HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/26/00 AGENDA ***AMENDED***
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
JANUARY 26, 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 a,~
the request of a Council member.
/
A. Minutes of Meeting - January 5, 2000 #AB00-013
B. WTSC Bicycle & Pedestrian Safety Project and Grant #AB00-014 ~
C. Vest Partnership !999 Supplemental Funding #AB00-015 j ~
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. U.S. Department of Justice Local Law Enforcement #AB00-016
Block Grant
B. ^ ~'"~'~"+'"'~"+ ~'f Tony T~"''"S *'" *~ ~,-,~,4 Wao+,, #^ ~nn 04 -z
M-~n ...... + c',-,,-,.,,-,.,;~.,~,~ ITEM PULLED
C. I nterlocal Agreement Regarding Solid Waste Disposal #AB00-018
Vendor Selection
D. Land Lease Agreement with Kitsap Square Dance Assoc. #AB00-019
E. Professional Services Agreement for Design of Reservoir #AB00-020 ~'O
No. 4 Pipe Modifications
~ ~;..~ r',-,,.+.,-,I C"'"*'""* ITEM PULLED +~z~r=nn no~
(CONTINUED ON BACK...)
10. ORDINANCES
A. Ordinance (First Reading) Establishing a Special #AB00-007
Election Date of May 16, 2000 for a Parks &
Recreation Bond
11. PUBLIC HEARINGS
THIS !S 4 Q~JASI JUDICIAL HE4RlhJG ITEM PULLED
B. Refer Back to Planning Commission: Item PL 9g-0083 ~AB00-023 ] ~
Relating ta Issuance of Building Pe~it for Garage at
1409 Madrona Point Drive ITEM ADDED
12. ADJOURNMENT OF MEETING
AGENDA BILL
BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL
1. SUBJECT: FOR AGENDA OF: JANUARY 26, 2000
ORIGINATING DEPT: CITY COUNC I L
MINUTES OF MEETING- JANUARY 5, 2000 ORIGINATOR: CAROL ARENDS, PRESIDENT
DATE SUBMITTED: JANUARY 20~ 2000
2. ~,,~~: (comment on back if necessary) 3. EXHIBITS:
ENDORSEMENT INFORMATION__ APPROVED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FOR SUBMITTAL:
MAYOR: COUNCIL PRESIDENT: ~-~--'~_. ~'~~)
4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION:
8. RECOMMENDATION:
9. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL:
ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL:
EXPIRATION DATE:
REVIEW DATE:
10. NOTICE OF ACTION:
PULLED__ TABLED__ APPROVED__ DISAPPROVED__ AME~~__
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE: DATE:
11. AGENDA BILL NO: 00-- i~ t3
TAPES #1675, #1676, & #1677 _ UNAPPROVED DRAFT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
&
MONTHLY STUDY SESSION MINUTES
January 5, 2000
Jarrtes N. Docter, Municipal Court Judge, administered the OA TH OF OFFICE during a Swearing-In
Ceremony for re-elected Council members Cecil McConneil, District #2, and David Fart, District #6;
as well as newly elected Council members Ed Rollman, District #4, and Co~ District #8.
The weekly meeting of the City Council of the City of Bremerton was then called to order in the City.
Council Chambers, 239 4th Street, Bremerton, Washington, Wednesday, January 5, 2000, at
approximately 5:45 P.M., with Council President Mike Shepherd presiding. Council members now
present were Jim Reed, Conrad Esser, Carol Arends, David Fart, Ed Rollman, John Law, Cecil
McConnell, and Wayne Olsen. Also present were City Attomey Glenna Malanca, Deputy City Clerk
Paula Johnston, and Legislative Assistant Lori Smith.
The meeting opened with the Pledge of Allegiance led by Council President Shepherd, followed by
the invocation, given by Reverend Roger Hennigan of Apostolic Life Tabernacle Church.
President Shepherd made the following announcements:
(1) City Council held a Pro-Council Session to discuss general Council business, and a brief
reception to welcome new and re-elected Council members.
ELECTION OF CITY COUNCIL OFFICERS
President She.oherd opened nominations for City Council President/Mayor Pro Temporo:
Mr. Farr nominated Carol Arends.
President She.oherd closed the nominations.
#0217 M/S/C/U (Olsen/Reed) Motion to cast vote by roll call in lieu of ballot.
Mrs. Arends was voted Council President by a unanimous vote of the Council.
The meeting was turned over to new Council President Carol Arends.
President Arends opened nominations for City Council Vice-President:
Mr. Law nominated Wayne Olsen.
President Arends closed the nominations.
#0301 M/S/C/U (Shepherd/McConnell) Motion to cast vote by roll call in lieu of ballot.
Mr. Olsen was voted Council Vice-Prosident by a unanimous vote of the Council.
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Lease Extension with Kitsap Transit for Bremerton Transportation Center #AB00-001
Staging Site
#0350 MIS/C/U (McConnell/Olsen) Motion to approve Consent Agenda as presented.
CLAIMS/CHECK REGISTERS
There was no "Vendor Claims" listing this week.
#0390 M/S/C/U (Law/McConnell) On January 5, 2000, the Council does approve for payment as
follows: Regular Payroll for the period ending December 31, 1999 in the amount of $936,630.75; and
Retiree Payroll for the period ending December 31, 1999 in the amount of $119,537.84.
TAPES #1675, #1676, & #1677
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
January 5, 2000
Page 2 of 6
COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS
The Council members each offered their thanks and appreciation to Mr. Shepherd and Mrs. Arend$
for their service as President and Vice-President for the past year, and offered their congratulations
for newly elected Council President Carol Arends and Council Vice-President Wayne Olsen.
Wayne Olsen stated that although the Council members may not always agree on the issues, he
hoped for more fellowship among the new Council in the coming years.
Cecil McConnell reminded Mr. Shepherd of one additional duty to complete which was begun during
his term as Council President, and that is to complete the updating of the "City Council Rules &
Procedures".
John Law announced the next District #3 meeting to discuss a "Cooperative Approach to Combined
Sewer Overflow Reduction" with special guest Gene Sampley, Director of Public Works & Utilities,
would be held Tuesday, January 18, 2000, 7:00 to 9:00 P.M. at the Senior Center located at 13"~&
Nipsic. He was also happy to report a positive conclusion with the removal of the abandoned vehicle
in the Manette area, and thanked Chico Towing for their assistance.
Ed Rollman offered compliments to the City's Fire and Police Departments, and thanked Carlos
Montcjomery and Lon Overson for their years of service to the City.
Mike Shepherd announced the next District #5 meeting would be held Thursday, January 20, 2000
at 6:30 P.M. at the Memorial Lutheran Church located at '10th & Veneta. Items to be discussed
include "Fire Prevention" with Scott Rappleye of the Bremerton Fire Department, and the proposed
"Recreation Community Center" with Cris Gears of the Parks & Recreation Department.
David Fart congratulated Mrs. Arends and Mr. Olsen, and pointed out that although it is an honor to
be elected to these positions, it does come with a lot of extra hard work. He wished them luck!
Conrad E~ser thanked Mr. Montgomery for his years of service, and thanked the voters for their
confidence in him. He hopes to see a lot of positive things for the City in the coming years.
Jim Reed welcomed Conrad Esser and Ed Rollman, and welcomed back Cecil McConnell and David
Fart. He thanked Mike Shepherd for a "tumultuous", "active", and "productive" past year.
President Carol Arends also thanked Mike Shepherd, and welcomed Conrad Esser & Ed Rollman.
MAYOR'S REPORT
Mayor Lynn Horton discussed the "Final Chapter of Y2K" report by Bill Eley, the City's Information
Services Director. In preparation for "Y2K", the City invested about $65,000 for two back-up
generators, (which could still be utilized throucjhout the year during power outages); replaced some
equipment at the Wastewater Treatment Plant; and purchased hardware and software for both the
Water and Wastewater Departments. She believes the City of Bremerton was well prepared due to
the regular upgrades to the computer system over the last several years and staff training.
LEGISLATIVE REPORT- There was no report this evening.
PUBLIC RECOGNITION
Don Larson, President of the Kitsap Diving Association, discussed his desire for more water
activities in the Bremerton area, and encouraged further waterfront development.
TAPES #1675, #1676, & #1677
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
January 5, 2000
Page 3 of 6
Gordy Byrd thanked Carlos Montgomery and Lon Overson for their service to the City.
Ed Peitras thanked the City Council for their service and help they have provided.
H. Emily Moshey congratulated Mrs. Arends, and welcomed the new and re-elected Council
members. She invited the public to the Bremerton Chamber of Commerce Luncheon to be held
Tuesday, January 11, 2000, beginning at 11:45 at the Howard Johnson Hotel on Kitsap Way, with.
Congressman Norm Dicks as guest speaker. Anyone interested in attending may call 479-3579 to
make reservations. Cost is $14.00 per person in advance, and $16.00 at the door.
Bob Winters congratulated newly elected and re-elected Council members, and encouraged citizens
to become involved by running for City official positions.
Jack Lefcoski stated he will miss the service of Mr. Montgomery and Mr. Overson, and cautioned
new Council members not to "rubber stamp" their decisions, and maintain some "vision".
Susan Brown also addressed the new Council members, and reminded all Council members that
there was no "shame" in stepping down from a vote if they did not feel they had sufficient information.
Larry Dickerson complimented the hard work and dedicated service provided by the City Council.
10A - GRANT ACCEPTANCE COOPERATIVE APPROACH TO CSO REDUCTION, #AB00-00?
Kathleen Cahall, Water Resources Manager, reported that the Public Works & Utilities Department
applied for, and received, a State Centennial Clean Water Fund Grant for a project titled "Cooperative
Approach to CSO Reduction". The purpose of this project is to inform citizens about the City's
combined sewer overflow reduction program and to educate residents in how they can help reduce
overflows by preventing stormwater from their roof drains from entering the sanitary sewer system.
The grant amount is $150,000, and the City's match is $50,000. It was pointed out that even without
the grant, the City would have to provide a program to reduce sewer overflows.
Ruth Natividad asked how the residents would be notified before any action was taken. Ms. Cahall
responded that a multi-media approach would be taken to encourage citizens to participate in the
program on their own, and welcomed any other ideas to further provide information to the public.
Mr. Reed asked if the Iow-interest loans were for the applicants or the City to use for infrastructure
work. Ms. Cahall stated the grant funding was for the City to use for public education and work in the
right-of-way. They are currently looking into programs to assist applicants. She further explained
that work in the right-of-way could consist of minor work such as disconnecting a downspout and
using splash blocks, or more drastic work such as changing the lateral going into the home.
Mr. 'Farr stated that $200,000 seemed to be an excessive amount just to "get the word out", and
asked if the City could spend the $150,000 first, and if it proves to be a sufficient amount to educate
the public, the City save the City's $50,000. Ms. Cahall stated that generally, the City's amount of
matching funds would equal 25% of whatever amount from the grant is spent, and clarified that the
money was not only for education, but would also fund necessary construction in right-of-ways.
Mr. McConnell questioned the necessity to spend money on a "logo" and print 30,000 self-help
brochures on separating roof-drainage when there are not that many homes in Bremerton? Ms.
Cahall stated that 30,000 was a "high-end" estimate, but they would only print what was necessary to
notify the public, and explained the cost for a "logo", if required for the grant, would be very minimal.
TAPES #1675, #1676, & #1677 _
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
January 5, 2000
Page 4 of 6
#1984 M/S/C (Farr/Law) Motion to approve and authorize the Mayor to sign the attached Grant
Acceptance, subject to City Administrative Policies and Procedures.
Vote on motion: In favor: Shepherd, Farr, Esser, Reed, Olsen, Law, Rollman, Arends
Opposed: McConnell
Motion carried.
10B - YEAR 2000 AMBULANCE RATES. #AB00-003
Paula Johnston, Deputy City Clerk, stated that pursuant to the ambulance regulatory ordinance,
ambulance rates charged for 911 BLS aid calls must be approved by the City Council. Both local
companies, Olympic and Bremerton, have submitted requests for rate increases for 911 BLS calls to
be effective January 5, 2000. Clerk staff has surveyed regional ambulance companies for
comparable rates. All surveyed companies have raised their rates since 1999 for BLS, and the array
of products and services they provide. It was further stated that several regional ambulance
companies were contacted, and those findings have been incorporated in the packet of information.
It was found that Olympic and Bremerton Ambulance rates were very competitive, even with the
proposed 5% increase.
Klm Doyle, representing Bremerton Ambulance, stated her company is asking for a 5% increase
over 1999 fees, which would raise a BLS rate to $254.65. She pointed out this is still significantly less
than comparable companies, but was necessary due to a number of reasons, including higher cost
for expenses, as well as a continued increase in Medicare and Medicaid write-offs.
Elizabeth Buell asked what the 5% would amount to. Ms. Doyle stated it would be a very minimal
out-of-pocket expense, approximately $3 or $4.
Mr. Farr asked how the proposed 5% increase compared to CPI. MS. Johnston stated the current
CPI is 2.7%. Mr. Farr stated he could not support the increase if it was higher than the CPI.
McConnell reminded the Council that the CPI rate does not take into consideration that some people
do not pay their bills, which the ambulance companies must absorb. Mr. Farr assumed that if this
was an annual adjustment, it should already consider such factors as non-payment.
Mr. Reed stated the increase seemed reasonable, and suggested that in the future, the City Council
consider not dealing with this type of issue, and allow businesses to run as a "free enterprise".
Mr. Esser asked the staff from the ambulance companies if they would be contacting the State
Legislature regarding the Medicare and Medicaid dilemma; and was there an "early pay" discount.
Bill Sterling, representing both Olympic and Bremerton Ambulance companies, stated that the
discounted BLS rate is shown on an attached spreadsheet; and that yes, they are aggressively
addressing, the State regarding Medicaid payments which do not even meet their minimum costs.
Mr. She_Dherd asked if the rate of default has changed from last year. Bill Little_iohn, representing
Olympic Ambulance, stated that there is no appropriate "index" to guide their percentage of increase.
M (Farr) Motion to approve a rate increase for the Year 2000, equal to the current 2.7% CPi, rather
than the proposed 5%. Motion died due to lack of a second.
#2780 M/S/C (Shepherd/Reed) Motion to approve the proposed 5% rate increases for Year 2000,
based upon the survey and the relative lower costs for services offered by Olympic and Bremerton
Ambulance companies.
5
TAPES #1675, #1676, & #1677
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes --
January 5, 2000
Page 5 of 6
Vote on motion: In favor: Esser, Reed, Olsen, McConnell, Law, Rollman, Shepherd, Arends
Opposed: Farr
Motion carried.
With no further business meeting adjourned at 6:50 P.M.
PAULA JOHNSTON, Deputy City Clerk
CAROL ARENDS, City Council President
City of Bremerton
PJ/CNIs
C: Normal Distribution
File
MONTHLY CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION:
(1) CONSTRUCTION PROJECT UPDATES - RANDY WITT, CITY ENGINEER
A copy of the Public Works & Utilities, Engineering Division Monthly Status Report was
handed out to City Council members, which included updates on the following:
· Bremerton Transportation Center Project
The switching around of the Holding & Loading Area; Beginning of Construction on the South
Area; and Finishing Work on the Terminal Area Building (expected completion date in February)
· Public Works Projects
Kitsap Way Project; Werner Road Corridor/West Hills Commercial Improvements; Callow CSO,
Priority 3 & 5; Burwell Hill Climb; Pine Road CSO Facility Plan; and 1999 Traffic Calming Program
· Engineering Division Utility Projects:
Miscellaneous Water Projects; W650 Zone Improvements; Anderson Cove CSO; Pump
Station CW-2 Upgrade; Snyder and Ohio Avenue Sewers; CSO Reduction Plan Update;
and Reservoir No. 4 Outlet Pipe and Cover Replacement
· SR304 TransPortation Improvement Project:
Executive Steering Committee Meeting; Loss of $8.8 million in funding as a result of
1-695; Right-of-Way Acquisition; Structure Disposal; Public Outreach; Environmental
Cleanup; Gateway Improvements (Porter Street to Montgomery Avenue); and a Biological
Assessment
· Public Works & Utilities Projects:
Evergreen Park Phase ! Renovation; Evergreen Park Phase ;[! Remediation; Manette
Ballfleld Improvements; and Warren Avenue "Carpenter Field" Improvements
TAPES #1675, #1676, & #1677
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
January 5, 2000
Page 6 of 6
(2,) RISK MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR CHLORINE WITH KATHLEEN CAHALL, WATER
RESOURCES MANAGER
Visuals were shown, with detailed information provided on the following topics:
· Risk Management Plan for Chlorine
· Bremerton's Use of Gas Chlorine
· Requirements of the RMP
· How Do We Prevent Chlorine Leaks?
· Map of Chlorinating Location at McKenna Falls
· What Would Happen in the Event of a Chlorine Leak?
(3) PRESENTATION OF PORT BLAKEL Y SUB AREA CITY~COUNTY PLANNING PROGRAM
WITH JON HOLAN. INTERIM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR: RICK SEPLAR,
MADRONA POINT PLANNING COMMISSIONER; AND JOHN ADAMS, OF PORT
BLAKEL Y COMMUNITIES
Kitsap County and the City of Bremerton are in the process of preparing a Sub-Area Plan for
approximately 440 acres of undeveloped land owned by Port Blakely. The subject property is
located west of Kitsap Lake, within the City of Bremerton's Urban Growth Area. The proposed
project would include residential, commercial, and business uses, as well as public trails, a
public park, and a buffer adjacent to neighbors.
(4) DISCUSSION ON RECREATION CENTER SITE WITH MA YOR LYNN HORTON AND CRI~
GEARS. PARKS & RECREATION DIRECTOR
The economic development potential was discussed, as well as the following topics:
· Background information on how this proposed project developed
· The original site evaluation based on criteria that included lot size, site acquisition cost,
accessibility, visibility of the facility, and physical characteristics
· Formation of a Bond Committee and "Y2R" Campaign ("Yes to Recreation")
· Formation of The Project Design Team
· Disadvantages and Advantages of a Downtown site were also provided
AGENDA BILL
BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL
1. SUBJECT: FOR AGENDA OF: 01/95/00
WTSC Bicycle/Pedestrian Safety Project and Grant ORIGINATING DEPT: BPD
ORIGINATOR: Tim Sholtis
DATE SUBMITTED: 12/23/99
2. CLEARANCES: (comment on back 3. EXHIBITS:
~.~f n~~)
Agreement
Documents
Treasurer ~ ~",,,' .~' ~,
Budget & Fiscal Committ~_'"~--~/y/~/~ (,CONSENT AGENDA)
Ope ions
ENDORSEMENT X IN~Rt~ATION m APPROVED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FOR SUBMITTAL:
MAYOR
4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION:
The City accept the Washington Traffic Safety Commission Cooper Jones Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Grant
for $10,000. The City is not required to match the funding.
8. RECOMMENDATION:
Motion to approve accepting thetfunds and administer the project according to the agreement.
9. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Mayor Lynn Horton
ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: Chief Rob Forbes
EXPIRATION DATE: 09/30/00
REVIEW DATE:
10. NOTICE OF ACTIObI~
PULLED TABLED APPROVED DISAPPROVED 3 BED~
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE: DATE:
11. AGENDA BILL NO: 00 ' O I ~
2. CLEARANCE COMMENTS (Continued):
4. SUMMARY SATEMENT (Continued):
5. IMPACT OF NON-PASSAGE:
The City will not use the funds.
6. IMPACT ON STAFFING, BUDGETS, FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT, OR OTHER RESOURCES:
The funds will be used towards training two officers, supplemental bicycle safety and pedestrian education
programs and material support for the Bike Patrol.
7. RESEARCH RESOURCES:
N~
STATE OF WASHINGTON
WASHINGTON TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION
1000 S. Cherry St., PO Box 40944 · Olympia, Washington 98504-0944 · (360) 753-6197
December 17, 1999
Chief Robert D. Forbes
Bremerton Police Department
239 4th Street
Bremerton, WA 9~3~7
Dear Chief-~rb~
Enclosed is a completed-signed copy of the Bicycle/Pedestrian Safety Project for your
agency. You may now begin to spend the funds to support your needs defined in your
proposal. Please remember to file quarterly reports with a final report due at the project's
end.
Thank you for your efforts to promote bicycle and pedestrian safety. Parmerships like this
are the roots to a safer traffic environment for all of our citizens. I look forward to
working with your agency on this project and please contact me if you have any concerns
or if I can support your needs in anyway.
Pedestrian/Bicycle
Program Manager
CC/File
I0
Washington State Traffic S.._afety Commission
1000 South Chewy Street
PO Box 40944
OIympla, Washington 98S04-0944
360! 753-6197
360) 586-6489
Section 1
Project Agreement
Project Title: Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety
Type of Application:. Initial ~, ooper-Jones Revision:
Ownership 'of facilities or equipment, acquired through this funding, shall be vested with the applicant agency,
not the state of Washington. However, facilities or equipment acquired through this agreement shall be utilized
and retained in highway safety operations during the useful existence of such equipment or facilities. Costs
incurred for maintenance, repairs or support of such equipment or facilities shall be borne by the applicant
agency. Further, il: is understood and agreed that the activity covered by this project, as more particularly
described in sections 2 and 3 attached thereto and made a part hereof, is undertaken under authority of
Section 402, Title 23, United States Code and is subject to the administrative regulations established by
federal guidelines and the Washington State Traffic Safety Commission.
Applicant Agency: City of Bremerton Pol±ce De~)artment
ProjectDirector: Robert D. Forbes
Name Robert D. Forbes 'Address: 239 4th Street
Tide: Chief of Police Bremerton, WA 98337
Telephone: 360-/4-/8-52'77
Governmental Unit:
Authorizing Of Hcial, Governmental Unit:
Planned Project Duratio~: From: /0/'~//~' To: ~/3 ~,/ ~
Approved by:
Title~~ ,.
Signature: ~/ . ~ vi ~ ~ State:~Local:
~ ' I
It is hereby understood that this application and attachments 10) Purchases- Pumhase of equipment or services must comply
hereto, when approved and signed by all concerned parties, as with state or local regulations. Al'~er the end of the project
indicated shall constitute an agreement by and between the period, equipment will continue to be utiliZed for highway
applicant organization to perform in accordance with the terms of ~ safety purposes or will not be disposed of without written
this application and attachments, taken as a whole, approval of the vv-rsc. The Conb'actor shall make and
maintain an inventory of equipment to include descriptions.
serial numbers, locations, costs or other identifying
1) Reports - The Contractor shall submit quarterly reports, a information, and submit a copy to the WTSC.
final report at end of project, and submit special reports as 11) .Third Party Participants - No contract or agreement may be
outlined Project Agreement, Addendum A, Billing and Report entered into by the Contractor related to this proiect which are
Requirements. not incorporated herein and approved in advance by the
2) Copyriohts. Publications, and Patents - Where activities WTSC. Shall be provided that he the Contractor will retain
supported by this project produce original copyright material, ultimate control and responsibaity for the project, w'rsc shall
the Contractor may copyright such, but the WTSC reset,cos be provided with a copy of all such contxacts and agreements
nonexclusive and irrevocable license to reproduce, publish, entered into by Contractors. Any contract or agreement must
and use such materials and to authorize others to do so. The allow for the greatest competition pracC_._-~__ble and evidence of
Contractor may publish, at its own expense, the results of such competition or justiFy:orion for a negotiated contract or
project activities without prior review by the WTSC provided agreement provided to the WTSC.
that any pubF~cafions (written. visual, or sound) contain 12) Minority-Owned & Women-Owned Business ~nterprises -
acknowledgment of the National Highway Traffic Safety The contractor will utilize minm'ity-owned and women-owned
Administration (NHTSA) and the WTSC support. Any business enterprises, if available, which are ce~fied by the
discovery or invention derived from work performed under this Office of Minority and Women's Busine~ Enterp~ses under
project shall be referred tot he WTSC. who will determine the state of Washington Certif'~afion program. The WTSC
through NHTSA whether or not patent protections will be established goals of the dollar value of all COntracts awarded
sought, how any rights will be administered.' and other action by the Agency. The percent of 10.1 be awarded to minority-
required to protect the public interest, owned businesses and 4.0% be awarded to women-owned
3) Termination - This project agreement may be terminated or businesses. The authority fa' this requirement is RCW 39.19
fund payments discontinued or reduced by WTSC at any time es seq. and nJles promulgated thereunder.
upon written notice to the Contractor due to nonavailability of 13) Americans w~th Disabilities Act - In the performance of this
funds, failure of the Contractor to accomplish any of the terms agreement, the Contractor stroll comply with the p~'ovisions of
herein, or from any change in the scope or timing of the Title VI of Civil Rights Act of 1964 42 USC 20Od. Section 504
protect, of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 29 USC 794 Chapter -:9.60
4) Fiscal Records - Complete and detailed accounting records RCW. and TiUe I of the Americans with Disabaities Act 42
will be maintained by the Contractor of all costs incurred on USC 1211-12117 as now o~ hereafter amended. The
this proiect, including documentation of all purchases of Contractor shall not discriminate on the grounds of race.
supplies, equipment, and services; travel expenses; payrolls; color, national origin, sex. religion, mental status, age. creed.
and time records of any person employed part-time on this Vietnam-£ra and Oisabted V~erans status, or the presence
project. Federal. state, or WI'SC auditors shall have access of any sensory, mental, or physical handicap in any terms and
to any records of the Contractor. These records shall be conditions o,~ employment to include taking affirmative action
retained far three years attar the final audit is completed and necessan! to accomplish the objectives of th~s part and
all questions resolved, denying an individual t~e opportunity to participate in any
5) Fundinq - The Contractor will utilize funds provided therein to program provided by this agree, lent through the provisions of
supplement and not to supplant state and local funds services, or otherwise afforded others.
otherwise available for these purposes. Funds are to be 14) Political Activities - No fu.-~s, materials, equipment, or
exp*.nded only [or purposes and activities approved herein, services provided herein shall be used for any partisan
Reimbursement will be made periodically by W'i'SC for its political activity or to rue, her the election of de~eal ol any
share based on approved cost reports. The Contractor will candidate for public office or to pay any person lo influence or
expend t'rom nonfederal sources the required matching a~empt to in,'luence an officer or employee of congre~s, or an
amounts, which shall be expended not later than 30 days employee of a member of congress, an officer or employee of
following the completion of the projects, congress in connection wf'~ the awarding of any federal loan
5) Cost Principles and Grant Manaqement - The allowability of or the entering in of any coo1~rative agreements.
· costs incurred and the management of this project shall be 15) Sinqle At;dit - State and local governments that receive
determined in accordance with the Office of Management and federal assistance are subject to the audit requirements of the
Budget (OMB} Circular A-87 and 4gCFR, Part 18 for state Office of Management and Budget (OMB} Circular A-12B. An
and local agencies, OMB Circulars A-21 .and A-110 for institution of higher education or a nonprofit entity must
educational institutions, and OMB Circular A-122 for nonprofit comply with audit requirements in OMB Circular A-133. An
entities, independent audit of the Cmancial operatiotts, including
7) Obliqation Funds - Federal funds may not be obligated prior compliance with provisions of federal Law and regulations of
to the effective date or subsequent to the termination date o[ all funds expended, must be arranged for by the contractor.
this project period. Obligations outstanding as the termination A copy of the completed audit must be submitted to the
date shall be liquidated within 30 days. VVTSC.
8) Chanqes - The Contractor must obtain prior written approval 15) Seat Belt Policy - No funds, materials, property, or services
from the WTSC for major project changes, including: changes will be provided to any political subdivision that do~s not have
of substance in project objectives, evaluation, activities, the a concurrent and actively enforced policy requiring the use of
project manager, key personnel, or proiect budget, seat belts.
9) Income - Income earned by the Contrai:tor with respect to the 17) Druq Free Workplace - In acc_~dance with the Anti-Drug Act
conduct of the proiect (sale of publications, registration fees. ol 1988 41 USC 702-707 and Drug-Free Workplace, 42 USC
service charges, etc.) must be account4ed for and income 12644, the WTSC has the responsibility to ettsure that
applied to project purposes or in reduction o~ project costs, unlawful manufacture, distribution, dispertsing~ possession or
use of a controlled substance by any employees, grantees,
and/or sub-grantee of the Agency and/or any such activity is
-. prohibited in the workplace.
Program Manager Signature Date
Section 2
Description of Activity
Present Status
Currently, the Bremerton Police Department has four officers assigned to bike patrol
duties and details. Part of our project is to have six officers capable of performing bike
patrol duties.
Obiective
The primary objective and intent of BPD bike and pedestrian safety program is to educate
bicyclists to reduce crashes, injuries and deaths.
Proposed Activities
The BPD proposed activities are to:
Work with the local schools through their Pedestrian and Bike Safety Officers in
the spring 2000.
