HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/12/00 AGENDA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
JANUARY 12, 2000
1. CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION: 5:00 - 5:30 P.M.
A. General Council Business
2. CALL TO ORDER: 5:30 P.M.
A. Pledge of Allegiance
B. Invocation
3. CONSENT AGENDA
Items listed below have been distributed to Council members in advance for study
and will be enacted by one motion. If separate discussion is desired on an item, it
may be removed from the Consent Agenda and placed on the Regular Agenda at ~o,~.~..
the request of a Council member.
J
A. Minutes of Meeting - December 22, 1999 #AB00-004
4. CLAIMS/CHECK REGISTERS
5. COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS
6. MAYOR'S REPORT
7. LEGISLATIVE REPORT
8. PUBLIC RECOGNITION -- (Comments Limited to 3 Minutes)
9. NEW BUSINESS
A. Professional Services Agreement with Montgomery #AB00-005
Watson for Pre-Design Services for the Callow Avenue
Basin CSO Reduction Project, Priorities 3 & 5
10. ORDINANCES
A. Ordinance (First Reading) Authorizing the Issue of a #AB00-006
$1,250,000 Tax Anticipation Note, and Accepting the
Purchase Offer of SeaFirst Bank
-,~ubon
~.otG,.,,,o, .j ,~ ~
,~au~,,~/
(CONTINUED ON BA CK...)
11. PUBLIC HEARINGS - (Approximately 6:00 P.M.) '---'~
A. Resolution No. 2733, Regarding Recovery of Fees for the #AB00-008
Abatement of Garbage and Debris on the Property
Located at 184 Valley Ddve
B. Resolution No. 2734, Regarding Recovery of Fees for the#AB00-009
Abatement of a Fire-Damaged Duplex on the Property
Located at 1712 & 1714 Houston Avenue
C. Quasi-Judicial Public Headng, and Ordinance (First #AB00-010
Reading) on Development Agreement for Northwest
Corporate Campus (PL99-0073)
Applicant: Ron Sciepko
12. ADJOURNMENT OF MEETING
AGENDA BILL
BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL
JANUARY 12, 2000
1. ~: FOR AGENDA OF:
ORIGINATING DEPT: CITY COUNCl L
MINUTES OF MEETING - DECEMBER 22, 1999 ORIGINATOR: CAROL ARENDS, PRESIDENT
DATE SUBMITTED: JANUARY 6, ZOOO
2. ~: (comment on back 3. ~:
if necessary)
4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REOUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION:
8. RECOMMENDATION:
9. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL:.
ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL:
EXPIRATION DATE:
REVIEW DATE:
10. NOTICE OF ACTION
PUT,LED TABLED . APPROVED __ DISAPPROVED~I~~NDED
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE: DATE:
11. AGENDA BILL NO: D0- 00%
TAPES #1671, #1672, & #1673 UNAPPROVED DRAFT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
December 22, 1999
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, December 22, 1999, at 5:30
P.M., with Council President Mike Shepherd presiding. Council members present were Jim Reed,
Carlos Montgomery, Carol Arends, David Farr, John Law, Cecil McConnell, and Wayne Olsen.
Council Member Lon Overson was absent. Also in attendance were City Attorney Glenna Malanca,
Deputy City Clerk Paula Johnston, and Council Assistant Christine Grenier EIlingson.
The meeting opened with the Pledge of Allegiance led by Council President Shepherd, followed by
the invocation, given by Pastor Peter Webster of Westpark Christian Church.
Wayne Olsen left the meeting at approximately 5:35 PM
Council President Shepherd made the following announcements:
(1) City Council held a Pre-Council Session in the Council Conference Room," and
(2) City Council will hold a Study Session immediately following the Council Meeting tonight to
discuss the "Purchase of the KPS Building"
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Minutes of Meeting - December 8, 1999 #AB99-275
B. Minutes of Meeting - December 15, 1999 #AB99-276
C. SR304 Transportation Improvement Project: Puget Sound Energy Agreement #AB99-277
D. SR304 Transportation Improvement Project: US West Agreement #AB99-278
E. Concept Paper for Bureau of Justice Open Solicitation Discretionary Grant #AB99-279
Program
#0050 M/S/C/U (McConnell/Montgomery) Motion to approve Consent Agenda as presented.
CLAIMS/CHECK REGISTERS
Vouchers audited and certified by the auditing officer as required by RCW 42.24.080, and those
expense reimbursement claims certified as required by RCW 42.24.090 have been recorded on a
listing that had been made available to the Council.
#0070 M/S/C/U (Montgomery/Arends) On December 22, 1999, the Council does approve for payment
those vouchers included and further described as follows: 237176 through 237345 in the amount of
$623,323.16; and Regular Payroll for the period ending December 15, 1999 in the amount of
$760,067.09.
COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS
Wayne Olsen reiterated that the Streets Department has made numerous budget cuts to continue
ongoing projects. He apologized to Mr. Bob Tulp and his staff for the recent negative remarks made
by citizens regarding the Street Department. He expressed his appreciation for all the hard work they
provide to the City, and considered the comments undeserved.
TAPES #1671, #1672, & #1673
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
December 22, 1999
Page 2 of 7
John Law and his family wished everyone a happy holiday season. He informed citizens that the
City is aware of an abandoned vehicle located on the corner of East 1 l~and Winfield Street, and was
happy to report the procedure as set by City Ordinance is in process to remove the vehicle. He
reminded citizens this process could take two to three weeks.
David Fart thanked citizens for decorating homes and neighborhoods to beautify the area.
Carol Arends wished everyone a very joyous holiday season.
Carlos Montgomery also wished everyone a Merry Christmas and a happy and sober New Year.
Jim Reed thanked citizens for the incredible light displays, which his daughter has thoroughly
enjoyed. He also wished everyone a Merry Christmas.
President She_oherd also extended Holiday Seasons Greetings, and complimented the community
for the lighted displays. He encouraged citizens to come downtown and enjoy the decorations.
LEGISLATIVE REPORT - There was no report this evening.
PUBLIC RECOGNITION
Re.oresentative for Rev. Shirley Herrmance and Ebenezer A.M.E. Church announced that the
church would be sponsoring a Christmas Dinner for anyone in need on December 25, 1999 from
11:00 AM to 2:00 PM at the Sheridan Park Recreation Center located at 680 Lebo Boulevard.
Raymond A. Kleven voiced his concerns over the City's budget, and proposed several suggestions.
John Becker voiced his concerns over the purchase of the KPS building, and asked the true cost.
Elizabeth Buell again stressed that the City is only "investigating" the possibility of purchasing the
KPS building. President Shepherd reminded citizens there was a Study Session scheduled tonight
to discuss the possibilities, and reiterated no decisions would be made on this issue tonight.
Del Knauss thanked Carlos Montgomery and Lon .Overson for their many years of service to the
City. He added that although the City is "studying" the issue of whether to purchase the KPS building,
things seem to be moving "a little fast". He feels the current City Hall just needs some renovating.
John Thomas referred to the $3 million bond issue proposed to voters approximately 9 years ago to
build a new Public Works Building, which was voted down by the citizens, but the City built the
building anyway. He wants to know why the City is not using the $3 million being proposed to
purchase the KPS building, to pay off the bond issue.
Larry Dickerson reiterated his request for an update on the S.O.A.P. Ordinance; and expressed
interest in future discussions on plans for the apartments in the vicinity of the KPS building.
Presiden~ She.~herd briefly interrupted the "Public Recognition" portion of the meeting to introduce
members of The Kitsa.~ Chordsmen, also known as "The Worth Waiting For Group" to perform in
the spirit of the holiday season/.
Bob Jaenicke thanked and complimented Mr. Montgomery for his service to the City. He questioned
the work performed at the new Loftus Property near the end of Pacific Avenue on Monday, December
13, and wanted to know who was paying for it. He did not support the purchase of a new City Hall.
TAPES #1671, #1672, & #1673
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
December 22, 1999
Page 3 of 7
Ruth Nati¥idad felt the City could not afford a new City Hall at this time.
Councilman Wayne Olsen returned to the meeting at 6:00 P.M.
Glen Jarstad representing the Poggie Club, discussed the success of the salmon release program,
as well as upcoming projects. He encouraged volunteers to participate in feeding the new baby fish.
Susan Brown reiterated her request for an update on the "City Council Rules & Procedures".
MAYOR'S REPORT
Mayor Horton announced the top three winners for the window decoration contest were as follows:
1~ Place - "Evergreen Upholstery"; 2'd Place - "Teddies at Head"; and 3~ Place - "Metropolis Art
Gallery". She thanked Jackie Souza of "Goodies", and the judges for their participation in this event.
9A - US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE COPS UNIVERSAL HIRING PROGRAM". #AB99-280
Tim Sholtis, Police Department Administrative Support Manager, announced that the City has been
awarded $75,000 from the Department of Justice COPS Universal Hidng Program to hire an
additional full-time officer for three years from September 1999 to September 2002. The City's
matching share is $82,335.00 over three years.
Bob Jaenicke asked if there were going to be additional mandates? Mr. Sholtis responded that the
only amount contributed is the City's match amount over three years. Gordy Byrd asked if the
process applies only to hiring police officers? Mr. Sholtis answered yes.
#1475 M/S/C/U (FarflMontgomery) Motion to approve accepting the grant and administer it according
to the budgetary terms and conditions.
9B - CHANGE ORDER NO. 3 WITH MID-MOUNTAIN CONTRACTORS, INC. FOR 36-INCH
WATER TRANSMISSION IMPROVEMENTS, GORST TO RESERVOIR 4, #AB99-281
Bob Earl, Project Manager, stated that the 36-Inch Water Transmission Improvements, Gorst to
Reservoir 4 contract was awarded to Mid-Mountain Contractor, Inc. in September 1998 in the amount
of $4,057,353.45. Authorization is requested for the Mayor to execute Change Order No. 3 for
$205,095.13. Change Order No. 3 is the close-out change order for this project. The most significant
adjustments are in quantities for rock excavation, controlled-density fill and bank-run trench backfill to
final values. The change order also includes an amount for additional tunneling work due to changed
subsurface conditions. If approved, Change Order No. 3 will increase the final contract amount by
5%, to $4,262,448.58. Sufficient funds exist in the project budget for this work. It was further
explained that this Change Order settles a claim from a contractor for tunneling work under State
Hwy 305 in Gorst after substantially more rock was found throughout the lowland portion of the
alignment on this water main than was expected.
#1650 M/S/C/U (Arends/Montgomery) Motion to approve Change Order No. 3 for the 36-Inch Water
Transmission Improvements, Gorst to Reservoir 4 contract in the amount of $205,095.13 and
authorize the Mayor to execute the same.
10A- RESOLUTION NO. 2732, EXPRESSING COUNCIL'S SUPPORT FOR PROPOSED PARKS
AND RECREATION FACILITY PROJECTS, #AB99-282
Cris Gears, Parks & Recreation Director, noted that after more than a year of hard work, the citizen-
based Y2R (Yes to Recreation!) Committee, in conjunction with the Parks and Recreation
TAPES #1671, #1672, & #1673
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
December 22, 1999
Page 4 of 7
Commission and City Staff, has developed a set of recommendations designed to address the
community's recreation needs. The proposal calls for the City to issue voter-approved bonds for
Parks and Recreation projects which include: a new Recreation Center in downtown Bremerton;
upgraded Senior recreation facilities in East Bremerton; and multi-purpose athletic fields at
Pendergast Regional Park. The proposed Resolution articulates Council's support for the
recommended projects, and expresses Council's appreciation for the hard work and dedication of the
citizen-based Y2R Committee and the Parks & Recreation Commission.
At the request of Mr. Gears, the Deputy City Clerk read one paragraph of Resolution No. 2732 into
the record, due to recent changes in the verbiage made during the pre-Council session.
Mr. Gears provided additional background information, summarized the project, and reiterated this
was a "work in progress" and would only be possible with the approval of the voter's through a
General Obligation Bond. The estimated cost for this component of the project is in the range of
approximately $15 million, and the Committee is recommending that the downtown location be
considered the number one choice to meet the community needs. He concluded by stating that a
number of Y2R Committee members were in attendance at the meeting tonight, and noted that at the
final meeting of the Committee on December 2, 1999, the vote was 11 to 2 in support of the
recommendations presented.
Field Ryan first thanked Carlos Montgomery and Lon Overson for their service to the City. He then
thanked the Y2R Committee for their efforts, however, he recommended that Council considers the
cost to the taxpayers before making a decision and asked Council to hold this topic for a new session.
John Becket also commended the efforts of the Y2R Committee, but asked that an in depth review
of individual projects be done on the proposal.
Gordy Byrd voiced his support for the project.
Terry Cook, member of the Y2R Committee, commented that this process has been ongoing for
three years, and has involved input from seniors and the Parks & Recreation Commission. He added
that the proposed project would serve the community far more than the current facilities in use.
Elizabeth Buell asked for clarification on the cost to the taxpayers. Mr. Shepherd reiterated that this
question would be addressed in the next agenda item.
Dave Boynton, member of the Y2R Committee, added that this issue would be considered a starting
point, as a way to determine which projects the public really wishes to have.
Glen Jarstad supported the idea of the Recreation Center but did not support the proposed
downtown location.
Mr. Gears clarified the cost to taxpayers would be about $80 to $90 per $100,000 assessed property
value per year.
#3015 M/S/C/U (Montgomery/Arends) Motion to approve Resolution No. 2732.
TAPES #1671, #1672, & #1673
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
December 22, 1999
Page 5 of 7
TAPE #1672
11A- ORDINANCE (FIRST READING) ESTABLISHING A SPECIAL ELECTION DATE OF MARCH
14. 2000 FOR PARKS & RECREATION BOND, #AB99-283
Cris Gears, Parks & Recreation Director, stated that after more than a year of conducting meetings,
undertaking research, and evaluating public input, the citizen-based Y2R (Yes to Recreation!)
Committee, in conjunction with the Parks and Recreation Commission and City Staff, has developed
a comprehensive proposal to address needs for community recreation facilities. The Y2R Committee
is recommending that the City (1) Construct a new Recreation Center in downtown Bremerton; (2)
Upgrade the Senior Recreation facilities in East Bremerton; and (3) Complete the multi-purpose
athletic fields at Pendergast Regional Park. To fund these projects, it will be necessary to hold a
Special Election to seek approval from the City's voters to issue $16,500,000 (increased from
$16,000,000 in order to include the upgrades to the Glen Jarstad Aquatic Center) in general
obligation bonds. The proposed Ordinance would establish March 14, 2000 as the date of the
Special Election. Further background information was provided, and it was reiterated that this
ordinance does not in anyway approve the project. It simply establishes the date for the
Special Election.
John ThQmas, John Becker, Larry Dickerson, and Ruth Natividad voiced their concerns over the
proposed project and as well as site location.
Mr. Law clarified that the Council' action on the previous was not to endorse or support the project,
but to accept the recommendation. He reminded the citizens that this issue would now go to a vote
of the people.
Mr. Montgomery stated the City is in the business to provide service to the citizens, which includes
Parks. He supported the idea of letting voters decide on this project.
Mr. Reed thanked Mr. Gears and the Committee members for the amount of work put into the
proposal and clarified that the word "downtown" was stricken from project location proposal.
Mr. Gears stated that phone and mail surveys were conducted for over 2 years, in addition to public
comment taken at the Blackberry Festival.
Mr. Farr agreed with the process and noted that this is an effort to improve the downtown corridor.
#0560 M/S/C (McConnell/Montgomery) Motion to approve Ordinance on First Reading.
11B - ORDINANCE (FIRST READING) VACATING PORTIONS OF WASHINGTON AVENUE,
FIRST STREET, AND AN ALLEY IN ASSOCIATION WITH THE BREMERTON TRANSPORTATION
CENTER PROJECT, #AB99-284
Randy Witt, City Engineer, reported that Kitsap Transit and Washington State Ferries have petitioned
the City to vacate portions of Front (First) Street, Washington Avenue and the alley south of Front
(First) Street and east of Washington Avenue for construction of the Bremerton Transportation
Center. On November 17, 1999, the City Council passed Resolution No. 2728 setting a hearing date
of December 22, 1999 for this proposed vacation. In accordance with BMC Chapter 11.20, all
postings, mailings, and notifications of this hearing have been made. An Engineering Report has
been prepared that addresses the background, shoreline access, compensation, and other issues
TAPES #1671, #1672, & #1673
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
December 22, 1999
Page 6 of 7
relevant to the street vacation. The Engineering Report further addresses the hearing considerations
that the City Council needs to determine at the conclusion of the vacation in accordance with BMC
11.20.120. A staff recommendation is provided on each of these issues. The action before the City
Council is to approve, disapprove, or modify the proposed vacation. Staff recommends approval of
the vacation as requested.
Jim Reed left the meeting at approximately 7:20 P.M.
Dan Hill expressed concern over parking spaces being eliminated. Mr. Witt discussed the parking
situation in the area, and assured that he would work with the contractor to review the parkin§ issue
further.
#0845 M/SIC (Montgomery/FarO Motion to approve Ordinance on first reading.
Vote on Motion: In Favor: Law, Farr, Arends, Montgomery Shepherd
Opposed: McConnell
Abstain: Olsen
Motion carried.
Jim Reed returned to the meeting at approximately 7:35 P.M. He was not present for the vote on the
Motion of item 1 lB.
Cecil McConnell left the meeting at approximately 7:35 P.M.
TAPE #1673
11C - ORDINANCE NO. 4687 (SECOND READING) GRANTING PUGET SOUND ENERGY A
ONE-YEAR FRANCHISE, #AB99-271
The First Reading of this ordinance was presented at the City Council meeting on December 15,
1999.
There were no questions or comments by the public.
#0033 M/S/C/U (Farr/Montgomery) Motion to pass Ordinance No. 4687 on Second Reading providing
for a one-year franchise with Puget Sound Energy for the period January 12, 2000 - January 11,
2001.
Cecil McConnell returned to the meeting at approximately 7:40 PM. He was not present for the vote
on the Motion of item 11C.
11D - ORDINANCE NO. 4688 (SECOND READING) REDUCING THE B & O TAX ON GARBAGF
AND REFUSE BUSINESS. #AB99-272
The First Reading of this ordinance was presented at the City Council meeting on December 15,
1999.
There were no comments from the public.
#0060 M/S/C/U (Farr/Arends) Motion to pass Ordinance No. 4688 on second reading.
TAPES #1671, #1672, & #1673
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
December 22, 1999
Page 7 of 7
11E - ORDINANCE NO. 4689 (SECOND READING) AMENDING THE FY 1999 BUDGET, #AB99-
273
The First Reading of this ordinance was presented at the City Council meeting on December 15,
1999.
There were no questions or comments by the public.
#0080 M/S/C/U (Arends/Law) Motion to pass Ordinance No. 4689 on second reading.
12A - CONTINUANCE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR
NORTHWEST CORPORATE CAMPUS (PL99-0073); APPLICANT: RON SCIEPKPO. #AB99-285
Jon Holan, Director of Planning Department, stated that a public hearing before the City Council has
been noticed for December 22 concerning the adoption of a proposed development agreement for the
development of an industrial park on 188 acres located north of Old Clifton Road, south of State
Highway 16 and west of Anderson Hill Road. However, details of the agreement are still being
worked out between staff and the applicant. Staff is also attempting to address concerns of the
Suquamish Tribe. Thus, staff is requesting a continuance to provide time to finalize the agreement.
The applicant is in agreement with the need for the continuance.
President Shepherd asked if any Council member believed their participation would conflict with the
Appearance of Fairness Doctrine, and if so, they should be excused. He further asked if any member
of the public believed if any Council members should excuse themselves due to a conflict with the
Appearance of Fairness Doctrine. All Council members remained seated.
There were no questions or comments by the public.
There was discussion among the Council on whether or not to continue this public hearing. Staff has
requested the continuance to finalize the agreement, and the applicant is in agreement with this
request.
#0400 M/S/C (Law/McConnell) Motion to continue public hearing until January 12, 2000.
Vote on Motion: In Favor: Fart, Reed, Olsen, Law, Shepherd
Opposed: Arends, Montgomery, McConnell
Motion carried.
With no further business meeting adjourned at 7:55 P.M.
PAULA JOHNSTON, Deputy City Clerk
MIKE SHEPHERD, Council President
City of Bremerton
PJIMSIIslcg
C: Normal Distribution
File
AGENDA BILL
BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL
1. SUBJECT: FOR AGENDA OF: January 12, 2000
THE CALLOW AVENUE CSO REDUCTION ORIGINATING DEPT: PW&U Engineering'Div.
PROJECT PRIORITIES 3 AND 5: ORIGINATOR: Randy Witt, City Engineer.
AGREEMENT FOR PRE-DESIGN SERVICES DATE SUBMITTED: December 30, 1999,.~,~
WITH MONTGOMERY WATSON t"' ~'-' '
2. CLEARANCES: (~omment' on'backj'f.~J) ~ 3. EXI-II]~ITS
Director, Public Works/Utilities ..~_~7__~~ 7/7 _ A. Professional Services Agreement with
City Attorney .i~~_~/r~ntgomery and Watson.
City Treasurer ~ _ B. Location map.
Director, Administrative Services
Council Budget & Finance Comrmttee ~-d~(..c~ ~
Operations Committee (_ .~2,~¢~-;;~-~-,-~'
F~NDORS_EM~NT × ~rN~RMAT~ON APPROVED BY COUNCrL PRESmENT FOR SUBMITTAL:
MAYO~' ,,~', . -- COUNCIL PRESIDENT
4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION:
The City has negotiated a Professional Services Agreement with Montgomery Watson to provide pre-design
activities on the Callow Avenue Combined Sewer Overflow Project, Priorities 3 and 5. These pre-design activities
will include mapping and modeling of the system improvements identified in the Callow Avenue Basin Combined
Sewer Rehabilitation and Storm Drainage Separation Engineering Report (April 1994) prepared bv CH2M Hill.
The not to exceed amount of this agreement is $130,992. Funding for this work is available from a Washington
Department of Ecology, State Revolving Fund Loan. Staff recommends approval of the agreement.
8. RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council authorize and direct the Mayor to execute the attached agreement with Montgomery Watson
for pre-design activities in the Callow Avenue Basin Combined Sewer Overflow Reduction Project, Priorities 3
and 5, in an amount not to exceed $130,992.
9. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: City Engineer
ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: N/A
EXPIRATION DATE:
REVIEW DATE:
10. NOTICE OFACTION
PULLED TABLED APPROVED DISAPPROVED ~~
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE DAT.
1 I. AGENDA BILL NO: CC, -- C3,L &~
2. CLEARANCE COMMENTS:
5. IMPACT ON NON-PASSAGE:
The City will be late in starting work on the Callow Avenue Basin CSO Reduction Project, Priorities 3 and 5, and
may not meet the consent decree and order on consent established for the project.
6. IMPACT ON STAFFING, BUDGETS, FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCES:
Sufficient funds are available to do this work through a Washington Department of Ecology State RevoMng Fund
Loan. City staff will administer and monitor the contract with Montgomery Watson.
7. RESEARCH SOURCES
AGENDABL, 99413
'..on~ } ......... i' ..,
~.."~..
~ . KEGEND
~ ~ : , ~ C~ Um~
.................. ~ ~ ~sdng Sto~ Sewer
~ . ~ Progosed Sto~ Sewer
............. ~ ..................... ?'"- ' ~ CSO
~ .... ~ ~ng Open D~nage
;/ u Pipe S~
./ , , Callow Avenue
~' .. ~ PSNS ~s~on
........... ~...2: ...~'~
0 1 .gO0
..... ~~--00 ~ Rgure 3
~le
F~t
Row Slippage and Sto~
D~nage Separation Pr~ec~
C-8
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
Callow Avenue CSO Priorities 3 and 5 Predesign
Montgomery Watson
THIS AGREEMENT is between the City of Bremerton, a municipal corporation
(hereinafter referred to as "City") and Montgomery Watson (hereinafter referred to as "Consultant").
WITNESSETH:
1. SCOPE: Consultant agrees to provide engineering services for the pre-design of the
Callow Avenue CSO Priorities 3 and 5 storm drainage facilities, as further described in the Scope
of Work, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as Attachments "1", "2", and "3."
2. TERM: Contract shall commence on the date of this agreement and will terminate on
December 31, 2000, unless otherwise extended by the City.
3. COMPENSATION: City shall pay Consultant compensation as follows:
Total fees under this Agreement shall not exceed One Hundred Thirty Thousand Nine
Hundred Ninety-Two Dollars ($I30,992). Charges for services shall conform to the fee schedule
attached hereto and incorporated herein as Attachment "3".
Consultant shall submit regular statements describing the services rendered with a
breakdown for work completed as authorized under this Agreement. The City, upon receipt of the
completed statement, shall promptly process said claim for payment.
If the description of services on the Proposal designates additional services which may be
requested by the City, said additional services will be paid for by the City at the rate set forth in the
Proposal. However, said services will only be performed and compensated by the City after the City.
has directed such performance in writing.
4. RELATIONSHIP OF PARTIES: The parties understand and agree that Consultant is
a firm skilled in matters pertaining to Civil Engineering and will perform independent functions and
responsibilities in the area of its particular field of expertise. Consultant and its personnel shall act
as independent contractors and not employees of the City. As such they have no authority to bind
nor control employees of the City, contractors, or other entities. Within the performance of these
duties, Consultant shall work under the direction of the Director of Public Works and Utilities.
5. INDUSTRIAL INSUR/uNCE: Consultant agrees to provide for State industrial
insurance coverage for its personnel as required by State law.
6. LICENSE AND TAXES: Consultant shall possess a current Bremerton Business License
and any regulatory license required to fulfill Consultant obligations under th/s Agreement. B & O
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT - 1-
~ro-Serv.Agt - 5/6/99
taxes shall be paid when due and Consultant, by this Agreement, assigns any payments due under
this Agreement to the City Clerk for payment of such taxes which have been declared delinquent.
7. INSURANCE AND HOLD HARMLESS: Prior to and during the performance of the
work covered by this Agreement, Consultant shall provide the Risk Manager for the City of
Brernerton with evidence that it has obtained and maintains in full force and effect during the term
of this Agreement a policy of professional liability insurance, providing coverage of at least
$1,000,000.00 against professional liability for errors and omissions in connection with the work to
be performed by Consultant under this Agreement. Risk Manager shall be provided thirty (30) days'
written notice of any cancellation of said professional liability insurance.
Consultant shall, at all times, be solely responsible for the acts or failures to act of its
personnel which occur or arise in any way out of the performance of this agreement. Consultant
agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City, its appointed and elected officers and
employees, from and against any and all liability, loss, costs, damage, and expense, including costs
and attorney fees in defense thereof, because of actions, claims or lawsuits for damages resulting
from personal or bodily injury, including death at any time resulting therefrom, sustained or alleged
to have been sustained by any person or persons, and on account of damage to property, arising or
alleged to have risen directly or indirectly out of or in consequence of the negligent performance of
this Agreement, whether such injuries to persons or damage to property is due to the negligence of
the Consultant, its subcontractors, its agents or assigns. This provision shall be inapplicable to the
extent such damage or injury is judicially found to be caused by the sole negligence of the City..
8. GENERAL CONDITIONS:
a. Reports and Information - Consultant, at such times and in such forms as the City may
require, shall furnish the City such reasonable periodic reports and documents as it may request
pertaining to the work or services undertaken pursuant to this Agreement, the costs and obligations
incurred or to be incurred in connection therewith, and any other matters covered by this Agreement.
Consultant will maintain accounting records in accordance with generally accepted accounting
principles and practices to substantiate all invoiced amounts.
b. Entire Agreement - This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties
and both parties acknowledge that there are no other agreements, written or oral, that have not been
fully set forth in the text of this Agreement. There are attached hereto and incorporated by reference
as part of this Agreement Attachments "1", "2", and "3".
c. Amendments - The parties hereby further agree that this Agreement cannot be amended
or modified without the written concurrence of both parties.
d. Notices - Any notices required to be given by the City to Consultant or by Consultant to
the City shall be in writing and delivered to the parties at the following addresses:
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT -2-
Pro-Serv.Agt - 5/6/99
City of Bremerton
City Clerk Montgomery Watson
239 Fourth St. 2375 - 130~ Avenue NE
Bremerton, WA 98337 Bellevue, WA 98005-1758
e. Waiver - Failure to insist upon strict compliance with any terms, covenants or conditions
of this Agreement shall not be deemed a waiver of such, nor shall any waiver or relinquishment of
such right or power at any time be taken to be a waiver of any other breach.
f. Compliance with State, Local and Federal Laws - Consultant agrees to comply with all
applicable local, state and federal laws in performance of all services under this Agreement.
g. Applicable Law; Venue - This Agreement shall be construed and interpreted in
accordance with the laws of the State of Washington and, in the event of dispute, the venue of any
action brought hereunder shall be in Kitsap County Superior Court.
h. Attorney Fees - The substantially prevailing party in any litigation arising hereunder shall
be entitled to its reasonable attorney's fees and court costs, including appeals, if any.
i. Construction Estimates -Estimates of cost for the facilities considered and designed under
this agreement are prepared by the Consultant through exercise of its experience and judgement in
applying presently available cost data, but it is recogrdzed that Consultant has no control over costs
of labor and materials, or over the construction contractor's methods of determining prices, or over
competitive bidding procedures, market conditions, and unknown field conditions so that Consultant
cannot and does not guarantee that proposals, bids, or the project construction costs will not vary.
from Consultant's cost estimate.
j. Site Visits - Visits to the construction site and observations made by the Consultant as pan
of services during construction under this agreement shall not make Consultant responsible for, nor
relieve the construction contractor(s) of the obligation to conduct comprehensive monitoring of the
work sufficient to ensure conformance with the intent of the Contract Documents, and shall not make
Consultant responsible for, nor relieve the construction contractor(s) of the full responsibility for all
construction means, methods, techniques, sequences, and procedures necessary for coordinating and
completing all portions of the work under the construction contract(s), and for all safety precautions
incidental thereto. Such visits by the Consultant are not to be construed as part of the monitoring
duties of the on-site monitoring personnel defined below.
k. On-Site Monitoring - When Consultant provides on-site monitoring personnel as part of
the services during construction under this agreement, the on-site monitoring personnel will make
reasonable efforts to guard City against defects and deficiencies in the work of the contractor(s), and
to help determine if the provisions of the Contract Documents are being fulfilled. Their day-to-day
monitoring will not, however, cause Consultant to be responsible for those duties and responsibilities
which belong to the construction contractor(s), including but not limited to, full responsibility for
the means, methods, techniques, sequences, and progress of construction, and the safety precautions
incidental thereto, and for performing the construction work in accordance with the Contract
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT -3-
Pro-Serv.Agt - 5/6/99
Documents.
9. NONDISCRIMINATION: Consultant shall not discriminate in employment or services
to the public on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, roll,on, age, marital status or disability,
except employment actions based on a bona fide occupational qualification.
10. TERMINATION: This Agreement may be terminated by either party for convenience
upon thirty (30) days' written notice to the other party, or for cause if either party fails substantially
to perform through no fault of the other and does not commence correction within five (5) days of
written notice and diligently completes the correction thereafter. Upon such termination, City will
be entitled to reports showing the status of all matters upon which Consultant is advising thc City
as of the effective date of termination.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have executed this Agreement the date and year
indicated.
MONTGOMEKY WATSON
Date: BY:
CITY OF BREMERTON
Date: BY:
LY'N~ S. HORTON, Mayor
DEPA_*RT~ APPROVAL:
.,
W. EUGENE SA,~fPLE~.Y--P.E., Director of Public Works & Utilities
APPROVED AS TO FOI~M:
GLENNA MALANCA, City Attorney
RECEIVED FOR FILING:
KATI-II. EEN L. McCLUSKEY, CITY CLERK
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT -4-
Pro-Ser~.Ag~ - 5/6/99
ATTACItMENT 1
SCOPE OF WORK FOR
CALLOW AVENUE CSO PRIORITY 3 AND 5 PROJECT
PRE-DESIGN ENGINEERENG SERVICES
This Attachment describes Montgomery. Watson's Scope of Work for the pre-desig-n of the
Callow Avenue CSO Priority 3 and 5 Project for the City of Bremerton. The objective of this
study is to develop a predesign report for improvements in Priority 3 and 5 areas and a system
model of the Callow Avenue Basin drainage system. The City of Bremerton's Callow Avenue
CSO Project involves construction of storm drainage separation facilities and improvements in
the Callow Avenue drainage basin in order to reduce CSO discharges for compliance with State
regulations, Ecology consent orders, and court orders. The Callow Avenue Basin is a fully
developed residential and commercial area. The basin is served by combined sewers that convey
sanitary sewage and storm runoff to Sinclair Inlet and has the highest measured CSO volume in
Bremerton's system.
The tasks included in this Scope of Work are described below.
TASK 1 - PROJECT MANAGEMENT
Project management is important to ensure that the project remains on schedule and budget while
providing a quality product. For budgeting purposes, the project duration is assumed to be 3
months.
1.1 General Project Management
Activities performed under this task include:
· Manage and coordinate project staff, monitor schedule and budget, and make staff
assignments to maintain project schedule.
· Manage subconsultants, including preparation of subconsultant ageements, coordination,
invoicing, and product review.
· Prepare monthly status reports that include current project status, budget status, summary of
work accomplished during the previous month, expenditures during the previous month and
key issues to be resolved or coordinated.
1.2 Project Schedule
A preliminary project design schedule will be developed defining all major project tasks,
milestones, meetings and critical path. In addition, the schedule will be extended through final
desig-n engineering services to aid in furore project planning. Microsoft Project will be used as
the scheduling tool.
MONTGOMERY WATSON Page 1 SCOPE OF WORK
1060168 CALLOW AVENUE BASIN
PRIORITY 3 AND 5 PREDESIGN
1.3 Meetings
Key project team members will meet with City personnel once at the start of the project, and
twice during the progress of the work to discuss model calibration and alternatives analysis.
Montgomery Watson will prepare meeting minutes for all meetings. For budgeting purposes, it
is assumed that meetings are two hours in length.
Deliverable:
Montgomery Watson: Monthly progress reports (3 total), project schedule, and meeting
minutes (3 total).
TASK 2 - BASE MAP DEVELOPMENT
A planimetric base map of the project area will be developed from aerial photogrammetric
methods and suitable for development of final design drawings with 2-foot contour intervals. In
addition, Montgomery Watson will identify additional ground surveying to be completed by City
of Bremerton's survey crews that will be required for the following areas:
· Location, rim and invert elevations of all fie-in locations of the existing storm drainage
systems.
· Supplemental surveying of existing storm drainage facilities to supplement the City's record
drawings.
· Areas requiring supplemental ~ound survey because of poor coverage by aerdal mapping.
The base map will include all ground features including roads, drive~vays, buildings, and other
improvements; vegetation limits; streams ponds, and other water bodies; property lines,
easements and right-of-way as available from existing records; above-ground and buried utilities;
and elevations and locations on existing sanitary and storm sewers at manholes, catchbasins and
inlets that intersect the proposed storm drain piping. All mapping will be prepared in digital
format in Autocad 14 format and meeting City ofBremerton's CADD standards.
TASK 3 - GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONS
A geotechnical investigation will be conducted to identify possible areas where subsurface
conditions may require special design considerations durmg construction of the storm drainage
system. The investigations will be based on a revie~v of available geologic and geotechnical
information in the project area, including City project files, private geotechnical reports on file
with the City, and published geologic maps of the area. In addition, a reconnaissance of the
project area will be completed to identify sigrfificant surface features and observe geologic
conditions at the surface soil exposures.
Montgomery Watson recogrfizes that the City of Bremerton, in the course of constructing utilities
over past years,' has extensive knowledge of the soils within the city limits. Therefore,
recommendations for subsurface explorations will be limited, at the City's request, to areas
where data on existing soils were not obtained during the background review, where soils are
MONTGOMERY WATSON Page 2 SCOPE OF WORK
1060168 CALLOW AVENUE BASIN
PRIORITY 3 AND 5 PREDESIGN
expected to impact requirements of construction activities (such as boring and jacking) and in
high hazard areas such as mar/ne sediments, fills, and steep slopes. Subsurface explorations are
not included as part of this Task; however, may be recommended as work to be completed under
Task 7.
The results of the geotechnical investigations will be summarized in a Geotechnical Technical
Memorandum which will summarize results of field work and laboratory test results. Comments
received on the draft memorandum will be incorporated into the final memorandum.
Deliverable:
Montgomery Watson: Five copies of the draft Geotechnical Technical Memorandum. The
final Geotechnical Technical Memorandum will be included as an
Appendix to the Predesign Report prepared under Task 6.
City. of Bremerton: Written review of draft Geotechnical Technical Memorandum within 15
working days after submittal.
TASK 4 - PRELIMINARY BASIN EVALUATION A.ND DESIGN DEVELOPMENT
Preliminary design information will be developed under this task to supplement the Callow
Avenue Basin Combined Sewer Rehabilitation and Storm Drainage Separation Engineering
Report prepared in 1994 by CH2M Hill. Information from City sewer and storm drainage maps,
field visits and smoke and dye testing will be used to develop subbasins for system modeling and
a preliminary layout of storm drains, inlets, and flow slippage paths. As part of this task,
alternative routings will be evaluated for potential capacity., construction, or cost benefits.
In addition, Montgomery Watson will evaluate the feasibility of an outfall to Phinney Bay versus
routing all of the Corbett Drive drainage to the south. The evaluation will consider the feasibility
of each alternative, construction methods alternatives, schedule impacts and a cost/benefit
analysis.
Data will be collected from the City on the existing facilities including as-built drawings of
existing piping, flow data for existing ditches and pipes as available, data reports on manhole
inspections, and any information available from past investigations that are pertinent to the
existing study. This information will be used to develop the model conditions and the base map.
Field visits will be conducted to evaluate drainage patterns in the basin, evaluate connection
requirements to existing facilities, identify possible utility conflicts and evaluate possible pipe
locations within the street right-of-ways.
The City of Bremerton will undertake smoke and dye testing on the existing CSO system to
determine where cross-connections may occur and identify private properties having roof or
driveway drains connected to the existing system. Montgomery Watson will use this information
to develop sub-basins and determine connections for the new storm drainage piping.
MONTGOMERY WATSON Page 3 SCOPE OF WORK
1060168 CALLOW AVENUE BASIN
PRIORITY 3 AND 5 PREDESIGN
Deliverable:
Results of this task will be presented in the Predesign Report prepared under Task 6.
TASK 5 - CALLOW AVENUE BASIN MODELING
The purpose of this task is to develop a hydraulic model of the stormwater system using
commercially available modeling software for the Callow Avenue Basin. Initially, the model
will be used to evaluate and determine required pipe sizes for the new storm drainage features.
In addition, the model will be used by the City of Bremerton as a tool for managing the storm
drainage system.
5.1 Model Development
Montgomery Watson will purchase one copy of the XP-SWMM software for the City of
Bremerton under this contract, and the City will take ownership of the model at the completion
of this project. It is understood by Montgomery Watson that the City does not require the model
to be interfaced with GIS; however, the City may want this option in the future. If the City
decides to purchase and use a different modeling software, the proposed cost estimate will
require modification.
Using the information gathered in Tasks 2 through 4, a model of the proposed system will be
developed using the modeling so~vare. This will entail using land use maps, topographic maps,
and utility maps to develop hydrologic data for the model. In addition, data on existing and
proposed storm drain pipes will be reviewed for inconsistencies and data gaps. It is assumed that
Montgomery Watson will identify, these areas and the City, of Bremerton will provide survey of
existing facilities and provide data for use in the model. Potential routing alternatives will be
considered so that the model can be easily manipulated to run different routing configurations.
The model will cover the entire Callow Avenue Basin (Priorities 1 through 5), and will include
pipes larger than 12 inches in diameter. In addition, selected 12-inch-diameter pipes ~vill be
included in the model that intercept stormwater runoff from several subbasins.
The model will be calibrated to the extent possible using available flow data for the existing
portions of the storm drainage system that were installed under Priority 1, 2 and 4. In addition,
the model results will be compared against CSO flows that have been recorded for the CSO
system to verify overall runoff quantities. It is assumed that the City of Bremerton will provide.
flow data for calibration. At this point, the model results will be reviewed with the City of
Brernerton to discuss whether there are areas of inconsistencies in the model and what
alternatives should be analyzed.
Modeling budget is based on 48 hours of data reduction and review, 90 hours for model setup, 40
hours of calibration runs, and 6 hours of staff time for review meeting.
MONTGOMERY WATSON Page 4 SCOPE OF WORK
1060168 CALLOW AVENUE BASIN
PRIORITY 3 AND 5 PREDESIGN
Deliverables:
Montgomery Watson: Model output for thc'baseline condition. Attend one three-hour meeting
with the City of Bremerton to discuss results and alternatives.
City of Bremerton: Review of data used in the model for accuracy. Review of model results
at me.eting. Determination of design storm events to be used for
calibration and pipe sizing.
5.3 Alternatives Analysis
Montgomery Watson will mn alternatives of pipe and runoff routing identified under subtask 5.2
in order to determine the best confi=m~ration of the proposed systems, verify available capacity in
existing pipes, and determine required pipe sizes of the new facilities. Each alternative analysis
will be documented using model output charts and graphs as well as electronic output files. For
budgeting purposes, up to five alternatives will be evaluated at two different design storms. The
modeling results will be documented in the Predesign Report prepared under task 6. A total of
100 hours is allotted for alternatives evaluation.
Deliverables:
Montgomery Watson: Modeling software, input and output data files for all alternatives.
TASK 6 -PREDESIGN REPORT
Based on data collected under Tasks 2 through 5, a Predesign Report will be developed that
presents the design criteria for the Priority, 3 and 5 improvements, drainage subbasins, design
storm event selection, preliminary sizing of pipe facilities and modeling results. The Predesign
Report will include an evaluation of alternatives to the Corbett Avenue outfall including
alternative drainage routing, method of construction, and layout of proposed alternatives. The
evaluation presented in this report will be a supplement to the 1994 Engineering Report and will
be presented in a format that can be submitted to the Department of Ecology. It is anticipated
that the Predesign Report will include 20 pages of text plus appendices and a basin map.
Following the draft Predesign Report submittal to the City, Montgomery Watson will attend one
meeting with the City to review the draft report. Based on City comments, Montgomery Watson
will revise and submit a final Predesign Report that will establish the design criteria for final
design of Priority 3 and 5.
Deliverable:
Montgomery Watson: Five copies of the draft and final Predesig-n Report.
City of Bremerton: Written review of draft Predesign Report within 10 working days after
submittal.
MONTGOMERY WATSON Page 5 SCOPE OF WORK
1060168 CALLOW AVENUE BASIN
PRIORITY 3 AND 5 PREDESIGN
20
TASK 7 - ADDITIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES
This task will be for specific work identified by the City. during the course of the project and
cannot be utilized without prior written approval from the City of Bremerton. Additional
engineering services may include, but not be limited to, the roi-lowing:
· Special services such as geotechnical, hydrogeology, and surveying not specifically set forth
in Attachment 1.
· Additional services and costs of the Engineer other than the work required in Attachment 1.
· Any other services not otherwise provided for in this Ageement without limitation, and
services normally furnished by the City.
SERVICES BY THE CITY OF BREMERTON
It is understood that the City of Bremerton will provide the following services for this project, as
well as services mentioned above:
· Provide record drawings of all their sanitary and storm sewer facilities in Autocad 14
format.
· Provide information on the desig-n storms to be used for hydraulic modeling.
· Provide necessary staff time, field reconnaissance and surveying to resolve
inconsistencies on City's record drawings.
· Provide coordination between this project and the concurrent CSO modeling project.
o Results of smoke and dye testing for all areas in the Callow Avenue Basin.
· Submittal of project documentation for agency reviexv.
· Surveying of existing storm drainage facilities, utilities, and supplemental ~ound
elevations.
COST ESTI3&a. TE
Attachment 2 provides an estimate of the project costs to provide the scope of services described
in Attachment 1. Hourly rates area based on the 1999 standard hourly rates for engineering
services for our Pacific Northwest Offices. These hourly rates are presented in Attachment 3.
SCHEDULE
A project schedule is presented in Attachment 4. The project implementation schedule assumes
a Notice to Proceed by February 1, 2000 and completion by May 5, 2000. This schedule is
dependent on the smoke and dye testing be completed by February 1, 2000.
MONTGOMERY WATSON Page 6 SCOPE OF WORK
1060'168 CALLOW AVENUE BASIN
o~I PRIORITY 3 AND 5 PREDESIGN
A'ITACilMENT 2
crf¥ OF IlREMERI'ON
CAI,LOW AVENUi~ C$O IqllOIIIT¥ 3 AND 5
FINAl, DESIGN SEIIVICI~S IIIIIIGET
I'rt~jccl Principal Associalc Sc.ior Word Olhcr
Task Dcscriplion $107 $139 $~0 $71 $91 $61 $57 $41 Cosl $8.38 Cosls Subcoas. Amounl
Task I: Project ManaBemcnt
1.1 General Project ManaBemeol 40 8 16 $~.824 $536 ~0 $6,360
1,2 Project Schedule ,I 8 S996 Sl01 $0 Sl.097
1.3 Mccfiogs 8 2 8 4 8 $2,258 $251 $0 $2,509
Task 2: Bas~ Map Development 12 2,1 60 2 $8,5]0 $821 $720 $24,890 $34,96~
Task 3: Gcolechnical Invcsligalioos 8 8 2 $1,506 $151 $0 $9,785 $11,442
Task 4: Prclimmaey I]asin Evaloalioo ood ])asi~tt ])c¥cJopotctlt 2,1 ,I I,IO 24 ,l $15,4t2 $1,642 $788 $17,842
.Task 5: Callow AvclltlC Basio Modeling
5.1 Model Devclopmenl 12 140 Iff 16 $15,076 $1,542 $5,092 $21,710
5.2 AIIcmalivcs Amflysis 12 8 I00 $10,396 $1.006 S0 $11,402
Task 6: Facililics ami P~edesig~l Reptnl Io .1 16 .1~ 16 4 S7,46,1 $80,1 $,100 $8.668
Task 7: Additional Enginecriog Services $15.000
Total 136 18 256 ZSZ IO0 16 20 20 $67~46Z 56,855 $7,000 $34,675 $130,992
NOIcS:
Associated Projccl Costs (APC) role of $8,38 per labor JR)Ill Covers poisons[ compulels, FAX, pholoc.iwiog, poshlgctshilqfilSg, trod ICICCOItIIIIIIlliCaIiOIIS COSTS,
Other direct costs (OI)Cs) hlclude a 10% cliillg¢ Io cover dirccl coSls Io hlonlflomcly Walson ~ssocialcd wilh lhcsc items
Attachment 3
Pacific Northwest
Schedule of Hourly Rates for Engineering Fees
Senior Company Officer $160 per hour **
Principal Professional $139 per hour
Supervising Professional $107 per hour
Senior Professional $ 91 per hour
Professional $ 80 per hour
Associate Professional $ 71 per hour
Assistant Professional $ 53 per hour
Senior Designer S 91 per hour
Designer $ 88 per hour
Drafter $ 84 per hour
Senior Resident Engineer $ 98 per hour
Resident Engineer-Inspector $ 68 per hour
Senior Administrator $ 75 per hour
Administrator S 61 per hour
Secretary $ 53 per hour
Word Processing Operator $ 57 per hour
Clerk $ 41 per hour
IAPC- $ 8.38 per hour
ASSOCIATED
PROJECT
COST
* The individual hourly rates include salary, overhead and profit
** Senior Company Officer rate established at $160/hour.
Attach2a3 Attachment 3 ~_~ I/4/00
AGENDA BILL
BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL
January 12, 2000
1. SUBJECT: ORDINANCE NO. FOR AGENDA OF: Janua_~ 19, 2000
ORIGINATING DEPT: Treasurer.~'~
AUTHORIZING THE ISSUE OF A $1,250,000 TAX ORIGINATOR: Rich Har~a' ~'.~..~...
ANTICIPATION NOTE AND ACCEPTING THE DATE SUBMITTED: January 4, 2000
PURCHASE OFFER OF SEAFIRST BANK
2, CLEARANCES: Comment of back if necessary) 3. EXHIBITS:
Dir. Admin. Services ~:~ ( ?,,, × ~ Proposed Ordinance
City Attome~~-,,-~, '~,---- Preliminary Official Statement
~ Note Purchase Offer (at Council meeting)
4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION:
As indicated in the attached documents, the City's General Fund will operate in a deficit cash position through most
of the year without some form of cash flow financing. Analysis indicates that issuance of a Tax Anticipation Note, or
TAN is the most economical way of financing this cash flow need.
8. RECOMMENDATION:
Motion to approve on first reading the Ordinance authorizing the issue of a Tax Anticipation Note and accepting the
purchase offer of Seafirst Bank.
Motion to pass on second reading Ordinance No. __ authorizing the issue of a Tax Anticipation Note and
accepting the purchase offer of Seafirst Bank.
9. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Treasurer
ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: Mayor
EXPIRATION DATE: January 31,2001
REVIEW DATE: N/A
10. NOTICE OF ACTION
PULLED TABLED APPROVED DISAPPROVED__ AMEN1D 0 A
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE:
11. AGENDA BILL NO: ~.~ - (~, ~
2. CLEARANCE COMMENTS:
5. IMPACT ON NON-PASSAGE:
The City's General Fund will operate for most of the year with a negative cash balance which is contrary to statute.
6. IMPACT ON STAFFING, BUDGETS, FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCES:
Included in the 1999 - 2000 Budget.
7. RESEARCH SOURCES:
Cash flow projections. Bond counsel. Negotiations with underwriting bank.
CITY OF BREMERTON
2000 CASH FLOW PROJECTION
2000 ih°usands
1500
1000
500
0
-500
-1000
-1500
D~c ~A. ~. ~A. A.. ~A¥ ,~, ,~, A,~ S~. OC~-.OV
l' 20001
IST DRAFT 12223/99
For Discussion Purposes Only
CITY OF BREMERTON, WASH:ENGTON
ORDENANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City of Bremerton Washington relating
to the incurrence of indebtedness; providing for the sale and
issuance of $1,250,000 pnncipal amount tax anticipation notes,
2000, to pay City expenses pending for the receipt of general City
taxes: providing for the date, denominations, form, terms,
registration privileges, maturity, interest rates and covenants of the
notes: and providing for the sale and delivery of such notes to Banc
of America Securities LLC
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Bremerton (the "City") finds that the
periodic collections of sales, excise and general ad valorem taxes and other revenue in
2000 will not be sufficient to meet necessary City expenses as they are incurred in 2000,
and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City deems it to be in the best interest of the
City that the City borrow money and issue and sell short-term obligations in the form of
tax anticipation notes pursuant to chapter 39.50 RCW for the purpose of financing such
expenses pending receipt of taxes and other revenue collected by the City; and
WHEREAS, the incurrence of such indebtedness by the City will not cause the
total indebtedness of the City to be incurred without the assent of the voters of the City to
exceed the limitations set forth in Chapter 39.36 RCW; and
WHEREAS, Banc of America Securities LLC (the "Purchaser") has offered, by
way of the Purchase Agreement (the "Purchase Agreement"), to purchase such limited
tax anticipation notes upon the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth; NOW,
THEREFORE,
~ CITY OF BREMERTON DOES ORDAIN AS FOIJ.OWS:
I ST DRAFT 1~23/99
For Discussion Purposes Only
Section 1. Findin2, Purpose and Description of Notes. The City authorizes the
sale and issuance of its "Tax Anticipation Notes, 2000" (the "Notes") for the purpose of
financing City expenses pending receipt of taxes and other revenue collected by the City
and to pay certain "incidental costs and costs related to the sale and issuance" (as defined
in RCW 39.46.070) of the Notes.
The Notes shall be in the aggregate principal amount of $1,250,000; shall be
dated February 1, 2000; shall mature on January 31, 2001: shall bear interest (computed
on the basis of a 360-day year of twelve 30-day months) from their date at the rate of
__% per annum, payable at maturity. The Notes shall be issued in fully registered
form as to both principal and interest; shall be in the denomination of $50,000 each or
any integral multiple thereof; shall be numbered separately in such manner and with any
additional designation as the fiscal agencies of the State of Washington in Seattle,
Washington, and New York, New York (collectively. the "Registrar"), deem necessary
for purposes of identification.
If any Note is not paid upon proper presentment at its maturity date, the City shall
have the obligation to pay interest at the same rate from and after such maturity date until
such Note, both principal and interest, is paid in full.
The Notes shall be negotiable instruments to the extent provided by
RCW 62A.8-102 and RCW 62A.8-105.
