HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/15/02 AGENDA CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
MAY 15, 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 D_
B. Invocation
3. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Minutes of Meeting - April 24, 2002 (#AB02-093)
B. Minutes of Meeting - May 1, 2002 (#AB02-094)
C. Budget Adjustment No. 2002-11 for Fund 451 - Residential Disconnection
Assistance Program (#AB02-095)
4. CLAIMS/CHECK REGISTERS
5. COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS
6. MAYOR'S REPORT
7. PUBLIC RECOGNITION - (Comments limited to 3-minutes)
8. NEW BUSINESS
A. Professional Services Agreement Amendment No. 1 with BUCKLEY & LEADERS, /
Counselors at Law (#AB02-096)
/
9. PUBLIC HEARINGS - RESOLUTIONS & ORDINANCES
A. Ordinance No. 4799 (Second Reading), Amending Chapter 21.02 (Zoning Code) ,~,1
of the Bremerton Municipal Code (BMC) regarding PL02-001 for Compatible
Residential I nfill Development and Front Yard Setbacks (#AB02-083) ~,/.c,~,~ ~¢ ~
Ordinance. rqo. 4800/fSecond Reading), Amendinq, Chapter 21J;Y2 (Zonina..-'
/g ~o~/Code)o he Bre erton Municig Code (BMC garding P -003 al ',ng ~;~
~¢,r..2. ~J~ cKf~x b I ~ahnd ,neo~veat~ive des,g"i p~u rCsu°ant to ~-~nr-L e P (~A~002_ a~4~) ing
C.Ordinance No. 4803 (Second Reading), Amending "2002 Rate Tables" for Parks
& Recreation and Administrative Services Departments (#AB02-092)
D. Ordinance (First Reading) to add Chapter 1.06 to the Bremerton Municipal Code
relating to Public Record Indexes and Records Requests under the Public
If
Disclosure Act (#AB02-097)
E. Ordinance (First Reading), Amending Ordinance No. 4798 to make Technical -7'7
and Typographical Corrections (#AB02-098)
10. ADJOURNMENT OF MEETING
IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING, THE COUNCIL WILL
RECONVENE IN THE COUNCIL CONFERENCE ROOM FOR A STUDY SESSION TO DISCUSS
"UTILITY RATES"
E-mail: citycouncil@ci.bremerton.wa.us · Web: www. ci.bremerton.wa.us
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MAY 15, 2002
SPEAKERS LIST
If you wish to make ~n announcement, inform the Council of an issue, or ask ~ general question...Please
provide information below so staff will be able to contact you.
Thank you.
NAME ADDRES S/TELEPHONE , TOPIC
/
Reminder: The next Council Meeting will be on Wednesday, May 22ND
AGENDA BILL
BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL
1. SUBJECT: FOR AGENDA OF: P, AY 15, 2002
ORIGINATING DEPT: CITY COUNCIL
MINUTES OF MEETING - APRIL 24, 2002 ORIGINATOR: CAROL ARENDS, PRESIDENT
DATE SUBMITTED: APRIL 25, 2002
2. CLEARANCES: (Comment onback if necessary) 3. EXHIBITS:
ENDORSEMENT [--] INrFORMATION [~ APPROVED FOR SUqJMITTAL BY
COUi'~_ .CIL PRESIDENT:
MAYOR: ~ ~..~.-~_~ ~: .;> ~.~..<-c_z_-.
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 ,~ AMENDED ~ DATE:
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE:
9. IMPACT OF NON-PASSAGE:
10. IMPACT ON STAFFING, BUDGETS, FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCE,,,;:
11. _.RESEARCH SOURCES:
TAPES #1829 & #1830 UNAPPROVED DRAFT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
April 24, 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 24, 2002, at 5:30 P.M., with
Council President Carol Arends presiding. Council members present were Mike Short, Will Maupin, Ed
Rollman, Daren Nygren, Cecil McConnell, and Wayne Olsen. Council Members Mike Shepherd and Eric
Younger were absent. Aisc present were Assistant City Attorney Simon Stocker; Acting Deputy City
Clerk Rich Hanna; 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 Council President Carol Arends.
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 - There were no Consent Agenda Items this week.
CLAIMS/CHECK REGISTERS
Vouchers audited and certified by the auditing officer as required by RCW 42.24.080, and those
expense reimbursement claims certified as required by RCW 42.24.090 have been recorded on a listing
that had been made available to the Council.
#0035 M/S/C/U (McConnell/Rollman) On April 24, 2002, the Council does approve for payment those
vouchers included and further described as follows: Check numbers 270308 - 270525 in the amount of
$559,905.66; and Regular Payroll in the amount of $917,361.91 for the period ending 4/15/02.
COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS
Mike Short discussed his attendance at the Peninsula Regional Transportation Planning Organization
meeting to discuss the closing of Hood Canal Bridge in mid-2006; and encouraged the public to attend
the next public hearing sponsored by the Planning Department to "Shape Bremerton's Future" on
Tuesday, April 30, 6:30 - 8:30 P.M. at the Old Elks Lodge. Lastly, he announced the next District 8 & 9
Neighborhood meeting would be held on Thursday, April 25%
Will Maupin provided additional information on the District 8 & 9 Neighborhood meeting, which is
scheduled Thursday, April 25 with representatives from Kitsap Transit to provide an "Overview of
Services". The meeting will be held from 6:30 to 8:00 P.M. at the Public Works & Utility Building.
Ed Rollrnan announced the annual Kids Fishing Party sponsored by the Kitsap Poggie Club this
Saturday, April 27, from 8:00 A.M. to 1:00 P.M. in the rearing ponds at Otto Jarstad Park.
Daren Nygren discussed his attendance at the Puget Sound Naval Base Association "Kick-Of" event
with Mayor Bozeman; and 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.
Cecil McConnell 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.
TAPES #1829 & #1830
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 24, 2002
Page 2 of 6
Carol Arends indicated that she would be attending the Puget Sound Regional Council's Executive
Board meeting in Seattle tomorrow, and would provide a follow-up report next week.
MAYOR'S REPORT
· Scott Alexander was thanked for the excellent work he has provided at the Gold Mountain Golf
Complex, and for accepting the extra responsibility of managing the new restaurant;
· Gene Sampley was introduced to announce the Dedication Ceremony beginning at 10:00 A.M.
tomorrow morning at the new Eastside CSO Treatment Facility;
· Plans were discussed for bringing a proposal for a Public Safety Bond Issue this Fall to purchase
equipment for the Fire Department, and new quarters for the Police and Municipal Court;
· The City will soon receive its distribution of $500,000 in economic stimulus money from the State to
repair the pilings on the Boardwalk
· It was reported that a new office building is being built at 6th & Park;
· It announced that a new business coming to Bremerton, Advanced Acoustical Concepts; and
· An update was provided on the proposed idea for a Water Transportation Research Institute.
A proclamation was read to proclaim May 6 - 12, 2002 as "Drinking Water Week", which was
accepted by Kathleen Cahall, Water Resources Manager.
PUBLIC RECOGNITION
Don Larson thanked Daren Nygren for his support and for helping Boy Scout Troop 5555 plant trees;
and provided a brief report on the clean-up event held at Sinclair Inlet last Saturday.
8A - CONFIRMATION OF EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT WITH MICHAEL C. MECHAM, P.E. AS CITY
ENGINEER (#AB02-077): Gene Sam.oley, Director of Public Works & Utilities, introduced Michael
Mecham, a graduate of Brigham Young University with a Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering. He is
a Registered Professional Civil Engineer with over 20 years of engineering experience. He has also
demonstrated leadership qualities and is very highly recommended by both previous employers and
other professional references. It is requested that the City Council confirm Michael C. Mecham as City
Engineer in accordance with Bremerton Municipal Code Chapter 2.49.10.
There were no comments from the public.
#0810 M/S/C/U (Maupin/Olsen) Move to confirm the appointment of Michael C. Mecham as City
Engineer.
8B - PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR GOLD MOUNTAIN GOLF COMPLEX WITH
SCOTT ALEXANDER AND DARYL MATHENY (#AB02-078): Jim Spencer, Director of Parks &
Recreation, pointed out that Mr. Scott Alexander has been the Golf Professional at the Gold Mountain
Golf Complex since 1984. During this time he and his staff have contributed greatly'to the overall
success of the complex. Scott's selection in 1998 as the "Northwest PGA Golf Professional of the Year"
serves as testimony to his abilities. Mr. Daryl Matheny, Scott's partner, has been added as a signature
on the agreement to ensure continuity of service in Scott's absence. Daryl has been with Gold Mountain
since 1989. This Professional Services Agreement includes responsibility for operating the restaurant,
lounge, and pavilion. Due to the uncertainty regarding the revenue from this new facility annual openers
are built into the agreement for possibly adjustment to ensure fairness.
There were no comments from the public.
Mr. Nygren, Mr. McConnell, and Mr. Olsen provided additional comments of support.
TAPES #1829 & #1830
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 24, 2002
Page 3 of 6
#0995 M/S/C/U (McConnell/OIsen) Move to authorize and directs the Mayor to sign the Professional
Services Agreement for the Gold Mountain Golf Complex with Scott Alexander and Daryl Matheny.