Work one-on-one with kids in proper helmet fitting and bike safety.
Support all nine elementary school bike rodeos.
Identify dedicated bike officer patrols in support of: Local festivals
Armed Forces Day parade
Special events at City Parks
Ferry and bus terminal pedestrian traffic
School zones
Pedestrian only promenades
Conduct a bike-give-away program with helmets at Christmas.
Partnership with the local Department of Defense security agencies for DUI
emphasis patrols using bikers.
Enhance the capabilities of the Bike Patrol Unit
Evaluation
The number of bicycle collisions resulting in injuries or fatalities will be computed on a
quarterly basis.
The number of participants at bicycle fairs will be recorded.
Time spent on bike patrol and at fairs and schools will be reported.
Field contacts and citations will be measured.
Participation by local merchants who provide parking lots, helmets, and other equipment
for door prizes and tee shirts will be counted.
Washington Traffic Safety Commission
Section 3
Budget and Cost Sharing
Budget:
Direct Costs:
$
0.
00
1 .Salaries and WageS:
2. Employee Benefits: $ 0.00
3. Travel and Subsistence: $ 3,000.00
4. Contractual Services: $ O. O0
5. Equipment: $ 5 ~ 000. O0
6. Goods and Services: S 2 ~ 000.00
Total Direct Costs: S 10,000.00
Indirect Costs: $ 0.00
TOTAL: S 10~000.00
Cost Sharing: Matching Share:
(Washington Traffic Safety Commission use only) WSP Field Salaries FY
Share Amount PercenJ Applies To:
Federal: $ ,/~, ~¢')0,/']_~, ~_) ~ Slate . ?C
State: $ ~¢GCY) ,/')b ~ ~ Local
Political Subdivision:
Total Estimated Cost:
Revision:
AGENDA BILL
BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL
1. SUBJECT: FOR AGENDA OF: 01~00
Vest Partnership 1999 Application Approval ORIGINATING DEPT: BPD
Supplemental Funding ORIGINATOR: Tim Sholtis
DATE SUBMITTED: 12/23/99
2. CLEARANCES: /~mment on back 3. EXHIBITS:
,~,~ecessary)
Treas~rrer I~::~ ~-"7 Supplemental Funding Approval Letter
Budget & Fiscal Comm'~~.-'~'~",~.~ .~'
Operations Co~.~:::~.~---~~.~_~_~'.~' (CONSENT AGENDA)
4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION:
The Federal Government will pay 50 percent of the costs when the Department purchases ballistic
vests over the next 3 years - FY 2000, 2001, and 2002. The City received initial approval for $4,000.
Now supplemental funding of $7,823.50 is approved. Current costs for the vests are $369.00 plus
$31.00 shipping charge. Police on duty are afforded ample protection through the use of safety
and body armor.
8. RECOMMENDATION:
Approval action and accept the Vest Partnership Supplemental Funding
9. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Chief Robert Forbes
ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL:
EXPIRATION DATE:
REVIEW DATE:
10. NOTICE OF ACTI~ CN
PULLED TABLED APPROVED DISAPPROVED __ DED ~
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE: DATE:
_0o- 5
2. CLEARANCE COMMENTS (Continued):
4. SUMMARY SATEMENT (Continued):
5. IMPACT OF NON-PASSAGE:
N/A
6. IMPACT ON STAFFING, BUDGETS, FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT, OR OTHER RESOURCES:
The impact on the budget will reduce expenditures on vests $4,000 and $5,000 over the next 3 years.
7. RESEARCH RESOURCES:
N/A
Received: from vests, ojp.gov
([208.245.195.253])
by adm2; Sun, 19 Dec 1999 21:06:41 -0800
Received: from vests.ojp.gov (root@vests.ojp.gov [10.1.1.106])
by vests.ojp.gov (8.8.718.8.7) with SMTP id AAA26069;
Mort, 20 Dec 1999 00:00:18 -0500
Date: Mort, 20 Dec 1999 00:00:18 -0500
From: vests@reisys.com
Message-ID: <135065326.945666018127.JavaMail.root@vests.ojp.gov>
To: HORTON@CI.BREMERTON.WA.US, TSHOLTIS@CI.BREMERTON.WA.US
Subject: Your BVP Application for Funding has been Approved
Cc: vestsmail@reisys.com, WATKINSR@ojp.usdoj.gov
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
1999 Application Approval
Supplemental Funding
The Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) is pleased to inform you that
your application for funding under the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant
Act of 1998 has been awarded additional funding of $ 7823.50.
This amount constitutes the total additional funding available to your
jurisdiction, BREMERTON CITY, this year.
Purchasing and Receiving Vests: As this notification is only sent to
jurisdictions, we request that you convey this supplemental funding to
any law enforcement agencies included in your application. Your chief
executive (or designee) is responsible for determining the process through
which the supplemental funding is used to meet individual law enforcement
agency vest needs. Once purchased vests have been delivered to law
enforcement agencies, an on-line receiving report must be completed. The
jurisdiction then requests payment from BJA to cover up to 50% of the cost
of the vests received. Jurisdictions are responsible for ensuring that
purchased vests are in compliance with applicable program standards, that
the invoiced pdces do not include unrelated law enforcement equipment,
and that program payments do not exceed 50% of the cost of purchased vests
under this program.
Electronic Funds Transfer: When BJA receives the jurisdiction's
request for payment, funds are electronically transferred from the U.S.
Treasury to the jurisdiction's bank account, as identified during the
on-line registration process. Up to three weeks may be needed to process
the payment. You will be notified via email once your request for
payment has been processed. Each jurisdiction is responsible for facilitating
prompt payment to vest vendors.
Please direct questions about this program to the technical support
staff at 1-877-75VESTS (1-877-758-3787). Thank you.
AGENDA BILL
BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL
1. SUBJECT: FOR AGENDAOF: 01~
ORIGINATING DEPT: BPD
U.S. DOJ Local Law Enforcement Block Grant ORIGINATOR: T. Sholtis
DATE SUBMI'I-rED: 01112/00
2. CLEARANCES: (comment on back 3. EXHIBITS:
Treasurer -- ~i~--~, .z_~ , Electronic Award Review
Budget & Fiscal Committee .L-~-~_~_~__,~ ,, ,/
Ope,ations Con ee
Police Chie~,,,,~/..":;~,~,~."
ENDORSEMENT X INFQRMATION __ APPROVED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FOR SUBMrl-I'AL:
4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION:
Bremerton was awarded $47,851.00 from the U.S. Department of Justice through the LLEBG formula
program. The funding is for police vehicle purchases. The City has a cash match of $5,317.00
over the grant period of October 1, 1999 to September 30, 2001.
8. RECOMMENDATION:
Recommend that the City Council approve accepting this local law enforcement block grant, and comply
with the special conditions according to grant administration.
9. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAl: Chief Robert Forbes
ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL:
EXPIRATION DATE:
REVIEW DATE:
10. NOTICE OF ACTICUU: ~
PULLED TABLED APPROVED DISAPPROVED ~AMN~D
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE: DATE:
oo- o
2. CLEARANCE COMMENTS (Continued):
4. SUMMARY SATEMENT (Continued):
5. IMPACT OF NON-PASSAGE:
The funds will not be used by the City
6. IMPACT ON STAFFING, BUDGETS, FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT, OR OTHER RESOURCES:
The funds will be used towards funding police vehicles.
7. RESEARCH RESOURCES:
LLEBG - Applicant Award Review Page 1 of 2
LLEBG Applicant Award Review
Applicant Znformation .......
Please ensure that uppercase and lowercase have been used in your Applicant Information fields;
uppercase or all lowercase letters. You may use the "Accept with Change" function below to make
corrections. If you have provided only a post office box, please use the "Accept with Change" func
provide a street address.
Applicant Jurisdiction Name: Bremerton City
Jurisdiction 03P Vendor Number: 916001231
Jurisdiction Address Line 1:239 4th Street
Line 2:
City: Bremerton
State: Washington
ZIP: 98337
Jurisdiction CEO: Ms. Lynn Horton
Jurisdiction CEO Title: Mayor
FY 1999 Award Information
* FY :1.999 LLEBG Final Award Information: $47,851
Matching Amount: $5,317
Special Conditions: to review the special conditions associated with this Award. This cc
NOT an official government document, but may be printed for use as a reference tool in your inter
files. You will be able to print the official Award page and special conditions once you accept your
* This amount will represent any eligible amount calculated for FY 1999 plus any needed adjustmE
to FY :[998 Award amount.
Applicant Award Review Decision Options
~ Accept This function will result in an immediate acceptance of the FY :[999 LLEBG Award
corresponding special conditions.
Acceptance of this Award and special conditions DOES NOT result: in an automati
of block grant funds. B.]A requires that all grantees return to the Grants Managem
(GMS) in late January to begin the Request For Drawdown (RFD) phase of the Aw
Please take time over the next several months to plan a detailed budget and coml
your special conditions.
(' Accept with Change
This function will provide you with the ability to correct and/or update the spelling
jurisdiction's name and mailing address. B.]A will consider these adjustments an ",
Change" and will require no additional information from you to accept this Award.
C' Change Chief Executive Information - Requiring Additional BJA Review/Approval
This function allows you to make changes to the Chief Executive's (CE) name and
20
http://grants~~jp~usd~j~g~v:8~~3/gms/p~sq~/~~ebg-grantee-review~detai~s?p-app~-seq=3542 12/27/99
LLEBG - Applicant Award Review Page 2 of 2
will consider this to be a "Change Requiring Additional BJA Review/Approval." Onc
submitted your changes, B3A will not provide you with any additional notification,
remember to come back into this system to see if your Award documents have be
approved and they are ready for your acceptance. Please allow 3-5 days for B3A t.
any changes.
Decline This function will result in an immediate reallocation of your jurisdiction's FY :[999
the FY 2000 LLEBG Program funding pool. Once declined, a jurisdiction cannot re~
:[999 funding.
Declining FY :[999 funding will in no way affect a jurisdiction's eligibility for future
Program funding cycles.
http ://grants.ojp.usdoj.gov: 8003/gms/plsql/llebg_grantee_review.details?p_appl_seq=3542 12/27/99
LLEBG- Special Conditions Page 1 of 3
Special Conditions - Bremerton City
Local 3urisdiction not in compliance w/PSOHB
1. The recipient agrees to comply with the financial and administrative requirements set
forth in the current edition of the Office of Justice Programs (OJP) Financial Guide.
2. The recipient agrees to comply with the organizational audit requirements of OMB
Circular, A-133, Audits of States, Local Governments and Non-Profit Organizations, as
further described in OJP's Financial Guide, Chapter 19.
3. The recipient shall submit one copy of all reports and proposed publications resulting
from this agreement twenty (20) days prior to public release. Any publications (written,
visual, or sound), whether published at the recipient's or government's expense, shall
contain the following statement: (NOTE: This excludes press releases, newsletters, and
issue analysis.)
"This project was supported by Grant No. 2000-LB-VX-0421 awarded by the Bureau of
Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Points of view
in this document are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the official
position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice."
4. The recipient agrees to provide information required for any national evaluation
conducted by the U.S. Department of Justice.
5. The recipient acknowledges that failure to submit an acceptable Equal Employment
Opportunity Plan (if recipient is required to submit one pursuant to 28 CFR 42.302), that
is approved by the Office of Civil Rights, is a violation of its Certified Assurances and may
result in funds from the award being frozen, until such time as the recipient is in
compliance.
6. The recipient agrees to provide and expend a 10 percent cash match (calculated as 1/9 of
the Federal award amount) before the end of the 24 month grant expenditure period. The
recipient is reminded that the matching funds are auditable under Special Condition #2,
and will be binding to the recipient.
7. The recipient is required to establish a trust fund account. This fund may not be used to
pay debts incurred by other activities beyond the scope of the Local Law Enforcement
Block Grants Program. The recipient also agrees to expend the grant funds in the trust
fund (including any interest earned) during the 24 month grant expenditure period. Grant
funds (including any interest earned) not expended by the end of the 24 month period
must be returned to the Bureau of Sustice Assistance (BJA) along with the final
submission of the Financial Status Report (SF-269A) by the end of the 27 month.
8. The recipient agrees, if the funds are used for the hiring and employing of new, additional
law enforcement officers and support personnel, as described in the applicable purpose
area of Subpart A section 101(a)(2), that the recipient unit of local government will
achieve a net gain in the number of law enforcement officers who perform non-
administrative public safety service.
9. The recipient agrees, if the funds are used for the hiring and employing of new, additional
law enforcement officers and support personnel, that the unit of local government will
establish procedures to give members of the Armed Forces who, on or after October 1,
.../Llebg_Conditions.Display_Condition?p_appl_seq=3542&p_from=APPLICANT_REViE 12/27/99
LLEBG o Special Conditions Page 2 of 3
1990, were or are selected for involuntary separation (as described in section 1141 of
Title 10, United States Code), approved for separation under section 1174a or 1175 of
such title, or retired pursuant to the authority provided under section 4403 of the Defense
Conversion, Reinvestment, and Transition Assistance ACt of 1992 (division D of Public
Law 102-484; 10 U.$.C. 1923 note), a suitable preference in the employment of persons
as additional law enforcement officers or support personnel.
10. The recipient agrees, if funds are used for enhancing security or crime prevention, that
the unit of local government - -
(al has an adequate process to assess the impact of any enhancement of a school
security measure that is undertaken under subparagraph (B) of section 101(a)(2),
or any crime prevention programs that are established under subparagraphs (C)
and (El of section 101(a)(2), on the incidence of crime in the geographic area
where the enhancement is undertaken or the program is established;
(b) will conduct such an assessment with respect to each such enhancement or
program; and
(c) will submit to the B.1A an annual assessment report, via the Intemet system.
11. The recipient agrees that prior to expenditure of any LLEBG funds, at least one (1) public
hearing will be held regarding the proposed use(s) of the grant funds. The recipient must
also provide verification to B.1A of the public hearing. At the hearing, persons shall be
given an opportunity to provide written and oral views to the recipient on the proposed
use(s) of the grant funds. The recipient will hold the public hearing at a time and place
that allows and encourages public attendance and participation. The recipient may not
request a drawdown of funds until these requirements are met and the formal budget
allocations are adopted by the recipient.
12. The recipient agrees that prior to expenditure of any LLEBG funds, a previously
designated or newly established advisory board will meet to discuss the proposed use(s)
of the grant funds. The recipient will designate the advisory board to make nonbinding
recommendations on the use(s) of funds under the LLEBG Program. Membership on the
advisory board must include a representative from the following, however it may be
broader:
a) the local police department or sheriff's department;
b) the local prosecutor's office;
c) the local court system;
d) the local school system; and
e) a local nonprofit, educational, religious, or community group active in crime
prevention or drug use prevention or treatment.
The recipient may not request a drawdown of funds until these requirements are met and
the formal budget allocations are adopted by the recipient.
FOR LOUISIANA PARISH RECIPIENTS:
The recipient agrees that prior to expenditure of any LLEBG funds, a previously
.../Llebg_Conditions. Display_Condition?p_appl_seq=3542&p_from=APPLICANT_REVIE 12/27/99
LLEBG - Special Conditions Page 3 of 3
designated or newly established advisory board will meet to discuss the proposed use(s)
of the grant funds. The recipient will designate the advisory board to make binding
recommendations on the use(s) of funds under the LLEBG Program. Membership on the
advisory board must include a representative from the following; however it may be
broader:
a) the local police department or sheriff's department;
b) the local prosecutor's office;
c) the local court system;
d) the local school system; and
e) a local nonprofit, educational, religious, or community group active in crime
prevention or drug use prevention or treatment.
The recipient may not request a drawdown of funds until these requirements are met and
the formal budget allocations are adopted by the recipient.
13. The recipient has certified it is not in compliance with the Public Safety Officers' Health
Benefits Provision of the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplement
Appropriations Act for 1999. Therefore, the recipient will receive not more than 90
percent of the eligible award amount (or, if less than the eligible amount was requested,
of that amount). This provision makes no allowances for a unit of local government to
come into compliance during the life of the award, consequently BJA will not consider
requests to adjust the adjusted award amount.
14. Criminal ]:ntelligence Systems operating with support of Federal funds, must comply with
28 CFR, Part 23, if the recipient chooses to implement this project.
15. At the Request for Drawdown, the recipient must submit to B_IA a budget for approved
purpose area allocations via the Internet system.
16. The recipient agrees this award document constitutes the obligation of Federal funds for
use by the recipient in execution of the program or project covered by the award. Such
obligation may be terminated without further cause if the recipient fails to affirm its
timely utilization of the award by accepting the award and special conditions within 45
days from the date of award.
17. The recipient agrees to one 24 month obligation and expenditure period that will begin on
the day of the recipient's submission of a Request for Drawdown through the Internet
system. All funds must be expended by the end of this 24 month period with no
exceptions. Six months from the date of the beginning of the expenditure period, the
recipient agrees to submit a semiannual progress report through the Intemet system, and
to report every six months until all funds are expended or the grant period ends.
.../Llebg_Conditions.Display_Condition?p_appl_seq=3542&p_from=APPLICANT_REVIE 12/27/99
Page 1 of 1
OMB# 1121-0196 Expires: 10-29-99
Available Options
You are connect:ed as TZMOTHY SHOLTZS of TZF4OTHY
3.$HOLTI$.
Part I Status OK? Part II Status
Completed ~ Completed
Submitted ~ Submitted
~pproved
Paperwork Reduction Act Notice. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, a person is not required to respond to a
collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. We try to create forms and
instructions that are accurate, can be easily understood, and which impose the least possible burden on you to provide
us with the information. The estimated average time to complete and file this application is 60 minutes per application.
If you have comments regarding the accuracy of this estimate, or suggestions for making this form simpler, you can
write to the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant Program, Bureau of 3ustice Assistance, 810 7th Street, NW,
Washington, D.C. 20531.
http ://grants.ojp.usdoj .gov: 8003/gms/plsql/ojp_main.gms_menu 12/27/99
AGENDA BILL
BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL
1. SUBJECT: Solid Waste Management FOR AGENDA OF: January 26, 2000
Committee ORIGINATING DEPT: Executive
ORIGINATOR: Mayor Horton
DATE SUBMITTED: January 20, 2000
2. CLEARANCES: (comment on back if necessary) 3. EXI-IIliITS
Application for Appointmem
ENDORSEMENT X INFORMATION APPROVED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FO~
MAYOR(~..~ ~.~ COUNCIL PRESIDENT ~~'
4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION:
There is a vacancy on the Solid Waste Management Committee representing business. It is recommended Tony
Thomas be appointed to fill that vacancy.
8. RECOMMENDATION:
Motion to confirm the appointment of Tony Thomas to the Solid Waste Management Committee.
9. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL:
ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL:
EXPIRATION DATE:
REVIEW DATE:
10. NOTICE OF ACTION
PULLED TABLED APPROVED DISAPPROVED AMENDED
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE DATE: ~
11. AGENDA BILL NO: OO "O ¥'7
CITY OF BREMERTON
APPLICATION FOR CITY BOARDS/COMMISSIONS/COMMITTEE
NOTE: As an applicant for a City Board, Commission or Committee, your name, address, and
telephone number will be available to the press and public. You will be contacted before
any action is taken on your appointment.
(Please type or print clearly) DATE:
NAME: --T'-O ~ ¥/ --~ ~-~ 0 ~ ~ % PHONE: ~ ~ ~-~ ~ (H)
HOME ADDRESS: ~ ~,' ~ ~~ ~ ~o~-~o~
~ ~ 5- ~o~o (W)
OCCUPATION:
PROFESSIONAL/COMMUNI~ ACTIVITIES:
LOCAL REFERENCES (name & phone number):
I AM INTERESTED IN SERVING ON (please check one or more):
( ) DisabiliW Action Commi~ee ~ Planning Commission (18 yrs. & older)
( ) Civil Service Commission(18 yrs. & older) ( ) Parks & Recreation Commission
( ) Urban Forest Commi~ee ( ) Ethics Commission
( ) Public Access Citizens Advisow Commi~ee ()~ Parking Adviso~ Board
( ) Community Development Block Grant ~ Solid Waste Management
Adviso~ Commi~ee ( ) Breme~on Housing Authoriw
( ) Youth Council ( ) Board of Appeals, Housing/Building Codes
( ) Safe Streets Steering Commi~ee ~ Mayor's Select Commi~ee on Law
( ) Citizen's Commission on Council Salaries Enforcement
Is this an application for reappointment?
If yes, how many years have you served on'th~s'commission/commi~ee?
Applications be reviewed periodically to determine continued availability. Additional pertinent
information may be put on back.
AGENDA BILL
BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL
i. SUBJECT: FOR AGENDA OF: January ~, 2000
ORIGINATING DPT. Administrative Services
Interlocal Agreement Regarding OIGINATOR: Kathleen McCluskey
Solid Waste Disposal Vendor Selection DATE SUBMITTED: December 28, 1999
2. CLEARANCES: (comment on back 3. EXHIBITS:
Attorney -~// / ~7 ~, Agreement
Public Works directQr ,//J~~ ~
Fiscal & Budget '/~
Operations ~ ~ ~,, ~'~ ~_.~.~ ~__.~ _~..~7/
ENDORSEMEIqT )f INF. QR~TION APPROVED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FOR S/~UBMI~
MAYOR ~.~, ~L -- COUNCIL PRESIDENT
4. SLTMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION:
The county and cities have cooperated in developing and implementing the County' s
comprehensive solid waste management plan. Olympic View Sanitary Landfill is the only
operating municipal solid waste landfill in the county and is projected to-reach capacity
within the next three to five years. In anticipation of the closure of this landfill %he
parties to this agreement desire to cooperate to procure long term transfer station and sc!id
waste- disposal services.
This Agreement provides for: 1) A joint board comprised of elec%ed officials cr %heir
designee's, to provide advice on various matters in the vendor selection process, par%icipa%e
in the selection process and to confirm, the procurement adminis%rator's recommendations cf
one or more vendors. 2) The county will continue to manage the solid waste plan and oversee
and implement programs. 3) Cities will commit to directing their solid was%e to the
selected vendor (5o they extent they can do so legally under the terms of existing
contracts). (Continued Next Page)
8. RECOMMENDATION:
Motion to approve Interlocal Agreemen% Regarding Solid Waste Dispcsa! Vendor SeiecSion
Process.
9. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Adrain. Srv.
ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: Admin Srv.
REVIEW DATE: n/a
10. NOTICE OF ACTION
PULLED TABLED APPROVED DISAPPROVED ~E~__
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE: DATE:
1i. AGENDA BILL NO: O0 ' OI8
2. CLEARANCE COMMENTS (cont.
4. SUMMARY STATEMENT (cont. ):
In order to procure services at a competitive price, the coordination of disposal of all
solid waste at the selected disposal site is necessary. This agreement is proposed for 25
years however there are a number of termination.options. 1) The Agreement may be terminated
by a majority vote of all parties after five years from the date of execution. 2) An
individual city may withdraw after five years. 3) Prior to execution of a contract for
transfer station and solid waste disposal services between the parties and a vendor a city
may withdraw from this agreement by giving 15 days notice. The above opt outs are
conditioned upon preparing and securing our own Ecology approved solid waste management plan
and upon meeting any responsibilities, financial or other, at the time of withdrawal.
In order to move forward with the procurement process it is recomended that this inter!ocal
agreement be approved.
5. IMPACT ON NON-PASSAGE
Each city will need to procure solid wasSe services separately.
6. IMPACT ON STAFFING, BUDGETS, FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCES
increased cost to manage procurement process and to develop and manage solid waste plan.
7. RESEARCH SOURCES:
KC-021-00
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT REGARDING
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL VENDOR SELECTION
THIS AGREEMENT is executed by and among Kitsap County ("County") and
the cities of Bainbridge Island, Bremerton, Port Orchard and Poulsbo (the "Cities") (the
County and the Cities are collectively referred to herein as "the Parties") for the purposes
of procuring competitively-priced transfer station and solid waste disposal services;
promoting the health, safety and welfare of the County's and Cities' residents; protecting
the natural environment throughout the County. The Parties enter into this Interlocal
Agreement ("Agreement") effective as of the date set forth in Section 8(A) for the
purposes and under the terms contained herein.
WHEREAS, the Parties have cooperated in developing and implementing the
County's comprehensive solid waste management plan pursuant to RCW 70.95 ("the
Plan") on behalf of the County and the Cities; and
WHEREAS, Olympic View Sanitary Landfill, the only operating municipal solid
waste landfill in the County, is projected to reach capacity within the next three to five
years, and the landfill owner has proposed an earlier closure; and
WHEREAS, in anticipation of the closure of this landfill and in recognition of the
absence 'of alternative local landfill sites, the Parties desire to cooperate to procure long-
term transfer station and solid waste disposal services; and
WHEREAS, by entering into an interlocal agreement providing for the joint
procurement of such services, the Parties can more effectively and efficiently procure and
manage these transfer station and solid waste disposal services; and
WHEREAS, to assist in procuring these services at a competitive price, the Cities
and County, agree to coordinate their efforts to dispose of all solid wastes collected
within the cities at the Disposal Site(s) to be provided by the Vendor selected pursuant to
this Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the Parties are authorized and empowered to enter into this
Agreement pursuant to Chapter 39.34 RCW; and
THEREFORE, in consideration of mutual promises and covenants herein, the
Parties agree:
Section 1. Definitions: Except for the terms defined in this section, and
unless the context indicates otherwise, for the purposes of this A~eement and any
related agreements, the Parties shall use the definitions found in RCW 70.95.030,
RCW 70.138.020, WAC 173-351.100.and WAC 173-304~100, as they may be
amended.
W:~SW:~st)osal~cifi esintedoca]agrrntO0/O 1 / 12
"Agreement" means this inteflocal agreement.
"Cities" means any of the cities of Bainbridge Island, Bremerton, Port Orchard
and Poulsbo, Washin~on (collectively, the "Cities").
"County" means Kitsap County, Washington.
"Disposal Site" means a facility where any final treatment, utilization, processing,
transfer or deposit of Solid Waste originating in the County or the Cities occurs.
For purposes of this Agreement, a waste export transfer station shall be deemed a
Disposal Site.
"Ecology" means the Washington State Department of Ecology, or its successor
agency.
"Joint Board" means the joint board established pursuant to Section 5 of this
Agreement.
"Plan" means the Kitsap County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan,
as amended from time to time.
"Procurement Administrator" means the County staff person responsible for the
day-to-day implementation of the Vendor-selection process.
"Vendor" means any person with whom the Parties contract for any or all of the
design, construction, ownership, operation or services of any Disposal Site or
other solid waste handling facility.
Section 2. Authority and Responsibilities of the County. The County shall:
A. Continue to engage in solid waste management and planning,
including preparation of the Plan, as provided by separate
interlocal agreement among the County and the Cities;
B. Continue to oversee and/or implement regional solid waste
programs to provide consistent, environmentally-sound solid waste
services throughout the Cities and County;
C. Conduct a procurement process for selecting one or more Vendors
to provide solid waste transfer station services, disposal services
and long-haul services; and
D. In consultation and cooperation with the Cities. as provided in this
Agreement, enter into and administer a contract with one or more
Vendors for solid waste transfer station and disposal services for
the Parties.
-2- W :",SW :'~isOo~aJ"4:itie~ nle doc alag rrntOO/O 1 / 12 .
Section 3. Responsibilities of the Cities. Each City shall:
A. With the exception of jurisdictions from which solid waste is
collected pursuant to a WUTC certificate, direct solid waste
collected within the City (whether collected directly by the City or
by a solid waste collection company) to the Vendor selected
through the procurement process; to the extent the City can do so
legally and practically under the terms of any contract in existence
on the date a Vendor is recommended, take reasonable action to
enforce such direction; revise as appropriate any contracts with
solid waste haulers to ensure that solid waste hauled is disposed at
the Disposal Site(s) consistent with the Plan; make any and all
good faith efforts to revise such existing and/or future contracts to
allow for the direction of solid waste to the selected Vendor; and
B. Cooperate in implementing Plan elements.
C. Enter into a contract with one or more Vendors for solid waste
transfer station and disposal services upon the recommendation of
the Joint Board. If, when the contract with the Vendor is executed,
a City has not yet revised its existing contract with a solid waste
hauler to allow for the direction of solid waste to the selected
Vendor pursuant to Section 3(A) above, the contract with the
Vendor shall make appropriate provisions for the inclusion of that
City's solid waste stream when it has revised its hauling contract.
If a City elects not to enter into such contract(s), such City shall
withdraw from this Agreement in accordance with Section 4(C).