On the date of issue of the Notes, all Notes maturing in the same maturity year shall
be issued in the form of a single certificate, which certificate shall be registered in the
name of The Depository Trust Company or any successor thereto engaged to operate a
book-entry system for recording the beneficial ownership of the Notes, as Custodian (the
1ST DRAFT 1~23/99
For Discussion Purposes Only
"Custodian"), or its nominee, and delivered to the Custodian. The Custodian shall hold
each such Note certificate in fully immobilized form for the benefit of the beneficial
owners of the Notes (the "Beneficial Owners") pursuant to the Blanket Issuer Letter of
Representations, dated November 19, 1997, between the City and the Custodian (the
"Letter of Representations"), until the earliest to occur of either (1) the date of maturity of
the Notes evidenced by such certificate, at which time the Custodian shall surrender such
certificate to the Registrar for payment of the principal of and interest on such Notes
coming due on such date, and the cancellation thereof: (2) the fifth business day
following the date of receipt by the Registrar of the City's request to terminate the book-
entry system of registenng the beneficial ownership of the Notes (the "Book-Entry
Termination Date"): or (3) the date the City determines to utilize a new Custodian for the
Notes. at which time the old Custodian shall (provided the City is not then in default of
any payment then due on the outstanding Notes) surrender the immobilized certificates to
the Registrar for transfer to the new Custodian and cancellation as herein provided.
For so long as any outstanding Notes are registered in the name of the Custodian or
its nominee and held by the Custodian in fully immobilized form as described in this
Section 1, the rights of the Beneficial Owners shall be evidenced solely by an electronic
and/or manual entry made from time to time on the records established and maintained by
the Custodian in accordance with the Letter of Representations, and no certificates
evidencing such Notes shall be issued and registered in the name of any Beneficial
Owner or such Beneficial Owner's nominee.
The City may terminate the "book-entry" system of registering ownership of the
Notes at any time (provided the City is not then in default of any payment then due on the
3~
!.ST DRAFT 12723/99
For Discussion Purposes Only
outstanding Notes) by delivering to the Registrar: (a) a written request that it issue and
deliver Note certificates to each Beneficial Owner or such Beneficial Owner's nominee
on the Book-Entrv Termination Date; (b) a list identifying the Beneficial Owners as to
both name and address: and (c) a supply of Note certificates, if necessary for such
purpose. Upon surrender to the Registrar of the immobilized certificates evidencing all
of the then outstanding Notes, the Registrar shall issue and deliver new certificates to
each Beneficial Owner or such Beneficial Owner's duly appointed agent, naming such
Beneficial Owner or such Beneficial Owner's nominee as the Owner thereof. Such
certificates may be in any integral multiple of $50,000. Following such issuance, the
Owners of such Notes may transfer and exchange such Notes in accordance with
Section 9 hereof.
Neither the City nor the Registrar shall have at any time any responsibility or
liability to any Beneficial Owner of anv Notes or to anv other person for any error,
omission, action or failure to act on the part of the Custodian with respect to payment.
when due, to the Beneficial Owner of the pnncipal and interest on the Notes, proper
recording of beneficial ownership of Notes, proper transfers of such beneficial
ownership, or any notices to Beneficial Owners or any other matter pertaining to the
Notes.
Section 2. Place, Manner and Medium of Payment. Both the principal of and
interest on the Notes shall be payable in lawful money of the United States of America.
Prior to the Book-Entry Termination Date, the principal and interest on the Notes shall be
paid by the Registrar to the Custodian as the Owner (hereinafter defined) thereof, for the
benefit of the Beneficial Owners thereof, in accordance with the Letter of
iST DRAFt I~23/99
For Discussion Purposes Only
Representations. From and after the Book-Entry Termination Date, principal of and
interest on the Notes shall be paid to the persons who are named as the registered owners
of the Notes (the "Owners") on the registration books for the Notes (the "Note Register")
maintained by the Registrar only upon presentation and surrender of such Owners' Notes
upon maturity, at the principal corporate trust office of either Registrar, at the option of
the Owners.
Section 3. No Redemption: Open Market Purchase. The Notes shall not be
subject to redemption prior to maturity.
The City reserves the right to purchase any or all of the Notes on the open market
at any time and at any price. All Notes purchased by the City shall be surrendered to the
Registrar for cancellation.
Section 4. Debt Limit Not Exceeded. The City finds and covenants that the
Notes are issued within all constitutional and statuto~ debt limitations presently
applicable to the City.
Section 5. Pledae of Full Faith, Credit and Resources. The Notes are limited tax
general obligations of the City. [The City hereby irrevocably covenants to include in its
budgets and to make annual levies of taxes upon all property within the City subject to
taxation without a vote in amounts which, together with anv other money legally
available therefor, shall be sufficient to pay the principal and interest on the Notes as the
same shall become due. The City hereby irrevocably pledges its full faith, credit and
resources to the annual levy and collection of such taxes and for the prompt payment of
such principal and interest.]
1ST DRAFT 12/23/99
For Discussion Purposes Only
[The City hereby irrevocably covenants that the annual tax provided for herein to
be levied for the payment of the pnncipal of and interest on the Notes shall be within and
as a part of the tax levy permitted the City without a vote of the people and that a
sufficient portion of each such annual tax levy to be made so long as the Notes are
outstanding, together with any other money legally available therefor, shall be and is
hereby set aside, pledged and appropriated for the payment of the principal of and interest
on the Notes as the same shall become due.]
Section 6. Form of Notes. The Notes shall be typewritten, printed or
lithographed on good bond paper in a form consistent with this ordinance and
Washington law.
Section 7. Execution of Notes. The Notes shall be sig-ned on behalf of the City
with the facsimile or manual signatures of the Mayor and The City Clerk, and shall have
the seal of the City impressed or a facsimile thereof imprinted thereon.
In case either or both of the officers who shall have executed any Note shall cease
to be such officer or officers of the City before the Note so sig-ned shall have been
authenticated or delivered by the Registrar or issued by the City, such Note nevertheless
may be authenticated, delivered and issued and upon such authentication, delivery and
issuance, shall be as binding upon the City as though those who signed the same had
continued to be such officers of the City. Any Note also may be signed and attested on
behalf of the City by such persons as at the actual date of execution of such Note shall be
the proper officers of the City although at the original date of such Note such persons
were not such officers of the City.
1ST DRAFT i~23/99
For Discussion Purposes Only
Section 8. Authentication and Delivery of Notes bv Remstrar. The Registrar are
authorized and directed, on behalf of the City, to autinenticate and deliver Notes initially
issued or transferred or exchanged in accordance with the provisions of such Notes and
this ordinance.
Onlv such Notes as shall bear thereon a "Certificate of Authentication" manually
executed by an authorized signatory of the Registrar shall be valid or obligatory for any
purpose or entitled to the benefits of this ordinance. Such Certificate of Authentication
shall be conclusive evidence that the Notes so authenticated have been duly executed,
authenticated and delivered hereunder and are entitled to the benefits of this ordinance.
The Registrar shall be responsible for its representations contained in the
Certificate of Authentication on the Notes.
Section 9. Registration: Transfer and Exchange. The Registrar shall keep, or
cause to be kept, the Note Register at its principal corporate trust office.
The City and the Registrar, each in its discretion, may deem and treat the Owner
of each Note as the absolute owner thereof for all purposes, and neither the City nor the
Registrar shall be affected by any notice to the contrary. Pa~vrnent of any such Note shall
be made only as described in Section 2 hereof, but such registration may be transferred as
herein provided. All such payments made as provided in Section 2 hereof shall be valid
and shall satisfy and discharge the liability of the City upon such Note to the extent of the
amount or amounts so paid.
The registered ownership of any Note may be transferred. Prior to the Book-
Entry Termination Date, the beneficial ownership of the Notes may only be transferred
on the records established and maintained by the Custodian. On and after the Book-Entry
1ST DRAFt 1~23/99
For Discussion Purposes Only
Termination Date. no transfer of anv Note shall be valid unless it is surrendered at any
pnncipal corporate trust office of the Registrar. with the assignment form appearing on
such Note duly executed by the Owner or such Owner's dulv authorized agent, in a
manner satisfactory to the Registrar. Upon such surrender, the Registrar shall cancel the
surrendered Note and shall authenticate and deliver, without charge to the Owner or
transferee therefor (other than any governmental fees or taxes payable on account of such
transfer), a new Note or Notes (at the option of the new Owner), of the same maturity and
interest rate and for the same ag~egate principal amount, in any authorized
denon'fination, naming as Owner the person or persons listed as the assignee on the
assignment form appearing on the surrendered Note, in exchange for such surrendered
and cancelled Note.
On and after the Book-Entry Terrmnation Date, any Note may be surrendered at
the principal corporate trust office of the Re~strar and exchanged, without charge, for an
equal ag~egate pnncipal amount of Notes, in any authorized denomination. The
Registrar shall not be obligated to transfer or exchange any Note during the 15 days
preceding the maturity date.
The Registrar may become the Owner of any Note with the same rights it would
have if it were not a Registrar and, to the extent permitted by law, may act as depository
for and permit any of its officers or directors to act as a member of, or in any other
capacity with respect to, any committee formed to protect the rights of the Owners of the
Notes.
The City covenants that, until all Notes shall have been surrendered and
cancelled, it will maintain a system of recording the ownership of each Note that
3¢
1ST DRAFT i~23/99
For Discussion Purposes Only
complies with the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the
"Code").
Section 10. Mutilated. Lost. Stolen or Destroyed Notes. If any Note becomes
mutilated, lost, stolen or destroyed, the Registrar may authenticate and deliver a new
Note of the same maturity and interest rate and of like tenor and effect in substitution
therefor, all in accordance with law. If such mutilated, lost, stolen or destroyed Note has
matured, the City at its option, may pay the same without the surrender thereof.
However, no such substitution or payment shall be made unless and until the applicant
shall furnish (a) evidence satisfactory to the Registrar of the destruction or loss of the
original Note and of the ownership thereof, and (b) such additional security, indemnity or
evidence as may be required bv or on behalf of the City. No substitute Note shall be
furnished unless the applicant shall reimburse the City and the Registrar for their
respective expenses in the furnishing thereof. Any such substitute Note so furnished shall
be equally and proportionately entitled to the security of this ordinance with all other
Notes issued hereunder.
Section 11.. Defeasance. If money and/or "Government Obligations" (as such
obligations are defined in Chapter 39.53 RCW, as now in existence or hereafter
amended) maturing at such times(s) and beating such interest to be earned thereon
(without any reinvestment thereof) as will provide a series of pa,vments which shall be
sufficient, together with any money initially deposited, to provide for the payment of the
principal of and interest on all or a portion of the Notes, when due in accordance with
their terms in accordance with a refunding plan adopted by the City, are set aside in a
special fund (hereinafter called the "trust account") to effect such payment and are
1ST DRAFT 1~23/99
For Discussion Purposes Onlv
pledged irrevocably for the purpose of effecting such payment, then no further payments
need be made into the Note Fund for the payment of the principal of and the interest on
such Notes, the Owners thereof shall cease to be entitled to any lien, benefit or security of
this ordinance except for the right to receive the money and the principal and interest
proceeds on the obligations set aside in the trust account, and such Notes shall no longer
be deemed to be outstanding hereunder.
Section 12. Sale of the Notes. The Purchaser has presented the Purchase
Agreement to the City pursuant to which the Purchaser has offered to purchase the Notes,
under the terms and conditions provided in the Purchase Agreement, which written
Purchase Agreement is on file with the City Clerk and is incorporated herein by this
reference. The City Council finds that entering into the Purchase A~eement is in the
City's best interest and therefore accepts the offer contained in the Purchase Agreement
and authorizes the execution of the Purchase Agreement bv City officials.
The Notes will be prepared at City expense and will be delivered to the Purchaser
in accordance with the terms of the Purchase Agreement with the approving legal opinion
of the City's bond counsel relative to the issuance of the Notes printed on each Note or
attached thereto. Bond counsel has not been engaged to participate in the preparation or
review of, or express any opinion concerning the completeness or accuracy of the official
statement or other disclosure documentation used in connection with the offer or sale of
the Notes by any person, and bond counsel's opinion shall so state. Bond counsel has not
been retained to monitor, and shall not be responsible for monitoring, the City's
compliance with any federal law or regulations to maintain the tax-exempt status of the
interest on the Notes.
1ST DRAFT 1~23/99
For Discussion Purposes Only
Section 13. Delivery of Notes: Temporary Notes. The proper City officials are
authorized and directed to execute and/or approve, as appropriate, all documents,
including but not limited to, the final Official Statement pertaining to the Notes, and to do
everything necessary for the preparation and delivery of a transcript of proceedings
pertaining to the Notes, and the pnnting, execution and prompt delivery of the Notes to
the Purchaser and for the proper application and use of the proceeds of the sale thereof.
If definitive Notes are not ready for delivery by the date established for closing
(the "Closing"), the City Treasurer, upon the approval of the Purchaser, may cause to be
issued and delivered to the Purchaser one or more temporary Notes with appropriate
omissions, changes and additions. Any temporary Note or Notes shall be entitled and
subject to the same benefits and provisions of this ordinance with respect to the payment,
security and obligation thereof as definitive Notes authorized hereby. Such temporary
Note or Notes shall be exchangeable without cost to the Owners thereof for definitive
Notes when the latter are ready for delivery.
Section 14. Application of Note Proceeds. The accrued interest on the Notes
received by the City upon the sale of the Notes, if any, shall be deposited into the General
Fund and shall be applied to the payment of interest coming due on the Notes. The
principal proceeds of the Notes shall be deposited in the General Fund of the City and
used solely for the purpose of paying the cash flow deficits in the City's General Fund
resulting from budgeted expenditures, and any interest received from the deposit or
investment of such proceeds shall be applied and used solely for such purposes.
Section 15. Permitted Financin~ of Cumulative Cash Flow Deficit. Based upon
the reasonably expected amounts of sales, excise and general ad valorem property taxes
iST DRAFT 19_/23/99
For Discussion Purposes Only
and other revenue to be collected in 2000 (including investment proceeds of the Notes)
and that are expected to be available to make General Fund expenditures in 2000
(computed by treating a reasonably working capital reserve in an amount not exceeding
5% of the total General Fund expenditures in the prior fiscal year as not being available
to make those expenditures), the City Council finds that the pnncipal amount of the
Notes does not exceed the maximum anticipated "cumulative cash flow deficit" (as
defined by Section 148 of the Code, and applicable Treasury Regulations thereunder)
expected to occur in the City's General Fund during 2000 and that is to be financed with
the proceeds of the Notes.
Section 16. Tax-Exemption Covenants. The City covenants that it will not take
or permit to be taken on its behalf any action that would adversely affect the exclusion of
the interest on the Notes from gross income for purposes of federal income taxation, and
will take or require to be taken such acts as mav be permitted by Washington law and as
may from time to time be required under applicable law to continue the exclusion of the
interest on the Notes from gross income for purposes of federal income taxation.
Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the City will not invest or make or
permit any use of the proceeds of the Notes or of its other monev at any time during the
term of the Notes which would cause the Notes to be "arbitrage bonds" within the
meaning of Section 148 of the Code.
The Notes are intended to qualify for the $5,000,000 small governmental issuer
exception to the arbitrage rebate requirement, set forth in the Code. The City covenants
that, if the City issues more than $5 million in tax-exempt bonds in the calendar year
2000 and all the proceeds of the Notes have not been spent within six months from the
3q
IST DRAFT 12/23/99
For Discussion Purposes Only
date of issuance of the Notes. it will calculate or cause to be calculated, and shall rebate
to the United States. ail earnings from the investment of Note proceeds that are in excess
of the amount that would have been earned had the yield on such investments been equal
to the yield on the Notes, plus income derived from such excess earnings, to the extent
and in the manner required by Section 148 of the Code.
The City has not been notified of any listing or proposed listing by the Internal
Revenue Service to the effect that the City is a bond issuer the arbitrage certifications of
which may not be relied upon.
The City will take no actions and will make no use of the proceeds of the Notes or
any other funds held under this ordinance which would cause anv Note to be treated as a
"private activity bond" (as defined in Section 141(b) of the Code) subject to treatment
under said Section 141(b) as an obligation not described in Section 103(a) of the Code,
unless the tax exemption thereof is not affected.
The City hereby designates the Notes as "qualified tax-exempt obligations" for
purposes of Section 265 of the Code (relating to the deduction by financial institutions of
the interest incurred to carry tax-exempt debt), and authorizes and directs the proper City
officials to execute and deliver all documents necessary to evidence such designation to
any and all interested parties. The City further covenants not to issue more than
$10,000,000 of such "qualified tax-exempt obligations" during 2000.
Section 17. Preliminary Official Statement Declaration. The City has been
provided with copies of a preliminary official statement dated January ,2000 (the
"Preliminary Official Statement"), prepared in connection with the sale of the Notes. For
the sole purpose of the Purchaser's compliance with Securities and Exchange
463
13
1ST DRAFT 1~23/99
For Discussion Purposes Only
Commission Rule [5c2-12(b)(1). the City "deems final" the Preliminary Official
Statement, as of its date. except for the omission of information on offenng prices,
interest rates, selling compensation, delivery dates, ratings, other terms of the Notes
dependent on such matters.
Section 18. Undertakin~ to Provide Continuin~ Disclosure. This section
constitutes the City's written undertaking for the benefit of the Owners and the Beneficial
Owners of the Notes required by subsection (d)(2)(ii) of Rule 15c2-12 (the "Rule") of the
United States Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC").
The City hereby agrees to provide or cause to be provided upon request to any
person or at least annually to the State Information Depository ("SD"), if one is created:
(a) financial statements prepared in accordance with the generally accepted accounting
principles applicable to governmental units, as such pnnciples mav be changed from time
to time and as permitted by State law: which statements will not be audited, except that if
and when audited financial statements are otherxvise prepared and available to the City,
they will be provided; and (b) other operating data that may be prepared by the City (the
"Financial Information").
In its provision of such Financial Information, the City mav cross-reference to anv
"final official statement" (as defined in the Rule) available from the Municipal Securities
Rulemaking Board (the "MSRB") or any other documents theretofore provided to each
then existing nationally recognized municipal securities information repository
designated by the SEC ("NRMSIR") or the SD, if one is created.
IST DRAFt 1~23/99
For Discussion Purposes Only
The City further agrees to provide or cause to be provided, in a timely manner, to
the SID, if one is created, and to either the MSRB or each then existing NRMSIR, notice
of any of the following events with respect to the Notes, if material:
1. Principal and interest payment delinquencies:
2. Non-payment related defaults:
3. Unscheduled draws on debt service reserves reflecting financial
difficulties;
4. Unscheduled draws on credit enhancements reflecting financial
difficulties;
5. Substitution of credit or liquidity providers, or their failure to
perform;
6. Adverse tax opinions or events affecting the tax-exempt status of the
Notes;
7. Modifications to rights of the Owners of the Notes;
8. Optional redemptions of the Notes;
9. Defeasances of the Notes;
10. Release, substitution or sale of property securing repayment of the
Notes; and
11. Rating changes.
After the issuance of the Notes. so long as the interests of the Owners or Beneficial
Owners of the Notes will not be materially impaired thereby, as determined by a party
unaffiliated with the City (including, without limitation, a trustee for the Owners,
nationally recognized bond counsel or other counsel familiar with the federal securities
1ST DRAFT 1~23/99
For Discussion Purposes Only
law), or pursuant to a favorable "no-action letter" issued by the SEC, this Section 18 may
only be amended in connection with any change in legal requirements, change in law, or
change in the identity, nature or status of the obligated person, or type of business
conducted, and only in such a manner that the undertaking of the City, as so amended,
would have complied with the requirements of the Rule at the time of the primary
offering, after taking into account any amendments or interpretations of the Rule, as well
as any change in circumstances.
The City's obligations to provide Financial Information and notices of certain
events shall terminate without amendment upon the defeasance, prior redemption or
payment in full of all of the then outstanding Notes. This Section 18 or any provision
hereof, shall be null and void if the City (i) obtains an opinion of nationally recog-nized
bond counsel or other counsel familiar with the federal securities laws to the effect that
those portions of the Rule which require this Section 18 or any such provision are invalid.
have been repealed retroactively or otherwise do not apply to the City; and (ii) notifies
and provides the SD, if any, and either the MSRB or each then existing NRMSIR with
copies of such opinion.
The right of each Owner and Beneficial Owner of Notes to enforce the provisions
of this Section 18 shall be limited to the right to obtain specific enforcement of the City's
obligations under this Section 18, and any failure by the City to comply with the
provisions of this undertaking shall not be a default with respect to the Notes under this
ordinance.
1ST DRAFT 19/23/99
For Discussion Purposes Only
The City Treasurer is authorized and directed to take such further action on behalf
of the City as mav be necessary, appropriate or convenient to carry, out the requirements
of this Section 18.
Section 19. Contract: Severabilitv. The covenants contained in this ordinance
shall constitute a contract between the City and the Owners of each and every Note. The
City unconditionally covenants that it will keep and perform all of the covenants of the
Notes and this ordinance. If any one or more of the provisions of this ordinance shall be
declared unconstitutional or invalid for any reason, such decision shall not affect the
validity of the remaining provisions of this ordinance or the Notes, and this ordinance and
the Notes shall be construed and enforced as if such unconstitutional or invalid provision
had not been contained herein.
Section 20. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in full force
ten days after passage and publication of an approved summarv, consisting of the title.
APPROVED by the City Council of the City of Bremerton. Washington, the
~ day of January, 2000.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Bremerton, Washington, this __
day of January, 2000.
CAROL ARENDS , Council President
APPROVED this __ day of January, 2000.
LYNN HORTON, Mayor
1ST DRAFT lO_/23/99
For Discussion Purposes Only
ATTEST:
Kathleen McCluskey, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
8v
Judith Andrews, Bond Counsel
PUBLISI--rED:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORDINAxNCE NO.
PRELIMINARY OFFICIAL STATEMENT DA TED ,JANUARY 5, 2000
BOOK-ENTRY ONLY
NEW ISSUE
NEGOTIATED RATING: Not Applied For
In the opinion of Bond Counsel, as of the Data of Issue, and assuming the City fuffills its covenant to comply with certain requirements of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code~) that must be met subsequent to the issuance of the Notes: intem~ o~ the Notes is excluded from gross income for
federal income tax puqx~ses, and is not an item of [ax preference fo~ purposes of deteffnining the allerna~e minimum tax on indivkluats and corpora~ons; and
the N~tes are "qua~i~ed lax-exempt ~b~iga~f~r~ f~r pu~p~ses ~f the p~r~ interest expense ~ avai~b~e under Sec~n 265 ~f the C~de~ However, interest
on the IVotes is included in the computaUon of other taxes, including without limYmUon the altemaUve minimum ~ax on corpomtfons, and may be subject to c~er
collateral tax consequences. See "TAX EX~MPTION~ and 'OTHER TAX CONSEQUENCES' herein.
CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON
$1 250 000
TAX ANTICIPATION NOTES, 2000
DATED: February1, 2000 DUE: January31 2001
The City's Tax Anticipation Notes, 2000 (the "Notes"), are issued in fully registered form, and wilt be fully registered in the
name of Cede & Co., as Note owner and nominee for The Depository Trust Company (~DTC"), New York, New York. DTC
will act as securities depository for the Notes. The Notes will be initially issued in book-entry form only in the value of
$50,000 or any integral multiple thereof within a single maturity. Purchasers will not receive certificates representing their
interest in the Notes purchased. The Notes bear interest payable at maturity. The principal of and interest on the Notes are
payable by either fiscal agency of the State of Washington, currently The Bank of N~N York, New York, New York and Wells
Fargo Bank, National Association, Seattle, Washington (the "Fiscal Agent' or "Registrar"). For so long as the Notes remain
in a 'book-entry only" transfer system, the Fiscal Agent will make such payments only to DTC, which will in turn remit such
principal and interest to the DTC participants for subsequent disbursement to Beneficial Owners of the Notes as described
herein under the caption "Book-Entry Only System."
MATURITY
Due Amount Rate Yield or Price
January 31 2001 $ 1,250,000 %
The Notes will not be sublect to redemption prior to their stated maturity.
The ~otes are limited tax ~eneral obli§ations of the City. The City irro¥ocably covenants that, unloss the principal of ~nd
interest on the ~otes are paid [rom other sources, so Ion~ as the ~ote$ are outstanding, the City shall make annual I~¥ies of
taxes upon all property within the City subject to taxation without a vote in amounts sufficiont, to~eth,r w~th any other money
legally available therefor, to pay such principal and interest as the same shal~ ~ecome due. -[he City has irre¥ocably
pled~od its full ~aith, credit and resour¢o$ to the annual levy and collection of such taxes and for the prompt payment of such
principal and interest. See 'S[CUSITY' herein.
]-he City has desionated the ~otes as ~qualified tax-exompt ob}}~ations" under the Internal ~evenue Code of ~, as
amendod, for banks, thrift institutions and other financial institutions. See ~OTH[~ TAX CO~$[QUff~C~S' herein.
The Notes are offered by the Underwdter when, as, and if issued, subject to the approvin~ legal opinion of Gottlie~, Fisher &
Andrews, PLLC, Bond Counsel, Seattle, Washin~ton, a copy of which opinion will Do delivered with the ~otos. /he ~otes in
definitive book-entry form will be toady for delivery through the [a¢ifities of DTC in ~ow York, New York, on or around
Febru,ry ~, 2000.
This corot paso contab~s cortain information for cluic~ roforonco only. It ~s not ~ summoty of tl~s issuo. Invostors must
t3o ontiro Official Statomont to obtain information oss,nti~l to mal~'ng an in~ormod invostmont ~oci$~on.
Banc of America Securities LLC
Representations
Neither the City nor the Underwriter has authorized any dealer, broker, salesperson or other persons to
give any information or make any representations other than those made in this Preliminarv Official
Statement, and, if given or made, such other information or representations must not be relied upon as
having been authorized by the City or the Underwriter. This Preliminary Official Statement does not
constitute an offer to sell, nor shall there be any sale of the Notes by any person in any jurisdiction in
which it is unlawful for such person to make such a sale.
The information contained in this Preliminary Official Statement has been obtained from City Officials and
other sources believed to be reliable. Neither a representation, warranty nor guarantee is made by the
Underwriter as to the accuracy or completeness of any information in this Preliminary Official Statement
and nothing contained in this Preliminary Official Statement is or shall be relied upon as a promise or
representation by the Underwriter. The delivery of this Preliminary Official Statement does not imply that
the information contained herein is correct as of any time subsequent to the date of the Preliminary
Official Statement as shown on the cover page.
Disclosure Statement
The City will deliver to the Underwriter at the time of delivery of the Notes a signed statement
substantially to the effect that this Preliminary Official Statement, as of its date and as of the date of the
Notes, neither contains any untrue statement of a material fact nor omits to state any material fact
necessary to make the statements therein, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not
misleading in any material respect and that there has not been any material adverse change in the normal
operations or financial condition of the City nor, to the best of the City's knowledge, in the general
economy of the City since the date of the final Official Statement.
Secondary Market
It has been the practice of' the Underwriter to maintain a secondary market in municipal securities which it
sells. The Underwriter intends to engage in secondary market tradinz of the Notes, subject to applicable
securities laws. The Underwriter, however, is neither, obli~atedo to ~n~a_.qe_, in secondary trading nor to
repurchase any of the Notes at the request of the registered owners thereof and no assurance can be given
that a secondary market for the Notes will be available.
In connection with the offering of the Notes, the Underwriter may over-allot or effect transactions that
stabilize or maintain the market price of the Notes at a level above that which might otherwise prevail in
the open market. Such stabilizing, if commenced, may be discontinued at any time.
This Preliminary Official Statement, as of its date, is in a form that is expected to be "deemed final" by
the City for purposes of SEC Rule 15c2-12(b)(1), but is subject to revision, amendment and completion
in a final Official Statement that will be available within seven (7) days of the sale date of the Notes.
CITY OF BREMERTON
Kitsap County, Washington
239 Fourth S~'eet
Bremerton, Washington 98337
(360) 478-5290
MAYOR
Term Expires
December 31
Lynn Horton 2001
CITY COUNCIL
Mike Shepherd Chairperson 2001
Wayne Olsen Member 2001
John Law Member 2001
Carol Arends Member 2001
Cecil McConnell Member 2003
Conrad Esser Member 2003
David Farr Member 2003
Edward Rollman Member 2003
Jim Reed Member 2001
APPOINTED CITY OFFICIALS
Richard Hanna Treasurer
Kathleen McCluskey Administrative Services Director/City Clerk
Glenna Malanca Attorney
BOND COUNSEL
Gottlieb, Fisher & Andrews, PLLC
Seattle, Washington
UNDERWRITER
Banc of America Securities LLC
Seattle, Washington
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 1
Description of the Notes ......................................................................................................................
'Authorization ...................................................................................................................................... 3
Security .............................................................................................................................................. 3
Purpose ............................................................................................................................................... 4
Note Fund ........................................................................................................................................... 4
Failure to Redeem the Notes ................................................................................................................ 4
Debt Payment Record .......................................................................................................................... 4
Future Financing ................................................................................................................................. 4
Assessed Valuation Determination ....................................................................................................... 4
Tax Collection Procedure .................................................................................................................... 5
Authorization of Debt .......................................................................................................................... 5
General Obligation Indebtedness .......................................................................................................... 5
Limits on Amount of General Obligation Indebtedness ......................................................................... 6
Authorization of Short-Term Debt ....................................................................................................... 7
Taxing Powers and Limitations ............................................................................................................ 7
Auditing of City Finances .................................................................................................................... 7
Authorized Investments ....................................................................................................................... 8
Net Direct Debt and Estimated Net Overlapping General Obligation Debt ............................................ 9
Bonded Debt Ratios of the City ........................................................................................................... 9
Statutory Debt Limit Calculation ......................................................................................................... 10
Ad Valorem Tax Record of the City .................................................................................................... 11
Ad Valorem Property Tax Rates in the City ......................................................................................... 11
Comparative Statement of General Fund Revenues and Expenditures .................................................. 12
Contingency Reserve Fund Year-End Balances .................................................................................... 12
General Fund Budget ........................................................................................................................... 13
Schedule of General Obligation Bond Debt Service for the City ............................................................ 14
City Profile ......................................................................................................................................... 14
General and Economic Information ...................................................................................................... 16
Preservation of Tax Exemption ............................................................................................................ 21
Conflicts of Interest ............................................................................................................................. 21
Tax Exemption .................................................................................................................................... 21
Other Tax Consequences ..................................................................................................................... 22
Absence of Material Litigation ............................................................................................................. 22
Approval of Bond Counsel .................................................................................................................. 22
Continuing Disclosure ......................................................................................................................... 23
Underwriting ....................................................................................................................................... 24
Concluding Statement .......................................................................................................................... 24
Form of Legal Opinion ................................................................................................................ Appendix A
PRELIMINARY OFFICIAL STATEMENT
CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON
$1,250,000
TAX ANTICIPATION NOTES, 2000
INTRODUCTION
The City of Bremerton, Washington (the "City"), a municipal corporation duly organized and existing
under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Washington, furnishes this Official Statement in connection
with the offering of $1,250,000 principal amount of Tax Anticipation Notes, 2000 (the "Notes"). This
Official Statement provides information concerning the City and the Notes.
DESCRIPTION OF THE NOTES
Principal Amount, Date, Interest Rate, and Maturity
The Notes will be issued in the principal amount of $1,250,000 and will be dated and bear interest from
February 1, 2000 until their stated maturity. The Notes will mature on January 31, 2001, and will bear
interest, payable at maturity, at the rate of % per annum. Interest on the Notes will be computed
on the basis of a 360-day year of twelve 30-day months.
Optional Redemption
The City has not reserved the right to redeem the Notes prior to maturity.
Paying Agent
Principal of and interest on the Notes will be payable by either State fiscal agency (the "Fiscal Agent" or
"Registrar") in New York, New York, or Seattle, Washington, currently The Bank of New York and
Wells Fargo Bank, National Association (or such other fiscal agency or agencies as the City Treasurer
may from time to time designate). So long as Cede & Co. is the registered owner of the Notes, principal
of and interest on the Notes are payable by wire transfer by the Registrar to DTC, which, in mm, is
obligated to remit such principal and interest to the DTC Participants for subsequent disbursement to the
Beneficial Owners of the Notes, as further described herein under the caption "Book-Entry Only
System."
Form and Denomination
The Notes will be issued in fully registered form as to both principal and interest in the denomination of
$50,000 or any integral multiple thereof. The Notes, when issued, will be registered in the name of Cede
& Co., as registered owner and nominee of The Depository Trust Company, New York, New York
("DTC").
DTC will act as securities depository for the Notes. Individual purchases may be made in book-entry
form only. Purchasers will not receive certificates representing their interest in the Notes purchased. So
long as Cede & Co. is the registered owner of the Notes, as nominee of DTC, references herein to the
registered owners or Note owners will mean Cede & Co. and will not mean the "Beneficial Owners" of
the Notes. In this Official Statement, the term ''Beneficial Owner" will mean the person for which a DTC
participant acquires an interest in the Notes.
So long as Cede & Co. is the registered owner of the Notes, principal of and interest on the Notes are
payable by wire transfer by the Registrar to DTC, which, in turn, is obligated to remit such principal and
interest to the DTC participants for subsequent disbursement to Beneficial Owners of the Notes, as
further described under the caption "Book-Entry Only System."
Book-Entry Only System
The following information has been provided by DTC. Beneficial Owners should confirm the following
with DTC or the Participants.
DTC will act as initial securities depository for the Notes. The Notes will be issued as fully registered
Notes, and will be registered in the name of Cede & Co. (DTC's partnership nominee). One fully-
registered Note certificate will be issued for the Notes, in the aggregate principal amount of the Notes,
and will be deposited with DTC.
DTC is a limited-purpose trust company organized under the New York Banking Law, a '~banking
organization" within the meaning of the New York Banking Law, a member of the Federal Reserve
System, a "clearing corporation" within the meaning of the New York Uniform Commercial Code and a
"clearing agency" registered pursuant to the provisions of Section 17A of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended. DTC holds securities that its participants (the '~Participants") deposit with DTC. DTC
also facilitates the settlement among Participants of securities transactions, such as transfers and pledges,
in deposited securities through electronic computerized book-entry changes in accounts of the
Participants, thereby eliminating the need of physical movement of securities certificates. Direct
Participants include securities brokers and dealers, banks, trust companies, clearing corporations and
certain other organizations. DTC is owned by a number of its Direct Participants and by the New York
Stock Exchange, Inc., the American Stock Exchange, Inc. and the National Association of Securities
Dealers, Inc. Access to the DTC system is also available to others such as banks, brokers, dealers and
trust companies that clear through or maintain a custodial relationship with a Direct Participant, either
directly or indirectly ("Indirect Participants"). The rules applicable to DTC and its Participants are on file
with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Purchases of the Notes under the DTC system, in denominations of $50,000 or any integral multiple
thereof, must be made by or through Direct Participants, which will receive a credit for the Notes on
DTC's records. The ownership interest of each actual purchaser of each Note ('~Beneficial Owner") is in
turn to be recorded on the Direct and Indirect Participants' records. Beneficial Owners will not receive
written confirmation from DTC of their purchase, but Beneficial Owners are expected to receive written
confirmations providing details of the transaction, as well as periodic statements of their holdings, from
the Direct or Indirect Participants through which the Beneficial Owner entered into the transaction.
Transfers of ownership interests in the Notes are to be accomplished by entries made on the books of
Participants acting on behalf of Beneficial Owners. Beneficial Owners will not receive certificates
representing their ownership interests in the Notes, except in the event that use of the book-entry system
for the Notes is discontinued.
To facilitate subsequent transfers, all Notes deposited by Participants with DTC are registered in the
name of DTC's partnership nominee, Cede & Co. The deposit of Notes with DTC and their registration
in the name of Cede & Co. effect no change in beneficial ownership. DTC has no knowledge of the actual
Beneficial Owners of the Notes. DTC's records reflect only the identity of the Direct Participants to
whose accounts such Notes are credited, which may or may not be the Beneficial Owners. The
Participants will remain responsible for keeping account of their holdings on behalf of their customers.
Conveyance of notices and other communications by DTC to Direct Participants, by Direct Participants
to Indirect Participants, and by Direct Participants and Indirect Participants to Beneficial Owners will be
governed by arrangements among them, subject to any statutory or regulatory requirements as may be in
effect from time to time.
Redemption notices will be sent to Cede & Co. If less than all of the Notes are being redeemed, DTC's
practice is to determine by lot the amount of the interest of each Direct Participant in Notes to be
redeemed.
Neither DTC nor Cede & Co. will consent or vote with respect to Notes. Under its usual procedures,
DTC mails an Omnibus Proxy to the City as soon as possible after the record date. The Omnibus Proxy
assigns Cede & Co.'s consenting or voting rights to those Direct Participants to whose accounts the
Notes are credited on the record date (identified in a listing attached to the Omnibus Proxy).
Principal and interest payments on the Notes will be made to DTC. DTC's practice is to credit Direct
Participants' accounts on payable date in accordance with their respective holdings shown on DTC's
records unless DTC has reason to believe that it will not receive payment on the payable date. Payments
by Participants to Beneficial Owners will be governed by standing instructions and customary practices,
as is the case with securities held for the accounts of customers in bearer form or registered in "street
name," and will be the responsibility of such Participant and not of DTC, the Registrar, or the City,
subject to any statutory or regulatory requirements as may be in effect from time to time. Payment of
principal and interest to DTC is the responsibility of the City or Registrar. Disbursement of such
payments to Direct Participants will be the responsibility of DTC, and disbursement of such payments to
the Beneficial Owners will be the responsibility of Direct and Indirect Participants.
DTC may discontinue providing its services as securities depository with respect to the Notes at any time
by giving reasonable notice to the City or the Registrar. Under such circumstances and in the event that a
successor securities depository is not obtained, Note certificates are required to be printed and delivered.
The City may decide to discontinue use of book-entry transfers througah DTC (or a successor securities
depository). In that event, Note certificates will be printed and delivered.
On March 22, 1999, DTC announced in a press release that the respective boards of DTC and National
Securities Clearing Corporation ("NSCC") have approved a plan to combine the two companies. The
plan calls for a holding company with two separate operating subsidiaries, an executive management team
and a single board of directors. The plan will be submitted to regulators for formal approval.
NSCC, located in New York, New York and established in 1976, is a provider of centralized, post-trade
comparison, trade guarantee, trade netting, settlement and information services for equities, bonds, Unit
Investment Trusts, mutual fund and annuities transactions in the United States. Its participants include
more that 2,00 broker/dealers, banks, mutual fund companies, insurance carriers and other financial
intermediaries. NSCC is owned by the New York Stock Exchange, 3maerican Stock Exchange and the
National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc.
The information in this section concerning DTC and DTC's book-entry system has been obtained from
sources the City believes to be reliable, but the City takes no responsibility, ~'or the accuracy thereof.
Procedure in the Event of Revisions of Book-Entry Transfer System
If the City is unable to retain a qualified successor to DTC or the City has determined that it is in the best
interest of the City not to continue the book-entry system of transfer or that interests of the Beneficial
Owners of the Notes might be adversely affected if the book-entry system of transfer is continued, the
City will execute, authenticate and deliver at no cost to the Beneficial Owners of the Notes or their
nominees, Notes in fully registered form, in the denomination of $50,000 or any integral multiple thereof.
Thereafter, the principal of and interest on the Notes will be payable to the persons who are named as
registered owners of the Notes on the registration books for the Notes upon due presentment and
surrender thereof at the principal corporate trust office of the Registrar, and the Notes will be transferable
as provided in the Note Ordinance.
AUTHORIZATION
The Notes are issued in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution and applicable statutes of the
State of Washington, pursuant to Ordinance No. ~ (the "Ordinance") of the City Council, adopted
on January ___, 2000.
SECURITY
The Notes are limited tax general obligations of the City. Unless the principal of and interest on the
Notes are paid from other sources, so long as the Notes are outstanding, the City has irrevocably
covenanted in the Ordinance to include in its budgets and to make annual levies of taxes upon all property
within the City subject to taxation without a vote in amounts which, together with any other money
legally available therefor, shall be sufficient to pay the principal and interest on the Notes as the same
shall become due. The City has irrevocably pledged its full faith, credit and resources to the annual levy
and collection of such taxes and for the prompt payment of such principal and interest. All of such taxes
shall be paid into the Note Fund.
The City has irrevocably covenanted that the annual tax to be levied for the payment of the principal of
and interest on the Notes shall be within and as a part of the tax levy permitted the City without a vote of
the people and that a sufficient portion of each such annual tax levy to be made so long as the Notes are
outstanding, together with any other money legally available therefor, shall be set aside, pledged and
appropriated for the payment of the principal of and interest on the Notes as the same shall become due.
PURPOSE
The proceeds of the Notes will be used to provide cash flow management of the City's General Fund
revenues and expenditures, in anticipation of the collection of sales, excise and general ad valorem
property taxes and other money due the City's General Fund in 2000, and paying the costs of issuance
and sale of the Notes, all as approved by the City Council.
NOTE FUND
The City has created and established in the office of the City Treasurer a special fund to be known and
designated as the Tax Anticipation Note Fund, 2000 (the "Note Fund") for the sole purpose of payment
of the principal of and interest on the Notes. Accrued interest, if any, received from the sale of the Notes
shall be deposited in the Note Fund.
FAILURE TO REDEEM THE NOTES
If any Note is not paid when properly presented at its maturity, the City is obligated to pay interest on
that Note at the same rate provided in the Note from and after its maturity until that Note, both principal
and interest, is paid in full or until sufficient money for its payment in full is on deposit in the Note Fund.
DEBT PAYMENT RECORD
The City has always promptly met principal and interest payments on outstanding obligations when due.
Additionally, no refunding Bonds have been issued for the purpose of preventing an impending default.
FUTURE FINANCING
The City anticipates three financing transactions in 2000. The first will be a hmited tax general obligation
bond issue of approximately $3.5 million to finance the acquisition and hmited renovation of an office
building in downtown Bremerton. Approximately half of the building will be used to replace the current
City Hall, with remainder being managed for income generation. The second financing, also a limited tax
general obligation bond issue, of approximately $2.75 million, will finance the replacement of the
clubhouse at the City's Gold Mountain Golf Complex. The third issue will be an unlimited tax general
general obligation bond issue of approximately $15 million to finance the construction of a community
recreation center and other improvements to the City's park system. The City expects to submit this issue
to the voters in the spring of 2000.
ASSESSED VALUATION DETERMINATION
In the State of Washington, the County Assessor (the "Assessor") determines the value of all real and
personal property throughout the County (including the City) which is subject to ad valorem taxation.
The Assessor's duties and methods of determining value are prescribed and controlled by statute and by
detailed regulations promulgated by the Department of Revenue of the State of Washington. For tax
purposes the assessed value of property is set at 100% of its actual value. Property in Kitsap County is
revalued annually based on market sales and receives an on-site appraisal every six years. The property is
listed by the Assessor on a tax roll at its current assessed value and the tax roll is filed in the Assessor's
office.
The Assessor's determinations are subject to revision by the County Board of Equalization and, for
certain property, subject to further revision by the State Board of Equalization. After all administrative
procedures are completed, the taxing unit receives the Assessor's final certificate of assessed value of
property within the taxing unit.
TAX COLLECTION PROCEDURE
Property taxes are levied in specific amounts, and the rate for all taxes levied for all taxing cities in the
County (including the City) are determined, calculated and fixed by the Assessor based upon the assessed
valuation of the property within the various taxing cities. The Assessor extends the taxes to be levied
within each taxing City upon a tax roll which contains the total amount of taxes to be so levied and
collected and assigns a tax account number to each tax lot. The tax roll is delivered to the Kitsap County
Treasurer by January 15 of each year, and an abstract of the tax roll, showing the total amount of taxes
collectible in each of the taxing cities for the year, is delivered to the Board of County Commissioners at
the same time. All taxes are due and payable on the 30th of April of each year, but if the amount due from
a taxpayer exceeds thirty dollars ($30.00), one-half may be paid then and the balance no later than
October 31 of each year.
The method of giving notice of payment of taxes due, accounting for the money collected, the division of
the taxes among the various taxing cities, giving notice of delinquency, and collection procedure are all
covered by detailed statutes. The lien for ad valorem property taxes which have been levied prior to the
filing of federal tax liens is prior to such federal tax liens.
In other respects, and subject to the possible "Homestead Exemption," the lien for delinquent property
taxes is prior to all other liens or encumbrances of any kind on real or personal property subject to
taxation. By law (Chapter 6.13 RCW) the taxing unit may commence foreclosure of a tax lien on real
property after three (3) years have passed since the first delinquency. Washington State's courts have not
decided whether the Homestead Exemption may give the occupying home owner a right in the forced sale
of the family residence for delinquent general property taxes to retain the first $30,000 of proceeds of the
sale. (See Algona vs. Sharp, 30 Wn. App. 837, 638 P.2d 627 (1982), holding the homestead right
superior to liens for local improvement district assessments).
AUTHORIZATION OF DEBT
The power of the City to contract debt of any kind is controlled and limited by state law. All debt must be
set forth in accordance with detailed budget procedures and paid for out of identifiable receipts and
revenues. The budget must be balanced for each fiscal year. It is unlawful for an officer or employee of
the City to incur liabilities in excess of budgetary appropriations.
GENERAL OBLIGATION INDEBTEDNESS
Under the Constitution and statutes of the State, the City may incur two types of general obligation
indebtedness. The two types are primarily differentiated by the limits on the real and personal property
taxes which may be collected for the payment thereof.
Limited tax general obligation indebtedness is payable from taxes upon all the taxable property in the City
which may be imposed by the City within the limitations prescribed by State statute without a vote of the
people (sometimes referred to as "non-voted debt" or "non-voted bonds" or "councilmanic bonds or
notes"). The statutory limits on the levy of such taxes are described in the section herein entitled "LIMITS
ON AMOUNT OF GENERAL OBLIGATION INDEBTEDNESS."
Unlimited tax general obligation indebtedness is payable from taxes without limitation as to rate or
amount, imposed upon all taxable property in the City. Unlimited tax indebtedness may be incurred only
after approval by 60% of the City voters at an election in which the total vote cast exceeds 40% of the
votes cast at the last preceding general election of the City or State. Such unlimited tax indebtedness is
sometimes referred to as "voted debt," "voted bonds" or 'hnlimited tax bonds."
Bonds issued to refund outstanding general obligation indebtedness of either type may be issued without
voter approval.
LIMITS ON AMOUNT OF GENERAL OBLIGATION INDEBTEDNESS
State statutes limit the total principal amount of all City general obligation indebtedness incurred for
"general" purposes, both limited tax and unlimited tax, to 2.5% of the actual value of taxable property
within the City. Within this 2.5% limitation, non-voted indebtedness is further limited to 1.5% of the
value of such taxable property.
The City is additionally authorized to incur general obligation indebtedness for the following "special"
purposes, with voter approval, in the total principal amount of up to the following percentages of the
actual value of taxable property within the City: water, artificial light and sewers: 2.5%; open space and
park facilities: 2.5%. The combination of unlimited tax and limited tax general obligation debt for all
purposes cannot exceed 7.5% of the City's assessed valuation.
The State statutory limits on City general obligation indebtedness described in this section are more
restrictive than those contained in the State Constitution. Both the Constitutional and statutory debt limits
may be exceeded if necessary to meet obligations made mandatory by State law or, if n~cessary, to
mmntain the corporate existence of the City.
In computing total general obligation indebtedness, the following "assets" may be deducted against the
principal amount of indebtedness outstanding: (a) money and investments on deposit in general obligation
bond retirement funds: (b) taxes (both current and delinquent) levied for the payment of general
obligation indebtedness; and (c) delinquent (but not current) taxes due the general fund.
In addition to limits on the total principal amount of general obligation indebtedness described in this
section, the Constitution and statutes of the State impose other limitations on the City's levy of taxes
upon real and personal property (see section herein entitled "TAXING POWERS AND LIMITATIONS".)
Initiative No. 695
At the November 2, 1999 general election, Washington state voters approved Initiative No. 695
("Initiative 695"). Beginning January ], 2000, Initiative 695 requires voter approval for any new or
increased taxes or fees proposed by the state, county, or local governments. Initiative 695 imposes new
voter approval requirements for tax increases. "Tax" is defined in Initiative 695 to include, but not be
limited to, (i) sales and use taxes, (ii) property taxes, (iii) business and occupation taxes, (iv) excise taxes,
(v) fuel taxes, (vi) impact fees, (vii) license fees, (viii) permit fees, and (ix) any monetary charge by
government, but specifically excludes higher education tuition and civil and criminal fines and other
charges collected in cases of restitution or violation of law or contract. "Tax increase" includes, but is
not limited to, a new tax, a monetary increase in an existing tax, a tax rate increase, an expansion in the
legal definition of a tax base, and an extension of an expiring tax. Initiative 695 also repeals the state
motor vehicle excise tax, the state camper and trailer tax, and the state clean air tax.
To date three lawsuits have been filed challenging the constitutionality of Initiative 695. Media reports
indicate that additional lawsuits are likely to be filed in the near future. The outcome of such lawsuits
cannot be predicted at this time.
6
AUTHORIZATION OF SHORT-TERM DEBT
As a result of 1982 legislation, any Washington municipal corporation may borrow money and issue
short-term obligations, the proceeds of which may be used for any lawful purpose. Short-term obligations
may be issued in anticipation of the receipt of revenues, taxes, or grants or the sale of (1) general
obligation bonds if the bonds may be issued without the consent of the voters or if previously ratified by
the voters; (2) revenue bonds if the bonds have been authorized by ordinance or resolution; or (3) local
improvement district bonds if the bonds have been authorized by ordinance or resolution. These short-
term obligations shall be repaid out of money derived from the source or sources in anticipation of which
they were issued or from any money legally available for this purpose.
Additionally, the City may incur short-term indebtedness in the following ways: first, in an emergency, the
Council members may put a plan into effect and authorize indebtedness outside the current budget. All
expenditures for emergency purpose shall be paid by warrants form any available money in the fund
properly chargeable with such expenditures. If there is insufficient money on hand in the fund, the
warrants become registered interest-bearing warrants. In adopting the budget for any fiscal year, the
Council members shall appropriate funds to retire any outstanding registered warrants issued since the
adoption of the last preceding budget. Second, the City may, without a vote of the electors, purchase
property on a conditional sales contract if the total contract amount, together with the other non-voted
general obligation indebtedness of the City, does not exceed 3/4 of 1% of the value of taxable property in
the City; any item so purchased must be budgeted for payment in accordance with the terms of the
contract.
TAXING POWERS AND LIMITATIONS
Pursuant to Chapter 84.52.043 RCW, cities may levy, without a vote of the residents residing therein, a
maximum of $3.375 per thousand for general city purposes (the "regular levy"). Cities with full-time
firemen may levy an additional $.225 per thousand to fund the city's Fireman's Pension Fund (Chapter
41.16.060 RCW), thus creating a maximum annual levy rate of $3.60 per thousand. The City levied
$3.325 per $1,000 of taxable assessed valuation for its regular levy in 1999.
According to RCW 27.12.390, any city or town annexed to a rural library district, island library district,
or inter-county rural library district, such as the City, shall be entitled to levy up to $3.60 per thousand
dollars of assessed valuation less any regular levy made by such library district in the incorporated area,
notwithstanding any other provision of law.
A city's regular property taxes are subject to the provisions of a state statute limiting the growth of annual
property taxes (RCW 84.55.010). The limitation, which was amended by the Property Tax Act (enacted
as Senate Bill 5835 by the Washington Legislature in 1997 and adopted and ratified at the November
1997 general election) provides that the regular property taxes payable in the following year shall not
exceed the amount of the single highest regular levy amount lawfully levied by the municipal entity in the
three immediately preceding calendar years multiplied by a limit factor, plus an additional amount due to
the incremental assessed valuation increase in the municipal entity caused by new construction and
property improvements. The limit factor is defined in the Property Tax Act as (i) the lesser of 106% or
100% plus inflation, or (ii) any amount up to 106% if approved by a majority plus one vote of the
governing body of the municipality upon a finding of substantial need. The regular property taxes levied
by a city may be increased above the limit factor upon the affirmative vote of a majority of the voters
residing in the municipal entity at an election held for such purposes (RCW 84.55.050).
AUDITING OF CITY FINANCES
The State Auditor is required to examine the affairs of cities at least once every two years. The
examination must include, among other things, the financial condition and resources of the City, whether
the laws and constitution of the State are being complied with, and the methods and accuracy of the
accounts and reports of the City. Reports of the Auditor's examinations are required to be filed in the
office of the State Auditor and in the auditing department of the City.