8C - LEASE AGREEMENT FOR GOLD MOUNTAIN GOLF COMPLEX WITH SCOTT ALEXANDER
AND DARYL MATHENY(#AB02-079): Jim Spencer, Director of Parks & Recreation, said that this is a
Lease Agreement with Scott Alexander and Daryl Matheny for the Gold Mountain Golf Complex. This
agreement is for five years and is to lease the driving range, and a portion of the clubhouse to operate
as a golf pro shop. Mr. Daryl Matheny, Scott's partner, has been added as a signature on the
agreement to ensure continuity of service in Scott's absence.
There were no comments from the public.
#1090 M/S/C/U (Nygren/McConnell) Move to authorize and directs the Mayor to sign the Lease
Agreement for the Golf Mountain Golf Complex with Scott Alexander and Daryl Matheny.
9A - RESOLUTION NO. 2855, AUTHORIZING APPLICATION FOR FUNDING ASSISTANCE TO THE
INTERAGENCY FOR OUTDOOR RECREATION FOR DEVELOPMENT OF MARITIME PARK (#AB02-
080): Jim Spencer, Director of Parks & Recreation, summarized that the City of Bremerton has
embarked upon a downtown plan and development that envisions a renovation to the entire area.
Parks and open space are a critical component in achieving this vision. To that end, the Navy is giving
the City the property located directly south of the Bremerton Transit Center to develop into a park. The
west end will house the Naval Museum and the rest will be developed into a downtown waterfront park
that will enhance the entrance to the City. In order to fund the development of the park portion, we wish
to apply to the Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation (lAC) for a grant. The total development
for the park portion of the project is estimated to be $2,314,000. The lAC grant request will be for a
maximum of $300,000. The match (balance of funding) will be coming from City funds, and hopefully
other grants (e.g. Aquatic Lands Enhancement Account - A.L.E.A.)
Don Larson was pleased to see the City applying for grant money for a park.
Mr. Maupir~ and Mr. Rollman each expressed their support for this project.
#1245 M/S/C/U (Rollman/Short) Move to adopt Resolution No. 2855, authorizing the application for
funding assistance to the Interagency for Outdoor Recreation for the development of Maritime Park.
9B - RESOLUTION NO. 2856, AUTHORIZING AN INTERFUND LOAN FROM THE EQUIPMENT
RENTAL FUND TO THE GENERAL FUND; AND RELATED BUDGET ADJUSTMENT NO. 2002-09
(#AB02-081): Rich Hanna, City Treasurer, said that the proposed resolution and budget adjustment will
provide for the use of an interfund loan with which to finance the cash flow of the General Fund. This
financing is usually accomplished through the issue of a Tax Anticipation Note or TAN, however,
conditions in the financial markets have made the usual financing method unattractive.
There were no comments from the public.
#1365 M/S/C/U (ShortJMaupin) Move to approve Resolution No. 2856 authorizing the inter-fund loan
from the Equipment Rental Fund to the General Fund.
#1385 M/S/C/U (McConnell/Short) Move to approve Budget Adjustment No. 2002-09.
9C - RESOLUTION NO. 2857, TO TEMPORARILY DEFER ALL NON-EMERGENCY AMENDMENTS
TO THE CITY OF BREMERTON COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (#AB02-082): Chris Hucjo, Director of
Community Development, provided the following information: The Bremerton community is in the
TAPES #1829 & #1830
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 24, 2002
Page 4 of 6
process of updating the 1995 Comprehensive Plan in accordance with a State mandate for local
governments to revisit their respective plans periodically. The Plan update process, Shaping Bremerton,
provides opportunities for property owners and other interests to seek changes to the Land Use Plan
element of the Comprehensive Plan. By provisions of the State Growth Management Act and the 1995
Comprehensive Plan, plan amendments can not be considered more than once per year and not less
than once every five years. The City has adopted procedures for plan amendments, but these
procedures do not specify an amendment interval. The proposed resolution defers any ad hoc
consideration of plan amendments until the Shaping Bremerton process is completed, projected to be in
the spring of 2003.
There were no comments from the public.
Mr. Short, Mr. Maupin, and Mr. Nygren expressed additional comments of support.
#1620 M/S/C/U (Nygren/Olsen) Move to approve Resolution No. 2857 to temporarily defer all non-
emergency amendments to the Bremerton Comprehensive Plan.
10A- 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): The Council approved First
Reading of this ordinance on Wednesday, April 10, 2002; and additional discussion was held on
Wednesday, April 17, 2002. The item was continued one-week to April 24, 2002.
There were no comments from the public.
Chris Hugo, Community Development Director, discussed the additional paragraph (c) that was added
the ordinance under Section 1, 21.02.315 "Adaptive reuse of public and semi-public buildings".
Mr. Nygren established that a lot of thought has gone into this issue, but it really came down to ensuring
a persons property rights, both the residents and the property owner. Mr. Maupin reiterated that the
Council has studied this item very thoroughly, and in addition to the added language, the citizens must
be reminded that the reuse of any building will have to depend upon the public process.
Mr. McConnell stated that this was a tough decision for him, but that he would support the ordinance.
Mr. Short thanked the staff at the Department of Community Development for their efforts in finding a
solution.
Mr. Rollman explained that although he still thinks the Council could have passed the ordinance last
week, he supported the added language.
#'1955 M/S/C/U (Olsen/Rollman) Move to pass Ordinance No. 4796 on second reading.
10B - PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDINANCE NO. 4797 (SECOND READING) AMENDING
SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM RELATING TO APPEALS TO HEARING EXAMINER; AND
ORDINANCE NO. 4798 (SECOND READING). AMENDING BREMERTON MUNICIPAL CODE (BMC)
CHAPTER 21.02 REGARDING ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING EXAMINER PROCESS AND
PROCEDURES (#AB02-076): First Reading for both ordinances were heard and approved at the City
Council meeting on April 17, 2002.
There were no comments from the public.
#2030 M/S/C/U (Short/Maupin) Move to pass Ordinance No. 4797 on second reading, amending the
Shoreline Master Program relating to the appeals to the Hearing Examiner.
TAPES #1829 & #1830
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 24, 2002
Page 5 of 6
#2050 M/S/C/U (Maupin/Short) Move to pass Ordinance No. 4798 on second reading, amending
Chapter 2.13 relating to the Hearing Examiner, the zoning code Title 21, and various other titles of the
Bremerton Municipal Code.
10C - PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDINANCE (FIRST READING) AMENDING BREMERTON
MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 21.02 (ZONING CODE) REGARDING PL02-001 FOR COMPATIBLE
RESIDENTIAL INFILL DEVELOPMENT AND FRONT YARD SETBACKS (#AB02-083): Chris Hugo,
Director of Community Development, noted that a substantial number of residential structures in
Bremerton were constructed prior to the adoption of current setback requirements. In some
neighborhoods, the pattern of non-conforming front (street side) setbacks has become part of the unique
character of the City. The Growth Management Act and Comprehensive Plan encourage the efficient
use of land and smaller lots, and in some instances, decreased front setbacks are an appropriate way to
promote such efficiency and consistency with existing character. The Planning Commission has
reviewed this proposal, conducted a public hearing, and adopted Findings and Conclusions at their
March 29, 2002 meetings, and recommends City Council approval. On July 17, 2001, the Planning
Commission recommended approval of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment regarding this matter. The
City Council must conduct a public hearing prior to its final decision and action on this proposed
Ordinance that will implement the Plan Amendment.
Helen Miller stated that if there was a "text change" to the Shoreline Master Program for the City of
Bremerton, an "amendment" must be provided as required by the State Department of Ecology. Mr.
Hugo responded that there has been no "text change" to any part of the Shoreline Master Program.
Don Larson would like to see the City gradually buy up old dilapidated buildings to improve the City.
Mrs. Arends established that in District 6, there have been great efforts to improve the area, and
reminded Mr. Larson that the City offers a number of programs to encourage home ownership.
Mr. McConnell directed attention to Section 1 (d), and asked if an amendment could be added to the
language to clarify the definition of "block".
Mr. Nygren stated that he has received a number of calls from his constituents on this issue, but
decided that he would put his trust in the Planning Commission and the Planning staff's
recommendation. Therefore, he would support this issue.
Mr. Rollman asked if Council's action on this ordinance would affect the Shoreline Master Program. Mr.
Hugo assured the Council it would not.
Mr. Maupin expressed his support for this project, and added that this ordinance would help new homes
fit into neighborhoods.
#3140 M/S/C/U (Maupin/Short) Move to approve the attached ordinance of first reading, amending the
Zoning Code, Chapter 21.02 of the Bremerton Municipal Code by adding a new Section 21.02.160 (d),
"Maintenance of Traditional Front Yards".