Section 4. Duration and Termination of, and Withdrawal from. Am:eement:
This A~eement shall remain in force for 25 years from the date that it is first
effective as to all Parties, unless earlier terminated or extended pursuant to the
provisions of this section. No Party may terminate or withdraw from this
Agreement before 5 years from the date of execution, except that Cities may
withdraw pursuant to the opt out procedures set forth in subsection C. After that
date, termination and withdrawal may occur as follows:
A. Termination. This Agreement may be terminated in any year from
and after 5 years from the date of execution, by a vote of a
majority of the Parties. Written notice of termination shall be
given to all Parties no less than nine months prior to the last day of
the County's then-current budget year; provided, however, that this
Agreement may not be terminated if termination would
significantly impair any contractual obligation of the County
arising from the performance of this agreement; and provided
further, that if a termination of this Agreement is prospectively
-3- W:'~SW:',ffmposar,,citiesinte rtocalagrmt 00/01/12
approved pursuant to this provision (that is, if approved for a date
in the future when existing contracts will have expired or otherwise
not be impaired), then no Party to this Agreement shall take any
action that would result in such termination resulting in an
impairment of contract. Termination shall not absolve any party of
responsibility for meeting financial and other obligations
outstanding at the time of termination. In addition to the foregoing
conditions, no termination of this Agreement may take place until
and unless each City and the County has prepared and received
Ecology approval of its own solid waste management plan.
B. Withdrawal. In any year from and after 5 years from the date of
execution, a City may withdraw from this Agreement by giving
written notice to all Parties no less than nine months prior to the
last day of the County's then-current budget year; provided,
however, that no City may withdraw from this Agreement if
withdrawal would significantly impair any contractual obligation
of the County arising from the performance of this agreement.
Withdrawal will not absolve any City of responsibility for meeting
financial and other obligations outstanding at the time of
withdrawal. If a City elects by this section to withdraw at some
future date when there would be no impairment of existing
contracts as a result of such withdrawal, then no Party to this
Agreement shall take any action that would result in such
withdrawal resulting in an impairment of contract. Prior to
withdrawal, a withdrawing City shall prepare and receive Ecology
approval of its own solid waste management plan.
C. Optina Out. Prior to execution of the contract for transfer station
and solid waste disposal services between the Parties and a
Vendor, a City may withdraw from this Agreement by giving
written notice to all Parties no less than thirty (30) days after the
County has presented a Vendor contract for signature by the
Parties; provided, however, upon opting out, the opting out Party
shall be responsible for preparing and securing Ecology approval
of its own solid waste management plan.
Section 5. Formation of Joint Board: A Joint Board (the "Joint Board") is
hereby formed to consider and provide advice on various matters in the
Vendor-selection process. The primary function of the Joint Board is to
participate in the selection process and to confirm the Procurement
Administrator's recommendations of one or more Vendors.
In order to accommodate the interests of and to ensure the participation of
each Party, the Joint Board shall be composed of one elected official, or his or her
designee, appointed by the legislative authority of each Party. All actions of the
$3
-4- W :~SW:'trf~.~3sar~ ti esint e r~oc alag rmtO0/O 1/12
Joint Board shall be taken by vote, and no action shall be effective unless there is
a consensus among the Board members. The Joint Board shall:
A. Meet at least quarterly, and more often as necessary, at the call of
the Procurement Administrator or a majority of the members of the
Joint Board; and
B. Develop a process for soliciting Vendor proposals, including, for
example, interviews with interested Vendors, preparing packages
for requests for proposals, and reviewing all proposals submitted;
and
C. Confirm one or more Vendors recommended for approval by the
Procurement Administrator; and
D. Consult with the Procurement Administrator, who is responsible
for the day-to-day operations of the Vendor-selection process.
E. Report back to the Board member's legislative body with
information regarding the selection process and recommendations
of the Joint Board.
For the purposes of RCW 39.34.030(4), the Joint Board is a "joint
board." There will be no real or personal property held by the
Joint Board under this Agreement.
Section 6. Assets and Liabilities: On termination of this Agreement, any
assets owned separately by a Party shall remain the property of that Party. In
entering into this Agreement, no Party assumes liability for the actions or
activities of the other, except as provided by law or as may be agreed by the
Parties.
Section 7. Miscellaneous Provisions
A. Effective Date: This AgTeement shall take effect the first date on
which all Parties have taken all necessary action to authorize and
execute this Agreement
B. Amendment: This Agreement may be amended only in writing
and only by agreement of all Parties and adoption by each Party of
an ordinance or resolution authorizing execution of such
amendment, except as set forth in this section. The Parties hereby
agree that this Agreement may be amended, without the further
agreement of all Parties and without the adoption by each Party of
an authorizing ordinance or resolution, to allow other
governmental entities, including tribes, the United States Navy,
-5- W:'~SW:'~cfsoosal',citiesintedocalagrrmO(3/O 1 / 12 .
adjoining counties, and any new City within the County that
incorporates after the effective date of this Agreement, to join as a
Party. Such amendment shall be effective as of the date on which
such governmental entity adopts a resolution approving of its
inclusion as a Party to this Agreement. The Parties further agree
that this Agreement may be amended upon consensus of all Parties
to allow for the parties to undertake solid waste functions other
than procurement for solid waste disposal.
C. Non-Waiver: No waiver by any party of any term or condition of
this Agreement shall be deemed or construed to constitute a waiver
of any other term or condition or of any subsequent breach whether
of the same or of a different provision of this Agreement.
D. No Third-Party Beneficiary_: This Agreement is entered into to
protect the public health, safety and welfare of the residents of the
Cities and County and to promote the effective and efficient
disposal or other handling of solid waste in the Cities and the
County. This Agreement is not entered into with the intent that it
shall benefit any party not signing this Agreement, and no other
person or entity shall be entitled to be treated as a third-party
beneficiary of this Agreement.
E. Assi~ment: Upon the creation of a solid waste disposal district
pursuant to RCW Ch. 36.58, the County and any City opting into
such a disposal district may assign its rights and obligations under
this Agreement to the solid waste disposal district.
F. Severabilitv: If any provision of this Agreement is determined to
be invalid, the remaining provisions shall continue in full force and
effect.
G. Counterparts: This Agreement may be executed in two or more
counterparts, and each such counterpart shall be deemed to be an
original instrument. All such counterparts together will constitute
one and the same Agreement.
IN WITNESS HEREOF, this Agreement is executed by Kitsap County and by the
-6- W:LSW:'~ soosaJ'~fi esinte docaJ agrmlOOgO 1/12
Cities of Bainbridge Island, Bremerton, Port Orchard and Poulsbo, Washington.
DATED this __ day of ,2000. DATED this day of ,2000.
CITY OF BAINBRIDGE ISLAND KITSAP COI/NTY BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS
Dwight Sutton, Mayor Tim Botkin, Chair
CITY OF BREMERTON
Lynn Horton, Mayor Chris Endresen, Commissioner
CITY OF PORT ORCHARD
Leslie Weatherill, Mayor Charlotte Gamdo, Commissioner
CITY OF POULSBO ATTEST:
Donna Jean Bruce, Mayor Holly Anderson, Clerk of the Board
-7 - W :~SW :'~isoosaJ'~citiesint e d ocalag rmtO0/O 1/12
A(]ENDA BILL
BREMERTON CITY COUNCTL
1. SUBJECT: Land Lease Agreement FOR AGENDA OF: January 26, 200~
With Kitsap Square Dance ORIGINATING DEFT: Admin. ServicerS/
Association ORIGINATOR: Paula Johnstonl/~
DATE SUBMITTED: January 19, 200~
2. CT~ARANCES: (comment on back 3. EXHIBITS:
if necessary)
Lease
Agreement
Admin. Services~~u~-~ .
City Attorney /F~//[_~~ ~ ~ .
PW&U Di~tor -' //D~-~k~ ' - ~- . _./ <~"~ ~/" ~ -/
ENDORSEMENT K' INF6RF~TION APPROVED BY C6UNCIL PRESIDEN~ ~6R SUBMITTAL:
YOR co ci SIDENT
4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION:
Kitsap Square Dance Association (KSDA) has occupied the three acre tract
of utility land on the Old Belfair Highway since 1969. KSDA built the
existing square dance hall and has maintained the hall, grounds and RV hook-
ups throughout the years. Currently, the City and KSDA are on a month-to-
month extension of a lease that was negotiated in 1988. The land lease
agreement being proposed has the concurrence of KSDA and contains the
following elements: 1) Three year term with a 180 day termination clause; 2)
Recognition that KSDA retains ownership of the building and improvements
until termination of the lease, thereupon, the City automatically gains
ownership of the entire premises with no purchase costs; 3) Annual rent for
the use of the land at $850 based upon market value of the land less KSDA
contributions for upkeep; 4) Leasehold tax based upon the land rental in the
amount of $530 per year to be paid by KSDA. KSDA will be directly
responsible for property taxes on the building and improvements since they
retain ownership of these.
8. RECOMMENDATION:
Motion to approve the land lease agreement with Kitsap Square Dance
Association and authorize the Mayor to execute said agreement.
9. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Admin. Services
ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: Admin. Services
EXPIRATION DATE:
REVIEW DATE:
10. NOTICE OF ACTION
PULI.RD TABLED APPROVED__ DISAPPROVED~NDED
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE: DATE:
2. CLEARANCE COMMENTS (cont.):
4. SUMMARY STATEMENT (cont.):
5. IMPACT ON NON-PASSAGE:
Month-to-month extension of old lease will continue with the City
receiving no rent payment for the land.
6. IMPACT ON .STAFFING, BUDGETS, FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCES
N/A
7. RESEARCH SOURCES:
LAND LEASE AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is made this __ day of ,2000 by and between
the CITY OF BREMERTON, a municipal corporation, as Lessor (herein referred to as "City"),
and K1TSAP SQUARE DANCE ASSOCIATION, a Washington non-profit corporation,
(herdnafter referred to as "Lessee").
WITNESSETH:
1. Premises. The City is the legal owner of the following described real property situated in
the County of Kitsap, State of Washington to-wit:
Lots 36, 37 and 38 in the Plat of Bremerton Waterworks Tract No. 2,
Section 32, T24N, R1E, W.M., ALSO that portion of the SW ~A SW ¼
NW ¼ of Section 32, T24N, R1E, W.M., lying west of the Plat of
Bremerton Waterworks Tract No. 2; South of the Old Belfair Highway and
East of Parfish Creek; EXCEPT that portion described as follows:
BEGINNING at the SW comer of Lot 39 of said Plat; thence N 88016'45"
W 134.57 ft.; thence N 11°53'60" E 142.21; thence S88°16'45" E; thence S
2o32'40" W 140 t~. to P.O.B.; ALSO that portion of the NW ¼ NW ¼ SW
¼ Section 32, T24N, R1E, W.M. lying West of the Plat of Bremerton
Waterworks Tract No. 2, East of Parrish Creek and within 800' South of
the Old Belfair Highway.
The City hereby leases to the Lessee, and the Lessee hereby leases fi.om the City the above-
described real property (hereinafter "Premises") for the uses and purposes described herein below.
The Lessee is the legal owner of all of the improvements on the above described real property,
including but not limited to the building, picnic shelter, outdoor lighting and RV hookup
campground facilities. Said improvements are not leased and are not part of the Premises. Said
improvements shall hereinafter be referred to as "Improvements".
2. Use of Premises. Lessee shall have the use and occupancy of the Premises for the
purpose of conducting the activities of the Kitsap Square Dance Association in accordance with
their Bylaws and applicable State laws, City ordinances, rules and regulations, including dancing,
lessons, meetings, the provision of recreational vehicle (RV) sites for use by association members,
and camping conducted in accordance with the "Campout Rules" attached hereto as Exhibit "A"
and incorporated by this reference, subject to use and occupancy by the City pursuant to Section
6.
3. Term. Commencing the property is rented to the
Lessee for three (3) years as long as Lessee abides by all terms and conditions set forth herein.
KSDA Lease - Page 1
January 5, 2000
4. Rent. Annual rent shall be Four Thousand One Hundred Fitly and No/100 Dollars
($4,150.00) for the use of the Premises based upon fair market rent for the land (exclusive of the
buildings, appurtenances and RV hook-ups) less the value of contributions for improvements,
repair and maintenance of the land in the amount of Three Thousand Three Hundred and No/100
Dollars ($3,300.00) (see Lease Formula - Exhibit "B") equating to Eight Hundred Fifty and
No/100 Dollars ($850.00) annual net rent. Rental payments shall be made quarterly.
S. RV Site Revenue. The Revenue and Expense Summary of RV Site operations contained
in Exhibit "C" shows sustained operating losses for 1993 through 1998. The City agrees to
exclude this revenue source in rental rate calculations as long as the RV operations generate
annual losses. RV site revenues will be reviewed before renewal of this lease.
6. Use of Premises by the City. The City of Bremerton may desire to use the Premises and
building for City sponsored functions. All requests for use will be coordinated with KSDA
representatives. The City shall leave the Premises and building in the same condition of repair and
cleanliness as it was prior to use by the City.
7. Caretaker. Lessee may, at its option, provide by contract for a flail time, on-site
caretaker, provided that no such contract shall bind the City or create any employment
relationship between the caretaker and the City.
8. Prohibited Uses. Kitsap Square Dance Association shall not permit any person to
consume alcohol in the indoor facilities. Smoking is permitted in designated areas only with
proper receptacles provided for disposal. No fires shall be built except in the areas provided for
that purpose.
9. Damage or Destruction. In the event the premises, exclusive of buildings or
appurtenances, are damaged by fire, earthquake, act of war, or other extraordinary casualty to
such an extent as to render the same untenantable in whole or in substantial part thereof, or are
destroyed, it shall be the option of the City with insurance proceeds to repair or rebuild the same;
and within forty-eight (48) hours after the happening of any such event, the Lessee shall give the
City or City's agent notice thereof. The City shall have not more than sixty (60) days at, er the
date of such notification to notify the Lessee in writing of the City's decision whether to repair or
rebuild said premises, or any part so damaged. If the City shall fail to give the notice aforesaid, or
the City decides not to repair or rebuild, the Lessee shall have the right to declare this lease
terminated by written notice to the City in accordance with the notice provisions of this
agreement. If the City elects to repair or rebuild said premises, the City shall prosecute the work
of such repairing or rebuilding without unreasonable delay, in accordance with the then existing
City procedures.
In the event any buildings or appurtenances are damaged by fire, earthquake, act of war, or
other extraordinary casualty, Lessee shall have the right to declare this lease terminated by written
notice to the City in accordance with the notice provisions of this agreemem in which event, the
KSDA Lease - Page 2
January 5, 2000
4o
City should receive insurance proceeds. Lessee may, at its own expense or with the insurance
proceeds and with the written consent of the City, elect to repair or rebuild said buildings or
appurtenances, fiLessee, with the approval of the City, elects to repair or rebuild, the buildings
and appurtenances shall become the property of the City of Bremerton at termination of the lease.
Notwithstanding any other provision herein, no party to this lease shall be liable in damages to any
other party or person for termination of this lease because of the damage or destruction of the
Premises or the Improvements, as described in this section.
10. Utilities. The Lessee, at the Lessee's sole expense, shall provide, or shall otherwise pay
for when due all costs of utilities and other services on or to the premises including, but not
limited to, provision of electricity, gas, water, telephone, sewer, garbage, heating, janitorial,
security, and grounds keeping. Lessee shall also pay all charges for utility installation and
modifications thereto occasioned by the Les.see's requirements. The City shall not be liable for
any injury, loss or damage caused by or resulting from any interruption or failure of said services
due to any causes whatsoever except the City's negligence. The Lessee shall not be entitled to an
offset, reduction or return of rental as a result of any interruption or failure of said services.
11. Use and Care of Premises.
a. General Condition: The premises used by Lessee shall at all times be kept in a neat,
clean, safe and sanitary condition, except when affected by mutual conditions beyond Lessee's
control and kept and used in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington and Charter
and ordinances of the City. Lessee shall not permit any waste, damage or injury to the premises.
b. Maintenance - Repairs: The premises have been inspected by both parties and are
accepted by Lessee in their existing condition as of the commencement date of this lease, without
reservation. The City shall not be called upon to make any improvement or repair of any kind
upon said premises. All maintenance and repairs to Lessee's equipment and to the premises shall
be the responsibility of and shall be made at the sole expense of the Lessee.
c. Alterations: The Lessee shall not make, or cause to be made, any structural
alteration, addition or improvement on said Premises or to the Improvements without the written
consent of the City to such work if the cost of such work exceeds $15,000.00. Consent is not
required if the cost of work is less than $15,000.00. The City agrees to grant or deny such
consent within a reasonable period of time ofLessee's request. Non-structural improvements
may be made at Lessee's discretion. All alterations, additions and improvements shall be made at
the sole cost and expense of Lessee, and shall become the property of the City at the termination
of this lease. The City reserves an unqualified fight to make alterations to the premises or to the
building at Lessee's expense in which the premises are situated (1) where conditions exist which
are deemed by the City to constitute an emergency, or (2) in order to correct code deficiencies.
d. Access: The City agrees that the premises, and specifically the square dance hall,
shall be made available to the members of Lessee's organization via the main entrance to the
KSDA Lease - Page 3
January 5, 2000
premises and via the square dance hail entrance. A list of persons authorized to hold keys to the
premises shall be maintained by Lessee and made available to the City. One key shall be provided
to the City. The City reserves for itself, its officers, employees, agents and contractors, free
access to said premises at aH reasonable times for the purposes of inspecting the Premises and
Improvements, but this right shah not be construed as an agreement on the part of the City to
make said inspections. The City reserves the right to make additions, repairs or clean the
Premises and Improvements if conditions exist which constitute an emergency or dangerous
building.
12. Limitation on Use/Purpose, Notwithstanding any other provisions herein, the Lessee
shall' not enter into any sublease of the premises or any portion thereOf or any assignment of any
interest in this agreement, whether long or short term in nature, or engage in any activity with
respect to or on the premises other than the express use(s) and purpose(s) stipulated herein,
without obtaining prior written authorization therefor from the City.
13. Liens. Lessee shaH not permit any lien to be imposed upon the Premises as a result of
work done by or on behalf of user and shah indemnify and hold the City harmless against any and
aH expenses, including reasonable attorney's fees and 'court costs in connection with any such lien.
14. Licenses, Taxes and Permits. The Lessee shall pay all applicable federal, state and local
taxes, unemployment insurance, social security and workmen's compensation benefits, and shall
also fulfill all fiscal obligations imposed by law or contract. Lessee shall also procure, at Lessee's
sole expense, aH approvals and permits in compliance with all state and local laws, regulations and
requirements.
15. Leasehold Tax Liability. Lessee shall be responsible for remitting leasehold tax based
on land value pursuant to RCW 82.29A. 030 to the City to be included with the rental payment
and shall be responsible for any underpayment of leasehold tax and/or penalties resulting from any
State audit finding of leasehold tax liability.
16. Non-Discrimination. The Lessee shall comply with all federal, state and local laws and
ordinances prohibiting discrimination in employment with regard to age, sex, race, color, creed,
national origin or physical or mental handicap, unless based upon a bona fide occupational
qualification.
17. Notices. All notices to be given by either of the parties hereto to the other party shall be
in writing and may either be delivered personally or may be deposited in the United States Mail,
postage prepaid, as either certified or regular mail, addressed to:
City: Lessee:
City Clerk Kitsap Square Dance Association
239 4th Street 6800 Old Belfair Highway
Bremerton, WA 98337 Bremerton, WA 98312
KSDA Lease - Page 4
January 5, 2000
or to such other respective addresses as either party may from time to time designate in writing.
Notices sent by mail shall be deemed to have been given when properly mailed; the postmark
affixed by the United States Post Office shall be conclusive evidence of the date of mailing.
18. R~tionship. In no event shall the City be construed, or held to have become in any way
or for any purpose a partner, associate, or joint venturer of the Lessee or any party associated
with the Lessee in the conduct of the Lessee's business or otherwise. This lease does not
constitute the Lessee, the agent or legal representative of the City for any purpose whatsoever.
19. Amendments. The parties hereto expressly reserve the right to renegotiate the
provisions hereof, fi.om time to time as may be necessary and to amend this lease accordingly;
provided, however, that no alteration or modification of the terms or conditions hereof shall be
valid and binding unless made in writing and signed by the authorized representatives of the
parties hereto.
20. Waiver of Default. No waiver of default by either party of any of the terms, covenants
and conditions hereof to he performed, kept and observed by the other party shall be construed
as, or operate as, a waiver of any subsequent default of any of the terms, covenants and
conditions herein contained, to be performed, kept and observed by the other party.
21. Termination.
a. "Termination" means at such time as the lease is not extended for an additional period
of time.
b. City reserves the right to terminate this lease together with all of the estate, right and
title thereby granted to or vested in the Lessee without cause provided Lessee is given one
hundred eighty (180) days advance written notice to vacate and surrender premises.
c. In the event that the Lessee defaults in the performance of any terms, provisions,
covenants and agreements on the Lessee's part to be kept, observed and performed, and such
default is not corrected within thirty (30) days al~er the receipt of notice thereof fi.om the City, or
such shorter period as may be necessary to public safety; or if the Lessee shall abandon, desert,
vacate or remove from the premises; or if the Lessee shall file a petition in bankruptcy; or if the
Lessee shall be adjudicated a bankrupt after the filing of an involuntary petition in bankruptcy; or
if the Lessee shall take or receive the advantage or benefit of any insolvency; or if the Lessee shall
enter into an agreement of composition with the Lessee's creditors; then, in such event, the City,
at its option at any time thereat~er, may terminate this lease together with all of the estate, fight,
and title thereby granted to or vested in the Lessee, by giving twenty (20) days notice in writing
or such election, by certified mail addressed to the Lessee at the address specified in Section 17 of
this agreement, and at the expiration of such twenty (20) day period, the lease and all of the
estate, right, title and interest thereby granted to or vested in the Lessee shall then cease and
terminate, and the City may re-enter said premises using such force as may be required.
KSDA Lease - Page 5
January 5, 2000
2l. Surrender of Premises. At the tcrirdnation of this lease, including any extensions
thereof, the Lessee shall quit and surrender said Premises including all fights, privileges,
easements, structures, Improvements and appurtenances and all keys thereto and in as good
condition as existed at commencement of the term, subsequent to the date of this Lease, ordinary
wear and tear, damage or destruction by fire or other casualty or circmnstances uncontrollable by
the Lessee excepted; provided, that if alterations, additions or improvements have been made to
the premises as provided in this lease, the Lessee shall not be required to restore the premises to
the condition in which they were prior to such alterations, additions or improvements having been
made. Lessee shall have the obligation of removing any of its trade fixtures from the premises at
the termination of this lease and any extension thereof, unless allowed by the City.
23. Adjudication. This lease shall be construed under all of the applicable laws, statutes,
ordinances, roles and regulations of the United States, the State of Washington, County of Kitsap,
and the City of Bremerton. In the case of a dispute between the parties, venue over such dispute
shall be with the Superior Court of Kitsap County, Washington.
24. Binding Effect. This lease shall be binding upon the heirs, successors, assigns and all
other parties legally empowered with signatory fights of any or all of the parties hereto.
25. Invalidity of Provisions. Should any term, provision, condition or other portion of this
lease be held to be inoperative, invalid or void, the same shall not affect any other term, provision,
condition or other portion of this lease; and the remainder of this lease shall be effective as if such
term, provision, condition or portion had not been contained herein.
26. City's Right to Audit. Lessee at such times and in such forms as the City may require,
shall furnish the City such periodic reports and documents as it may request pertaining to the
monthly income and/or the work or services undertaken pursuant to this contract, the costs and
obligations incurred or to be incurred in connection therewith, and any other matters covered by
this contract.
27. Indemnification and Insurance.
a. Indemnification: Lessee agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its
appointed and elected officers and employees, fi-om 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 arisen directly or indirectly out
of or in consequence of the performance of this Agreement or the use of the premises, whether
such injuries to persons or damage to property is due to the negligence of Lessee, its members,
guests, invitees, subcontractors, agents or assigns. This provision shall be inapplicable to the
extent that such damage or injury is judicially found to be mused by the sole negligence of the
City.
KSDA Lease - Page 6
January 5, 2000
b. Auumption of Risk: The placement and storage of personal property on said
premises shall be the responsibility, and at the sole risk, of the Lessee.
c. Insurance: During the term of this lease and any extension thereof~ the Lessee shall
secure and maintain policies of standard form comprehensive general liability insurance and
property insurance with an insurance company licensed to do business in the State of Washington.
The general liability policy shall provide protection and indemnification against any and all claims
for injury to person or property or for loss of life, including the liability of the City for such to the
Lessee and any of the Lessee's officers, employees and agents, and any liability of the Lessee as
such to the City, its officers, employees and agents, arising out of or in connection with the
occupancy and use of the Premises as well as any and all claims and risks in connection with any
acts or omissions performed by Lessee by virtue of the rights granted pursuant to this lease. Said
policy limits shall be in the mount of at least Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500,000.00).
The property insurance shall have limits in an amount equal to or greater than the reasonable
market value of property contained in or constituting the premises as approved of by the City of
Bremerton. Both policies shall specifically name the City of Bremerton as an additional insured
party thereunder and must stipulate that the coverages provided by said policy shall not be
terminated, reduced or otherwise changed in any respect without providing at least thirty (30)
days prior written notice to the City. Verification of insurance required in this paragraph shall be
delivered to the City within ten (10) days of execution of this Lease. Notwithstanding any
provisions herein to the contrary, the failure of the Lessee to comply with the provisions of this
section shall subject this lease to immediate termination.
28. Agreement. This Lease constitutes the entire agreement and understanding of the
parties, and supersedes all offers, negotiations and other agreements. There are no
representations or understandings of any kind not set forth herein.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have affixed their signatures below.
KITSAP SQUARE DANCE ASSOCIATION
Dated:
President, Russ Richardson
Secretary, Ivy DeRego
//
//
KSDA Lease - Page 7
January 5, 2000
45
CITY OF BREMERTON
Dated:
Lynn S. Horton, Mayor
Approved as to form:
GLENNA MALANCA, City Attorney
State of Washington )
) SS.
County of Kitsap )
On this __ day of ,2000, personally appeared Lynn S. Horton to me
known to be the Mayor of the City ofBremerton, a municipal corporation, that executed the
within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged said instrument to be the flee and voluntary
act and deed of said municipal corporation, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on
oath stated that she was authorized to execute said instrument.
In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year
first above written.
Notary Public in and for the State of Washington
Residing at
My commission expires:
Received for Filing:
KATHLEEN L. McCLUSKEY, City Clerk
KSDA Lease - Page 8
January 5, 2000
KSDC CAMP OUT RULES
1. RV's will be parked in assigned spaces only.
2, Private vehicles will be parked only in designated areas.
3. Parents are responsible for their own children.
4. Pets must be leashed at all times.
~. They are not allowed in the hall or dining areas.
5. Fires are allowed in designated areas only.
6. Place all trash & garbage in the cans provided.
If full contact the "Wagon Master".
7, Please keep your camping area clean at all times.
8. No "Gray Water" is to be dumped/drained on the ground.
9. Help us all to have a happy enjoyable camp out by obeying
these rules.
Exhibit "B"
LEASE FORMULA
ASSET VALUE = FAIR MARKET VALUE OF LAND (3 + acres)
ANNUAL RENT = 1/12 OF ASSET VALUE
ANNUAL RENT
LESS NON-PROFIT CONTRIBUTIONS:
1) Capital Improvements Amortization
2) Repairs and Maintenance of Asset
3) Value of discounted or free Program Services offered to Public
= ANNUAL LEASE PAYMENT
+ LEASEHOLD TAX (12.84 % of fair market annual rent - imposed and mandated
pursuant to RCW 82.29A.030)
=TOTAL ANNUAL LEASE PAYMENT
Kitsap Square Dance Assoc. lease of land (3+ acres) on Old Belfair Hwy.
Market Value of Land 50,000
Annual Rent (1/12 of Land Value - 50,000) 4150
Less KSDA Avg. Annual contributions: (based on actual expenses 92-98):
Land Repairs and Maintenance (avg) (1,000) (1000)
Value of Labor (1500 hrs x $8.00) (12.000 x 19%% (2300)
Total Annual Contributions (.3300~
* 19% = ratio of land to total property, value
Annual Lease Amount 850
Plus Leasehold Tax 530
(12.84% of annual rent of $4150 based on 1/12 of total
market value of land $50,000 pursuant to RCW 82.29A.030)
TOTAL ANNUAL LEASE PAYMENT 1380
KITSAP SQUARE DANCE ASSOCIATION
RV PARK EXPENSES
1993 through 1998
Year Material Utilities Equipment Labor Total
1993 $353.00 $208.00 $0.00 $2,083.00 $2,644.00
1994 $2,300.00 $315.00 $240.00 $8,223.00 $11,078.00
1995 $469.00 $321.00 $50.00 $3,521.00 $4,361.00
1996 $934.00 $430.00 $80.00 $6,560.00 $8,004.00
1997 $816.00 $397.00 $130.00 $6,215.00 $7,558.00
1998 $793.00 $349.00 $90.00 $3,918.00 $5,150.00
Average Annual Income = $2,011
As of 4-1-99 KSDA owed $4,504 on an outstanding loan for RV improvements.