7
AUTHORIZED INVESTMENTS
Chapter 39.59 RCW limits the investment of public funds to the following authorized investments: bonds
of the State and any local government in the State, which bonds are rated at the time of investment in one
of the three highest credit ratings by a nationally recognized rating agency; general obligation bonds of
other states and subdivisions thereof so long as those bonds are rated in one of the three highest
categories; registered warrants of a local government within the same county as the entity making the
investment; and any investment authorized by law for the treasurer of the State or any local government
exclusive of certificates of deposit of banks or bank branches not located in the State. Under chapter
43.84 RCW, the State Treasurer may invest in non-negotiable certificates of deposit in designated
qualified public depositories; in obligations of the U.S. government, its agencies and wholly owned
corporations; in bankers' acceptances; in commercial paper; in repurchase agreements; in the obligations
of the federal home loan bank, federal national mortgage association and other government corporations
subject to statutory provisions. Utility revenue bonds and warrants of any city and bonds or warrants of a
local improvement district are also eligible investments (RCW 35.39.030).
Any municipal corporation, including the City, may authorize the investment of funds not required for
immediate expenditure by the County Treasurer. Such funds of the City, including debt service funds,
may be invested by the County Treasurer. The County Treasurer may, upon the request of one or more
units of local government that invest their money with the County, combine those monies for the
purposes of investment (RCW 36.29.022). The office of the County Treasurer receives up to five
percent of the earnings on such investments, subject to a maximum of fifty dollars on each transaction, as
its investment service fee. The County Treasurer may reimburse its office for any expenses incurred in
the establishment and maintenance of such a County investment pool (RCW 36.29.024).
Local Government Investment Pool
The State Treasurer's Office administers the Washington State Local Government Investment Pool (the
"LGIP"), a $1.25 billion fund that invests money on behalf of more than 350 cities, counties and special
taxing districts. In its management of LG~, the State Treasury adheres, at all times, to the principles
appropriate for the prudent investment of public funds. These are, in priority order, (i) the safety of
principal; (ii) the assurance of sufficient liquidity to meet cash flow demands; and (iii) to attain the highest
possible yield within the constraints of the first two goals. Historically, the LGIP has had sufficient
liquidity to meet all cash flow demands.
The LGIP, authorized by chapter 43.250 RCW, is a voluntary pool that provides its participants the
opportunity to benefit from the economies of scale inherent in pooling. It is also intended to offer
participants increased safety of principal and the ability to achieve a higher investment yield than would
otherwise be available to them. The LGIP is a conservatively managed, highly liquid money market fund.
The pool is restricted to investments with maturities of one year or less, and the average investment life
typically is less than 90 days. Permissible investments include U.S. government and agency securities,
bankers' acceptances, high quality commercial paper, repurchase and reverse repurchase agreements, and
certificates of deposit issued by qualified Washington State depositories.
Authorized Investments for Bond Proceeds
In addition to the eligible investments discussed above, bond proceeds only may also be invested in
mutual funds with portfolios consisting of U.S. government and guaranteed agency securities with
average maturities of less than four years; municipal securities rated in one of the four highest categories;
and money market funds consisting of the same, so long as municipal securities held in the fund(s) are in
one of the two highest rating categories. Bond proceeds may also be invested in shares of money market
funds with portfolios of securities otherwise authorized by law for investment by local governments
(RCW 39.59.030).
The City's Investments
The investments of the City, except those of the Community Development Block Grant Fund, are
managed in a pooled format. Interest earnings are distributed monthly to the individual funds based on
their respective balances at the beginning of the month. These pooled investments are classified on the
8
balance sheet as cash and equivalents. As required by state statue, all investments and deposits of the
City's funds are obligations of the U.S. Government, U.S. agency issues, deposits with the State
Treasurer's Investment Pool, prime bankers' acceptances, deposits with Washington State banks and
savings and loan institutions or repurchase agreements with authorized securities as collateral.
NET DIRECT DEBT AND ESTIMATED NET
OVERLAPPING GENERAL OBLIGATION DEBT1
(As of November 30, 1999)
Direct Debt:
Voted General Obligation Bonds Outstanding ...................... $ 1,175,000
Non-Voted Bonds Outstanding ............................................ 7,885,000
The Notes ............................................................................. 1,250,000
Bank Line of Credit Outstanding .......................................... 9,915
Bank Loan Outstanding ........................................................ 75,758
Less: Debt Service Fund Balance .......................................... (254,441)
Net Direct Debt ..................................................... $10,141,232
Estimated Net Overlapping Debt:
Net G.O. Debt Percent of A~nount of
Outstanding Overlap Overlap
Kitsap County $ 55,469,824 l 1.05% $ 6,129,416
Port of Bremerton 4,165,0002 25.95 1,080,818
Bremerton Sch. Dist. No. 100-C 25,820,000 73.98 19,101,636
Central Kitsap Sch. Dist. No. 401 83,440,000 1.09 909,496
South Kitsap Sch. Dist. No. 402 8,290,000 0.13 10,777
Estimated Net Overlapping Debt: .......................................... $ 27,232,143
Net Direct Plus Estimated Net Overlapping Debt: ....................................... $ 37,373,375
BONDED DEBT RATIOS OF THE CITY
Assessed Valuation for Collection Year 20003 ........................................... $
Estimated City Population (1999)4 ............................................................. 36,888
Assessed Valuation Per Capita .................................................................. $
Net Direct Debt to Assessed Valuation ........................................................ %
Net Direct and Estimated Overlapping Debt to Assessed Valuation ........... %
Net Direct Debt Per Capita ....................................................................... $
Net Direct and Estimated Overlapping Debt Per Capita ............................. $
1 Reflects the issuance of the Notes.
2 Figure is as of December 31, 1999.
3 Assessed valuation for tax collection year 2000 is stated as the full assessed value of all taxable real and
personal property in the City.
4 Source: Washington State Office ofl:inanciat Management (August 1999).
9
STATUTORY DEBT LIMIT CALCULATION~
(As of November 30, 1999)
1999 Assessed Valuation for Collection Year 2000 ........................................... $
I. General Purposes
a. Non-Voted Indebtedness Limit (1.5% of Assessed Valuation) ............. $
Less: Non-Voted Bonds Outstanding .............................................. (7,960,758)
Less: The Notes .............................................................................. (1,250,000)
Less: Bank Line of Credit Outstanding ............................................
Less: Lease-Purchase Contract Outstanding ....................................
Plus: Cash and Investments in Debt Service Funds .......................... 254,441
Remaimng Capacity for General Purposes (Non-voted) ............. $
b. Voted Indebtedness Limit (2.5% of Assessed Valuation) .....................$
Less: Voted Bonds Outstanding ...................................................... (1,175,000)
Less: Non-Voted Bonds Outstanding .............................................. (7,885,000)
Less: The Notes .............................................................................. (1,250,000)
Less: Bank Line of Credit Outstanding ............................................ (9,915)
Less: Bank Loan Outstanding ......................................................... (75,758)
Plus: Cash and Investments in Debt Service Funds .......................... 254,441
Remaining Capacity for General Purposes (Voted) ....................$
II. Utility Purposes (2.5% of Assessed Valuation)
Limit ................................................................................................. $
Less: Bonds Outstanding ...................................................................
Remaining Capacity for Utility Purposes ................................... $
II1. Parks and Open Space Purposes (2.5% of Assessed Valuation)
Limit ................................................................................................. $
Less: Bonds Outstanding ...................................................................
Remaining Capacity for Parks and Open Space Purposes ........... $
1 Reflects the issuance of the Notes.
10
5q
AD VALOREM TAX RECORD OF THE CITY1
Collected as of
Collection Taxable Assessed Tax Collected Year of Levy November 30~ 1999
2 3
Year Valuation Levy Amount Percent Amount Percent
2000 $ 4 NA5 HA5 NA5 NA5 NA5
1999 1,343,271,067 $5,431,058 $ 5,171,287~ 95.23%6 $ 5,171,827 95.23%
1998 1,345,904,065 5,450,559 5,219,429 95.76 5,353,171 98.21
1997 1,299,548,001 4,953,030 4,715,897 95.21 4,905.562 99.04
1996 1,223,940,521 4,686,230 4,482,747 95.66 4,676.099 99.78
1995 1,203,299.197 4,480,427 4,265,158 95.20 4,477,225 99.93
NOTE: Taxes are due and payable on April 30. of each year. At least one half of the tax mount clue must be paid on or
before April 30, or else the total amount become~ delinquent on May 1. The second half of the tax due is payable
on or before October 31, becoming delinquent November 1.
AD VALOREM PROPERTY TAX RATES IN THE CITY~
(Rates In Dollars per $1,000 of Assessed Valuation)
City School Emerg.
Collection General City State Kitsap Port of Dist. No. Medical Regional
Year Fund Bonds School County Bremerton 100C PUD Services Library Total
1999 $ 3.3250 $ 0.2126 $ 3.3178 $ 1.8125 $ 0.4814 $ 5.1422 $ 0.1017 5; 0.500C $ 0.5000 $ 15.3932
1998 3.3250 0.2218 3.5911 1.3908 0.4624 5.0292 0.1017 0.500t 0.5000 15.1220
1997 3.3469 0.2153 3.6467 1.6641 0.4338 5.1331 0.099~ 0.250( 0.9781 15.7678
1996 3.3573 0.2255 3.4848 1.6347 0.4287 5.1551 0.093(. 0.250( 0.4677 15.0977
1995 3.2470 0.2308 3.5508 1.2249 0.4079 2.1387 0.094( 0.250{ 0.4595 11.6036
1 Source: Kitsap County Treasurer
2 Assessed valuation is stated as the assessed valuation of all taxable real and personal property m the CiW.
3 Includes all City levies_
4 Preliminary, subject to change.
5 Not available.
6 Does not include December 1999 collections.
11
COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF GENERAL FUND
REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES1
(Fiscal Year Ending December 31)
1sss 19e7 le96 leSS lss4
Revenues:
Taxes $16,201,397 $15,671~,923 $15,498,917 $ 14,501,567 $ 14,137,828
Licenses & Permits 314,340 348,796 312,203 298,989 390,454
Intergovernmental 1,027,234 812,436 742,432 847,272 728,407
Charges for Services 1,596,652 1,762,945 1,864,848 1,783,646 1,394,815
Fines & Forfeits 446,715 512,828 433,775 483,964 593,093
Miscellaneous 383.402 290.343 342.700 248.743 240.672
TotaIRevenues $ 19.969,740 $19,406,271 $19,194,875 $ 18,164,181 $ 17,485,269
Expenditures:
GeneratGovernment $ 4,075,157 $ 4,199,525 $ 5,313,516 $ 5,009,311 $ 4,843,656
Security of Persons &: Prop. 11,685,742 10,893,020 9,313,570 8,614,262 8,219,945
Physical Environment 555,693 613,338 942,764 848,346 587,931
Transportation 986,816 923,064 959,327 850,639 840,530
Economic Environment 862.864 507,996 276,689 454,250 514.320
Mental & Physical Health 24,632 24,632 30.818 264,239 250.493
Culture & Recreation 1,780,180 1,768,867 1,867,204 1.566,669 1,426,763
Redemption of Gen. L.T. Debt 4.194 2,688 0 0 24.672
Debt Service 57,478 74.055 85.540 59.860 44.593
Capital Outlay 208.697 298.438 404.888 486.005 385.414
TotalExpenditures $ 20.241.453 $19,305,623 $19.194,316 $ 18.153.581 $ 17.138.317
Other Financing Sources (Uses)
Operating Transfers In $ 25[.251 $ 113.144 $ 196.725 $ 6.000 $ 6.00/)
Operating Transfers Out (397,428) (406,836) (357.1801 (307.836) (398.3761
General Fixed Assets Disp. 15.316 15,568 36.671 2.886 59.640
Proceeds of Gen. L.T. Debt 0 16.629 237.700 0 0
Total Other Financing Sources (Uses) $ (130,861) $ (261,495) $ 113.916 $ (298,950) $ (332,736)
Fund Balance, JanuaD' 1 $ 701.726 $ 861,135 $ 709.671 $ 1,064,368 $ (44.548~
Prior Year's Corrections 0 0 0 0 0
Residual Equity Transfers 0 0 6.994 (65,128) 9.717
Other Equity Changes 15.332 1.438 30.554 (1.219) 1.084.983
TOTAL ENDING FUND BALANCE $ 314,484 $ 7.01,726 $ 861,135 $ 709,67t $ ~!,064,368
CONTINGENCY RESERVE FUND
YEAR-END BALANCES',=
1998 1997 1996 1995 1994
ENDING FUND BALANCE $ 709,162 $ 706,947 $ 673.110 $ 709,040 $ 704.922
1 Source: City of Bremerton Annual Financial Reports. All years have been audited by the Washington State Auditor's Office.
2 $650,000 is the minimum per City. policy. Interest earnings on this balance is transferred to the General Fund in the lblloWmg year.
12
GENERAL FUND BUDGET
FOR 1999 AND 2000~
(Fiscal Year Ending December 31)
1999 2000
REVENUES
Beginning Fund Balance .....................................................$ 535,000 $
Taxes .................................................................................. 16.569.500
Licenses and Permits .......................................................... 343,480
Intergovernmental Revenue .................................. 1,057.811
Charges for Services ........................................................... 1,739,205
Fines and Forfeitures .......................................................... 536.600
Miscellaneous and Other ....................................................3.057.345
Total Revenue .................................................................... $ 23,838,941 $
EXPENDITURES
General Government
City Council ....................................................................... $ 166.397
Executive ............................................................................ 160.297
Administrative Services2 .................................................... 2,088.385
Police & Fire Pension .................................................. 1.513.337
Intergovernmental Service ...........................................134.447
Misc. Non-Departmental ............................................. 1.347.387
Legal Department ............................................................... 501.756
Human Resources ............................................................... 205.352
Commumty Developmem ................................................... 709.457
City Auditor ....................................................................... 85.426
Public Safety
Police Department .............................................................. 6.269.049
Fire Department ................................................................. 4,218,965
Public Works
General Facilities ................................................................ 418.171
Engineenng ........................................................................ 351.178
Transportation .................................................................... 1,165.008
Leisure Services
General Parks ..................................................................... 1.054.511
Recreation .......................................................................... 221.692
Senior Center ...................................................................... 171.668
Pool .......................................................................... 293.328
Cemetery Services .............................................................. 72.025
Athletics ............................................................................. 191.105
Tax Anticipation Note Debt Service .................................. 2.500.000
Total Current Expenditures ............................................. $ 23,838,941 $
1 Source: City of Bremerton.
2 City Clerk, Treasurer, Information Services, Mumcipal Court and Pdsk Management are combined under Administrative Services.
13
SCHEDULE OF GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND DEBT SERVICE FOR THE CITY]
(As of December 31)
Outstanding Outstanding Non-Voted
Voted General Obligation Bonds General Obligation Bonds Total
Year Principal Interest Principal Interest All Bonds
2000 $ 170,000 $ 48,353 $ 450,000 $ 420,155 $ 1,088,508
2001 185,000 40,805 350,000 395,413 971,218
2002 190,000 32,647 365,000 378.555 966,202
2003 205,000 23,906 380.000 360.595 969,501
2004 135,000 16,308 405.000 341.520 897.828
2005 140,000 10.085 425.000 320,860 895,945
2006 150,000 3.450 445,000 298.395 896,845
2007 0 0 465,000 274,210 739,210
2008 0 0 495,000 248,722 743,722
2009 0 0 520,000 221,168 741,168
2010 0 0 555,000 191,952 746,952
2011 0 0 590,000 160.135 750,135
2012 0 0 540.000 126.160 666,160
2013 0 0 280.000 97.505 377,505
2014 0 0 300.000 83.505 383.505
2015 0 0 300.000 68.355 368.355
2016 0 0 325.000 53.055 378.055
2017 0 0 340.000 36.318 376.318
2018 0 0 355.000 18.637 373.637
Iota{ $ 1,175,000 $ $ 7,885,000 $ 4,095,215 $ 13,330,769
175,534
CITY PROFILE
City was incorporated in 1901 and operates as Home Rule Charter City with a Mayor Council form
government. The Council is comprised of nine members, elected by distr~ct by the citizens of the City,
serving a four-year term. The Council Members are part-time elected officials who exercise the
legislative powers of the City and determine matters of policy. The Mayor, a full-time elected official, is
chief executive officer of the City. The Officers and department directors are appointed by the mayor
Council approval.
City provides a full range of municipal services including fire and police protection, parks and
recreation facilities/activities, streets, planning, zoning and general administrative services. The City
operates water, sewer and stormwater utility systems. Currently, there are 322 full-time employees of the
not include the Notes.
14
Key Personnel
Lynn Horton, Mayor: Ms. Horton began her second term as Mayor of the City in 1998. Before her
election as mayor, she served for six years on the Bremerton City Council. She is the past Chair and
current Board Member of, the Kitsap Regional Planning Council, and a board member of, Kitsap Transit,
Kitsap County Cen-Com and the Bremerton-Kitsap County Health Department. Ms. Horton is a
graduate of.the University of.Washington and has been a resident of.the City since 1974.
Richard Hanna, City Treasurer: Mr. Hanna has been the Treasurer of the City of,Bremerton since 1986.
Before joining the City, he was Treasurer of the City of Centralia, Washington. Mr. Hanna received his
Bachelor's Degree in Accounting from Western Washington University in 1974 and a Masters of'
Business Administration Degree in Finance from University of Puget Sound in 1983. Mr. Hanna is a
member of the Washington Finance Officers Association, Washington Municipal Treasurers Association
and Puget Sound Finance Officers Association.
Labor Relations
The City has entered into written agreements with each of the bargaining groups set forth below. These
agreements contain provisions on such matters as vacations, sick leave, medical and dental insurance,
salaries, working conditions and grievance procedures.
Employees of the City represented by bargaining units are as follows:
Union Membership Contract Period Expiration Date
Teamsters Local 589 130 3 yr. 12/31/00
Patrolman's Association 53 3 yr. 12/31/99
Police Management Association 5 3 yr. 12/31/99
International Association of Fire Fighters Local 437 44 3 vr. 12/31/01
In accordance with State requirements, the City conducts full negotiations with all bargaining units. The
City's management considers its relations with employees to be satisfactory..
15
GENERAL AND ECONOMIC INFORMATION
The City of Bremerton is located on Puget Sound, approximately 15 miles west of Seattle and 35 miles
north of Tacoma. The largest city in Kitsap County (the "County"), Bremerton was incorporated in 1901
and had an estimated 1999 population of 36,888 Kitsap County, covers 393 square miles of land, and also
includes the following other incorporated areas: Bainbridge Island (1999 population 19,840), Port
Orchard (1999 population 7,255) and Poulsbo (1999 population 6,455).
Military Presence
The economy of the City is closely tied to the United States Navy. The Puget Sound Naval Shipyard in
Bremerton ("PSNS") is the largest Naval shipyard on the Pacific Coast and is the only West Coast
shipyard capable of working on nuclear ships. With 8,194 civilian employees, 8,900 military personnel,
and approximately 12,000 military family members, the shipyard is also the only facility capable of
decommissioning and recycling nuclear submarines which are being disassembled in accordance with
Strategic Arms Limitations Treaties. PSNS is the largest naval employer in the State. The shipyard itself
encompasses 344 acres of land, 382 buildings and nine permanent piers totaling 12,310 feet of deep water
space. The economic impact of PSNS locally is approximately $700 million per year. The Fleet
Industrial Supply Center is another local military facility in the City, with about 200 employees.
Located a few miles north of the City of Bremerton is the Naval Submarine Base at Bangor. Bangor
serves as a home base for Trident Missile submarines, the USS Parche fast attack submarine and various
support commands. The base provides employment to 3,800 civilians, and 5,200 military personnel.
Another 10,000 military family members are connected to the base. Bangor is the only base of its kind on
the Pacific Coast. Annual local economic impact of Bangor is $230 million.
The largest subcontractor providing services to the U.S. Department of Defense in Kitsap County is
Johnson Controls World Service, with 800 employees. GEC Marconi (formerly Tracor) is the second
largest, with 350 employees.
Another military installation located near the City is the Naval Undersea Warfare Engineering Station at
Keyport. The station tests and maintains torpedoes, provides maintenance support for fire control
equipment and mines, and provides other engineering-related services for undersea warfare. The
Undersea Warfare Station employs approximately 1,390 civilian and 30 military personnel.
U.S. Navy Projects in Kitsap County
Recent historical and projected spending for Navy construction and related facilities support work in
Kitsap County provided by the U.S. Navy Engineering Field Activity Northwest office as follows:
Kitsap County
Fiscal Year Amount (millions)
2000 $ 109.3
1999 115.8
1998 127.8
1997 142.3
1996 192.3
1995 200.7
The $250.5 billion defense spending bill approved by Congress in September of 1998, includes the
following projects for Kitsap County military facilities:
16
Amount
Project Location (millions)
Innovative wastewater treatment research program PSNS $ 7.0
Development of an environmentally safe and inexpensive way to eradicate asbestos PSNS 4.0
Additional ship repair and maintenance projects* PSNS and others 30.0
Strengthening of apprenticeship program PSNS 3.5
Impact aid to education provided to Washington State (to offset loss of local tax
base because of military installations) Kitsap Co. 1.9
Expansion of Naval Hospital Bremerton Bremerton 28.0
Security Force Building at Strategic Weapons Facility Pacific Bangor 2.8
Facility for housing the Navy's Disease Vector, Ecology and Control Center Bangor 5.7
Community Support Facility at Jackson Park Naval Housing Bangor 4.3
* A supplemmtal Defense Bill expected to be passed later in the 1998-99 fiseal year, will include another $60 million for naval ship repair.
Other Major Employers
The Port of Bremerton (the "Port") operates the Bremerton National Airport and the 560-acre Olympic
View Industrial Park, both located approximately 10 miles southwest of the City. The park includes 34
firms which employ a total of approximately 350 people. The Port's facilities are designated as a foreign
trade zone which offers duty savings to its tenants.
Bremerton National Airport is the largest airport in the County, with a 6,200-foot runway and full
instrumentation and lighting systems. The airport can handle all general aviation aircraft and most
transport and military planes. Charter passenger and air freight services are available to SeaTac Airport,
the major international airport in the Puget Sound area. The Bremerton Airport has recently undergone
improvements.
Health care needs are met by several facilities in the Bremerton area including the Naval Hospital -
Bremerton with 360 civilian and 700 military serving approximately 2,500 military family members. Over
the past few years, the Naval Hospital was renovated and expanded. Harrison Memorial Hospital in
Bremerton has 1,164 employees. A $24 million expansion project is scheduled for completion at the
Hospital in 2003. A number of nursing homes and retirement complexes are also located in Bremerton.
Olympic College is a two-year public community college located in Bremerton, with an enrollment of
approximately 4,310 (full-time equivalents). The college has 250 full-time permanent employees, but can
employ up to 600 employees, including part-time student workers. The college offers associate of arts
degrees in four fields, as well as adult education and non-credit courses, and began a four-year degree
program (called "2-Plus-2") in 1994. The 2-Plus-2 degree program is associated with the University of
Washington, Tacoma branch. A new library is being constructed at the college.
Housing
Kitsap County home sales in 1998 totaled 3,276, excluding condominiums, up from 2,660 in 1997.
Home listings averaged a listing time before sale of 92 days compared with 139 days in 1997. A total of
1,431 residential building permits were applied for in 1998 compared with 1,541 in 1997. Residences in
the County are relatively affordable as the 4th quarter 1998 median home pti'ce was $140,000, compared
to the statewide average of $161,800.
New Developments
Among the projects recently completed or proposed for development in Bremerton are the following:
· A multi-modal transportation facility is now under construction on the City's downtown waterfront.
The project includes two fast foot ferries that will serve Bremerton (one is already in service), the
Bremerton Transportation Center, and highway improvements to Breme~ton. The cost of the publicly
funded projects is estimated at $21 million. The new Bremerton Transportation Center, scheduled to
open in 1999, will serve ferry, bus, bicycle and pedestrian commuters and travelers on their way to
Seattle and Port Orchard. Expanded ferry service is also on the way: high-speed 30-minute passenger
17
ferries between Bremerton and Seattle began service in 1998 and a 30% increase in car capacity is
anticipated by 2000. A King County Superior Court judge has ordered the Washington State Ferries
to decrease the speed of the high-speed ferry, Chinook, through a portion of its route between Seattle
and Bremerton, following the filing of a lawsuit by certain waterfront property owners over erosion
issues. As of the date of this Official Statement, it is not known if or when this order wilt take effect,
or the effect, if any, of appeals of the order, or environmental studies or other potential changes in the
ferry route as a resuk of this order.
· Pope Resources, a timber and land management company based in Poulsbo, and its subsidiary,
Olympic Resource Management, have obtained land within the City that is planned for development
as a 61-acre business park and 209 acres for 450 new homes. The project has received permit
approval from the City and site work has begun.
· The Kitsap County Economic Development Council (EDC) has recently reorganized, reducing the
size of its board, appointing four new directors and is refocusing its priorities on business (a)
recruitment, (b) retention and expansion, (c) startup and education, (d) information sewices, and (e)
community development for economic expansion.
· A 34-unit congregate care facility was recently completed in the City.
· An addition to the Olympic View Industrial Park is Custom Camera Design, a recycler of disposable
cameras. The company expects to complete construction of two 8,500 square-foot buildings by
August 1999. Initially, the company expects to employ about 150 people.
· In the summer of 1998, ETF Electroplating located at the Olympic View Industrial Park. The
company produces chrome parts for vehicles and has six employees.
· Romark, Inc., a manufacturer of custom closets, also located at the Olympic View Industrial Park in
late summer of 1998 in a 6,000 square-foot facility with 12 employees. The company is already
expanding by another 3,000 square-feet and will add several new employees as well.
· The City has provided permit approval to Today Chevrolet, for the construction of a 30,000 square-
foot auto-complex, which includes parking lots.
· In 1998, Dimensions4 software company relocated from Seattle to the City. The company produces
software that create three-dimensional images of architectural/engineering designs. Initially with 10
employees, the firm is expecting to expand.
· A combination of Port and private business development at the Olympic View Industrial Park
includes nine construction projects beginning in 1999. Phase I of the Northeast Campus, with eight
buildings, a road extension and utilities is now beginning, with total buildout of the 29-acre site to
eventually include over 20 building sites. The Port also expects to construct a multi-tenant, small
business incubator building, which will house between 12 and 20 expanding or new businesses.
· The Port is planning to develop a light industrial area known as the West Puget Tech Park, which will
be developed at the Olympic View Industrial Park. The first phase includes a 24,000 square-foot
business development center, and the remainder of this project will be developed on a demand basis.
· In 1998, 569 building permits were issued in the City for a total value of $19.1 million. This
compares with annual totals of 508 permits in 1997 valued at $19.4 million and 511 perm/ts in 1996
valued at $15.8 million.
Following are economic indicators of the City and the County.
18
KITSAP COUNTY POPULATIONI
Kitsap
City of Other Kitsap County County
Year Bremerton Incorporated Unincorporated Total
1999 36.888 33,540 159.890 229,700
1998 37,260 32,615 159,125 229,000
1997 38,600 32,060 158~740 229,400
1996 38,496 31,210 155,120 224,700
1995 39,610 29,915 151,075 220,600
1994 35,920 28,625 148,655 213,200
1993 36,380 28,160 145,460 210,000
1992 38,990 27,405 139.205 205,600
1991 37,040 26,6392 132,821 196,500
1990 38,142 12,913 138.676 189,731
TAXABLE RETAIL SALES3
Year Kitsap County City of Bremerton
1998 $ 2.064,021,512 $ 506,875,439
1997 1,958,346,681 498,779,418
1996 1,836,198,934 477,467,218
1995 1,768,304,057 451,277,414
1994 t ,774,185,000 461,026,409
SEATTLE-BREMERTON FERRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS4
Year Number of Vehicles Number of Passengers
1998 714.903 2,211.641
1997 756,796 2.047.014
1996 731.926 1.863.596
1995 751.266 1.820.433
1994 719,125 1.719.414
KITSAP COUNTY AND WASHINGTON STATE
LABOR FORCE AND AVERAGE ANNUAL UNEMPLOYMENT5
Resident Civilian Average Annual Total
Year Labor Force Unemployment Employment Kitsap County (%) Washington (*/4
19986 91,300 4.800 86,500 5.3 4.8
1997 93,000 5.100 87.900 5.5 4.8
1996 93,500 6.300 87,200 6.7 6.5
1995 89,600 6.000 83,600 6.7 6.4
1994 88,600 5,300 83.300 6.0 6.4
1 Source: Washington State Office of Financial Management and U.S. Census. The 1999 figure for the City, was provided
by the City.
2 The large increase is due to the annexation of the unincorporated areas of Bainbridge Island to the new City of Bainbridge Island.
3 Source: Washington State Department of Revenue.
4 Source: Washington State Department of Transportation, Marine Division. Passengers total includes the passenger-only femes and
vehicle femes.
5 Includes nonagricultural wage and salary., self-employed, unpaid family workers, domestics, aghcultural workers, labor disputants~
6 1998 figures are all preliminary.
19
KITSAP COUNTY AND WASHINGTON STATE INCOME ESTIMATES1
Kitsap County Per Capita Income
Year Personal Income ($000) Kitsap County Washington
1997 $ 5,053,352 $ 21,580 $ 26,451
1996 4,755,715 20,597 24,958
1995 4,516,914 20,006 23,677
KITSAP COUNTY MAJOR PRIVATE SECTOR EMPLOYERS2
No. of
Employer Employees
Hamson Memorial Hospital 1.164
Johnson Controls World Services3 800
Safeway 608
Wal-Mart 3004
Laurier Enterprises (McDonald's) 430
GEC Marconi (formerly, Tracor)2 370
Town & Country. Markets 252
Fred Meyer 240
Martha & Man Nursing/Child Care 350
Group Health Cooperative 200
The Doctors Clinic 300
Belmont Terrace & Ridgemont Terrace 245
Costco Wholesale 240
KITSAP COUNTY MAJOR PUBLIC AGENCY EMPLOYERS5
Employer No. of
Employees
Puget Sound Naval Shipyard6 8.194
Naval Submarine Base Bangor: 3.800
State agencies (Dept. of Revenue, 1.891
Emplo. vment Securi~,, Social & Health
Services, Transportation, State Patrol)
Central Kitsap School District 1.637
Naval Undersea Warfare Center~ 1.390
South Kitsap School District 1.100
North Kitsap School District 1.100
Kitsap County. 1.050
North Kitsap School District 873
Bremerton School District 750
City, of Bremerton 336
Olympic College 250
Bainbridge Island School District 243
1 Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis; presented in 1997 dollars.
2 Source: Kitsap County Economic Development Council as of May 1999.
3 Private companies handling major contracts with the U.S. Department of Defense
4 Estimated.
5 Source: Kitsap County Economic Development Council as of May 1999.
6 Excludes military personnel.
20
PRESERVATION OF TAX EXEMPTION
The City has covenanted, in the Ordinance, to take all actions necessary to prevent interest on the Notes
from being included in gross income for federal income tax purpose, and it will neither take any action
nor make or permit any use of proceeds of the Notes or other funds of the City at any time during the
term of the Notes which will cause interest on the Notes to be included in gross income for federal
income tax purposes. The City certifies that it has not been notified of any listing or proposed listing by
the Internal Revenue Service to the effect that it is a bond issuer whose arbitrage certifications may not be
relied upon.
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
Some or all of the fees of the Underwriter and Bond Counsel are contingent upon the issuance and sale of
the Notes. Furthermore, Bond Counsel from time to time serves as counsel to the Underwriter with
respect to issuers other than the City and transactions other than the issuance of the Notes. None of the
council members or other officers of the City has interests in the issuance of the Notes that are prohibited
by applicable law.
TAX EXEMPTION
In the opinion of Gottlieb, Fisher & Andrews, PLLC, Bond Counsel, as of the date of issue of the Notes
(the "Date of Issue"), and subject to certain assumptions described in the next paragraph: the Notes are
not "private activity bonds," as defined by the Code; the Notes have been designated by the City as
"qualified tax-exempt obligations" for purposes of the partial interest expense deduction for
purposes of Section 265 of the Code; interest on the Notes is excluded from gross income for federal
income tax purposes under existing federal law; and such interest is not an item of tax preference for
purposes of determining the alternative minimum tax on individuals and corporations under existing
federal law. However, under existing federal law interest on the Notes received by certain corporations is
to be taken into account in the computation of adjusted current earnings for purposes of calculating the
alternative minimum tax applicable to such corporations; such interest received by certain S corporations
may be subject to tax; and such interest received by foreign corporations with United States branches may
be subject to a foreign branch profits tax. Bond Counsel expresses no opinion regarding any other federal
tax consequences of receipt of interest on the Notes. Potential purchasers of the Notes should consult
with their tax advisors as to all possible tax consequences of ownership of the Notes. See also, "OTHER
TAX CONSEQUENCES," herein.
The Code contains certain requirements which must be satisfied subsequent to the issuance of the Notes
in order to maintain the tax treatment described above, including requirements relating to the application
of the proceeds of the Notes, use of facilities which are financed with such proceeds, limitations on
income derived from the investment of gross proceeds of the Notes, and rebate to the United States
Treasury of certain of such investment income on such gross proceeds. The City has covenanted to
comply with these requirements; and the opinion of Bond Counsel described in the preceding paragraph
assumes such compliance. However, Bond Counsel has not undertaken and shall not undertake to
monitor compliance by the City with such requirements and failure of the City to comply with such
requirements could cause the interest on the Notes to be included in gross income for federal income tax
purposes, and could be treated as an item of tax preference for purposes of the alternative minimum tax
on individuals and corporations, and could result in a loss of the partial interest expense deduction
available for qualified tax-exempt obligations, in each case, retroactive to the Date of Issue.
21
OTHER TAX CONSEQUENCES
Under current federal law:
1. Corporate Alternative Minimum Tax. The interest on tax-exempt obligations received by a
corporation is taken into account in the computation of the alternative minimum tax applicable to
corporations (as defined for federal income tax purposes). Under current federal law, the
alternative minimum taxable income of such a corporation (other than an S corporation, a
regulated investment company, a real estate investment trust or a REMIC) is increased by 75% of
the amount by which the "adjusted current earnings" of the corporation exceeds the corporation's
alternative minimum taxable income determined without regard to such increase and any
alternative tax net operating loss deduction. Interest on tax-exempt obligations, whenever issued
or acquired, including interest on the Notes, is included in the computation of "adjusted current
earnings."
2. Tax on Excess Passive Investment Income of S Corporations. Certain excess net passive
investment income, including interest on the Notes, received by an S corporation (a corporation
treated as a partnership for most federal tax purposes) that has "subchapter C earnings and
profits" at the close of its taxable year may be subject to federal income tax at the highest rate
applicable to corporations if more than 25% of the gross receipts of such S corporation for such
taxable year is passive investment income.
3. Foreign Corporation Branch Profits Tax. Interest on the Notes received by certain foreign
corporations doing business in the United States may be subject to a branch profits tax applicable
to such corporations that is based on their Untied States source earnings and profits, including
tax-exempt interest on obligations such as the Notes.
4. Reduction of Loss Deduction for Property and Casualty Insurance Companies. Interest on
tax-exempt obligations, including the Notes, received by property and casualty insurance
companies, will reduce tax deductions for loss reserves otherwise available to such companies by
an amount equal to 15 percent of such tax-exempt interest received during the taxable year.
5. Social Security and Tier 1 Railroad Retirement Benefits Subject to Tax. Interest received or
accrued during the year from tax-exempt obligations, such as the Notes, is included in the
calculation of "modified adjusted gross income" of recipients of the social security or tier 1
railroad retirement benefits. If the sum of the "modified adjusted gross income" for the taxable
year plus one-half of the social security or tier 1 railroad retirement benefits received during the
taxable year exceeds a base amount provided by the Code (the "excess amount"), then the lesser
of (i) one-half of the social security or tier 1 railroad retirement benefits received during the
taxable year or (ii) one-half of the ~excess amount", is included in the gross income of the social
security or tier 1 railroad retirement benefit recipient.
ABSENCE OF MATERIAL LITIGATION
There is no litigation of any kind now pending or, to the knowledge of the City, threatened to restrain or
enjoin the issuance or delivery of the Notes or in any manner questioning the proceedings and authority
under which the Notes are issued or affecting the ability of the City to pay the principal of or the interest
on the Notes.
APPROVAL OF BOND COUNSEL
Legal matters incident to the authorization, issuance and sale of Notes by the City are subject to the
approving legal opinion of Gottlieb, Fisher & Andrews, PLLC, Bond Counsel, A copy of the opinion of
Bond Counsel will be delivered with the Notes.
22
CONTINUING DISCLOSURE
The City has undertaken, for the benefit of the Owners and Beneficial Owners of the Notes required by
subsection (b)(5)(i) of the Rule 15c2-12 (the "Rule") of the United States Securities and Exchange
Commission (the "SEC"), to provide or cause to be provided upon request to any person or at least
annually to the State Information Depository ("SID"), if one is created, financial statements prepared in
accordance with the generally accepted accounting principles applicable to governmental units, as such
principles may be changed from time to time and as permitted by State law; which statements will not be
audited, except that if and when audited financial statements are otherwise prepared and available to the
City, they will be provided; and other operating data that may be prepared by the City (collectively, the
"Financial Information").
In its provision of such financial information and operating data, the City may cross-reference to any
"final official statement" (as defined in the Rule) available from the Municipal Securities Rulemaking
Board (the "MSRB") or any other documents theretofore provided to each then existing Nationally
Recognized Municipal Securities Information Repository designated by the SEC ("NRMSIR") or the
SID, if one is created.
The City further agrees to provide or cause to be provided, in a timely manner, to the SID, if one is
created, and to either the MSRB or each then existing NRMSIR, notice of any of the following events
with respect to the Notes, if material:
1. Principal and interest payment delinquencies;
2. Non-payment related defaults;
3. Unscheduled draws on debt service reserves reflecting financial difficulties;
4. Unscheduled draws on credit enhancements reflecting financial difficulties;
5. Substitution of credit or liquidity providers, or their failure to perform;
6. Adverse tax opinions or events affecting the tax-exempt status of the Notes;
7. Modifications to rights of the Owners of the Notes;
8. Optional redemptions of the Notes;
9. Defeasances of the Notes;
10. Release, substitution or sale of property securing repayment of the Notes; and
11. Rating changes.
After the issuance of the Notes, so long as the interests of the Owners or Beneficial Owners of the Notes
will not be materially impaired thereby, as determined by a party unaffiliated with the City (including,
without limitation, a trustee for the Owners, nationally recognized bond counsel or other counsel familiar
with the federal securities law), or pursuant to a favorable "no-action letter" issued by the SEC, this
continuing disclosure undertaking may only be amended in connection with any change in legal
requirements, change in law, or change in the identity, nature or status of the obligated person, or type of
business conducted, and only in such a manner that the continuing disclosure undertaking of the City, as
so amended, would have complied with the requirements of the Rule at the time of the primary offering,
after taking into account any amendments or interpretations of the Rule, as well as any change in
circumstances.
The City's obligations to provide Annual Financial Information and notices of certain events shall
terminate without amendment upon the defeasance, prior redemption or payment in full of all of the then
outstanding Notes. This continuing disclosure undertaking or any provision hereof, shall be null and void
if the City (i) obtains an opinion of nationally recognized bond counsel or other counsel familiar with the
federal securities laws to the effect that those portions of the Rule which require this continuing
disclosure undertaking or any such provision are invalid, have been repealed retroactively or otherwise do
not apply to the Notes; and (ii) notifies and provides the SID, if any, and either the MSRB or each then
existing NKMSIR with copies of such opinion.
The right of each Owner or Beneficial Owner of Notes to enforce the provisions of this continuing
disclosure undertaking shall be limited to the right to obtain specific enforcement of the City's obligations
23
in this continuing disclosure undertaking and any failure by the City to comply with the provisions of this
continuing disclosure undertaking shall not be a default with respect to the Notes under the Ordinance.
UNDERWRITING
The Underwriter has agreed, subject to certain conditions, to purchase all of the Notes, if any are
purchased, at a price of __% of the par value of the Notes from the dated date to the settlement
date. The Notes will be reoffered at an average price of % of the par value of the Notes, resulting in
a underwriting spread of $ per $1,000. Atter the initial public offering, the public offering prices
may be varied from time to time.
CONCLUDING STATEMENT
All estimates, assumptions, statistical information and other statements contained herein, while taken
from sources considered reliable, are not guaranteed by the City or the Underwriter. So far as any
statement herein includes matters of opinion, or estimates of future expenses and income, whether or not
expressly so stated, they are intended merely as such and not as representations of fact.
The information contained herein should not be construed as representing all conditions affecting the City
or the Notes. Additional information may be obtained directly from the City or the Underwriter.
The foregoing statements relating to the Ordinance and other documents are in all respects subject to and
qualified in their entirety by provisions of such documents.
This Official Statement, starting with the cover page and all subsequent pages, including the appendices,
comprise the entire Official Statement, which has been approved by the City. The City has represented to
the Underwriter that the portions of this Official Statement directly pertaining to the City neither contain
any misrepresentation of material fact nor omit any material fact necessary to understand the financial,
economic or legal nature of the City or any information presented herein.
24
APPENDIX A
FORM OF LEGAL OPINION
AGENDA BILL
BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL
1. SUBJECT: Ordinance (first reading) FOR AGENDA OF: January 12, 2000
establishing a special election date of ORIGINATING I)EPT: Parks & Recreation
May 16, 2000 for a Parks and Recreation ORIGINATOR: Cris Gears, Director
Bond DATE SUBMITFED: January 7, 2000
2. CI.I~.ARANCF~: ,/] 3. ~ITS:
(Comm~lt on bac~ if n~ssary)/,~ ~ ..... .
Parks & Recreation Director: ,,"~ff3 Ordinance
Fiscal & Budget Committee: Study Session 12-15-99
Operations Committee: Study Session 12-15-99
ENDORSEMENT INFORMATION __ APPROVED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FOR SUBMITFAL:
4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION:
At its meeting of December 22, 1999, the City Council passed (on first reading) an ordinance
establishing a special election date of March 14, 2000 for a Parks and Recreation bond. After
discussing this matter further with members of the citizen-based Y2R Committee, the Mayor
and staff are recommending that the special election be re-scheduled for May 16, 2000. This
change in the election date will allow Y2R Committee members and City staffto spend more
time with the public to ensure that the City's voters are fully informed about the proposed
Parks and Recreation projects prior to the election.
8. RECOMMENDATION:
Motion to approve ordinance on fa'st reading.
Motion to pass ordinance __ on second reading.
9. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Cris Gears
ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: Cris Gears
EXPIRATION DATE:
REVIEW DATE:
10. NOTICE OF ACTION
PULLED TABLED APPROVED DISAPPROVED_~__ ~~
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE: DATE:
11. AGENDA BILL #:
2. CLEARANCE COMMENTS:
5. IMPACT OF NON-PASSAGE:
Non-passage of this ordinance would jeopardize the -potential £or a timely public vote ogthe
proposed Parks and Recreation projects.
6. IMPACT ON STAFFING~ BUDGETS~ FACILITIES~ EQUIPMENT OR OTHER
RESOURCES:
The City will be required to pay the costs for the election.
7. RESEARCH SOURCES:
The lang~e of the proposed ordinance has been reviewed and approved by Bond Counsel.
CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City of Bremerton, Washington, relating to City parks
and recreational facilities; providing for the incm,hig of indebtedness, issuing of bonds
and levying of excess taxes for the purpose of paying the cost of the developmem,
construction, and improvement of City park and recreational facilities; declaring the cost
of such development, construction, and improvement as nearly as may be estimated;
providing for the borrowing of a total not to exceed $16,500,000, and selling general
obligation bonds to pay the cost thereof, such bonds to be payable by annual property tax
levies to be made in excess of regular property tax levies; and providing for the
submission of the proposition of incttrring such indebtedness, issu~g such bonds and
levying such taxes to the registered voters of the City at a special election to be held
therein on May 16, 2000.
WHEREAS, the City of Bremerton, Washington (the "City"), is in need for the public
health, welfare and convenience of the development, construction, and improvement of City
parks and recreational facilities; and
WHEREAS, the City does not have available sufficient funds to meet the estimated cost of
such improvements, NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY OF BREMERTON DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1. The City shall acquire, develop, construct, and improve City parks and
recreational facilities, and the cost of which, including the cost of issuing and selling the bonds
provided for in this ordinance, is declared to be, as nearly as may be estimated, $16,500,000.
Section 2. The City shall borrow not to exceed $16,500,000 on the credit of the City,
and shall issue and sell its general obligation bonds therefor for strictly municipal capital
purposes other than the replacement of equipment, to provide the funds for the purposes
specified in Section 1 of this ordinance. Costs of engineering, planning, financial, legal and
other services lawfully incurred incident to the purposes specified in Section 1 of this ordinance
shall be appropriate capital costs to be paid from the proceeds of the bonds provided for by this
ordinance.
Section 3. The general obligation bonds authorized by this ordinance shall bear interest,
and shall mature withkn twenty years from date of issue, but may mature within a lesser time in
such amounts, and shall be sold in such manner, as the City Council shall determine. The life of
the improvements to be acquired by the issuance of the bonds is found to be at least twenty
years. The bonds shall be paid by annual property tax levies made in excess of regular property
tax levies, without limitation as to rote or mount, sufficient in amount to pay the principal of
and interest of the bonds when due, and the bonds shall so provide. The date, interest rate or
rates, maturities, option of prior redemption, form and covenants of the bonds shall be fixed
hereafter by ordinance of the City Council, and the bonds shall be issued and sold when required
in one or more series, and may be combined with any other series of authorized general
obligation bonds. Pending the issuance of the bonds and receipt of proceeds thereo£ the City
Council may authorize interim interest-bearing warrants or other short-term obligations to pay
for carrying out the purposes of the bonds, and the costs of such warrants or short-term
obligations shall be included in the costs of those purposes.
Section 4. The City Council shall establish reasonable fees for facility usage to offset
anticipated operating costs of the parks and recreational facilities to be acquired, developed,
constructed and improved with the proceeds of the bonds provided for by this ordinance.
Section 5. The Auditor of Kitsap County, Washington, as ex officio Supervisor of
Elections, is requested to call and conduct a special election to be held in the City on May 16,
2000, for the purpose of submitting to the registered voters of the City for their approval the
question of whether or not the City shall borrow an amount not to exceed $16,500,000, issue its
general obligation bonds therefor for capital purposes only, other than replacemem ofequipmem,
and levy excess taxes necessary to redeem the bonds as herein set forth.
Section 6. The City Clerk is directed to certify to the Auditor of Kitsap County,
Washington, as ex officio Supervisor of Elections, at least 45 days prior to May 16, 2000, special
election date, a copy of this ordinance and the proposition to be submitted at that special election
in the form of a ballot title as follows:
PROPOSITION NO. 1
PARKS AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES IMPROVEMENT
AND DEVELOPMENT BONDS - $16,500,000
Shall the City of Bremerton, Washington, borrow $16,500,000 to acquire, develop,
construct, and improve City parks and recreational facilities by issuing and selling general
obligation bonds therefor maturing within twenty years, lew annual excess property taxes
necessary to redeem the bonds and establish fees necessary to fund operating expenses of the
facilities, all as provided in Ordinance No.
BONDS AND FEES... YES [] BONDS AND FEES... NO []
APPROVED by the City Council on first reading this __ day of ,2000.
PASSED by the Cky Council of the City of Bremerton, signed by the Mayor and attested
to by the City Clerk in authentication of such passage this __ day of .2000.
CAROL ARENDS '-, CouncilPresident
LYNN HORTON, Mayor
ATTEST:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
KATHLEEN L. McCLUSKEY, Clerk
GLENNA MALANCA
City Attorney
The Y2R* Campaign: Proposed Project Development Strategy
(As revised by City Council 12-22-99)
New Community Recreation Center
Construct a 60,000 square foot state-of-the-art Recreation Center with: aerobic and workout
facilities; a fully equipped gymnasium; indoor track; indoor year-round aquatic park; meeting
rooms; banquet facilities; special areas for tots, youth, teens and seniors; and 200-250 parking
spaces beneath the building. Funding is to be provided fi.om voter-approved GO bonds. Facility
would open in early 2002. Cost: $15,000,000
Sheridan Park
Solicit proposals for Sheridan Park fi.om local service providers for operation and maintenance
of the facility, with emphasis (if possible) on senior services. If no acceptable proposals are
received, market property for private development. Cost: None
Senior Center in Manette
If an acceptable proposal for Sheridan Park can meet senior programming needs, transfer
Manette's programs to Sheridan Park. If no acceptable proposals for Sheridan Park are received,
schedule active Senior programs (badminton, pickle-ball, Senior Fair, etc.) at new Recreation
Center; make modest improvements to Manette (including additional parking); and allow
remaining programs to transition into new Recreation Center over a 5-10 year period. Cost:
$100,000
Jarstad Aquatic Center
Develop partnership with YMCA to improve efficiency and cost-effectiveness of operations and
maintenance of facility. Make facility improvements and continue to provide public access to
pool. Cost: $500,000
Pendergast Regional Park
Develop multi-purpose athletic fields for youth and adult activities at Pendergast Park with
funding provided as part of the voter-approved GO bonds. Cost: $750,000
Park maintenance operations
Vacate existing facilities at Sheridan Park; expand and beautify waterfi-ont park property on the
south/west side of Lebo; move operations to NAD Park (utilizing the site of the log home for
office and storage facilities). If NAD site isn't possible, move maintenance operations to
Stephenson Canyon (adjacent to existing nursery). Cost: $150,000
Parking concerns
Coordinate the management and operation of all public parking facilities to generate maximum
revenue while ensuring an adequate amount of flee, safe parking for Recreation Center
customers.
* Y2R = Yes to Recreation!
AGENDA BILL
BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL
1. SUBJECT: Public Hearing FOR AGENDA OF: January. 12~ 2000
Resolution # .~-7,~ , regarding recovery of fees for ORIGINATING DEPT.: Fire Dept.
the abatement of garbage and debris on the property ORIGINATOR: Al Duke
located at Lot 184 Valley Drive. DATE SUBMITTED:
2. CLEARANCES: .(Comment on back if 3. EXHIBITS:
Fire Chief: L~ 1. Resolution # .~
City Clerk: ~ ~ ~'- 2. Clerk Report
City Atto rn ey:/~ ,~/~~~-~,~_~ 3. Photo
Comm. Dev. Oi~'.: /b~'~//~o~ ~
r roORSE APPROVED COt C L rR Smr rr fOR sva a'I-rAL:
4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION:
On Jul~ 20, 1999, an Order to Remove Refuse within 72 Hours was posted on the property located
at Lot 184 Valley Drive due to the presence of a large culvert and other debris and garbage on the site.
The notice was mailed by both certified and regular mail to the owner of record, Ricky J. Towne. The
certified mail copy was returned by the Post Office as "unclaimed" on August 9, 1999 after three
attempts to deliver it. On November 29, 1999, the culvert and debris were removed by City crews at a
cost of $710.30, which includes administrative fees. Council must now decide if the fees are just and how
they should be collected.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that Council, by Resolution # ~..~ ~ .? 'g, order that the fees incurred for the
abatement of garbage and debris located at Lot 184 Valley Drive be collected as reasonable abatement
costs and become a lien against the property.
9. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: A1 Duke
ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: A! Duke
EXPIRATION DATE:
REVIEW DATE:
10. NOTICE OF ACTION
PULLED TABLED __ APPROVED DISAPPROVED __ AMENDEI~ A
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE: DATE:
II
11. AGENDA BILL NO.:
2. CLEARANCE COMMENTS:
5. IMPACT OF NON-PASSAGE:
The City would forfeit the costs incurred for this action.
6. ,,IMPACT ON STAFFING~ BUDGETS~ FACILITIES~ EQUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCES:
The City's revolving abatement fund would suffer the deficit of not collecting these funds.
7. RESEARCH SOURCES:
N/A
RESOLUTION # ~'~ 3~
A RESOLUTION reviewing charges for the abatement of garbage
and debris on the property at Lot 184 Valley Drive and determining
means of collection.
WHEREAS, the City of Bremerton incurred costs for removal of garbage and debris on the
property located at Lot 184 Valley Drive; and
WHEREAS, the Bremerton Municipal Code allows the City to recoup these costs either by
personal judgment against the property owner or as a lien against the property; and
WHEREAS, the City Council is charged with determining whether the fees are just, and how
they should be collected; and has considered the report of charges filed by the Building Official and
any protests or objection filed; and
WHEREAS, the Building Official of the City of Bremerton recommends the fees be collected
as a lien against the property located at Lot 184 Valley Drive, now, therefore,
BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Bremerton:
1. That the abatement charges included in the report of the Building Official in the amount of
$710.30 for the property located at Lot 184 Valley Drive, Bremerton, attached hereto, are just and
reasonable.
2. That the City of Bremerton will exercise its right to recapture abatement fees by filing a lien
against the property.
