL RATE 2002 RATE
Table F-F4
PARKS RECREATION DEPT - RATE TABLE F
All Rates Listed Are "Not To Exceed" Fees
BLUEBERRY PARK - PEA PATCH ANNUAL RATE 2002 RATE
Recreational purposes only. $28.25
PROGRAM FEES & CHARGES 2002 RATE
not to
New Programs exceed cost
plus 25%
GLENN JARSTAD AQUATIC CENTER 2002 RATE
ADMISSIONS
Youth (0-3 yrs.) NC
Youth (4-17 yrs.) $2.25
Adult (18-54 yrs.) $3.00
Seniors (55 & up) $2.25
Disabled $2.25
Adult Fitness $3.00
Senior Fitness ," $2.25
Disabled Fitness .. $2.25 '.;
Spebial Publi'~ " $1.00
PuNcH CARDS ' "'
Youth 10 punch .. $;I 8.00
Youth 20 punch $36.00
Adult 10 punch $24.00
Adult 20 punch $48.00
Senior/Disabled 10 punch $18.00
Senior/Disabled 20 punch $36.00
Fitness/Lesson 10 punch $24.00
Fitness/Lesson 20 punch $48.00
Senior/Disabled Fitness 10 punch $18,00
Senior/Disabled Fitness 20 punch $36.00
PASSES
Youth 6 months $100.00
Youth 12 months $190.00
Adult 6 months $135.00
Adult 12 months $250.00
SeniodDisabled 6 months $100.00
Senior/Disabled 12 months $190.00
SWIMMING LESSONS
Youth/Adult 30 min. $3.25
Table F-F5 /00
PARKS RECREATION DEPT - RATE TABLE F
All Rates Listed Are "Not To Exceed" Fees
GLENN JARSTAD AQUATIC CENTER 2002 RATE
Private 30 min. $12.00
Semi*Private 30 min. $18.00
Parent Tot $3.00
Family Lessons 4 lessons $65.00
ITEMS FOR SALE
Basic goggles $5.00
Deluxe goggles $12.00
Latex cap $3.00
Ear plug $2.00
Nose plug $2.00
New items not to
(includes Washington State Sales Tax) exceed cost
plus 75%
ATHLETIC PROGRAM FEES 2002 RATE
VOLLEYBALL
· - Co-ed (Fall & Winter) per team $200.00
Men and Women (Spring) per team $200.00
Men and Co-ed Sand (Summer) ~ per team $85.00 ~ . .
Open Gym (Oct. - June) p. er.,person, -' ' .$.1 ~.50 ."
FLAG FOOTBALL
Men's League (Fall) per team $37Q.00
Men's League - Player'S fee (Fall) per player $8.50
SOCCER
Player's fee per player $37.00
BASKETBALL
Men's League (Fall & Winter) per team $398.00
Men's League - Players fee (F & W) per player $10.50
Boy's League (Winter) per team $159.50
Girl's (Fall) per player $47.75
Blacktop League (Summer) no charge
SOFTBALL
Men's League (Spring) per team $424.25
Men's League - Players fee (Spg) per player $16.00
Sunday Co-ed (Spring) per team $291.50
Sunday Co-ed - Players fee (Spg) per player $10.50
Co-ed League (Fall) per team $345.00
Co-ed - Players fee (Fall) per player $10.50
Table F- F6
PARKS RECREATION DEPT - RATE TABLE F
All Rates Listed Are "Not To Exceed" Fees
ATHLETIC PROGRAM FEES 2002 RATE
Men's League (Fall) per team $318.25
Men's League - Players fee (Fall) per player $10.50
TOURNAMENTS (SOFTBALL AND SOCCER)
- INVITATIONAL TOURNAMENTS
Lions - One Day $216.25
Lions - Two Day $345.00
Lions - Three Day $453.25
Pendergast - One Day $237.00
Pendergast - Two Day $396.50
Pendergast - Three Day $504.75
-- STATE TOURNAMENTS
Lions - One Day $267.75
Lions - Two Day $396.50
Lions - Three Day $504.75
Pendergast- One Day $319.25
Pendergast - Two Day $473.75
Pendergast - Three Day $582.00
-- Regional and'National ~,ourna~nts will pay no less than State fees, but rates will
· " be negotiated.
FOOTBALL CAMP per person $2.00 ' .,
YOUTH BOWLING
% of provider fee 20%
SKYHAWKS SPORTS CAMPS
% of provider fee 10%
PITCH, HIT & THROW no charge
SENIOR CITIZEN CENTER AND RECREATION DIVISION PROGRAMS
PROGRAM FEE FORMULAS. Except for the Sr. Citizens Trip program,
participant fees for activities (programs, classes, events, etc.) promoted by the Sr.