$6.00/night/RV site
63 RV sites
AGENDA BILL
BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL
1. SUBJECT: DESIGN OF RESERVOIR NO. 4 FOR AGENDA OF: January 26, 2000
MODIFICATIONS - PROFESSIONAL ORIGINATING DEPT: PW&U Engineering Div.
SERVICES AGREEMENT ORIGINATOR: Randy With City Engineer
DATE SUBMITTED: January 18, 2000
2. CLEARANCES: (comment on back j~ 3. EXHIBITS
Director, Public Works/Utilities..------~ .~~ A) Project Site Plan
City Attorney ~,,~,_ B) Professional Services Agreement
City Treasurer
Purchasing Agent ~[ ~ ~
, /'
Council Budget & Finance CommitteeQ~. ~ ~
Operations Committee 4'F :'ROY['~ 1/-19/00
MAYOR ~ ?. COUNCIL PRESIDENT ~
4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION:
Qualifications of four consultants from the City's consultant roster were reviewed and evaluated for the design of
the Reservoir No. 4 Modifications project. Montgomery Watson was identified as having a demonstrated ability,
in planning and design of water systems including water transmission, water storage, pump systems, reservoir
liners and reservoir covers. The scope of work includes pre-design evaluations, design, and limited construction
services for the Reservoir No.4 Modifications project. The consultant's fees for this work are $125.662. The
requested action before the City Council is approval of an agreement for professional services with Montgomery
Watson.
8. RECOMMENDATION:
The City Council approve a professional services agreement for design of Reservoir No.4 Modifications with
Montgomery Watson in the amount of $125,662 and authorize the Mayor to execute the same in accordance with
City policies and procedures.
9. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: City Engineer
ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: N/A
EXPIRATION DATE:
REVIEW DATE:
10. NOTICE OF ACTION
PULLED TABLED APPROVED DISAPPROVED AM~ E
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE DATE:
11. AGENDA BILL NO: O O'" O10
2. CLEARANCE COMMENTS:
5. IMPACT ON NON-PASSAGE:
Repair and upgrade of the cities primary water source will not be completed. Eventually the water system will
become seriously compromised through contamination or system failure.
6. IMPACT ON STAFFING~ BUDGETS, FACILITIES~ EQUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCES:
Staffing: No impact. City staff have been allocated for the construction administration and
inspection.
Budget: No impact. This project is included in the 2000 budget.
Facilities/Equipment: No impact.
7. RESEARCH SOURCES
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
Reservoir No. 4
Montgomery Watson Americas, Inc.
THIS AGREEMENT is between the City of Bremerton, a municipal corporation
(hereinafter referred to as "City") and Montgomery Watson Americas, Inc. (hereinafter referred to
as "Consultant").
WITNESSETH:
1. SCOPE: Consultant agrees to provide engineering services for the pm-design, design and
limited construction management of Reservoir No. 4 Modifications, as further described in the Scope
of Work, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as Attachments "A" and "B".
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 Twenty Five Thousand Six
Hundred Sixty Two Dollars ($125,662). Charges for services shall conform to the fee schedule
attached hereto and incorporated herein as Attachment "C".
Consultant shall submit regnlar statements describing the services rendered with a breakdown for
work comoleted as authorized under this A~eement. The City, upon receipt of the completed
statement, shail promptly process said claim for payment, but the City reserves the right to dispute
the claim and withhold payment by Dying notice to Consultant within 10 days of receiving the claim
and by entering into good faith negotiations with Consultant in order to settle the dispute.
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 INSURANCE: 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 this Agreement. B & O
taxes shall be paid when due and Consultant, by this Agreement, assigns any payments due under
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT -1-
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
Bremerton 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 ne~igence 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
#chaining ::; :~:e work ::r services undertaken pursuant to t,his 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 "A", "B", "C", and "D".
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:
City of Bremerton_ Montgomery Watson
City Clerk 2375 - 130th Avenue NE, Suite 200
239 Fourth St. Bellevue, WA 98005-1758
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT -2-
Bremerton, WA 98337
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 it's experience and judgement in
applying presently available cost data, but it is recognized 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. .... .---~ %,:..:~ _ x,~--:s~ts, te abe constr,zction site and observations made by. the Consu!t~t as part
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 conslruction, and the safety precautions
incidental thereto, and for performing the construction work in accordance with the Contract
Documents.
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT -3-
9. NONDISCRIMINATION: Consultant shall not discriminate in employment or services
to the public on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, 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 stares of all matters upon which Consultant is advising the City
as of the effective date of termination.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have executed this Agreement the date and year
indicated.
MONTGOMERY WATSON AMERICAS, INC.
CITY OF BREMERTON
Date: BY:
LYNN S. HORTON, Mayor
D EP ART~ ~ ~X~,~f~r~ p R O V AL:
W. EUGENE'S~.E., Director of Public Works & Utilities
A~DffVE~D AS TO ~Off'M: /2
/GL~A~~CA, Ci~ Attorney
RECEIVED FOR FILING:
KATHLF~N L. McCLUSKEY, CITY CLERK
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT -4-
P~o-Serv. A~ - 1/6/00
ATTACHMENT A
PHASE I - SCOPE OF WORK - PRELIMINARY DESIGN ENGINEERING
PRELIMINARY DESIGN PHASE: Upon notice to proceed, the Engineer shall:
1.1 Project Management. Manage the activities of all in-house and subconsultant
work including setup of files, subconsultant agreements, monitoring budgets,
schedule, personnel assignments, and processing of invoices as further described
below:
A. Set up the initial job numbers, files, subconsultant a~eements, and internal
documentation necessary to control the activities of all in-house and
subconsultant work for the pro~ess of the project. This includes the
necessary budgets, schedules, personnel assignments, and monitoring
systems.
B. Prepare monthly status reports for the City of Bremerton (City) during the
preliminary design phase.
C. Coordinate and manage subconsultant activities during the preliminarly'
design phase including reviewing and processing of subconsultant invoices.
D. Review and monitor project schedule and budget on a regular basis.
E. Prepare and submit monthly invoices during the period of the preliminary.
design.
1.2 Project Kickoff Meeting. Schedule (one) project kickoff meeting early in the
prelirpJnh~7 design phase to be held with City staff, MNV staff, and subconsultant
(Dennis Gerber): The purpose is to tour the reservoir site including accessing the
utility tunnel and review the basic project requirements and constraints.
A. Review existing project documentation such as site survey data. design
drawings, site plans, shop drawings, as-built drawings, reservoir/tunnel
inspection notes and video, and other information on the existing 11 MG
reservoir structure and appurtenances. Prepare a kickoff meeting agenda.
This subtask would be performed prior to the project kickoff meeting.
t
B. Conduct kickoff meeting. Review basic project requirements, including City
preferences for liner/cover material and system design, cover appurtenances,
key construction issues, project schedule and other issues. Review the
desirability to proceed with an inspection of the e,,dsting reservoir concrete
liner described in Task 1.3 (prior to final desig'n). Visit project site and
access utility tunnel to observe reservoir layout and condition, existing pipe
layout, pipe penetration at reservoir floor and existing tunnel condition.
1.3 Reservoir No. 4 Concrete Liner Inspection. Provide on-site inspection of the
existing concrete liner using a certified diving service company and observe the
existing outlet/drain pipe configuration located in the tunnel.
Montgomery Watson Page I 12/28t99
A. Coordinate with the City to schedule inspection services of the existing
reservoir concrete liner. The reservoir will be removed from service (i.e.
isolated from distribution system) while divers inspect the concrete liner.
B. Provide on-site inspection of the existing concrete liner and outlet/drain pipe
penetration located at reservoir bottom. Liquidvision Technology, Inc., a
subconsultant to M'W, will conduct diving inspection. The inspection requires
a self-contained diver to enter the reservoir through an existing access hatch
and conduct the inspection using artificial lights below the existing floating
cover. The reservoir will be taken off-line and the concrete lining joints wilt
be cleaned of sediment (if necessary) prior to inspection using a vacuum
system. Inspection will include visual observation and measurement 0f
concrete joint and crack dimensions (including offset, width, and depth
measurements) and also observation of concrete surface condition. Visual
observations will be recorded on VHS tape medium and in writing when
appropriate. The reservoir wall and floor surfaces will be cleaned only as
required for the inspection work. A written report consisting of photographs
and diagrams including data measurements will be prepared by Liquidvision
Technology, Inc. and a copy submitted to the City after completion of the
inspection work. This task includes diving services provided by Liquidvision
Technology, Inc as described above and on-site observation by a MW staff
member during the inspection.
1.4 Reservoir Modifications Design Evaluation.
A. Evaluate and select method for installation of new outlet/drain pipe through
the existing reservoir floor slab. Design concepts will include assumption that
no reinforcement exists in the concrete liner. It is assumed that alternatives
will require a nexv penetration of the reservoir base slab.
B. Identify and evaluate any repair or surface preparation work on the existing
concrete liner required prior to installing the new flexible liner membrane.
The evaluation will be based on the inspection report described in Task 1.3.
C. Identify and evaluate liner material alternatives, including NSF-approved
materials, such as polypropylene, hypalon, PVC and XR-5. Identify geotextile
fabric material suited for placement beneath the new liner material. Also
evaluate the potential to use the existing cover as the new liner or protective
layer. MW subconsultant (Dennis Gerber) will assist in evaluating materials
and the potential re-use of the floating cover as described above.
D. Identify and evaluate floating cover design systems, such as:
1. Untensioned Floating Cover.
2. Mechanical Tensioned Floating Cover.
3. Weight Tensioned Floating Cover.
MW subconsultant (Dennis Gerber) will assist in evaluating floating cover
design systems for Reservoir No. ,4.
Montgomery Watson Page 2 17_/28199
E. Identify. and evaluate reservoir appurtenances that enhance operations and
maintenance activities, such as:
1. Access hatches.
2. Floating walkways.
3. One-way air vents for trapped air release from under the cover.
4. Rain water removal system
5. Interior cleaning and exterior debris removal systems.
Evaluate the re-use of existing hatches and anchor bars on the new floating
cover. ~MW subconsultant (Dennis Gerber) will assist in evaluating reservoir
appurtenances including re-use of existing equipment.
F. Identify two desig"n concepts for replacing the existing reservoir outlet/drain
pipe and isolation valve (located in the utility tunnel). The alternatives include
(1) installation of new piping in the existing tunnel using the existing portal as
construction access, and (2) abandonment of the existing tunnel and
installation of the new pipes using trenchless technology method. Evaluation
of each alternative will include identifying pipe materials and location of the
seismic valve and for providing an automatic closing valve operator which
actuates during a seismic event.
1.5 Prepare Draft Project Report. Prepare and submit a Draft Project Report
identifying modifications to the e,'dsting Reservoir No. 4. The project report will
meet guidelines described for Department of Health Plan Approval in Washington
Administration Code 246-290-110. The Project Report will address the following:
A. Describe the existing documents reviewed, existing conditions, site
investigations, analysis performed, and findings and recommendations
addressing the items described in Tasks 1.2, 1.3 and 1.4 above.
B. Provide preliminary, drawings showing plan and section of the
recommended alternative and layout including up to a maximum of two
details.
C. Develop a proposed construction schedule, including design, construction
and permit acquisition.
D. Develop a preliminary cost estimate based on the modifications to the
reservoir, as recommended in the preliminary design.
E. Prepare a Draft Project Report consisting of a maximum of fifteen (15) text
pages. Submit five (5) copies of the Draft Project Report to the City..
1.6 Preliminary Design Review/Approval. Meet with City staff to receive
comments and input regarding the draft Project Report and issues that may impact
the design of the project. Finalize the report and issue ten (10) copies of the final
Project Report.
Montgomery Watson Page 3 12/28/99
1.7 Quality Assurance/Quality Control. Conduct a criteria committee meeting for
project review by senior personnel and subconsultant (Dennis Gerber)
experienced in the design of reservoir liners and covers including pipelines to
provide general guidance and design criteria recommendations. In addition,
provide internal review and quality control of the draft products for the Project
Report.
1.8 Initial PermittinodAgency Coordination. Contact State. County, and City
agencies to identify regulatory agencies with permitting authority or review
responsibilities for the project. Establish which permits are likely to be required
for the construction of the work. and establish initial contacts with the appropriate
agencies. Approximately 5 agency contacts are estimated for this task. The city.
will submit the final Project Report to the Washington State Department of
Health.
PH_-kSE Yi - SCOPE OF WORK - FINAL DESIGN AND BIDDING
FINAL DESIGN AND BIDDING PHASE: Final design of the project will proceed
based on the approved concepts and layouts established in the Project Report and will
constitute a "freeze" of the design at this point. No major changes to the preliminary
design concept will be made except through mutual agreement between the City and
Consultant, including applicable Scope of Work and Budget revisions, if necessary. The
Engineer shall:
2.1 Project 5lanagement. Manage the activities of all in-house and subconsultant
werk inc!uding monitoring budgets, schedule. ?ersonne! assignments, and
processing of invoices as further described below:
A. Prepare monthly status reports for the City. during the final design phase.
B. Conduct monthly project status meetings between the Engineer's Project
Manager and the City staff during the final design phase. One status
meeting will be scheduled at the City, all other status meetings will occur at
the Engineer's office.
C. Coordinate and manage subconsultant activities during the final design
phase including reviewing and processing of subconsultant invoices.
D. Review and monitor project schedule and budget on a regular basis.
E. Prepare and submit monthly invoices during the period of the final design.
2.2 Reservoir No. 4 Final Design/Bidding
A. Design Drawings. Prepare the design drawings for the modification and
construction of the liner, cover, appurtenances and reservoir outlet/drain
pipe and valve replacement. Provide drawings on standard 22x34 inch bond
sheets based on the list of drawings attached (Attachment B). The final
design will be based on the following:
1. Reservoir modification layout and design will be based on the
concepts recommended in the final Project Report for the project and
Montgomery Watson Page 4 12./28/99
include surface preparation of existing concrete liner, reservoir
outlet/drain pipe penetrations, reservoir outlet/drain pipe and valve
replacement, geotextile fabric/liner, floating cover with dewatering
system and liner/cover anchoring system. MW subconsultant (Dennis
Gerber) will assist in development and design of the proposed liner
and floating cover layout and configuration, placement of sump pump
and anchoring system.
2. Electrical design will include connection to the power source at the
corrosion control facility for the reservoir cover dewatering system.
The electrical power and control source is currently located in the
existing block building adjacent to the Reservoir.
3. Landscaping design will consist of final ~ading and hydroseeding.
B. Contract Specifications. Prepare general requirements, bidding documents,
and technical specifications for all construction work necessary to complete
the facilities as identified in the Project Report. The construction contract
documents will utilize the Standard General Conditions prepared by the
Engineers Joint Contract Document Committee (EJCDC). This document
includes bidding forms and general conditions. The City shall provide the
standard EJCDC General conditions and an example Supplementary General
Conditions. A separate Supplementary General Conditions will be prepared
by MW based on using the city supplied example document. Technical
specifications will be prepared in CSI format based on MW standard
technical sections. MW subconsultant (Dennis Gerber) will assist in
development of the liner and floating cover technical specification sections.
C. 50% and 90% Submittal Design Review. Contract documents
(specifications and drawings) will be submitted to the City for review at the
50% and 90% level of completion. Specifications submitted for the 50% will
be limited to table of contents, front-end documents and four key technical
sections. The level of detail incorporated in the 50% and 90% submittal
documents will be to provide the City with mid- and nearly complete
products for review. The drawings will be 1 lxl7-inch (1/2 size) drawings.
Five copies will be provided to the City for both design review submittals.
The 90% submittal will provide sufficient detail for the purposes of applying
for a building department permit (if required), Department of Health (DOH)
Plan Review and the Department of Ecology, Dam Safety Section
construction permit (if required). Attend a review meeting with City staff
for the 90% level of completion to receive comments.
D. Assistance in Preparation of Permit Drawings/Sketches for Agency
Submittal. Assist the City in preparation of 90% level drawings/sketches,
90% contract documents or earlier preliminary design documents, where
applicable, for submittal (by the City) to permitting agencies. Provide
drawings/sketches for the following (maximum of three) permit submittals.
1. DOH Plan Review.
2. City of Bremerton Building Permit, as necessary..
3. Department of Ecology, Dam Safety Section, as necessary.
A total of 8 personnel hours are budgeted for this task. It is understood that
the Engineer has no control over the duration of time necessary for Agency
Montgomery Watson Page 5 12/28/99
reviews to acquire the necessary permits and does not warrant the time in
which permits, can be obtained. It is further understood that the Engineer
shall be responsible to insure that all drawings required for submittals to
State, County and City Agencies meet minimum requirements for
completion, format and accuracy.
E. Finalize Plans and Specifications for Bidding. Alter receipt of the 90%
comments from the City, DOH, and other agencies, final revisions, will be
made to the 90% drawings to produce final bid-ready contract documents.
Provide five copies of "ready for bidding" contract documents,
specifications and desig, n drawings for final inspection by the City and
approving authorities.
F. Engineer's Estimate. An Engineer's construction cost estimate will be
prepared at the 50% and 90% design completion level. The Engineer's
construction cost estimate will be submitted within one week of the 50% and
90% Submittal Design Review delivered to the City.. It is recognized that
the lowest responsible bidder's price will vary from the Engineer's cost
estimate, so the Engineer's estimate figure will be representative of a range
of possible bid prices.
G. Bidding Assistance. Assist the City during the bid period consisting of the
following:
1. MW will provide the City with a single final full-size reproducible
copy of the Drawings on paper with City title block, as well as an
electronic cor~v of the design drawings on Compact Disk in AutoCAD
format. MW will also provide the City with a sin=!e=, reproducible copy
of the specifications in 8-1/2 x 11 format along with an electronic file
on diskettes in Word format. The City. ~vitl advertise for public project
bid, and reproduce and distribute the final contract document, plans
and specifications, providing seven (7) copies to NPa'.
2. Arrange and conduct a pre-bid walk through (for all bidders) located at
the reservoir project site, as necessary. Up to 6 personnel hours are
budgeted for this task.
3. Receive City and/or bidders questions during the bid advertisement
period and prepare an addendum for distribution by the City, if
required, to provide information and clarification to the bid documents.
Subconsultant (Dennis Gerber) will assist MW in responding to bidder
questions specifically relating to the liner and floating cover design.
Up to 24 (MW) personnel hours are budgeted for this task.
H. QMQC. Provide internal quality review and quality control of the
Reservoir No. 4 Modification Project final desig'n contract documents, by
senior personnel and subconsultant (Dennis Gerber) experienced in the
design of reservoir liners and covers, including a detailed check of the 90%
Submittal.
PHS, SE III - SCOPE OF WORK - LIMITED CONSTRUCTION MANAGEiV[ENT
ASSISTANCE
Montgomery Watson Page 6 12/28/99
LIMITED CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT ASSISTANCE PHASE: If authorized.
upon award of the Reservoir Construction Contract by the City, the Construction
Management Assistance Phase of this Agreement will commence. This Phase will
terminate upon final acceptance of the Project by the City. The Notice of Completion is
to be filed by the City. ff authorized, the Limited Construction Management Assistance
will include:
3.1 Project Management. Manage the activities of all in-house and subconsultant
work for the Reservoir No. 4 modifications durin~ the construction phase
including monitoring budgets, schedule and processing of invoices, as further
described below:
A. Review and monitor schedule and budget on a regular basis.
B. Coordinate and manage subconsultant activities including reviewing and
processing subconsultant invoices.
C. Prepare and submit monthly invoices during the period of construction.
3.2 Reservoir No. 4 Limited Construction Management .assistance. During the
Reservoir No. 4 Limited Construction Management Assistance Phase, the
Engineer shall perform the following work:
A. Limited Shop Drawings/Materials Review. Review of shop drawings and
material samples will be performed by City Staff. Upon request, MW will
provide input and clarification to the City during the shop drawing review
~rocess. ~ ~viI1 review shop drawings, material samples and other
kubmissions of the Contractor (as requested by the City,) for conformance to
the design concept of the project and for compliance with the Contract
Documents. Compile written review comments and return shop drawing
submittals with a Shop Drawing Review sheet with recommended actions and
comments. MW subconsultant (Dennis Gerber) will provide review comments
(if requested by the City) on the liner/cover material and shop/site fabrication
layout drawing submittals. Up to 10 personnel hours of effort is budgeted
plus subconsultant cost based on no more than 2 shop drawing submittals.
B. Training Session/Inspection by Subconsultant. In addition, M'W
subconsultant (Dennis Gerber) specializing in liner/cover inspection will
conduct a one-day (approximately 6 hrs) training session on-site for City staff
scheduled at the start of the geotextile fabric/liner installation. The trainin~
session will focus on general methods and procedures for inspecting geotextil~
fabric/liner/cover construction and include limited inspection of the current
on-site contractor work.
C. Periodic Site Visits by Engineer. Provide periodic visits to the construction
site to observe the progress and quality of the construction work and to
determine if the results of the construction work are in accordance with the
Drawings and the Specifications. Notify the City of observed work which
does not conform to the requirements of the Contract Documents. Prepare a
written report describing any apparent non-conforming work and make
recommendations to the City for its correction. Up to 24 personnel hours are
budgeted based on 3 site visits of up to 8 hours in duration including travel
time.
Montgomery Watson Page 7 17./28199
D. Request for Clarification. Provide requested clarification and interpretation
of the contract plans and specifications including preparation of elementary
sketches, if required, to clarify details. Evaluate substitutions proposed by the
Contractor during construction. Provide review and recommendations to the
City for conformance with the contract ptans and specifications.
Subconsultant (Dennis Gerber) will assist MW in providing clarification and
interpretation (as requested by the City) specifically related to liner and
floating cover. The budget for this subtask is 10 (MW) personnel hours.
E. Final Inspection. Attend final project inspection along with NDV's
subconsultant (Dennis Gerber) and provide written input for final punchlist.
In addition to final inspection, MW will lead a 1 to 2 hour discussion on
maintenance procedures with City Staff. The budget for this task is 8
personnel hours plus subconsultant cost.
PI-LA. SE IV- SCOPE OF WORK - ADDITIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES
ADDITIONAL ENGINEER~',IG SERVICES: This task will be for specific work
identified by the City' during the project design and construction and cannot be utilized
without prior written approval from the City of Bremerton. Additional Engineering
Se~4ces may include, but not be limited to, the fo[lowing:
1) Special services such as geotechnical, hydrogeology, testing, and surveying not
specifically set forth in Attachment A.
2) Additional shop drawing review or liner/cover construction inspection work not
specifically set forth in Attachment A.
3) Preparation of project permits other than limited assistance specified in Attachment
A.
4) Additional services and costs of the Engineer other than the work required in
Attachment A.
5) Any other services not otherwise provided for in this Agreement without limitation,
and services normally furnished by the Owner.
Montgomery Watson Page 8 12/28/99
ATTACHMENT B
RESERVOIR No. 4 MODIFICATION PROJECT
PRELIMINARY LIST OF DRAWINGS
General
G- 1 Cover Sheet
G-2 Vicinity Map, Location Map and List of Drawings
G-3 Symbols and Abbreviations
Civil
C- i Site Plan
C-2 Existing Reservoir - Plan, Section and Details
C-3 Existing Concrete Utility Tunnel
C-4 Reservoir Liner Plan and Details
C-5 ReserVoir Cover Plan and Details
C-6 Cover Vent, Floating Walkway and Details
C-7 Sump and Hatch Details
C~8 Civil Details - 1
C-9 Civil Details - 2
Structural
GS-1 General Notes and Standard Details
S-1 Concrete Liner Repair/Pipe Penetration Details
Mechanical
GM-1 Standard Mechanical Details
M-1 Reservoir Outlet/Drain Pipe
Electrical/Telemetry/Instrumentation
E-1 Electrical Site Plan and Details
ATTACI-EVIENT C
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 $ 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 $ 61 per hour
Secretary. $ 53 per hour
Word Processing Operator $ 57 per hour
Clerk $ 41 per hour
Miscellaneous Costs:
Mileage $ 0.31 per mile
CADD $ 28 perhour
Other Direct Costs (ODC's)wilI be marked t~p by JO%
Subconsultant Costs will be marked up by 3% to cover administration and insurance charges.
* The individual hourly rates include salary, overhead and profit
** Senior Company Officer rate established at $160/hour. ~nt.
1 OF2
ATTACHMENT C
CITY OF BREMERTON
RESERVOIR #4 MODIFICATION PROJECT
PROJECT FEE ESTIMATE
I TOTAL LABOR aDC TOTAL
In dividual/Classificc~on HOURS COST COST COST
TASX SUBTASK Hourly Rate
1.0 PHASE 1 - PRELIMINARY DESIGN I~NGINEERING
1. I Project Management 23 $2.129 $194 $2,323
1.2 Project Kickoff Meeting 31 $3,115 $ 1,988 $5,103
1.3 Reservoir No.4 Concrete Uner Inspection 12 $1,024 $3,844 $4,868
1.4 Reservoir Modifications Design Evaluation 78 $7,836 $2.638 $10,474
1.5 Prepare Draft Project Report 56 ,$4,947 $750 $5,697
1.6 Preliminary Design Review/Approval 18 $1,854 $250 $2,104
1.7 QualityAssurance/Quoltly Control 10 $1,226 $1,544 $2,770
1.8 Initial Perm#ffng/Agency Coordination 11 $983 $92 $1,075
2.0 PHASE 2 * F1NAL DESIGN & ~,IDDING
2.1 Project Management 32 $3,398 $258 $3,666
2.2 Reservoir Final Design/Bidding 497 $47,025 $14,464 $61,489
3.0 PHASE 3 - CONS~I'RUCT1ON MANAGEMENT ASSISTANCE
3. I Project Management 24 $2,284 $200 $2,484
3.2 Rese~voir No. 4 Construction Management Assistance 76 $5,365 $3,244 $8,609
4.0 PHASE 4 - ADDITIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICFS
4.1 Addifionol Engineedng Services 0 $0
TOTAL PROJECT FEE EST1MATE 868 $81,186 $29,476 $125,662
PROJECT SUMMARY:
PHASE 1 PRELIMINARY DESIGN ENGINEERING TOTALS 239 $23,114 $11,300 $34,414
PHASE 2 FINAL DESIGN & BIDDING TOTALS 529 $50,423 $14,732 $65,155
PHASE 3 CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT ASSISTANCE TOTALS 100 $7,649 $3,444 $11,093
PHASE 4 ADDITIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES 0 $0 $0 $15,000
20F 2
ATTACHMENT D - PRELIMINARY PROJECT SCHEDULE
City of Brernerton
Reservoir No. 4 Modifications Project
PROJECT SCHEDULE
1999 2000
TASK Se.p Oct Nov D~" Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Preliminary Engineering
Design Phase
Final Engineering Design
Phase
Permitting/Approvals
Bidding and Award
Construction Phase
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
Reservoir No. 4
Montgomery Watson Americas, Inc.
THIS AGREEMENT is between the City of Bremerton, a municipal corporation
(hereinafter referred to as "City") and Montgomery Watson Americas, Inc. (hereinafter referred to
as "Consultant").
WITNESSETH:
1. SCOPE: Consultant agrees to provide engineering services for the pre-design, design and
limited construction management of Reservoir No. 4 Modifications, as further described in the Scope
of Work, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as Attachments "A" and "B".
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 Twenty Five Thousand Six
Hundred Sixty Two Dollars ($125,662). Charges for services shall conform to the fee schedule
attached hereto and incorporated herein as Attachment "C".
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, but the City reserves the right to dispute
the claim and withhold payment by giving notice to Consultant within 10 days of receiving the claim
and by entering into good faith negotiations with Consultant in order to settle the dispute.
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 fh-rn 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 INSURANCE: 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 this Agreement. B & O
taxes shall be paid when due and Consultant, by this Agreement, assigns any payments due under
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT --1--
Pro-Serv.Agt - 1/6/00
this Agreement to the City Clerk for payment of such.la, xes 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
Bremerton 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 Ag-reement.
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 "A", "B", "C", and "D".
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:
City of Bremerton Montgomery Watson
City Clerk 2375 - 130th Avenue NE, Suite 200
239 Fourth St. Bellevue, WA 98005-1758
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT -2-
Pro-Serv.Agt - 1/6/00
Bremerton, WA 98337
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 ail
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 it's experience and judgement in
applying presently available cost data, but it is recognized 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 proposais, 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 part
of services during construction under this agreement shail 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 shail 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
Documents.