10D- PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDINANCE (FIRST READING) AMENDING BREMERTON
MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 21.02 (ZONING CODE) REGARDING PL02-003 ALLOWING
FLEXIBILITY AND INNOVATIVE DESIGN PURSUANT TO A "PLAN-IN-LIEU" (#AB02-084):
Chris Hugo, Director of Community Development, affirmed that there are situations when the strict
application of the development standards articulated in the zoning code does not promote innovative
design and allow land 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
7
TAPES #1829 & #1830
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 24, 2002
Page 6 of 6
order to demonstrate that the public interest will be better served by the application of this provision,
which is defined as a "Plan-In-Lieu". The Planning Commission has reviewed this proposal, conducted
public hearings, adopted Findings and Conclusions at a March 29, 2002 meeting, and recommends City
Council approval. The Council is required to conduct this public hearing prior to its final decision and
action on the proposed ordinance in order to implement the zoning text amendment.
There were no comments from the public.
Mr. McConnell expressed his concern that language in the ordinance would allow for bigger signs,
which he was opposed to.
TAPE #1830
#0030 M/S/C/U (Olsen/Maupin) Move to approve the attached ordinance on first reading, 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 21.02.575 titled "Plans-In-Lieu"".
10E - PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDINANCE (FIRST READING) AMENDING BREMERTON
MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 2.04 RELATING TO CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS AND PUBLICATION
OF COUNCIL SALARY SCHEDULES (#AB02-085): Simon Stocker, Assistant City Attorney,
announced that this ordinance would amend Chapter 2.04 of the Bremerton Municipal Code, The
proposed ordinance would allow the City Council to utilize different formats for conducting its regular
meetings rather than the agenda format set forth in Chapter 2.04. The ordinance would also remove
language relative to the publication of salary schedules established by the Salary Commission.
There were no comments from the public.
#0220 M/S/CIU (Maupin/OIsen) Move to approve the proposed ordinance on first reading, 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.
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 7:20 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
1. SUBJECT: FOR AGENDA OF: ShY 15, 2O02
ORIGINATING DEPT: CiTY COUNCIL
MINUTES OF MEETING- ~4^¥ 1, 2002 ORIGINATOR: CAROL ARENDS, PRESIlDENT
DATE SUBMITTED: IqP,¥ 2, 2002
2. CLEARANCES: (Comment on back if necessary) 3. EXHIBITS:
ENDORSEMENT [--} IINrFORMATION [---} APPROVED FOR SUq3MITTAL BY
COU~.,CIL PRESIDENT:
MAYOR: &'~ ~,~-,~d~ ~-~-~,.,'_.~c~_~
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 ~ AMENDED [---] DATE:
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE:
9. IMPACT OF NON-PASSAGE:
10. IMPACT ON STAFFING, BUDGETS, FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCES;:
11. ~SEARCH SOURCES:
lO
TAPE #1831 UNAPPROVED DRAFT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
May 1,2002
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, May 1, 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 - There were no Consent Agenda Items this week.
CLAIMS/CHECK REGISTERS
Vouchers audited and certified by the auditing officer as required by RCW 42.24.080, and those
expense reimbursement claims certified as required by RCW 42.24.090 have been recorded on a
listing that had been made available to the Council.
#0020 M/S/C/U (Younger/McConnell/) On May 1, 2002, the Council does approve for payment those
vouchers included and further described as follows: Check numbers 270531 through 270765 in the
amount of $520,510.02; and Retiree Payroll in the amount of $129,616.21 for the period ending April
30, 2002.
COUNCIL MEMBER REPORT~
Cecil McConnell commented that an editorial in The SUN regarding the next meeting of the
Commission on Council Salaries was incorrectly announced as June 9, rather than January 9, 2003.
Ed Rollman announced that in celebration of the Admiral Theater's 60th anniversary next Tuesday on
May 7, there would be a re-showing of "Reap the Wild Wind", which was the first movie played at the
theater. The event will begin at 7:00 P.M. for the 1942 admission price of $1.00.
Mike Shepherd encouraged the public to attend the First Friday Art Walk this week.
Eric Youncjer informed the residents of Anderson Cove that an "Anderson Cove Revival" was
planned for Tuesday, May 7 beginning at 6:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers. He encouraged
residents, property owners, businesses, and neighbors in Anderson Cove to attend this community
forum.
Will Maupin was pleased at the turnout for the District 8 & 9 Neighborhood meeting that was held
Thursday, April 25, and thanked staff from Kitsap Transit for their "Overview of Services".
MAYOR'S REPORT - Please note that a written, more detailed report on project updates was
provided to the Council members prior to the meeting tonight, however he summarized as follows:
· He reiterated his congratulations to Police Chief Rob Forbes who was named "Police Chief of the
Year" by the Washington State Crime Prevention Association; and
· He reported on his recent trip to San Diego with Gary Sexton to meet with Ben Cirpranic to tour
the multi-plex theater and shopping center that his company was involved in.
TAPE #1831
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
May 1, 2002
Page 2 of 2
PUBLIC RECOGNITION
John Ol$on Editor of the PATRIOT newspaper, announced his transfer to the CENTRAL KITSAP
REPORTER, and therefore introduced Robin Moody, Assoc. Editor, who would be his replacement.
Tom McDonald complimented Carol Arends for the eloquent way she runs Council meetings; and
also provided comment on a workshop he attended last evening hosted by the Planning Department.
He would like the City to address the issue of spraying sludge out at the watershed, near his property.
Der. Wendy Davis, Crime Prevention Detective & Public Information Officer with the Bremerton
Police Department, announced a School Terrorism Training Event, a collaborative training exercise
involving a simulation of school terrorism at the Bremerton High School on Friday, May 10 between
the hours of 12:00 to 2:30 P.M. It was also noted that this event would require traffic revisions and
road closures in the area the day of the event, affecting roads from 11th Street to 17th Street, and from
High Avenue to Lincoln Avenue. If more information is required, please contact the Kitsap County
Department of Emergency Management at 616-5870; the Bremerton Police Department at 478-5231
or 478-5220; or the Bremerton School District at 478-5116.
The regular business meeting of the Council was adjourned at 6:05 P.M. The Council then
reconvened in the Council Conference Room for their 2-hour Monthly Study Session to discuss
"COUNCIL REDISTRICTING"; "THE WESTPARK MASTER PLAN"; and the "DOWNTOWN GOVERNMENT
CENTER & LIBRARY".
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 BI'LL
BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL
1. SUBJECT: BUDGET ADJUSTMENT - FOR AGENDA OF: May 15, 2002
FUND 451 - RESIDENTIAL DISCONNECTION ORIGINATING DEPT: Public Works & Utilities
ASSISTANCE PROGRAM ORIGINATOR: Gene Sampley. Dir, PW&U
DATE SUBMITTED: May 1, 2002
2. CLEARANCES: (Comments on ~ 3. EXHIBITS:
/ ~~~ Budget Adjustment No. 2002-~'! /
Director, PW & Utilities Exhibit B, Distribution of Appropriation
City. Treasurer ~ /
Finance & Budget Cornnlk///~'~
Operations Comm. ~ .~.~ °~'&
ENDORSE~I~ [ 1/~.~/ ¢J~~TION t] APPROVED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FOR SUBMITTAL:
MAYOR ~ COUNCIL PRESIDENT
4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION:
In November 1999, City..' Council established by Ordinance No. 4684 the Residential Disconnection Assistance
Program to assist residential properW owners in the elimination of improper storm water inflow to the wastewater
system. By Resolution 2779, the Council established a three-year (2000 through 2002) distribution of $70,000 for
limited grants for this program. This resolution established the schedule and criteria for reimbursement to residential
property owners for improvements upon residential property. All funds appropriated in years 2000 and 2001 were not
fully expended as originally- anticipated (See Exhibit B). The attached budget adjustment redistributes the original
authorization to the 2002 budget for Wastewater Fund 451 so that all monies appropriated can be distributed to
residential property owners participating in the program to the limits of the original $70,000 appropriation.
8. RECOMMENDATION:
That the City- Council approve Budget Adjustment 2002-dt't' .
9. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Director PW&U
ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: City, Treasurer
EXPIRATION DATE: 12/31/2002
REVIEW DATE: N/A
10. NOTICE OF ACTION
PULLED [] TABLED [] APPROVED [] DISAPPROVED [] AMENDED [] ~ D
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE:
11. AGENDA BILL NO.:
2. CLEARANCE COMMENTS:
5. IMPACT ON NON-PASSAGE:
The appropriated amount for the Program would not be available and residential property.' owners x~'ould
not be reimbursed for their participation in the separation program.
6. IMPACT ON STAFFING, BUDGETS~ FACILITIES~ EQUIPMENT AND OTHER RESOURCES:
No impact on staffing, facilities, or equipment. See budget adjustment.
7. RESEARCH SOURCES:
Ordinance 4684 and Council Resolution 2779
CITY OF BREMERTON
BUDGET ADJUSTMENT REQUEST
Requesting Department: WASTEWATER UTILITY Adjustment Number: 2002 #11
I Approval Authority Required: 1
r-1Treasurer I--IMAyOr F- Fiscal & Budget r~Council
SOURCE OF FUNDS: USE OF FUNDS:
Description Amount Description Amount
Increase: Increase:
Beginning Cash 42,170 Residential Disconnection Program 42,170
NARRATIVE:
This adjustment will increase expenditure authority for the current fiscal year to allow the program to distribute up
to the total of $70,000 which was originally authorized for the three years of the program. The adjustment will
raise current year expenditure authority to $54,670 from the current $12,500.