PASSED, by the City Council of the City of Bremerton this day of
,2000.
CAROL ARENDS
Council President
~OF B~
BREMERTON FIRE DEPARTMENT
817 Pacific Avenue · Bromerton, WA 98337 ,, (360) 478-5380 ,, FAX (360) 478-7257
Memorandum
DATE: December 15, 1999
TO: Paula Johnston, Deputy City Clerk
FROM: Janet Lunceford, BDS II ~
RE: Public Headng, Lot 184 Valley Drive
In November, Public Works removed garbage and debris from the property located at Lot
184 Valley Drive, after the owner, Ricky J. Towne, failed to do so as ordered by the
Building Official. The cost of the work, per the attached interfund transfer, mounted to
$126.30. With the addition of the $584.00 administrative fee, the total mount to be
collected from Mr. Towne is $710.30. I have scheduled a public hearing for January 12,
2000 for Council to decide if the fees are just and how they should be collected.
CITY OF BREMERTON
INTERFUND TRANSFER
CITY DEPARTMENTS ONLY DATE 12/07/1999 TRANSFERg 10043
COMPLETE THIS FORM IH DUPLICATE AND RETURN TO ACCOUNTS PAYABLE
Economic/Co ...... anity D~velopment
TO PWO-STREET DIVISION FROM Abatements
(ILEVENUE DEPARTMENT) (EXPENDITURE DEPARTMENT)
DESCRIPTION TOTAL
Charges per attached summary for: November I999 BLAB
LABOR $2,429.70
EQUIPMENT $2,394.OO
MATERIALS $2,308.60
SALES TAX $0.00
TOTAL $7,132.30
ACCOUNT AMOUNT ACCOUNT AMOUNT
42-349.3900 $7,132.30
(Sign Here)'\'' 'xx~~' r-, (Sign Here)
REVENU~PARTMENT StUPERV~OR 8~' EXPENDITURE DEPARTMENT SUPERVISOR
Work Order History
12/07/1999 03:29:04 PM CITY OF BREMERTON PWO-STREET DMSION
Work Order #: SD990065 Title: Blab Clean-UP Lot 184 Valley Drive Status: S Labor Hours Estimate: 0
Project #: N4014280 Ancillary Operations Materials Estimate: $0
Customer: BLAB Economic/Community Develop Abatements Equipment Esltmate: $0
Work Type: AO ANCILLARY OPERATIONS Date Entered: 10/29/1999 12:00:00 AM
Supervisor: 0061 Riley Thompson Date Updated: 12/07/1999 07:21:36 AM
Lead Employee: 0524 Colen Corcy Date Targeted: 01/002000
Priority: 1 Date Assigned: 10/29/1999
Location ID: 1 Unspecified Location Date Started: 11/29/1999
History #: 1 Unspecified Equipment Date Finished: 11/29/1999
Work Description
Remove big Culvert and any other debris at the lot of 184 Valley Drive.
.t:~ ~4~o Blab Clean-UP Lot 184 Valley Drive Haul out pipe & debris
0909 Brian Brewer 1.00 hr $31.15
3066 1990 Infl 5 Yard Dump Truck 1.00 hr $25.00
1712 John Corcy IV 1.00 hr $31.15
3039 '94 JD410 BACKHOE 1.00 hr $39.00
2.00 hr 0.00 hr $126.30
SUMMARY FOR WORKORDER: SD990065
Labor: $62.30 Total Regular Latmr Hours: 2.00
Benefits: $0.00 Total Overtime Labor Hours: 0.00
Equipment: $64.00 Total Labor Hours: 2.00
Materials: $0.00
Sales Tax: $0.00 Total Regular Equipment Hours: 2.00
Total Overtime Eqnipment Hours: 0.00
Total: $126.30
Total Equipment Hours: 2.00
AGENDA BILL
BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL
1. SUBJECT: Public Hearing FOR AGENDA OF: January. 12~ 2000
Resolution # ~'~t~ , regarding recovery of fees for ORIGINATING DEPT.: Fire Dept.
the abatement of demolition of a fire-damaged duplex ORIGINATOR: Al Duke
on the property located at 1712 & 1714 Houston DATE SUBMITTED:
Avenue..
2. CLEARANCES: (Comment on back if 3.. 'EXHIBITS:
necessarY/ire Chief: /d~ _ 1. Resolution # c'~ ~ ~ ~L
Ci~ Clerk: v-~.<,~a~ ~---------~ ~f/ 2. CierkReport '
3. to
Comm. Dev. Dir.- ~J~:~-~,~- 4. Photos
Er o E m rr AreRovr cot cm rl smE rr St aTrA :
4. SUMMARY 'STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION:
In June of 1995, the duplex located at 1712/1714 Houston Avenue was heavily damaged by fire. The building
remained secured until 1998, when vagrants and vandals began occupying the structure at night. The building was abated as
dangerous in June of 1998 and the owner of record at that time was notified of the conditions required to be corrected. No
action was taken by the owner, and Public Works secured the building against entry in July of 1998. A foreclosure action
caused the property to change hands; the new owner was notified of the abatement in October of 1998. In August of 1999, the
building was demolished by Public Works; the cleanup of the property was completed in November. The total cost of the
abatement of this structure amounted to $19, 919.91. Council must now decide if the fees are just and how they should be
collected.
RECOMMENDATION:
Resolution #~ ~-~ , order that the fees incurred for the
It
is
recommended
that
Council,
by
abatement of the fire-damaged duplex located at 1712 & 1714 Houston be collected as reasonable
abatement costs and become a lien against the property.
9. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Al Duke
ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: Al Duke
EXPIRATION DATE: N/A
REVIEW DATE: N/A
10. NOTICE OF ACTION
PULLED TABLED APPROVED __ DISAPPROVED ~ AMENDE~I_ D
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE: DATE:
ti
11. AGENDA BILL NO.:
2. CLEARANCE COMMENTS:
5. IMPACT OF NON-PASSAGE:
The City would forfeit the costs incurred for this action.
6. IMPACT ON STAFFING~ BUDGETS~ FACILITIES~ E~UIPME_NT OR OTHER RESOURCES'
The City's revolving abatement fund would suffer the deficit of not collecting these funds.
7. RESEARCH SOURCES:
N/A
RESOLUTION
A RESOLUTION reviewing charges for the abatement of dangerous
conditions on the property at 1712 & 1714 Houston Avenue and
determining means of collection.
WHEREAS, the City of Bremerton incurred costs for demolition of a duplex on the property
located at 1712 & 1714 Houston Avenue; and
WHEREAS, the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings, as adopted by the
Bremerton Municipal Code, allows the City to recoup these costs either by personal judgment against
the property owner or as a lien against the property; and
WHEREAS, the City Council is charged with determining whether the fees are just, and how
they should be collected; and has considered the report of charges filed by the Building Official and
any protests or objection filed; and
WHEREAS, the Building Official of the City of Bremerton recommends the fees be collected
as a lien against the property located at 1712 & 1714 Houston, now, therefore,
BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Bremerton:
1. That the abatement charges included in the report of the Building Official in the amount of
$19,919.91 for the property located at 1712 & 1714 Houston Avenue, Bremerton, attached hereto, are
just and reasonable.
2. That the City of Bremerton will exercise its right to recapture abatement fees by filing a lien
against the property.
PASSED, by the City Council of the City of Bremerton this day of
., 2000.
CAROL ARENDS
Council President
q0
BREMERTON FIRE DEPARTMENT
817 Pacific Awnue · Brem~ton, WA 98337 · (360) 4'/8-5380 · FAX (360) 4'/8-7257
Memorandum
DATE: December 15, 1999
TO: Paula Johnston, Deputy City Clerk
FROM: Janet Lunceford, BDS II
RE: 1712/1714 Houston Avenue
Public Works demolished the duplex at 1712/1714 Houston
Avenue after the owner, Pacific West Insurance Agency, failed to
do so as ordered by the Building Official The total cost of the
demolition is as follows:
Fee for secudng house (Interfund #5936): $ 83.79
Demolition Fees (Interfunds #10032 & 10043): $13,389.91
Asbestos Survey: $ 845.00
Asbestos Removal: $ 4,475.34
Appraisal: $ 300.00
Permit Fees: $ 78.87
Administrative Fee: $ 819.00
Total Fees: $19,919.91
I have scheduled a public headng for January 12, 2000, for Council
to decide how the fees should be collected.
CITY OF BREMERTON
INTERFUND TRANSFER
CITY DEPARTMENTS ONLY , DATE 8/6/98 TRANSFER~ 5936
COMPLt:-i-I~ 'rHl:S FORM IN DUPLICATE AND Ra'I'LJRN TO ACCOUNTS PAYABLE
Building D~ar~ment
TO PWO-STREET DIVISION FROM' Abatements
CREVENUE DEPARTM~ (EXPENDITURE DEPARTMENT)
DESCRIPTION TOTAL
Charges per attached summary for:. July 1998 BLAB
LABOR $379.50
EQUIPMENT 572.50
MATER/ALS $70.11
SALES TAX $0.00
TOTAL $522.11
ACCOUNT AMOUNT ACCOUNT AMOUNT
42-349.3900 $522.11
(Sign ' () (Sign Here)
REV'EN..U~ DEPART~ :_NT S~JPERVISOR qo~. EXPENDITURE DEPARTMENT SUPERVISOR
mstory
8/7/98 7:51:49 AM CITY OF BREMEKTON PWO-STREET DIVISION
Work Order #: SD980092 Title: BLAB 1714 Houston Secure Doors Status: S Labor Flours Estimate: 0
Projeet #: N4014280 Ancillary Operations Materials Estimate: $0
Customer: BLAB Building Department Abatements Equipment Estimate: $0
Work Type: AO ANCILLARY OPERATIONS Date Entered: 7/8/98
Supervisor: 0061 Riley Thompson Date Updated: 8/5/98 3:07:06 PM
Lead Employee: 0524 Colen Corey Date Targeted: 9~4/98
Priority: 1 Date Assigned: 7/8/98
Location ID: I Unspecified Location Date Started: 7/7/98
History #: I Unspecified Equipment Date Finished: 7/7/98
Work Description
At the request of Scott Ercison from a previous abatement at 1714 Houston need to secure doors to structure.
7nm ~o,4zm BLAB 1714 Houston S~tre Doors Get meterials and install hasp & lock
14~ Bl~
0051 Scott Corey 2.00 hr $60.00
3060 '91 GMC S-15 4X4 EXT. CAB P/U 2.00 hr $12.00
23842 Kitsap lumb~r - hasp & padlock 1.00 in $11.79
2.00 hr 0.00 hr $83.79
SUMMARY FOR WORKORDER: SD980092
\
CITY OF BREMERTON
INTERFUND TRANSFER
CITY DEPARTMENTS ONLY DATE 9/9/99 TRANSFER# 10032
COMPLETE THIS FORM IN DUPLICATE AND RETURN TO ACCOUNTS PAYABLE
Economic/Community Development
TO PWO-STREET DMSION FROM Abatements
(REVENUE DEPARTMENT) (EXPENDITURE DEPARTMENT)
,e DESCRIPTION TOTAL
Charges per attached summary for: August 1999 BLAB
LABOR $1,446.70
EQUIPMENT $623.00
MATERIALS $4,314.21
SALES TAX $0.00
TOTAL $6,383.9 t
(PARTIAL BILLING)
(JOB NOT FINISHED YET)
ACCOUNT AMOUNT ACCOUNT AMOUNT
42-349.3900 $6,383.91
(Sign Iqer~~' ~~-p r9 (Sign Here)
REVEN~ARTME4T-S~ERVISOR q z(.. EXPENDITURE DEPARTMENT SUPERVISOR
Billing Details Page f
9/9/99 7:40:26 AM CITY OF BREMERTON PWO-STREET DMSION
Customer: BLAB Economic/Community Development - Abatements
Date l][~N~Jtll/.~ Descriptioq ~l~._uJi!r Overtime Costs
8/17/99 sm~ooa, og,.z~a BLAB Demolish Smacture 1712&1714 Housm materials used.
100746 Kitsap Lumber - Keep Out sign 1.00 in 520.29
8/25/99 sm,ooa, uum9 BLAB Demolish Structure 1712 & 1714 Houston Hauling offdebris
0909 Brian Brewer 4.00 hr .50 hr 5140.17
3093 1988 In~l 12 yard Dump Truck 1.50 hr 551.00
oo25 '90 Int'l 10 Yard Dump Truck 3.00 hr $78.00
0524 Colen Corey 3.00 hr 593.45
oo25 '90 Intq 10 Yard Dump Truck 2.00 hr $52.00
3o13 '92 GMC 1-TON P/U 1.00 hr $9.00
1712 JolmCoreylV 4.00 hr .50 hr 5140.17
3069 1990 Int'l 10 Yard Dump Truck 4.00 hr $136.00
oo51 Scott Corey 3.00 hr 593.45
3077 '95 3/4T FORD PFU 2.00 hr $16.00
oo53 Ten~Devery 10.00 hr 1.50 hr $358.23
0583 MarkA. Thompson 4.00 hr .50 hr 5140.17
3o91 1987 Iat'l 12 yard Dump Truck 4.50 hr S153.00
1842 L. DeanWestcott 5.00 hr .50 hr $171.33
2055 Wylie Silva I 1.00 hr $107.25
DUMPOU Dump Fees - Oly. View Samtary Landfill 130.00 yd $2,698.80
8/26/99 sDwooa9 9u227o BLAB Demolish Smacture 1712 & 1714 Houston
0909 Brian Brewer 1.00 hr $31.15
0025 '90 Infl I0 Yard Dump Truck 1.00 hr 526.00
1712 John Corey IV 1.00 hr 531.I5
3069 1990 Intq 10 Yard Dump Track 1.00 hr 534.00
oo53 Terry DeveD' 2.50 hr 577.88
0583 Mark A. Thompson 1.00 hr $3 I. 15
3091 1987 Int'l 12 yard Dump Truck 1.00 hr $34.00
1842 L. Dean Westcott 1.00 hr $31.15
3092 1988 Int'l 12 yard Dump Truck 1.00 hr 534.00
DUMPOU Dump Fees - Oly. View Sanitary Landfill 40.00 yd $830.40
464839 United Rentals - ID 790ELC Excavator 1.00 in 5764.72
$6,383.91
qs
CITY OF BREMERTON
INTERFUND TRANSFER
CITY DEPARTME/qTS OlqLY DATE 12/07/1999 TRANSFER~ 10043
COMPLkfi'g THIS FORM Ilq DUPLICATE AND RETURN TO ACCOUN'I~ PAYABLE
Economic/Community Development
TO PWO-STREET DIVISION FROM Abatement~
(REVENUE DEPARTMENT) (EXPENDITURE DEPARTMENT)
DESCRIPTION TOTAL
Chat'gm per attached suaamary for:. November 1999 BLAB
LABOR $2,429.70
EQUIPMENT $2,394.00
MATERIALS $2,308.60
SALES TAX $0.00
TOTAL $7,132.30
ACCOUNT AMOUNT ACCOUNT AMOUNT
42-349.3900 $7,132.30
£
(Sign Here) '. ~a[.~ vi L~ r", (Sign Here).
REVENU~PARTMENT S[UPERV~OR ~ EXPENDITURE DEPARTMENT SUPERVISOR
Billing Details ~ag~ ~
12/07/1999 02:21:31 PM CITY OF BKEMERTON PWO-STREET DMSION
Customer: BLAB Economic/Community DcveIopment- Abatements
Date ~ Description ~]Leglli~ ~ Costs
11/29/99 sm~oo 993205 BLAB Demolinh Slxucture 1712&1714 Houstn Haul out debris, haul in 4"-8"rock.
o9o9 Brian Brewer 6.00 hr $186.90
3093 1988 Infl 12 yard Dump Truck 6.00 hr $204.00
0524 Colen Corcy 4.00 hr $124.60
3o13 '92 GMC 1-TON P/U 1.00 hr $9.00
3069 1990 Infl 10 Yard Dump Truck 3.00 hr $102.00
1712 John Corey IV 5.00 hr $155.75
3069 1990 Infl 10 Yard Dump. Truck 5.00 hr $170.00
o051 Scott Corey 3.00 hr $93.45
3o6o '91 GMC S-15 4X4 EXT. CAB PFLI 2.00 hr $12.00
0053 Terry Devery 8.00 hr $249.20
32Ocat Excavatot(320cat)Rental from Pro Rentals 8.00 hr $280.00
1147 J'gTty Edland 8.00 hr $249.20
3o91 I987 Infl 12 yardDump Truck 8.00 hr $272.00
19o4 Jim Iovinelli 6.00 hr $186.90
3o92 I988 Infl 12 yardDump Track 6.00 hr $204.00
11/29/99 smso~9 9932o6 BLAB Demolish Stxuctu~ 1712&1714 Houstn Materials used.
cYr4-a 4-8" crushed rock from Ace 90.80 tn $590.20
DUMPnq Dump Fees- Oly. View Sanitary Landfill 50.00 yd $519.00
DUMPKR Dump at Kitsap Reclamation & Materials 7.10 yd $42.60
11/29/99 ~ 993208 Blab Clean-UP Lot 184 Valley Drive Haul out pipe & debris
o9o9 Brian Brewer 1.00 hr $31.15
3066 1990 Inel 5 Yard Dump Truck 1.00 hr $25.00
1712 John Corey IV 1.00 hr $31.15
~o39 '94 JD410 BACK. HOE 1.00 hr $39.00
11/30/99 svgsoo~9 993220 BLAB Demolish Structure 1712&1714 Houstn Haul trash.
09o9 Brian Brewer 5.00 hr $155.75
3093 1988 Infl 12 yard Dump Truck 5.00 hr $170.00
o524 Colen Corey 3.00 hr $93.45
3o13 '92 GMC 1-TON P/U 1.00 hr $9.00
1712 John Corey IV 6.00 hr $186.90
3069 1990 Infl 10 Yard Dump Truck 6.00 hr $204.00
oo51 Scott Corey 2.00 hr $62.30
306o '91 GMC S-15 4X4 EXT. CAB P/U 1.00 hr $6.00
0053 Terry Devcry 8.00 hr $249.20
320cat Excavator(320cat)l~ental from Pro l~entals 8.00 hr $280.00
1147 Jerry Edland 7.00 hr $218.05
o321 '86 International Dump Truck 7.00 hr $238.00
19o4 Jim Iovinelli 5.00 hr $155.75
3092 1988 Int'l 12 yard Dump Truck 5.00 hr $170.00
DU~P~ Dump F¢~s - Oly. View Sanitary Landfdl 110.00 yd $1,141.80
DUMPAP Dump appliances at Oly. View san. Landfill 1.00 in $15.00
$7,132.30
Work Order History
12/07/1999 03:26:48 PM CITY OF BREMERTON PWO-STREET DMSION
Work Order #: SD990049 Title: BLAB Demolish Structure 1712&1714 Hou Status: S Labor Hours Estimate: 0
Project #: N4014280 Ancillary Operations Materials E~timate: $0
Customer: BLAB Economic/Cu ...... unity Develop Abatements Equipment E~imate: $0
Work Type: AO ANCILLARY OPERATIONS Date Entered: 08/17/1999 12:00:00 AM
Supervfaor: 0061 Riley Thompson Date Ululated: 12/07/1999 07:21:35 AM
Lead Employee: 0524 Colen Corey Date Targeted: 01/06/2000
Priority: I Date Assigned: 08/17/1999
Location ID: I Unspecified Location Date Started: 08/17/1999
History #: I Unspecified Equipment Date Finished: 11/30/1999
Work Description
Remove th~ stxucttt~ at 1712 & 1714 Houston. Utilities job. foundations and concrete, Excavator will be rented for thc have been
contacted(Water,Sanitary, Gas, & Power)Remove all
nr~n~ m~ BLAB Dcanolish S~ 1712&1714 Housm Haul out debris, haul in 4"-8"rock.
N~ BLAB
0909 Brian Brewer 6.00 hr $186.90
3093 1988 Infl 12 yard Dump Track 6.00 hr $204.00
0524 Colen Corcy 4.00 hr $124.60
3013 '92 GMC 1-TON PFU 1.00 hr $9.00
3069 1990 Infl 10 Yard Dump Truck 3.00 hr $102.00
1712 John Corey IV 5.00 hr $155.75
3069 1990 Int'l 10 Yard Dump, Truck 5.00 hr $170.00
0051 Scott Corcy 3.00 hr $93.45
3060 '91 GMC S-15 4X4 EXT. CAB P/U 2.00 hr $12.00
0053 Terry Devcry 8.00 hr $249.20
320cat Excavator(320cat)Renta! from Pro Rentals 8.00 hr $280.00
1147 Jmxy Edland 8.00 hr $249.20
3091 1987 Infl 12 yard Dump Truck 8.00 hr $272.00
1904 Jim Iovinelli 6.00 hr $186.90
3092 1988 Int'l 12 yardIhm? Truck 6.00 hr $204.00
~m~r~ ~o~(2a0 BLAB Demolish Strucune 1712&1714 Honstn Materials nsed.
993~6 lgO BLAB
c/r4-8 4-8" crashed rock from Ace 90.80 tn $590.20
DUMPIN Dump Fee~ - Oly.View Sanitary Landfill 50.00 yd $519.00
DUMPKR Dump at Kitsap Reclamation & Materials 7.10 yd $42.60
no,nm ~0~4:s0 BLAB Demolish Structure 1712&1714 Houstn Haul trash.
993220 No BLAB
0909 Brian Brewer 5.00 hr $155.75
3093 1988 Infl 12 yard Dump. Truck 5.00 hr $170.00
0524 Colen Corey 3.00 hr $93.45
3013 '92 GMC 1-TON P/U 1.00 hr $9.00
1712 John Corey IV 6.00 hr $186.90
3069 1990 Infl 10 Yard Dump Truck 6.00 hr $204.00
0051 Scott Core]/ 2.00 hr $62.30
3060 '91 GMC S-15 4X4 EXT. CAB P/U 1.00 hr $6.00
0053 Terry Devery 8.00 hr $249.20
320cat Excavator(320cat)Rental from Pro Rentals 8.00 hr $280.00
1147 Serry Edland 7.00 hr $218.05
0321 '86 International Dump Truck 7.00 hr $238.00
1904 Jim Io¥inelli 5.00 hr $155.75
3092 1988 Infl 12 yard Dump Truck 5.00 hr $170.00
DUMPIN Dump Fees - Oly.View Sanitary Landfill 110.00 yd $1,141.80
DUMPAP Dump appliances at Oly. View San. Landfill 1.00 in $15.00
76.00 hr 0.00 hr $7,006.00
SUMMARY FOR WORKORDER: SD990049
Labor: $2,367.40 Total Regular Labor Hours: 76.00
Benefit~: $0.00 Total Overtime Labor Hours: 0.00
Equipment: $2,330.00 Total Labor Hours: 76.00
Materials: $2,308.60
Sales Tax: $0.00 Total Regular Equipment Hours: 72.00
Total Overtime Equipment Hours: 0.00
Total: $7,006.00 Total Equipment Hours: 72.00
SD9900¢9 Paoe'
Work Order History
12/07/1999 03:29:04 PM CITY OF BREMERTON PWO-STREET DMSION
Work Order it: 5D990065 Title: Blab Clean-UP Lot 184 Valley Drive Status: S Labor Hours Estimate: 0
Project #: N4014280 Ancillary Operations Materials Estimate: $0
Customer: BLAB Economic/Cowry Develop Abatements Equipment Estimate: $0
Work Type: AO ANCILI.ARY OPERATIONS Date Entered: 10/29/1999 12:00:00 AM
Supervisor: 0061 Riley Thompson Date Updated: 12/07/1999 07:21:36 AM
Lead Employee: 0524 Colen Corey Date Targeted: 01/06/2000
Priority: I Date A~igned: 10/29/1999
Location ID: 1 Unspecified Location Date Started: 11/29/1999
History #: I Umpecified Equipment Date Finished: 11/29/1999
Work Description
Rmnove big Culver~ and any other debris at the lot of 184 Valley Drive.
~tn~ ~o~o Blab Clean-UP Lot 184 Valley Drive Haul out pipe & debris
0909 Brian Brewer 1.00 hr $31.15
3066 1990 Infl 5 Yard Dump Truck 1.00 hr $25.00
1712 John Corey IV 1.00 hr $31.15
3039 '94 ID410 BACKHOE 1.00 hr $39.00
2.00 hr 0.00 hr $126.30
SUMMARY FOR WORKORDER: SD990065
Labor: $62.30 Total Regular Labor Hours: 2.00
Benefits: $0.00 Total Overtime Labor Hours: 0.00
Equipment: $64.00 Total Labor Hours: 2.00
Materials: $0.00
Total Regular Equipment Hours: 2.00
Sales Tax: $0.00
Total Overtime Equipment Hours: 0.00
Total: $126.30
Total Equipment Hours: 2.00
oO
KCB INC
ASBESTOS CONTRACTOR
PHONE # (360)830-5022 P.O. BOX 220
FAX # (360)830-5020 SEABECK, WA. 98380
INVOICE
City of Brezne~mn 1-2~-99
Publi~ Worka & Utiliti~
100.0.O.O.O.O.O~ Bay Drf~ N.
Bx=m~rtan, WA 98312
AI-IER~ ~on conducted January 20, I999 at 3 dweiling~ insid~ city limits. Ac'cass by Colin Cor~y.
Reports attached.
1704 N. Callow ................................................................... $ 285.00
5 samples read by Polarized Light Microscopy at $25.00 each ......... 125.00
1712 Houston Avenue ........................................................... $ 285.00
10 bulk samples read by PLM ............................................... 250.00
1714 Houston Avenue ........................................................... $185.00 (Discounted as multiple unit - duplex)
1 PLM reading ................................................................ 25.00
Amotmt du~ ...................................................................... $1155.00 (No sales tax on "Service")
"Pie apprecnate your
WA ~tate C,~,ified Ambles Court.tot #01085
UB1600 299 247
Crmer~ ~ P.~idratim: K1TSACBI0
FED ID ~1-I04~402
'CcE-bra~g ouxfS~2ud qc~."
KCB INC
'ASBESTOS CONTRACTOR
PHONE # (360);~t4),-5~22 P.O. BOX 220
FAX # (360)830..6020 SEABECK, WA. 98380
CTEY OF BREMERTON 1-25-99
Public Works & Utilities
tOO Oyst~ BaT Drive N.
B~e. xuexton, WA 9'8312
All work will be doue by a~.ans of state-of-the-an technology in the asbestos industry, ut/ii~ing the latest developments
in trai~ing equipment, products, and methods. Work practices axe as per guideLin~ e~tabli.~hed by the U.S. EPA, NIOSH,
K C B INC is licensed, bonded and insured as a General Contractor and as a Certified Asbestos Contractor in the State of
Washington. Transportion of asbestos as per DOT regnbaions, and disposal at an EPA-approved Hazardoas Substance land-
filL Notifications made to Department of Labor & Indnstr/e$ Asbestos Divis/on, the local air pollution control authority, and/
or Environmental Pwtection Agency, as require~L Air sampling when ueccssmy is included, the results will bo mack: available
to the owners when received by the EpA-approved (NVLAP/PAT)iab. A coating of penetrating cncapsulant will be applied to
all areas whexe asbestos is removed. No re-installations axe included. No other Uades ~ be able to work on the p~emises
during the abatement activities. Power ( with a__eces_ s to electrical panel ) and water must bo supplied, as well as access and
parking for abatement vehicles. Areas comaining asbestos must bc fiec of ail fl/l'ni-~hin~_.g/debri~
We propose to remove asbestos in thc following locations:
1712 ~' 1714 Houston Avenue: Remove 1700 square feet of VAT in both umts. Price includes demolition Notification for this
structure AND DEMOLITION NOTIFICATION FOR 1704 N. CALLOW.
Total removal cost .................................................... $ 4140.00 PLUS SALES TAX OF $335.34
Project specifications:
All carpets, base, debris, fiu'nishings, interior doors and door casings must be removed by the City prior to abatement in the areas
that have asbestos containing materials. K C B INC will supply water and power.
Payment to be made in full on last on-site work day.
Su 1-25-99
Jeanie Taylor, WA State Ccrtified~a~ Con~or ~ 1085
PERMIT CENTER Id: ACTP135D Keyword: AACT User: MANAGER 08/19/99
Activity Maintenance - Fee Item Summary.
Permit No: 99-0436 Applicant: CITY OF BREMERTON
Status: ISSUED Address: 1712 ~OUSTON AVE
Calculated Fees: 78 87 Total Fees: 78
· .87
Additional Fees: .00 Payments: . 00
Total Fees: 78.87 Balance: 78 87
Item Description Fee Payments Balance
1400 DEMOLITION PERMIT FEES 74.37 74.37
1700 BLDG REINSPECTION FEES
2000 STATE OF WA SURCHARGE 4.50 4.50
FROM:
A.C,E PROFESSIONAL APPRAI~ SERVICES
P.0. BOX 3241 lle/OlC'E ~ D~TE I REFERr:Nc~
SILV£RDALE. WA 98383-3241 ~ 5/26/99[ C~TYBREM-1
CITY OF BREMERTON DEPT E&CD
239 4TH ST, BRE~ERTON, WA 98337
3807 6TH STREET 300.00
2304 15TH STREET 300.00
1712 HOUSTON 300.00
SUBTOTAL ! ~, 900.00
% ADJUOTM~NT ,~
SUeTOTAL ~, 900.00
R~
SU~OT~ ~,, 900.00
A-C-E PROFESS~L SERVICES {~O) 692-5081
239 4th Street · Bremerton, WA 98337
BUILDING, LAND USE
AND
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
October 12, 1998
Pacific West Insurance Agency
ATTN: Greg Elderkin
P.O. Box 860
Renton, WA 98057
re: 1712/1714 Houston Avenue, File # C97-249
Mr. Elderkin:
In luly of 1998, the City of Bremerton ordered the abatement of unsafe conditions on the
property located at 1712/1714 Houston Avenue, owned by Wanda J. Beard. Ms. Beard failed to
meet the deadlines specified in the Notice and Order to Abate Unsafe Condition, a copy of which
is attached, and the building continues to be unsafe.
The City of Bremerton is prepared to undertake abatemem of these conditions by demolition of
the structure. Please be advised that all costs associated with such demolition by the City will
result in a lien on the property, which may affect your lien position.
structure, you must do so within 30 days of the date
Z 21, h q 2 7 I= 5 & ~e enclosed appeal form along with the $35.00 filing
-- us Post~ s~nee dl me at (360) 478-5275.
! - .....
· b"Tho ~"w,,--,-o-o. the · 1. I~ Addresaee'aAddrese
~ Pactfi - I'~u'~e~e/~ ~)er ....
~ ATTN' cGWest Insurance Agency ~7 658
· reg Elderkin I_~~~
P.O.
o ,~"-'r..~""~~',~l~~ -\-~ / ' -
~L...___ °nn,.3all, l:)ecember,~g94 . , ....... '_ t O~ _ ~~. -
AGENDA BILL
BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL
1. SUBJECT: Public Hearing~on Development FOR AGENDA OF: ~.~c:u-':.~c,-
Agreement for Northwest Corporate Campus (PL99- ORIGINATING DEPT.: DCD
0073), Ron Sciepko applicant ORIGINATOR: Jon Holan
(-~.~ S t' -'-~.~ ~' c_ ( c~. / DATE SUBM1T~D: December 7Z, 1999
2. CLEARANCES: (Comme~}t on back if 3. EXHIBITS:
1.
Comm. Dev. Dir.: ~f~ ~/~.--- 2. Staff Report dated 12/29/99
--A~~~ 3. Development Agreement
City Clerk: 4. Final MDNS (Attachment D of the
/} Agreement)
CityAttorney:~.~?/¥(/'?_.~/-~/(~~~/~ 5. Appeal of DNSbyHelenHaven-Saunders
6. Conditions approved by Planning
Commission
7. Planning Commission Findings of Fact,
Analysis and Recommendation
8. List of Submittal Exhibits
9. Correspondence Received on this matter
ENDORSEMENT ~__~ INFORMATION __ APPROVED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FOR SUBMITTAL:
CO NCI Pm Sm : T
4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION:
City Council is requested to conduct a public hearing on the adoption of a proposed development
agreement for the development of an industrial park on 188 acres located north of Old Clifton Road, south of State
Highway 16 and west of Anderson Hill Road.
$. RECOMMENDATION: .d
~r .
Staff recommends that the C~ty Council adopt the following motion:
"Move to approve Ordinance ~' to adopt the proposed development agreement for Northwest Corporate
Campus industrial development based on the ~that the Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance for the
proposal is ~ and that the proposed agreementxis co?sistent with the requirements of BMC 21.02.900 and
9. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Jon FIolan
10. NOTICE OF ACTION ~--~
PULLED TABLED __ APPROVED ~ DISAPPROVED __ AMENDED
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE: DATE:
11. AGENDA BILL NO.
2. CLEARANCE COMMENTS:
See attachments.
5. IMPACT OF NON-PASSAGE:
If the development agreement is denied, it would likely result in either no development of the site
or incremental development of the site without an overall program.
6. IMPACT ON STAFFING, BUDGETS~ FACILITIES~ EQUIPMENT OR OTi~F~R RESOURCES:
The proposed amendment would encourage further private development which would result in
economic benefits to the City of Bremerton.
7. RESEARCH SOURCES:
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE adopting the Development Agreement between Northwest Corporate Campus
and the City of Bremerton (PL99-0073)
WHEREAS, to strengthen the public planning process, encourage private participation in
comprehensive planning and reduce the economic risk of development, the legislature of the state
of Washington enacted RCW 36.70B.170 through 36.70B.210 (thc "Development Agreement
Statute"), which authorizes a local government to enter into a development agreement with the
owner of real property regarding the development of such property and establishing certain
development rights; and
WHEREAS, Bremerton has adopted provisions in its development regulations, Bremerton
Municipal Code (BMC) §21.02.900, which allow for a Development Agreement consistent with the
Development Agreement statute; and
WHEREAS, Northwest Corporate Campus (NWCC) owns certain real property consisting of
approximately 188 acres located in the City Urban Growth Area, as diagrammed in Attachment "A"
[Conceptual Site Plan] and more partio,larly described in Attachment "B" [Legal Description] of
the Development Agreement; and
WHEREAS, NWCC intends to develop an Industrial Park by providing a range of employment
opportunities that would respond to identified and evolving market conditions and the feasible
capacity of planned i~cture systems to support them; and
WHEREAS, NWCC has filed a Development Agreement, as provided in Exhibit "A" of this
ordinance, with the City of Bremerton and that this Development Agreement has been processed,
considered and executed in accordance with those City and State requirements; and
WHEREAS, the City of Bremerton Planning Commission conducted a public meeting on
November 16, 1999, to review the business terms of the Agreement and recommended to the City
Council approval of the Agreement comaining those terms as modified by the Commission; and
WHEREAS, a Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS) has been issued for the
Agreement with 15 mitigating measures; and
WHEREAS, the Agreement incorporates the conditions recommended by the Planning
Commission and the mitigation measures identified in the MDNS; and
WHEREAS, Bremerton has determined that the Project is a development for which this
Agreement is appropriate, and desires to enter into this Agreement. This Agreement will, among
other things, eliminate uncertainty in long-term planning, provide for the orderly development of
the Project on a comprehensive basis consistent with the City's current Comprehensive Plan,
mitigate significant environmental impacts, provide for all services appropriate for development of
the Project, encourage an employment base with diversity of jobs, improve the City's jobs-housing
balance, ensure effective utilization of resources within the City at the lowest possible economic
cost to its citizens and otherwise achieve the goals and purposes for which the Development
Agreement Statute was enacted; and
WHEREAS, this Development Agreement is a proper exercise of the City's police power and
contract authority pursuant to RCW 36.70B.170 and does not relate to a project permit application;
and
WHEREAS, in exchange for the benefits to Bremerton described in the preceding recital,
together with other public benefits that could result from the development of the Project, NWCC
will receive by this Agreement assurance that it my proceed with the Project in accordance with
Applicable Law, and therefore desires to enter into this Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the Bremerton City Council, after a duly noticed public hearing on December 29,
1999, made appropriate findings, including that execution of this Agreement furthers the public
health, safety and general welfare, and that the provisions of this Agreement are consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan, RCW 36.70B. 170 and Bremerton Municipal Code Section 21.02.900.
THE CITY OF BREMERTON DOES HEREBY ORDAIN:
SECTION 1: The approval in substance the Development Agreement between Northwest
Corporate Campus and the City of Bremerton as provided in Exhibit A and authorize the Mayor to
sign the Agreement for the City of Bremerton after all nonsubstanfive changes have been made.
APPROVED by the City Council on the first reading the day of January, 2000.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Bremerton, signed by the Mayor and attested by the
City Clerk in authentication of such passage this day of January, 2000.
MICHAEL SHEPHERD, Council President
APPROVED this day of January, 2000
LYNN HORTON, Mayor
ATTEST:
KATHY MCCLUSKEY, City Clerk
EFFECTIVE DATE:
PUBLISHED:
ORDINANCE NO.:
.~_ ~B_~_~ Date: January 12, 2000
To: City Council
From: Jon Holan, Interim Community Development Director
Subject: Proposed Development Agreement for Northwest
Corporate Campus
Bremerton Municipal Code (BMC) Section 21.09.900 and RCW 36.70B. 170 authorizes the City to
enter into development agreements with any property owner within its jurisdiction or within an urban
growth are~ The agreement, which is a form of contract between the City and a property owner, sets
forth development standards and other requirements which vests a development, use and mitigation
measures for the term of an agreement. Where specified, the terms of the agreement may supersede
provisions of the BMC.
Ron Sciepko, as applicant, has requested to enter into a development agreement with the City of
Bremerton for the construction of Northwest Corporate Campus. The proposed project is a 188 acre
industrial park located adjacent and south of State Highway 16, approximately 2600 feet north of Old
Cliilon Road, and about 1300 to 3000 feet west of Anderson Hill Road within the City of Bremerton.
It is envisioned that the project would be developed in five phases. The proposed access would be
the construction of a new road (Campus Parkway) extending from Old Clii~on Road north into the site.
Background
The City of Bremerton owned approximately 500 acres as of 1912 as part of the City's watershed
lands. In the mid-1980's the City stopped using the surface water as a municipal water source but still
retains water rights for groundwater and Anderson Creek. The groundwater sources are currently the
largest well field in the City's system. The City still retains Anderson Creek as an emergency source
of water.
As a result of the change in water use, the City has pursued surplusing land in the area since the mid-
1980's. In 1987, approximately 160 acres were sold to McCormick Woods for future development.
Then in 1995, the City entered into a contract with Ron Sciepko for the sale of 168 acres. These lands
were not adjacent to critical surface water sources but on plateaus above the Anderson Creek area.
The City still retains the rights to 172 acres which is the Anderson Creek area. In 1995, the City also
designated the property sold to Sciepko as "Industrial Park" comprising of 112 acres and "Low
Density Residential" for 56 acres.
The sale of the 168 acres to Ron Sciepko was completed this year and he has now submitted his
request for the development agreement for the indusu'ial project. The site includes 112 acres sold to
Mr. Sciepko by the City and 76 acres under his previous ownership. Mr. Sciepko intends to submit
in the future another development agreement for the 56 acre portion designated for residential
development.
The Planning Commission held a public meeting on the business terms for the agreement on
November 16, 1999. At the meeting, the Commission recommended that the City Council approve
the agreement subject to conditions. These conditions have since been integrated into the agreement
document.
Development Agreement
Northwest Corporate Campus
January 12, 2000
Page -2-
Comprehensive Plan and Zoning
The City's Comprehensive Plan designates the site as "Industrial Park" and is zoned "Industrial Park
District". The Plan proposes that this area is intended for, "a comprehensive development that would
include a planned office, hotel and warehouse dislxibution development." The plan also indicates that,
"a mix of proposed uses on this single site represent an unfamiliar combination that is not readily
processed to existing regulations in zoning. The uniqueness of this proposal justifies further analysis
to ensure a quality of development, as well as a sensitivity to its neighbors and environmental
characteristics."
As will be discussed below, the proposed development agreement furthers the intent and purpose of
the City's Comprehensive Plan. It approaches development of the area on a comprehensive basis and
allows for the development of the area for a combination of industrial uses. It is sensitive to adjacent
non-industrial uses by approaching industrial development as a campus style approach and allowing
for buffers. It is sensitive to the environment by focusing development on flatter, developable areas,
allowing for buffers away from the two creeks in the area, setting back fxom slope areas and providing
for wellhead protection requirements.
Environmental Determination
A Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance ('MI)NS) has been issued to meet the requirements
of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). This means that the City has identified potential
significant adverse impacts that will be reduced to nonsignificant levels through the imposition of
mitigating measures which have been incorporated into the agreement. The MDNS applies to the
cumulative development of the site and site specific issues associated with Phases 1 and 2 and was
based on supporting documents submitted by the applicant and listed in an attachment. Further
environmental review consistent with SEPA requirements will be required for subsequent Phases 3,
4and 5.
An appeal on the environmental determination has been filed by Helen Haven-Saunders. Attached
is the appeal and a staff analysis of it.
Provisions of the Development Agreement
The following is a discussion of the major portions of the agreement.
Section 1 - General Obligations: This section set forth that the City and Northwest Corporate
Campus be obligated to the provisions of the agreement, as modified. It should be noted that, as a
contract, any modification would require the approval of both parties.
Development Agreement
Northwest Corporate Campus
January 12, 2000
Page -3-
Sections 2.1 and 2.2: These sections generally describes a conceptual plan for the development of the
site and the initial phasing plan for development. There are five phases for development of the site
with approval to proceed to develop only for Phases 1 and 2. Additional analysis and an amendment
to the agreement would be required before Phases 3 to 5 could begin construction.
Section 2_3: This section outlines the proposed roadway program. A lxaffie impact analysis was
prepared for the proposed agreement, but based on a review by the Public Works Department,
additional analysis is necessary to address ultimate on-site roadway configurations. The completed
analysis also examined cumulative off-site roadway impacts in the County. To date, staffhas not yet
received any comments fxom the County on the analysis but will consult with the County on the
preparation and review of the additional analysis.
To gain access to the site, a road will be extended from Old Clifton Road. This roadway will need to
receive County approval. All roadways to be conslxucted by the developer must comply to applicable
City of Bremerton or Kitsap County standards.
Section 2.4: The utility analysis addresses sewer, water, storm sewer and other utilities. All utilities
for the project will be designed and installed by the developer. All development will be required to
be served by public sewer and water with one exception. The agreement provides for the City to allow
temporary septic systems for low water users until such time that sewer is available. It is anticipated
that sewer service for the project will generally be provided by the City of Port Orchard. The possible
exception is Phase 5, which may be served by the STEP sanitary sewer system. The agreement also
provides that if the City of Bremerton provides any sewer service, then the entire sewer system for the
development would be operated by Bremerton. This provision is included to make it more
economically feasible for the City to provide service.
Water service is envisioned to be initially provided by Port Orchard with the City of Bremerton
making a commitment to take over service by the end of three years. All improvements will be
designed to City of Bremerton standards.
Subsection 2.4.3 describes the conceptual storm sewer system for the proposal. The system will be
maintained by an industrial park association.
Section 3.1: Development parcels will be created by a binding site plan process, which is defined in
this agreement. RCW 58.17 allows local jurisdictions to approve industrial land divisions in lieu of
subdivisions or short plats through a binding site plan ordinance. This agreement will serve as the
binding site plan ordinance for Northwest Corporate Campus. The process is provided in Section 3.4.
Generally, the process is the completion of needed studies and construction plans, the preparation of
a binding site plan to replace Exhibit A of the agreement, and the review and recordation of record of
surveys to create the parcel.
Development Agreement
Northwest Corporate Campus
January 12, 2000
Page -4-
Section 3.3: This section establishes that SEPA review is complete for development in Phases 1 and
2 but that additional SEPA review will be needed for Phases 3, 4 and 5.
Section 3.4: The development process provided in this section is intended to establish a sequencing
of events to allow for individual development to occur. Before this can happen, a series of studies,
programs and construction plans must be developed. The geologic studies are needed to assure proper
placement of roads, storm water systems and development. The hydrologic and water quality studies
are needed to evaluate the storm water system to mitigate adverse impacts on groundwater and
Anderson and No Name creeks. As this is an area of probable cultural resources, a cultural source
survey program would be established to identified potential resource areas to be examined prior to or
monitored during construction. In addition, a refinement of the previous traffic study is required to
clarify on and off site roadway requirements.
After completion of the above studies, the "typical" development process would be followed. That
is, the developer would submit construction plans, establish a phasing program for infrastructure
improvements, either bond or construct improvement and then apply for appropriate planning and
building permits. It is at the planning review stage for the individual development that a record of
survey would be reviewed and, if appropriate, filed to create the legal parcel for the specific
development. This is proposed to allow flexibility and tailor land divisions to the need ora proposed
building. This flexibility is particularly important since the agreement has a thirty year time frame (see
Section 6).
Section 3.5: This section provides that the City and the applicant will cooperatively seek mutually
beneficial financial mechanisms for the development of project.
Section 4.1: Section 4.1 establishes general provisions for development requirements including
compliance with city requirements, compliance with state and federal laws and a description of the
overall intent of the project. Unless modified by the agreement, the provisions of the Bremerton
Municipal Code and other adopted ordinances would apply to the project. The agreement only
modifies the allowed land uses and several development standards including building height and
coverage. The agreement also establishes a process for the division of land which is different than the
City's current requirements. Other than these differences, the provisions of the BMC and other
applicable ordinances would apply.
The agreement cannot reduce either the City's or the applicant's obligation to comply with applicable
state and federal requirements. It is for this reason that Section 4.1 B is included. Section 4.1 C is
reflects the provisions of the City's comprehensive plan and purpose statement of the Industrial Park
District zone.
Sections 4.2 to 4.6: This section establishes the permitted, accessory, specially permitted and
prohibited uses for the development area~ This is based on the land use table for the Industrial Park
District, the Wellhead Protection Easement and the North American Industry Classification System..
Development Agreement
Northwest Corporate Campus
January 12, 2000
Page -5-
The section does not prohibit uses listed in the easement, but requires a special use permit to
determine the appropriateness of a use. This is permissible pursuant to subsection 1.B.3. of the
Wellhead Easement.
Uses not included in this section but allowed by the District either by fight or through a special use
permit includes food processing, social services, welfare facilities, equipment and materials storage
yards, auto sales and rentals, auto impound lot, non-accessory parking lots, marine freight and
passenger facility, bus passenger and bus maintenance facilities, construction services with yard,
lumber and other building materials sales, greenhouses, manufactured homes manufacturing and sales,
paints and allied product manufacturing, chemical manufacturing, soap and cleaning products
manufacturing, and recycling facilities. Uses included in the agreement but not in the District includes
a general provision for offices and banking facilities.
To facilitate interpreting the uses, two sources including the Standard Industrial Classification Manual
and the North American Industry Classification System are referenced. This provides a very definitive
method to identify appropriate uses since these manuals provide definitions and extensive listings of
specific uses under various codes.
Section 5: This section establishes development standards that are different than the provisions of the
BMC. The most notable provisions are the limitation on outdoor storage, application of the wellhead
easement provisions, increasing building height from 40 feet to 60 feet with additional setbacks,
building coverage increased from 50 to 60 percent, and buffers from adjacent residential areas, stream
and slope setback areas and limitations on the size of freestanding signs. It should be noted that the
setback provisions from the top of slopes increases the critical lands requirements from 50 to 75 feet
for the setback without a geologic report and from 15 to 25 feet if a report supports the reduced
setbacks.
Staff supports these revised standards as they are generally more restrictive than the City's current
development standards and will promote a mom campus style development that is sensitive to adjacent
non-industrial land uses and environmental concerns. Regarding building height and coverage
requirements, staff supports these revisions to allow additional flexibility for the development of the
site and would not represent a significant adverse impact to the area. The additional building height
would not affect adjacent areas due to topography of the area. Building coverage does not affect the
overall impervious surfacing allowed by City standards and would replace one form of surfacing
(parking areas) by another (buildings). As a result, no additional storm water runoff or water quality
problems are expected to occur as a result of the change.
Section 6: Section 6 establishes several key provisions regarding the length of the agreement and
vesting. The agreement is for a thirty year period with a review of the agreement to the City Council
every three years (Sections 6.1 and 6.4). For Phases 1 and 2, the developer has three years to prepare
the various studies and engineering plans and develop 440,000 square feet of building area within 15
years of the agreement (Section 6.3). This provision is included to assure that the 30 year time limit
Development Agreement
Northwest Corpornte Campus
January 12, 2000
Page -6-
would not apply only to phases 1 and 2. The 440,000 square feet represents about 60 percent of the
development of phases 1 and 2 if all the buildings were single story. St~ffestimates that this amount
of building area would accommodate on the average of approximately 2,000 employees. This time
line can be ex~ended by mutual consent of the developer and the City.
Section 6.2 establishes the vesting provisions of the agreement. Only the provisions of Section 4
(allowed land uses) and 5 (specified development standards) would be vested for 30 years for the
entire project area. The standards and fees of other requirements (Sections 6.2.2, 6.2.4, 6.2.5 and
6.2.6) such as grading, storm water, street, sewer, etc. at the time of application would apply. Thus,
the standards of improvement requirements will be established when a complete set of improvement
plans are accepted by the City. This is a standard requirement for development.
Section 7: This section adopts by reference the mitigation measures identified in the MDNS. It
should be noted that the measures have been integrated into the agreement.
Section 8: This section establishes the creation of a industrial landowners association to provide
aesthetic control over the development of the campus, implement a commuter trip reduction program
and maintain storm water and private road facilities. The legal instruments for this association must
be approved by the Community Development Director. This approval is a typical requirement for a
large project such as Northwest Corporate Campus.
Section 9 and 9.3: Section 9 provides general business provisions of the agreement. Of note is that
Section 9.3 allows the Director of Community Development to approve minor modifications to the
provisions of the agreement. This is to provide flexibility as development occurs over a long time
period and allows simple matters to be addressed without having to amend the agreement.
Provisions of a Development Agreement
BMC Section 21.02.900 requires the following provisions where applicable:
1. All major project components including uses, site and floor areas, off-street parking;
2. Landscaping, buffers, parks, open space and similar features;
3. Required mitigation measures and development conditions;
4. Financial arrangements including fees, dedications, financial contributions, ere;
5. Design and development standards including architectural treatment, maximum building
heights, setbacks, landscaping, drainage, utilities, parking, signage and other provisions;
6. Review procedures and phasing plan;
7. Build-out or vesting period during which the agreement would be in effect; and
8. Any other appropriate requirements.
In addition, RCW 36.70B.170 specifies that a development agreement be consistent with the
development regulations adopted by local governments planning under Growth Management
Development Agreement
Northwest Corporate Campus
January 12, 2000
Page -7-
requirements. Further, BMC Section 21.02.900 (e) (1) requires the City Attorney to review and
approve all agreements prior to consideration by the City Council. Such a review has been conducted.
Based on the above discussion, the proposed agreement is consistent with the above requirements.
Alternatives
The City Council may:
1. Uphold the SEPA determination and approve the Development Agreement;
2. Uphold the SEPA determination and deny the Development Agreement;
3. Uphold the appeal and remand the SEPA determination to staff, taking no action on the
agreement; or
4. Continue the matter to a date certain.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council upholds the SEPA determination for a Mitigated
Determination of Nonsignificance and approve Ordinance to adopt the Development
Agreement based upon the following findings:
1. That the requirements of RCW 36.70B. 170 and BMC 21.02.900 are met;
2 That the MDNS prepared for the project meets the requirements of the State Environmental
Policy Act (SEPA) and is adequate for the proposed agreement;
3. The proposed agreement conforms to the City of Bremerton's Comprehensive Plan; and
4. The proposed agreement furthers the public interest by providing long-term planning for the
site, promote orderly development of the project, mitigate potentially significant adverse
impacts, provide for all required services by effectively utilizing existing resources with the
lowest possible cost to the citizens of the City of Bremerton, encourage an employment base
for the City and Kitsap County which can improve the City's job-housing balance.
Rentrn Address
William T. Lynn
Gordon, Thomas, Honeywell, Malanca,
Peterson & Daheim, PLLC
P.O. Box 1157
Tacoma, WA 98401-1157
Please prim or type information.
Document Title(s) (or transactions contained therein):
1. Northwest Corporate Campus Development Agreement
2.
Grantor(s) (Last name first, then first name and initials)
1.Northwest Corporate Campus, LLC
2.
3.
Grantee(s) (Last name first, then first name and initials)
1 .City of Bremerton
2.
3.
Legal Description (abbreviated: i.e., lot, block, plat or section, township, range)
A portion of Sections 32 & 33, T24N, R1E, W.M. and portions of Sections 4 & 5, T23N, R1E, W.M., City of
Bremerton, Kitsap County, Washington
Legal Description on Page 33 (Attachment "B) of Document.