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT -3-
Pro-Serv.Agt - 1/6/00
9. NONDISCRIMINATION: Consultant shall not discriminate in employment or services
to the public on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, rehgion, 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 the City
as of the effective date of termination.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have executed this Agreement the date and year
indicated.
MONTGOMERY WATSON AMERICAS, INC.
Date: //lq/OO BY: ~~--~
CITY OF BREMERTON
Date: B Y:
LYNN S. HORTON, Mayor
W. EUGENE SAMP E~..Y~t>~., Director of Public Works & Utilities
TO
~-~LE~ALtViALANCA, City Attorney
RECEIVED FOR FILING:
KATHI .h-'F~N L. McCLUSKEY, CITY CLERK
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT -4-
Pro-$ez-v.Agt - 1/6/00
ATTA CI-I~LENT A
PHASE I - S COPE OF WORK - PRELIMINARY DESIGN ENGLN-EERING
PRELIMINARY DESIGN PHASE: Upon notice to proceed, the Engineer shall:
1.1 Project Management. Manage the activities of all in-house and subconsultant
work including setup of files, subconsultant agreements, monitoring budgets,
schedule, personnel assignments, and processing of invoices as further described
below:
A. Set up the initial job numbers, files, subconsultant a~eements, and internal
documentation necessary to control the activities of all in-house and
subconsultant work for the progress of the project. This includes the
necessary budgets, schedules, personnel assi~mxnents, and monitoring
systems.
B. Prepare monthly status reports for the City of Bremerton (City) during the
preliminary design phase.
C. Coordinate and manage subconsultant activities during the preliminary'
design phase including reviewing and processing of subconsultant invoices.
D. Review and monitor project schedule and budget on a regular basis.
E. Prepare and submit monthly invoices during the period of the preliminary'
design.
1.2 Project Kickoff Meeting. Schedule (one) project kickoff meeting early in the
preliminary, design phase to be held with City staff, M~V staff, and subconsultant
(Dennis Gerber). The purpose is to tour the reservoir site including accessing the
utility tunnel and review the basic project requirements and constraints.
A. Review existing project documentation such as site survey data, design
drawings, site plans, shop drawings, as-built drawings, reservoir/tunnel
inspection notes and video, and other information on the existing 11 MG
reservoir structure and appurtenances. Prepare a ~ckoff meeting agenda.
This subtask would be performed prior to the project kickoff meeting.
B. Conduct kickoff meeting. Review basic project requirements, including City
preferences for liner/cover material and system design, cover appurtenances,
key construction issues, project schedule and other issues. Review the
desirability to proceed with an inspection of the existing reservoir concrete
liner described in Task 1.3 (prior to final design). Visit project site and
access utility tunnel to observe reservoir layout and condition, existing pipe
layout, pipe penetration at reservoir floor and existing tunnel condition.
1.3 Reservoir No. 4 Concrete Liner Inspection. Provide on-site inspection of the
existing concrete liner using a certified diving service company and observe tlne
existing outlet/drain pipe configuration located in the tunnel.
Montgomery Watson Page 1 12J28/99
A. Coordinate with the City to schedule inspection services of the existing
reservoir concrete liner. The reservoir will be removed from service (i.e.
isolated from distribution system) while divers inspect the concrete liner.
B. Provide on-site inspection of the existing concrete liner and outlet/drain pipe
penetration located at reservoir bottom. Liquidvision Technology, Inc., a
subconsultant to MW, will conduct diving inspection. The inspection requires
a self-contained diver to enter the reservoir through an existing access hatch
and conduct the inspection using artificial lights below the existing floating
cover. The reservoir will be taken off-line and the concrete lining joints will
be cleaned of sediment (if necessary) prior to inspection using a vacuum
system. Inspection will include visual observation and measurement of
concrete joint and crack dimensions (including offset, width, and depth
measurements) and also observation of concrete surface condition. Visual
observations will be recorded on VHS tape medium and in writing when
appropriate. The reservoir wall and floor surfaces will be cleaned only as
required for the inspection work. A written report consisting of photo~aphs
and diagrams including data measurements will be prepared by Liquidvision
Technology, Inc. and a copy submitted to the City, after completion of the
inspection work. This task includes diving services provided by Liquidvision
Technology, Inc as described above and on-site observation by a MW staff
member during the inspection.
1.4 Reservoir Modifications Design Evaluation.
A. Evaluate and select method for installation of new outlet/drain pipe through
the existing reservoir floor slab. Design concepts wilt include assumption that
no reinforcement exists in the concrete liner. It is assumed that alternatives
will require a new penetration of the reservoir base slab.
B. Identify and evaluate any repair or surface preparation work on the existing
concrete liner required prior to installing the new flexible liner membrane.
The evaluation will be based on the inspection report described in Task 1.3.
C. Identify and evaluate liner material alternatives, including NSF-approved
materials, such as polypropylene, hypalon, PVC and XR-5. Identify geotextile
fabric material suited for placement beneath the new liner material. Also
evaluate the potential to use the existing cover as the new liner or protective
layer. MW subconsultant (Dennis Gerber) will assist in evaluating materials
and the potential re-use of the floating cover as described above.
D. Identify and evaluate floating cover design systems, such as:
1. Untensioned Floating Cover.
2. Mechanical Tensioned Floating Cover.
3. Weight Tensioned Floating Cover.
MW subconsultant (Dennis Gerber) will assist in evaluating floating cover
design systems for Reservoir No. 4.
Montgomery Watson Page 2 12/28/99
E. Identify. and evaluate reservoir appurtenances that enhance operations and
maintenance activities, such as:
1. Access hatches.
2. Floating walkways.
3. One-way air vents for trapped air release from under the cover.
4. Rain water removal system
5. Interior cleaning and exterior debris removal systems.
Evaluate the re-use of existing hatches and anchor bars on the new floating
cover. MW subconsultant (Dennis Gerber) will assist in evaluating reservoir
appurtenances including re-use of existing equipment.
F. Identify two design concepts for replacing the existing reservoir outlet/drain
pipe and isolation valve (located in the utility tunnel). The alternatives include
(1) installation of new piping in the existing tunnel using the existing portal as
construction access, and (2) abandonment of the existing tunnel and
installation of the new pipes using trenchless technology method. Evaluation
of each alternative will include identifying pipe materials and location of the
seismic valve and for providing an automatic closing valve operator which
actuates during a seismic event.
1.5 Prepare Draft Project Report. Prepare and submit a Draft Project Report
identifying modifications to the existing Reservoir No. 4. The project report wilt
meet guidelines described for Department of Health Plan Approval in Washington
Administration Code 246-290-110. The Project Report will address the following:
A. Describe the existing documents reviewed, existing conditions, site
investigations, analysis performed, and findings and recommendations
addressing the items described in Tasks 1.2. 1.3 and 1.4 above.
B. Provide preliminary, drawings showing plan and section of the
recommended alternative and layout including up to a maximum of two
details.
C. Develop a proposed construction schedule, including design, construction
and permit acquisition.
D. Develop a preliminary cost estimate based on the modifications to the
reservoir, as recommended in the preliminary design.
E. Prepare a Draft Project Report consisting of a maximum of fifteen (15) text
pages. Submit five (5) copies of the Draft Project Report to the City.
1.6 Preliminary Design Review/Approval. Meet with City staff to receive
comments and input regarding the draft Project Report and issues that may impact
the design of the project. Finalize the report and issue ten (10) copies of the final
Project Report.
Montgomery Watson Page 3 12/28/99
1.7 Quality Assurance/Quality Control. Conduct a criter/a comm/ttee meeting for
project review by senior personnel and subconsultant (Dennis Gerber)
experienced in the design of reservoir liners and covers including pipelines to
provide general guidance and desig-n criteria recommendations. In addition,
provide internal review and quality control of the draft products for the Project
Report.
1.8 Initial Permitting/Agency Coordination. Contact State, County, and City
agencies to identify regulatory agencies with permitting authority or review
responsibilities for the project. Establish which permits are likely to be required
for the construction of the work, and establish initial contacts with the appropriate
agencies. Approximately 5 agency contacts are estimated for this task. The ci~
will submit the final Project Report to the Washington State Department of
Health.
PHASE II - SCOPE OF WORK - FINAL DESIGN AND BIDDING
FINAL DESIGN AND BIDDING PHASE: Final design of the project will proceed
based on the approved concepts and layouts established in the Project Report and will
constitute a "freeze" of the design at this point. No major changes to the preliminary
design concept will be made except through mutual agreement between the City and
Consultant, including applicable Scope of Work and Budget revisions, if necessary.. The
Engineer shall:
2.1 Project Management. Manage the activities of all in-house and subconsultant
work including monitoring budgets, schedule, personnel assignments, and
processing of invoices as further described below:
A. Prepare monthly status reports for the City during the final design phase.
B. Conduct monthly project status meetings between the Engineer's Project
Manager and the City staff during the final design phase. One status
meeting will be scheduled at the City, all other status meetings will occur at
the Engineer's office.
C. Coordinate and manage subconsultant activities during the final design
phase including reviewing and processing of subconsultant invoices.
D. Review and monitor project schedule and budget on a regular basis.
E. Prepare and submit monthly invoices during the period of the final design.
2.2 Reservoir No. 4 Final Design/Bidding
A. Design Drawings. Prepare the design drawings for the modification and
construction of the liner, cover, appurtenances and reservoir outlet/drain
pipe and valve replacement. Provide drawings on standard 22x34 inch bond
sheets based on the list of drawings attached (Attachment B). The final
design will be based on the following:
1. Reservoir modification layout and design will be based on the
concepts recommended in the final Project Report for the project and
Montgomery Watson Page 4 12/28/99
include surface preparation of existing concrete liner, reservoir
outlet/drain pipe penetrations, reservoir outlet/drain pipe and valve
replacement, geotextile fabric/liner, floating cover with dewatering
system and liner/cover anchoring system. MW subconsultant (Dennis
Gerber) will assist in development and design of the proposed liner
and floating cover layout and configuration, placement of sump pump
and anchoring system.
2. Electrical desiDa will include connection to the power source at the
corrosion control facility for the reservoir cover dewatering system.
The electrical power and control source is currently located in the
existing block building adjacent to the Reservoir.
3. Landscaping design will consist of final grading and hydroseeding.
B. Contract Specifications. Prepare general requirements, bidding documents,
and technical specifications for all construction work necessary to complete
the facilities as identified in the Project Report. The construction contract
documents will utilize the Standard General Conditions prepared by the
Engineers Joint Contract Document Committee (EJCDC). This document
includes bidding forms and general conditions. The City shall provide the
standard EJCDC General conditions and an example Supplementary General
Conditions. A separate Supplementary. General Conditions will be prepared
by MW based on using the city supplied example document. Technical
specifications will be prepared in CSI format based on MW standard
technical sections. ~ subconsultant (Dennis Gerber) will assist in
development of the liner and floating cover technical specification sections.
C. 50% and 90% Submittal Design Review. Contract documents
(specifications and drawings) will be submitted to the Citv for review at the
50% and 90% level of completion. Specifications submitted for the 50% will
be limited to table of contents, front-end documents and four key technical
sections. The level of detail incorporated in the 50% and 90% submittal
documents will be to provide the City with mid- and nearly complete
products for review. The drawings will be 1 lxl7-inch (1/2 size.) drawings.
Five copies will be provided to the City for both design review submittals.
The 90% submittal will provide sufficient detail for the purposes of applying
for a building department permit (if required), Department of Health (DOH)
Plan Review and the Department of Ecology, Dam Safety Section
construction permit (if required). Attend a review meeting with City staff
for the 90% level of completion to receive comments.
D. Assistance in Preparation of Permit Drawings/Sketches for Agency
Submittal. Assist the City in preparation of 90% level drawings/sketches,
90% contract documents or earlier preliminary design documents, where
applicable, for submittal (by the City) to permitting agencies. Provide
drawings/sketches for the following (maximum of three) permit submittals.
1. DOH Plan Review.
2. City of Bremerton Building Permit, as necessary,.
3. Department of Ecology, Dam Safety Section, as necessary.
A total of 8 personnel hours are budgeted for this task. It is understood that
the Engineer has no control over the duration of time necessary for Agency
Montgomery Watson Page 5 12J28/99
reviews to acquire the necessary permits and does not warrant the time in
which permits, can be obtained. It is further understood that the Engineer
shall be responsible to insure that all drawings required for submittals to
State, County. and City Agencies meet minimum requirements for
completion, format and accuracy.
E. Finalize Plans and Specifications for Bidding. After receipt of the 90%
comments from the City, DOH, and other agencies, final revisions, will be
made to the 90% drawings to produce final bid-ready contract documents.
Provide five copies of "ready for bidding" contract documents,
specifications and design drawings for final inspection by the City and
approving authorities.
F. Engineer's Estimate. An Engineer's construction cost estimate will be
prepared at the 50% and 90% design completion level. The Engineer's
construction cost estimate will be submitted within one week of the 50% and
90% Submittal Design Review delivered to the City.. It is recognized that
..~' '
the lowest responsible bidder's price will vary from the En,xneers cost
estimate, so the Engineer's estimate figure will be representative of a range
of possible bid prices.
G. Bidding Assistance. Assist the City during the bid period consisting of the
following:
1. MW will provide the City with a single final full-size reproducible
copy of the Drawings on paper with City title block, as well as an
electronic copy of the design drawings on Compact Disk in AutoCAD
format. MW will also provide the City ~vith a singte reproducible copy
of the specifications in 8-1/2 x 11 format along with an electronic file
on diskettes in Word format. The City will advertise for public project
bid, and reproduce and distribute the final contract document, plans
and specifications, providing seven (7) copies to
2. Arrange and conduct a pre-bid walk through (for all bidders) located at
the reservoir project site, as necessa~.. Up to 6 personnel hours are
budgeted for this task.
3. Receive City and/or bidders questions during the bid advertisement
period and prepare an addendum for distribution by the City, if
required, to provide information and clarification to the bid documents.
Subconsuttant (Dennis Gerber) will assist MW in responding to bidder
questions specifically relating to the liner and floating cover design.
Up to 24 (MW) personnel hours are budgeted for this task.
H. QMQC. Provide internal quality review and quality control of the
Reservoir No. 4 Modification Project final design contract documents, by
senior personnel and subconsultant (Dennis Gerber) experienced in the
design of reservoir liners and covers, including a detailed check of the 90%
Submittal.
PHASE III - SCOPE OF WORK - LIMITED CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT
ASSISTANCE
Montgomery Watson Page 6 12J28199
LDvlITED CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT ASSISTANCE PHASE: If authorized.
upon award of the Reservoir Construction Contract by the City, the Construction
Management Assistance Phase of this Agreement will commence. This Phase will
terminate upon final acceptance of the Project by the City. The Notice of Completion is
to be Fried by the City. If authorized, the Limited Construction Management Assistance
will include:
3.1 Project Management. Manage the activities of all in-house and subconsultant
work for the Reservoir No. 4 modifications during the construction phase
including monitoring budgets, schedule and processing of invoices, as further
described below:
A. Review and monitor schedule and budget on a regular basis.
B. Coordinate and manage subconsultant activities including reviewing and
processing subconsultant invoices.
C. Prepare and submit monthly invoices during the per/od of construction.
3.2 Reservoir No. 4 Limited Construction Management Assistance. During the
Reservoir No. 4 Limited Construction Management Assistance Phase, the
Engineer shall perform the following work:
A. Limited Shop Drawings/Materials Review. Review of shop drawings and
material samples will be performed by City Staff. Upon request, MW will
provide input and clarification to the City during the shop drawing review
process. MW will review shop drawings, material samples and other
submissions of the Contractor (as requested by the City) for conformance to
the design concept of the project and for compliance with the Contract
Documents. Compile written review comments and return shop drawing
submittals with a Shop Drawing Review sheet with recommended actions and
comments. MW subconsultant (Dennis Gerber) will provide review comments
(if requested by the City) on the liner/cover material and shop/site fabrication
layout drawing submittals. Up to 10 personnel hours of effort is budgeted
plus subconsultant cost based on no more than 2 shop drawing submittals.
B. Training Session/Inspection by Subconsultant. In addition,
subconsultant (Dennis Gerber) specializing in liner/cover inspection will
conduct a one-day (approximately 6 hrs) training session on-site for City staff
scheduled at the start of the geotextile fabric/liner installation. The training
session will focus on general methods and procedures for inspecting geotextile
fabric/liner/cover construction and include limited inspection of the current
on-site contractor work.
C. Periodic Site Visits by Engineer. Provide periodic visits to the construction
site to observe the progress and quality of the construction work and to
determine if the results of the construction work are in accordance with the
Drawings and the Specifications. Notify the City of observed work which
does not conform to the requirements of the Contract Documents. Prepare a
written report describing any apparent non-conforming work and make
recommendations to the City for its correction. Up to 24 personnel hours are
budgeted based on 3 site visits of up to 8 hours in duration including travel
time.
Montgomery Watson Page 7 12/28199
D. Request for Clarification. Provide requested clarification and interpretation
of the contract plans and specifications including preparation of elementary
sketches, if required, to clarify details. Evaluate substitutions proposed by the
Contractor during construction. Provide review and recommendations to the
City for conformance with the contract plans and specifications.
Subconsultant (Dennis Gerber) will assist MW in providing clarification and
interpretation (as requested by the City) specifically related to liner and
floating cover. The budget for this subtask is 10 (MW) personnel hours.
E. Final Inspection. Attend final project inspection along with MW's
subconsultant (Dennis Gerber) and provide written input for final punchlist.
In addition to final inspection, MW will lead a 1 to 2 hour discussion on
maintenance procedures with City Staff. The budget for this task is 8
personnel hours plus subconsultant cost.
PHASE I¥- SCOPE OF WORK - ADDITIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES
ADDITIONAL ENGINEEREN'G SERVICES: This task will be for specific work
identified by the City during the project design and construction and cannot be utilized
without prior written approval from the City of Bremerton. Additional Engineering
Services may include, but not be limited to, the following:
1) Special services such as geotechnical, hydrogeology, testing, and surveying not
specifically set forth in Attachment A.
2) Additional shop drawing review or liner/cover construction inspection work not
specifically set forth in Attachment A.
3) Preparation of project permits other than limited assistance specified in Attachment
A.
4) Additional services and costs of the Engineer other than the work required in
Attachment A.
5) Any other services not otherwise provided for in this Agreement without limitation,
and services normally furnished by the Owner.
Montgomery Watson Page 8 12/28199
ATTACHMENT B
RESERVOIR No. 4 MODIFICATION PROJECT
PRELIMINARY LIST OF DRAWINGS
General
G- 1 Cover Sheet
G-2 Vicinity Map, Location Map and List of Drawings
G-3 Symbols and Abbreviations
Civil
C-1 Site Plan
C-2 Existing Reservoir - Plan, Section and Details
C-3 Existing Concrete Utility Tunnel
C-4 Reservoir Liner Plan and Details
C-5 Reservoir Cover Plan and Details
C-6 Cover Vent, Floating Walkw,,ay and Details
C-7 Sump and Hatch Details
C-8 Civil Details - 1
C-9 Civil Details - 2
Structural
GS-1. General Notes and Standard Details
S-1 Concrete Liner Repair/Pipe Penetration Details
Mechanical
GM-1 Standard Mechanical Details
M-1 Reservoir Outlet/Drain Pipe
ElectrieaPTelemetrv/Instrumentation
E-1 Electrical Site Plan and Details
ATTACHMENT C
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 $ 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 $ 61 per hour
Secretary. $ 53 per hour
Word Processing Operator $ 57 per hour
Clerk $ 41 per hour
Miscellaneous Costs:
Mileage $ 0.31 per mile
CADD $28 per hour
Other Direct Costs (ODC's)will be marked up by ]0%
Subconsultant Costs will be marked up by 3% to cover administration and insurance charges.
* The individual hourly rates include salary, overhead and profit
** Senior Company Officer rate established at $160/hour.
ATTACHMENT C
CITY OF BREMERTON
RESERVOIR #4 MODIFICATION PROJECT
PROJECT FEE ESTIMATE
TOTAL LABOR I aDC ! TOTAL
Individual/Classification HOURS COST I COST I COST
TASK
SUBTASK
Hourly Rate $ $
1.0 PHASE 1 - PRELIMINARY DESIGN ENGINEERING
I. I Project Management 23 $2,129 $194 $2,323
1.2 Project Klcko# Meeting 31 $3,115 $1,988 $5,103
1.3 Reservoir No.4 Concrete Uner /nspection 12 $1,024 $3,844 $4,868
1.4 Reservoir Modifications Design Evaluation 78 $7,836 $2,638 $10,474
1.5 Prepare Drc#t Project Report 56 $4,947 $750 $5,697
1.6 Preliminary Design Review/Approval 18 $1,854 $250 $ 2.104
1.7 QuafityAssurance/Quali~ Control 10 $1,226 $1,544 $2,770
1.8 Initial Pen'nitting/Agency Coordination 11 $983 $92 $1,075
2.0 PHASE 2 - F1NAL DESIGN & BIDDINC~
2.1 Project Management 32 $3,398 $268 $3,666
2.2 Reservoir Final Design/Bidding 497 $47.025 $14,464 $61,489
3.0 PHASE 3 - CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT ASSISTANCE
3. I Project Management 24 $2,284 $200 $2,484
3.2 Reservoir No. 4 Construction Management Assistance 76 $5,365 $3,244 $8,609
4.0 PHASE 4 - ADDITIONAL ENGINEERING
4, I A dditional Engineering Services 0 $0 $0 $15,000
TOTAL PROJECT FEE ESTIMATE 868 $81,186 $29,476 $125,662
PROJECT SUMMARY:
PHASE I PRELIMINARY DESIGN ENGINEERING TOTALS 239 $23,114 $11,300 $34,414
PHASE 2 FINAL DESIGN & BIDDING TOTALS 529 $50,423 $14,732 $65,155
PHASE 3 CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT ASSISTANCE TOTALS 100 $7,649 $3,444 $11,093
PHASE 4 ADDITIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES 0 $0 $0 $15,000
20F 2
ATTACHMENT D - PRELIMINARY PROJECT SCHEDULE
City of Bremerton
Reservoir No. 4 Modifications Project
PROJECT SCHEDULE
1999 2000
TASK Se.p Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Preliminary Engineering
Design Phase
Final Engineering Design
Phase
Permitting/Approvals
Bidding and Award
Construction Phase
I I
AGENDA BILL
BREMERTON CItY COUNCIL
1. SUB,CT:Animal Control Contract FOR AGENDA OF: 1 2000'~,
ORIGINATING DEPT: Police
ORIGINATOR:Chief Rob Forbes
DATE SUBMITTED: !-5--2000 ~
2. ~: (com~ent on back 3. EXHIBITS:
f if, essary/
Treasurer %-c5~ ~ /Proposal for Animal Control
Budge~o~ee~~~~~/ Services from the Kitsap
Fiscal
&
Operations Committ~.~.f,~._~~~ County Humane Society.
Chief of Police.mFrS...~, ~ ~ ' ~%Proposals "A" and "B" attached.
ENDORSEMENT ~ INFORYaATION A_PPROVED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FOR SUBMITTAL:
4. SUMMARY STATF~MENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION:
The City of Bremerton has provided Animal Control services to it's citizens for many
years. Due to a substantial budgetary short fall, due in part to the passage of I695,
the City of Bremerton finds itself in the position of having to reduce personnel and
services. The Bremerton Police Department has been tasked over the years with managing
the Animal Control program. In an effort to assist in making up the budgetary short
fall, the Police Department lost two funded, commissioned, police officer positions.
In addition to this reduction, the contracting of Animal Control services to the
Kitsap County Humane Society is proposed, in order to further reduce the general fund
deficit,_ ~-.~ .' ~'~ This would reduce the likelihood of loosing yet
another c~mmissioned police officer position from the Police Department budget.
8. RECOMMENDATION:
City Council authorization to enter into a contract with'the Kitsap County
Humane Society to provide Animal Control Services for the City of Bremerton.
9. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Chief Forbes
ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL:
EXPIRATION DATE:
REVIEW DATE:
PULLED TABLED APPROVED DISAPPROVED ~ NDED
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE: DATE:
11. AGENDA BILL NO: ~0 ' O~%
2. CLEARANCE CQMMENTS (cont.
4. SUMMARY STATEMENT ( cont. ):
5. IMPACT ON NON-PASSAGE:
The Bremerton Animal Control Program will be reduced to 1.5 employees and one
vehicle. Patrol time will be reduced due to time spent with kennel runs,
euthanasia and adoption services. Overall efficiency of service will
substantially decline.
6. IMPACT ON STAFFING, BUDGETS. FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT OR OTHER RESQURCES
Proposed contract amounts are as follows:
Proposal A:$120,000.00 per year
Proposal B:$I05,000.00 per year
Currently our Animal Control Budget is $157, 385.00. Vehicle maintenance is
estimated at $10,000.00 per year for three vehicles. Total cost of providing
Animal Control services is $167,000.00 per year. Proposal "A" would save
$47,000.00 per year, proposal "B" would save $62,000.00 per year, however a
more severe reduction in services would take place with proposal "B".
7. RESEARCH SOURCES:
DRAFT
Kitsap Humane $ocieW
9167 Dickey Road HW
$ilverdale, WA 98383
360-692-6977
Aoreement for Animal Control Services
THIS AGREEMENT is entered into between Kit:map Humane Society C'society'3 and
City of Bremerton ("City'3.
W1TNESSETH
For and in consideration of the mutual promises and agreements hereinafter
contained, it is hereby mutually promised, understood and agreed by the parties hereto
as follows, to-wit:
1. Parties. This Agreement is by and between the City of Bremerton (hereinafter
C/b/), and the Kitsap Humane Society (here~halter Society).
2. Purpose, The purpose of this Agreement is to establish and define the
relationship between the parties as it concerns the subject of this Agreement.
3. Subject, The subject of this Agreement is services to be provided to the City of
Bremerton by the Society.
4. Tel.ilS of Agreement.
a. The Society shall act as the Animal Control and Impounding authority for
the'City, and shall provide impound services and facilities for all animals
for which impounding is authorized. ( see addendum A, scope of services)
b. The Society shall faithfully enforce all ordinances of the City and/or
statues of the State of Washington now in effect relative to the care,
treatment, control, impounding and licensing of animals.
c. The Society, under the authority and at the direction of the Health Officer
of the Bremerton-Kitsap County Health Department, shall, pursuant to the
direction of the Health Officer or in accordance with the request of the
owner, quarantine all animals that shall have bitten a person so as to
have broken the skin.
PROVZDED, that the responsibility for the release of such animals from
confinement shall be that of the Health Department. It is the
responsibility of the Health Officer to monitor animals under confinement
and the Society shall cooperate with the Health Officer in the record
keeping necessary to monitor the keeping of quarantined animals.
d. The Sodety, while on patrol or by request, shall pick up dogs and/or cats
injured or killed on the City streets, roads and alleys. If the owner of any
such animal is known, the Society shall request disposition instructions
and comply with the same, if reasonable. If the owner of such an animal
is unknown or unavailable, the Society shall make such disposition of said
animal, as it deems necessary or appropriate under the circumstances.
e. The Society, on request, shall assist officers of the Bremerton Police
Department in clearing the City streets and roads of livestock or any
other animals at large on said roads and streets.
PROVIDED, that nothing contained herein shall be construed to place responsibility on
the Society for the removal of dead livestock or any other animals from public roads,
streets and highways, nor from public or private property.
f. The Society shall accept at no charge dogs, cats and other small pets
brought to the shelter by their owners or authorized person. PROVIDED,
such animals shall have not bitten any person within the last ten (10)
days so as to have broken the skin. PROVIDED FURTHER, that
disposition of said animals shall be at the discretion of the Society.
Nothing herein contained shall be construed to prevent the Society from
charging for euthanasia and/or cremation where such services are
requested of the Society or deemed necessary.
g. The Society shall provide it's animal control officers the necessary
courtroom training to present evidence and provide testimony in the
prosecution of all infractional violations of any ordinance pertaining to
animals as herein defined.
h. The City, through the Prosecuting Attorney, shall be responsible for
prosecuting criminal cases and for providing assistance, when requested
by the Society, for contested hearings, or civil actions as a result of
enforcing violations of City Ordinances or State Statutes relating to
animals as defined herein. The Prosecuting Attorney shall provide legal
assistance to the Society personnel in the interpretation and
administration of said ordinances and statutes.
i. The Society shall act as an agent of the City Treasurer for the purpose of
issuing licenses for pets and collecting the fees therefor, as required by
City Ordinance, at no cost to the City.
j. The duties of the Society as set forth herein, shall pertain to all domestic
animals and to wild animals, which have been tamed or kept in captivity.