Department Head Signature Date Director Signature Date
Treasurer Comments:
~ Recommended F-'--] Not Recommended
Treasurer's Signature ~ Date
Mayor Comments:
~ Recommended ~ Not Recommended
~ Approved ~ Denied
Mayor's Signature Date
Fiscal & Budget Committee Comments:
F-'--1 Approved ~ Denied
Fiscal & Budget Committee Signature Date
EXHIBIT B
DISTRIBUTION OF APPROPRIATION
Council
Amount Owed but Property Recommended
Authorization for Amount Paid in
Paying Reimbursements Owner has not yet Revised
Reimbursements Requested Reimbursement Authorization
2000 $20,000 $ 0 $ 7,175 $ 0
2001 $37,500 $ q 5,330 $13,490 $15,330
2002 $~2,500 $ q q,265 $ 5,750 $54, 670
Total $70,000 $26,595 $26,415 $70,000
AGENDA BILL
BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL
1. SUBJECT: FOR AGENDA: 5-15-02 AND 5-22-02
Professional Services Agreement Amendment No. 1 - ORIGINATING DEPT: City Attorney
Buckley & Leaders ORIGINATOR: Roger A, Lubovich
DATE SUBMITTED:
2. CLEARANQESc'O2omment on back if necessary) 3. EXHIBITS:
/~' '~ {/p~E~1~/~.~,,_~~2:2 ~, B uckley & Lead er sP rofession al Services Agreement
GElhCE S~AM & Utilities Amendment No. 1
~'-~--' ~'~- ~ ~'~'~7-
MARG_CtI~T ~ Risk Management
RICHARD HANNA, Treasurer
~~. ~LTOVICH, City..&tmmL~ '' COUNCIL PRESIDENT ~..~ ~~-'
FI~CAL~ 8ff~0DGE~ CHAIRMAN
OPERATIONS CHAIRMAN
ENDORSE{~ ~-]
MAYOR []
4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION:
Ronald Leaders of the law firm Buckley & Leaders is currently representing the City in two proceedings
regarding Pape & Sons Construction, Inc. The Professional Services Agreement between the City and Buckley
& Leaders will expire on December 31, 2002, however, the compensation for attorneys fees under the contract
is limited to $19,500 and current services will exceed this amount. It is in the best interest of the City that
Buckley & Leaders continue to represent the City in these lawsuits and other matters as assigned because of
their expertise and familiarity with the particular case issues. Therefore, approval of the Professional Services
Agreement Amendment No. 1 to authorize compensation for 2002 at the hourly rate of $195 is requested.
8. RECOMMENDATION:
Move to authorize the City Attorney to execute the attached Professional Services Agreement Amendment
No. 1 between the City and Buckley & Leaders.
9. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Roger A. Lubovich
ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: Roger A. Lubovich
EXPIRATION DATE:
10. NOTICE OF ACTION: REVIEW DATE: O
eULLED 7-1 TAaLED 75 AI, eROVED [] DISAee}tOVED 75 ~,mENDEr0 D~:
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE:
~..&GENDA roLL NO.:
/7
5. IMPACT OF NON-PASSAGE:
Failure to pass this motion would result in the City being required to obtain new legal counsel to represent them
in ongoing litigation.
6. IMPACT ON STAFFING~ BUDGETS~ FACILITIES~ EQUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCES:
The anticipated attorney fees to be expended are unknown at this time, however, the Risk Management and
Public Works & Utilities budgets contain funds for the payment of these fees.
7. RESEARCH SOURCES:
Apr-30-02 12:45P Buckley & Leaders 206 463 7488 P.02
AMENDMENT NO. 1
This Amendment No. 1 modifies the Professional Services Agreement between the City of
Bremerton ("City") and Buckley & Leaders, with an effective date of April 1,2001 (the
"Agreement").
1. Effective Date. This amendment shall be effective on the date this amendment is signed by
both parties.
2. Term. Section II, Term, of the Agreement shall be deleted in [ts entirety and replaced with
the following:
This Agreement commences on April 1,2001 and will continue ih full tbrce and effect
until the City shall terminate the Agreement.
3. Compensation. Section 11I. Compensation, of the Agreement shall be deleted in its entirety
and replaced with the tbilowing:
In consideration of the services provided pursuant to this Agreement, the City shall pay
Retained Counsel for services rendered and invoiced monthly. Payment will be made based
on an hourly rate not to exceed $195.00 per hour for attorney services, $75.00 per hour for
paralegal services, $45.00 per hour for legal assistant services, $30.00 per hour for word
processing and out-of-pocket expenses in accordance with Retained Counsel's standard
billing practices. These fees shall remain fixed through December 3 I, 2002, at which time
the parties shall adjust the fees to reflect increases consistent with Retained Counsel's then
current annual increases in hourly rates for similar services.
4. Termination. The City shall have the right to terminate this Agreement or any portion of
services being provided by Retained Counsel under this Agreement at any'time with ten (10)days
prior written notice at the City's sole discretion for any reason whatsoever.
5. Task Budgeting and Planning. The Retained Counsel shall' provide quarterly projections
of levels ofeftbrt, budgets and litigation and dispute resolution plans fo~'discussion with the City
Attorney. This planning effort is intended to allow for Full City input and involvement in the
planning and implementation of the City's legal activities being provided by Retained Counsel.
Except as expressly modified herein, all remaining provisions in the Agreement shall remain in full
force and effect.
CITY OF BREMERTON BUCKLEY & LEADERS
By: By:
Date: Date:
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
BUCKLEY & LEADERS
The City of Bremerton ("City") and Buckley & Leaders ("Retained Counsel"), referred to
collectively as the "Parties", enter into the following Agreement for professional services:
I. Scope: The Retained Counsel will represent the City of Bremerton in City of Bremerton
vs. Pape & Sons Construction, Inc. No 00 2027046 filed in Kitsap County Superior Court and
provide legal advice on other matters on an as requested basis.
II. Term: This Agreement commences on April 1, 2001 and terminates on December 31,
2002.
III. Compensation: In consideration of the services provided pursuant to this Agreement,
The City shall pay Retained Counsel in a total amount not to exceed Nineteen Thousand Nine
Hundred Fifty and No/100 Dollars ($19,950.00). Payment will be made based on an houdy rate
not to exceed $195.00 per hour for attorney services and $75.00 per hour for paralegal services.
IV. Hold Harmless: Retained Counsel shall be solely responsible for the acts and failures
to act of its personnel which arise in any way out of performance of this Agreement. Retained
Counsel agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City and its officials and
employees from and against all liability, loss, damages, and expenses, including costs and
attorneys' fees, resulting from actions, claims, and lawsuits adsing or alleged to have adsen, in
whole or in part, out of or in consequence of the acts or failures to act of Retained Counsel, its
employees, its subcontractors, its agents, or its assigns in the performance of this Agreement.
The City and Retained Counsel have specifically negotiated Retained Counsel's waiver of its
immunity under Title 51 RCW, which is hereby waived for purposes of Retained Counsel's
indemnification and hold harmless of the City, including the duty to defend. This provision shall
be inapplicable to the extent such action, claim, or lawsuit is judicially found to arise solely from
the acts or failures to act of the City.
V. General Conditions:
A. Reports and Information: When requested by the City's Director of Public Works and
Utilities or a Bremerton Assistant Attorney, Retained Counsel shall furnish periodic reports and
documents on matters covered by this Agreement. The reports and documents shall be
furnished in the time and form requested.
B. Entire A,qreement: This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the
Parties, and the Parties acknowledge that there are no other agreements, written or oral, that
have not been set forth in the text of this Agreement.
C. Severabilit¥: Should any part of this Agreement be found void, the balance of the
Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.
D. Modification: This Agreement may only be modified by written instrument signed by
both Parties.
Buckley & Leaders
3/27/01 - ?age [
E. Notices: Notices shall be in writing and delivered to the following addresses:
Gene Sampley Ronald R. Leaders
Director of Public Works & Utilities Buckley & Leaders
239 Fourth Street 9330 SW 216th Street
Bremerton, WA 98337 Vashon, WA 98070
F. Waiver: Failure to enforce any provision of this Agreement shall not be deemed a
waiver of that provision. Waiver of any dght or power arising out of this Agreement shall not be
deemed waiver of any other right or power.
G. Compliance with Laws: Retained Counsel shall comply with all applicable Federal,
State, and local laws in performing its obligations under this Agreement.
H. Choice of Law and Venue: This Agreement shall be interpreted according to the
laws of the State of Washington. Any judicial action to resolve disputes arising out of this
Agreement shall be brought in Kitsap County Supedor Court.
I. Attorneys' Fees: The substantially prevailing Party in any litigation arising out of this
Agreement shall be entitled to its reasonable attorneys' fees and court costs.
VI. Nondiscrimination: Retained Counsel shall not discriminate in employment or services
to the public on the basis of race, color national odgin, sex, religion, age, madtal status, or
disability, except for employment actions based on bona fide occupational qualification.