Reference Number(s) of Documents Assigned or Released:
Kitsap County Auditor No. 3219254
Assessor's Property Tax ParceVAccount Number
042301-1-054-2007,332401-3-012-2008,322401-4-016-2003,322401-4-017-2002,322401-
4-018-2001,052301-1-004-2007,052301-1-023-2004,052301-1-024-2003,052301-1-025-
2002,052301-1-026-2001,322401-4-026-2001,332401-3-013-2007
The Auditor/Recorder will rely on the information provided on this cover sheet. The staff will not read the
document to verify the accuracy or completeness of the indexing information provided herein, ti o**s971
NORTHWEST CORPORATE CAMPUS
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
[ac.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
RECITALS ...................................................................................... 1
AGREEMENT .................................................................................. 2
1. GENERAL OBLIGATIONS ................................................. 2
1.1 Obligations of City in Consideration of NWCC Entering
Into this Agreement .................................................. 2
1.2 Obligations of NWCC ............................................... 2
2. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT .............................................. 3
2.1 Overall Conceptual Plan ............................................. 3
2.2 Initial Phasing Plan ..................................................3
2.3 Roads ................................................................... 4
2.4 Utilities ................................................................ 5
3. PROCESS AND PROCEDURES ........................................... 8
3.1 Binding Site Plans ....................................................8
3.2 Subdivisions ........................................................... 8
3.3 SEPA ................................................................... 8
3.4 Development Process ................................................ 9
3.5 Grants, ULID's and RIDS, etc ..................................... 12
4. DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS ..................................... 12
4.1 General Provisions ................................................... 12
4.2 Permitted Uses ........................................................ 13
5. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS .......................................... 18
5.1 Outdoor Storage: ..................................................... 18
5.2 Wellhead Protection Easement ..................................... 19
i
5.3 Minimum lot size ........................................... 19
5.4 Building Height ....................................................... 19
5.5 Setbacks ............................................................... 19
5.6 Parcel Coverage ......................................................19
5.7 Residential Buffer, Stream and Slope Setbacks .................. 19
5.8 Landscaping ........................................................... 20
6. TERM; VESTING; TIME FOR CONSTRUCTION; AND
REVIEW ....................................................................... 21
6.1 Term ................................................................... 21
6.2 Vesting ................................................................. 21
6.3 Time for Construction ............................................... 22
6.4 Review ................................................................. 22
6.5 City's Reserved Authority .......................................... 22
7. MITIGATION MEASURES ................................................ 22
8. INDUSTRIAL LANDOWNERS ASSOCIATION ....................... 23
9. GENERAL PROVISIONS ................................................... 23
9.1 Subsequent Approvals ............................................... 23
9.2 Governing Law ........................................................23
9.3 Modification .......................................................... 24
9.4 Binding on Successors; Assignment ................................ 24
9.5 Recording .............................................................. 24
9.6 Interpretation; Severability ........................................... 25
9.7 Authority ............................................................... 25
9.8 Attachments ........................................................... 25
ii
9.9 Headings ............................................................... 25
9.10 Time is of the Essence ............................................... 25
9.11 Integration ............................................................. 26
9.12 Disputes; Default and Remedies .................................... 26
9.13 Estoppel Certificate .................................................. 27
9.14 No Third Party Beneficiary .......................................... 27
9.15 Interpretation .......................................................... 27
9.16 Notice .................................................................. 27
9.17 Cooperation ........................................................... 28
9. ! 8 Delays .................................................................. 28
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS .................................................................. 1
Attachment "A" - Conceptual Site Plan
Attachment "B" - Legal Description
Attachment "C" - Wellhead Protection Area Easement
Attachment "D" - Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance
(MDNS)
111
NORTHWEST CORPORATE CAMPUS
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
This Development Agreement is entered into by and between the CITY OF
BREMERTON, a political subdivision of the state of Washington (hereinafter "Bremerton"),
and NORTHWEST CORPORATE CAMPUS, LLC, a Washington limited liability
corporation ("NWCC").
RECITALS
A. To strengthen the public planning process, encourage private participation in
comprehensive planning and reduce the economic risk of development, the legislature of the
state of Washington enacted RCW 36.70B.170 through 36.70B.210 (the "Development
Agreement Statute"), which authorizes a local government to enter into a Development
Agreement with the owner of real property regarding the development of such property and
establishing certain development rights.
B. Bremerton has adopted provisions in its development regulations, Bremerton
Municipal Code (BMC) §21.02.900, which allow for a Development Agreement consistent
with the Development Agreement statute. This Development Agreement has been processed,
considered and executed in accordance with those City and State requirements.
C. NWCC owns certain real property consisting of approximately 188 acres
located in the City Urban Growth Area, as diagrammed in Attachment "A" [Conceptual Site
Plan] and more particularly described in Attachment "B" [Legal Description] (the "Project
Site").
D. NWCC intends to develop an Industrial Park (the "Project") by providing a
range of employment opportunities that would respond to identified and evolving market
conditions and the feasible capacity of planned infrastructure systems to support them.
E. Bremerton has determined that the Project is a development for which this
Agreement is appropriate, and desires to enter into this Agreement. This Agreement will,
among other things, eliminate uncertainty in long-term planning, provide for the orderly
development of the Project on a comprehensive basis consistent with the City's current
Comprehensive Plan, mitigate environmental impacts, provide for all services appropriate for
development of the Project, encourage an employment base with diversity of jobs, improve
the City's jobs-housing balance, ensure effective utilization of resources within the City at the
Northwest Corporate Campus
Development Agreement, Dec. 29, 1999
[1041017 v12] -].-
lowest possible economic cost to its citizens and otherwise achieve the goals and purposes
for which the Development Agreement Statute was enacted.
F. In exchange for the benefits to Bremerton described in the preceding recital,
together with other public benefits that could result from the development of the Project,
NWCC will receive by this Agreement assurance that it may proceed with the Project in
accordance with Applicable Law, and therefore desires to enter into this Agreement.
G. NWCC has applied for land use approvals relating to the development of the
Project, in accordance with BMC {}21.02.900.
H. Concurrent with the approval of this Agreement, the Bremerton City Council,
after a duly noticed public heating, made appropriate findings, including that execution of this
Agreement furthers the public health, safety and general welfare, and that the provisions of
this Agreement are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
I. Applications for subsequent land use approvals, entitlements, and permits
necessary or desirable for the development of the Project will be made by NWCC.
AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises, covenants, and provisions set
forth in this Agreement, the parties agree as follows:
1. GENERAL OBLIGATIONS
1.1 Obligations of City in Consideration of NWCC Entering Into
this Agreement
The City agrees that it shall comply with the terms of this Agreement and
any Subsequent Approvals and shall consider for approval, and cooperate with processing
and reviewing, all applications for Subsequent Approvals as provided in this Agreement.
1.2 Obligations of NWCC
NWCC agrees that it shall comply with the Development Agreement, and
the terms of Subsequent Approvals, including, without limitation, those conditions relating
to the provision of traffic, sanitary sewer, water, stormwater, and other infrastructure
serving the capital Project.
Northwest Corporate Campus
Development Agreement, Dec. 29, 1999
[1041017 v12] -2-
2. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
2.1 Overall Conceptual Plan
NWCC proposes land uses intended to provide for a range of employment
opportunities. The proposed Overall Conceptual Plan (Attachment "A") is intended to
respond to the site's unique natural setting.
The Overall Conceptual Plan and specifically the amount, pattern and intensity of
proposed development within individual parcels represent a blueprint for future development
based on the applicant's current understanding of market conditions. The Plan is not
intended to fix precise building patterns, areas of use by square footage, exact or final
locations and dimensions of roads or utilities, open space and trail corridors. The Plan is
intended to be flexible, forming the broad concept against which each specific application for
development will be measured. Actual amounts, patterns and intensities of development
within the Project may vary in response to market conditions as long as they are consistent
with the overall NWCC concept and the provisions of this Development Agreement.
2.2 Initial Phasing Plan
The initial phasing plan for the project is set forth below. This is a conceptual
phasing plan which is subject to modification as set forth below.
Phase 1:
Phase 1 will consist of 13 parcels identified as Parcels 1 through 13.
This will include the extension of the access road from S.W. Clifton Road and the
improvement of Campus Parkway and utilities to the approximate terminus at Parcel 13.
Phase 2:
Phase 2 will consist of Parcels 14-29 and the improvement of Campus Parkway
and utilities to approximate terminus at Parcel 24.
Phase 3:
Phase 3 will consist of Parcels 30 through 43. This phase would require the
crossing of No Name Creek with Campus lane to reach the westerly portion of the site.
The location of Campus Lane and the crossing of No Name Creek are preliminary and
may be adjusted as more detail and analysis of characteristics are provided.
Northwest Corporate Campus
Development Agreement, Dec. 29, 1999
· [1041017 v12] -3-
Phase 4:
Phase 4 will consist of Parcels 44 through 53. This phase will also include the
extension of Campus Parkway and utilities from their former terminus in Phase 2 to the
east side of No Name Creek.
Phase 5:
Phase 5 will include Parcels 54 through 56. This phase will also include the
crossing of No Name Creek by Campus Parkway and a possible connection to State
Highway 16.
Phases 3 through 5 will require the filing of applications to the City of Bremerton for site
specific development, including amendments to this Development Agreement. Specific
drainage, hydrologic, geotechnical, and traffic analysis will be required. In addition,
construction drawings for roadway and storm drainage, including outfalls and other
physical improvements regulated by the City of Bremerton shall be submitted to the City.
Approval by other jurisdictions may also be required.
2.3 Roads
Preliminary on and off-site road improvements, right-of-way widths, lane
configurations and non-motorized facilities have been identified in the in the "Traffic
Impact Analysis for Northwest Corporate Campus Development" report dated September,
1999, prepared by Gibson Traffic Consultants. Supplemental traffic analysis as provided
in Section 3.4.2.v, is required to determine on-site vehicle lanes, pedestrian and bicycle
facilities and right-of-way configurations in the interim and ultimate project phases, and
may also be required for determining off-site improvements (in coordination with the
County and State) for off-site improvements. Upon acceptance of the supplemental
analysis by the City, the City and NWCC shall reach agreement on the scope and timing
of road improvements. The agreement shall be incorporated into the Phasing Plan.
Monitoring of traffic threshold shall be implemented to verify that level of service
standards are not exceeded. On-site improvements shall be consistent with Bremerton
Roadway Standards and shall include street lighting, landscaping and on-street bicycle
lanes. Road improvements, including street lighting, shall be dedicated to the City upon
acceptance by the City.
Off-site roadway improvements shall be developed and constructed to the standards
of Kitsap County or the State as appropriate and approved by the City of Bremerton.
Shared private street (pipe stem roadways) to the parcels will be allowed on road
tracts with a minimum width of 40 feet. The paved section of the roadway shall be a
Northwest Corporate Campus
Development Agreement, Dec. 29, 1999
[1041017 v121 -4-
minimum of thirty feet in width with a five-foot asphalt walkway on one side. A
maintenance agreement is required for any private streets.
There is an easement for the emergency access to McCary Road/Feigley Road to
the west. This easement will be developed as part of Phase 3. It will be built with a 20-
foot pavement with asphalt curbing on the north side. The plans will be approved by
Kitsap County, but the roadway will remain in private ownership with the maintenance
provided by the Industrial Park Association.
The roadway will be gated at the parcel line with a breakaway gate. The
emergency access would be continued across Parcel 37 to Campus Lane with a paved
road. This portion of the road would be relocated when the parcel is developed by being
incorporated into the Parcel 37 development plan.
2.4 Utilities
2.4.1 Sanitary Sewer
All development shall be served by public sanitary sewer with the exception
of temporary septic system as specified in this section. NWCC will design and construct
the sanitary sewer system improvements to the standards of the entity that will accept the
system for maintenance. A gravity, collection main is envisioned along the easterly
boundary of Phase 1 and Phase 2, terminating approximately at the location of Parcel 24.
A lift station (A) will be located in the area of Parcels 23 and 24, or adjacent Parcel 26 on
the west side of Campus Parkway. A force main would then be located in Campus
Parkway, which will extend southerly on Campus Parkway to S.W. Clifton Road and into
the existing City of Port Orchard system. The on-site system will be designed to the City
of Port Orchard standards and will be discharged and treated by the City of Port Orchard.
This system will be built by NWCC and be deeded to the City of Port Orchard as soon as
the construction is completed and accepted by the City of Port Orchard. The mains along
the easterly boundary may be constructed in sections and additional laterals may also be
constructed to serve all parcels provided they meet the City of Port Orchard standards.
An additional forcemain will be installed as Phase 4 is developed with a temporary or
permanent lift station (B) located at the west end of Parcel 53 pumping southerly to lift
station (A). A gravity main will be installed in Campus Parkway for Parcels 23 to 29
flowing to the lift station (A) for Phases 1 and 2 and another gravity main for Phase 4 to
the lift station (B). The sanitary sewer system for Phase 3 will have three options for the
design. Option 1 would be to have a portion of Phase 3 to flow by gravity to Phase 1 and
2 and the remainder by gravity to the north. Option 2 is to install a gravity system to flow
northward to a lift station (C) located in the area of Parcel 30 or 31 and to pump back to
the forcemain in Campus Parkway. Option 3 is to flow by gravity to the north into Phase
5 and be pumped by lift station (D) located at SR-16 to lift station (A). Phase 5 will be
Northwest Corporate Campus
Development Agreement, Dec. 29, 1999
[1041017 v12] -5-
served by the City of Port Orchard with a gravity sewer in Campus Parkway flowing to
lift station (D), pumping to lift station (A).
If the STEP sanitary sewer system is developed by Kitsap County to serve
the Gorst area along SR-16 before or during the time Phase 5 is developed, this phase
could be served by that system which would allow the sewage to be conveyed by Kitsap
County for treatment at the City of Bremerton wastewater treatment plant.
The entire sanitary sewer system will be a publicly maintained system (City
of Port Orchard). The only exception would be Phase 5 which would be publicly
maintained by Kitsap County if the STEP system is constructed.
If the City of Port Orchard is unable to treat the additional sewage fi.om this
project as it develops, the City of Bremerton has agreed to and will provide the treatment
for the remainder of the project. Provided, however, that if the City provides long-term
sewer service to any part of the Project, then it would disconnect the Port Orchard sewer
service and connect the entire NWCC sewer system to the City of Bremerton sewer
system. The method of transporting the sewage to the City of Bremerton's facilities will
be negotiated at that time if it is needed.
All fees for the connection to the City of Port Orchard will be collected by
the City of Port Orchard, including the monthly service fees. The City of Port Orchard
may require pretreatment for the industries developing in this project.
Potential purchasers of parcels who wish to develop prior to the extension
of the full sewer system into the site may apply for temporary on-site systems in
conformance with the Bremerton - Kitsap County Health District requirements provided
they are a small water user and can accommodate sewer demands on site (Phase I only).
An additional study will be completed during the design phase. This study will require
coordination between the utility, purveyors involved and will define the future purveyor
and method of service for all phases of development. Connections to a public sewer
system are required upon sewer availability at the parcel.
2.4.2 Water
All development shall be served by a public water system. NWCC will
design and construct water distribution system improvements to the standards of the City
of Bremerton. NWCC and the City of Bremerton are negotiating with Port Orchard to
provide interim water service from the existing Port Orchard water system in Clifton Road
SW. This interim connection will last not longer than three years, when the City of
Bremerton establishes the West 540 Water Service Zone that will serve this area. The
NWCC will be assessed a zone development fee above and beyond the normal and
customary fees, assessments and dedications for construction of the water distribution
Northwest Corporate Campus
Development Agreement, Dec. 29, 1999
[1041017 v12]
system required by the City of Bremerton.
NWCC agrees to provide, at no cost to the City, easements for construction
of the transmission main through the Project area.
2.4.3 Storm Drainage
The storm drainage system improvements proposed in the Conceptual
Storm Drainage Report shall be planned and designed in accordance with City standards
and the most current Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE) stormwater manual.
A storm sewer main is envisioned to be extended along the easterly
property line of Phases 1 and 2 and terminate in a storm basin located along the west side
of Campus Parkway in the approximate area of Tract A. There will also be a storm
collection system developed in Campus Parkway. The storm basin in Tract A will be
sized to also detain the stormwater from the Campus Parkway from Phases 1 and 2.
With the extension of Campus Parkway and Phase 4, additional basins will
be required in Tracts C and E to treat the stormwater from these improvements.
Stormwater from Phase 3 and Campus Lane will be treated in Tracts E and A. A smaller
storm pond may be required in Tract 30 and 31. Phase 5 may require the on-site storm
facilities for some of its stormwater treatment. The discharges of the storm facilities
return the storm water to the drainage basins of the natural discharge as much as possible.
The off-site Campus Parkway will have its own storm pond facilities.
The storm drainage plans for the on-site development will be submitted to
the City of Bremerton for approval, constructed by NWCC, inspected by the City, and the
storm drainage facilities installed in the public roadway will be deeded to the City of
Bremerton for maintenance. The other mains will be under private ownership and
maintenance of the Industrial Park Association. The off-site portion of Campus Parkway
will be under the jurisdiction of Kitsap County, and subject to County's standards and the
facilities in the right-of-way of Campus Parkway will be deeded to the County.
The Conceptual Storm Drainage Report describes the treatment for the
stormwater. Some stormwater from the parking areas may be treated on site at each
parcel. The stormwater detention and treatment facilities will be privately maintained.
Fees and assessments shall be charged in accordance with the BMC, and NWCC is
entitled to receive credits allowed under the stormwater ordinance. All monies needed for
the detention and treatment facilities will be the responsibility of the Industrial Park
Association. These will be collected by provisions in the CC and R's for the project.
Prior to Construction of Phases 1 and 2, Final Engineered Storm Drainage
and Road plans shall include the following stormwater elements addressing the entire
Northwest Corporate Campus
Developrnent Agreement, Dec. 29, 1999
[1041017 v12] -7-
project, and in greater detail Phases 1 and 2. The plan shall address all on-site
improvements and off-site stormwater improvements to Campus Parkway. All storm
systems shall meet the requirements of the Washington State Department of Ecology
Storm Manual. Further, additional geologic, hydrologic and water quality studies, as
identified in Section 3.4.2.i, ii and iii, are required to evaluate the stormwater impacts on
Anderson and No Name creeks.
2.4.4 Other Utilities
The natural gas system, telephone system including fiber-optics, electrical
power system and cable TV systems will be extended from S.W. Clifton Road to the site
during the development of the Campus Parkway and be continued through the site as the
phases develop. The cost of these improvements will be borne by NWCC. The systems
will be installed by the utility companies with NWCC aid where allowed, and be owned
and maintained by the utility companies.
3. PROCESS AND PROCEDURES
3.1 Binding Site Plans
This Development Agreement, approved by ordinance, constitutes the approval of the
binding site plan for NWCC in accordance with RCW 58.17.020(7) and RCW 58.17.040(4).
The conceptual site plan attached as Attachment "A" is the binding site plan for the Property
and development shall be in accordance with that plan as set forth in this Development
Agreement. The Binding Site Plan depicts 56 parcels of sizes ranging from 1 to 7 acres in
size. This parcel layout is intended to be flexible. The parties agree that the plan may be
amended administratively with the approval of the Director of Community Development, to
combine or split the parcels or to adjust the boundaries of any parcels to accommodate the
needs of particular uses or classes of users. The function of the Director in reviewing such
amendments shall simply be to determine whether each parcel credited has adequate access
and utility service.
3.2 Subdivisions
Any property within NWCC may be also divided through the review of a preliminary
plat and recordation of a final plat or short plat.
3.3 SEPA
3.3.1 Phases 1 and 2
As set forth in this paragraph, Environmental Review is complete for Phases 1
and 2. The NWCC Environmental Checklist with accompanying reports and studies analyzed
development of Phases 1 and 2 at the project specific level. Bremerton and NWCC intend
Northwest Corporate Campus
Development Agreement, Dec. 29, 1999
[1041017 vl2l -8-
that this document satisfies SEPA requirements for implementing approvals and permits for
all other anticipated actions. Additional performance standards as identified in the Wellhead
Protection Area Easement discussed below will apply. The procedural requirements of
Paragraph 1.A. 1. of the Easement have been satisfied as to Phases 1 and 2. The Phase 1 and
2 NWCC proposal and impacts analyzed in the checklist include build-out of uses at the
maximum allowable intensities pursuant to the development standards and mitigation
measures approved in the Development Agreement. The "proposed action" described in the
checklist is intended to include a series of permits and approvals which would issue over a
period of time in a manner required to implement the overall project. If a permit or approval
falls within the scope of the proposed action, and there are no additional probable significant
adverse environmental impacts as determined by the Environmental Official in accordance
with WAC 197-11-600, no threshold determination is required and the existing environmental
documents shall be used to meet the requirements of SEPA. This includes, but is not limited
to, amendments of the binding site plan, building permits, site development permits, forest
practices permits, wetland approvals, subdivisions, new binding site plans, administrative use
permits, special use permits and minor modifications to the Development Agreement.
3.3.2 Phases 3, 4, and 5 Project Approval
Project Approval for Phases 3, 4, and 5 is conceptual. Environmental review
for Phases 3, 4 and 5 Project Approval is programatic, nonproject level review. Pursuant to
RCW 43.21C.034 and WAC 197-11-600, the parties anticipate that environmental review of
Subsequent Approvals that implement Phases 3, 4 and 5 shall incorporate information from
the checklist and from previous studies, but shall require a new threshold determination
consistent with state and local SEPA regulations. No new mitigation shall be imposed as to
impacts which have already been controlled or sufficiently mitigated under the SEPA process
conducted in connection with this Development Agreement.
3.4 Development Process
The following is the sequential process to allow development for Phases 1
and 2 of the project:
1. Approval of the Development Agreement by the City of Bremerton and
NWCC,
2. NWCC shall complete the additional studies, programs and construction
plans described below for City review and approval. NWCC shall
coordinate and establish the scope of work in the studies and programs
with the City prior to commencing the work. The work shall be
completed in accordance with the approved scope, and the consultant
shall coordinate and cooperate with the City throughout the development
of required information. These studies, programs and construction
Northwest Corporate Campus
Development Agreement, Dec. 29, 1999
[1041017 v12] -9-
plans shall be approved by the City prior to any physical modification
of the site, unless: the modification is approved by the Community
Development Director; and the modification does not adversely affect
the purpose and intent of the studies, programs and plans. The City
shall coordinate review with the Suquamish Tribe for all geologic,
hydrologic and water quality studies and cultural resource survey for the
site and the monitoring program for Anderson and No Name creeks.
The City shall coordinate review of the additional traffic analysis with
Kitsap County and the State of Washington. The following is the list of
studies, programs and construction plans:
i. Detailed geologic studies for the roadways, utilities, stormwater
system and general site specific development to the Public
Works Department for review and approval;
ii. Hydrologic study to address surface and groundwater flows from
the site to Anderson and No Name creeks and the proposed
stormwater system to be submitted to the Public Works
Department for review and approval;
iii. Water quality monitoring and contingency plan prepared by a
professional acceptable to the City to establish baseline
conditions prior to construction, measure conditions during and
after construction, identify contingency actions, and specify
thresholds for contingency actions. Said plan shall be submitted
to the Community Development Department for review and
approval:
iv. A cultural resource survey program shall be prepared and
conducted by a qualified professional acceptable to the
Community Development Department and the Suquamish Tribe
for review and approval;
v. Additional traffic study analyzing and refining previous on and
off-site traffic study submitted to the Public Works Department
for review and approval;
vi. Construction plans and supporting reports for roadway, utility
and stormwater improvements submitted to the City Public
Works Department for review and approval; and
Northwest Corporate Campus
Development Agreement, Dec. 29, 1999
[1041017 vl2l -10-
vii. Construction plans for off-site improvements shall be submitted
to Kit. sap County, or, where appropriate, by the State, for
review and approval.
3. Upon completion of the construction plans, NWCC shall file a phased
improvement plan indicating, where applicable, how roadway, utilities
and stormwater facilities will be incrementally developed. The phasing
plan shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and
approval.
4. Upon completion of the construction plans, NWCC shall file with the
Community Development Department a Binding Site Plan to replace
Attachment "A" of the agreement.
5. Upon completion of the construction and phasing plans, NWCC shall
either bond or construct the improvements in accordance with the
requirements of the Public Works Department.
6. Upon bonding or constructing the improvements, applicants for a
proposed use requiring a Special Use Permit shall file applications with
the Community Development Department.
7. Upon bonding or constructing the improvements and, if applicable,
approval of a Special Use Permit, applicants for individual development
may file applications for building permit and site plan review with the
Community Development Department. All building permit and site
plan review shall include all informational requirements as specified in
the BMC and the following additional documents and information:
i. Demonstration that the proposed specific development will be
served by all needed public services including sewer (unless a
temporary, on-site disposal system), stormwater, water, and
access; and
ii. Submittal of a record of survey depicting the parcel for the
proposed use, in electronic format and prepared on a mylar and
meeting the informational requirements of City Ordinance 3200.
The record of survey shall be accompanied by an additional map
depicting the location of the proposed parcel as it relates to the
Binding Site Plan identified in subsection 4 above.
Northwest Corporate Campus
Development Agreement, Dec. 29, 1999
[1041017 v12] -Il-
8. Upon approval of the site plan review, the applicant shall record the
record of survey, which shall be the legal document creating the
subject parcel.
9. Upon approval of the building permit application, the Community
Development Department shall issue a building permit.
10. Upon issuance of the building permit, the applicant shall install any
required improvements for the specified development application which
have not yet been installed.
11. Upon completion of improvements to the satisfaction of the Public
Works Department and compliance with all City required inspections,
the Community Development Department shall issue occupancy permit
for the structure.
12. Where there is a proposed change of use within an existing structure,
the applicant for the proposed use shall review the use with the
Community Development Department prior to occupancy of the new
use within the structure. The purpose of the review is to determine the
applicability and, if appropriate, compliance with the requirements of
the "Wellhead Protection Easement" as identified in Attachment "C',
and to determine if a Special Use Permit is required. Further, the
applicant shall obtain a Business License from the City's
Administrative Services Department prior to occupancy. Failure to
obtain a Business License by an applicant other than the parties of this
Agreement shall not invalidate the terms of this Agreement.
3.5 Grants, ULID's and RIDS, etc.
The City and NWCC will cooperate and utilize their best efforts to aid and
facilitate the arrangement of mutually beneficial financial mechanisms for the City,
NWCC and subsequent users of the Property. Such types of support might include, but
not be limited to, the pursuit of revenue bonds, improvement districts, grants and other
subsidies.
4. DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS
4.1 General Provisions
A. The provisions of the Bremerton Municipal Code and other applicable
ordinances and requirements adopted by the City of Bremerton shall apply
unless modified by this agreement.
Northwest Corporate Campus
Development Agreement, Dec, 29, 1999
[~o4~o~7 v~2] -12-
B. The provisions of this agreement do not reduce or affect the obligation of
parties subject to the terms of this agreement to comply with all applicable
state and/or federal laws and regulations.
C. This agreement is intended to provide an area for a mix of office, wholesale,
trade and distribution, bulk retailing, and light manufacturing in a low-density,
campus-like environment. Development shall be designed to minimize adverse
effects on adjacent areas and to present an attractive well-landscaped
appearance. Businesses should require little or no outdoor storage of
products, materials or equipment, and operations should, for the most part, be
contained within structures.
4.2 Permitted Uses
A. Eating establishments, convenience grocery stores, cafes and gas stations
operating primarily for the convenience of employees, clients and customers of
the park; providing the following criteria is met:
1. Maximum floor area is 3,000 square feet per use;
2. No more than two pump islands for each gas station;
3. Gas stations are not located in the "Enhanced Protection Area" as
defined in Attachment "C".
B. Museum
C. Public uses such as parks, fire and police stations
D. Public utilities and stormwater water facilities required to serve the industrial
park
E. Day Care serving 12 or less persons.
F. Retail sales of stationary, paper products, office supplies, cameras and
photographic stores with any attendant service, and optical goods with any
attendant services.
G Retail sales including electronic shopping and mall-order houses and vending
machine operators.
H. Financial and real estate services including banks, credit intermediation and
related activities, security, commodity and like activities, insurance carriers
Northwest Corporate Campus
Development Agreement, Dec. 29, 1999
1~o4~o~7 v~2] -13-
and related activities, funds, trusts and other financial services, and real estate
services.
I. Laundry and dry cleaning services unless located in the "Enhanced Protection
Area" as defined in Attachment "C".
J. Repair and maintenance services including electronic and precision equipment,
commercial and industrial machinery, appliance, reupholstery and furniture,
and other personal and household goods excluding motorcycle and boat repair
and maintenance.
K. Repair of small non-automotive engines, etc. unless located in the "Enhanced
Protection Area" as defined in Attachment "C".
L. Professional, scientific and technical services including legal services,
accounting, tax preparation, bookkeeping and payroll, architectural,
engineering and related services, specialized design services, computer
systems design and related services, management and scientific consulting
services, research and development in social sciences and humanities,
advertising and related services, marketing research and public opinion
polling, photographic services and studios, commercial photography,
translation and interpretation services and other professional, scientific and
technical services (excluding testing laboratories, veterinary services and
research and development in physical, engineering and life sciences- see M.
below).
M. Testing laboratories and research and development in physical, engineering
and life sciences unless located in the "Enhanced Protection Area" as defined
in Attachment "C".
N. Management of companies and enterprises.
O. Administrative and support services including office administrative services,
call centers, facilities support services (excluding laundry services),
employment services, business support services, travel arrangement and
reservation services, investigation and security services, security systems
services, janitorial, and other support services.
P. Offices for waste management and remediation services.
Q. Educational services including business and computer schools and
management training, technical and trade schools, educational support
services, and other private sector schools and instruction.
Northwest Corporate Campus
Development Agreement, Dec. 29, 1999
{1041017 v121 -14-
R. Automobile, motorcycle, truck, trailer, RV and bicycle rentals unless located
in the "Enhanced Protection Area" as defined in Attachment "C".
S. Boat and motorcycle dealers unless located in the "Enhanced Protection Area"
as defined in Attachment "C".
T. Automotive parts, accessories and tire stores excluding automotive repair.
U. Truck transportation including general freight trucking, specialized freight
trucking packing and crating service, freight transportation arrangement and
courier and messenger service.
V. General and refrigerated warehousing and storage.
W. Retail sales and service of heating, plumbing and air conditioning, interior
d6cor such as carpet and drapes, and other building material dealers including
electrical supplies and glass.
X. Converted paper products manufacturing unless located in the "Enhanced
Protection Area" as defined in Attachment "C".
Y. Manufacturing or assembly of engineered wood members and trusses,
millwork, wood container and pallets, other wood manufacturing. Uses are
permitted unless located in the "Enhanced Protection Area" as defined in
Attachment "C".
Z. Electrical equipment and products manufacturing or assembly including
electric lighting equipment, household appliances, electrical equipment,
communication and energy wire and cable, wiring devices, carbon and
graphite, and other miscellaneous electrical equipment as defined in NAICS
category 335999.
AA. Computer and electronics manufacturing or assembly including computer and
peripheral equipment, communications equipment, audio and video
equipment, navigation, measuring, medical and control instruments, and
magnetic and optical equipment and reproduction.
BB. Wholesaling of durable and nondurable goods excluding nursery and garden
supplies and farm product raw material.
CC. Printing and related support activities.
DD. Information activities including publishing, motion picture and video
production and distribution, postproduction and other movie and video
Northwest Corporate Campus
Development Agreement, Dec. 29, 1999
[1041017 v12[ -15-
industries (NAICS 512199), sound recording industries, and information and
data processing services.
EE. Apparel manufacturing or assembly and textile product mills.
FF. Recycling collection station unless located in the "Enhanced Protection Area"
as defined in Attachment "C".
GG. Telecommunication antenna located on an existing tower or building.
HI-I. General Offices.
II. Medical Offices.
4.3 Accessory Uses
A. Day Care to a principally permitted use.
B. Employee recreation facilities and play areas to a principally permitted use.
C. Temporary buildings for construction purposes for a period not to exceed the
duration of such construction
D. Testing and experimentation in connection with a principally permitted use
provided the activitw is not located in the "Enhanced Protection Area" as
defined in Attachment "C".
E. Retail sales of merchandise manufactured, assembled or stored on the site.
F. Other accessory uses and buildings customarily appurtenant to a principally
permitted use.
4.4 Special Uses: The following uses may be allowed provided that the provisions
of BMC 21.02.905 - Special Use Permit are met:
A. Those permitted and accessory uses located in the "Enhanced Protection
Area" as defined in Attachment "C". (For example, laundry and dry cleaning
services are allowed in the "Enchanced Protection Area" only with a Special
Use Permit.
B. Day care facilities involving 13 or more - all ages.
C. Dance hall or multi-purpose hall.
D. Clubhouse, fraternal lodge or similar use.
Northwest Corporate Campus
Development Agreement, Dec. 29, 1999
[1041017 v12] -16-
E. Information activities including radio and television broadcasting, and
telecommunications establishments.
F. Indoor athletic/recreation facility, tennis or swim club, weight control and
aerobics, and tanning salon
G. Art Gallery
H. Communication towers and antennas not on existing buildings or towers.
I. Furniture, home furnishing, electronics and appliance stores excluding camera
and photographic supplies.
J. Motorcycle, boat and bicycle service.
K. Automotive and marine painting and detail.
L. Commuter parking lot.
M. Wholesale nursery, and garden supplies.
N. Transportation equipment manufacturing or assembly including motor
vehicles, motor vehicle body and trailers, motor vehicle parts, aerospace
products and parts, ship building and repairing, and motorcycle, bicycle and
pans.
O. Pharmaceutical preparation and medicinal and botanical manufacturing.
P. Manufacture or assembly of semiconductor and other electronic
components.
Q. Machinery and metal products manufacturing including cutlery and handtools,
architectural and structural metals, boiler, tank and shipping container,
hardware, spring and wire, machine shops, turned products, screw, nut and
bolts, other fabricated metal products, agricultural, construction and mining
equipment, industrial machinery, commercial and service machinery, HVAC
and commercial refrigeration manufacturing, metalworking machinery,
engine, turbine and power equipment, and other general purpose machinery.
R. Utilities: plant, storage, etc.
S. Hotels.
Northwest Corporate Campus
Development Agreement, Dec. 29, 1999
[1041017 v121 -17-
4.5 Prohibited Uses: All other uses are prohibited including but not limited to
mineral extraction, and those uses identified in the Well Head Protection Easement not
otherwise identified as a permitted, accessory or specially permitted use above.
4.6 Interpretation
The provisions of the P-Industrial Park zoning classification shall be liberally
construed to implement the vision of a jobs-producing industrial park development on the
Property. Because the zoning code definitions are not very detailed, the following land use
definitions have been used to draft this Development Agreement, and will be used in the
future to help define allowed uses in the Project. The intention of this Development
Agreement is that the uses which are within industrial classifications under these definitions
will be permitted unless specifically excluded under the provisions set forth above.
"SIC" Group and Industry Numbers. These refer to specific group and
industry categories established in the Standard Industrial Classification Manual
(US Bureau of the Budget, Washington, US Government Printing Office,
1987).
"NAICS" Group and Industry Numbers. These refer to specific group and
industry categories established in the North American Industry Classification
System (Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget,
1997).
The Director of Community Development shall be responsible to interpret the use
provisions of this Development Agreement, and any decision regarding interpretation shall
be appealable under the provisions set forth in the Bremerton Zoning Code.
5. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
The following additional development standards shall apply to this Project. In the
event of any conflict between these provisions and otherwise applicable codes, these
provisions shall prevail.
5.1 Outdoor Storage:
No outdoor storage of equipment or materials is allowed unless approved by the
Community Development Director through the Site Plan Review process of BMC
21.02.930.
1. Unless modified through the issuance of a Special Exemption, no outdoor
storage shall exceed five (5) percent of the gross lot area where the storage
is to be located.
Northwest Corporate Campus
Development Agreement, Dec. 29, 1999
[1041017 v12] -18-
2. All outdoor storage areas shall be screened with a solid wall or sight
obscuring fence with a minimum five (5) foot wide landscape area.
5.2 Wellhead Protection Easement
Where applicable, all uses and activities shall conform with the requirements of
Attachment "C', "Wellhead Protection Easement."
5.3 Minimum lot size
Minimum lot size shall be adequate to comply with all setback
requirements.
5.4 Building Height
A maximum height of 60 feet will be allowed if an additional setback of 1 foot for
each additional foot over 40 feet is provided. The setbacks will be measured from parcel
lines.
5.5 Setbacks
5.4.1 Front yard setbacks shall be 20 feet from front parcel line for
parcels along Campus Parkway and Campus Lane. Setbacks for
other parcels will be 20 feet from the pipe stem parcel line or from
parcel line paralleling Campus Parkway or Campus Lane.
5.4.2 Rear yard setback shall be 10 feet where adjacent to residential.
5.4.3 Side yard setback: None
5.6 Parcel Coverage
Parcel coverage of a lot or parcel shall be no greater than 60 percent. The definition
of parcel coverage is that area covered by buildings not including parking, driveways,
utilities, or eaves.
5.7 Residential Buffer, Stream and Slope Setbacks
5.7.1 Exterior Boundary Buffer
When any exterior boundary abuts any residential zone, the exterior
boundary buffer shall be fifty feet (50') of natural buffer area. Where feasible, natural
vegetation shall be retained.
Northwest Corporate Campus
Development Agreement, Dec. 29, 1999
[1041017 v12] -19-
Utility crossings including storm pipes and emergency access roads shall be
allowed across the exterior boundary buffer. Supplemental landscaping in the buffer area
may be required at the parcel development phase.
5.7.2 Stream and Slope Setback Areas
Setbacks from Anderson Creek and No Name Creeks will be a minimum of
100 feet. It is recognized that this would not apply to storm drainage outfalls and road
and utility crossings provided the proper permits are obtained.
Setbacks from the top of slopes along Anderson and No Name Creek are
established at 75 feet in the geotechnical report. These may be modified through
preparation of a specific geotechnical report for each development application, but may
not be reduced to less than twenty-five (25) feet. These areas are to be retained or
replanted in native vegetation.
5.8 Landscaping
5.8.1 Street Frontage Landscaping
One (1) tree per twenty-five (25) lineal feet of street frontage along Campus
Parkway and Campus Lane shall be provided within a 20-foot landscaped area along both
sides of road frontages except for open space areas.
5.8.2 Parking Lot Landscaping
The screening and landscaping requirements for off-street parking facilities
contained in BMC 21.02.610 shall apply.
5.8.3 Free Standing Signs Landscaping
An area around the base of each free standing sign equal to the sign area
must be landscaped to improve the overall appearance of the sign and to reduce the risk of
automobiles hitting the sign or supports of the sign. This landscaping must include
vegetation and may include other materials and components such as brick or concrete
bases, planter boxes, pole covers, or decorative framing.
Prior to development commencing an overall signage plan for the campus
should be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director. One
provision of this program will be that free standing signs are limited to monument signs
not exceeding ten (10) feet in height. The plan should also address directory and off
premises directional signs.
Northwest Corporate Campus
Development Agreement, Dec, 29, 1999
[1041017 v12] -20-
5.8.4 Clear Vision Areas
Clear vision areas shall be in accordance with BMC Section 21.02740.
5.8.5 Landscape Plans
Plant materials, type and size, shall be in accordance with BMC Section
21.02.710 (a) and (b). Where feasible, native plant materials shall be used. Landscape
Plans will be prepared in accordance with BMC Section 21.02.730.
6. TERM; VESTING; TIiViE FOR CONSTRUCTION; AND REVIEW
6.1 Term
This Agreement shall be in effect for a period of thirty (30) years. Any extension
of the Agreement shall be processed as a major modification. Upon the expiration of this
Agreement, the Property shall be subject to the applicable provisions of the BMC,
provided that this provision shall not deprive any rights of NWCC or its successors, under
the BMC or other statute or case law with respect to vesting or nonconforming uses.
6.2 Vesting
6.2.1 Land Uses
NWCC is vested for the land uses, development requirements, (Section 4)
and development standards (Section 5) as established by this Agreement throughout the
term of this Agreement for all five (5) phases. As set forth above, additional
environmental review and supplemental development agreements are required for Phases
3, 4 and 5, but the allowed uses, development requirements (Section 4) and development
standards (Section 5) for all phases are established by this Agreement unless modified as a
result of further SEPA review for Phases 3, 4 and 5.
6.2.2 Construction Standards
Construction plans for specific infrastructure improvements shall be
reviewed under the construction standards in effect on the date the initial plans for the
improvements are submitted; provided those plans are complete under the City's
submission standards.
6.2.3 Mitigation Fees
The City shall not impose any mitigation fees on the Project for impacts
which have been mitigated by the terms of this Development Agreement, including the
MDNS. This provision does not bar the imposition of mitigation fees for impacts which
Northwest Corporate Campus
Development Agreement, Dec. 29, 1999
[1041017 v121 -21-
are not mitigated by this Agreement. NWCC shall coordinate with Kitsap County as to
any County-required impact fees outside of this Agreement.
6.2.4 Review Fees
NWCC shall pay fees ordinarily charged by the City for processing land
use applications and permits in effect on the date the application is submitted.
6.2.5 Other Fees
All utility connection fees and other fees not specifically addressed by this
provision shall be paid in accordance with the rules in effect on the date the fee-generating
activity occurs.
6.2.6 Other Codes
Notwithstanding the foregoing, all applications for Subsequent Approvals
shall conform to the most current versions of the Uniform Building Code (UBC), and
Uniform Fire Code (UFC) standards where applicable.
6.3 Time for Construction
NWCC shall submit construction plans for Phases 1 and 2 infrastructure within
three (3) years from the date of this Agreement. Further, 440,000 square feet of new
building area shall be constructed within fifteen (15) years from the date of this
Agreement.
6.4 Review
NWCC will submit a report to the City Council every three (3) years outlining its
progress, infrastructure improvements completed during the preceding three years and
general conditions at the Project.
6.5 City's Reserved Authority
In accordance with RCW 36.70B. 170(4), the City reserves the authority to impose
new or different regulations to the extent required to prevent a serious threat to public
health and safety.
7. MITIGATION MEASURES
The mitigation measures imposed under the authority of the State Environmental
Policy Act (RCW 43.21C), and attached to the Mitigated Determination of Non-
Significance attached as Attachment "D", are conditions on the development of the
Northwest Corporate Campus
Development Agreement, Dec. 29, 1999
[1041017 v12] -22-
Property. The provisions of the MDNS are incorporated in the Development Agreement
by this reference.
8. INDUSTRIAL LANDOWNERS ASSOCIATION
An Industrial Park Landowner's Association will be developed to maintain design
control of building signs, landscaping and structures and maintain open space areas,
including common landscape buffers, entrance area and signage, develop and implement a
commute trip reduction program, provide for the maintenance for private easement roads
and the stormwater detention and treatment facilities. This association will be funded by
the parcel owners to be able to provide their services. The overall project will establish
Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC and R's) for the site with the Industrial Park
Landowner's Association charged with the implementation and enforcement of the CC and
R's. The CC and R's must be reviewed and approved by the City of Bremerton Director
of Community Development prior to recording.
9. GENERAL PROVISIONS
9.1 Subsequent Approvals
The Subsequent Approvals are the applications for land use approvals, entitlements,
and permits in addition to the Development Agreement and necessary or desirable for the
development of the Project. The Subsequent Approvals may include, without limitation, the
following: amendments of the Development Agreement, improvement agreements and other
agreements relating to the Project, Special Use Permits, use permits, building permits, lot line
adjustments, sewer and water connection permits, certificates of occupancy, preliminary and
final plat approvals, interlocal agreements, developer extension agreements, landscaping plan
approvals, shoreline permits, hydraulic project approvals, water system reports for major
water infrastructure, building permits for water reservoirs and pump stations, clearing and
grading permits, site development permits, forest practices permits, wetland approvals,
storm drainage construction plans and design of individual facilities, other studies,
programs and plans required under Paragraph 3.4 of this Agreement, wastewater treatment
plant reports, plans and specifications, community drainfield system, collection and
interceptor sewer plans and specifications, sewer comprehensive plan amendment, sewerage
plan updates/amendments, facility plan amendments, design plans, right-of-way permits,
transportation planning documentation, and any amendments to, or repealing of, any of the
foregoing.
9.2 Governing Law
This Agreement shall be governed by and interpreted in accordance with the laws of
the State of Washington.
Northwest Corporate Campus
Development Agreement, Dec. 29, 1999
[1041017 v12] -23-
9.3 Modification
The approved NWCC Development Agreement, including the land use plan elements
of conditions of approval and the phasing plan, may be amended or modified at the request of
NWCC or NWCC's successor in interest. The Director of the Community Development
Department may administratively approve minor modifications to the Development
Agreement. Minor modifications are defined as those which do not materially increase
impacts on transportation, utility systems or the environment, taking into account agreed
upon mitigation, and those which do not materially reduce buffers or open space.
Modifications that do not qualify as minor shall be subject to the same approval process as
the original application.
9.4 Binding on Successors; Assignment
9.4.1 Binding Agreement
This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the
successors and assigns of NWCC and Bremerton.
9.4.2 Assignment
The parties acknowledge that development of the Project likely will involve
sale and assignment of portions of the Property to other persons who will own, develop
and/or occupy portions of the Property and building thereon. NWCC shall have the right to
assign or transfer all or any portion of the respective interests, rights or obligations under this
Agreement or in the Project to other parties acquiring an interest or estate in all or any
portion of the Property, including transfer of all interests through foreclosure (judicial or
nonjudicial) or by deed in lieu of foreclosure. Consent by the Bremerton shall not be required
for any transfer of rights pursuant to this Agreement. Upon the transfer under this section,
the transferee shall be entitled to all interests and rights and be subject to all obligations under
this Agreement as to the property transferred, and NWCC shall be released of liability as to
the property transferred.
9.5 Recording
Pursuant to RCW 36.70B.190, this Agreement shall be recorded with the Kitsap
County Auditor and during the term of this Agreement shall be binding on the parties, their
successors and assigns.
Northwest Corporate Campus
Development Agreement, Dec. 29, 1999
[1041017 v12] -24-
9.6 Interpretation; Severability
9.6.1 Interpretation
The parties intend this Agreement to be interpreted to the full extent
authorized by law as an exercise of Bremerton's authority to enter into such agreements, and
this Agreement shall be construed to reserve to Bremerton only that police power authority
which is prohibited by law from being subject to a mutual agreement with consideration.
9.6.2 Severability
If any provisions of this Agreement are determined to be unenforceable or
invalid by a court of law, then this Agreement shall thereafter be modified to implement the
intent of the parties to the maximum extent allowable under law. If a court finds
unenforceability or invalidity of any portion of this Agreement, the parties agree to seek
diligently to modify the Agreement consistent with the court decision, and no party shall
undertake any actions inconsistent with the intent of this Agreement until the modification to
this Agreement has been completed. If the parties do not mutually agree to modifications
within forty-five (45) days ai'ter the court ruling, then either party may initiate the dispute
resolution proceedings in Section 9.12 for determination of the modifications which
implement the intent of this Agreement and the court decision.
9.7 Authority
Bremerton and NWCC each represent and warrant it has the respective power and
authority, and is duly authorized to execute, deliver and perform its obligations under this
Agreement.
9.8 Attachments
Attachments "A" through "D" are incorporated in the Agreement by this reference as
if fully set forth.
9.9 Headings
The headings in this Agreement are inserted for reference only and shall not be
construed to expand, limit or otherwise modify the terms and conditions of this Agreement.
9.10 Time is of the Essence
Time is of the essence of this Agreement and every provision hereof. Unless
otherwise set forth in this Agreement, the reference to "days" shall mean calendar days. If
any time for action occurs on a weekend or legal holiday, then the time period shall be
extended automatically to the next business day.
Northwest Corporate Campus
Development Agreement, Dec. 29, 1999
[1041017 v121 -25-
9.11 Integration
This Agreement represents the entire agreement of the parties. There are no other
agreements, oral or written, except as expressly set forth in this Agreement.
9.12 Disputes; Default and Remedies
9.12.1 Dispute Resolution
In the event of any dispute relating to this Agreement, all parties upon the
request of any other party shall meet within seven (7) days of the request to seek in good
faith to resolve the dispute. Bremerton shall send the appropriate department director and
persons with information relating to the dispute, and NWCC shall send an owner's
representative and any consultant or other person with technical information or expertise
related to the dispute.
9.12.2 Default and Remedies
No party shall be in default under this Agreement unless it has failed to
perform under this Agreement for a period of thirty (30) days after written notice of default
from any other party. Each notice of default shall specify the nature of the alleged default
and the manner in which the default may be cured satisfactorily. If the nature of the alleged
default is such that it cannot be reasonably cured within the thirty (30) day period, then
commencement of the cure within such time period and the diligent prosecution to
completion of the cure shall be deemed a cure. Any party not in default under this
Agreement shall have all rights and remedies provided by law including without limitation
damages, specific performance or writs to compel performance or require action consistent
with this Agreement.
9.12.3 Relief Against Defaulting Party or Portion of Property
In recognition of the anticipated sale(s) by NWCC of portions of the Property
to others to own, develop and/or occupy within the Project Site, the remedies under this
Agreement shall be tailored to the Property or parties as provided in the remaining provisions
of this subsection. After the transfer of portions of the Property for which the release of
liability provisions apply under Section 9.4.2, any claimed default shall relate as specifically as
possible to the portion of the Property involved and any remedy against any party shall be
limited to the extent possible to the owners of such portion of the Property. To the extent
possible, Bremerton shall seek only those remedies which do not adversely affect the rights,
duties or obligations of any other nondefaulting owner of portions of the Property under this
Agreement, and shall seek to utilize the severability provisions set forth in this Agreement.
Northwest Corporate Campus
Development Agreement, Dec. 29, 1999
[1041017 v12] -26-
I%i
9.13 Estoppel Certificate
Within thirty (30) days following any written request which any party or a Mortgagee
may make from time to time, the other party to this Agreement shall execute and deliver to
the requesting person a statement certifying that: (1) this Agreement is unmodified and in full
force and effect, or stating the date and nature of any modification; (2) to the best knowledge
of the certifying party, (a) no notice of default has been sent under Section9.11.2 of this
Agreement or specifying the date(s) and nature of the notice of such default and (b) no
written notice of infraction has been issued in connection with the Project; and (3) any other
reasonably requested information. Failure to deliver such statement to the requesting party
within the thirty (30) day period shall constitute a conclusive presumption against the party
failing to deliver such statement that this Agreement is in full force and effect without
modification or default (except as may be represented by the requesting party). The delivery
of estoppel certificate on behalf of Bremerton pursuant to this section shall be deemed an
administrative matter and shall not require legislative action.
9.14 No Third Party Beneficiary
This Agreement is made and entered into for the sole protection and benefit of the
parties, their successors and assigns. No other person shall have any right of action based
upon any provision of this Agreement.
9.15 Interpretation
This Agreement has been reviewed and revised by legal counsel for all parties and no
presumption or rule that ambiguity shall be construed against the party drafting the document
shall apply to the interpretation or enforcement of this Agreement.
9.16 Notice
All communications, notices and demands of any kind which a party under this
Agreement requires or desires to give to any other party shall be in writing and either (i)
delivered personally, (ii) sent by facsimile transmission with an additional copy mailed first
class, or (iii) deposited in the U.S. mail, certified mail postage prepaid, return receipt
requested, and addressed as follows:
Northwest Corporate Campus, LLC
If to NWCC: ATTN: Ronald S. Sciepko
3023 West State Highway 16
Bremerton, WA 98312
Northwest Corporate Caml~us
Development Agreement, Dec. 29, 1999
[1041017 v121 -27-
Gordon, Thomas, Honeywell, Malanca,
With copy to: Peterson & Daheim, P.L.L.C.
ATTN: William T. Lynn
P.O. Box 1157
Tacoma, WA 98401-1157
CITY OF BREMERTON
If to Bremerton:
Director of Community Development
286 - 4th Street
Bremerton, WA 98337
CITY OF BREMERTON
With a copy to: City Clerk
239 - 4a~ Street
Bremerton, WA 98337
Notice by hand delivery or facsimile shall be effective upon receipt. If deposited in the mail,
notice shall be deemed delivered 48 hours after deposited. Any party at any time by notice to
the other party may designate a different address or person to which such notice or
communication shall be given.