Citizen Center and the Recreation Division are established by the following formulas:
A. Activities when the instructor is on the payroll.
[(Total class hours including preparation) x (Instructor's hourly wage) × (1.2
Administration factor)l divided by(minimum # of students per activity)] + (the cost of group
supplies divided by minimum ~ of students) + Cost of individual class supplies, if
applicable = Student class fee for City of Bremerton Resident.
Table F- F7
PARKS RECREATION DEPT - RATE TABLE F
All Rates Listed Are "Not To Exceed" Fees
B. Activities when the instructor is on contract.
[(Price per student required by the Instructor less class supply fees) x (1.2 Administration
factor)] + Class supply fees = Student class fee for City of Bremerton Resident.
C. Non-Resident Fees
For recreation classes, programs, swim passes and Aquatic Center rentals - ranging
from:
$5.00 to $25.00 add on 20%
$25.01 to $50.00 add a flat $5.00
$50.01 to $100.00 add a flat $10.00
$100.01 to $200.00 add a flat $20.00
$200.01 + add a flat $40.00
For Sr. Citizen activities, participants pay an annual membership fee of $5
(resident) or $10 (non resident) in lieu of the 20% non-resident rate.
2002 RATE
actual costs
SENIOR CENTER TRIPS plus 5%
IVY GREEN CEMETERY - FEES AND CHARGES
'2002 RATE' 2002 RATE
'RESIDENT NON-
~. RESIDENT
ADULT BURIAL
Grave Site $537.00 $644.00
Opening/Closing $367.00 $440.00
Liner $415.00 $498.00
Oversize Liner (if required) $622.00 $746.00
Grave Side Service Preparation (optional) $122.00 $146.00
VETERANS PLOT
(Burial must be approved by the Kitsap County Allied Veterans Council Committee)
Opening/Closing $367.00 $440.00
Liner $415.00 $498.00
Oversize Liner (if required) $622.00 $746.00
Grave Side Service Preparation (optional) $122.00 $146.00
Stone Marker Setting $74.00 $89.00
Bronze Marker Setting $66.00 $79.00
INFANT BURIAL
infant Plot in Babyland $171.00 $205.00
Opening/Closing $266.00 $319.00
Liner $187.00 $224.00
Grave Side Service Preparation (optional) $0.00 $147.00
Table F-F8 /03
PARKS RECREATION DEPT - RATE TABLE F
All Rates Listed Are "Not To Exceed" Fees
DISlNTERNMENT
1. Removal of remains from one grave to another within Ivy Green
Cemetery
Removal & opening of new site $915.00 $1,098.00
Site Purchase & Perpetual care $537.00 $644.00
Liner $415.00 $498.00
2.Removal of remains from Ivy Green Cemetery to any other location
other than Ivy Green Cemetery.
Removal (only) $610.00 $732.00
ADDITIONAL BURIAL COSTS
Week day (receiving or services after 2:00 PM)
2 hr. max. $122.00 $146.00
Saturday (No Sunday or holiday)
4 hour max. $244.00 $293.00
Grave Side Service Preparation includes canopy, chairs, greens and/or lowering
devise.
LINERS
Adult $415.00 $498.00
InfaRt $187.00 $224.00
'Cremation Vault (2 piece) $85.00 ,'$102.00
Oversize Liner (if required) $622.00 $746.00"'
OPENING AND CLOSING
Adult .$366.00 $439.00
Infant (Babyland) $266.00 $319.00
Urn Interment (per urn) $73.00 $88.00
BURIAL SITES
Adult $537.00 $645.00
Infant (Babyland) $171.00 $205.00
Infant (any site not in Babyland) $537.00 $644.00
INURNMENT
(Must own or have authorization to use adult grave site prior to inurnment process)
Cement Vault $85.00 $102.00
Opening/Closing $73.00 $88.00
Grave Side Service Preparation (optional) $122.00 $146.00
DlSURNMENTS
Urn $146.00 $175.00
RAISE GRAVE $98.00 $118.00
CEMENT WALLS & CAPPING GRAVE SITE
TableF-F9 ~ ~'0''
PARKS RECREATION DEPT - RATE TABLE F
All Rates Listed Are "Not To Exceed" Fees
The above rates were not raised since 1995. A 15% increase is shown in 12/1/99 to
compensate.
MARKERS
Installation charges and requirements.
The fee for setting markers into four inch collar and installation shall be charged as
follows unless purchased through the City of Bremerton or Ivy Green Cemetery. The
price does not include tax.
5"x 8" bronze plus tax $33.00 $40.00
4" x 12"x 2" x 3" plus tax $39.00 $47.00
8" x 16" x 2" x 3" plus tax $57.00 $68.00
10" x 20" x 2" x 3" plus tax $68.00 $82.00
12" x 24" x 2" x 3" plus tax $74.00 $89.00
12"x 24" bronze plus tax $66.00 $79.00
12" x 36"x 2" x 3" plus tax $92.00 $110.00
14" x 36" x 2" x 3" plus tax $101.00 $121.00
Note: Markers sold by the City of Bremerton or Ivy Green Cemetery will not have
an installation fee charged.