CITY OF BREMERTON BUCKLEY & LEADERS
y: .~n~ S. Horton, Mayor By: P~o,v,+~- D F~. f..~ ~i~'''
Buckley & Leaders
3/27/01 - Pag~e 2
Mar-28-01 02:51P Buckley & Leaders 206 443+9055 +++ P.02
BUCKLEY &LEADERS
Counsellors at Law 9330 sw 216th St.
Vashon, WA 98070
Telephone [206) 463-74.34
March 28,2001 Facsimile (206) 463-7488
Ronald R. Leaders
City of Bremmerton E-mai[: rleaders~contractso{utionsgroup.com
3027 Olympus Drive
Bremmerton, WA 983 ! 0-4799
Re: Letter of Engagement
Dear Client:
This letter is to confirm that you have engaged Buckley & Leaders to provide legal services to
you relating to the Pape Litigation and other ongoing matters. I will be the primary attorney
working with you on this matter, although I may confer with other legal counsel and/or
specialized consultants as necessary, I will discuss with you, and obtain your concurrence before
consulting any other legal counsel or other consultants.
The billing rate for myself on this engagemem will be $195.00 per hour, plus reimbursable
expenses, $75 for paralegal services, and out of pocket expenses reimbursed at cost (rate sheet
attached). These services and expenses are to be invoiced monthly.
We will endeavor to identify levels of effort and budgets for the work we do for you. If the
actual level of effort and budget exceed our estimates, we will consult with you for direction.
Many of our client are budget conscious, we appreciate the need to define our levels of effort and
budgets to meet our clients' legal, business and financial objectives.
In our telephone conversation yesterday, you outlined a general scope of the work you wish
Buckley & Leaders to perform. If this letter confirms the general terms of our agreement, please
sign both copies and return one copy to me.
We appreciate the confidence you have in us by requesting our assistance in ~is and other
important projects.
Ronald R. Leaders Client Signatur~ /
Enclosure
C :\DATA\RRL\B R. EM\ENGAGE 1 .WPD
022
Mar-28-01 02:52P Buckley & Leaders 206 443+9055 ~-++ P.03
Attorney:
Ronald R. Leaders $195.00
Contract Administrator 595,00
Paralegal: $75,00
Project Assistant: $45.00
Word Processing: $30,00
Fax: Local $I.00 perpage
Long distance $2.00 per page, up to lo0 pages per billing cycle. $1.00 per page thereafter
International $3.00 per page ....
Photocopies: $. 15 per page
Long-distance telephone charges in excess of $10.00 monthly are invoiced.
Expenses:
Expenses, such as overnight shipping (FedEx), experts and filing fees, are itemized and
invoiced monthly.
Travel:
Travel time is billed at one-half normal billing rate.
Travel costs, such as aiffare, hotel, car rental, meals and case-related long-distance calls,
are to be paid by the client.
Invoicing:
Monthly invoices are mailed to clients with payment due upon receipt.
Payments carl be made by check to P.O. Box 775, Vashon, WA 98070
Payment by credit card is currently limited to Visa or Mastercard.
Payments not recieved in 30 days are subject to a 12% annual interest and administrative
charges.
C.'.~)ATA',R RL~,A'I'E.SHT
AGENDA BILL
BREMERTON
CITY
COUNCIL
I. SUBJECT: Public Hearinq &~inance 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 Hugo, 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
Fis~l & Budget Council Comm.: ~~~ o Ordinance to amend Zoning Text
Operations Comm.: ..~~~~
APPRO~R ~L:
MAYO~ ~OUNCIL PRESIDENT
4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION'
A substantial number of residential st~otures in Breme~on were constructed prior to the adoption of current
setback requirements. In some neighborhoods, the pattern of non-conforming front (street side) setbacks has
become paA of the unique character of the City. The Gro~h Management Act and Comprehensive Plan
encourage the efficient use of land and smaller lots, and in some instances, decreased front setbacks are an
appropriate way to promote such efficiency and consistency with existing character.
The Planning Commission has reviewed this proposal, conducted a public hearing and adopted Findings &
Conclusions at their March 2g, 2002 meeting, and recommends City Council approval. On July 17, 2001 the
Planning Commission recommended approval of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment regarding 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.
5. RECOMMENDATION' ~~ ~~
6. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Christopher R. Huqo
ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: Christopher R. Hugo
EXPIATION DATE:
REVIEW DATE:
7. NOTICE OF ~TION
PULLED TABLED APPROVED DISAPPROVED A~N~D L
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.
12. RESEARCH SOURCES:
Comprehensive Plan
Zoning Ordinance
File
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 Traditional 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 l3remerton 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 become part of the unique character of the City; and
WHEREAS, the Growth Management Act and Bremerton Comprehensive Plan
encourage the efficient use of land and smaller lots in urban areas; and
WHEREAS, in some instances the ability to conform to established 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 1,2001; 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 public heatings 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:
SECTION I. 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
requirement of the zone represent sixty percent (60%) or more of the lineal feet fronting one side
of the street within a numbered block, the average set back of these existing non-conforming
structures establishes the minimum front yard for all properties fronting that side of the street on
the block subject to the 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 from yard set back be
less than five (5) feet.
SECTION 2. SeverabilitF. 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 af[er its passage, approval and publication as provided by law.
2
Setback Averaging
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
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~oning Ordinance 4-11 .doc
3
Setback Averaging
ORDINANCE NO. 4 7 C~ C~
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 o£ Traditional 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 become part of the unique character of the City; and
WHEREAS, the Growth Management Act and Bremerton Comprehensive Plan
encourage the efficient use of land and smaller lots in urban areas; and
WHEREAS, in some instances the ability to conform to established 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 heating on the Planning
Commission recommendation and approved said plan amendment on August 1, 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 hearin~ an ApS.!
g4rgOO3 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:
SECTION 1. 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
requirement of the zone represent sixty percent (60%) or more of the lineal feet fronting one side
of the a--street within a numbered block, the average set back of these existing non-conforming
structures establishes the minimum front yard for all properties fronting that side of the street on
the block subject to the 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. 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 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.
2
Setback Averaging
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
CARY BOZEMAN, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
KATHLEEN MCCLUSKEY, City Clerk ROGER A. LUBOVICH, City Attomey
PUBLISHED the day of ~, 2002
EFFECTIVE the day of ,2002
ORDINANCE NO.
R:\LEGAL\Ordinances\Community DevelopmentXZoning Ordinance 4-11 .doc
Setback Averaging
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 infill
development and efficient use of land by allowing the front yard
setback of new residential development to reflect the established
setbacks of existing structures.
DATE OF REPORT: January 10, 2002
APPLICANT OR PROPONENT (FILE NUMBER): City. ofBremerton (PL02-0001)
CONTACT: Ci~ of Bremerton Department of Community Development
(360) 478-5275
LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: This proposal applies to all property, within the City of Bremerton that
is zoned SF-1, SF-2. or SF-3.
BACKGROUND:
A substantial number of structures and buildings in Bremerton were constructed prior to the
adoption and enforcement of 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 the Bremerton Colnprehensive 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 infill development of
residential properties. This is particularly critical for the front yard setback that is the most visible site
characteristic viewed from 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 the character of the area.
On July 17. 200l the Planning Commission adopted written findings recotmnending approval ora
Comprehensive Plan amendment that supported a Zoning Ordinance amendment to address the above
circumstances. The Civ,, Council conducted a public hearing on this plan amendment and adopted it on
August 1. 200l.
STAFF REPORT - Compatible Residential Infill Zoning Text Amendment
JanuaD, 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 front 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, 2001 a Determination of Non-significance was issued regarding the subject
Comprehensive Plan Amendment and zoning text change. That DNS was published and circulated
pursuant to State law and the Bremerton Municipal Code. No comments were received pursuant 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 tact 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: ",~.~aximize the City's existing m-fill development potential to
ensure the most efficient use of existing utili.ty-infrastructure and facilities. '
2. In "Element G - Housing". Section E (Housing Strategies, Table G-l). the Comprehensive
Plan lists as "Priority Housing Strategies" (page 153 the folloxving:
"1. Revise Development Standards: &[odij.9 .wte £tanning,.bmldi,g ~[~3'ign requirements
(setbacks, street widths, etc.) or allow performance based improvement standards to increase
flexibility in housing development. Reduce minimum site improvement standards (drainage,
street, pavement, parking etc.) to reflect actual projected usage and needs."
"4. Encourage [nfill Development: Develop incet?m.'es to encourage "iqfill" development W'
vacant xites tn developed areas and rede;,'elop.tent (;f existing x~tes. Give priori .ty to programs
providing financial assistance to support irtfill homeownership.
3o
STAFF REPORT - Compatible Residential Infill Zoning Text Amendment
January. 10, 2002
Page Three
3. On August I, 2001, the City 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 t.
4. The subject zoning text amendment allows averaging of front yard setbacks in SF zones.
subject to certain limitations including a requirement that a majority 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 priority, 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 compatibility with existing front yard setbacks.
2. The proposed zoning text mnend~nent is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and in fact
implements a plan change approved by the City Council on August 1,2001.
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 no adverse 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 Cockburn; 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: abstain; and Wood: yes. The
agenda was approved as written.