9.17 Cooperation
The parties shall not unreasonably withhold requests for information, approvals or
consents provided for in this Agreement. The parties agree to take further actions and
execute further documents, either jointly or within their respective powers and authority, to
implement the intent of this Agreement. Bremerton agrees to work cooperatively with
NWCC to achieve the mutually agreeable goals as set forth in this Agreement, subject to
Bremerton's independent exercise of judgment. Where appropriate and consistent with
applicable law, Bremerton shall become or provide lead agency assistance under SEPA where
reasonably necessary to implement this Agreement. Bremerton shall consider use of its
eminent domain powers to facilitate implementation of this Agreement, subject to
Bremerton's independent exercise of judgment following all applicable procedures necessary
to use eminent domain power.
Northwest Corporate Campus
Development Agreement, Dec. 29, 1999
[1041017 v12] -28-
9.18 Delays
If either party is delayed in the performance of its obligations under this Agreement
due to force majeure, then performance of those obligations shall be excused for the period
of delay.
IN WITNESS WH]EREOF, this Agreement has been entered into between the City
and NWCC as of the __ day of ,2000.
NORTHWEST CORPORATE
CAMPUS, LLC, a Washington limited liability
corporation
By:
Ronald S. Sciepko, Managing Member
CITY OF BREMERTON, a Political
Subdivision of the State of Washington
Lynn S. Horton, Mayor
DEPARTMENTAL APPROVAL:
Community Development
Jon Holan, Director
Public Works and Utilities
W. Eugene Sampley, P.E., Director
Northwest Corporate Campus
Development Agreement, Dec. 29, 1999
[1041017 v12] -29-
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Glenna Malanca, City Attorney
ATTEST:
Kathleen McCluskey, City Clerk
Northwest Corporate Campus
Development Agreement, Dec. 29, 1999
[1041017 v121 -:30-
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
) SS.
County of )
I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that LYNN S. HORTON is the
person who appeared before me, and said person acknowledged that she signed this
instrument, on oath stated that he was authorized to execute the instrument and
acknowledged it as the Mayor of the CITY OF BREMERTON to be the free and voluntary
act of such party for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument.
Given under my hand and official seal this __ day of ,2000.
Type/Print Name:
Notary Public in and for the State of Washington
residing at
My Commission expires
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
COUNTY OF PIERCE )
On this day of , 2000, before me personally appeared
RONALD S. SCIEPKO, to me known to be the Managing Member of NORTHWEST
CORPORATE CAMPUS, a limited liability corporation that executed the within and
foregoing instrument and acknowledged the said instrument to be the free and voluntary act
and deed of said corporation for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated
that he was authorized to execute and in fact executed said instrument on behalf of the
corporation.
Given under my hand and official seal this __ day of ., 2000.
Type/Print Name:
Notary Public in and for the State of Washington
residing at
My Commission expires
Northwest Corporate Campus
Development Agreement, Dec. 29, 1999
[1041017v12] -31-
NORTFi%VEST CORPORATE CAMPUS
COM1V[ERCIAL PROPERTY
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
A PARCEL OF LAND LYING Pq THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 4,
TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST, AND TIlE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF
SECTION 33, TOWNSFn'P 24 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST, WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, CITY
OF BRElvfERTON, ICITSAP COUNTY, WASFmqGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 4; THENCE SOUTH
02043, 16' WEST, AJ;. ONG THeE WEST LINE THEREOF A DISTANCE OF 2760.06 FEET
TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE NORTI-tWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 4;
TH]ENCE SOUTH 8~°49'32'' EAST ALONG THeE SOUTH LINE OF SA_rD NORTH'WEST
QUARTER A DISTANCE OF 746.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 23°40'09" EAST 130.04
FEET; TFIENCE NORTH 06°40'28'' EAST 204.96 FEET; THENCE NORTH 53°10'28'' EAST
350.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 33°10'28" EAST 404.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 15°40'28''
EAST 533.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 31°55'28'' EAST 375.00 FEET; TFII~CE NORTH
38o10'28" EAST 416.00 FEET; TI-tENCE NORTH 07°10'28'' EAST 199.99 FEET; THENCE
NORTH 89004'20'' WEST 170.00 FEET; T'Kt~CE NOR.TH 05°19'32'' WEST 235.00 FEET;
~CE NORTH 28°55'28'' EAST 275.00 FEET; ~CE NORTH 20°25'28'' EAST 231.00
FEET; THENCE NORTH 11"25'28" EAST 136.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 68°04'32' WEST
234.00 FEET TO TI-/E EASTIERLY MARGIN OF CAMPUS PARKWAY BEING A POIlqT
ON A NON-TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY AND TO WI-IICH POINT
A RADIAL BEARS SOUTH 59004'32" EAST, SAID CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF
540.00 FEET; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE AND
ALONG SAID EASTERLY MARGIN THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 07015'00" A
DISTANCE OF 68.33 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 66°19'32" EAST 160.00 FEET; THENCE
NORTH 24°21'4T' EAST 1264.94 FEET; TH~CE NORTH gg°05'54" WEST 993.30 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 01039'50" WEST 159927 FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF TI-IE SAID
NORTHW'EST QUARTER OF SECTION 4; THENCE NORTH 87°56'29', WEST ALONG
SAID NORTH LINE A DISTANCE OF 1309.46 FEEl'TO TIKE POINT OF BEGINNING.
MTW/kd ~
5/'2657~-W43 .~
ATTACHMENT "B"
-33a
FOR AND IN CONSIDERATION of the mutual promises and benefits comtained herein and for
other valuable comsideration, the r~c~ipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the Grantor and Gi-,u~lee
hereby agr~ and covenant as follow~:
1. OP,.42qT OF EAS~:
C, rr-a~tor docs hereby convey ~ quit claim to Gramcc an cascm~mt for the purpose of
r~stfict/ng ccrt~n uscs and activities ut:xm the property der~:n'bed in Exlm'bit "A'
hcrcto and incorporated by reference herein (hereafter "Wcllhc~l Protection Arca") for thc
purpose of protecling and prov/ding access to wells located to thc north and east of thc
Wellhead Protection Are~.
A. Restrictions on thc Wellhead Protection Areas arc as follows:
I. All land use actions wLU be considered to be sited in a critical area and reviewed
under thc procedurm of BMC 21.22.060, and considcrexi an environmentally
EASEMENT- 1 -
SC~EPKO, 11-g9. ab
ATTACHMENT "C"
-34-
sensitive area for purposes of environmental review under WAC 197-I 1-908 and
BMC 21.22.280.
2. Nitrogen fertilize~ znd pesticides shall be used at or below agronomic rates to
prevent leadaing to ground water ~d surface water.
3. Best Management Practices (BMPs) for stormwater surface water protection will be
followe~L
4. All businesses will submit a program for employee Ixaix~g on wellhead protex:tion,
prope~ use of BM?'~ mad water conservation for approval by the City Public Works
and Utilitie~ Dep~maem, ~ imp. temeat the program. Tlae Cr~atee will ~ in
employee traixfix~ m ehe extent of available
5. $ig~ will be p!?ed__ to alert wo~er~ and tram~rte~ ttxat the area is in a wellheacI
protection zone.
6. Aeti',,ities de~,~l as large quantity genexators aeeord~g to WAC 173-303 are
7. Radioactive sut~stane~ axe proix~ited.
8. -Use, pr~uctioa, .or sxorage o£1aazardous maxerials listed as ~ in W~AC 173-303
are pro~'bited. A~y o~e~ ha~-flous materials located within the wel~aea~
protection zone mus~ ~av¢ proper stooge, co~t~inme~at, ax~ spill re~o~e.
aflditio~, any use i~:rvolvi~g the ~troduc~on of any iaazard~us maxerial wiII be
submined to ~e Departme=t of Public Wor~ ~d Uti/itie~ for r~.~omm~da~io1~ on
appropriate con~tio~s to be applied to the use unclex BMC 21.22.(160. A
con~t i~vex~ry form will be submitted for ea~ cornmeal
9. Use of land for vea~e disposal or land ~plicafion is t~'bite~ ineluflS~g clisposal
sewage and refuse as defined i~ BMC 6.04.030.
10. Use of under~rou~ ~torage tanks for a~y substance otlaer ~ potabie water or
~tormwater ~ rezeive prior approval fi'om the City Publ~¢ Wor~ a~ad Llti~ities
Department. T~-a~o. tory storage of wastewaxer as part of a closed conveya~ace
system approved by the Department wi~ be allowed.
! 1. Landfill~, jtmk~ mining, electroplater ~d metal finishers are proba'bitexL
Page:
EASEMENT - 2 - l 1/8~1~S8~:43R
SC~F_J~O. ~s-~. ao FIRST Ptl~lO~l TITLE IES ES1T ~6.118 Kitsal~ C~,
12. Any federal, state, or local regulations as they may be enacted regarding wellhead
protection must be followed.
B. For that portion of the Wellhead Protection Area described in Exhibit "B" attached
hereto and incorporated by refe~-ence herein ("Enhanced Protection Area") the following
restrictions shall apply in addition to those listed trader subpar-agx-aph A above:
I. Placement of underground s~orage tarflcs for substances other tha~ potable water or
stormwater is proh~bited. Temporary rmrage of wastewater as part of a closed
conveyance sys~m approved by the D~ent will be allowed.
2. Activities desi~-t~4 as large or small qu~nti~ generators of h,--,~lons wastes
according to WAC 173-303 are proh~'bited..
3. The activities ~ in Exl~'bit "C" (Table $ from the Kitsap County Critical Areas
OrHi~,nce) are proha'bited unless otherwise approved by the Grantee.
2. HOLD MARMLF~S:
Grantor hereby agrees to hold harmless and defend the Grantee from all cl,im_u and liability
· due to the negligent acts, error or omissions of Grantor, his agents an~or ~ubloyees. The
grantee shall not be liable, to Grantor, or any other parry for any claim w~er arising in
corrnection with this Agreement, except for negligence solely and entirely the fault of the
Grantee.
$. EA~ TO RUN WITH ~ LAND:
The Grantor and Crrantee intend that this AeC'cement shall be a covenant vmn;ng with the
l~x~d d~sc~'bed above ~nd ~hal! b~ b~dlng ~l~X~n ~-~X~tofS and Grantee's succ~sso~ in
4. GOVERNING LAW:
The place of malting this A~greement shall be deenaed to be the State of Washington, and the
legal rights and obligations of the parties hereto shall be determined in accordance with the
laws o£the State of Washin~on.
P~;e:
EASEMENT - 3 - ! 1/~/!9~9~: 4~
SCIF_F'KO. ll-!~, ab FIRST PFERIO~t Tlll. E I~S £I~ $15.08 Kits~ C~, ~t
JURISD[CI'ION AND VENUE:
In the event that any suit or action sl~ll be brought h}. connection with any of the terms and
conditioms o£ this Agreement, the parties hereto hereby agree tha jurisdiction and venue of
any such suit or action shall properly lie Ln Kitsap County, State of Washington.
6. ~[~[IJ~:
In the event U~ any section, or any pan of any section, or this Agr,~memi shall be declainsd
invalid by a court of competemt jurisdiction, said holding shall have no effect upon the
rer-~i-i~g secfiom offals Ag~emen~, wtgch ~.I1 ~ in ~ force ~d effect.
7. l~:]~]~Lti~:
This Agrt-ement constim*~ the emtir~ ~emt and unde~,ndi~__, beldam the parties
hm-~to. There ar~ no ot~er a~r~m~= or undea'stan~ either writt~m or oral, which
modify or have any eff~:I upon this A~r~ment
]Iq W1TNF. SS ~0]~, this Agreement has been duly .executed by the pm'ties her~.o, to be
effec~ve on the day and year ~ above wzittczl
Crr~tor,
Northwe~ Corpoz-~.: ~t~s, L.I-C. ,
Ronzffd S. Stifle. o, Managozg
Pm~:
FIRST I:~llC~ Till[ I1~
EASEMENT - 4 -
$CIEPKO, 11-99, ab
STATE OF WAS~GTON )
COLrNTY OF KITSAP )
On this day personally appeared before m¢'~ma/c£ ~- ~C~e'~lc~'' t° me kn°wn t° be the
individual described in and who e~e~mtecl the ~ithi~ foregoing inslxume~ and ~ckaowledged that
he signed the same as ~'o fr~ ~d voiumary act ~rtd deed, for the use~ ~d purposes therein
mentioned-
Noury Public i~ md for the Stye of Washington
CITY OF BREIVI~RTOIq, Grantee
LYlq~ S. I-IORTON,
M~yor
Dixe~or ofPabiic Wox~ aad U61ities
Page: 5of$
11/~/1~:43~
I:~EC'EIVED FOR FILING: FIR,~ ~I~ TI~ I~ E~ ~6.~ Kit~ ~, ~
~~ L. Mc~US~
Ci~ Cle~
~EME~ - 5 -
~O, 11-~. ab
Exhibit "A"
WELLttZAD PROTECTION AREA
An easement on the following described parcel:
That portion of Section 3.~, Township 24 N., l~. IE., W.M. in Kiuap County, WA desm-ibcd az follows:
Beginning at the NE comer of the south 260 feet of the N'E ¼ of the SW ~/~ of said seca:ion 3
west along the north line of said south 260 feet to the west line of said NE L/,: thence south along the
west line thereof and continuing south along the west line of the SE L/, of the SW ~A to the south line
ther~o~ thence east along said south linc a distance of 500 feet thence aorth~mcriy along a straight
llne to the point of he,n-;ag.
Also au easement ou thc followi~ described p~rcel:
That portion of Section 4. Towx~b. ip 2.3N. IL IE., W.M.i. Kitsap Cotmty, WA descn'b~l as followz:
Be~nnlng at a point on the north lin~ of the N'W ¼ of said Section 4, said point being ~00 feet eaxt of
the NW comer oft he NE 'A of the NW % of said Se~ion; thence wezt to th~ NW cora~ of said
Se~-tion ,¢; thence south along the w~st line of said Section 4 to the SW comer of thc NW ~A of said
Section 4; thence east along the south line of said NW ~A a distan~ of I!00 f¢~; thence northeasterly
along a straight linc to the point ofbes'4~'nnl-~
Said easement described as follows:
That portion lying caza:riy of the f~llowing dec~rib~d line:
Sa3d Knc beginning at a point on the north line of said Se~ion 4, said point lying g00 fc~t cast of thc
NW ~rner of said Section 4; thm~ rtmaing sou~wcsteriy in a stz~ighl line to a point on the west
linc of said Section 4, said point being 600 feet north of the SW comer of thc NW ¼ of said Section 4
and 0ac end of tJ~ lln¢ description.
Also an e~emeat on the following described parcel:
~ portion of Section 4, Township 23N, IL1F.~ W2vL in KS-trap County, WA desczib~l es follows:
'~.e $W ¼ of the NE ~A of said Se~-tion 4.
The south 330 feet of the NW tA of the I'FE ~/, of said Section 4.
The east 200 feet of thc SE i/, of the N'W ¼ of said Section 4.
Said easement described az follows:
That portion of thc above desired par~l lying we. st of thc following described line:
SMd line be~nning at a point on the north line of the south 330 fe~t of the NW 14/of the NE ¼ of said
Section 4, said point lying 700 f~t west of the NE comer of said south 3:30 f~eg thrace running
southwesterly in a straight line to a point on the south line of the SW g of the NE ¼ of said. Se~-'fion 4,
said point lying 1200 feet wext o£the SE comer of said SW ¼ and the end of this line description.
FIRS~ I:~:RIC~ 'fIRE ll~ . £~tf~ Sl~.M kits~ C~,
Exhibit "B'
ENHANCaD PROTECTION AREA
That po~on of Section 33, Township 24 N, R. 1E., W.M./n Kitsap Cotmry, WA deco. ri'bed a.s follows:
Begian/ng at the lq~ c~mer of the south 260 feet of the NE i/, of the SW ¼ of said se~ion .33: thence
wc~ ~long the ,~orth line of sa/d south 260 feet ~o the west line of said ~ ~/,; thence south along the
west line thereof and continuing sot~ along the west line of the SF- ¼ of the SW ¼ to the ~outh line
the".,~of; thence east along said south line a distance of 500 feet; thence northeast~'ly along a straight
]hie to the pohxt
FIPS? P/~I(~ ?h'l./ II/~' iilq t'16.89 ~(itsa;) Co, ~
Exhibi.t "A" & "B' Map
WISLLi{F~) PgOTECTION AKF. A
ENHANCED P~,OTECTION AKEA
5INCLAIR
INLET
GORST
Table 5: Opemfious ~it~ Po~eu~iu] ~..~ to Groundw~te~
· --~.._.~~ CITY OF BREMERTON · 2.39 4th Street · Bremerton, WA 9533"/
Department of Comr~unity Developm~t
November 23, 1999
To ~ ,~ncies:
Attached you w~l fred the Fm.~I lXiDNS f~r the Northwest Cot'por~te C;,mpus pmiect issued
pursuant to WAC 197-11-3B0. This lV/DNS ~nd mitigating measures ate a result oftev/ew
of ~he zpplication ~nd support/ng documentation by v~ous C_.2t7, CotmtT, State agendes md
~nte~sted lr~rt/es. In ~ddidon,/nput ~ras ta~.en ata reguhd? scheduled meet/rig o£ ~he Ck7
Planning Comm'/on on Novembe~ 16, I999. The ptov/sions ofth~ docun-~nt w/Il be
incorporated/n the Development Agreement ~or the pto~"t ~long w/th ~cididonal
requ/rements and proiect controh to gu/de the developmen~
Issuance o£ th~ t'viDNS/s zpp~hl~le pu~-suant to BlOC 21.02-845 with/n 14 cL~7~ o£ the date
of ~ let:er. For further in£otmation concerning ~ppe~h, ple~e con~-t the Dep~rnent o£
CornmunitT Development, located at 286 4~ Sweet, ]~-ernerton.
For Further proiec: in£orrr~don c:fll (360) 478-52'/5.
ATTACHMENT "D"
-43-
CITY OF BREMERTON
MItiGATED DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE .-
DE'VELOPMI~ AG~I~q'I': NOR~ COI~OR.A'I'~ CAMPUS llqD~ PARK
PR~ ~0~: N~~ ~~ ~ ~
B~ WA ~312
~ PRO~: ~ ~ ~ fil~ ~ ~ ~ ~B~n~ a ~ ~~
~e DA ~ fi~ p~ d ~l~t ~ng ~m the ~ ~ line ~ to ~ ~-16
~j~ is ~ ~r~. ~ ~ in~l~ the ~ d a ~n~n~ ~e p~ ~ ~ll ~l~ fl~li~ ~ ~
Phases I and 2 currently F,, o~.-::-sed__ for construction will access to the south by cormmcfio~ ~' a new public
rondwa~,(Campus Parkway), thaz will c~nnect to ~he existing Old Clifton Road situated in umnc~'pur~ed Kitsap
Count. Roadways within the project sile are intended to be public and dedicated to the City of Bremerton. Project
utilities will be included in the public roadways. The site will be served by public water and sewer servic~
The project site has an irregular topol~aphy and slopes to the north. Two major ch-ainage swells bisect the
property with the upland areas propor,.~l for development and the valley bottoms retained for resource pro~ection.
The easterly drainage basin contains Amlerson Creek and the westerly basin contalm a drainage c~lled
~no-name" creek in ~aplicatioa material~
The proposed binding site plan illumme~ five total phases of development with the tim ~ extending along the
future Campus Park-way. These imtial phases propose 29 parcels for future industrial development and t~ tra~
A and B to be used for storm water s~omge and Ix~ffering mspecth~ly.
The Responsible Official d the City of Bremerton hereby makes the following find/n~ and condm/ons based
upon a review of the follow/rig ~plicafion mater/als and meetings with the
Northwest Corpam~e Camfx~
Application Letter
Vicinity Map
Legal Descritxion and Map
Site Plan
Grading, Drainage and Utility Plan
Environmental Checldis~
Drn~ Development Agreement
Wetland Analysis and Delineation Report
Well Head Prolection ~.asemen!
Tra~c Study
Roao'way Cr~s-Seaion
Preliminary Stormwater Site Plan
Site Suitability Keport for Soils and Slopes
Letter of Owner's Consent
Wildlif~ Study
Prelimin~y Road Plan and Profile
Preliminary Sanitasy
Preliminary Water Sy~em Plan
Wetland As~sme~
Preliminary Storm Draimage
FINDINGS OF FAC'r:
A. The site is currently undevdo~ and forest practice ac-fivities are occurdng on portions of the first two pb~,,u~__.
B. The surro~mdin~ are~ is developed with sc~tered res/demial use~ and vacam parcels ~ lancL A La~,e planned
community and ~lf cours~ lie south d the s/m, ie McC_,onmck Weed~
C. Access for the initial phases cfdevelcspment will occur by ~on da new public county roadway
extendinl~ north from the Old Cleon l~r,~l to the southern boundary of Phas~ 1. This exlension coupled with the
internal Campus Pmtcway will lead to a public road of over 6,000' in length with phases 1 and 2 of project
development.
D. The City of Bremenon maintains wells adjacem to the site for City water purposes. The applicant and City
have tentatively prepared a Well Head Protection Easement to regulate activities within the project and protect
the City water supply.
F_ The City kaz designated the site as an Industrial Park in the Comprehensive Planning cfi the Watershed and
Utilities Land Use Plan. The site has been zxmed within the Industrial Pa~ zone classification.
F. The applicant has proposed a DA to regulate development. It ~ a thirty y~ar project life with
u-i-annual reviews to en~ure the project prcx:eeds as planned. This agreement has yet to be finalimd and ~
G. The binding site plan proposes two phases d develc~oment at this time with future phases to be r~ie~! on a
case by case basis at the time of f'tlin$, Phase ! and 2 w~mld c~'z~te up to 29 businesa sites and cxxzld be asr. embled
for largex users.
I-L A wetland repon was larepared for the initial phasea of the project. It was prepared byJonlC,. Ducker,
Professional Wetland Scientist. and located an 8,392 square font x~etland witlxinTract A found inlYaa~ 2. This
requires a 50 foot buffer aa stated in the Bremenon Critical Lan~ Ordinance. This buffer is rz~a~cted in the
preliminary ~torm drainage plan filed by the applicant
L A Wildlife Report w'az prepared by .ion K. Ducker, Certified Wildlife Biologist. which deaeril0n~! the site
conditions and wildlife. No endangered, threatened, or aenaiti~e wildlife of habitat for these species ~ noted
on-site. However the pileated wo~, a State Candidate species, ~ noted on-site and an active Bald ~:a~e
nest is located off-site to the north.
J. Two geolechnical reporus w~re prepared on the site by Allen L. Hart, Engineering Geologist and were general
in nature. The conclusions of the reports establish general s~t__h~c__ks of 50 to 75 feet and require thai more detailed
geolo$icai repor~ be required at the time ot' individual parcel development.
~ Two specific smrm clramage relxx~ were prepared by Apex E~gineehn~for theon ancic:ff-site madv, zysand
storm drainaAe improvemen~ Ti~ preliminary stormv~er site pL~L~ utiliz~cl the Deparone~ ct' Ecoic~y
Storm~ Wm~,ement Manual ~ for tl~ l:'~,et So,~ Rasm.
2. The applicution and sup~rting documentation ~lzquately describe the ~ project and prOoable adverm
impacts ~ m,W occur with future development and ute.
3. Due to the lehigh of time for the Development Agreement t~is MDNS is intended to ~ the cumulath~ and
project specific impac~ for the overall p~ect that can be identified at this tin~ and project spocific impacts for
phas~ 1 and Z
4. Adequate prm4sions a:z contained within the Bmmenon Mumcipal Co~ and K/tr~ County Ordinanc~ to
mitigate future probable impact~ from devetopmem d'Pha.~s 1 and ~ Further environmental r~view will be
conductt~:i for phar, e$ 3 to 5.
5. Additional individual requirements can be placed on the application tlmaugh the use of the Development
Agreement, B.MC 21.02.850.
6. The applicant is willing to enter into a 30 y~t Development ^~-ment with the City to establish the overall
development proff~m for the projecL In pm'L, the a~eement is intended to establish requirements and further
reviews to mitigate potential advise impac~
7. The Deveiopmem Al~reement will allow for use of the binding site plan l:mX:ess as ~prop,~____ by the applicant
and envisioned by the City.
The Responsible Official concludes that all potenfally si~ificant environmental impac~ will be mitigated tlu~u~h
~he condi~ons of the. lvl:DNS, Final Development Agreemen! and adl~r~r, ce to City policies. Pursuant to WAC
197-11-350 (3), a Miti~ted Determinntion of Non-Si~niiic~nce CMDNS) may be issued. This conclusim~ is based
on staff review of the environmental cbeckLi~ and at~iicalion materials. The MDNS is supported by plans,
]vIITIGATION MEA~:
1. The applicant sh~ll comply with the terms and conditions ~ the Bremenon Municipal Code during
development of Phases 1 a~d 2. Deviations f,~,,,, the adopted standards must be approved by the City Council.
2. The applicant shall enter into the Development A~reement with the City of Bremerton prior to commencing
ph.~-d development or o~'erinl~ the ~ for ~le or lease.
3. The conceptual dminnge plans filed with the City of Bremenon a~d Kitsap ~n~ ~lic Wo~ ~ent
for ~e ~ ~ ~ ~lic ~ n~ m ~ ~ lo ~r ~1 r~ ~iic or ~), ~d ~
~t~ ~d ~tion pr~ for ~n ~k ~d No N~e C~ ~s ~r~nt is to ~ to
~h on site ~d ~ ~te ~. The a~i~t s~l ~ a ~ s~ ~ ~ ~ f~ ~ ~
~ d ~ ~n~es a~e~ing ~hni~ ~d h~ol~ im~ on ~n ~ ~ m ~i~
d m~ion p~ f~ the ~ ~
4. Development of Camp~ Paxkv~ within Phases 1 and2 will require spec~c ~ plans appruvedby the
City of Bremenon Public Wo~o Depamnent and K,i~r. ap County Public Works i~panmem. This study estalM~hes
a 75' setback from the top cf the bank fimn Andetxon Creek and No-Name Creek draina~ l~t~ins. Thissett:mck
may be reduced with provision of a proper geotechnic~l ciesign. Prior to approval, the roaciway a~l storm
plans shall be reviewed by a geotechnical and hydrological engineer to ensure they comply with the study
requirements contained in the Allen I_ Hart. geotechnical report ~ed November g, 199S and cotuain~ in
Bremerton files. The purpose of the additiouai ~.view is to ensure slope sta~it~ within the affected c~i~g,, basin
is retained and stream flows are not aff,~_ __~,~_ as requL,~d by the DOE Manual.
~. Prior to development plan ap~-~al for Parcels 7., 3, 7, 8, 11, and 12 ~'Phase I adjoining t~e Anclemm ~
ensuring the plans comply with the detailed study r~luiremenu contained in the Allen L. Hah geotechnical relx~
dated November 8, 1995. This report establishes a 75' se!__~k__ for IxdldinF, s and parking areas. This setback may
be reduced with provision of a proper geotecknical design, bui may not be reduced to less than 25 feet. The
purpose ~f the ackli~ionai review is to ensm~ ~he design criteria are me~
6. Prior to development plan approval for Parcels 15, 16, 19, 20, 22, 23, and 24 at'Phase 2 adjacent to the
Andenon Creek drainage and Parcels 2~, 27, and 2~ of Phase 2 adjacent to the No-name Cr,.,ek draina~ a
geotechnical report will be prepared and filed with the CiD' Community Development Depamnent ensuring the
plans comply with the study requirements contained in the Allen K. I-lan ~-otechnical report dated November 8,
1995. Tl~s report establishes a 75' s~tback for buildings and parking areas. This sefoack m~y be reduced with
proviiion of a proper design, but may not be reduced lo les~ than 25 feet. The I~rlxae of the additional review is to
ensure ~e design criteria are met
7. Due to the length of Campus Parkway and the lack ~f a secondary access for Phases I and 2 all buildings will
require sprinkler systems and Campus Partcw'ay must end in a cul-de,-sac with each phase ut'construction.
The applicant shall construct the fmur~ internal public roadway m the standards established by the City
Bremenon R~adway Standards or c~her standard as approved by the City Public Works Depanmem.
9. The a~plicam shall construa the future Campus Parkway, (~xtemal), ~xtenclin~ sou~ to the Old Clifton County
Road to the standards approv~ by the I, Citsap County Public Wot~ D~1am-tment
10. The applimnt shall contribute to the satisfaction of the Director {ff Community Developraent their pna~n'tiotmi
share of funds necessar~ to mitigate off site ~ improvement~ requir~i to mitigate afl sit~ traf~c impacts.
11. City cf Bremenon, KAtsap Cotmty, Washington State approvals and agreements will be requh~i for all storm
water ouffall construction and may be required for other aspect~ {ff storm water faeilifie~ if they are not d~i~ to
DOE standards.
12. Any stream crossings for road construction shall be by bridge or similar approved stmctur~ with a span long
enough to nmintmn a natural stream con'ickx for stlzarn functions and wildlife movement. Utility cros.~ngs shall
be located at bridge crossinF~ or bored under the stream if other crossing locations ar~ requi~d.
13. A documented Fa~e's ne~t is located north of the project boundary in the vicinity ~fPhase 4. Prior to
development plan approval for Phase 4 the applicant will file and receive approval ~' an l=a~e l~ment Plan
that will specify limitalaon$ on u.~ iff this area and provisions necessary to preserve the nest.
14. The applicant shall provide proof of adequate water and sanitary sewer service prior to issuance of
development or building permits for Phases 1 and 2.
CITY OF BREMERTON ~
APPEAL OF SEPA THRESHOLD DECISION ~ ~__/,~.~/~/~ ~fi,~ i
REFERENCE: BMC 21.12.210.21.02.845, 21.02,935 !/
(Your Name)
(Your Mmling Address)
(Telephone Number) ~ "- '~' .
nEC 0 7 1,999
ITEM BEING .~PEALED: ~ Oq- O ovD BREMERTON
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
Please provide a brief statement of the procedural action protested, together with material Facts
claimed to suppo~ your contentions. Use addition~ paper if necessam
Please provide a brief s;atement of the retief sought and the reasons v,'hv the Administrative Decision
action should be reversed, modified or otherwise set aside. Use additional pages if necessary.
Appellant's Signature
Appeals will be scheduled to be heard before the Bremerton City Council as soon as possible.
allowing fbr adequate preparation and notice. You will receive written notification of the
Commission hearing date mailed to your address given above. The City Council decision is the final
legislative decision.
.\ppealfrm.sep (9
3353 An '
Peat Orcimrd, WA 98367
Ta~. 7 December 1999
TO: Ci.ty of Bremerton
Department o£Comm,miqt Development
286 4u' Street
Bremerton, WA 98337
APPEAL OF SEP_A DETFJI. MINATION:
"lV~ted Determination of Non-Si~tmifican.ce" on Application #PL 9943073, issued on 11/23/99, reg~in~ "Development
Agreement: Northwest Corporate Campus Industrial Project."
We reference our previous comments, both in writir~ ~nd those made at the Bremerton plnnning Commism'an he~ing on 16
February., on this proposed clevetopme~t agreement. Our objections to ~ MI)NS include but are not limited to t~ ~
Wcare 12m-ficad~ly mnmm~ 8nut tl~lmk ofoamidex~m of impacts to ~almm. and lark of tm.~line inform~Iical. Sslmo~l were
not even listed as a species ofco~cem. The two salmon stratum ~y~ffect~dby thispro~ are refen'ed to in the fina~ MZDNS
as "drainage swellg'; in fact, tl~ mmimimtic~ omliuu~ to 1t~ extent of not c~pitmlizing "No-N~me Creele' wheat finther avoi 'd:mce
is tmwieldy. Both these creeks were n~med in tl~lmst by inhabitants who v~lued them as food and ,0voaer souree~; we have
forgotltm n~m~ and valu~ m our society.
The MDNS O2es setl~ck.q to the strem~.q ~s an inadequate 75' in Mi*i~6on Memme ("MM") ~4; tttem could eve~ be r_ ~k,c__ _,~0_ to
2 Y und~ some cqmunstanc~. The ~~ of ~ous sndi~ at the. la~oject's end would not be comlmtibl¢ with stream
healtl~ Mapp~ is not clear. The road systems, including s~vend bricl~es, would have profoumt e. ffe~ts o~ the sl~emns.
Stormwater ~are not adeg~mt~ nor.amJ~ elo-~,rLv~ J~ C~lm_t2v's response was rmt.lmsitive, and their
concerns were well describe& The Sn?mmi~h Tribe went into good d~ and we mlopt their comments as pm-t o£om' appeal.
We are alarmed aboat the ste~ .and unzmNe slo2:~s downstream and downtdll flora this project, and.pm'timflar~ atm'ua~ about
the cunmlafive effe~ of all this development on the creeks' ea'odable Ironies, the residents at the foot of the hill, and on the slope~
overlooking the. C.~, gdts~p[s rote tran?~'mion armrinl he. nateen f, nmh and Central. Landslide pot,mtial/s sea-ious and
real in this geologically ha,,,~dolls area.
Roadways and their irrtl~em should be planned before the environmental remew is approved, rather than this planuing being
reqmred as a mitigation measure (see MM $3, which begins, 'Whe conceptual drainage plmas..." and MM #4.
Vqe hol2e tlmt an effort will be made by the Ci .ty to disatm~ tlxe local nmat~:~x~ of ~ ~fim ~ ~ ~ B ~ ~ ~
public process. A good argument could be ~ tlmI cilSzms have bee~ misl~l by the fi'ant-pal~ m'tide preceding ttmt plarming
commission hearing which did not mention it. Notice postinEs in the local area were unremarkable and not designed to attr~t
attention.
No information has berm provided for the punic abouI revmue sharing or ~ fees, although questions have bom asked
throughouI the ixocess. Since many of the capital cost, have been ptmmed as joint ventures with other authorities, the public has
a particular need and right to lmow.
As we ~mted in our letler, we request that an EIS be r~ to properly evahmte the impacts of this proposal. This ptmse o£review
is the s~e ~ t~11 illajor ~.ttr~ ~ to he addr~ a~d althoj~l-OlX:r ZollilIg is ill plae. e oi1 cOtlllty ~ city.
land, no evaluation has been made of cumuh~v¢ ~ to the creeks, ~ and traffic from this vea2t major project_ The~
impacts cannot be effectively considered in a~ptmsed evaluation.
Thank ¥~ for your attention.
/
Association to Protect Pmderson Creek
e-. DEC 0 7 1999
BREMERTON
BU!LD{NG D~PARTMENT
~ OF ~R~ Date: January 12, 2000
To: ¢it ¢oancil
From: Jon HoI~, ~teHm Comm~ Development Di~tor
Subject: Appe~ of SEPA Detestation on ~vdopment
Ag~ment for No~w~t Co.orate Camp~ ~d~
Development
A~ached is ~ ~pe~ received ~om Helen ~v~-Sa~ders, ~es~dent of ~e ~s~ia~on to ~ot~t
~de~on Creek reg~g ~e ~gated D~e~a~on of Non-si~c~ce ~sued for ~e No~w~
Co.orate C~p~ development ~eement. ~. Have~-Sa~ders ~~ ~t ~ ~o~
~ ~em~ ~) ~o~d be pr~ ~ p~ ~e ~e ~p~. She r~ses s~e~ ~~
related to her ffi pro d below.
A~men~ for the Appe~ ~ Staff R~ponse
1. S~mon: ~. Have~-Sa~ders ~ ~ncemed ~out ~iderafion of~p~ ~ s~on ~d ~e
lack of b~e~e ~o~afion. Ac~r~g ~ ~e "W~dli~e Repo~: ~ Add~d~ to ~e
~o~en~ Chec~st for No~w~t Co.rate C~p~, Breme~on, W~~" ~e lower
r~h~ of ~de~on Cr~k ~ ~o~ ~ ~n ~ s~ md ~ s~o~ ~d st~e~ ~ve
been ufilifing lower reaches of~e creek. ~e re~ ~o ~&cates ~at coho ~d ch~ s~on
m~ ~ utilize ~e lower r~es of No N~e Creek but ~e prob~ly res~ed ~om ~e projec~
site by ~ b~ers ~d se~on~ flow. ~e r~ ~ncludes ~at, "prese~afion of ~e swe~
~do~ wo~d ~low ~e fip~ zon~ to ~n~ue to be ~ed ~ ~avel co~dors for m~s,
nes~g ~e~ for b~ ~d spa~g sites for ~a&omo~ fish."
Reg~g ~e s~e~ comdors, Se~on 5.7.2 of~e a~eement req~es a ~~ of 100 f~
setb~k ~om ~demon ~d No N~e cree~. ~s is a ~~ &s~ce. Of~e 13,484 l~e~
feet of ~e site proposed for development (eider ~ a development site or to.way) ~at borders
~ cr~, ~m 21 per~nt or.at &~ce ~ a 150 ~ 200 f~t setb~k ~d ~out 52 perc~t
~ a 200 f~t or ~r s~L ~ ~ 27 per~t of~e d~eloped po~on of~e site wo~d
~ve a s~k b~ 100 to 1~0 fe~. ~s setb~k &s~ce does not ac~t for ~y req~ed
slope or o~er setback.
Fu~er, ~I of ~e l~d ~o~d ~derson Creek ~ ~e ~c~W of ~e proje~ ~ea is ~ Ciw
o~e~p. Wi~ ~e ~fion of~o ~ ~oss~gs, ~e l~d ~o~d No N~e Creek ~e eider
~ Trac~ B-1 or B-2 w~ch ~e not ~tended for ~d~ development or ~ different
o~ers~p. ~, ~ese setback ~e~ wo~d rem~ ~ pe~e~W ~ess ~e Ciw or ~e o~er
prope~ o~er ~ ~e no~ of~e site ~Io~ o~er ~es. It shoed ~so be noted ~at ~e ~o road
cross~gs wo~d be p~ ofPh~e 3 ~d 5 ~ch ~e subje~ to ~er SEPA renew.
The SEPA review for this project was also circulated to the Wash/ngton Depa~hnent ofFish and
Wildlife and the Suquamish Tribe. Their responses are included in the correspondence received.
According to Stephan Kalinowski of the Department ofFish and Game (letter dated October 25,
1
1999 - see a__tt~__ched correspondence received), he indicates, "the proposed development provides
adequate buffers within the project boundaries along both these streams." He also indicates that
storm water facilities need to be constructed to DOE storm water management manual at each
phase of development. Section 2.4.3 includes this requirement and Section 6.2.2 requires that
construction plans meet the requirements at the time of submission of the plans. Thus, new storm
water improvements will need to comply to the standards in effect at the time of receiving
construction plans rather than present day standards. Further, as recommended by the Mr.
Kalinowski, Sections 5.7.2 and 5.8.5 of the agreement require slope setbacks and landscaping to
use native vegetation.
Regarding the Tribe, staff has incorporated many of the Tribal concerns into the development
agreement In a letter da~xl November 16, 1999 (see attached correspondence received), the Tribe
identified several requirements. Regarding salmon issues, they indicate that all mitigation measures
pertaining to Anderson Creek also apply to No Name Creek (Requirement 2), provide baseline
monitoring for both creeks (Requirement 5), monitor the effects of storm water discharge
(Requirement 6) and investigate alternatives to reduce impervious surfacing and require on-site
storm water treatment. Based on the provisions of Section 3.4 of the agreement and the City's
storm water development standards, these issues have been addressed. Further, a letter from the
Tribe dated December 17, 1999 (see attached correspondence received) indicates the Tribe's
satisfaction with the approach taken in the agreement, which has precluded their filing an appeal
on the SEPA determination. Thus, staff believes that the analysis and the requirements of the
agreement are adequate to address the salmon issue.
2. Stream Setbacks: The appellant cites the lack of setbacks to the creek (at 75 feet) as being
inadequate. Staff concurs since the stream setback is a minimum of 100 feet (see above
discussion) as provided in Section 5.7.2 of the agreement. The 75 feet referenced in the letter is
development setback from the top of slopes.
3. Storm water: Ms. Havens-Saunders contends that the storm water provisions are not adequate.
A storm water analysis has been prepared for the project site. The analysis provides a design for
on-site detention to control storm water impacts from the developed areas to the streams.
However, to further assure that all storm water issues are addressed as well as water quality
concems both for surface and subsurface flows, additional analysis of the proposed storm water
system is required (see discussion on "Salmon").
4. Unstable Slopes: Ms. Havens-Saunders maintains that slopes are steep and unstable and could
affect Gorst Highway. A preliminary reconnaissance report dated November 8, 1995 prepared
by Allen Hart, engineering geologist, indicates that, "it is our opinion that from a geotechnical view
the site is well suited for typical office type commercial development." Further, in a separate letter
dated December 8, 1999 (see attached correspondence received), Mr. Hart states that it is
misleading to conclude that Colvos Sands, which are the identified soils of the steep sloped areas,
lead to slope instability. He also states that it is in his opinion that data to support any sort of
equating soil movement occurring along Highway 16 at Ross Point to what will happen on the
subject property is generally lacking. Thus, from the standpoint of SEPA, staff concludes that the
proposed project, subject to appropriate conditions, is appropriate for the site.
2
However, the study also states that recommendations in the report are pre 'lmainary and intended
for preliminary planning purposes. Thus, the agreement provides for additional development
requirements. Section 3.4 requires further geotechnical review for the placement of roads, storm
water systems and development areas to assure that specific locations of these improvements are
appropriate. Further, Section 5.7.2 requires maintaining a 75 foot setback fi.om the top of slope
to any development area (including parking lots) unless reduced through a geotechnical report.
This requirement meets or exceeds the preliminary recommendations contained in the
reconnaissance report Thus, smffbelieves that based on technical data and additional requirements
provided in the agreement, the slope issue has been adequately analyzed to determine potential
impacts and appropriate mitigation measures in place to address specific on-site geologic issues.
5. Roadway Impacts: The appellant argues that roadways and their impacts should be planned
before environmental review is approved. Staff presumes that roadway impacts refers to the
placement of the roadways on the site rather than traffic impacts in the area. As indicated in
response to Item 4 above, technical information reveals that the site's conditions are appropriate
for the proposed development. No information has been provided that indicates the proposed
general roadway location for Phases 1 and 2 is infeasu~ole, only that the specific engineered location
in relation to the top of the slope has not been ascertained. Thus, there is no need to explore
alternative roadway locations for these two phases.
Further, the MDNS is for the conceptual use ofthe property for industrial use and the project level
implementation ofonly Phases 1 and 2. Phases 3 and 5, which involves roadway crossings of No
Name Creek, are subject to further project specific SEPA review. At this time, Mr. Kalinowski
of the Deparhnent ofFish and Wildlife indicates that a bridge of sufficient length would address
wildlife concerns. This indicates that conceptually, the project's overall design to cross the creek
is environmentally feasible. If the crossings are not feasible at the time these phases are pursued,
other alternatives would be examined at that time.
6. Revenue Sharing: Ms. Havens-Saunders comments on the lack of information about revenue
sharing or impact fees. The development agreement indicates that the applicant will construct all
needed infrastructure improvements including sewer, water, storm drain, on-site roads, Campus
Parkway from Old Clifton Road to the site, improvements on Old Clifton at the intersection with
Campus Parkway. Further, the traffic analysis submitted for the agreement addresses cumulative
traffic impacts and identifies specific off-site road improvements either to be made by the applicant
or participate on a fair share basis. Since the City did not receive any comments from Kitsap
County regarding traffic impacts, Section 3.4 of the agreement also requires further traffic analysis
with coordinated review with the County. Thus, staff does not anticipate any requirements for
impact fees outside of off-site fees for roadway improvements identified in the traffic analysis as
may be further revised through additional review.
This concludes the discussion on the appeal issues. Staff believes that based on the analysis, the Mitigated
Determination of NonSignificance along with the Development Agreement provides an adequate analysis
of probable impacts and mitigation of those impacts. Thus, staff recommends that the City Council find
that the MI)NS for the proposed development agreement is adequate.
3
aTY OF BBBIBJTmi
~ ~ PL 99-OO73
The following are IXOposed changes to the Bnsmess Terms of the Developmem Agreement dated November 5,
1999 that should be included as conditions of approval These are necessary to ensure the Business Terms comply
with the Bremerton Municiple Code, Washington State Law and are coordinated with adjacent jurisdictions.
The Zoning Section shall be modified to require setlmcks are measured from property lines and i:rarcel lines.
B. The Land use Section shall be mended to include reference to the Wellhead Protection Easement and a copy
made an attachment to the document.
C. The Landscaping Section shall be mended to delete methods A and B of buffer screemng and modify C to a
width of fn~y feet
D. The Implementation Section needs to be expanded to include other regulatory requirements that will be
involved in administration of the project such as but not limited to the DA, the Bremerton Municiple Code (BMC),
and Washington State Law.
E. The Phasing Section shall be moved to the Authorized Time Frame Section and be incorporated for clarity.
F. The Roads Section shall be modified to provide additional information prior to completion of the design pha~.
This additional study shall further refine on and off site road improvements the project construct and off site road
improvements the project would participate in construction of on a fair share basis. Further, this study shall
evaluate projected average daily trips to determine adequate right of way widths and roadway improvements for the
internal road system.
G. The applicant shall construct the future internal public roadway,(~ Parkway), to the standards
established by the City of Bremerton Roadway Standards or other standard as approved by the City Public Works
Depamnent.
I-[ The joint driveway easements need to be modified to provide twenty foot pipe stem lot extensions and the
emergency access easement will be required to be pax, ecL
L Due to the length of Campus Parkway and the lack of a secondary access for Phases 1 and 2 all buildings will
require sprinkler systems and Campus Parkway must end in a cul-de-sac with each phase of construction.
J. The applicant shall construct the furore Campus Parkway, (external), extending south to the Old Clifton County
Road to the standards approved by the Kitsap County Public Works Department.
K. The applicant shall contribute to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development their proportional
share of funds necessary to mitigate off site roadway improvements required to mitigate off site trat~c impacts.
L. The City ofBremerton, Kitsap County, Washington State approvals and agreements will be required for all
storm water outfall construction and may be required for other aspects cd storm water facilities if the are not
designed to DOE standards.
lV[ Any stream crossings for road construction shall be by bridge or similar approved structure with a span long
enough to maintain a natural stream comdor for stream functions and wildlife movement. Utility crossings shall
be located at bridge crossings or bored under the stream ff other crossing locations are requirecL
N. The sanitary sewer Utilities Section shall be modified to require additional study during the design phase. This
study will reqmre coordination between the utility proveyors involved and will define the future proveyer and
method of service for all phases of development.
O. The water Utilities Section shall be modified to require an ~tionai study during the design phase to
coordinate the utility proveyers and define which will serve the phases af developmenL B~eraerton will reserve the
right to aquire the water system through a mutually agreeable interlocal agreemenL
R The storm water Utilities Section shall be modified to require an additional study to coordinate the
requirements of Bremerton and Kitsap County. The study shall include an updated stormwater analysis for the
entire project and for phases 1 and 2 and an analysis by a geotechnical engineer for slope stability and a
groundwater hydrologist concerning mitigating impacts to Anderson and No-name Creeks based on the sto~in
water analysis.
Q. The applicant shall submit new detailed roadway and storm drainage plans for Phases 1 and 2.
1~ Development of Campus Parkway within Phases 1 and 2 will reqmre specific roadway plans approved by the
City of Bremerton Public Works DeparUnent and Kitsap County Public Works Department. This study establishes
a 75 foot setback from the top of the bank from Anderson Creek and No-Name Creek drainage basins. This
setback may be reduced with provision of a proper geotechnical design. Prior to approval, the roadway and storm
drainage plans shall be reviewed by a geotechnical and hydrological engineer to ensure they comply with the study
requirements contained in the Allen L. Hart, geotechnical report dated November 8, 1995 and contained in
Bremerton files. The purpose of the additional review is to ensure slope stability within the affected drainage
basin is retained and stream flows are not affected as required by the DOE Manual.
S. The Industrial Landowners Association Section shall be amended to require review and approval of the
CC&R's by the Director of Community Development prior to recording,.
T. The Administrative Procedares Section sh:all be deleted and replaced with the following procedures for project
development. The DA will require certain overall development requh-enients and additional analysis prior to
construction plan approval, or offering the parcels for sale or lease. This analysis is required for on and off site
improvements. Further, a phasing plan for all infastruture improvements will be requirecL The following is an
outline of the development process:
1. Approval of the DA,
2. Completion of the additional design studies and construction plan approvals,
3. File a phased improvement plan,
4. File a revised Binding Site Plan,
5. Build or bond the improvements,
6. Submit for building permits,
7. Provide proof of services for the specific development application,
8. Provide record of survey,
9. An adequacy of services determination is made,
10. Record the parcel map,(record of survey),
11. Issue building permit,
12. Install the required improvements for the specific development application,
13. Issue occupancy permits upon completion of improvements.
U. Prior to development plan approval for Parcels 2, 3, 7, 8, 11, and 12 of Phase 1 adjoining the Anderson Creek
drainage a geotechnical report will be prepared and filed with the City Community Development Department
ensuring the plans comply with the detailed study requirements contained in the Allen L. Hart geotechnical report
dated November 8, 1995. This report established a 75 foot setback for buildings and parking areas. This setback
may be reduced with provision of a proper geotechnical design, but nmy not be reduced to less than 25 feet. The
p~ of the additional review is to ensure the design criteria are met.
V. Prior to development plan approval for Parcels 15, 16, 19, 20, 22, 23, and 24 of Phase 2 adjacent to the
Anderson Creek drainage and Parcels 25, 27, and 28 of Phase 2 adjacent to the No-Name Creek drainage a
geotechnical report will be prepared and filed with the City Community Development Department ensuring the
plans comply with the study requirements contained in the Allen IC HatX geoteclmical report dated November 8,
1995. This report establishes a 75 foot setback for buildings and parlcing areas. This setback may be reduced
with provision of a proper geotechnical design, but may not be reduced to le~..~ than 25 feet_ The purpose of the
additional review is to ensure the design criteria are met.
W. The Authorized Time Frame Section shall be revised to reflect the applicant will be vested for nine years for
phases 1 and 2 and required to have 60% of the developable area develope& Vesting of the construction plans
will occur based upon the ordinances in effect at the time of plan filing during the design phase. Vesting of future
phases will also occur at the time of future filings of phases 3 through $. The City will require the applicant to
complete the design phase within three years and have 60% of the parcels in Phases 1 and 2 developed within nine
years.
x. Any stream crossings for road construction shall be by bridge or similar approved structure with a span long
enough to maintain a natural stream comdor for stream functions and wildlife movements. Utility crossings shall
be located at bridge crossings or bored under the stream ff other crossing locations are require&
Y. A documented Eagle's nest is located north of the project boundary, in the vicinity of Phase 4. Prior to
development plan approval for Phase 4 the applicant will file and receive approval at? an Eagle Management Plan
that will specify limitations on use of this area and provisions necessary to preserve the nest.
Z. Review of the remaining phases will require the filing of separate applications to the City of Bremerton for
development of phases 3, 4, and 5. Specific clraha~g~, hydrologic, geotechnical, and traffic analysis will be
required. In addition construction drawings for roadway and storm drainage including out falls and other physical
improvements regulated by the City of Bremerton or other jurisdictions shall be submitted to the City. Future
phases are subject to SEPA review.
CITY OF BREMERTON
BREMERTON PLANNING COMMISSION
FINDINGS OF FACT, ANALYSIS, AND RECOMMENDATION
FTL~ NL~IBER: PL 99-4073
SUM~\.LKRY:
Appticam: Nor~hwes~ Corporate Campus. LLC
3023-~V, Sa~e Hwy. 16
Bremertom WA 99312
(360) 792-2656
Location: The site is located east of the Community of OorsL west of.-knderson Hill Roacl south of Highway l 6.
and north of Old Clifton Road.
Proposed Action: The applicant has filed with the City a "dr~" Development Agreement for consideration and
approval. With approval by the City Council this agreemem would allow for a framework to beg, in development er/'
the Anderson Creek Corporate Campus property, located in the Ci .ty's Utility Land Comprehensive Plan
classification. The site is zoned Industrial Park
PROJECT PROPOSAL:
The applicant is requesting a Development. (DA), with the City. of Bremerton a conceptual Development
Agreemem,(DA), to control future use and development of a 188 acre parcel of land located on Anderson Hill.
The DA proposes five phases of development extending from the southern property line northerly to the S'R-16
tU~tway comdor. The DA is proposing a project life of flurry years v~th tn-annual rev/ew~ by the City to ensure
the project is proceeding properly. The project involves the u_se of a binding site plan that will allow fie.ability as
the project proceeds to build out.
Phases I and 2 currently proposed for construC'aon will access to the south by. construction of a new public
roadway,(Campus Park,,vay), that will connect to the existing Old Clifton Road situated in uninco .rporated ~Citsa~
County.. Roadways within the project site are imended to be public and dedicated to the City of Bremertorr Project
utilities will be included in the public roadways. The site will be served by. public water and sewer service.
The project site has an irregular topography and slopes to the north. Two major drainage swells bisect the
property, with the upland areas proposed for development and the valley bottoms retained for resource protection.