All markers must be flush to the ground surface unless mating to a marker in place.
All markers not conforming to basic sizes will be charged the next
larger size.
Table F-F l0
GOLD MOUNTAIN GOLF COMPLEX GREENS FEES - RATE TABLE F1
EFFECTIVE EFFECTIVE EFFECTIVE
CASCADE COURSE 1/1/2002 1/1/2003 1/1/2004
Weekday 18 Holes * 25.00 26.00 27.00
Weekend/Holiday 18 Holes (3) 32.00 34.00 36.00
Weekday 9 Holes * 17.00 18.00 19.00
Weekend/Holiday 9 Holes 20.00 21.00 22.00
Weekday 9 Hole Continue* 8.00 8.00 8,00
Weekend/Holiday 9 Hole Continue 12.00 13.00 14.00
Twilight Weekday* 17.00 18.00 19.00
Twilight Weekend/Holiday 20.00 21.00 22.00
League Rate** 17.00 18.00 18.00
Senior 18 Holes* 19.00 20.00 21.00
Junior 18 Holes* 9.00 10.00 11.00
Junior Twilight Weekend/Holiday 12.00 12.00 13.00
Annual Pass Single 1,300.00 1,400.00 1,400.00
Annual Pass Couple 2,000.00 2,200.00 2,200.00
Annual Pass Sr. Single** 850.00 900.00 900.00
Annual Pass Sr. Couple** 1,300.00 1,400.00 1,400.00
Semi Annual Single 650/700 700/750 700/750
Semi Annual Couple '~ 1,000/1,050 1,100/1,150 1,100/1,150
"Semi Anr)ua'i Sr. Sin'gl~~ 425/475 450/500 450/500
'~ Semi Annual Sr. Couple** 700/750 800/850 800/850 .'..
' Senior Punch Card** (2) .' 1,70.00 "180.00 190.00
Regular 20 Rnd,Punch Card 400.00 425.00 450.00
Regular..10 Rnd Punch Card "220.0'0 232.00 245.00
Low Income Sr. Punch Card** **** (2) 70.00 80.00 80.00
Corporate Pass-Non Taxable* *** (2) 2,000.00 2,100.00 2,200.00
Corporate Pass-Taxable* *** (2) 2,000.00 2,100.00 2,200.00
Daily Private Cart 15.00 16.00 16.00
Shotgun Tournament (Not To Exceed) 18
Hole Green Fee 41.00 43.00 45.00
· Monday through Thursday
· * Not for Saturday, Sunday or Holiday
· ** Beginning 1/1102 the lots are reduced to 100 rounds
· *** Age 62 & up with household income < $18,000. RCW 71.38.070
1. A reduced rate, not less than the current twi-light rate, may be offered with the approval
of the Director of Parks & Recreation
2. May be used for twilight any day of the week including Holidays
3. Saturday, Sunday or Holiday (May - September Not to Exceed Rate)
Table F 1 - F 1-1 / 0~2
GOLD MOUNTAIN GOLF COMPLEX GREENS FEES - RATE TABLE F1
EFFECTIVE EFFECTIVE EFFECTIVE
OLYMPIC COURSE 1/1/2002 1/1/2003 1/1/2004
Weekday 18 Holes* 35.00 36.00 37.00
Weekend/Holiday 18 Holes (2) 50.00 52.00 54.00
Weekday 9 Holes* 20.00 20.00 21.00
Weekend/Holiday 9 Holes 28.00 29.00 30.00
Weekday 9 Hole Continue* 15.00 16.00 16.00
Weekend/Holiday 9 Hole Continue 22.00 23.00 24.00
Twilight Weekday* 19.00 20.00 20.00
Twilight Weekend/Holiday 22.00 23.00 24.00
League Rate** 17.00 18.00 18.00
Senior 18 Holes* 29.00 30.00 30.00
Junior 18 Holes* 19.00 20.00 20.00
Cascade Passes And Punch Cards 10.00 10.00 10.00
Shotgun Tournament (Not To Exceed 18
Hole Green Fee) (2) 61.00 63.00 65.00
* Monday through Thursday
** Not for Saturday, Sunday or Holiday
**** Age 62 & up with household income <: $18,000. RCW 71.38.070 ..
1. A redu(~ed rate, not less than the current twi-light rate, may be offered with,the'approval . .. :
· of the Parks & Recreation Director. .- ' ~
~2~~
September'
'S.aturday, Sunday or Holiday (May - Not to EXceed Rate)., ' '~ ~'