The duties of the Society, as set forth herein, shall not pertain to wild
predatory or game birds or animals at all, except in the case of injury
and/or suffering.
k. The Society, during the term of this contract, shall function as a nonprofit
corporation. PROVIDED, that nothing herein contained shall be
construed to prevent the Society from adopting impounded animals,
strays or gift animals, nor from boarding for a fee animals under
quarantine, at the request of the owner.
5. Termination. Either party upon ninety- (90) days written notice may
terminate this agreement. In the event of termination, Society shall
perform such additional work as is necessary for the orderly transfer of
documents and materials to the City and dosing of the services
rendered. Society shall be compensated for work performed prior to the
effective date of termination, plus work required for dosing this
Agreement.
6. Commission of Animal Control Officers. For the purpose of the
enforcement of City Ordinances and State laws as set forth in Section,
the Bremerton Police Chief shall commission Animal Control Officers of
the Society over the age of twenty-one (21) years. PROVIDED, that
such commission be conferred at the direction of the Police Chief and
may be revoked at will by him/her. PROVIDED FURTHER, that the City
shall furnish such employees with a suitable badge of authority.
7. Compensation. The City shall pay the Society for its services the sum
of $10,000 for each month beginning January 1, 2000, for twelve (12)
months. The total amount of this contract for 2000 shall be $120,000.
Total compensation to the Society for 2000 shall be $120,000 plus the
City will loan the Society the 3 animal control vehicles and equipment for
the duration of the contract. The Society shall provide liability coverage.
The City shall maintain the vehicles.
8. Workers' Compensation. Society shall maintain workers' compensation
insurance and comply with all laws and regulations regarding workers'
compensation.
9. Hold Harmless. Society shall defend and hold harmless at Society's
sole expense including attorneys' fees, City of Bremerton, and its elected
officials, officers, employees and agents, from any and all claims,
demands, losses and liabilities for damages of any nature whatsoever,
adsing out of the performance of this Agreement, including losses or
claims by the Society's employees or third parties, except for those
damages caused by the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the City
of Bremerton, its elected or appointed officials, officers, employees and
agents.
10. Insurance. Prior to commencing work, Society shall procure and
maintain at Society's own cost and expense for the duration of the
Agreement the following insurance against claims for injuries to persons
or damages to property which may rise from or in connection with the
performance of the work or services hereunder by the Society, its agents,
representatives, employees or subcontractors.
Minimum limits of Insurance: Sodety shall maintain limits no less than:
~me~ial ~-~1 Liability: One million dollars
($1,000,000.00) combined single limit per occurrence for bodily injury
and property damage, and two million dollars ($2,000,000.00) aggregate.
Coverage shall be on an "occurrence" basis. City of Bremerton shall be
named, by endorsement, as an additional insured on the Contractor's
insurance policy as respects this contract. Such insurance as carried by
the Contractor is primary over insurance carried by the City.
Profe~Jor~ai Liability (£rror arid Omi~ior~)
With a limit of not less than on e million dollars ($1,000,000.00).
W'or~er~' Coml~n.~l:ion and £mployer's i.~'~#ty: Workers'
Compensation coverage as required by the State of Washington.
Evidence of Society's l:nsurance shall be presented to the City of Bremerton Risk
Manager, address****, prior to the execution of the agreement. ]:n the event of non-
renewal, cancellation, or material change in coverage, thirty (30) days written notice will
be fumished to the City prior to the date of cancellation, non-renewal or change.
The Society's ]:nsurance Policies shall contain the following general requirements
or endorsements as follows:
a. City of Bremerton is named as an additional insured with regards to this
contract and insurance as is carded by the Society is primary (over any
insurance carded by City of Bremerton).
b. The Society's insurance policies contain a "Cross Uability' endorsement
substantially as follows:
The inclusion of more than one ]:nsured under this policy shall not affect
the dghts of any l:nsured as respects any claim, suit or judgment made or
brought by or for any other insured or by or for any employee of any
other ]:nsured.
This policy shall protect such Insured in the same manner as though a
separate policy has been issued to each, except that nothing herein shall
operate to increase company's liability beyond the amounts for which the
company would have been liable had only one Insured been named.
11. Americans with Disabilities Act. The Society agrees to comply with
all provisions of the
Americans with Disabilities Act and all regulations interpreting or
enforcing such Act.
12. Duration. This Agreement shall be effective as of the 1~ day of .~anuary
2000, and shall be in force and effective until the 31~ day of December
2000.
13. Privileged and Confidential Information. Dudng the term of this
agreement, the City and the Society, to the extent of their dght to do so
and as required for each to perform its obligations under this agreement,
may exchange proprietary and confidential information.
A) Except as specifically authorized by this Agreement, or otherwise
approved by the City in writing, all records or other information,
documents, and materials furnished by the Qty to the Society will be
used only in connection with work performed under this Agreement. The
Society will, upon completion or termination of this Agreement, transit to
the City all records or other information, documents and materials, and
copies thereof, furnished by the City to the Society or developed by the
Society in the performance of this Agreement. Similarly, the City will
return to the Society all of the same type of records and information
provided by the Society to the City;
B) All proprietary or confidential information, whether received visually,
orally, in writing, electronically, or in any other medium, is and shall
remain the property of disclosing City or Society for a pedod of five (5)
years or until relieved of that responsibility by the information owner.
Venue and Choice of Law Clause.
Any action at law, suit in equity, or other judidal proceedings for the enforcement of this
contract or any provision thereof shall be instituted only in the courts of the State of
Washington, County of Kitsap. It is mutually understood and agreed that this contract
shall be governed by the laws of the State of Washington, both as to interpretation and
performance.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this agreement is signed by the parties this ~ day of
, 20 .
KTrSAP HUMANE SOCZETY City of Bremerton
Gregory L. Bloomfield Mayor Horton
Addendum A
City_ of Bremerton
The following is a list of services provided by Kitsap Humane Society Animal Control
Department.
1. With the dual function of being a Humane Society as well as Animal Control, we
can provide an all encompassing animal welfare and control program to the city.
2. :Investigation and enforcement of animal cruelty and control violations.
3. Routine patrol of city streets, to include a minimum of 2 hours per day, 5 days a
week. This patrol will be random and scheduled by the duty animal control
oMcer.
4. Removal and disposal of dead dogs and cats from city streets and alleys.
5. 24- hour, 7 days a week rescue of injured stray animals and provide in-house
Veterinarian care.
6. Provide exemplary kenneling and care facilities for all city strays.
7. Provide redemption and licensing system for impounded animals.
8. An adoption program that promotes responsible pet ownership, as well as all
animals will be neutered and microchiped prior to being released.
9. Euthanasia and disposal of unclaimed or animals that are not adopted.
10. A 24-hour lost and found pet phone line.
:[1. An education programs that reaches children and adult groups, promoting
responsible pet ownership.
:[2. Administrative staff to oversee the program, as well as support staff to handle
phones, dispatching, accounting and all general office functions.
:[3. A monthly report will be submitted to the CiW, which will reflect our activities.
Proposal B
Addendum B
City Of Bremerton
The following is the list of services that could be provided under the contract, the
compensation for this service would be $8,750.00 monthly totally $105,000 annually.
This would include the transfer of ownership to the Society the animal control vehicles
and equipment.
With this proposal the city would need to change the ordinances, and remove all
nuisance violations.
Animal control would enforce all dog at large ordinances, license violations, Potentially
or dangerous animal, cruelty to animals and pu. blic safety issues.
We would only respond on an on-call basis, no routine patrol. Our emergency service for
after hours, weekends and holidays would strictly be for the purpose of assisting
domestic stray animals that are injured.
Also included in this proposal:
P, emoval and disposal of deceased stray dogs or cats on city streets or alleys.
Provide exemplary kenneling and care facilities for all city strays.
Provide redemption and licensing system for impounded dogs.
An adoption program promoting responsible pet ownership, all animals would be spayed
/neutered, receive a microchip with lifetime registration nationally, vaccinations,
worming and a 14 day health guarantee prior to being released.
Euthanasia and disposal of unclaimed and not adopted animals.
A 24 hour lost and found pet information phone line.
Administrative staff to oversee the programs, as well as support staff to answer
telephones, dispatching, accounting and all general office functions.
A monthly report-will be submitted tothe city, which will reflect our animal control
activities.
AGENDA BILL
BREMERTON CITY--COUNCIL ,.7~
I. SUBJECT: Ordinance (first reading) FOR AGENDA OF: January A~, 2000
establishing a special election date of ORIGINATING DEPT: Parks & Recreation
May 16, 2000 for a Parks and Recreation ORIGINATOR: Cris Gears, Director
Bond DATE SUB~: January 7, 2000
2. CI.I~.ARANCES: ~/] 3. EXItlRITS:
C~ Attom i-?"~//'~"~t~jl '~ Descrip~:ion o~: proposed "Y2R'* Projects
Fiscal & Budget Committee: Study Session 12-15-99
Operations Committee: Study_ So,ion 12-I5-99
ENDORSEMENT INFORIVIATION APPROVED BY COUNCIL PRES/DENT FOR SUB--AL:
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 staffare recommending that thc 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 thc City's voters are fully informed about the proposed
Parks and Recreation projects prior to the election.
8. RECOMMENDATION:
Motion to approve ordinance on first 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 DISAPPROVE D___d~ A~I%ED_~A
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE: DATE:
11. AGENDA BII~L #: (30 '~ 0~=~_._
2. CLEARANCE COMMENTS:
5. IMPACT OF NON-PASSAGE:
Non-passage of this ordinance would jeopardize the -potential for a timely public vote of the
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 language 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 incurring of indebtedness, issuing of bonds
and levying of excess taxes for the purpose of paying the cost of the development,
construction, and improvement of City park and recreational facilities; declaring the cost
of such development, construction, and improvemem 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 oftbe proposition of incun'ing such indebtedness, issuing 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 developmem, 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 replacemem of equipment, to provide the fimds 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 within 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 rate or amount, sufficiem 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
rotes, 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 thereof, 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 replacement of equipmem,
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 DEVEI,OPMENT 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 twemy years, levy 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 City 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 ARE~tD5 '-, Council President
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 waterfront 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: Jnnuary 26~ 2000
Appeal of Planning Commission decision to allow to stand ORIGINATING DEPT.: DCD
Building Permit 99-0151 for agarage at 1409 MadronaPoint ORIGINATOR: JonHohm/~,,~
Drive. DATE SUBMITTED: January 18, 2000
2. CLEARANCES: .(Comment on back if 3. EXHIBITS:
necessary) CC Resolution #
Comm. Dev. D~~, ?~t~ ~ ~1 Notice of Public Hearing
City Clerk: ~ ,// 4 Appeal Application
CityAttorney:~ J[dT"'" - ~' ~ ,/'~/~__~_ StaffReportwithRelcvantAttachments (AYai
· .f-~'f--~._' ' AUDI0 TAPES OF 10/19/99 PLANNING C0t'~l~l$$10N
ENDORSEMENT~ INFORMATION m APPROVED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FOR SUBMITTAL:
4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION:
The appellant requests are'view of Building Permit No. 99-0151 for a ~ garage issued by this departm~t on
September 8, 1999 at 1409 Madrona Point Drive. Pure,ant to BMC Section 21.02.845, this Type I decision was appealed to
the Planning Commi.qsion on October 19, 1999. The Commission voted a two-to-two deadlock, which let~ the building
permit in place. Mr. Henry made further appeal for review of the permit to Council on October 25, 1999.
5. RECOMMENDATION:
The Zoning Ordinance does not appear to specifically limit the size of accessory strum, nor does the code discuss issues
of ownership of vehicles occupying garage space. Further, the Plonning Commission overturned a previous staff
interpretation regarding the size of accessory structures in 1994. For these reasons, this building permit was approved.
However, the Council may consider whether the term, "customarily found in connection with a principal structure or use" is
referencing to the use and/or size of an accessory structure. Thus, City Council may consider the following alternatives:
1. Affirm DCD's building permit approval for the garage as an accessory m'ucture to the proposed adjacent and
allowed, primary residential use.
2. Deny the building permit on one or more of the following grounds:
· a. That the size of the garage in this instance is not custiomary since it occupl~.s a relatively large portion of
the lot it is situated; or
b. That the smtcture's size is a factor to det~mine a customarily found accessory structure and that the
proposed garage exceeds the size of garages customarily found in residential areas; or
3. Continue the matter, or
4. Remand the building l~rcdt to DCD for further consideration, giving reasons for the remand.
6. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL:
ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL:
EXPIRATION DATE: N/A
7. NOTICE OF ACTION
PULLED TABLED APPROVED __ DISAPPROVED __ AMENDED
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE: DATE:
0
8. AGENDA BILL NO.: 0
9. CLEARANCE COMMENTS:
10. IMPACT OF NON-PASSAGE:
May allow other similar garages to be built in residential zoning districts.
11. IMPACT ON STAFFING, BUDGETS~ FACILITIES~ EQUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCES:
Additional staff resources might be required to review revised plans and permit application.
12. RESEARCH SOURCES:
Zoning Ordinance
File
Site Visits
NOTICE OF PUBLIC I:i-F, ARING
Bremerton City Council
The Bremerton City Council will conduct a Closed Record Public Hearing on the
following item during its regular meeting on Wednesday, January 26, 2000, which will
begin at 6:00 PM in the City Council Chambers of the Bremerton City Hall, 239 4~
Street, Bremerton, WA.
PL99-0083 - Appeal Planning Commission decision on Appeal of Building Permit No.
99-0151 for a new garage at 1409 Madrona Point Drive in a single-family residential (SF-
3) zoning district.
Appellant: K. Wes Henry Sr.
The Department of Community Development (DCD), located at 286 4~ Street,
Bremerron, WA 98337, will receive response ar~_mament to the appeal or supplemental
ar~oument by supporters or those opposed to the permit decision until January 17, 2000.
Staff reports and copies of pertinent materials can be obtained from the DCD. Staff
reports will be available by 5:00PM on January 20, 2000. Call James Coombes at (360)
478-5845 for additional information.
PERMIT CF, NTER
286 Fourth Street, Bremerton WA 98337
Phone: ($60)478-5275 Fax: (360)478-5278
Request for Review of Decision of Director,
Planning Commission or to Appeal a Cease & Desist Order
Reference: Zoning Code Section 21. OZ 935 & 21. OZ 945
Request Party: Z~//f.j~e ~/0'/~ ~
~our n~e) /
~our ~ling ad,ess)
(Telephone Number)
Decision Being Appe~ed: ~ ~, ~ ~, ~, ~, o~ ~,~, ~
t /
Please pro,de a concise statement of the specific fin~g(s) or conclusion(s) to be reviewed, together
wi~ material fa~s claimed to support your contentions. Use additional paper if necessa~'.
Please provide a brief statement of the relief sought and the reasons why the decision/action should be
reversed, modified or remanded. Use additional pages if necessary.
&" ' ~ - i' '
Date:/Z~ -~-3--~c~? ~z-~,. ·
pp ant s Signature
Fee: Review to City Council - $6~.00
Revie~v to Planning Comn~s~ion - $40.00 (Only applicable to a Cease & D~ist Order Appeal)
Reviews will be scheduled to be heard before the Bremerton City Council as soon as possible, allowing
for adequate preparation and notice. You will receive written notification of the Council hearing date
mailed to vour address given above. The City. Council decision is the final legislative decision.
Last printed 04/29/98 9:46 AMC:WIy DocumentsLRequest for Review of Decision of Director.doc
APPEAL OF BLrlIJHNG PERMIT
Bremerton Planning Commission
October 19, 1999
Appellant: R. Wes Henry Sr.
File Number: PL99-0068
Request: Review of Building Permit for a new garage at 1409 Madrona Point Drive.
Attached Documents:
Site Plan for Building Permit 99-0150 and 99-0151 for residence and garage
Appeal Application received September 13, 1999.
Memo from Knute Rife to Jon Holan dated May 11, 1999
Zoning Ordinance Interpretation ZOI-01-02
StaffReport for appeal by Robert Arminino dated August 16, 1994
PC Minutes from August 16, 1994 on Arminino appeal
Public Notice of Appeal.
Background:
On September 8, 1999 the Department of Economic and Community Development (DECD)
issued Building Permit No. 99-0151 for a new garage at 1409 Madrona Point Drive. The
proposed site is immediately west and adjacem to building Permit No. 99-0150 issued for a
new manufactured single-family residential unit. The proposed garage would be 40 feet by
74 feet (2,960 square feet in size) on a parcel of approximately 8,420 feet with a height of 16
feet. Identified as a Carriage House on the building plans, it also includes required parking
for the new residence.
The property is subject to the City's Shoreline Master Program requirements including the
view corridor requirements. Twenty-five percent of the 60-foot lot width, or 15 feet, is leR
open to protect a partial view of the shoreline. This 15 foot setback complies with the
Program's view corridor requirements for a structure of less than 20 feet in height.
Additionally, the site is within the Single Family Residential (SF-3) zone district and complies
with its setback requirements including a five-foot side yard setback along the eastern
property line, a 20~foot front yard setback, as well as a 15-foot rear yard setback. The 16-
foot garage height is well below the allowed 30-foot height allowed in this zone. The
proposed garage also conforms to the 40 percent lot coverage requirements for the zone
district.
Summary of Appeal:
The appellant requests a review of Building Permit No. 99-0151 for a garage issued by DECD
on September 8, 1999 for the new garage at 1409 Madrona Point Drive. Pursuant to BMC
Section 21.02.845, an administrative decision can be appealed to the Planning Commission.
The appellant states that the proposed garage is not customary to other neighborhood
structures and that the structure would be used as boat storage for a party not riving in the
adjoining residential unit. There is no specific statement of relief being sought.
Staff Analysis:
The decision being appealed is DECD issuance of a building permit for a proposed garage.
The following is an analysis the issues presented by the appellant.
Appellant: The proposed new garage is not customary to other neighborhood structures.
The appellant alleges this structure is going to be used as a boat storage
building for someone other than the occupant of the proposed new adjacent
residence.
Thus, there are two issues associated with this appeal, l~trst, is whether the proposed garage
is customary to other neighborhood structures. The second issue is whether an accessory
structure can be built on a separate lot and whether the garage can be used by someone other
than the occupant of the adjacent property.
Customary Structure: The definition of an Accessory Structure in the Zoning Ordinance
(BMC 21.02.070) states:
A structure that is incidental arm subordinate to aprincipal structure and which
is customarily found in connection with the principal uses, as permitted by the
zone in which the property is located
Further, BMC Subsection 21.02.190 (a) Accessory Uses and Structures states:
(a) A use or structure that is incidental and subordinate to a principal structure or
use and which is customarily found m connection with the principal structure or
use shall be permitted, so long as that principal structure or use is permitted to
continue, or unless otherwise specified in this Ordinance.
The Zoning Ordinance does not give a specific definition for either the word incidental or
subordinate. In its definition of the word incidental, Merriam-Webster's Collegiate
Dictionary (Tenth Edition 1996) offers the terms "minor consequence" and "minor item" to
describe the meaning of the word. Subordinate is defined in part as "1: Placed in or
occupying a lower class, rank, or position: inferior. 2: Submissive to or comrolled by
authority."
It is staff's position that an accessory structure, such as a residemial garage, exists because
it is subordinate or incidental to the primary structure, the residence that it accompanies rather
than the size of the structure. This is supported by an opinion issued by the City Attorney's
Office (see memo dated May 11, 1999).
Further, the Community Development Departmem had issued an interpretation on accessory
structures in 1992 (see ZOI-01-02). This interpretation included several criteria related to
customary, incidemal and subordinate structures. The Planning Commission in 1994
overturned this interpretation by allowing the construction of a garage which staff at the time
believed did not meet the criteria (see staff report and minutes related to Robert Armanino's
appeal of a garage). While that particular case involved the construction of a second garage
on a relatively large lot, the issue was the appropriate mount of garage space for a residential
area. This is also the issue for the currem appeal. As a result this situation, staff has found
that the Code does not allow staff authority to regulate the size of a garage in light of the lack
of definition, the City Attorney's opinion and the past action of the Commission.
The Commission should keep in mind that the term "customarily found in connection with a
principal struCtUre or use" is subject to interpretation. From staff's viewpoint, this term
means the use of a structure customarily found in association with a primary use rather than
the size of the structure. A garage is such an activity customarily associated with a residential
use. The Zoning Ordinance does not limit specific uses for garages used as accessory.
structures to a primary residence. There are numerous examples throughout the City of
various types of vehicles being stored in residential garages. Besides cars, some of the many
vehicles that can be associated with residential living include RVs, boats, tracks, trailers and
campers.
Another possible interpretation could mean that the size and/or shape of the garage is not
customary for the type of garages found in residential areas (this was one basis for the 1992
zoning interpretation). It should be noted that there exist oversized garages in residential
areas of the community. Further, the Commission previously found in 1994 that the amount
of garage area was not a factor, per se, in determining a "customarily found" accessory
structure.
If the Commission does not concur with the staff findings for this proposal, it may consider
its size is inappropriate. In the 1994 appeal, the total garage area covered approximately 6
percent of the lot area compared with about 35 percent for the currem case. Thus, the
Commission could make one of the following two determinations:
- The Commission refines its previous determination by finding that the size of the garage
in this instance is not customary since it occupies a relatively large portion of the lot it is
situated (when compared with the case in 1994); or
- The Commission reverses the previous Commission's determination and prescribes the
structure's size as a factor to determine a customarily found accessory structure.
Who Uses an Accessory Structure
BMC Section 21.02.190 (b) Accessory Uses and Structures states:
3
(b) Accessory structures and uses may mot be established without a related principal
structure or use on the same property, except that accessory uses or structures
may be established on a lot immediately adjacent to and under the same
ownership as the principal's lot, provided it is not separated from that lot by a
street, alley or other right-of-way, and is in the same zoning district.
As can be seen, the ordinance allows accessory structures on lots immediately adjacent to
another lot containing the principal use when the two lots are under the same ownership. In
the current situation, the applicant owns both lots and there is no indication that each lot
would be sold separately. As the property owner, the applicant has verbally indicated that
he intends to store his boat within the sa. rage although there is no indication that he would
live in the house adjacent to the garage. Thus, the issue before the Commission is whether
a property owner can construct a garage as an accessory use to a house the owner would own
but would not use as his residence (e.g. a rental).
Staff could find no reference in the Zoning Ordinance that would limit the storage of items
in a residential garage based on their relationship to the resident of the primary structure. The
Code does not address who may store items in a residential garage. Staffbelieves that it is
not the intent of the ordinance to prescribe these relationships as long as the garage is used
for a customary residential use. In this instance, staff believes that the storage of an
individual' s boat is a customary accessory use. Staff also believes that the ordinance intended
to leave it up to the owner and, if applicable, the renter to determine what items would be
stored in a residential garage.
The Commission could determine that the use, storage of materials not owned by the person
residing in the attached house, is not a customarily found use for an accessory structure. If
the Commission chose this direction, staff would be concerned with its role in having to
determine what "stuff" is being stored in residential garages and who owns it.
Conclusion:
The Zoning Ordinance does not appear to specifically l~nit the size of accessory structures,
nor does the code discuss issues of ownership of vehicles occupying garage space. Further,
a previous staff imerpretation regarding the size of accessory structures was overturned by
the Commission. For these reasons, this building permit was approved. However, the
Commission may consider whether the term, "customarily found in connection with a
principal structure or use" is referencing to the use and/or size of an accessory structure.
Thus, the Commission may consider the following alternatives:
1. A~rm DCD's building permit approval for the garage as an accessory structure to the
proposed adjacent and allowed, primary residential use.
2. Deny the building permit on one or more of the following grounds:
4
a.That the size of the garage in this instance is not customary since it occupies a
relatively large portion of the lot it is situated; or
b. That the structure's size is a factor to determine a customarily found accessory
structure and that the proposed garage exceeds the size of garages customarily
found in residential areas; or
c. The use is not customary to uses in the neighborhood;
3. Continue the matter; or
4. Remand the building permit to DCD for further consideration, giving reasons for the
remand.
5
Phone: ( 360 } 4.78-5275 h'AX: ( 360 ~ 478-5228 BUILDING PERMIT
Locat(on: Status: rcc~Fm'
',~arce]. Nc: 162401:-I ~5-~003 ~upj !ed: 03/25/~ 99¢
[ssued: 0%'08/~.999
!.Caf~E :: HCI..'FZ, i'}CN Exp~ fas: 33/06/'~000
1542 M~iJRONA PO~N7 DRS~RfERI'ON :4A 983]2
O~ner; ~bl..r"z
i h~2 ~At,)RON~ 90tN7 !.)~BRE~ER';'ON ~,~ ~eg~ 2
Ccn~Tao~or: SEAr'Ft..E REhL. FY {NC 30~-455;:~ utc
Subcont r:
NEW 5~%Rh6~ (2~60 S(~ ~ F ) ',NEW ~ODLJI..~R HO~E LJN[.)ER ?F'R~T~
Vaiua~'Jon ~ Permit Fees: 5]5.55 !'cia} Ca].cu]a~ed Fee: 984.02
~ Other Ferns: 4.bO Total Per,it Fee: 9~4,02
MECHANICAL/PL'J~BING~*'~'~, u~--~¢~ ~ECk-Ex2ausr Fans ............ : ~ ;t~6-~a:er C,oss.' ~ ............ :
leo days trom the Oa~e of such ~er~t:, .:r ,f $~s ~utldtng or ~orx ausnor:~ec ay s~cn ~er~it is ~uspendes
a~andoneC as any time after she ~o~'k ta sommence¢ for a perlcc :nf t80 days.
NOTICE - it is the responsibility of ;he serm!s no!der, not ;ne Cily of Sremersop or 3sliding Off!clai :: see ' ' r~q~, ~d inspections are ~ade. The - -~' ~ ' =- nn,: ' '
:n he stoppa§e of the work unt:i such ci~e :ha~ ~ne oer~i~ holder can s,cs.~,...= ......... d~ ,
be borne directly by she po;mis holder. =ailure :o ~uostanbia:e ccde reou:re~ents :~i[l indemnify t~e
against an7 and ai1 responsibii:t7 or t~a~111~? connected w~th the constrict:on.
i hereOF cersify that.r have read and examined this permit and knew ;ne same ;o oe *-'. ,e and correct .
provision8 of !aws and ordinances governing this ~ype of ~ork wi!! be ~o~pi!ed ~!th ~hether spes~fied herein
cr not. The granting of a permit does nos presume to give author!t7 ~o ~,io!ate or cancel ~he prov!sions of
an7 other ~;ate_or~Ig~! law 'regulating conj'!on or the peF~rmance of sonstruction.
~ certtf~ :hat [ ~.e×e~pt from tr, e requirements of ~he sta:~ coq:r~ctor's registration !a~, under
Section 3, Chapter !26, la~s o? 1967,
S!gna:ure: ............. ZJ; ...... %-=-s .... % ........... L~O___ Bate:
28~ ~h Street, Breme~ton~ ~A ~8~7
Pho~= (360) 4~8-5~75 FAX: (360) ~78-5~.78
;'~ F Q LI ~ ~q ~- i? ~i ~:~ i:~:" ~: ~ Q N
. ¢~,(., ;:H ~l-~.; FiG R['lt. tt31-~-~ Fi .... '"'~ ' "'
~ t ~.:~m :;(~ ' 900 [~FItF:t~::T!.~I'~E:F: N~ ',:i i' ~ - ',. ,~ .",
~.., (.} ~: ....:. ,. ~. ......
. ¢"'"~'?Or) F" T NA! ...... cji r'~G r')ep.~: '~ ~h,': ' :? 't
CITY OF BREMgRTON
REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF DECISION OF DIRECTOR
OR PLANNING COMMISSION
REFERENCE: ZONING CODE SECTION 21.02.935
(Your name)
(Your Mailing Address)
-. (Telephone Number)
DECISION BEING APPEALED: ,~-~ -d'~,t_ Z~/-,.- ,. r..', -- e~,
Please provide a concise statement of the specific finding(s) or conclusion(s) to be reviewed.
together with material facts claimed to support your contentions. Use additional paper if
necessary.
Please provide a brief statement of the reEe£ sought and the reasons why the decision/action
should be reversed, modred or r~d~. Use ~ddi~on~ pages if neces~.
- p!~ ht~ gTgna(ure~- -
D
A
TE:
Fee: (Due with Request for Review) Review zo City Council
Reviews will be scheduled to be heard before the Bremerton City Council as soon as possible,
allowing for adequate preparation and notice. You will receive written notification of the Council
hearing dine milled to your address given above. The City Council decision is the final legislative
decision.
~X OF
~~2 OFFICE OF CITY ATTORNEY
239 4th Street · Bremerton. Washington 98337 ° (360) 478-5345 · FAX (360) 478-516l · E-mail: legal@ci.bremerton.wa.us
MEMORANDUM
From: Knute Rife
To: Jon Holan
Re: Accessory structures
Date: 11 May 1999
You have requested an opinion concerning whether the definition of"accessory structure"
in BMC 21.02.060 imposes size restrictions. I conclude that it does not.