IV. Approval of Minutes
The January 15, 2002, minutes were presented for approval by Commissioner 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 Dingfield 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 carries - 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 Hearing portion of the meeting.
B. Public Heanng.
Planning Commission Meeting March 29. 2002 Page [ of i2
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 altowing the front yard setback of new
residential development (in SF Zones) to reflect the established setbacks of existing
structures. (City of Bremerton)
Commissioner Ding, field 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 recommend this policy to the City Council for adoption - which is to
promote in-character urban infill development and efficient use of land by allowing the
front yard setback of new residential development to reflect the established setbacks of
existing structures. That is now the policy in the Comprehensive Plan that was adopted
in the City Council's annual Comprehensive Plan update last fall.
Now the implementing ordinance to realize this whole idea that was presented in one
form on January 15, 2002. With your direction, some modifications 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 Fron~ Yards. [n 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 t¥onting 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 tot, and
(2) Regardless of ([), 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 what the development pattern is - take
an average of it and then you get to setback new development or re-development in the
fl'ont yard to that ne~v average set back line. There are a couple of conditions that if
everything is built closer than five feet from ~be street - that doesn't matter. In every
Planning Commission Meeting March 29."_01)~" Page .:' of 1"_
$$
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 public 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. Hamar, 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 by several citizens. Mr. Hugo could not read the signatures, but read the
addresses [1147 Shore Drive, 1005 Shore Drive, 1017 Shore Drive and 1011
Shore Drive]. This is a letter supporting this proposed amendment and asking the
Commission 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 because 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 t9, 2002. His letter is objecting the
amendment.
e. Letter from Mr. and Mrs. John Didio, dated February 19, 2002. This letter is
asking the Commission to deny' the zoning amendm, ent.
Commissioner Din~'ield asked if there were any questions from the Commission for
Mr. 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 still considered a front yard.
Planning Commission Meeting March 29. 2002 Page 3 of 12
3¢
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.)
Nit. 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 carport and setback at least 5-feet
from the street. The initial proposal, back in January, didn't really identify which
structures we were talking about. So there was some concern about other utility
buildings and in the end for new development or re-development, it was our assessment
on listening to the Commission and other comments, that the only things we want to deal
with is the primary uses for residential (house and primary accessory 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 waterfront front
yard and the street side front yard. [ 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?
Mr. 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. [n 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 saving is that
delineation is natural just between whether we are talking about a street-side issue or the
shoreline issue.
Commissioner Kennedv stated that the ordinance does say it is setback from the street.
It is the front yard.
Planning_ Commission Meeting_ March 29. _0t' )'~- Page 4 of t,"
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 - Front Yard Averaging
Zoning Text Amendment. [Mr. Hugo clarified for the Commission, if you are
approving this proposal -vou are recommending it to the City Council.] Called for a
vote: Buckingham: yes; Cockburn: yes; Dingfield: yes; Kennedy: yes; Nelson: 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 Din~eld 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
panicular site. There is something already like this in the Bremerton Municipal Code - it
is a pro,,ision that [ didn't like from the first time [ got here because it seemed too
arbitrary. Flexibilitv 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 where you want a deviation from standards where
there is not an existing physical hardship" ~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. 2002 Page 5 of 12
AGENDA BILL
/
BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL /
~.J~ ~ ~'v~_.,'v._~~v :,~ qYc~~' ., ~-':'-:> '::~ '
I. ~UB,JECT: Public Hearinq' &Ordinance to amend FOR AGENDA OF:
BMC Chapter 2'1.02 (the Zoning Code) by providing the DEPT. OF ORIGIN: DC,~ ,-,,. J
regulatory measures allowing flexibility and innovative design ORIGINATOR: Ohri~ ~uuq~r
pursuant to a "Plan-in Lieu". DATE SUBMITTED: April 16, 2002
2. CLEARANCES: (Comment on back if necessary) 3. EXHIBITS:
DCD Director: _ ~/'~ z_~-~- _ o
City Attorn~~-~-----?,.""-~---~ o PC Minutes 3/29/01
City Clerk: -- N x/~) _ / o Ordinance to Amend Zoning Text
Fiscal & Budget Council Comm.:
Operations Comm.:
APPROVE//~~ ~
MAYOR~ COUNCIL PRESIDENT
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 land 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 by the application of this provision, which is defined as a
"Plan-in-Lieu."
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 hearing 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 #''/'-~1- ~'~ ~'b~ on second readinq.
6, RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL:Christopher R, Huqo
ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: Christopher R, Huqo
EXPIRATION DATE:
REVIEW DATE:
7. NOTICE OF ACTION 1~ r~
PULLED TABLED APPROVED DISAPPROVED7{~~D ~
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE: DATE:
8. AGENDA BILL NO.: ¢~- ,./...
37
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 RESOURCE,~:
The proposed amendment will create no operational changes for the city.
12. RESEARCH SOURCES:
Comprehensive Plan
Zoning Ordinance
File
Experience with Land Use Applications
ORDINANCE NO. 4800
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
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 therefore a need for a provision in the Zoning Code that will
allow, after careful analysis, flexibility in the application of development 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 heating 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
3 ~ Plan-tn-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-In-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 difficulty inherent in the site nor is it a procedure
to avoid meeting the public intent of the Zoning Ordinance.
SECTION2. 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 criteria:
(1) Total site area within setbacks shall be equal to or exceed that created by
adherence to the standard setbacks.
2
(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 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 4. 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 ~4~4c dayof .~gFl'[ ,2002
PASSED by the City Council the day of ,2002
CAROL ARENDS, Council President
3
q[ Plan-In-Lieu
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
qk Pla,,-In-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.
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.
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 may approve
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 from the
prescriptive standards of the code may only be approved for the following
dimensional standards: setbacks, landscaping, and sign regulations.
(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
provision 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 - Front Yard Averaging
Zoning Text Amendment. [Mr. Hugo clarified for the Commission, if you are
approving this proposal - you are recommending it to the City Council.] Called for a
vote: Buckingham: yes; Cockburn: yes; Dingfield: yes; Kennedy: yes; Nelson: 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 flexibilitv 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
is 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 an
arbitrary wax"? What we have 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 hardship" {~vhich is what the variance is l:or).
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
Ptannin~ Commission Meetin~ March 29, .0 ~ 0'_ Page 5 of 12
means that you can vary any part of the zoning code - you can even vary the uses. The
variance in reality is a very narroxv 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 and everything. The criteria are inherently contradictory to the whole intent of
the zoning code. ~fl'. Hugo stated that since he has been here in Bremerton, he has
refused to grant a single Special Exception. He said that he has talked to our attorneys
about it and they agree that the Special Exception mechanism is not good.
However, it would be nice to have something that is more objectively based. So, we are
proposing this PL02-0003, Plans-In-Lieu. It's like submitting development plans in lieu
of following the 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 from the prescriptive standards of the code may only be approved
for the following dimensional standards; setbacks, landscaping, and sign reguJations.
Proposed decision criteria are:
A Plan-In-Lieu may only' be approved if it satisfies all the following criteria:
l) Total site area within setback shall be 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 bv adherence to the
standard landscaping and buffer requirements:
3~ Total sign area shall be equal to or [ess than the allowed sign area standard,
Planning Commission Meeting March 29. 2002 Page 0 of [2
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, as director, and the staff could follow these guidelines in
reviewing proposals that would go through an administrative review process.
He then asked the commission if they have discussed the Special Use Permit always
going through the Hearings Examiner or was it changed. He explained that there are two
kinds: One is done administratively and the other goes through the public hearing process
to the Heatings Examiner. There was a short discussion on whether to have all Plans-In-
Lieu go through the Hearings Examiner or if 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 Hearings Examiner
· There is discussion of changing this to a letter request to go before Heanngs
Examiner
· The director, using his/her discL-etion at the beginning of the process and direct it to
the Heanngs Examiner process.
Heatin_o Examiner
· Advertising for public heanng
· Appeals would go to court.
Mr. Hugo explained that this is t-tow the zoning code is ah'eadv set up for all classes of
Special permits.
Planning Commission Meeting March 29. 2002 Page 7 of 12
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, !r 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 programs 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 Dingfidd 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.
Mr. Hugo explained that no. He said that the only safeguard is the ability to appeal, and
there is still notice. We do the administrative process. If we did that without notice, it
would be a problem. 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
me Plans-In-Lieu (4 a and b).
Mr. Hugo gave the following examples:
i 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-In-Lieu would give the
director the flexibility to access [hat 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 8 of [2
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 po~ver that is not
inconsistent with the other kinds of discretionary powers that the director has. [t 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 wotdd accrue from development as
prescribed by the dimensional standards of the ~one 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 controls would allow. This does not allow more use of property. You
are allowed to use the site in different ways, but you cannot use more of it. You cannot
do less landscaping, you don't have less setback area, and you don't get more signage.
This is an important distinction - it does not deviate from the overall intent of the zoning
code.
Commissioner Din~eld 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
and/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 buffering. Commercial areas
from the residential areas have aiwavs 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 communitv. This is a
good thing.