The easterly drainage basin contains 3mderson Creek and the westerly basin contains a drainage called
"no-name" creek in application materials.
The proposed binding site plan illustrates five total phases of development with the first two extending along the
furore Campus Parkway. At this time these initial phases propose 29 parcels for furore industrial cievelopmem and
two tracts A and El to be used for storm water storage and buffenng respectively. Tttis number and confi~maration
of parcels may change over time as specifics projects are developed. Attached you will find a Zoning Ngap
locating the property and two Site plans illustrating property development and future utilities. Also included is a
listing of the exhibits filed by the applicant. These are available for public inspection dunng normal business
hours in the Office of Economic and Community Development.
SEPA:
All expanded Enviromnental Checklist was filed with tile application and circulated to various City, State, and
Comity agencies in accordance with the provisions of WAC 197-I 1-355 mid optional provisions, hi addition the
property was posted and proper legal notices filed, interested agencies and groups have commented on the
application mad copies of those commems are attached to the staff report. Based on tltis review a Mitigated
Determination of Non-significance w~s issued and a copy attached. The MDNS is considered a draft until
Novem~r 16. 1999 to provide the opporruni~ for reviewing agencies mad public to submit additional conunents.
BUS[N-ESS TERMS FOR A DEVELOPMtENT AGR~IENT:
The applicmat has ~ubmitted the document entitled [ndustriab'commercial DA, dated November 5, 1999. St. afl
considers this document the al~licants proposed terms for the DA. The agreement is a formal le~=~l contract
between the Ci.ty a~d the applicant for the City. Council to consider, it ~11 be prepared based on the business terms
reviewed by the Plarming Commission. The Comrmssion's recommendation will serve as a basis for the
preparation of the agreement_ The following analysis is a review of it by. section including staff comments,
recommended change~, and changes required ~ ordinance or Washington State law.
A. The first three sections entitled Site Data, Comprehensive Plan, and Project Summary provide background dam
for the project and staff review feels the information is satisfactory,.
i!~. The Zoning section cites the existing provisions for the Bremerton industrial Park zone and requests
modification as follows:
I. ham'ease building heights from 40 to 60 feet with additional setlmcks.
2. increase lot coverage from 50 to 60%,
3. ~Mlow for setbac~ to be measured from easement lines.
The staff would concur with the increase in building heig_hts and site coverage. However Bremerton reqmres
setbac~ to be measured from proper'fy lines, ie parcel lines and therefore th.is provision needs to be deleted.
C. The Land Use section is intended to clarify, what ~rure uses are and are not perrmrted in the Corporate Campus
project. The staff' concurs with the uses outlined mad notes that in addition to the Zmung Code and DA, a
Weilhead Protection easement will control future uses. Tlus easement should !:~ noted and a copy, added to the
agreement as oal Exhibit.
D. The Landscaping section consists of seven parts six relating to landscaping and one relating to slope and
streanl setbacks. Staff review of part one indicates there mi11 not be under subsections A and B sufficient buffering
from external boundaries adjacent to residentially zoned property,. Therefore we reconunend deleting A and B and
expanding C to Fifty, feet. There is a ,typo in part 2 which should be corrected to" twenty-feet ". The remaining
landscaping provisions are satisfactory.. At the time of drafting of the staff' report the applicant indicated he
wished to redraft the setback section. Tiffs issue is controlled in part by, the MDNS, previously issued and the staff
believe this part should be separated from landscaping and addressed with it's resubmission.
E. The Implementation Mechanism section describes procedures for administration of the development. [t is
partially correct but needs to be expanded. Some additional controls are. but not limited to, the DA., the Bremerton
Municiple Code.(BMC), mad Washington State regulations.
F. The Phasing section describes in part all five phases. While the DA will cover all five phases, specifics need to
be added to phases 1 and 2. ha reviewing the remainder of the document you will note the last section entitled
Authorized Time Frame speaks more specially to phasing. This section should be moved to the last section and
incor!2orated.
G. The Roads section is quite broad and addresses both on and off site roadways. Some of these are governed by
Kitsap County or Waslffngton State. On site roadx~ys are controlled bv the City while access to the site is
controlled by Kit-ts County. Business traffic to the site will arrive using the SR- 16 corridor. A traffic report was
submitted by. the application ant, ,~ being reviewed by multiple agencies. The City ts requiring further study of the
roadway network to ensure the lane configurations and right of way widths are adeqtmte to carry the projected
ADT's. This section needs to be updated with the new i~ffonnation and improvements coordinated with Kitsap
County and WSDOT. This can occur after approval of the DA during the design approval phase. Two additional
items that need to be changed are tile access easement and emergency access easement sections. Tile BMC
doesn't allow easement access to parcels. The easements need to be changed to joint use t~'enty foot pipe stem lot
extensions for the driveway access. The emergency access easement will need to be paved pursuant to
requirements of the fire code.
H. The sanitary sewer Utilities section describes one method of severing the completed prOJect. As with the Roads
section described above it involves multiple jurisdictions, ie Port Orchard. Kitsap County., and Bremerton. The DA
can not affect interlocal agreements. During the design phase a more specific plan will be required to be developed
for service of the future phases 3 through 5. This plan W~ll need to be coordinated among the multiple
jurisdictions.
[. The water Utilities section provides a method of water service involving an initial connection to Port Orchard
and future cotmection to Bremerton within one year. The City, can't provide service that quickly and may require
three to five years to accomplish this. As with sewer service, water service involves multiple junstitions and can't
be governed by. the DA. Therefore the applicant will be required to develop a plan for service to the future phases
3 through 5 to be coordinated between the jurisritions during the design phase.
J'. The storm water Utilities section describes future storm water system involving joint ownership by. the City of
Bremerton, K/frs County, and the Industrial Park Association. The City. believes and will require a more detailed
storm drainage analysis at the design review phase to coordinate the junstitions and minimize impacts to Anderson
and No Name Creeks. This study should include in addition to construction plans for phases I and 2 an analysis
by. a geotectmical engineer for slope stabili .fy and an analysis by. a groundwater hydrolog/st concermng rmtig,'mng
impacts to .-knderson and No Name Creeks.
32 The Industrial Landowners Assoc',ation section describes a proper'fy ownership association to control the
esthetics of the project and provide for common area maintaince. [t indicates CC&R's will be develo.~,d for this
purpose. The Ci.ry will require r_tmt the Director of Econonuc and CommUrurv Development review and .approve
these prior ro recording
L. The Adnfinisrrmive Procedures sec'non proposes a number of ,,future admnUstrative ,m'ocedures for prOlecr
administration. The binding site plan subsection would require the CiD' r.o adopt a specific ordinance creating this
procedure within mne~/days. The City. plans on accomplishing this with :he use of the DA and therefore that
portion of this subsection needs to be deleted. The remmning three subsections are either inconsistent W~th State
law or the BMC and therefore need ro be deleted also.
M_ The final section, Authorized Time Frame, establishes a thirty, '/ear project life and speaks to time frames for
the vamous phases. It also provides vesting for phases l and 2. Vesting of the construction plans V, all occur based
upon the ordinances in effect a the rime of plan filing during the design phase. Vesting of future phases will also
occur at the time of 5amre filing of phases 3 through J..-ks discussed earlier the pt~asing provisions sec+don should
be incorporated here for clamty. The City, will require the applicant to complete the design phase within three
years and have 60% of the parcels in Phases I and 2 developed within aine years.
N. After approval of the DA subsequent agreements may be made between the applicant or his successors and the
Ci .ry. Such agreements should be made attachinents to the DA.
O. Based on this analysis it is clear that additional design studies are necessary, prior to construction of Phases 1
and.,." [t is the intent of the City to ensure the infustrumre will be properly designed and installed to allow for
future development that is environmentally appropriate to the site. Tile DA w'ill prescribe certain overall
development requirements and additional analysis prior to construction plan approval. This analysis is required
for on and off site improvements. Further, a phasing plan for all i~ffastruture improvements will be needed_ The
following is an outline of the development process:
1. Approval of the 1DA.
2. Completion of the design phase,
3. File a Phased improvement anu revised binding site plan.
4. Build or bond the improvements,
5. Submit for building permits
6. Provide proof of services,
7. Provide record of survey.
8. An adequacy determination is made
9 .Record pm'ce[ nmp
10. Issue building permit.
I I. Issue occupancy pernms upon completion of i,nprovements
KEV~EW CR1TERL~.:
The Bremerton Municipal Code. (BMC 21.02.850). has established nine criteria for review of Development
Agreements.tDA'sk which require Ci.ty Council a:~ royal. City. Council consideration is made at a public heanng
after receiving a recommendation from the Planning Comnnssion. Commission consideration occurs following a
public meeting, Pursuant to the BMC Development Agreements shall specify, the following:
1..all major project components, including the specific uses to be allowed, residential densities, commercial, or
inciustnal sites and floor areas, off-street park/ng, etc.
The staff is satisfied sufficient information has been provide to mt/fly criteria 1.
2. Landscapin~ buffers, park, recreation areas, open space and similar features.
The staff is concerned insufficient residential buffenng has been provided to satisfy criteria 2. The staff has
recommended an additional condit/on to address the buffenng issue.
3. Provisions for affordable housing,
This provision is not applicable.
-~ Requ/red rmti~t/on measures, development contritions, and other reqm. rements of project approval.
The rmtigat/on measures contained in the Nfl)NS and the addiuonal re .cCnrements placed on the project by. the DA
W~ll sausfy criteria 4.
5. Financial arrangements, inchiding any required imp, act fees. in-lieu of fees. ins.mocuon fees der/cations finanCal
contnbut/ons, and reimbursement provisions, i.f any. Fees, dedications, etc. will be requ. ired through out the
~oject's life. See section L of the Draft Development Agreement review and criteria 9 below. With these
revisions the criteria of 5 will be saUCed.
6. Design and development standards to be a~--piied to the project, including architectural treatments, maximum
height, setbacks, landscaping, drainage, uulities. ~arking, signage, and any others. The draft DA has prCVasions
addressing each of these areas of concern and further refinements can be made through the design phase and
m-annual process as the project progresses.
7. Review procedures, phasing program, and crUtena for project decisions. The proposed development plan
illustrates five phases of development. Al:~proval of the draft agreement will allow for development of Phases 1 and
2. The future phases three through five will be reWewed on a case bv case basis at the time of phased filing as
scheduled.
8. The build-out or vesting period driving which the agreement will be in effect. The dr'afl DA proposes a project
life of thirty, years, with project review occurring on a tri-annual basis. The agreement w~uld g/ye the applicant
three years to complete the Planning and Design Review process for phases I and 2. It continues to require the
applicant to construct Phases 1 and 2 and develop 60°,/0 of these parcels with. in nine years. These time frames are
to run concurrently. Time frmnes for the remaining phases are also included and vesting will occur at the time of
filing,
9. Any other appropr/ate requirements or procedures that are bases on City policies, rules, regnlations, or
standards. The agreement may impose new or different regnlations to the extent necessary to resolve a threat to
public safety. Implementation c~ .ae tri-a,mual review process will allow for up b..des and improvements
necessary to satisfy this criteria after the initial nine year vesting period. The DA also addresses construction
plm~ and phase vesting for future phases as 9,ell as the relationship to County m~d State requirements.
F~-D2'4GS:
1. Approval of the Development Agreement as conditioned will implement the Bremerton Comprehensive Plan by
allowing for development to commence on the first t~o phases of the .amderson Creek Corporate Campus.
2. Future commercial and industrial development will implement the Comprehensive Plan by. providing jobs and
an improved tax base.
3. The development prol:~ed is consistent with the City. Zoning of the pro~n'y.
4. Proper safeguards are made through issuance of the MDNS. the existing Bremerton Municipal Code. and the
proposed DA,(as amended), to satisfy the review criteria_
ST.~I= RECOMMENDATION:
Based upon review of the at:plication and supporting materials provide and the recommended conditions for
modification of the Develolament Agreement the staff v~ould recommend approval and request the Planning
Commission forward a recommendation to the City Council.
NORTHWEST CORPORATE CAMPUS
~~AA-1 1 Application Letter ~ ~ /~_.~ ~'.
-3
1 Legal Description and Map
1~-4 15 Prints of Site Plan 1" = 200'
v~A-5 1 11" x 17" reduction of site plan
c/'A-6 8 Prints of Grading, Drainage and Utility Plan
I/~-7 1' 11" x 17" Reduction of Grading, Drainage and Utility Plan
b~-8 10 Environmental Checklist
~-9 10 Development Agreement
S-10 3 Wetland Analysis and Delineation Report for Northwest Corporate Campus
~- 11 3 Well Head Protection Easement
I~- 12 6 Traffic Study for Northwest Corporate Campus
I~'A-13 6 Road crossing section Campus Parkway - Onsite
~~ A- 14 2 Preliminary Stormwater Site Plan for Northwest Corporate Campus
¢/A-15 3 Site Suitability Report and Soils and Slopes
~<~- 16 1 Letter of Owner' s Consent to the Application
~-17 3 Wildlife Study -'q~-
CAMPUS PARKWAY
B-1 4 Preliminary Road Plan and Profile - Campus Parkway - off site - 3 sheets
B-2 4 Preliminary Sanitary Sewer - Campus Parkway - offsite - 2 sheets
B-3 4 Preliminary Water System - Campus Parkway - off site - 2 sheets
B-4 4 Wetland Assessment of Campus Parkway
B-5 3 Preliminary Storm Drainage Report for Old Clifton Road Improvements and
Campus Parkway
C-1 1 Conference Center and Inn at McCormick - Supplemental Environmental
C Impact Statement
-_ 1 Inn at McCormick - Traffic Study
I Inn at McCormick .- Preliminary Drainage Report, Downstream Analysis and
Assessment of Environmental Impacts
C~7--~ C-4 1 Volumes 1 and 2 Inn at McCormick Campus Station Planned Unit
Development Environmental Impact Statement
C-5 1 McCormick Campus Station Planned Unit Development Final
Environmental Impact Statement
6 1 Well Head Protection Investigation Anderson Creek Watershed
Exhibits/26522_W38
5011 Eldorado Blvd. NW
Bremerton, WA 98312
December 21, 1999
Department of Economic & Community Development
286 - 4th Street
Bremerton, WA 98337
Bremerton City Council:
As owners of the property adjacent to Project: PL99-0073, Location: Northwest
Corporate Campus (Anderson Hill), located northwest of the comer of Old Clifton Road
& Anderson Hill Road, SW, Applicant: Ron Sciepko, Northwest Corporate Campus,
LLC, 3023 W. State Highway 16, Bremerton, WA 98312, we have a concern that we
would like to make the Bremerton City Council aware of at this time..
Our property has an artesian well (natural spring) that has provided the water supply for
the private residence located at 3016 W Highway 16, Bremerton, WA 98312, for 65
years. This natural well is still in use.
Our concern is that the artesian well will be contaminated or rendered inoperable by the
impending development. In the event that this happens, as property owners, we feel that
the developer should be held liable and should provide a water supply to the residence.
The attached enclosure, Exhibit "A", shows the location of the Northwest Corporate
Campus (plat 013) in relationship to our property (plat 007).
This matter needs to be addressed at this time.
Sincerely:
Lawrence W. Roberts
Donna M. Roberts
Enclosure:
Exhibit "A" Plat map fi.om the Kits, ap County Assessor's Office
Area Code (360)
598-3311
Fax 598-6295
THE SUQUAMISH TRIBE
P.O. Box 498 Suquamish, Washington 98392
December 17, 1999
Mr. Jori Ilolan
Interim Director
Department of Community Dcvclopmcnt
286 Fora'th Street
Bremerton, WA 98337
Mr. Ron Sciepko
3023 West State Highway 16
Bremerton, WA 98312
Re: Northwest Corporate Campus Dcvelopment Agreement
Dear Sirs,
On bchalfof thc .%UqLiamish Tribe, I would like to thank you lbr meeting xvith tribal stalT
on Thursday. December 16, 1999 lo discuss the Tribe's environmcntal concerns related to the
above-mentioned development agreement. This meeting, the latest round of extensive
t~cgotiations, proved to be qttitc fi'ttitfitl and has resulted in thc Tribe's decisio~ not to raise
31(l'A-rclatcd challenges t~ apprt)x itl o1' this dcxclopmcnt agreement.
Orcourse, as we acknowledged at the meeting, we are entering into a thirty year process
which will require us to continue to work closely. Bascd on our work thus thr, I am optimistic
that we will continue to work cooperatively to achieve common goals, thus minimizing the risk
of litigation.
Thc Suquamish Tribal Council realizes that growth in Kitsap County is inevitable.
Rather than opposing growth, the Tribe seeks to ensure that it occurs responsibly - with great
care taken to protccl thc retire'al res~u'ces ~vhich underlie the high quality of li fi: enjoyed hv
Kitsap County residents. Your hard work and commitment is consistent with these goals and is
greatly appreciated. I look lbrward to working with you.
Respect fid ly,
OFFICE OF THE TRIBAL ATTORNEY
Scott Wheat
Attorney for the Suquamish Tribe
M~MORANDUM
To: Rick Kimball, SEPA Coordinator
From: Jeffrey L. Rowe-Mornbaker, Stozmwaser Division
Subgect: NW CORPORATE CAMPUS, CAMPUS PARKWAY AND SW OLD CLIFTON
ROAD~Y IMPROVEMENTS
Date: December 13, 1999
We have reviewed the drainage analysis labeled E×hibi% A-14 and
and dated Sept~r~ber 20 ant 24, date stamp received Novembe= 2, 1999
tO Kitsap County Public Works Plan Center. These co.nunents are
intended as an element of [he SEPA com~enz£ to ~he
Bremerucn.
This land use proposal w~ulc allow the applicants to impz. ove uhe
Cld Clifton County right -cf way and construct a new County roadway
to the proposed. . NW Corporate Campus located inside aha ~'"7'-~-¥ cf
B£emer~cn. NW Corporate Campus incluces development of a ~88 acre
site into 56 office and industrial parcels. The site is located
pcrlicns of Sec%ions 22 ~%d 33, Township 24 North, P. an~e 1
Wil!ame~ne Meridian and Sections 04 and 05, Tcwnshlp 23 Nor%h,
Eas%, in south Kitsa? County.
The site is woofed with heavy grcunC cover. A wetland
asscciaiec with Anderson Creek has ~een iaentified in -he basal
sumr. ary for the Campus ?arkway. Several other drainage
and/ct creeks h=ve been identified The =~.±~
....... ,.u,,oervatJo~, SerT~ce
iden~ifie~ zhe on siEe soils as Alc~rw~o.d, ~ar'~lne ant
Indiancla/Kit~a? series. Alcerwcc. C ant ~arstine soils are a type
"C" sQils and are described as deed and moderately well draineC.
indianoia/Kitsap soils are a [ype "A/C" and are generally Oescribed
as deep and excessively/mcdera~e!y well drained. GeneJal decliviuy
cn ~he site is south to north with moderate to steep slopes
Anderson Creek and r. he other drainage
The ~roposed Jrainage concept wcul~ rt.&Se '~{
s~~.a~, water runoff as
sheetf]ow .and through clcsec conveyance systems tc a
~cnd. Water quality ~iil be enhanced by spill controi oil wa~er
se~arazor~, biofiltraticn swales and water gua!i%y we5 ponds.
The $~sbmi~tal docun'~ents are incomplete Da_~ed on the Katsap County
$~ormwater Management Ordinance ~199-199~ requirements and we d~
nc.~ accep~ many of ~he technical assumpuions presented. Therefore,
we cannot co~en~ cn the feasibility -r en%~.onm.n~al impact of
this pr~p~sa!. We recommend ~hat, prior to any final cons~ructiDn
plan preparation for work within the County, the design engineer
schedule a ~resubmit~al meeting wi%n Public Works tc review the
design standards ~nd application requirements.
The following requirements shall be satisfied prior to any
cons%ruction activity within the County,
!. The info~-m..at~on provided ~emonstrates 5bls proposal is a
pevel3pmen~ as defined in Ki~sap County S~crmwater Management
Ordinance ~i99-~996, and as suzn will require a
Development Actlv~ty Permit (SLAP} from the £,epartmenz ,Df
Public Works.
$%o:mwater quantity contro[, ~uatity treatment, and
~nd sedimentation control shall De designed in accordance with
o~_nan~_ in effect at the time of
Ordinance ~199-1996 or the ~
SLAP application. The submittal .documents shall be prepared by
a civil engineer licensed in the Sta~e of Washington. The fees
and suDmittal requirements shall be in accordance with Kitsap
County Ordinances in effect at the time of SLAP a~p!ica~ion.
2. A geotechnica! englneerin~ analysis is required for an'..'
proposed stormwater we% pond or retentioi~ ~acillty witn!n 200'
of 30% or greater slopes, and for ~ny dry
within 50' of 30% or greater slopes. AdCi%ion~l!y, a
geo~echnical engineering analysis will be required for pone
embankments exceedinc~ 6 feet ~n helg~t. That anal''~'~x~_o shall be
prepared by a Civil Englneer licensed i~ %he State cf
Wash_ngton, knowleda~able, in the practice of ~.~ils =._ng.ne~ ='~-'~.~.
and mechanics. The analysis, shall addr~=~_s the effects c_=
groundwater infiltration, seepage, potential slip planes, ant
changes in soil bea~~_..= strength. . T%~.,~ .Pro'Dosed. facil!t~os
shall be designed following the recommendations cf the
gectechnical analysis.
3. The War'in,ton State Departmen~ of Fish 5nd W~ld~if~
~equire a Join% ~' --ic Resource Permit Application cr
Hydrauli~ Project A?proval for %ne work required at
~roposed out£a~'·
4. U~c,n completion cf the ~:orm ~£nage
gevelc~er will be req'ii%ed %~ oost a nwa-year maintenance
for the %aciiity in acco~gance ~ith Kitsap County $~c~r~wa~er
Management Ordinance ~1~g-1996 or %he ordinance ~n effect
zhe ~ime of development.
ALLr.~ g HART ENGINEERING GEOLr~,~IST
~720 N. Oakes T&¢omm, W~h~gton g~40~.~24
Ron
Campus, L.L.C.
3023 W#t ~4rle HMnwey ~8
lkel~lE~rml Qee~Imhnlcal ~ For Neeti~,m~ Corporate Campue.
This loiter follows our telepl~one oonv~r~ior~ ar~J toeing ~ T~ay, ~m~r 7, 1 ~,
~nd s~s to ~. ~ ~ ~s. ~ine ~e ~ of ~i~on~ g~i~ stud,s ~i~
g~s ~~. H~r. ~as~ ~ our con~a~an and q~ns ~ ~ ~o me by
other, t ~Ink that ~ is. quesfi~ a~ ~e ~s Sand ~1~ ~s ~ ~ aad~d
~t apoear~ Mat 1~em am a numOee of people that ~1~ ~at
an~or un~b~ ~ f~dafion supp~ by ~ue of
~b~ to ~men~l water fl~. H~r, ~mughout
t~e~ h~ be~ many s~.~l ~m~ built ~ ~e ~ ~na ~ Its ~nt and
~e~ a~ nu~mul s~b~ sand sl~, ~t~ ~nst~ and nl~l, ~m~ ~e ~gion.
TO say ~ an ama is n~s~dly un~a~le or ~u~ for de~opm~t ~t~y
~n~dain by the Cot~s Sand is not ~N mis~ing but ~ng.
d~ to ~DP~ any Io~ of equating ~it mo~ment ~ng a~ng Hlg~ey lem ROSS Point
to ~at ~tl ~p~n on ~e su~ pm~ ~ ~ly ~, I might ~nt out
~ g~s ~ R ~uld only be n~ml ~ ~dmss ~o~ ~a~l~ iss~s on a pha~ by
ph~ basis, ~n ~ mad ~n ~ ~l or pem~ gm~ es ap~pdlte ~ pm~e site
sp~c s~ ~, g~tng end ~N~ ~mme~e
A~ w~ hav~ said i~ our pretimir~ry reports, it is our opinton that ~e property is suitaOle for
~~e~ ~ u~ of ~ ~1.
and ~ of ~e ~ ~ ~ aem~ined on~ ~e ~-~dge alimet,
· A~ ~e ~~ p~ ~r p~m 4 and S ~ m~e d~, ~
~ ~r e~ons am ~e and ~ ~ul~ e~lu~, it may
of ~ ~oii ~~l at ~p~ in o~er ~ e~lume ~ ~en~al for ~i~
and t~e u~ing Ki~p Fox.on and ~ ~1 for ground ~ mo~ment
a~g ~e ~ Again, ~is ~on ~s no~ mean ~m ~e~ ames ~not or
~e~m~ ~ ~ am~ ~ ~ ~uJ~. ~r in mind ~at ~e ~
~ai ~e, ia ~e dete~i~on ~t ~ ~ion~ ~y ~ unsu~e ~or
~. This ~ of ~t~y ~ ~e ~pt~ by phm or ~&~ g~ings
~ ~ ~ ~ ~e ~udies ~m~ for s~m s~ng and ~o~ni~i ~n.
~ul~ ~1~ ~ th~ ~ff ~ be In~ but ~ ~1~ and ~ht~ined
ere qeesttor~s misecl at)out the disposal of ~it® runoff ~ey sl~ouid be ed~lms~d
~ o~ ~im~ repo~s. H~r. ~ ~ a~ pm~ of any s~e a~ ~ ~e
MEMO
To: Chie~Eo~s
From: Sgt. Pratt
Subject: NSi~hwest Corporate Cmpus
Date: December 3, 1999
I have reviewed the latest given me and find the concerns addressed earlier have been addressed;
i.e. construction "shall be"...."consistent with City of Bremerton standards". This should alleviate
potential problems of driveways on or near hill crests and/or curves plus the questioned steepness
ora couple of the grades.
KITSAP COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
614 DIVISION STREET MS-36, PORT ORCHARD WASHINGTON 98366-4682 BRUCE FREELAND, DIRECTOR
(360) 337-7181 FAX (360) 3374925 HOME PAGE - www.wa.gov/kitsap
November 17, 1999
Erm,~TON
]on ~olan BUIL',')iiqG DEP~RTMENT
Director of Corrtrnurfity Development
286 Fourth Street
Bremerton, WA 98337
Re: Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance for Northwest Corporate Campus
Dear Mr. I-lolan:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the Development Agreement and MDNS for Northwest
Corporate Campus. Our primary concerns are with traffic and stormwater impacts. Based on
initial review of the traffic and stormwater reports, it is clear that further coordination between
the City, the County and the applicant will be necessary, to determine the details and timing of
the measures necessary, to mitigate the anticipated impacts.
Due to time constraints, it has not been possible to coordinate the traffic analysis with the our
Long Range Transportation Model to determine the acceptability of the proposed mitigation.
That effort takes approximately four calendar weeks and will take place as soon as it can be
worked into the current schedule. Some general comments tbllow which should be considered
preliminary in nature. Confirmation of the Traffic Impact Analysis findings are required before
definitive determination of final mitigation measures can be made.
The TIA appears to be a thorough analysis and the conclusions and recommendations seem
reasonable with exceptions as follows:
1. The substandard sight distance to the East at the Clifton/Anderson Hill intersection may
require right-of-way acquisition and a permanent cutback improvement.
2. The timing of proposed improvements coincident with various phases of development may
have to modified to coincide with overall traffic needs in the area, requiring covenants with
the County to participate in fair share contributions towards improvements on Old Clifton
Road and Anderson Hill Road.
3. Forward a set of plans to the WSDOT Development Review Office, then provide
documentation ofn their approval for any proposed mitigatin on state highways.
The preliminary comments from the Public Works Sliormwater Division are attached.
TOLL FREE FROM: BAINBRIDGE IS. 842-2061 OLALLA 8514147
Again thank you for the opportunity to comment. The County looks forward to working with the
City to see that the projects impacts are appropriatly mitigated.
Sincerely,
Environmental Coordinator
M~MORANDUM
To: Rick Kimball, SEPA Coordinator__z,~
From: Jeffrey L. Rowe-Hornbaker, Stof~a[eL~'~ision
Subject: NW CORPORATE CAMPUS, CAMPUS PARKWAY AND SW OLD CLIFTON
ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS
Date: November 16, 1999
We have reviewed the drainage analysis labeled Exhibit A-14 and B-5
and dated September 20 and 24, date stamp received November 2, 1999
to Kitsap County Public Works Plan Center. These comments are
intended as an element of the SEPA comments to the City of
Bremerton.
This land use proposal would allow the applicants to improve the SW
Old Clifton County right of way and construct a new County roadway
to the proposed NW Corporate Campus located inside the City of
Bremerton. NW Corporate Campus includes development of a 188 acre
site into 56 office and industrial parcels. The site is located in
portions of Sections 32 and 33, Township 24 North, Range 1 East,
Willamette Meridian and Sections 04 and 05, Township 23 North, t
East, in south Kitsap County.
The site is wooded with heavy ground cover. A wetland system
associated with Anderson Creek has been identified in the basin
summary for the Campus Parkway. Several other drainage courses
and/or creeks have been identified. The Soil Conservation Service
identifies the on site soils as Alderwood, Harstine and
Indianola/Kitsap series. Alderwood and Harstine soils are a type
"C" soils and are described as deep and moderately well drained.
Indianola/Kitsap soils are a type "A/C" and are generally described
as deep and excessively/moderately well drained. General declivity
on the site is south to north with moderate to steep slopes along
Anderson Creek and the other drainage courses.
The proposed drainage concept would route surface water runoff as
sheetflow and through closed conveyance systems to a detention
pond. Water quality will be enhanced by spill control oil water
separators, biofiltration swales and water quality wet ponds.
The submittal documents are incomplete based on the Kitsap County
Stormwater Management Ordinance ~199-1996 requirements and we do
not accept many of the technical assumptions presented. Therefore,
we cannot comment on the feasibility or environmental impact of
this proposal. We recommend that, prior to any final construction
plan preparation for work within the County, the design engineer
schedule a presubmittal meeting with Public Works to review the
design standards and application requirements.
The following requirements shall be satisfied prior to any
construction activity within the County.
1. The information provided demonstrates this proposal is a Major
Development as defined in Kitsap County Stormwater Management
Ordinance %199-1996, and as such will require a Site
Development Activity Permit (SDAP) from the Department of
Public Works.
Stormwater quantity control, quality treatment, and erosion
and sedimentation control shall be designed in accordance with
Ordinance #199-1996 or the ordinance in effect at the time of
SDAP application. The submittal docuraents shall be prepared by
a civil engineer licensed in the State of Washington. The fees
and submittal requirements shall be in accordance with Kitsap
County Ordinances in effect at the time of SDAP application.
2. A geotechnical engineering analysis is required for any
proposed stormwater wet pond or retention facility within 200'
of 30% or greater slopes, and for any dry detention pond
within 50' of 30% or greater slopes. Additionally, a
geotechnical engineering analysis will be required for pond
embankments exceeding 6 feet in height. That analysis shall be
prepared by a Civil Engineer licensed in the State of
Washington, knowledgeable in the practice of soils engineering
and mechanics. The analysis shall address the effects of
groundwater infiltration, seepage, potential slip planes, and
changes in soil bearing strength. The proposed facilities
shall be designed following the recommendations of the
geotechnical analysis.
3. The Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife may
require a Joint Aquatic Resource Permit Application or
Hydraulic Project Approval for the work required at the
proposed outfall.
4. Upon completion of the storm drainage facilities, the
developer will be required to post a two-year maintenance bond
for the facility in accordance with Kitsap County Stormwater
Management Ordinance #199-1996 or the ordinance in effect at
the time of development.
FISi~RI~S DEI~ARTMENT
Ama Cod: G6O]
598-3.311
THE SUQUAMISH
P O B~x ~9~ Su~. W~ 9~
November 16, 1999 ::: ~7 ,~ :,,, ~7= .'
Ion Holan, Director of Co~ty Dev~o~ '-
D~~ ofE~o~c ~d Co~~ D~opm~t
286 4~ S~ _.
B~om WA 98337
D~ ~. Hoi~
Tl=e site of~e proposed Northwest Corporate Campus lies witch the Suquamish Tribe's :~Uxual
~d Acea~omed Fishi-g .~..a:' 0.J&A). The Tri~ s~ protection of all tr~at'y-r~sm-ved natural
resources th.rough avoidtmce of impacts to h-~tat and ~ sv~en,m.
On .March 20, 1995 the Suquarni~h Tribe eorrau~nt~-d on -be City's proposed ch~e of
cc~mprebens/ve plau dc~ignaficm fc.r this site from Fore~. M~nagemem to [nduxtrial,rBu~imess
the Tn'be ;made c!e~r it's concerns au :hat me ~srdin$ the cont!icta posed, by t_ke change_ The
me w~ crigi.ually :~urcharmd and set a~tde loc wat~'~he~ .~r~t ~ecti,;on. W~,th the in.qt~ation of a fi~h
~adder on Antics'son Cree. k in 19<)4, md the retea.~e of.tho,,~nd~ of chum mn, the ~
ber. orn~ an impomant fishmries .,'e~curce. C.hangi~g tl~ !and uae to up to 50% Lml:ervioua mrfae, e
(65% .Mt,}~n thc aa'rent project site), it was argued, would mmqi~ with ~e preservation
namrai md suppta.,~ed fisherie~ pmduc~on in Ande~son Cre~k. The Tribe'~ ¢omn,.ems included
:~earch findings which corroborated this assemon. In ~ddkion to uhe confli~ in hind u~ ismes,
*.he Tn'b~ poimed out st~p slope~ pm~nt on ~¢ site ~d que~oned the feasibility, of
ct~vdopra~n~ [n seolo~cally hazard<m* areas
Subsequent to the approval oft,he change in compreh~qive plan de$i._.g~tation, the Tribe
commented (10/29./99) on the Northwest Comerate Park proposal for the site during the
preliminary. (optional) SEPA s¢opmg process. Tnoush net ~eciflc to that pw¢~s er proposal.
and ,~tl~p~ s moot point, ~ T,'ibe again a~cTted that the arm was inaappropnate for
indugaiml,,bu~incss usage (despite it's rmw zordng). [ssue.~ ofg~le~ically hazardous slopm,
s~mon-be~Sng s~re~m~ a~d stormwater mana~_ement were vigorously set forth in the
To recount thee eomm~au:
* the propo,~l fails to ti. dly consider ,,.he potmntial for ch/nook salmon in And~son ara
Name" Crmeks;
· the propo~ud lacks a detailed erosion conuol plan with s~msifiviry to protection or,raimon and
other wildlife habitat;
· the propo~st ]acks adequate wetland delineation / [nvtmtiga.~ion - confirmation that Areas
amd ~3 (Exhibit 1 ) are not su'eams or wetlands;
* the proposed ro~clwa5, is aligned (in part) in a geo{o~cai~y h~mxdeus area as dmem, ed by the
[Critical l.a~is
the proposal does not adequately mode! / foreca.~, resulting potlutamt '.cads. nu:rient
..voter velocity and general impacts .*o Tract A wetlan_d, Amderson Creek, ' .~o-Name" Creek.
· the propossl does not ~equateiy questor! the dL-c~ of mm'e~ed impervious surf-aces in the
.~der~on Creek
* the proposal l~r. k5 geetechnieal a~lysis which proxies asmra~c~ of safety ~d
~ the propotal fi~Is to consider potential cut'car~l resources.
'the Tribe reiterates thes~ fm~ortant points [or ~e recor~ a~ it is Lmporcxn~ that th~ be addxessed
in the ~ MDNS. Ia light of the findk~_ made ~nd mitigative measures mSg~ed in the draft
MDNS, ti~ Tribe would ~uppoa t~e C~ of Bremer~n in making several ~d/t/ona] requimnems
ofhSe Applican~ as discussed betow.
Req~/rement #1 - Each parcet development ~honld be 5nbjeex ~e SEPA review.
~EP.~ ~acoun~es the ,.me of phased cn-~i-om'nentaJ rod~ :o assist agen~.,es and the pubic to
Mc.m on issues ~.~ are re~dy for decision ~d to cxc!ude from consideration is.sues alre. ad?'
decidoci or not 7~: reachy for dezi~ion ,,p. ak~ i'~MAC 197-11-060($}{'b.)). P.hased r~'icw is
ll~l:ropriate where ~e lequert, ce of proposals is .fi'om a pro.re'aromatic document, such as a
cornpr~ensive pt,in, to decame~s ~at axe mn'row~ m scope., tach a.s development r~ulations or
a project application (WAC 197. t 1-060(5){c)). The to, finical r~luircmet~ts for usint~ phased
review include:
ph~ed review may be used where ',.he sequence of ~e .:roposal is fi.om pro~r'tmmaic
document to do<foments ,'.hat are narrower in .scope;
~,hased review !rlly p. oi ~e used to avoid arialy-~..-tg ctu~uiative impacts or to sel~ent a
proposal that shouid be evaluated in one document;
o the lead agency must state that it is using phased rr~-~ew m ks environmental docm-nm~ts; and
. ~he !esr agency must use the environmental thee!dim, scopmg process, pro$rammafic
Environmental Impact lstatement (EIS), incorpora6on by reference, adoption, Supplemental
ElS (SEllS). and addend,~ as appropriate: to avoid clu~iication and excefs paperwork [WAC
19'7,-1
The Tribe ~e-,'s the Northwest Corporate Park applicati~n as a broad, conceptual plan which is
uade~oing SEPA review as such. In that ,,em, tkis process ~s h¢in8 approached by the
agermy as a "phased enviromnemal revi. ev,~'. It is ~e Tribe's contemtion that review ortho project
at !bis course level of detail is somewhat nebulous, and obliges th~ lead agency to require SEPA
review for the specific development of each parcel, in axidition to conceptual review of Phfmes 3-
5. Additionally, d;velopment which is not specific ;o P,h~ses 1-5 or to a specie parcel should
~mderge SEPA review. Point' ~4 ofuhe Conclusions of~he Re~7oonsible Official in ,be drain.
MDN$ indicates t. hat.. "Adequaze pro~sions are eom'mined ~ ~e Bremcrton Municipa~ Code
and K~tsap Coun~ ~w. ass to mitigate fizmre prababte impacts fram development of]Phases
and 2. Further environ.-/,.mtal review will be conducted for phases 3 to 5" Due to the s~nsitive
mature of ~e project site, this paint shouM ~"th~r st. ipulsxe ~ development of~a¢.;/pm'gM
within e.~ch ptt/u,~ :~ undergo SEPA R~-iew per the pro,d~ions ofpimsed ~ito~
as allowed by WAC 197-11-060(5)(b). To their credit, thc Co1~lea. sir',lts of tire
O..~.a~al ~;u-~ a 30 y~a' Development ,~;r:~a~nt wltich would r~quu~ a3dition~l
r~'iu-w and mitigation for environn~ntal impacts. WMie d~ mig,~t set~e as a us,~-ffbJ ru-gulatory
im'tmment for ~ city of'Br~merton's administrators ~ pl~r.n~rs, it rn~y not allow fca' general
public and stak-~otd~' ~volv~ment az afforded through
If:he SEPA process is cequir~ of~x:h individual per~l de~e. lolm, g, nt, specific
impacts ~et ways to ~voitt ~mt can be ad~res.~-~ I)~mi)~l cr~sion control, stormwater
rn~n_agemeut, geologically I~u~u'dous ~reas a~ str~m-a isuues coul~ ~ scru~ oa ~ ~ by
ca~ b~sis tl~ougb SEPA. This would not, aow~', r~med.y the i.~ue of cumul,tiv~ ~n~--ts
effect~l by t~s developme~tt The Tribe would requ~'t that it be revolved in ~11 fature SEPA
tevie'~ on tltis site ~ m'~ ~.mcr~,~sted stake~,older, m weft as a benefici~cz of treaty rese~ed nat'~ral
resom'¢es aff~-'ted by tahe dev~opment.
lt~luir~ment it"Z - No d~opment will occur ~vitl~in ~' of t~c lop of the bank of
~lopes
The Bremerton Cri~cmi Lands Ordinance req. uire~ ~e ~mpos'mon of ~0' m~ buffers to be
provide~d fi.om ,.he e~ge of all landslide hazard are~. The det~ed ~tudy r;quL~u,~.~nts ~ntauned
m the Allen L. Hart geotechnicaJ ~epom dated .November ~. 1995 -.$tabtishes 50~..75' ~ctba. ck$ In
fact, !at,-mdc is afforded by [n Section 2~ 22.080 (c~ii) oft~e CLO in allowing "...The buff'er m~y
be extended by th~ Dia',~-'tor beyond ~se !imits [50'] to mitigat, ~rosion hazards:' Th~
Nfl)NS th~ adopt~ 7~' s~backs for parking ~ot$ and buildings, ~owing f'cr v~Jan¢~s given
~dditiomfl ge. otecmucai review.
The Tribe betie~ that the cit7 of Bremert. on ~ho~d hold fa~ with 75' top-of-,Jope b,affe'rs to
insut~ ~ l:~rot~tion, disal]owin, g reduc~ons in buff're' width. The Tmb¢ a~o rupports
c.x. otuding utilitic~ (watg mains, ~torm sew~s, etc.) fi-om ail buyer atea~ (stream and ~lope) as
well ~ buildings, parking and .roadways Addinonally, nativ~ vegetation should be maintained
t~refera~ly forest) i~ ~lI buffer areas.
Requirement ~ - Impacts to ~'No-N~n~' Creek muwt be
?oink. #3 of thc A//~r~gafit~ Me~res in the cLra~ ;5~fl')N$ ~ec~ ~at mJdgafio~ will be
lbr And~-rson C~e~k impa~s ".~'o-Name' C~k lies w~in the proposed alignment fo~ Campus
Pazk-way and should be ~cluded with Point
Requircment .~4 - A cultura! resource ~ssessm~m of the site must be c~mpteteci prior to
development.
,4~ exp .lained/n prev/ous comment~, the Suquam/sh Tr/be ~ u~ ~he I~ ~h~
~ed sit~ w~ch have b~ recorded n~ ~he mout~ of ~ c~, ~d ~c~oio~ r~ords
i~di~te that ~e Suqu~mish h~xe~ dog ~nd sit~ ~on ~om ~ese ~eeks, ~d ~ed
%e THee r~o~ t~t m ~c~eo[o~c~ ~s~t be ~1~ prior to p~r.g
R~u~meat ~ - ~ae monitomg daU for rah ~d ma~mve~ebmtm wiB be
~mga~ by ~e App~at fer .~dmea ~d "N~Name" C~.
~p~dt ~ ~e ~NS pro~$ is ~e ~fi~ ~: ~ afl! be no ~a loss ,f ~ ~o~
it is ~es~ to ~sh some 5~e~ne by w~ch M~e ~n~fio~ :~ be m~ Agde
p~dL~g ~ ~Lce ~-v~to~' ('~bit A- 17 W~= ~.~oa: .~ addendum to the
c~ for Non~ Co,orate C~pus - Br~c~ W~$~") ~d b~c
de~ou of s~ c~s6cs ('T~~ Stouter S~e P~ for N.W. Co.orate
C~pu$"), ~e ~p~ ~ cot succe~ ~ ~o~fi~ a m~~ ~f ~e~qt ~
~n~on, ~ou: ~ adoptio~ ot'b~e d~t~ i: ~ be d~t to me~e ~ac~
~anife~ M ~e ~e Jt would ~so be ,~i~cgl to ~Mu~e ~e ~eSs oily propo~
T~ ~a'~s, Su~sh Tdbe fish sumps, Trou~ U~led, Noes'est h~ Fish~
Co~sic~ D~~: cf Na~ Resourcea. ~lsap Co~', ac.~ <d r~o~ a ~ore
mtere~ would be fish ~d m~oinve~eb~ compo~fion ~d ~ifies, as ga~ r~r~t prov~
indicators ofwa~
R~u~mmt ~ - AppUcaut ~1 monRor ~e eff~ of sto~wnter disch~e ns
scour/~sion, s~m~tion, wa~er qugiW ~d gefle~ biod~e~iW in Andyne and "N~
~'nme' Cr~.
'~e :Ms conc~m~ 7h~ of SEPA re<e'a' ~ay not i~d i~ek' :o ~e s~cs of ~tigafion
mq~tL bronzy sp~g ~at mo~loc~g for b~ic ~ ah~aaefi~ ,~n
~NS wo~ ~ip to ~lay the T~e's ~n~ r~g s~ s~/'~osio~
~vater q~i~ ~ m~t~e ofbio~,~si~' Mso, ~roMsiom shoed ~ m~e ~t~ the ~NS
for hold~ ~e ~ph~ acco~le [br prom~ r~ation ~fa~ u~res~ ~p~ ~ltmg
from d~elopm~t.
R~uirement $7 - ~pficant wig ~ve~iga~e ~ativ~ to impe~'ious su~ace cove~,
~duee im~ioes sudzee cover w~ere p~ible, and require on~ite sto~water traSeaL
The Ch~ ~d ~ppoa~g doc~p. Ls cieaty cont~plaie lhat cle~ng. ~ading ~d
increase in Lmpervious ~rface cover will oecd. The associated impacts oft,his type of
development are well d~cumented in sc~enl~c research. The proposal seeks an allowab{e
impe~lous ~nC~.ce cover of 65%. [mpe~,[ou~ surface cover value~ gre~tcr tha~ 10-150/o have
been shown to have demonmrabte e~u~ts on salmonid popul~iorm. No alternatives to non-
perm~le mirfisces have been provided, nor has impervious ,'urfae~ cover bc-~m minimized to
avoid environmental inrpact. To mitigate for high/mpmwious cover, floc use of small s~ormwater
retention areas, swales and biofilla, atioo where feasible would be ~ re~,sonable r~luir~ment for
eacah pm, eel This would decrease the volume directly shunted to the proposed stormwater ponds
md improve w~t~r qu~ity,
The Tribe corainu~s to support the EIS process For :his project. The cgr,fial anMysis anti multi-
agency involvemm~ imduc~ -,.lm'ough this proems woutd inmn'e that the besx possible
envLmnm~tal decisions ar~ made in light of'this la,ge scalo indugtri~l Isnd use.
Again, 0amk you for the opportuni~ to respoud to the clr~ ~'v~NS. :ne Tribe als that thes~
comments be incorporated with ~mm~n'ts made ~0/29/99 (~tt~che~l) during the scopmg procass
(.mar~, of'which ~v¢ b~m in~equatet.v identifi~ in the clr~t MDNS). Should you have amy
questions ~-,g~rdi~g ',his letter, please do not h~ita~e to comact Jori Stoas, (360) 394-525l.
$1nc~re[y,
/~.~-~ ?hyllis Meyers
cc Clx/trlie Sigo, Tribal Council
Scott Wh~t, Tribs[ Attom~
l~ndy t4~gch, Fisheries Da't~Ctor
Steve Kalinowski Washington Department of~sh amd WLldlif_.
Enciesutes
PM:js
Washington State Olympic Region Headquarters
Department of Transportation ~ ::c :~:-c. ~,_-:.,~c "~.-.',~e~
Sid Morrison : 2 3c~ ..... .... ~_
Secretary or Tra~s2orta~ on 7 '.,m~ ~..',A 5~5Ec-7c~C
November 3, ] 999
Department of Economic and Community Development , .... :: . _
236 4"' Street ~ ....
Bremerton, WA 980:, ·
SR 16, MP 28.25 Left Vicinitv '. .... ..,~'~
No~hwest Co,orate Campus, PL99-0072 ":
EC File No. 99126-K
Dear Ms. Bennon:
We have completed our review of the subject proposal and have the following additional
comments:
I. The map for the existing sub-basin states that there is 66.S acres in sub-basin EXI but
in the pre-existing calculations for existing flows, 70.2 acres is used for sub-basin
EX1. (See page 44 of the Preliminar': Stormwater Site Plan).
2. Discharge from Tract "E" storrnwater faciliw needs to be directed to the main channel
of "No Name Creek".
3. Traffic volumes calculated from the D-z'p Generation .tfanual can not be reduced.
The analvsis needs to be re-calculated with no volume reductions.
-~. Right fuming movement from SR i6 eastbound off-ramp should no[ be to~aily
ignored. A 40% reduction is recommended.
5. The SR ~6 westbound ramps, Clifton Road Intersection needs to be analyzed.
6. We rese~'e comments requiring a fair share contribution to improving sections of SR
1.6 until we determine what projects ,,','ill be constructed during the next six years. (I-
695 effects.)
7. A signal warrant analysis for the SR 16 interchange at Clifton Road is required. Ifa
signal is ~varranted, then mitigations will be required.
if you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact Larry..Anderson at
(360) 357-2709.
Sincerely,
~derson~~
Development Services Senior Reviewer
WSDOT, Olympic Region
NORTHWEST CORPORATE CAMPUS
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT REVIEW
ENGINEERING DIVISION COMMENTS
November 3, 1999
Section i. GENERAL COMMENTS ON DRAFT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
1. The information provided in this Development Agreement is at a planning level of
completion. No detailed plans have been provided for review and comment. As
such, additional comments need to be anticipated as the plans and construction
documents are formulated. The Development Agreement needs to allow for
additional refinement during the design and construction process.
2. The Development Agreement, or an ancillary document, needs to include a
phasing plan that correlates the construction of the Business Park with the
construction of public improvements. With development of a phasing plan, k~y
check points can be identified where certain improvements need to be in place
and accepted (or assured through other means such as bonding, if appropriate)
prior to issuance cf building permits in a specific phase. Additionally, the phasing
plan can be used to verify actual versus proposed development needs for
refining of public improvements (an example of this is the ~umber cf lanes
required in the road system from actual :rip data).
3. This Development Agreeme~: has a proposed life cf thi~y years. The
Development Agreement ,qeecs tc have the flexibility to meet changing standards
and requirements, it cannc~ be binding on issues that the City of Rremer~on
cannot control, such as S~.a~e and Federal regulations regarding protection of
endangered species. It also needs to allow for accommodation of City of
Breme~cn standards and poiicles ~ot in place at the time of execution.
4. It is our understanding that this property may not be subdivided, rather leases will
be used as a mechanism for property division. As such, the ,qormal review and
approval associated with a preiiminar,/and final plat are not in place. A process
for reviews and approvals neecs to be incorporated as part of this Development
Agreement, possibly through some connection with the project phasing plan.
5. All City infrastructures (transpc~aticn, water, sewer (unless provided by Pc~
Orchard), and storm drainage) need to meet City of Bremerton design and
construction standards.
8. The Development Agreement needs to provide that the City of Bremerton has a
Limited Power of Attorney regarding an "Agreement of No Protest" for formation
of a Local improvement District (LID) to provide public improvements. The
Limited Power of Attorney needs to be executed in conjunction with the
Development Agreement and recorded against the property.
7. An Industrial Park Association (or other acceptable method) needs to be formed
to provide CTR implementation, storm drainage pond maintenance, etc.
November 2, 1999
Northwest Corporate CampusJDevelopment Agreement Review
Engineering Division Comments
Page1 of 8
8. Non-city owned utilities need to be in the right-of-way under a right-of-way permit,
easement or franchise.
Section II. TRANSPORATION
General
1. The transportation study focuses on Phases 1 and 2 of the business park
development, and looks at Phases 3, 4 and 5 in a limited discussion. The
traffic study implies that a future report will be prepared which addresses
Phases 3, 4 and 5 in greater detail. This lack of clarity is not acceptable as
rights-of-way and traffic lane configurations need to be identified for the phases
and tl~e ultimate project build out.
2. The traffic study focuses on intersections external to the site, and not on the
internal roadway network. A technical memorandum is necessary that clearly
delineates the internal, roadway needs as an element of each phase of the
construction.
3. The traffic study provides a twenty percent tdp reduction due to internal trips
(pedestrians and bicycles) and transit service to the site. To facilitate achieving
these goals the development needs to have:
· A commute trip reduction plan for the entire development in place and
acceptable to Kitsap Transit.
· Sidewalks on both sides cf the streets to facilitate pedestrian movement.
The sidewalk may be eliminated where no businesses cr residences are
adjacent to the street if a satisfactory street crossing to another siCewalk can
be provided.
· Bike lanes shall be implemented on both sides of the street section. Note
that the on-street bike lanes will have an additional benefit in enhancing
truck and transit access through the corridor.
4. This project generally does not provide good connections to the north. The
project uses Sunnyslcpe Road cr the Tremont interchange with SR16. A more
direct connection to the north is desirable, which may force the SR16 and
Campus Parkway connection. Further discussion is necessary.
5. The traffic study does not adcress bypass trips that will occur if SR16 is
connected to Clifton Road through the project site.
6. The project proposes that 17,890 trips are developed in the ultimate business
park configuration. This is a significant number of trips to not have a second
entrance to the development.
7. County and State comments are necessary to complete this review.
8. The Sunnyslope Road at Clifton Road SW carries twenty-five percent of the
project trips. This intersection was not analyzed for level of service or
improvements necessary. This should be discussed.