Former Director Pratt went to some length to reach the opposite conclusion. His opinion
boils down to: 1) the definition of"Structure, Accessory" is controlling; 2) accessory structures
are to be subordinate; 3) "subordinate" means "smaller." I would note, though, that nowhere
does the Code put express size restrictions on accessory structures, although the Code does
establish specific size restrictions in other contexts. I would additionally note that the typical
method of restricting building size in the Zoning Code is set-back requirements, which are
imposed on accessary structures in BMC 21.02.210. These two points indicate that the Council
knows how to impose specific size restrictions when it wants but has imposed only the general
restrictions here. This weighs against implying a specific size restriction on accessory structures
in addition to the general set-back requirements.
As a final note, BMC 21.02.210(c) expressly provides for accessory structures that house
livestock and fowl. Such a provision could include not only chicken coops and stables but barns,
yet the adopting Council put no size restriction on such buildings. Under standard rules of
legislative construction, we must assume the Council intended not to adopt specific restrictions
and thereby allow large structures.
I therefore conclude that the definition establishes no requirement that an accessory
structure be smaller than the primary structure.
Equal Opportunity Employer
City of Bremerton
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
ZONING ORDINANCE INTERPRETATION
of the
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
RESIDENTIAL ACCESSORY STRUCTURES
ZOI-0:~-92
REFERENCE; Bremerton Zoning Ordinance Chapter IV, Section 4:
C. Accessory uses or structures shall be determined by the definition
of 'Structure, Accessory' in Chapter 111, the designation 'AC" in the
Land Use Tables of Chapter V, or by the Director. Typical
accessory uses and structures include the following:
1. Residential: Garage, carport, tennis court, swimming
pool/spa; woodshed, shop, storage shed, greenhouse, and
gazebo.
DEFINITIONS:
Chapter IIh Bremerton Zonincl Ordinance:
A¢¢(~$$Qry Structure: A structure which is incidental and subordinate to a
principal structure and which is customarily found in connection with the permitted
principal structure and located on the same lot. (Bremerton Zoning Ordinance)
Webster's New World Dictionary:
(~ustomary: According to or established by custom, or usage; usual; habitual.
Incidental: Secondary, or minor, but associated. Likely to occur in connection
with something more important.
Subordinate: Inferior to or placed below another in rank, power, importance,
etc.; secondary; in a less important or subordinate position.
THE ISSUE:
Homeowners often desire or need one or more accessory structures to house their
automobiles, recreational vehicles, garden tools, fire wood, etc., or to serve as a
greenhouse, workshop, playhouse or other function. In most cases, these structures are
"typical'; i.e., of a size, shape and design commonly found in the same or similar
neighborhood, and are clearly incidental and subordinate to the primary residential use
of the property and its residential structure..
Occasionally, someone proposes an accessory structure that is clearly not typical, that
is out-of-proportion, and that may cause problems within the neighborhood. Such
structures need to be evaluated and should not be permitted simply because the
designer placed the label 'accessory structure' on the plans.
There is a gray area between what is clearly and customarily an accessory garage, shop,
woodshed, etc., and what is not. Since there are no specific measurable parameters built
into the Zoning Ordinance, an interpretation must be made. The interpretation must be
based on terms that are defined in the Ordinance and the normal and customary
meanings of terms not defined therein.
INTERPRETATION:
Structures that are clearly incidental and subordinate to a primary residential structure
and customarily found in connection with that use are often necessary or desirable and
will be permitted, provided they meet all site development and other applicable code
requirements. The following steps will assist in making that determination:
1. The terms customary, incidental, and subordinate, as defined above, shall be
addressed in determining whether or not a structure can be permitted as an
accessory structure.
2 Since the greatest potential for an adverse impact will be within the immediate
neighborhood (in most cases), a review of the neighborhood setting should be
made to determine whether or not the proposed structure is of the general type,
size or character 'customarily found' in the surrounding area.
3. Residential garages larger than necessary to accommodate two or three cars. are
not customary in most residential areas. Larger structures fall into the
'warehouse' category, which is not a permitted use in residential neighborhoods.
4. The desire to provide an indoor facility for the keeping of large vehicles or
equipment, such as recreational vehicles, boats, commercial vehicles, farm
equipment, etc., may not be customary in most neighborhoods and is nat
considered a 'right'.
5. Architectural design of the structure, including types af building materials, colors,
etc., should NOT be consideralions in this review.
6. Height, Sizel volume and scale, in relation to the principal structure and as
customarily found in the neighborhood, SHOULD be considered.
DONALD L. PRATT, Director '
Dept. of Community Development
Il:l-
B~aTON PLANNING CO~ISSION
PUBLIC HEARING =
FOR A~E~.OF= Au~st 16, 1~
ORI~I~TOR. Jack Allingha~
CO~ISSlON ~IR: Richard ~oetz
1. S~ECT:
Appeal: Zoning Ordinance Inte~retation - Residential
Accesso~ St~ctures ( ZOI-01-92 )
ApDellant: Robe~ E. A~inino
1532 Naval Ave.
Breme~on, WA 98310
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT & REQUIREMENT FOR COMMISSION ACTION':
The attached interpretation clarifies the intent of the Zoning
Ordinance to regulate "accessory structures" which are not
customary, incidental and subordinate to residential strictures.
Mr. Armanino has proposed construction of a second accessory
structure at his residence. It was denied due to a culmination of
accessory structures which would bring the accessory use out of
proportion to the residential use.
This interpretation by the Director Of Community Development is
appealable to the Planning Commission.
The Mr. Armanino is appealing the interpretation for reasons stated
in his letter of appeal. (see Letter of Appeal Att. I.)
The Planning Commission must determine if the interpretation
correctly assist in making the determination that an accessory
structure is clearly incidental and subordinate to a primary
residential structure.
When hearing an appeal, the Planning Commission may take any of the
following actions:
1. Uphold the Director's interpretation.
2. Overturn the interpretation.
3. Modify the interpretation.
4. Remand the interpretation back to the Director for
further consideration (The Planning Commission should
include specific issues to be considered).
3. ATTACHMENTS:
I. Letter of Appeal
II. Zoning Ordinance Interpretation - Residential Accessory
Structures (Z01-01-92) dated August 12, 1992.
4. RECOMMENDATION:
Uphold the Director of Community Development's interpretation.
Recommended Motion:
I move' that the Bremerton Planning Commission uphold the
Director's Interpretation regarding residential accessory
structures.
5. IMPACT OF NON-PASSAGE:
The Director, s decision will be overturned.
6. IMPACT ON STAFFING,BUDGETS,FACILITIES,EQUIPMENT OR OTHER
RESOURCES:
Additional staff resource will be required to review future
land use actions.
7. RESEARCH SOURCES:
Bremerton zoning Ordinance
CITY OF ~T~N
APPEAL OF ADMINISTRA~ DECISION
APPEAL OF: ROBERT E. ARMANINO Appellant
(Your Name)
1532 NAVAL AVE. BREMERTON, WA. 98312
(Your Mailing Address)
(206) 373-8685
(Telephone N,~mher)
Please provide a brief statement ~egarding your legal interest in
the action being appealed. Use additional pages if necessary.
REFER TO ITEM # 1 ON SECOND PAGE.
Please provide a brief statement of the specific order or action
protested, together with material facts claimed to support your
contentions. Use additional pages if necessary.
REFER TO ITEM #2 ON SECOND PAGE.
Please provide a brief statement of the relief sought and the
reasons why the Administrative Decision action should be reversed,
modified or otherwise set aside. Use additional pages if
necessary. REFER TO ITEM #3 ON SECOND PAGE.
Appellant's Signature
FEE: $30.00 (Due with Letter of Appeal)
Appeals will be scheduled to be heard before the Bremerton Planning
Commission as soon as possible, allowing for adequate preparation
and notice. You will receive written notifi_~a~ 1~~%
Commission hearing date mailed to your address~~c~~
Planning Commission decision is the final legis~~d~cision.''~'"~--~- %~1
ROBERT E ARMANINO
1532 NAVAL AVE
BREMERTON,WA
98312
TO: THE CITY OF BREMERTON
SUBJECT: INTERPRETATION OF ZONING ORDINANCE Z01-01-92 ie. Accessory
STRUCTURES.
1 ) REGARDING MY LEGAL INTEREST IN THIS ACTION:
I AGREE WITH DON PRATT WITH HIS INTERPRETATION ON THIS ORDINANCE,
AND I ALSO AGREE THAT THIS ORDINANCE DOESN'T APPLY IN ALL CASES
AND NEIGHBORHOODS.
I ALSO THINK LEGALLY THIS IS ONE EXAMPLE THAT THIS ORDINANCE SHOULD
BE MODIFIED.
2) INTERPRETATION OF ITEM 2, RESIDENTAL GARAGES LARGER THAN NECESSARY
TO ACCOMMODATE 2 OR 3 CARS. THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE IS A GARAGE
20 FEET BY 28 FEET. IT WILL BE USED FOR 2 OF MY 4 VEHICLES AND ONE
PUGET POWER VAN THAT I AM REQUIRED TO HAVE AT HOME BECAUSE OF 24
HOUR CALL OUTS FOR CIRCUIT OUTAGES OR SUBSTATION OUTAGES.
THE LOT SIZE THAT WE LIVE ON IS 77.545 FEET BY 285 FEET +OR-
ALMOST TWICE A LARGE AS A STANDARD LOT. THE GARAGE WILL BE LOCATED
11 0 FEET FROM NAVAL AVE. WHICH SHOULD NOT BE A HAZARD FOR EGRESS
AND INGRESS. IT IS ALSO OFF THE ROAD FAR ENOUGH NOT TO BE NOTICEABLE.
IT WILL BE 1 5 FEET FROM THE NEIGHBORS PROPERTY LINE TO THE NORTH
AND 34.5 FEET FRCM THE NEIGHBORS PROPERTY LINE TO THE SOUTH AND 155
FEET FROM MY NEIGHBOR TO THE EAST. GRADE BELOW NAVAL AVE. APROX
7.5 FEET.
3) THE RELIEF SOUGHT: WITH THE SIZE OF THE BUILDING LOT, THE SET
BACKS FROM NAVAL AVE. AND NEIGHBORS. WE WOULD LIKE THIS ORDINANCE
MODIFIED. I WOULD LIKE TO PROTECT MY VEHICLES UNDER COVER. THIS
SHOULD BE VERY APPEALING TO A CITY AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
ie. VOLUNTARY BEAUTIFICATION..
3' .,'.~. ,-" ' . ',r-" '-
) '
~ARGUERITE " .'
BREMERTON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
going to affect Mr. McClure's ownership or house on his parcel.
Mr. Houqh stated that Westinghouse intends to build an
office/warehouse housing some sort of small appliance manufacturing
process. Mr. McClure asked if his taxes would go up. Mr. Hough
stated that he was unsure as this parcel is located in the County.
He also said that the City is only amending its zoning designation
in order to provide sewer. Acting Chairman Olsen explained the
overlapping jurisdictional position that the City/County is in.
Acting chairman Olsen called for comments of a neutral nature for
this aDDlication.
Gordy Byrd, P.O. 930, Dremerton questioned if this project is like
what the Shipyard is doing on Montgomery. Mr. Hough replied no.
ADDITIONAL STAFF COMMENTS
Mr. Houah explained that the Planning Commission may modify motion
if neither proposal is satisfactory. He further explained
alternate suggestion regarding the surrounding properties.
Commissioner Stone questioned if Mr. McClure's property is excluded
in this alternate plan. Yes.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Mr. Hough gave an explanation describing the location of the
property and the alternate proposal which comprised of 4 choices.
M/S/C/U (BOYD / ABILLE - APPROVED)
BE IT RESOLVED, The Bremerton Planning Commission, after
considering oral and written testimony, hereby recommends to the
City Council APPROVAL of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment (File #:
COMP-01-94) to add the designation IG (Industrial General) along
the north side of Werner Road from Ida Street west to the existing
City limits excluding the 4 residential lots on the northeast
corner.
Mr. Hough advised the public that File # COMP-01-94 has been
recommended for Approval by the City Council and the City Council
will conduct a public hearing prior to its final decision.
B. ADDlicant: Robert E. Armanino
Action: Appeal of Director's Zoning Ordinance
3
BREMERTON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Interpretation regarding "accessory
structures."
Location: City Wide
Commission conflict of Interest/Appearance of Fairness: None.
Public conflict of Interest/Appearance of Fairness: None.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Jack Allingham, Senior Land Use Planner presented the staff report
for this appeal. The Commission and the public viewed Mr.
Allingham's slide presentation illustrating random and assorted
buildings/houses with accessory structures. Mr. Allingham defined
how to determine if an accessory structure is
incidental/subordinate to a principal structure and how the
utilities are separated and the impact on the surrounding
neighborhood. Mr. Allingham reviewed a graph where various
configurations of lots with accessory structures were discussed and
possible uses. Mr. Allingham reviewed the criteria to be used in
determining what an accessory structure is. He also reviewed the
interpretation of this particular zoning ordinance that this appeal
is based on and the four options available to the Commission when
making a determination. Commissioner Stone asked how many of these
pictures were actually on Naval Avenue. Mr. Allingham replied he
believed one - the two toned double car garage.
Acting Chairman 01sen called for written testimony. None was
offered.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Robert Armanino, 1532 Naval Avenue clarified that he is not taking
on the whole city and that he is concerned only with his parcel and
that he would like a modification of the interpretation. He also
stated that he does not believe this proposed garage to be a
problem. He said that his house is very small (27 x 27) which he
likes, has a garage and workshop also. Mr. Armanino further stated
that he is not encroaching on anyone else's property and has
adequate ingress and egress available. Acting Chairman Goetze
questioned Mr. Armanino if this garage would house the vehicle he
uses to and from work. Commissioner Stone asked if any of his
neighbors objected to his proposed garage. Mr. Armanino stated
that he believed that tl~ey did not although h~ had spoken to only
4
BREHER.TON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
a couple of them. Mr. Armanino went on to state that he wants to
protect his property as he does not have a lot of money and his
total of vehicles is four. Two cars are rotting outside now and he
can not afford to replace them. Commissioner Boyd asked if he
considered enlarging the garage already built in order to avoid a
problem. Mr. Armanino replied that proper access would not be
available as the strip available is only 8 foot wide where the
property drops off. Commissioner Stone asked how many others in
his neighborhood worked for Puget Power and brought their trucks
home. Mr. Armanino stated none. Commissioner Hancock expressed
his concern that when the power went out he would like to be
assured that Mr. Armanino has proper egress available.
Commissioner Jackson questioned how many vehicles the current
garage houses. Mr.. Armanino replied the garage six is 24 x 32 (a
2 stall garage with a small wood working area). He also stated that
the proposed garage would hopefully fit 3 vehicles in it (20 x 28).
Acting._Chairman Olsen cal~ed for comments in favor of this appeal.
Paul .stout, p.o. BOX 8.07, Bremer~on stated that in allowing this
additional garage it would cut down on response time that might be
crucial in an emergency.
Acting Chairman Olsen called for comments in opposition of this
appeal. None.
Acting. chairman Olsen called for comments of a neutral nature of
this appeal.
Gordy Byrd, P.O. Box 930, Bremerton asked what gives the Planning
Commission the right to decide who builds what on their property.
Mr. Allingham explained that it is a legal tool which guides
property rights/development.
APPLICANT REBUTTAL
None.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Commissioner Abille questioned what was actually being decided
upon, is this interpretation to be modified or can the appellant
not build because of the regulation. Ron Hough, Planning Manager
explained that the appeal is of the Planning Director's
Interpretation regarding where an accessory structure has to be
subordinate/lesser than the main/primary use of the property which
in this case is a residence. Mr. Hough stated that in a
residential zone the residence itself is supposed to be the most
important structure and then havo accessory structures such as a
5
BREMERTON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
carport, garage or in this case a shop. Mr. Hough stated that in
this particular situation the proposed structure is 20 x 28 which
is fairly typical 2 car garage size and a little larger than
typical but still a typical garage. Mr. Hough stated that in this
case, it is an accumulation of structures which is more of the
issue - is how many accessory structures can you put on the
property before it turns into an industrial park or something other
than a residence. Mr. Hough said that the proposed structure by
itself would clearly be an accessory structure but in combination
with other buildings that are already on the property, we are
talking about a cumulative effect of accessory structures on a
residential property. Commissioner Stone questioned if the
Director would give consideration to the fact that there is a total
of four vehicles which would make it subordinate and incidental.
Mr. Hough stated no, that the criteria followed by the Director is
spelled out by the Interpretation Criteria, definitions and so on.
Mr. Hough stated that customary, incidental and subordinate are
words in the zoning ordinance and has nothing to do with how many
vehicles a person owns. Commissioner Stone stated that what is
customary and incidental is always determined by neighborhood also
and suggested that this might be one of those situations where
there has to be some mitigation of judgmental categories. Mr.
Hough replied that this might be an unusual neighborhood
considering all of those lots are 1/2 acre size in a zone that
allows 4800 sq. ft. lots. These lots are four times the size of a
typical lot in this neighborhood. Mr. Hough reviewed various
options available to the Commission in making their decision.
Commissioner Abille stated that the problem he was having is that
this was an interpretation and this seems to be a gray area when
considering the terms subordinate and incidental. Mr. Hough stated
that those words and the interpretation tend to address an
individual building and not a combination of buildings - that it
refers pretty much to one building and not the accumulated effects
of more than one building. Commissioner Stone stated that is why
he asked the question - how many Puget Power employees live on that
block and bring home their truck thus making it incidental for the
appellant? Mr. Hough stated that the question bottom line is do
you believe that this is appropriate for this neighborhood,
appropriate for this property or do you believe it will have
adverse effects on the neighborhood or adjacent properties.
Commissioner Hancock commented that the depth of the lot is 285'
Commissioner Boyd commented that she believed that perhaps in the
future it would be unfortunate if everyone begins to build multi-
family housing on those lots, but for the moment she does not see
anything wrong with allowing this. Commissioner Stone commented
that it was his impression that a lot of those lots north have a
very poor grade problem. Commissioner Jackson questioned if there
were any specific sizes in the zoning ordinance to guide decision
making. Mr. Hough again reviewed the basic words - incidental and
subordinate, inferior in size, etc. In this case both accessory
6
BREMER~TON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
buildings appear to be inferior or incidental to the house. This
proposal is to add one more and the combination of 3 buildings
roughly the same size is probably more acceptable from a design
standpoint than to combine the two accessory buildings to become a
building twice the size of the house which would create a different
situation.
M/S/C/U (STONE / HANCOCK - APPROVED)
BE IT RESOLVED, the Bremerton Planning Commission after considering
written and oral testimony hereby OVERTURNS the Director of
Community Development's decision and APPROVE$ the Appeal of Robert
E. Armanino '(File #: Z01-01-92).
Ron Hough advised the public that the Bremerton Planning Commission
has APPROVED the Appeal of ZOI-01-02 and that this decision may be
appealed to the City Council within fourteen days.
C. Applicant: Mike Denton
Action: Special Use Permit to allow Arcade/Pool Hall
within the Business Core Zone
Location: 123 Pacific
Commission conflict of Interest/Appearance of Faiuness: None.
Public conflict of Interest/Appearance of Fairness: None.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Shane Jensen, Land Use PlanPer presented the staff report for this
application. Written testimony from Bob Winters, Phil Olwell,
Claudia Charlton, Mayor Horton, and Don Atkinson were submitted and
read into the record.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
None.
Actinq Chairman Olsen called for comments in favor of this
application. None were offered.
Acting Chairman Olsen called for comments in opposition to this
application.
7
Draft Minutes for Approval
Planning Commission Meeting
October 19, 1999
I. Roll Call
Those present were: Chairman Dingfield, Commissioner Boyd, Commissioner Stone and
Commissioner Wolfe. Commissioners Adams and Griggs were absent. Quorum certified.
II. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Dingfield at 5:35 p,m.
III. Approval of Agenda
Motion by Commissioner Stone to approve the agenda with the following changes: Public
Hearing - Item B.2. (A and B) - Comprehensive Plan Amendments (99-0001) will be
continued until further notice. Public Meeting - Item C.2. - Special Use Permit (PL99-
0038) to allow a retaining wall be removed from tonight's agenda. The applicant has
withdrawn this application. Seconded by Commissioner Boyd. Agenda approved.
Mr. Jon Holan stated the continuance for the Comprehensive Plan Amendments was requested
because a potential issue with regards to adequate notice for public hearing. Also, Community
Development has been receiving a number of calls on the proposed amendments and they feel it is
appropriate for the staffto conduct public meetings. The amendments have generated some
interest in their respective neighborhoods and the staffwould like to have an opportunity to meet
with the neighbors. Notices will be sent out to property owners in those areas announcing the
meetings. These are tentatively scheduled for November 4th and November 8th.
IV. Public Meeting
A. Call to the Public (public comments on any item not on tonight's agenda): None.
B. Hearing: Appeal (PL99-0068) of building permit issued for 1409 Madrona
Point Drive. Appellant: Mr. R. Wes Henry, Sr.
Planning Commis.sion Meeting October 19, 1999 - Page 1 of 17 [3[
Chairman Dingfield stated that this is a quasi-judicial heating for the Planning Commission to
hear the appeal. She asked the Commissioners if any of them had an appearance of fairness issue
with hearing this appeal. The Commissioners responded no. She also asked members of the
public if they felt that any member of the Planning Commission would have a conflict of interest
or an appearance of fairness hearing this appeal. No one in the audience responded.
Mr. Jon Holan, Pl~ning Manager, informed the Planning Commissioners that they had received
several letters as desk items expressing concern with the issuance of the building permit at 1409
Madrona Point Drive. Copies were also made available for the public.
Mr. Holan stated that this an appeal of a building permit that has been issued for a garage at 1409
Madrona Point Drive. The appellant is R. Wes Henry, Sr. The application number is PL99-0068.
As a form of background, on September 8, 1999 the Department of Economic and Community
Development issued Building Permit No. 99-0151 for a new garage at 1409 Madrona Point
Drive. The proposed site is mediately west and adjacent to a building permit which was issued
for a new manufactured single family residential unit. The proposed garage would be 40' x 74' in
size, approximately 2,960 square feet, on a parcel of approximately 8,420 square feet, with a
height of 16 feet. The property is subject to the City's Shoreline Master Program requirements
including view corridor requirements. Twenty-five percent of the 69-foot lot width, or 15 feet, is
left open to protect a partial view of the shoreline, and that this 15 foot setback complies with the
Program's view corridor requirements for a structure less than 20 feet in height.
Additionally, the site is within the single family residential zone (SF-3) and complies with its
setback requirements including a five foot sideyard setback along the eastern property line, a 20-
foot frontyard setback, as well as a 15-foot rearyard setback. The 16-foot height of the garage is
well below the allowed 30-foot height allowed in that particular zone. The proposed garage also
conforms to the 40 percent lot coverage requirements for the zone district as well.
The appellant requests a review of the building permit issued for the garage and pursuant to the
BMC Code Section 21.02.845, an administrative decision can be appealed to the Planning
Commission, and that is the reason it is being presented tonight.
The appellant states that the proposed garage is not customary to other neighborhood structures
and that the structure would be used as boat storage for a party not living in the adjoining
residential unit. There is no specific statement for relief being sought by the appellant,
presumably, the denial of the building permit.
There are two issues associated with this appeal. First is whether the proposed garage is
customary to other neighborhood structures. The second is whether an accessory structure can
be built on a separate lot and whether the garage can be used by someone other than the occupant
of the adjacent property.
With regards to the customary structures, the definition of an accessory structure in the zoning
ordinance states that "a structure that is incidental and subordinate to a principal structure and
which is customarily found in connection with the principal uses, as permitted by the zone in
which the property is located." Further, under BMC Section 21.02.190(a) Accessory Uses and
Planning Commission Meeting October 19, 1999 - Page 2 of 17
Structures states, "A use or structure that is incidental and subordinate to a principal structure or
use and which is customarily found in connection with the principal structure or use shall be
permitted, as long as that principal structure or sue is permitted to cominue, or unless otherwise
specified by this ordinance."
The Zoning Ordinance does not provide a specific definition of incidental or subordinate. It is
staff's position that an accessory structure such as a residential garage exists because it is
subordinate or incidental to the primary structure, i.e., the residence that accompanies it rather
than the size of the structure. The staffis viewing this as a use rather than as a structural size as
the primary determination of subordinate.
This particular position is also supported by an opinion issued by the City Attorney's office dated
May 11, 1999. Further, the Community Development Department had issued an interpretation on
accessory structures in 1992 (ZOI-01-02 was attached as part of the staff'report). This
interpretation included several criteria related to customary, incidental and subordinate structures.
The Planning Commission in 1994 overturned this interpretation by allowing the construction of a
garage which staff at the time believed did not meet the criteria. There is a staff report and
minutes related to this particular appeal in 1994 included in the staff report prepared for this
current appeal. While that particular case involved the construction of a second garage on a
relatively large lot, the issue was the appropriate amount of garage space for a residential area,
This is also the same issue for the current appeal. As a result of this situation, staff has found that
the Code does not allow staff authority to regulate the size of a garage in light of the lack of
definition, the City Attorney's opinion, and past action by the Planning Commission.
However, the Commission should keep in mind that the term "customarily found in connection
with a principal structure or use" is subject to interpretation. From staff's viewpoint, this term
means that the use of the structure customarily found in association with a primary use rather than
that of the size of the structure. Again, the use versus the structural size. A garage is such an
activity customarily associated with a residential use. The zomg Ordinance does not limit the
specific uses for garages used as an accessory structure to a primary residence. There are
numerous examples throughout the City of various types of vehicles being stored in residential
garages. Besides cars, some of the many vehicles that can be stored associated with residential
living include RV's, boats, tracks, trailers, and campers. Another possible interpretation could
mean that the size and/or shape of the garage is not customary for the type of garages found in
residential areas. This was one of the bahs for the 1992 Zoning Interpretation to begin with. It
should be noted that there exists oversize garages in residential areas of the community. Further,
the Commission previously found in 1994 that the amount of garage area was a factor per se in
determining a customarily found accessory structure. If the Commission does not concur with the
staff'findings for this proposal, it may consider its size inappropriate. In the 1994 appeal, the total
garage area covered approximately 6 percent of the lot area, compared with approximately 35
percent for the current case. Thus, the Commission could make one of two findings:
The Commission refines its previous determination by finding that the size of the garage
in this instance is not customary since it occupies a relatively large portion of the lot it
is situated (when compared to the 1994 case); or
Planning Commission Meeting October 19, 1999 - Page3 of17 ~ ~ 3
- The Commission could reverse the previous determination and prescribe a structural
size as a factor in determining a customarily found accessory structure.
The BMC Section 21.02.190(b) states, "accessory structures and uses may not be established
without a related principal structure or use on the same property, except that accessory uses or
structures may be established on a lot immediately adjacent to and under the same ownership as
the principal's lot, provided it is not separated from that lot by a street, alley or other fight-of-
way, and is in the same zomg district."
As can be seen, the ordinance can allows accessory uses on lots immediately adjacent to another
lot containing the principal use when the two lots are under the same ownership. In the current
situation, the applicant owns both lots and there is no indication that each lot would be sold
separately. As the property owner, the applicant has verbally indicated that he intends to store his
boat within the garage, although there is no written indication that he would live in the house
adjacent to the garage. Thus, the issue before the Commission is whether a property owner can
construct a garage as an accessory use to a house the owner would own but not use as his
residence, such as a rental.
Staff could find no reference in the Zoning Ordinance that would limit the storage of items in a
residential garage based on their relationship to the resident of the primary structure. The Code
does not address who may store items in a residential garage. Staffbelieves that it is not the
iment of the ordinance to prescribe these relationships as long as the garage is used for a
customary residential use. In this instance, staff believes that the storage of an individual's boat is
a customary accessory use. Staff also believes that the ordinance intended to leave it up to the
owner, and if applicable, the renter to determine what items would be stored in a residential
garage. He emphasized this would be as an accessory residential garage use.
The Commission could determine that the use, storage of materials not owned by the person
residing in the attached house, is not customarily found for an accessory structure. If the
Commission chose this direction, staffwould be concerned with its role in having to determine
what coments of a garage is being stored in the garage and then who would own it. The City
would essentially then become some sort of a garage police.
The conclusions that staff have reached are that the Zoning Ordinance does not appear to
specifically limit the size of accessory structures, nor does the code address issues of ownership of
vehicles occupying garage space. Further, a previous staff interpretation regarding the size of
accessory structures was overturned by the Commission. For these reasons, the building permit
was approved. However, the Commission may consider whether the term, "customarily found in
connection with a principal structure or use" is referencing to the use and/or size of an accessory
structure. Thus, the Commission may consider the following alternatives:
- Affirm DCD's building permit approval for the garage as an accessory structure.