Planning Commission Meeting March 29, 2002 Page 9 of i2
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. Hugo gave a brief Director's Report:
I. Comprehensive Plan Process - Staffing The department still doesn't have enough staff.
We are still overloaded on the current planning side. The building side of the department is
fine and housing and block grant is fine. The planning side is still weak. 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 Zonina 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 facilities - to allow senior
housing 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 C,)mprehensive Plan Amendments The Citv
.Attorney is working on a formal request to the Citv Council for some action bv the end of
the month. There has been some claim that on the first of April the amendment cycle
officially starts - we cannot find any written record that there is any official start date. This
request will ask the Council to take an action that will rake care of whatever history that
Plannint_ Commission Meeting March 29. "_00:'~ Page 10 of [_~'
AGENDA BILL
BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL
1. SUBJECT: Public Hearing and FOR AGENDA OF: May 002
Ordinance amending 2002 rate ORIGINATING DEPT: Admin. Services~/
tables for Parks and Recreation ORIGINATOR: Paula Johnston
and Administrative Services DATE SUBMITTED: April 23, 2002
Departments
2. CLEARANCES: (comment on back 3. EXHIBITS:
if necessary)
Ordinance
Admin Services
Cit~ Attorney~'~~~~ ~ .... "~
Parks & Rec ~'~~~/~
Fiscal
Operations .~ J~~~
ENDORSEM~ ~ ~PPROVED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT ~OR SUBMITTAL:
4. SUM~RY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION:
The 2002 rate tables for user fees need to be amended to reflect
changes in A~inistrative Services fees for copies and Parks and
Recreation user fees.
8. RECOMMENDATION:
R~,-, L-_.. ~.J..L,..J..tnU..[.I. LLZ3._L;~L. rO.L._~.v ........ I___ ['1 I l',,m
-- MoV~ ~ to pass Ordinance No. ~6)~ on second"reading.
9. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Admin Services
ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: Admin Services
EXPIRATION DATE:
REVIEW DATE:
10. NOTICE OF ACTION
PULLED TABLED APPROVED DISAPPROVED ___~~ED
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE: DATE:
59,
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
N/A
7. RESEARCH SOURCES
DRAFT 4/4/2002
4
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 L Section 3.01.070 of the Bremerton Municipal Code entitled "Parks
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 FI.
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 Pro,ams
Ivy Green Cemetery
Gold Mountain Golf Complex
1
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. Severabilirv. 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 6. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force ten
(10) days from and after its p assage,.approval and publication as provided by law.
APPROVED by the City Council the day of ,2002
PASSED by the City Councit the day of ,2002
CAROL ARENDS, Council Presidem
Approved this day of ,2002
C~&RY BOZEMAN, Mayor
SS Rate Tables
DtL~FT 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 Housemoving/Oversize Loads $517+$65/mile
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 Shuttlebus $131/veh/yr
BMC 5.36 Special Events:
Profit $645/event
Non-Profit $63/event
EXHIBIT NO." A"
Table A - A1
57
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 hrs
$30/10 hrs
Parking Garage Not to Exceed
$100/mo
DOCUMENT REPRODUCTION FEES 2002 RATE
Per Page $.15/pg
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 houri2 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 houri2 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 hour/1 hr min. $29.50
Eveninqs (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 houri2 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
Gym (Sports use) - per hour/2 hr 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
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
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 CENTER 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 b l
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 #4 is not reservable. Use of shelter fi4 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 (not 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
Special Public $1.00
PUNCH CARDS
Youth 10 punch $18.00
Youth 20 punch $36.00
Adult 10 punch $24.00
Adult 20 punch $48.00
SeniodDisabled 10 punch $18.00
SeniodDisabled 20 punch $36.00
Fitness/Lesson 10 punch $24.00
Fitness/Lesson 20 punch $48.00
Senior/Disabled Fitness 10 punch $18.00
SeniodDisabled 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
SeniodDisabled 12 months $190.00
SWIMMING LESSONS
Youth/Adult 30 min. $3.25
Table F-F5 ~3
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) per person $1.50
FLAG FOOTBALL
Men's League (Fall) per team $370.00
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 Tournaments 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) x {1.2
Administration factor)] 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 ~'
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
Infant $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
DISURNMENTS
Urn $146.00 $175.00
RAISE GRAVE $98.00 $118.00
CEMENT WALLS & CAPPING GRAVE SITE
Table F- F9 ~,,.~
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- FIO
GOLD MOUNTAIN GOLF COMPLEX GREENS FEES - RATE TABLE F1
EFFECTIVE EFFECTIVE EFFECTIVE
CASCADE COURSE 11112002 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 Annual Sr. Single** 425/475 450/500 450/500
Semi Annual Sr. Couple** 700/750 800/850 800/850
Senior Punch Card** (2) 170.00 180.00 190.00
Regular 20 Rnd Punch Card 400.00 425.00 450.00
Regular 10 Rnd Punch Card 220.00 232.00 245.00
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 1/1/02 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 approva~
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)
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 reduced rate, not less than the current twi-light rate, may be offered with the approval
of the Parks & Recreation Director.
2. Saturday, Sunday or Holiday (May - September Not to Exceed Rate)
Table F1 - F1-2 '~0
AGENDA BILL
BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL
1. SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDINANCE FOR AGENDA: 5-15-02 AND 5-22-02
TO ADD CH. 1.06 TO THE BMC RELATING ORIGINATING DEPT: City Attorney
TO PUBLIC RECORD INDEXES AND ORIGINATOR: Simon Stocker
RECORDS REQUESTS UNDER THE PUBLIC DATE SUBMITTED:
DISCLOSURE ACT
2. CLEARANCES: (Comment on back ifnecessary) 3. EXHIBITS:
KATHLEEN MCCLUSKEY, City Clerk
BOVICH, City A~y
FI~A]/B~ ~T CHA~AN
¢,
OPEratOrS CHA~AN
co c L P S D NT
E~OR~~ATION ~
MAYOR~ ~ ~ff J ~~
4. SUMM~Y STATEMENT AND ~QUI~MENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION:
The City is cu~ently out of compliance with RCW 42.17.260 (3). The statute requires the City to keep an index
of all of the City's public documents. Complying with this requirement would require the City to expend an
exorbit~t mount of staff time, perhaps even requihng the City to hire additional staff. The City c~ issue an
order, p~suant to RCW 42.17.260(4), declmng the requirement to maintain the index too burdensome. It is
recommended that the City Council approve the attached order declahng compli~ce with RCW 42.17.260(3) to
be overly burdensome and requiring the City to m&e available for inspection ~or coping all non-exempt
public records, including any indexes that are maintained by the City p~suant to the Public Disclosure Act, Ch.
42.17 RCW.
8. RECOMMENDATION:
Move to approve the attached Ordinance on the first reading.
Move to pass Ordinance No. on the second reading.
9. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Roger A. Lubovich
ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: Roger A. Lubovich
EXPIRATION DATE:
10. NOTICE OF ACTION: REVIEW DATE: ~ ~
PULLED ~-] TABLED [-] APPROVED [] DISAPPROVED ~-q AMENDI
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE:
11. AGENDA BILL NO.:
5. IMPACT OF NON-PASSAGE:
If the City Council fails to pass the ordinance, the City will be required to expend resources to create and
maintain an index of all of the City's public records.
6. IMPACT ON STAFFING~ BUDGETS~ FACILITIES~ EQUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCES:
Staffing, budgets, facilities, and other resources would all be negatively impacted by the amount of time, and
resources that would be expended in creating and maintaining the index required by RCW 47.17.260(3).
7. RESEARCH SOURCES:
7,2
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of
Bremerton, Washington, adopting a formal order, pursuant to RCW
42.17.260(4)(a), and adding a new chapter, Chapter 1.06 to the
Bremerton Municipal Code, declaring that the maintenance of a
current index of public records to be unduly burdensome and
directing that any indexes maintained for internal City use be made
available for public inspection and copying, unless otherwise exempt
pursuant to applicable law.
WHEREAS, Ch. 42.17 RCW requires all cities and public agencies to maintain
and make available a current index of public records; and
WHEREAS, RCW 42.17.260(4)(a) provides that if maintaining such an index
would be unduly burdensome or would interfere with agency operations, a city must issue and
publish a formal order specifying the reasons why and to the extent to which compliance would
be unduly burdensome; and
WHEREAS, RCW 42.17.260(4)(b) further provides that in spite of such an order,
any index that is maintained by the city must be made available for public inspection m~d/or
copying; and
WHEREAS, the City of Bremerton is a municipal corporation of the State of
Washington which provides general municipal and utility services to its residents and others; and
WHEREAS, the magnitude and diversity of seven City departments with an even
greater number of divisions/subdivisions, has resulted in the creation and use of many different
computer systems, programs and information retaining systems which would be extremely
difficult, if not physically impossible, to compile a single index; and
I
Public Disclosure htdex
'73
WHEREAS, the City's operations do not allow for the addition, revision, or
reassignment of duties of existing personnel so that a current index may be developed and
maintained; and
WHEREAS, anticipated City revenues do not allow for additional staff for the
sole purpose of creating and maintaining such a current index; and
WHEREAS, the City has a longstanding and recognized policy of assisting people
who request public information and of providing public records upon request and does not plan to
deviate from that policy; NOW THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON,
DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. A new chapter, Chapter 1.06, entitled "Public Records Indexes and
Records Requests Under the Public Disclosure Act," is hereby added to the Bremerton Municipal
Code to read as follows:
CHAPTER 1.06
PUBLIC RECORDS INDEXES AND RECORDS REQUESTS UNDER THE PUBLIC
DISCLOSURE ACT
1.06.010. Findings.
(a) Ch. 42.17 RCW requires all cities and public agencies to maintain and make
available a current index of all public records.