November 2, 1999
Northwest Corporate Campus/Development Agreement Review
Engineering Division Comments
Page
2 of 6
Business Park, Phase I and 2
1. There is no discussion in the traffic study on the internal street network, sizing
or phasing necessary to meet the trips generated. Specifically, the business
park Phases 1 and 2 will generate 9,170 trips. This information needs to be
applied to the City of Bremerton road standards. In this instance, a minimum
street classification for this is as a principal arterial, not the industrial roadway
section proposed in the development plans. This would require at a minimum a
four lane road as opposed to the proposed three lane road.
Traffic associated with each phase needs to be identified and an appropriate
phasing of the roadway network provided. See comment number 1 in the
Transportation - General section.
2. The ultimate right-of-way for [he project needs to be identified and established
as part of the Phase 1 and 2 project so that it is not encroached upon by the
development.
3. The traffic study is not clear on the emergency access from Figley Road. When
will the access be implemented? What assurance is there that the right-of-way
can be acquired for implementation at that point? This needs to be cleady
stated in the phasing plan, and shown on the site development plan.
,4. Temporary easements will be necessac/ for cul~e-sacs constructed as the
project is phased.
5. Easement access to lots is not permitted. A road tract or flag lot will be
necessary to provide this access. This needs to be coordinated with the
Community Oeveiopment Deoartment.
Figure 3-8 shows five ,~ercent cf the traffic leavinG the project area and Going to
Figley Road. This counters the text statement th, at Figiey Road will be used
only for emergency fire access. This needs to be c~arified.
7. Street trees are recuired at 25 feet on center and must conform to the approved
plantings list.
8. Emergency access roads must be paved. Grave! roads ,,viii not be acceptable.
Phases 3, 4 and ~
1. The traffic study needs ~o identify ¢.he ultimate rc,=..C pattern such that the right-
of-way needs can be identified and provided for as the project develops.
2. The transportation study identifies that 17,890 trips will be generated by the
business park. This is a significant number of trips and a significant area to
only have one primary entrance and exit. Aside from access issues, providing
a second entrance with northbound connections could reduce requirements for
other traffic improvements along Clifton Road SW.
3. Improvements to frontage roads that are identified in the report and the ultimate
configuration should have the right-of-way required as part of the development
process.
November 2, 1999
Northwest Corporate Campus/Development Agreement Review
Engineering Division Comments
Page3of6 ~1 ~
Section III. WATER SUPPLY
The City of Bremerton has been meeting with the developer on water supply issues to
the project sites at the end of September. These discussions are ongoing and will effect
the water supply issues in the development proposal. As these issues are resolved, the
City of Bremerton will be able to provide a water availability letter to the developer for
phases or the entire project as appropriate. The points for development of a mutually
acceptable method to provide water service are:
1. The City of Rremerton is willing to allow this area to be served in the interim by
the Port Orchard Water System. This connection to the Port Orchard Water
System would be made to the existing Fort Orchard line located at Clifton Road
SW and Campus Parkway.
2. The City of Bremerton will not allow combined transmission/distribution main. A
separate distribution main needs to be constructed. Initially, this distribution
main can be connected to the Port Orchard System to provide water to the
project. The developer will construct the distribution main from the proposed
future West 540 Zone Reservoir through the project site. The developer may
recoup distribution main costs through City imposed later comer agreements
with adjoining property owners served by the main.
3. The developer will be responsible for the water system general facility fee in
place at the time of connection.
,4.. ~-he developer will particlpa~e in a zone devetooment fee that will be determined
in the future dependent upon actual zone development costs. The zone
development fee will be applied at the time of ccn~ection to the water system.
5. The developer will r~ct be resocnsibte fcr the existing water system front footage
fee for the distribution system facilities installed by the developer.
6. Easements are to be provided by McCormick Land Company on the ~c~h side
of Clifton Road SW for location of the transmission main and distribution main
that serve the project.
7. Easements are to be provided ac,'-oss the Sciepko property between the pump
station and the transmission main for development cf the W540 Water Zone.
8. The developer will facilitate construction of [he proposed transmission main
through the development property. The agreement should define the term
"facilitate".
9. The City cannot commit to have the water infrastructure in place for the 540
Zone within one year, three to five years is more appropriate.
Section IV. SEWER SERVICE
1. Port Orchard has agreed to provide sewer service to the project. This service
needs to be formalized so that it can be included in Port Orchard's sewer
system planning. The City of Bremerton is agreeable to allow Port Orchard to
provide sewer service to this area on an interim basis.
November 2, 1999
Northwest Corporate Campus/Development Agreement Review
Engineering Division Comments
Page 4 of 8
2. The draft development agreement speaks to Phase 5 being served by the
Kitsap County Sewer Service System to Gorst. If the project proposes to do
this, that flow needs to be incorporated into the ongoing Kitsap County design
of that system. Otherwise that option will not be available.
3. If the City is to provide long-term sewer service to any portion of this property
then the entire project should disconnect from Port Orchard and connect to the
Bremerton system. Phase 5 alone will not generate enough revenue to offset
infrastructure development costs.
Section V. STORM DRAINAGE
General
The draft development agreement specifies that the City of Bremerton will not
charge any fees or assessments for the storm drainage system. This is not correct.
The City has a sedes of credits for properties that maintain stormwater systems and
provide for enhancements. The property will be charged the appropriate stormwater
fee based upon its impervious surface area and with credits for activities as provided
in the Bremerton Municipal Code.
Phases 1 and 2
1. The final storm drainage anatysis for Phase I and Phase 2 shall be conducted
in accordance with the most current edition of the Decartment of Ecology's
Stormwater Management Manua/ for ghe Puge*, Scund 8asin (DOE Manual) in
effect at the time cf construction approval.
2. The wet pond sizing shall inco ,rporate the send vclume correction factor as
outlined in Section 111-1.2 of the DOE Manual.
3. The existing wetland must be protected from high wet weather flows and from
depletion during dry. periods. The final storm drainage analysis must outline the
method of maintaining flows to this wetland. This wetland may not be used as
~'pretreatment" fcr the wet pond.
4. Impoundments of stormwater greater than ten acre-feet in volume require a
Dam Safety permit from the Department of Ecolcgy.
5. The offsite flows in Anderson Creek must be mcdeled in conjunction with the
pond outflow hydrographs to ensure that the existing flows are not exceeded as
outlined in Section 111-1.4.5 of the DOE Manual.
6. A hydrologic study shoUld be completed to evaluate the impacts of this
development on Anderson Creek. Both surface and subsurface flows from this
site will bypass approximately 3,500 feet of the creek and may impact
hydrology.
7. Provide conveyance system design calculations for both the onsite and offsite
conveyance system.
8. The detention pond must be lined as outlined in the geotechnical study.
November 2, 1999
Northwest Corporate Campus/Development Agreement Review
Engineering Division Comments
9. An erosion control plan must be submitted to the City of Bremerton and
approved prior to any grading of the site.
I0. Plan review and inspection fees and Public Works permits are required prior to
construction of the storm system. If the owner is to operate and maintain the
wet pond then utility rate credits are available.
11. The owner must provide an Operations and Maintenance Manual for the
privately maintained portions of the storm system.
12. All street storm drainage needs to go through detention and water quality
treatment. The report does not address Phase 5, street stormwater.
Phase 3, 4 and 5
1. The final storm drainage analysis for future phases shall be conducted in
accordance with the most current edition of the Department of Ecology's
Storrnwater Management Manual for the Puget Sound Basin (DOE Manual) in
effect at the time of construction approval.
2. The current wetland report does not include areas of Phases 3 and 5. A
wetlands report must be submitted and approved by the Community
Development Director prior to construction beyond Phase 2.
3. Impoundments of stormwater greater than ten acre-feet in volume require a
Dam Safety Permit from the Department of Ecology.
4. The upstream offsite flows in No Name Creek must be modeled in conjunction
with the pond out'flow hydrographs to ensure that the existing flows are not
exceeded as outlined in Section 111-I .4.5 of the DOE Man,ual.
5. Plan review and inspection fees and Public Wcri.(s permits are required prior to
construction of the storm system. If the owner is to operate and maintain the
wet pond then utility rate credits are available.
6. The owner must provide an Operations anc Maintenance Manual for the
privately maintained portions of the storm system.
7. The recort, discusses that on, site storm facilities may be necessary for
stcrmwater treatment on Phase 5. This needs to be clarified by which lots will
and won't require on site systems so that the ponds can be sized correctly.
RW/ab
VVP, NVV Corl:x3rate Campus, Development Agre, emenl Review, 11-99
November 2, 1999
Northwest Corporate Campus/Development Agreement Review
Engineering Division Comments
Page 6 of 6
No,'ember 2. 1999 ".;' .~: -~ ~'~" ""
The Department of Community Dc~'elopment Si:~LZ:i~G
286 4th Street
Breme~on. %'A
~: Ron Sciepko
To whom it may concern:
Pfe~c put us on r~ord ,s opposing ~,'hat ~n Sciepko is to'in= to do to .~de~m Hill~
>ly paints li,'ed at 2432 .~de~n Hill S.W. when the address w~ Rt. 4 Box 50~}. I w~ valid at
that addre~ and I ~ now 5, ~d ~he?' lib'ed there LONG before that. Since the?' ha~'e both
away I own the pm~y ~d ~ quite fr~kly appaBed at what 5Ir. Sciepko wants to do.
I w~ sh~ked when the tr~ler business w~ o~yed at the bottom of .~de~n Hill. It is ~ ey~
~d definitely t~k awa7 from the ~auty of the a~m %'by do~ ex'co'thing bax'e to b~ome
comme~i~ized52?'?
Ron Sciepko h~ one thin~ in ~nd ~d nothing et~ ...... money ~d ~ed~
I u~d to play in tho~ w~s that he is to'lng to comme~iMNe ~d tbe~ are deer. racoon.
squir~ls, rabbits, etc. that li~'e t~ere. They ~d then and they do now. ~is business inte~s a~
mo~ impo~ant tb~ ca~n~ about ~'il~ife?'?? I thi~ not.
I'm sure tMs ]e~er is a waste of m~' time since I have no f~th or t~ in the city ~f B~memon. I'm
su~ that Ron Sciepko will ha~'e his wa?' since 'money' s~ms to ~le the world. %'by a~ you
p~ple's zime by ha~Sng a ~biic Heating. I'm sure this h~ ~readx' ~en decided.
~other tbing ........ ~*'~ this propemy adx'e~i~d to the ~generM public ,*'hen it w~ fl)r sMe to
e~'eo'one a ch~ce to bid or did 5lt. Sciepko hax-e inside infomafionT75' If I ~vouid ha~'e ~own
~s-bat 3Ir. Sciepko had up ',als sleeve in pr~u~n~ this prope~y I would ha~'e done ex'eo~hing in my
power to purcb~ the land and k~p it ~he way it should~mam' ' ..... '"" ~anks. Cit~'. of
t~)r losin~ the t~st of ~'o of your residents~
Re=ards.
' ' ' ".~z-~'~
Linda ~chmond
.lame~ T. ~chmond
_J~O E. I9th
(360) 479-2116
FIS, . ERIES DEPARTMENT
Area Code (360)
394-5248
Fax 598-4666
THE SUQUAMISH TRIBE
P.O. Box 498 Suquamish, Washington 98392
October 29, 1999
Jon Holan, Director of Communitv Development
Department of Economic and Community Development
286 4~' Street
Bremerton, WA 98337
Comments - .Anticipated Mitigated Determination ofNonsignificance (MDNS),
Northwest Corporate Campus
Dear Mr. Holan:
The site of the proposed Northwest Corporate Campus lies within the Suquamish Tribe's
~%'sual and Accustomed Fishing ,&rea" (U&A). The Tribe seeks protection of all treaty-
reserved natural resources through avoidance of impacts to habitat and natural systems.
The proposed development activities are within the watershed of Anderson Creek. which
is a salmon-bearing stream. The proposal includes construction of an industrial park.
roadways and a stormwater management system. The Suquamish Tribe is opposed to
changing the land usage in this sensitive watershed. Industrial usage is not appropriate
tbr this area, despite it's current zoning. The development entails practices and uses in
critical, ecologically sensitive areas. Projects which impact critical areas merit the
detailed review and analysis provided by the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and
the Bremerton Critical Lands Ordinance (CLO): a Mitigated Determination of
Nonsignificance (MDNS) will not ~lfill the requirements of SEP)u nor does it meet it's
legislated intent. The Tribe would support the City of Bremerron in requiring that an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) be prepared bv the applicant. Notwithstanding
the Tribe's belief that an M:DNS is inappropriate, comments and recommendations are
offered regarding wildlife habitat, water quality, and cultural resource issues as regards
the proposal.
.'An industrial park will necessarily result in increased urbanization of the Anderson Creek
watershed. The Washin~on Supreme Court has recently concluded that SEPA mandates
preparation of an EIS when significant adverse impacts on the environment are probable,
not when they are inevitable, and the absence of specific development plans should not
be conclusive of whether adverse environmental impact is likely (King County v.
Washin~on State Boundary Review Board for King County, 122 Wn.2d 648, 860 P.2d
1024 (.1994)). More importantly, the Court held that Urban Grow'th Area (UGA)
designations under the Growth Management Act will necessarily result in intensive,
urban level development, in which potential adverse environmental impacts are presumed
(King County, 122 Wn.2d at 665-667). The Chec 'klist and supporting documents clearly
contemplate that clearing, grading and an increase in impervious surfaces will occur. The
associated impacts of this type of development are well documented in scientific
research. See, e.g. (,rrbanization q/Aquatic Systems - deow'adation Threshokls and the
Limits of&lit(gallon. Derek B. Booth and G Rhett Jackson (1994.); (Jr&mization cold the
Nantral Drainage System - Impacts, Solutions. and Prog'nosis, Derek B. Booth (1991);
Consequences of Urbanization on Aquatic Systems - Measured Effects, Degradation
17~resholds. m~d Corrective Strategies. Derek B. Booth and Lorm E. Remelt (1993); Site
Planmngfor Stream Protection. Tom Schueler (1995); Poficv of Wash,kgton Department
offish a~M Wildl~ and Weste.~ ~hmgtot~ Trea~ Tribes Concer. mg ~TM 5~Imoni~;
~sflin~on Depar~ent offish and ~U/dl~b .~lanagement Recommen&monsJbr
Washin~on ~ Priori~ Habitats - Riparian.
For instance, Booth and Reinelt state, "[Lqrbanization imposes a variety of watershed
changes that profoundly affect runoff processes and the downstream surface-water
drainage system. These changes include not only the most obvious manifestation of
urban development, namely impervious surfaces which cover the land, but also the
associated vegetation clearing, soil compaction,, water conveyance modifications, riparian
corridor alterations, human intrusion, and import of chemical contaminants that
invariably accompany such development." Booth and Reinelt further provide, "The data
... indicate that [salmonid] population changes may be measurable at rather Iow levels of
urban development and become quite significant much beyond 10-!5 .percent [overall
imperwious suWace within a watershed]"(! 993 ). The current zoning requirement for this
proposal allows up to 50% structural cover (excluding roadways, eaves, driveways, etc.);
the proposal seeks modification to allow' for :p .:o 60% cover. This obviously exceeds
the threshold suggested by Booth and Reine!t.
.~nderson Creek has documented populations of spawning anadromous fish including
coho salmon, chum salmon and sloe!head in it's lower ~ ~'
.eac,es. These species may also
utilize the lower reaches of :~'o-Name Creek". Both creeks also support a varied aviam
herptite and mammalian fauna important to the ecological balance of the watershed.
Moreover, there is a documented active bald eagle nest outside the north boundary of the
project site. The impacts to wildlife resulting ~om large-scale industrial usage of the
watershed needs to be thoroughly investigated.
While coho. chum and steelhead were documented tbr .Anderson and ",_'No-Name" Creeks
in the applicant's submission, the Tribe believes that the proposal does not give adequate
consideration to the Endangered Species Act CESA) and the potential for naturally
occurring chinook salmon in these creeks. The Tribe has documented accounts of
chinook salmon in nearby Gorst and Ross Creeks, and there is a likelihood that chinook
are naturally spawning in Anderson and '%'o-Name" Creeks as well. ESA protects all
naturally spawning chinook salmon residing below impassable natural barriers (e.g.,
long-standing, natural waterfalls) in the Puget Sound region from the North Fork
Nooksack River to the Elwha River on the Olympic Peninsula, inclusive. Surveys
conducted for threatened and endangered species as described in the applicant's wildlife
report were not comprehensive or conclusive in demonstrating the absence of chinook.
Habitat for culturally and economically important fish and wildlife must be protected.
Inasmuch as development is to occur up to 100' of Anderson and "No-Name Creek", care
must be taken to prevent damage to fragile stream ecosystems. The Expanded
E~virottmenta! ChecMis! included with the submission indicates that erosion control
measures as specified in the "Bremerton City Code" and ~2<itsap County Code" will be
employed, although no site-specific erosion control plan is included in the package. In
light of the proximity of development to sensitive streams, the applicant should be made
(among other things) to show conclusively how the proposed development will impact
the environment and how these impacts can either be avoided or minimized and
sufficiently mitigated. The provided materials do not include models which adequately
tbrecast the impacts (or lack of impacts). This type of analysis is best served through the
ElS or Environmental Assessment protocols provided by SEPA.
The proposed roadway ("Campus Way") spans several areas of steep slopes. Exhibit 1
(in-part) illustrates roadway construction in areas with unstable slopes which are in close
&tO
proximity to No-Name and Anderson Creek (labeled as Areas ~1 and ~-~). Additionally,
Exhibit 1 indicates two areas (Areas #2 and #3) where proposed roadway construction
may involve stream impacts other than the two stream crossing impacts referenced in the
SEPA checklist (as sho~vn in ~eas ~1 and .=~). While these areas were not listed in the
wetland delineation report, they are included in the Department of Natural Resources GIS
data lavers reflected on Exhibit 1, and their function as seasonal tributaries to '%'o-Name
Creek" and .Anderson Creek should be explored. Examination of aerial photo~aphs by
our staff was not helpful in making a determination as ro :he nature of these areas. The
Tribe seeks confirmation that these areas were investigated and are nor ~nctioning
streams / wetlands.
The Tribe beiieves that the roadway should be realigned to avoid geologically hazardous
areas. Construction in geologically hazardous areas should be avoided when potential
risk to public health and safety cannot be reduced to a level of risk comr2arable to the
level of risk if the site were left in its natural state (CLO, Sec:ion 21.22. i00). State
Highway 166, which runs east-west immediately north of .:he project site, has been closed
in sections and is used for local traffic only. These closures are a result of slide activity
along steep slopes abutting the roadwav. The proposed "Cameus Way" traverses the
same steep slopes, and little has been done in the proposal :o show geotec,hnicat
feasibilitv. Moreover, the unstable slopes embank drainages that are pehnicularty
susceptible to disturbance. Soils laid-bare by construction (beyond buffer areas) are often
washed down in "runouts" and eventually cloud higher order streams, destroying habitat
and diminishing water quality.
In any area where soils are disturbed during development, the Tribe supports the
installation of native vegetation in lieu of common exotic landscape species to help
reduce washout and provide ecotonal habitat. Native plants are specifically adapted to
the surrounding environment and provide many benefits beyond erosion control.
Project construction will result in 65% cover with impervious surt~.ces. The ensuing
stormwater runoffwill impact ~o-~ ame Creek", Anderson Creek and Sinclair Inlet. The
Tribe is concerned that the project will increase the amount of stormwater runoff and
exceed the capacity of the stream. Research done by Beverlein (1996) found a 117°,/o
increase in annual volume of surface runoff and interflow when land is converted from
forest to ~ass. When land is conve~ed from forest to impervious surface, the runoff can
be an order of magnitude higher. Without control of water quantity, additional surface
water generated by this land conversion could overwhelm the capacity of this stream
leading to flooding, scouring, and stream channel incision.
The proposed storm sewer plan makes use of an e.,dsting 8.000~- t~: wetland (within
"Tract A") as a catch basin for attenuation and preliminary, treatment. This wetland
drains to .4anderson Creek. Due to the nature of the proposed land usage (industrial), and
scientifically tested affects of impervious surface coverage increase in a watershed, the
Tribe is very concerned that the proposed water inputs will compromise the inte~ity of
the wetland, and subsequently the creek. The Tribe feels that the loss of wetland and
stream area, function and quality is not mitigated for in the proposal.
The proposed sanitary sewer and storm sewer lines ~vhich are proposed for the eastern
boundary of Phase I and II would seem precipitously close to the steep slopes of
,~X~nderson Creek. Detailed geotechnicat analysis is needed ~.o confirm that this is a
feasible placement. Ruptures of these lines such as might occur during an earthquake
may lead to raw sewage being reieased ro :he stream system. Adequate safeguards and/or
alternatives have not been indicated in the checklist or supporting documentation.
Finally, the 5uquamish Tribe has utilized the lower reaches of .-hnderson and :%-o-Name
Creek", as well as Sinclair Inlet for thousands of years. There are named sites which
have been recorded near the mouths of:,oth creeks, and archaeolo~_ical records indicate
that the Suquamish harvested dog and silver salmon fi.om these creeks, and gathered
huckleberries from the creek banks. There are documented campsites near the shoreline,
and cultural resources could potentially be found as far inland as the project site. The
Tribe recommends that an archaeological assessment be completed prior ro any
earthwork. A list of recommended archaeological firms is enclosed.
In summary, the Tribe has raised many concerns regarding the proposed development.
Among these concerns are:
the proposal area is inappropriate for industrial usage;
· the proposal fails to ~lly consider the potential for chinook salmon in :Xmderson and
'~-o-Name" Creeks;
the proposal lacks a detailed erosion control plan wkh sensitivity to protection of
salmon and other wildlife habitat;
· the proposal lacks adequate wetland delineation / investigation - confirmation that
,'Lreas #2 and #3 (Exhibit 1) are not streams or wetlands;
· the proposed roadway is aligned (in part) in a geologically hazardous area as defined
by the CLO;
· the proposal does not adequately model / forecast resulting pollutant loads, nutrient
loads, water velocity and general impacts to Tract A wetland, Anderson Creek, '%'o-
Name Creek", and Sinclair Inlet;
· the proposal does not adequately quantify the effects of increased impervious
surfaces in the Anderson Creek watershed;
· the proposal lacks geotechnical analysis which provides assurances of safety and
environmental protection; and
· the proposal fails to consider potential cultural resources.
The Tribe reiterates the assertion that an EIS is appropriate for the proposed action.
Thank you for the opportunity of commenting on this proposal. Should you have any
questions regarding these comments, please contact Jon Sloan, (360) 394-5251.
Sincerely,
Phyllis Mevers, Environmental Pro,am Director
Fisheries Department
Enclosures
cc: Stephan iKahnowski. Department of Fish and Wilalife
Nell A. R/ckard. Department of Fish and Wildlife
,Rachel Friedman_ Narionai Manne Fisheries Service
Ste~'e Wells. Director - Washington State Trade and Econormc Commum .ty Development
Rick Kimball SEPA Administrator - Kitsap Count3.'
The Friends of :anderson Creek
Randy Hatch. SuqUmmsh Tribal Fisheries Direaor
.Ion Sloan. Suquamish Tribe EnVU'onmental Program
Scott Wheat. Suquamish Tribal Attorne-~'
~':': ----'q 1
Area ~2
(Urn
Area
- ~
~'~ ~ / >:-:':-:'
~ /
~ "' ~' / ~eams w/
!
/ 0 5~ 1.0CO ~ /
fe~ ~ streams
~ ~ ~ DNR R~ord~ Strum
0 0.1 ~ ~ 1~ Buffer Area
' Proposed Proje~ Bounds
: ~nderson ~ Prop~ R~d
~ ~ gppro~. Proi~t ~rea
~o-Name" : Creek
Creek . Hazardous Areas
~ ~ Unstable SIo~
~ N
~ ~ Areas of Concern
'1' W E ; I Const. in C~i~l Area
S
THE ~OHAM~ ~IBE
o mwm
[XHIBII 1
THE SUQUAMIo.f TRIBE
RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR
CULTURAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENTS
A cultural resources assessment includes:
· Review soil boring records
· Review historic maps and literature
· Review nearby archaeolo~cal studies
· Review proposed construction techniques and how they may condition
archaeological monitoring
· Review foundation excavation plans to determine where they might intersect
native soils
· Develop a monitoring plan based on the cultural resource assessment
· Develop a cost estimate for further work based on the probability, of intersecting
native soils or historical period archaeological deposits
Suquamish Tribe's recommended contractor list:
Lyrm Larson
Larson .amthropolo~cal/Archaeolo~mcal Services
7700 Pioneer Way, Suite 101
Gig Harbor, WA 98335-1164
(253) 858-1411
(206) 782-0980
Randall Schalk
International Archaeolo~cal Research Institute, Inc.
P.O. Box 51058
Seattle, WA 98115-6911
(206) 525-6911
33_53 A. nderson Hill Road SW
,~"~' ~). ~
p.~,~,c, ~: ~ Port Orchard. WA 98367
B..,._~ t',~ v:.-.-':';~*'.',:~ Thursday 28 October 1999
TO: City of Bremerton
Department of Co--unity Development
286 4~ Street
Bremerron. WA 98337
RE: "Industrial/Commercial Development Agreement for the Northwest Corporate Campus"
which was noticed in the Sun on tO~tS,'99 for public comment.
As the developer's plans for this area have progressed, the City has answered our
concerns, repeatedly, with a promise that impacts would be thoroughly' evaluated when a
concrete proposal for development was made. We have reached that stage, and Mr. Sciepko's
own consultants' language shows that fi. kwher assessment should be required.
In the "development agreement", tk, e ;'original parcel" is defined as 377 acres on page t.
and later, the agreement states that "The Northwest Corporate Campus is part of the Anderson
Creek Corporate Campus Site. which comar/ses 377 acres... !33 acres of the AC CC. as shown
on the Cit5"s Comprehensive Plan. have been dedicated for open soace for the preservation of the
Anderson Creek Corridor and surromnding areas." This open-space dedication, and that of the
"No-name Creek". do not indicate the owner's lordly largess: they're legal requirements by the
CID'. State and Federal governments. Mr. Scieoko was not given control of the .Xmderson Creek
stream corridor. Nor. to our t, mowledge, has he vet made final payment for an',' of the City's
land. The 56-acre residenriai portion on the northwest was not included in the [P zoning. These
misleading statemems, introductory in flavor, corrupt the agreement, and the "gxpandeJ
Environmental Checklist." dated 9/24/99. Other requirements are given short shri2 in this
proposal.
Some of the steepest and most fragYe slopes directly overlook Highway [6. We are
concemed that this agreement will prematurely bind the City to a deveiopment scenario that max.'
include sites that are desirable because of proximity to the roads but unsuitable for develoament
l-or environmental reasons. The threshold environmental dete,~ination and an,,' further
assessment, if required, should precede the City's commitment to a site map. since mitigation
may include reducing or relocating parcels.
We are very concerned that the combination of hydric soils and unstable slopes in many'
areas of this project will result in landslide potentials. Pervasive and steep unstable slopes and
surface runoff from the 65% impervious surface at buildout could create ongoing disasters like
the problems further down Highway 16 which have closed the highway ibr months over the last
few years. Landslides in the area below this proposal, however, could either impact the City's
Page 2
pump statio~l and water supply or actually close oft' part oF the highxxa3 from Go,'st. Sciepko's
consultants urge that site preparation be limited to dry weather, a tacit nod to the danger's.
We tbund a direct conflict between the reports in the tblder we perused. Two of them
give strong warnings against using detention and retention ponds (unlined'?'). and recommend
piping runoff directly to the creeks (Anderson and No Namel. Tile reports blandly note that this
would result in significant erosion, and suggests that channeling or armoring tile creel,:, along
with periodic maintenance such as dredging, would probably' be necessary. The plan to pipe
water directly to the creeks is unacceptable, since increased peak flows would be a biological
disaster for the creeks and thin_os livim, in them. not to mention residents nearer the creek's
mouth who are living in the "flood zone". Natural periods of iow riow in the summer ,,~ ould
become extreme, with the loss of water that would have slowly' percotated through the land to the
creek. Minimum flows could be reduced to the point that creel,: fauna would be impacted.
However. the most recent document, which is the proposed "Agreement". directly
contradicts the consultant's advice by recommending/5'equent use of detention and retention
ponds. This advice ,,,,'as occasioned due to the unacceptable threat of land slides posed by these
ponds. If the ponds are used. and are lined, ho',,,' ,.,,'ill that water make it back into the creek
ecosystems'? If it is not returned, what will the results be of remc. ving that water sottrce :~rom ~he
creeks? If the ponds aren't lined iand we saw no plan to do so .. :i~.en the steep ,~tastab[e
slopes/landslide issue ~hat the first repo~s warned o£ becomes a~~. '.macceptaOie probiem_ The
City's own Critical Lands Ordinance identifies this area as geologically hazardous.
in the early documents in this file. includin= Mr. Scieako's own consultants', coi~.o.
chum. and steelhead, and tile likelihood o£ cutthroat, were listed ~s bein< :resent in Anderson
Creek. No-Name Creek has not beer~ adeauatelv studied, but probably' has salmon in its !ower
reaches. However. in the "Expanded Environmental Cl:ecklist". salmon v, ere not listed
(underfined~ as being stream irfl~abitants. Since species or' chum. ~nd salmon are protected. ~heir
omission from the "Checklist" is a red flat.
Neighbors can provide a more detailed list tt~an the "Checklist". as we've mentioned in
the past. The watershed area is home for songbirds, indeed: but. in addition, more than one
pair of pileated woodpeckers (a protected species), at least two kinds of owls. golden and bald
eagles, nighthawks, red-tailed and other hawks all live within the forest. There is an eagle's
nest in the lower watershed. The stream beds are natural corridors tbr wildlife, including bear.
beaver, raccoons, bobcat, coyote, many deer. and other mammals.
Groundwater concerns have been addressed in a per~nctory manner. Treatment of
possible contaminants is an extremely serious issue for the City's wells, in addition, no
mention has been made of potential impacts to quantity and quality of the water in the private
wells upon which local residents depend.
Page 3
Nor have the costs of public roads been considered. The lack of City impact fees has
not been mentioned. Certainly 6000 workers' cars and the traffic into and from this site would
impact the state and county road system.
We urge you ro require an environmental impact study at this time, [o evaluate [he
effects of this proposal in a thorough manner, including the cumulative impacts of the
proposed logging, bridging, roadbuilding, possible development, and most impacting allowed
industrial uses. This proposal endangers protected species, creates hazards for existing
residents who live downstream, and will create enormous changes in the lives of those who
live in the general area. We also urge you to actively include those who will be most affected
in your planning process. The hearing before the Planning Commission could be an
opportunity to begin to bridge the gap between this isolated piece of Bremerton and the Citv
proper, to build community, and work toward a mutually acceptable outcome.
Thank you ]~br your attention.
Sincer~y.
Helen E. Havens-Saunders. President
Association to Protect Anderson Creek
PH: 360-876-8904
KITSAP COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
614 DIVISION STREET MS-36, PORT ORCHARD WASHINGTON 98366-4682 BRUCE FREELAND, DIRECTOR
(360) 337-7181 FAX (360) 337-4925 HOME PAGE - www.wa.gov/kitsap
October 28. 1999
Ion ~olan
City of Brememon
Dep~ment of Community Development
286 Fourth Street
Bremenon. Washington 98337
Re: Notice of Application for North Co.orate Campus
Dear Jon:
Thank you for the opportunity, to review the Draft Development Agreement application for the
Sciepko property. We continue to have concerns of overall project impacts and in particular
traffic. We have distributed the various studies to our technical experts and will comment
specifically during the environmental review' process.
Sincerely.
Rick Kimball
Environmental Coordinator
RK:rk
TOLL FREE FROM: BAINBRIDGE IS. 842-2061 OLALLA 851-4147
State of Washington ~,, ,~wL,,
Region 7 Mailing Address: 600 Capitot Way N - Olympia, Washington 98501-1091 - (360) 902-2808
Region 7 Office location: Natural Resources Building - 1111 Washington Street SI= - Olympia, Washington
October 25. 1999
Jon Holan. Planning Manager
Department of CommuniU' Development
City. of Bremerton
286 Fourth Street
Bremerton. Washington 98337
SU/3JECT: State Environmental Policy Act Document; Ron Sciepko Proponent,
Northwest Corporate Campus located northwest of the corner of Old Clifton
Road and Anderson Hill Road SW, Kitsap County.
Dear Mr. Holan:
The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) has reviewed the above-referenced
State Environmental Policy Act (SEPAl document received on October 18.1999. and oiZers the
following comments at this time. Other comments may be offered as the project progresses.
1. As stated in the environmental documents for this project storm water from this
development will impact two streams I.amderson Creek. X,¥TL[A 15.0211 and No Name
Creek. WP, dA 15.0215). The proposed development provides adequate buffers within the
project boundaries along both these streams. Storm water facilities need to be
constructed to the Department of Ecology (DOE) storm water management manual for
Puget Sound or an adopted equivalent local manual at the time each phase of this project
is constructed. Additionally. if ne,,,,' storm water requirements have been adopted
between project phases, then previous developed areas should be retrofitted with
improved systems to bring them ,zp to the current standards. Hydraulic Project
Approval(HPA'} will be required for all storm water outfall construction and ma.',: be
required for other aspects of storm v,'a~er facilities if they are not desigr,.ed to DOE
standards.
2. Any stream crossings ~br road construction should be by bridge with a span long enough
to maintain a natural stream corridor for stream functions and wildlife movement. Utility.
crossings should be located at bridge crossings or bored under the streams if other
crossing locations are required.
3. Significant portions of this site will remain undeveloped and will continue to provide
habitat for many species of wildlife. Additional mitigation for impacts could be achieved
by using native vegetation in the landscaping theme of the park. Setback areas should be
Mr. Holan
October 25, 1999
Page '~
left in native vegetation whenever possible. Native vegetation should be incorporated
into the solution any slope stability, problems which may develop.
4. There are other opportunities for mitigation by enhancing fish passage at the lower end of
Anderson Creek: in conjunction with the City. of Bremerton. Further assessment of No
Name Creek should be conducted to determine the feasibility, of habitat enhancement or
fish passage barrier correction projects to benefit fish.
Thank you for the opportuni .ty to provide these comments. If you have any questions, please
contact me at (360) 895-3965.
Sincerely,
Stephan A. Kalinowski
Area Habitat Biologist
SAK:sak:nwcampus.099
cc' SEPA Coordinator. WDFW
SEPA Coordinator, DOE
Dave Price. WT)FW
233
Washington State Olyml~ic Region Headquarters
Department of Transportation
October 26, 1
Ms. Tdcia Bennon
Depa~ment of Economic and Community Development i ~) ~ ..:~ E
286 4~' Street
Bremenon, WA 98337 :
SR 16, MP 28.25 Leti Vicinity
Northwest Co.orate Campus. PL99-0073
EC File No. 99126-K
Dear Ms. Bermonl:
We have received and are reviewing the subject proposal and have the following
preliminary, comments:
1. The stormwater report for this project is faith/extensive and the Department is still in
the process of reviewing this report. As preliminary, comments, the Department will
only accept storm water runoff that currently enters state fight-of-way from the
existing site. Any increase in storm water runoffwill reauire appropriate stormxvater
treatment measures in accordance with the Department of Ecology Stormwater
Management Manual. In addition, the Developer/property owner will be responsible
for the maintenance and replacement of any drainage facilities installed in the Stare
right of way. These plans shall address erosion, sediment control, and stormwater
runoff mitigation. Upon review of the submitted plans, a Utility, Permit, issued by our
Regional Utility Office may be required.
2. The Department will not be responsible for noise attenuation. The proponent bears
responsibility of noise.and !and use compatibility,. The development should be
planned, designed and constructed in such a way that noise impacts are minimized.
3. Advertising sig-ns visible from an adjacent State Highway must comply' with the State
Scenic Vistas Act of 1971, which is administered by the Department. For information
regarding the signing regulations, contact the Olympic Region Traffic Operations
office at (360) 357-2671.
4. The traffic study for this development is fairly lengthy and is still being reviewed by
State forces. It is anticipated that the State will not look favorably upon a direct
connection between Northwest Corporate Campus and SR 16.
If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact Larry Anderson at
(360) 357-2709.
Sincerely,
Development Ser~'ices Senior Reviewer
WSDOT, Olympic Region
-'" ~"""~ J. Scott RappleTe. Deputy Fire Marshal
~1 817 Paciti¢ Ave. · Bremenon. WA 98337 · (360) 478-5384 · FAX (360) 478-5397
Monday, October 18, 1999
TO: Allison Duke
Fire Chief
FROM: Scott Rappleye
Fire Marshal's Office
SUBJECT: The industrial commercial development agreement for Northwest
Corporate Campus
There are a number of concerns [ have found in e.,chibit A-9 booklet, put out by
Apex Engineering
1.) The maximum height and allowable areas, should be determined by standards
already adopted. (i.e. U'BC, LTC & BMC) (Page 2 of document)
2.) Setbacks are addressed in the Uniform Building Code (Ut3C) currently adopted.
It may be that they want to use zero lot lines. That may be why they don't want
any side yard set backs. We need to know' this up front and deal with it bv
using the UqBC. (Page 2 of document)
3.) The Bremerton Roadway standard addresses dead end roads. It says that; all
buildings shall be sprinkled if the dead end road exceeds 500 feet in len~h. It
may take 30 years before this road is no longer a dead end, phase V. l believe.
that because of the remote location of this property and the distance from
essential services, that all buildings need to be sprinkled. The other options
are; a response agreement with the adjacent fire department, or merger with the
city of Port Orchard. (Page 4 & 5 of document)
4.) It should say in the agreement, that all current codes will be followed. This
project will be going on for as long as 30 years, from phase I through V. There
will be 10 different codes over that period of time. It needs to say somewhere
that, current codes shall be used. (Page 4 & 5 of document)
PAGE I · Celebrating 50 Years of Freedom · c3my documentsXJogo.rap.dot
5.) The agreement needs to address all requirements found in the Bremerton
Municipal Code. Issues such as, fire sprinkler and fire alarm requirements,
gates, address numbering, accessibility to buildings, fire department
connections, land clear permits and other items.
6.) Another issue is accessibility to the buildings. Article 87 ofuni~brm fire code
requires that access roads be installed prior to any combustible construction
above the foundation. It also requires fire hydrants to be installed prior to an.,,'
combustible construction above foundation. (Page 5 of document)
7.) There are a number of issues that could be curtailed as long as we put in this
agreement, that all roads shall be installed to the Bremerton roadway standard.
(Page 5 of document)
8.) Other items to address, are access easements, rather than private or public road
tracts. Roads have standards to meet, where easements do not. I don't think
easements are a good idea. We need 20-foot wide access roads with 13' 6"
clear space to all buildings. The easements they propose meet these standards,
but what requirements will other tenants have in the future7 (Page 6 of
document)
9.) Will the old ~vater line from Gorst, be available for conversion to a sewer line
for this project? Without Bremerton sewer, will Port Orchard want outside user
agreements, there bY' making it possible ~br Port Orchard to annex at a later
date2 Can Port Orchard and Bremerton merge7 (Page 7 of document)
10.) Water supply is a big issue, will Port Orchard water meet commercial fire
flow' for this area'? What are the reserves and tank sizes? Will they sustain 2-a
hours of constant use'? Another reason to sprinkle att buildings. (Page 7 of
document)
11.) Will fees, taxes and assessments be required2 (Page 8 & 9 ofdocumen0
12.) What is the intent of this agreement regarding the 3 0-vear time frame?
(Page 10 of document)
13.) Fire department turn arounds will be needed at the end of each phase, not
just w'hen all phases are complete. These shall meet Bremerton roadway
standards. This is addressed in the booklet. (Page 5 of document)
14.) Gates will not be allowed unless they meet out BMC s'candard. Will there
be any' bridges and what standard will be used to construct them?
15.) Other concerns; trees over the road during the winter, land slides over the
road, wash outs of the road by streams or creeks. Water rising over the road
could also be a problem.
16.) All land clearing ,,,,rill be subject to PSAPCA, at some point they could stop
outdoor burning.
PAGE 2 · Celebrating 50 Years of Freedom · c:'my documents",logo.rap.dot
I N T E R
MEMO
0 F F ! C E
To: Jon Holan, Director of Community Development
From: Chief Rob Forbes
Subject: Northwest Corporate Campus Project
Date: October 15, 1999
Please find attached those comments and observations made by Sgt. Tom Pratt, supervisor of our
Traffic Unit and "resident expert" when it comes to reviewing such documentation concerning
traffic related matters. If you should have follow up questions, S~. Pratt is available at 478-52151
from 1400 to 2200 hours beginning on Friday 10-22-99. He has Tues./Weds. off. If you would like
to contact him prior to Oct. 22nd, he can be reached at the same number between 0800 and 1600
hrs. It is my hope that those observations made by Sgt. Pratt will assist you with your project
concerns.
~,/-Chief o'f Police~ ....
MEMO
To: Chie
Subject: Observations of the Campus Parkway Project
Date: October 15. 1999
In reading and looking over the attached material, the lb[lowing observations were made:
1.) The vicinity map indicates 80' right of ways tbr the Parkway. The attachment map in the
Traffic .Analysis book indicates 150' of right of way. Regardless of the width (I feel 80' is ample
tbr what I read lbr lane width, sidewalks, mediums, etc), I do not recall seeing the proposed lane,
medium, sidewalk widths, if there will be multiple lanes of travel over a once mentioned single
lane in each direction with a two-way left turn lane. The types of businesses mentioned would
cause large trucks including semi and possibly double semi-truck traffic. Will driveway, lane,
mediums, etc. widths allow for this type vehicular traffic? What Lype vegetation w'ill line the
streets and will this cause anv hindrance to sight-distance visibility during turning movements?
2.) Of concern: Parcels 44.48.49 and Tract A appear to be affected bv a curve at the crest ora
hill. The topography indicates a relatively steep incline on the South side with a lesser de~ee of
incline on the North side. The affect parcels and tract could conceivabiv have driveways near the
crest. This would affect sight-distance safety, especially ifa passenger vehicle (wkich usually
travels at a Mgher velocity) were to be on the road and just out of sight ora large truck that may
be ingressing or egressing a driveway and is at a much slower velocity. This is a sat'err issue and
would probably be addressed at a development preconstruction conlkrence.
3.) The book relates that in Stage V. Campus Parkwav "mav be" connected with Highway 16. I
do not recall any considerations with this connection other than possible traffic counts. My
concern is "if' the connection is made. consideration should be undertaken to look at a speed
reduction lane tbr fight turn in and an acceleration lane ~br right turn out traffic in a 40mph zone.
(This would be the same as has been installed on Highway 16 at the ,Anderson Hill Rd.
Intersection.)
4.) Campus Lane appears to have a yep' steep hill on both sides of,Anderson Creek. Perhaps I
misread the map. but it appears there is about an 80' elevation change in the vertical compared to
horizontal travel of 200' +/-. If my interpretation is correct, this is a very, steep grade and I would
ask what is looked at to correct - excavation? A bridge?
5.) In the Expanded Environmental Checklist book. Exhibit A-8 under part XV, Public Services
part A. it relates there is anticipation the completed project "may" increase the need tbr fire and
police protection. I would anticipate there will be an increase in police presence once
construction begins. This will be caused by such things as vandalism, theft, etc. Once a business
g3fl
Chief Forbes
Page 2
October 15, 1999
is established, patrols will have to be made (for presence, if'nothing else) plus investigations for
other reported crimes that come with the establishment of a business, residence, etc. I would
anticipate a minimum response time of five (5) to eight (8) minutes under normal traffic
conditions and perhaps one (1) to two (2) minutes less under emergency conditions. During rush
hour, response time could take as much at 15 minutes even under emergency conditions. The
time delays primarily will be due the phases of construction with the only entrance (at least for the
first IV phases) on Old Clifton Rd.
The above is but a brief observation. If you wish further work or input, please let me know.
Department of Communi~ Development
Ocraber 22, 1999
M,-. Ron Sciepko
3023 W. Stare Highway 16
Breme:on, ~'A 98312
Re: No~&wesr Co.orate C~.~us -- Deveio~m~nt A~eement
De~ 5~. ScieCko:
~nis le~er ~s intended co s~=e o~ mee~g held on Ocrob~ 20~ to re~ ~e
DA ~ ' '
~cr ~,e xbove :erezenc~ 7rojecz. D~mg
3, e pro~ec: md seecific ~ssues ~nat need to be
~2ese ~ssues ~e ~
vt:cc, seal. These skould ~nc!ude 2ro~e~ 5esi~
aF~rov~, ~qdn ccns~c:cn of 60°'~, cf
secznd shoe oc:~ng w{~nin nme 7~. You slncuid prcpcse ~e :l-~es for ~e
:em~ning ph~es ,~nfnm 5ne 30-v~ orciec: ~encd. It is noted ~ar ~hese ~romsions
_ . ~r ~,e ~mre vk~es. Rem~nmg ?h~es
_~n_,ce.,.a'~ ~; ' ~ ' an ~. [nd~du~ b~is when ~nev ~e a~oiied for ~u~u~r :o 5EP_%
:ecuiremenu.
,~qe D.< needs :o address .x crocess ~or sire aim approves (ct 3azure uses. %ne process
wiil 51ow For 5n~ confi~mdon ,:i[c= md or Ieee ~e= ~ weil'= speci~c bu~ng
pi~ns. T~,ese 'Xnil ~hen be ad~.isrered 5qrough
have direr:ed 3'N. Mocre to ~:her inio~afion on abe recor&ng process necess~
gnat lots cm be created for s~e.
Po~z:'bk Ca~ C~nwr
The issue o(~e Civ/resemng eight (8)
distressed. Mr. Beef, Director o(Econcmic Development, needs to be included
· ' ¢" '~' '.~ ,' -c his ofF. ce as scon as ~s remonabie .qt (360)
~ZLtU.:re d~scuss~on~. [ ~.,u~u.~_ you . zn, n~c: '
- -' ~ ., been b~er~d or me :e~ui~ o¢our me ....
Az you ~now ~e roa~vm,' cress secmcn rrocosed d~rffers ~cm ca~tn: C~ur ~d possible
Ccunr.- stud.-ds. Com~en: hnve ye: :o be.~.~e~; ' ~ Eom Ce v~ous PubIic Worb
DeD~L~ents. You %e encour~ed :o zonmc: dqem :o coor~nzte ~heir r~sconses. Prior
:o compleuon o¢ ~eir ~ee..men: ~'e 7¢i1i recmre subm~ o¢ :oz~vav cross section,
uUI~ues), Ce offZset nature ,~¢ fine ,zons~zcuon widnm d~e dth: offwzT, [~dscaping
[~r ~ees) ~d dne~r rate,non ~dnm ine ~'enq~ (20) ~ocr 9on~ 7~d ~ *'
Prior to deve!ooment co~encm~ ~. ove~ ~i~e p[~ flor dne c~pus shoed be
~evi~-ed md approved by ~ne Co--umw Devdopmen~ D~e~or. One promsion
~is pro~ ~s dnat si~s -%~ ~mnmd :c Free s~g monumen[ s~s no~ exc==~g
(10) r~et M hmght. At a mm~, orZzer si~s ~e pi~. shodd ad~ss ~e dk~odes
~d offf premises direcnon~ si~s.
~,,_ mresee :he need ~or v~ous sernacx :ecutremen~ ~'tmm me 7ro~e7 s~te. We beEeve
d~e setback secdcn of 4ne D_~ needs :c be :e~sed :o rebec: dze &~cw~ng ten,emend:
a. Se:bad~ ~om. zee emsznz ~m~,s need ~o be a mLnZmum c,f ~00 fie: ~d maybe
lncre%ed b=ed ucon ~en~ :ammen= d~rcu~h -~¢ SEPA 2r3c~ss.
crossm~ ~rovtded ~na ?:ocer, :e~.fm ~:~ ob:ned.
h. q *k :-~ from ' m, oc, S': ~¢*--~ ..... 50-~7~: ¢ '
mchmc~ :~3c~. ~ese re.ay ~ m.e~ed ~rcugh ~r~2~:dcp. o~ a s~ecL~c re~o~
c. 5etbnc!~ kom.,~,ce.-~; ' ~.nm,' :t-, zoned 3roee~es ~cnz~ me ........ ~'ion bound~ need
to be de:ined. You ~ndcamd %z ~temenE hm been made ~462 ~.e ~rooe~
owner :o rlze ioudz :o re. mn z~n z ....._ .~ ~nm- ~:"~, ~ .,,"~ ;"_,: fcc~'0ur:er" o S 7ege~on.
(ad~ac~n~ :o residend~ zcmn~ -~. zo aave ~ ::~ ,rd: foot bur:er of naive
vegemdop,. Supplementing mese ~e~ wi~, addidon~ ':egemacn ~421 be
addressed ~: &e p~ce! tiers!cement ph~e b~ed on bu:~r con'dens ~d ~e
proposed site pt~, Zae buiidmg serbac!~ you have proposed ~e to be me~ured
from ~ese e~edor buffer ~.
7. Sr~c:u~ Hd~bu
Building heigh: requirements ~e cz~en~v tbS,, (40) feet. Zne DA su~ests skcW (60)
feel which is accepmbie provided ~ addidon~ one Soot off setback is provided for eve~'
, ~40~ foot .... ,-~ - This setback will
~oo~ o~addidon~ height over abe cu~en: fo~z / ', '
be me~u~ed from extedo: bu~fe: ~e~ and p~ce! Lines. Incre~ed building height
ove~ fou~ ~40) feet wiil be limked to oK-ace building.
$. L','er
Proiecz uses ,~re curre.nd¥ con,rolled .b~' Figure 140 "Land Use Tabtes" or- the Breme%on
5[unicioaJ Code. We intend :o ~rther c[azi¢? ~e pe.wni~ed uses by using "SIC and
_~.-hZCS", group an.d indusm7 nurnbe~. We ~'}1 be ?ro<dw.g you copies ofr the use
descriptions ne.x. week. llese desc2odons :~re m~ended To be adopted by re.ere.ace and
rlqere(ore a de~nidon sec';~on should be added co r~he IDA.. _'Fne de~nitions Cot these ~ex-~s
should be xs .:oilows:
"SIC" Grouv and Indusaw Number~. These refer :o sveciF, c group md ~dus~
catego~es established in ~e Smd~d Mdusm~ C',=siHca=on MmuM (US ~mu off ~e
Budge~ W=hm~on, US Govemm~n: P~g Of Sce, I9875
"N.~CS" Group ~d Ind~ N~be~. ~nese refer to sped~c ~oup ~d md~
categones es=bl~hed in ~e Xo~ _~e~c~ Indus~ C!=si~cafion S~t~m
Of~ce of ~e Presiden~ Office oF Nf~men~ ~d Budge~ 199~
~qere may be addifionN :e~s ahat need de~i=on ~d I ~'o~d enco~e you ~o
~ ~' ' ' ' :~'or!~g of me ~ docament.
c~n_lae_ ~is m your
in .:cnc!usion, ! (ee! ~odav's meem~g w~ ve~ prod=c=ve, ~.d ~ ~cok ]c~;~d :o
~e ::~sed ~oc:me~t. It would be Ee!=&ai :o receive it =<or :c ~e mee~g o(O~ober Z9a.
!] ,;cu have m7 ques~as, pi~e do ncc kezi~te :~ ~ve me x c51 :t i~360) 478-5275.
2601 S 35~ Smee: ~200
Txcom~ WA 98409-7¢79
Association to Protect Anderson Creek
Mission Statement
Characterized by steep canyons, mature second growth forest,
abundant wildlife and a pristine salmon stream, Anderson Creek is a
critical natural resource of statewide significance that has been publicly
owned and protected as a watershed for over 80 years. The Association
to Protect Anderson Creek is dedicated to maintaining, preserving and
protecting this natural resource for future generations by:
Educating and informing the public about the importance
and value of the Anderson Creek ecosystem and public and
private policies, proposals, plans and actions which might
impact it.
Encouraging public involvement in government planning,
decision making, and oversight of all matters affecting the
Anderson Creek ecosystem.
Advocating continued public ownership and protection of
wetlands, streams, critical areas and wildlife habitat in and
around Anderson Creek.
~ Supporting the State Environmental Protection Act (SEPA)
process and ensuring that full scientific environmental
review is conducted and included in the decision making
process for any action or proposed action which may affect
the Anderson Creek ecosystem.
,,~ Monitoring development projects in and around Anderson
Creek to ensure appropriate environmental safeguards are
in place to protect the Anderson Creek ecosystem and
maintain water quality.
~ Coordinating with other community groups whose purpose
is rural preservation, protection of wildlife habitat and
endangered species, environmental awareness and
education, or citizen action and involvement.