(b) RCW 42.17.260(4)(a) provides that if maintaining such an index would be unduly
burdensome, or would interfere with agency operation, a city need not maintain such an index
but it must issue and publish a formal order specifying the reasons why and the extent to which
compliance would be unduly burdensome.
(c) The City of Bremerton is comprised of seven departments, their divisions and
subdivisions, which maintain separate databases and/or record keeping systems for the indexing
of records and information.
.~.o Public Disclosure Index
I¥
(d) Because the City has records which are diverse, complex and stored in multiple
locations and in multiple computer systems and databases, it is unduly burdensome, if not
physically impossible, to maintain a central index of records.
(e) The City of Bremerton will make available for inspection and/or copying all non-
exempt public records, including any indexes that are maintained by the City pursuant to the
Public Disclosure Act, Ch. 42.17 RCW.
1.06.020. Order regarding Public Records Index. Based upon the findings set forth in
BMC 1.06.010, and pursuant to RCW 42.17.260(4)(a), the City Council orders the following:
(a) The City of Bremerton is not required to maintain a current index of public
records due to findings of the City Council that the requirement is unduly burdensome and such a
list is nearly impossible to create and/or maintain; and
(b) Pursuant to Ch. 42.17 RCW, the City of Bremerton shall make available for
public inspection and/or copying all public records and any indexes of public records maintained
by the City to the extent not exempt from inspection and/or copying pursuant to RCW 42.17.310
or other applicable law.
SECTION 2. - Severabilim If any one or more section, 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
thirty (30) days after passage 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
3
'7 f Public Disclosure Index
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~PublicDisclndex-Exemption.doc
Public Disclosure Index
AGENDA BILL
BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL
1. SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDINANCE FOR AGENDA: 5-15-02 AND 5-22-02
AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 4798 TO MAKE ORIGINATING DEPT: City Attorney
TECHNICAL AND TYPOGRAPHICAL CORRECTIONS ORIGINATOR: Roger A. Lubovich
DATE SUBMITTED:
2. CLEARANCES; (Comment onback if necessary) 3. EXHIBITS:
_~HR~HUGO,~ C omCnity Development
RO£ ~ER A. LI~BOVICH, City Attorney ~...~
F ;~~DhET CHA~AN APPROVED FOR SUBMITTAL:
OPERATIONS CHAIRMAN
MAYOR k_..-~"~--~,
4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION:
On April 24, 2002, the City Council passed Ordinance No. 4798 amending and updating the Administrative
Hearing Examiner process contained within the Bremerton Municipal Code. Minor technical and typographical
corrections are required to Ordinance No. 4798. The attached ordinance makes the necessary technical and
typographical corrections.
8. RECOMMENDATION:
Move to approve the attached Ordinance on the first reading.
Move to pass Ordinance No. on the second reading.
9. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Roger A. Lubovich
ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: Roger A. Lubovich
EXPIRATION DATE:
10. NOTICE OF ,CTION: REVIEW DATE:
PULLED [--] TABLED [--] APPROVED [--] DISAPPROVED {--] AMENDED
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE:
11. AGENDA BILL NO.: 02 - 0~ ~
77
5. IMPACT OF NON-PASSAGE:
6. IMPACT ON STAFFING~ BUDGETS, FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCES:
7. RESEARCH SOURCES:
DRAFT 5/6/20O2
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of
Bremerton, Washington, amending Bremerton Municipal Code
Sections 21.02.850, 21.02.860, and 21.02945(c)(2) as amended by
Ordinance 4798 to make technical and typographical corrections.
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 4798 made voluminous changes to various chapters
of the Bremerton Municipal Code as they relate to Administrative Hearing Examiners;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to make technical and typographical corrections to
Sections 21.02.850, 21.02.860, and 21.02945(c)(2) as they were amended by Ordinance No.
4798; NOW THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON, DOES
HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Section 32 of Ordinance No. 4798 is hereby amended to read as
follows:
SECTION 32. Bremerton Municipal Code Section 21.02.850 is hereby repealed in its
entirety and there is hereby created a new section 21.02.850 of the Bremerton Municipal Code
relating to Type III land use applications, to read as follows:
21.02.850 Type III Administrative Hearing Examiner Decisions.
(a) Actions: The following actions may be approved, approved with
conditions, or denied, or remanded by the Administrative Hearing Examiner pursuant to Chapter
2.13 BMC following an open record public hearing, unless noted otherwise.
(1) Final Subdivision Plat.
(2) Variance.
(3) Non-administrative Special Use Permit.
(cb) Decision Format: Type [II decisions shall be made in writing
supported by findings of fact and conclusions of law.
1
Ordinance 4 798 Corrections
77
DRAFT 5/6/2002
(t:c) Final Decision: Type III decisions are made by the Administrative
Hearing Examiner and are final when issued for purposes of appeal.
(gd) Appeal: Type III decisions may be appealed to Superior Court
within the twenty-one (21) calendar days following the date of issuance of the decision.
SECTION2. Section 34 of Ordinance No. 4798 is hereby amended to read as
follows:
SECTION 34. Bremerton Municipal Code Section 21.02.860 relating to shoreline
permits is hereby recodified as 21.04. ! 00 110 BMC and is further amended to read as follows:
Section 21.04.10~110 Shoreline Decisions.
(a) Actions: The following are subject to the requirements of Bremerton's
Shoreline Master Program but shall be decided within 120 days. Recommendations and hearings
shall be conducted as described in the "Permit Processing" table that follows.
(1) Shoreline Substantial Development Permit
(2) Shoreline Conditional Use Permit
(3) Shoreline Variance
(4) Shoreline Permit Revisions
(5) Shoreline Master Program Amendments
(b) Decision Format: Completion of a prepared form or statement of
findings, conclusions and the decision of the approving body. Adoption of and amendments to
the Shoreline Master Program shall be made by ordinance.
(c) Final Decisions:
(1) Substantial Development Permits and amendments to existing
permits are decided administratively, in the same manner as other Type II permits.
(2) Conditional Use Permits and Variances are decided by the
Pla:ming Co, mmi:sionAdministrative Hearing Examiner and may be approved, rejected, or
modified by the Department of Ecology. A neighborhood meeting or study session is optional.
(3) All Shoreline Permit decisions must be submitted simultaneously
to the applicant, the Department of Ecology (DOE), and to the attorney general. DOE may
approve or disapprove the permit.
0 Ordinance 4 798 Corrections
DRAFT 5/6/2002
(4) Shoreline Master Program Amendments are decided by the City
Council and may be approved, rejected, or modified by the Department of Ecology.
(d) Appeals: An appeal of the local shoreline permit decision may be filed
with the Administrative Hearing Examiner pursuant to Chapter 2.13 BMC as provided herein,
with a second appeal to the Shoreline Hearings Board (SHB), or may be filed directly with the
SHB.
(1) Decisions on Substantial Development Permits may be appealed to
the Administrative Hearing Examiner within fourteen (14) calendar days of the date of the decision,
and considered in an open record appeal heating, or
(2) Those decisions listed in (d)(1) above or the Administrative Hearing
Examiner decisions on appeals of earlier decisions, may be appealed to the Shoreline Hearings
Board by filing a Petition for Review within twenty-one (21) calendar days of the date of the
Department of Ecology's review and decision.
(3) The decision of the Depamnent of Ecology pertaining to the
adoption of, or amendment to, the Shoreline Master Program may be appealed to the Central Puget
Sound Growth Management Hearing Board per RCW 36.70A.250 through 320.
(4) Appeals to the hearing examiner shall be decided within (30) thirty
calendar days of the filing date. Appeals to the Shoreline Heatings Board will be decided within
180 calendar days.
SECTION 3. Section 55 of Ordinance No. 4798 is hereby amended to read as
follows:
SECTION 55. Bremerton Municipal Code Section 21.02.945(c)(2) relating to violations
of the Zoning Code is amended to read as follows:
(2) An order shall be obeyed immediately, notwithstanding the filing of
an appeal to hearing examiner pursuant to Chapter 2.13 BMC, which must be filed within fourteen
(14) calendar days following posting of the cease and desist order or as otherwise stated in the order.
SECTION 4. Severabilitv. If any one or more sections, subsections, or
sentences of this Ordinance are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not
Ordinance 4 708 Corrections
DRAFT 5/6/20O2
affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance and the same shall remain in full
force and effect.
SECTION 5. 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 Council the day of ,2002
CAROL ARENDS, Council 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.
RSLEGAL\OrdinancesXHearmg Examiner Ordinance technical corrections.doc
4
Ordinance 4 798 Corrections