- Deny the building permit on one or more of the following grounds:
Planning Commission Meeting October 19, 1999 - Page 4 of 17
(34
That the size of the garage in this instance is not customary since it occupies a
relatively large portion of the site it is situated; or
That the structure's size is a factor in determining a customarily found accessory
structure and that the proposed garage exceeds the size of garages customarily
found in residential areas (a greater blanket if you will); or
That the use is not customary to uses in the neighborhood.
The other options are to continue the matter or to remand the building permit back to DCD for
further consideration, giving reasons for the remand.
Commissioner Wolfe asked for a brief synopsis of the staff report.
Mr. Holan stated that basically this is an accessory garage and the key term is "customarily" what
you would normally find in a residential area. There are two different ways to look at this. One
way is from the use standpoint is that an accessory garage is customarily found in a residential
area. From staff's standpoint and based on the Zoning Ordinance they believe this is what the
intent of the ordinance is about. It talks about the use of the garage as opposed to the size.
However, if you read the definitions, one could possibly make the interpretation that accessory
uses that are customarily found could make reference to the size of the garage. This was one of
the basis of the Zoning Interpretation back in 1992. In that interpretation they found that garages
that would house anything more than a two car garage or possibly three car garage is excessive
for a residential area and would be considered to be not customarily found. This is a possible
interpretation. The other part of this is that the Commission, back in 1994, did not agree with
that interpretation and overturned it in the case of an appeal on Naval Avenue. In that case they
found that the applicant whose building permit was denied in that instance was trying to build two
garages on the property. The total of the two garages in square footage were approximately
1,328 square feet on an almost 22,000 square foot lot.
In reviewing the reason why staff denied that building permit was because the cumulative amount
of garage space exceeded that of the principal structure and therefore it was denied. The
Commission did not agree with that interpretation, and as a result overturned the staff' s decision.
There are several different options before the Commission if they do not agree with the staff's
determination on this particular building permit. 1) They could determine that a customarily
found type of structure (referring to size) and that a further refinement of the determination that
the Commission made in 1994 was that on the case on Naval Avenue the garages were a relatively
small portion of the entire site and therefore in that case it was okay. In this case since it is a
higher percentage of the overall site, therefore, they don't think it would be appropriate. 2) They
could determine that customarily found does mean size and that the size exceeds that of what you
would normally find in a residential area for garages. This goes back to the original interpretation
that the staff made in 1992 when they determined that anything more than a two or three car
garage was not customarily found in a residential area. 3) They could find that an accessory
garage use in which somebody other than the whoever is going to live in the house next door is
storing whatever in that garage, that is not a customarily found use.
Harming Commission Meeting October 19, 1999 - Page 5 of 17
Staff has concerns with this because it would make staff has to go around and make
determinations as to who is storing what in whose garage. This gets away from the idea from is a
garage being used in a customary fashion in a residential area.
Commissioner Wolfe commented that this is all interpretation in terms of use and size because
the code does not specifically address either one of these issues. He also asked if there was any
specific law regarding this.
Mr. Holan stated that there is no definite law regarding this issue. The question is should it be
built or not based on how you interpret the ordinance with regards to is it too large for that
particular site.
Mr. R. Wes Henry Sr., appellant, 1502 Shorewood Dr., and said he felt this was a very
important matter. He believed this garage was not customary to the neighborhood. He stated
that the neighbors feel that the shear size of the facility itself (74' long, 40' wide and 16' to the
cave) is going to be a horrendous structure. It occupies the largest share of that particular lot.
There is no way that there could be a principal structure also added to that lot. There is no room
for that. There is evidence that the owner is not going to be a resident or own the principal
structure. There is a "for sale" sign by John L. Scott Realty on the lot that covers the principal
structure. The neighbors feel it is going to be used for storage of boats, RV's, etc. They are
concerned that this size of a structure falls into the warehouse category. It is not a garage when it
is two stories high, 40' wide and 74' long. They do not feel that anyone could have enough of
their own equipment to fill this building up. They are also concerned that it is occupying almost
all of the space on the lot. They are assuming that it will be used as a garage would be in a
regular residential area, and their neighborhood is a single family residential area. This is way too
large for this area.
Mr. Don Holm, building permit applicant, stated that he has lived on Madrona Point for over 35
years. He purchased the property two years from a City employee. When he made the offer on
the property, he made it contingent upon being able to do what it is they are attempting to do
now. He wanted to be able to put a residence and a carriage house on this property. He spent
numerous hours with the City of Bremerton in all phases, not only with building and planning, but
also with utilities. He walked away from the meetings with a positive attitude from all entities of
the City feeling very comfortable that his intentions would meet all the guidelines. After hiring an
architect firm to design something that he thought would be very appealing and attractive, and
meeting with the City staff after purchasing the property, he was told that this would not work.
After trips back and forth to the architect and to the City, he made a business decision to hire Bill
Skoroup and proceeded from there. The carriage house and residence met all building code
requirements that the Planning Commission and City Council have put into works over the years.
They wanted to do it the proper way so he wouldn't have to face any appeals. He wanted to meet
all the criteria that would allow the services of this structure. There were other issues he was
going to get into, however, after listening to Jon Holan, it is very clear that the structure meets all
building codes, it meets with everything as far as intentions. Mr. Holtz presented several
photographs depicting several residences in the area to the Planning Commissioners. Members
of the public were also given the opportunity to review these photographs.
Plaxming Commission Meeting October 19, 1999 ~ Page 6 of 17
13t,
Mr. Holtz commented that there had many rumors floating around about what his real intentions
were with this property. He is employed at John L. Scott Real Estate and approximately one year
ago he had brought a purchaser in on his own personal residence. At that time he had made some
different decisions as to what he wanted to do with the property. Since then, the buyer has gone
away. He has recently purchased a home in Florida. Not this year, possibly not next year, but at
some point he will be using the residence here for half the year and going to Florida for half the
year. This structure is being built to accommodate a boat he purchased. It will not be used for
anyone else's personal items. This is the size structure he needs to accommodate his boat. He
has lowered the ceiling height to the minimum to make the clearance to put the boat in. He felt it
would be a lot nicer to build a very nice structure on this property versus having a boat or a motor
home or something else with a blue tarp over it. There are many properties on Madrona Point
and other locations in the City that have items in their yards with tarps over them on.
Mr. Holtz indicated that he hoped the Planning Commission would do the right thing by
upholding the Planning Department's decision to issue a building permit to him. He hopes they
will find that this project will beautify what is currently in the neighborhood. This property has
been a vacant field for many years that had collected garbage. He had the lot cleared at one
point, he received a bid on the property. But by the time he went to the dump on several
occasions, he received a very different bid. There are people parking near the lot. He has to pick
up garbage off of it. He parked his boat there for two days. When he went back to check on it,
one of the tires had been slashed. This boat cannot be left out. He does not want to live in a
neighborhood that has blue tarps over the RV's.
Call to the Public (those in support of the appeal/against the building permit)
Mrs. Sharon Jackson, 1431 Madrona Point Drive, stated that her property is one lot away from
the proposed carriage house. She commented that she felt the pictures that Mr. Holtz provided
were extremely selective of the neighboring properties to help his cause. She stated that her
home and the ones near hers are not 16 feet high, do not have trashed yards, and all are worth
approximately $200,000-$250,000. The neighbors do not want to see a huge garage with or
without a proposed residence that is only 20' wide just one lot away from theirs. This is a
residential community and people do maintain their properties well. She does not feel that the
evidence Mr. Holtz presented is accurate and that he did not point all of the lovely homes along
Madrona Point, nor did he describe what is likely to happen to the property values if his permit is
allowed.
Mr. Floyd Jackson, 1431 Madrona Point Drive, commented that he did not feel the pictures Mr.
Hottz presented had any relevance as far as the building permit was concerned. He does not feel
that Mr. Holtz has any intention of living at 1409 Madrona Point Drive. He is unsure if Mr. Holtz
is actually going to build a home there and that he just would like to build a large garage. He
feels that the residence and garage should go together, not one separate from the other. Even if a
house is built for Mr. Holtz or someone else to live in, that is not a garage for his personal
purposes.
Mr. Charles Henry, 1502 Shorewood Drive, stated that he does not want this structure in his
neighborhood. He feels that it is ridiculous that this structure be called an accessory structure,
Plarming Commission Meeting October 19, 1999- Page7 of17 [ 3t
when in fact it is larger than the structure that it is supposedly an accessory to. He felt that this is
a contradiction in terms. Further, he stated that he does not know what Mr. Holtz intends to do
with the building. He feels that putting one boat into a building that size in insulting. He feels
fortunate that there is a system in place where people can come in and talk to the Commissioners
about what will be built on a piece of property. He felt that the pictures pointed out all of the
alleged unsightly properties on Shorewood Drive, but them is a lot of beautiful properties in this
area and they would like to keep it that way.
Mr. Sven Lovlie, 1439 Madrona Point Drive., said there are people on Madrona Point Drive that
have tarps covering their motor homes because they did not get a chance to build garages. He felt
that the homes that Mr. Holtz chose to take pictures of do not describe the neighborhood fairly.
The majority of the homes are big, nice, newer homes. Some of the older homes are still in good
shape.
Mm. Betty Davies, 1541 Shorewood Drive., noted that the one building on Shorewood Drive
that Mr. Holtz took a picture of has taken them from February 1999 until July 1999 to get turned
back into a residential property. She said that Mr. Holtz tried to open a marine shop in February
1998 at his property, but it was denied because this is a residential area. She stated that the DCD
issued a permit to Mr. Holtz for a carriage house. She does not feel that this is a residential
garage size. It would not be compatible to the homes around it. She does not want it to be built
with metal siding. She asked who would monitor the 15 foot view corridor. This is a small
residential lot in the city in an SF-3 zone. Their fears are that Mr. Holtz would eventually sell the
lot with the modular home on it, and the lot with the garage on it might turn into a business. She
does not feel that this structure is incidental or subordinate to a principal structure. Accessory
structures and uses may not be established without a residential principal structure on the same
property. She is concerned that his property is less than 100 feet from Ostrich Bay and does not
want to have oil and gas leak into the bay. The noise from Mr. Holtz's boat is deafening. She
would like to keep this neighborhood residential.
Mr. Paul Phillips, 1334 Shorewood Drive, stated that he lives next to the property where the
carriage house would be built. He met Mr. Holtz when the property was for sale and was told
that his intended use for the property was to rent out storage for RV' s, boats, etc. Mr. Phillips is
concerned about the children in the neighborhood because of increased travel from people getting
their belongings out of the building.
Mrs. Suzanne Holland, 1801 S. Marine Drive, stated that this is clearly a case of trying to push
the law to the limits. All through the City we are trying to reclaim pride in neighborhoods. If we
need to abate some properties, then we need to do that. We don't need to add to the problem.
She felt that this is a separate issue. A commercial size metal garage clearly does not conform to
the character of the neighborhood.
Mrs. Sara Cox, 1500 Shorewood Drive, asked if the structure would be made out of metal. She
said that regardless of what time of material was used, this does not fit with the neighborhood. It
is too large of a structure to be a garage.
Planning Commission Meeting October 19, 1999 - Page 8 of 17
Mr. Holan stated that it was a prefabricated building, but that he did not believe the materials
were metal.
Mr. Paul Grant, 1418 Madrona Point Drive, lives across the street from the proposed garage.
He believed that to have an accessory building, you would need a residence. He also had
concerns regarding the view corridor issue. He stated that he is against the project and that it
would lower his property value.
Mr. Joe Walsh, 2008 Madrona Point Drive, indicated that he is new in the neighborhood, but he
does not feel that a storage structure/carriage house is in keeping the type of neighborhood that
they live in.
Mr. Rick Henry, 1401 Madrona Point Drive, said that since he has lived at this location in the
past one and a half years, Mr. Holtz has put a decent amount of money into his property to
upgrade and to help out the neighborhood. Mr. Henry said that he doesn't feel that this structure
will help. He does not want to have to look at a huge structure like this. He is concerned about
the number of people that might be coming in and out of this location. He has small children and
said that there is already enough traffic on the road.
Call to the Public (those against the appeal/supporting the application)
Mr, Bill Skoroup, 6581 Tracyton Blvd NW, stated that he is a general contractor and lives on
Dyes Inlet. He has a contract with Mr. Holtz to build a carriage house for him, and Mr. Holtz
also purchased a manufactured home from him. He has had experience with carriage houses,
having built several and he has one on his own property. All of his neighbors have tried to acquire
land or have found a way to add on to their 3-car garages for boat storage. He does not feel that
having 3,000 square feet of outbuildings has hurt the value of the area. He feels it is
commensurate with enjoying the water. The reason why Mr. Holtz's building is as long as it is, is
because he has a one ton truck to pull his boat and trailer. The boat is 36', but by the time you put
a tongue on a boat it becomes 42'. His truck is about 23' long, and it really doesn't leave a lot of
room on either end of this garage when you park it. Mr. Holtz also has other cars to put in the
garage. He feels this would work fine in this area. There is a mixed use in this area. He owns
properties in the area (Dairy Queen and the Group Health building).
Mrs. Teri Skeily, 2720 Yacht Haven Way, commented that this thought this whole process was
amazing, in that people in the neighborhood would object to someone putting a house and a
garage on their property to store their RV. The neighbors have made allegations that the Mr.
Holtz is going to have some sort of storage unit, that he won't live there and it will be a rental,
and that the property will be split. She stated that Mr. Holtz has said that these were things that
he initially thought he was going to do when he purchased the property. When he talked to the
building department, they told him what he could do and so he has changed his plans to comply
with what the law provides. She said that if you have RV's, you ought to be able to build
something to house them on your own property. She feels there are a lot of older people who
seem to be afraid of something changing in their neighborhood. They don't new construction,
they don't want changes. She feels Mr. Holtz is trying to take a piece of property that he said
was a dumping ground for people's garbage and put a nice structure on it. She said that Mr.
Ptarafing Commission Meeting ~ 19, 1999 - Page 9 of 17
Holtz would not be able to do this in the county because of the Growth Management Act. She
said that if Mr. Holtz built a chicken coop and painted it purple with pink polka dots and it cost
less than $2,500, that he would not even have to get a building permit. As long as he complied
with whatever the laws were concerning chickens, he could do this. She feels that a garage and a
home on a piece of property is a much better use in a residential area. She doesn't understand
where these people are coming from. She does not know why they object to someone being able
to use their property. He has done everything he can do to comply with the building
requirements. She stated that there are other large garages in the neighborhood already. She said
that it is a shame that he has to go through all this to try to use his own property, especially after
he has spent so much time doing everything by the rules. He thought he had done that when he
wanted to build a dock, and all of these same people objected to that. He was not able to build
his dock because his permit was overturned. She thinks that a lot of these people would file an
appeal regardless of what kind of structure he would build there. She said that he is using a
professional builder, he is going through all of the proper avenues, and she feels this appeal should
be denied.
Call to the Public {comments of a neutral nature)
Mr. Roger Nance, 1440 Madrona Point Drive, said that he feels that property rights need to be
considered. He feels that Mr. Holtz should have the right to house his boat. Although he does
not have the space on his primary residence, he should have the right to put it someplace. He is
against a modular being placed on this property, because he intends to bulldoze his house and
improving with a new and very expensive home. He is not sure what it will do to the property
values, as there is a lot of mixed use in the neighborhood. If Mr. Holtz had chosen to live in a
community where there were an architectural committee, he would live there. There needs to be
some compromise.
Response by Appellant
Mr. Wes Henry stated he had no additional comments.
Response by Applicant
Mr. Don Hoitz stated that from the comments he has heard tonight, size seems to be the major
issue. Had he designed a two story, 30' high, 74x40' home, the size would have been the same.
This is what he chooses to use the property for. He tends to occupy it, not twelve months a year,
but at least half a year. This project has been scrutinized. He indicated that Mr. Holan has spent
numerous hours either dealing with the general public, with Mr. Holtz or Mr. Skoroup, or other
associates. The whole Planning Department has worked numerous hours on this. They come up
with an approval and there is a reason for that. He has been in real estate for about 11 years and
he can assure people that $100,000+ carriage house with very professional landscaping and a very
nice home which would also be nicely landscaped, is not going to lower the property values.
Commissioner Wolfe asked Mr. Skoroup if he would be building the house and the carriage
house.
Plarming Commission Meeting October 19, 1999 - Page 10 of 17
14o
Mr. Skoroup stated that he is a dealer for Moduline and Champion Homes and has a sales lot out
on Wheaton Way and Fuson Road. One of those homes will be placed on Mr. Holtz's property.
Commissioner Boyd asked Mr. Holtz if he was planning on selling the property that the garage
would be built on. If it is sold, then it is not an accessory structure and it would have to be
viewed from a whole different point of view.
Mr. ltoitz indicated that the "for sale" sign has been there for two years. He said that for a
realtor, this is very good advertising. The property has not been for sale, is not for sale, and will
never be for sale that he can foresee in the near future. He said the sign has been there and is
about ready to rot off of its stand.
Mr. Jori Itolan took a moment to respond to some of the questions that had been asked during
this meeting. In regards to the accessory building, as noted in the staff report, the ordinance does
allow for accessory buildings to be located on a separate lot if they are adjoining in a residential
area to the primary use. In this case there are two separate lots that the proposed modular home
and the garage will be built on. However, in doing that, the concern that the staff had was the
possibility of one unit being sold and separated from the other, thereby creating a possibility of an
accessory structure without a primary structure. As a result, one of the issues that staff&alt with
was for Mr. Holtz to demonstrate to them that in fact this carriage house/garage could comply
with the single family residential requirements in the event that there was a separation.
Furthermore, the same would apply to the lot that the modular home is proposed for. As a result,
the identification of the parking areas is part of that demonstration. In addition to that, staffis
requiring a deed restriction on the property that in the event of any sale, that there would have to
be review and compliance by the City of Bremerton. In order to ensure that what is now termed
to be an accessory structure, would in fact be converted into a primary structure, i.e., a home and
garage.
With respect to the view corridor issue, there are two lots with this property. One lot is 60' wide,
the other lot (with the modular home) is 40' wide. The view corridor requirements pertain to
existing views of the water area, in terms of what the Shoreline Master Program requires. It was
determined early on that the modular home did not have an existing view because of other
structures that are in front of it that block their view. There was a partial view from the parcel
where the garage is planned. As a result, they did require that a view corridor be maintained on
that 60' wide lot. Staff also felt that it would be inappropriate to require view corridor on two
lots, and then putting in on the onus of just one of those lots. The width that you see is based on
a 60' wide, rather than a 100' wide lot.
Break - fire alarm sounded and everyone in attendance was required to evacuate the building.
Upon return, Chairman Dingfield asked the Commissioners if any of them had any improper or
expartee conversation with anyone during the break. All Commissioners responded that they had
not.
Mr. Holan continued that the ordinance does allow for accessory structures to be located on
different lots, as long as they are immediately adjacent and not separated by an alley, etc. That is
Plarming Commission Meeting October 19, 1999 - Page 11 of 17
the case in this particular instance. However, staffwas concerned about the potential of being
sold offbecause it was a separate parcel. Mr. Holtz had been asked to demonstrate that the
development of each parcel could stand alone in the event that there was a sale in the future.
These requirements were met and appears on the site plan in terms of parking, etc.
In addition to that, staff is requiring a deed restriction on the property so that they would have to
come in and get approval fi.om the City in the event that there is a separation of property to assure
that there would not be an accessory structure where there is no primary structure.
Chairman Dinglield asked Mr. Holan for clarification regarding the owner providing assurance
that each property would be able to be developed separately so that there would be a primary
structure on the lot should one of the lots be sold.
Mr. Holan stated it was a requirement for the owner to demonstrate that prior to the City issuing
the building permit. If the lots were sold separately, the owner would have to come in and get
approval for the lot where the accessory structure is to make it conforming, i.e., they would have
to create a primary use (a single family house) on that property. If anyone were to buy this
property, they should be aware that there is an issue with regards to the single family dwelling
where the garage is located. This deed restriction would be at the time of the sale of the property.
Closed to the Public
Commissioner Stone stated that he had reviewed the staff report and the material from 1994 (he
had made the motion at that time to overrule the Director's ruling relative to size). His feeling at
that time was that the rules as their drafted are meant to be interpreted on some judgmental basis
relative to the situation itself. On that particular issue they were talking about a building that
comprised 6% of the property on a 22,000 square foot lot. They were also dealing with an
accessory structure at that time. A generally accepted term of accessory is something somewhat
by nature subordinate to the supporting property. He does not feel that they had in mind an
accessory dwelling of this magnitude relative to the parent property involved. He does not feel
that this is urban residential R-2 property. The structures are to maintain the existing character
and to be consistent with open space, bulk scale, etc. He does not see that in this particular case.
From a legal standpoint, he feels it is legal, however, from the standpoint that it is adhering to the
requirements in urban residential or in any interpretation as an accessory, he does not feel it meets
the criteria.
Commissioner Wolfe commented that he feels the government process was working at this
meeting. He saw a lot of people at the meeting having their opportunity to be heard. Since this is
another emotional issue, it is not an easy decision. He feels that Mr. Holtz followed all the rules
as prescribed by the City, and all building code requirements were met. The City Attorney's
interpretation of the code is that there is no size restriction on accessory structures, and he feels
that the City Council intended not to adopt specific restrictions on larger structures. He does not
feel that it is the place for the Planning Commission to supersede the Council's intent, and
particularly where building code requirements were met and followed, as prescribed by the City.
He will vote to affirm DCD's building permit approval for the garage.
Planning Commission Meeting October 19, 1999 - Page 12 of 17
Chairman Dingfield stated that whether or not the owner lives at this location or the structure is
used for storage is not germaine to the issue. She does not believe it is the City's responsibility to
be a "garage police" and determine whose belongings are in what property. She is concerned that
the zoning code speaks to accessory and incidental. It is silent on the size, but there should not be
that much confusion on what is accessory or incidental to the primary structure. She believes
having the accessory structure twice the size of the primary structure is at odds. She would be
concerned in thinking about some other lots around town, as there are many around Bremerton
where you have small houses on large lots. She is concerned that there will be no consideration
of what is accessory or incidental. What would happen in the future to some of the other
neighborhoods in town, as well as this existing neighborhood. She feels you would find a
significant change in the character of the neighborhood when you start having accessory
structures that are twice the size of that primary structure. This neighborhood is one of the
neighborhoods where there are homes that are of a higher value than other areas in town, and she
would be concerned about protecting the character of the neighborhood. One of the buildings
that came up tonight, both in pictures and in discussion, was the old sign shop which has now
been converted back to a residential use. When the Planning Commission had discussed that
issue, that was a permit that was allowed outside of what were the codes at the time. It was an
exception to the role. The neighborhood has been dealing with that for a number of years because
of that exception that was made. She would like to continue to protect characters of
neighborhoods. While they certainly want to allow infill, she thinks it is incumbent on them to
think about character.
Commissioner Wolfe made a motion that the Planning Commission deny the appeal (File
#PL99-0068) and to affirm DCD's permit approval for the garage as an accessory
structure. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Boyd.
Chairman Dingfieid asked for a vote fi.om the Commissioners to deny the appeal (File #PL99-
0068) and affirm DCD's permit approval for the garage as an accessory structure at 1409
Madrona Point Drive. Commissioner Boyd, yes; Commissioner Stone, no; Commissioner
Wolfe, yes; Chairman Dingtield, no. Motion does not carry.
Chairman Dingfield asked if there were any other motions or recommendations that the
Commission would like to make.
Commissioner lloyd asked the other Commissioners what their objections were to the motion.
Commissioner Stone stated his main concern was the applicability of an accessory structure. He
had lived for many years in San Marino, California and has seen many carriage houses. He has
never seen a carriage this relative to the primary structure. When the change was made in 1994
they took the lid offofthe numbers game, but at the same time he did not feel that the rules
should be so dichotomous that they could just simply be read by anyone and adhered to. They
were trying to accommodate what they felt was the appropriate reason at that time and he felt that
this was an aberration in that approach. He is not questioning the legality of this. Everything that
should be done has been done. The neighbors have appealed, which is part of that process. He
stated that he is strongly in favor of their appeal.
Plmming Commission Meeting October 19, 1999 - Page 13 of 17
Commissioner Wolfe asked Mr. Holan to describe what the applicant's procedure would be if
there were further action on this matter.
Mr, Holan responded that the procedure would be to appeal this to the City Council. It would
be a closed record appeal to the Council and the Council would decide based on the record that
was established at tonight's hearing.
Commissioner Wolfe asked what the estimated timeframe would be.
Mr. Holan said that there would have to be suf[icient amount of time for a legal notice, probably
some time in November.
Chairman Dingfield stated that one of the options was that they could remand the building
permit back to Community Development for further consideration, however, they would have to
provide reasons for that remand and some grounds for Community Development to work with.
Mr. Holan said that with the current situation, he did not feel that staff's determination would
change over what has akeady been determined. He believed that staff had clearly stated their
position. They would not be getting any different policy direction from the Commission,
therefore, none of the circumstances would be changing.
Chairman Dingfield asked who would be appealing the decision to the City Council, the
appellant or the applicant?
Mr. FIolan stated that it would probably be the appellant.
Chairman Dingfield noted that to those in attendance that this is why there should be an odd
number of people of any commission or elected body so that you don't end up in a deadlock like
this. Unfortunately there were a couple of Commissioners that were not in attendance at this
particular meeting and although they have a quorum, they have an even number of Commissioners
and a split vote. Should the appellant choose to appeal this to the City Council, and the Council
will hear this in what is called a closed hearing. They will be taking no new testimony from either
the appellant or the applicant, they will be reading all of tonight's record, and there will be no
opportunity to give any new information. The pictures, letters and all documents from tonight's
meeting will be the sum total of the record that the City Council review. They will have a chance
to read this and will have a chance to listen to the tape, and then they will have a closed hearing.
This hearing is open to the public, but they will be taking no input from the public at all, only
reviewing the records from tonight's hearing.
A brief break was taken by the Commissioners.
Chairman Dingfield stated that the Commissioners and Community Development staff wanted
to ensure that because this appeal had come to a two-to-two tie that they did not uphold appeal,
so that in fact the status quo would now continue (i.e., the building application is in place as
issued by Community Development). It is incumbent on Mr. Henry as the appellant to file an
appeal within 15 days to go to the City Council for a closed hearing.
Planning Commission Meeting October 19, 1999-Page 14of17 I ~
Mr. Holan noted that any person who has testified here tonight is a party of record and can file
that appeal, not Mr. Henry exclusively. The appeal is filed at the Community Development
office, but is forwarded to City Council.
Chairman Dingfield said that another option they had considered was to take a motion to
continue this hearing to allow Commissioners who are not here tonight to review the record and
continue the hearing until next month. However, there are seven positions on this Planning
Commission, but there has been a vacancy for some time so there are only six active members on
the Commission currently. If the hearing was continued and came to a six member Commission at
the next meeting, they still might end up with the same time. Because of that, they didn't feel that
they wanted to lengthen out the process any more, but to be able to go forward to the Council.
The action they were considering tonight was the appeal on the building permit application,
because they were split they did not uphold the appeal. Therefore, the application is still in place
and anyone who testified tonight is a party of record can make this appeal to the City Council.
Mr. Holtz asked if he was able to go ahead with his project since the appeal was not upheld. He
has an active building permit.
Mr. Holan said that his recommendation was for Mr. Holtz not to proceed with the project. The
concern that he has is proceeding with the foundation and if the appeal is upheld then he would
have to remove the foundation. However, they have worked with property owners in similar
circumstances and offered that they may want to proceed at their own risk, but they would expect
some sort of bond for removal of the structure in the event that the appeal was upheld. This bond
would be at the value of approximately 150% over the value of the cost of installing the
foundation.
Commissioner Wolfe said that he feels that legally the applicant has every right to move forward
with the limitations/requirements that the City may impose. He asked that if there is an appeal,
that the Community Development staff do everything possible to expedite the process to take this
to City Council so either side is not sitting in any limbo state.
Commissioner Boyd asked if an appeal was filed in a couple of days, does that mean that Mr.
Holtz would have to stop work on his structure again.
Mr. Holan said that the applicant would be proceeding at his own risk and the City would still be
looking for a bond in the event that an appeal was denied that there would be restitution on the
site that the structure would be removed and it would be back to its existing condition.
Chairman Dingfield stated that this is part of the process and she appreciates all those
attendance. She feels it is important for people to come out and speak their minds. Clearly this is
not an easy decision because it split this Commission down the middle. She encouraged both
sides to proceed with haste.
Plarming Commission Meeting Oc'tober 19, 1999-Page 15 of 17
Department of Community Development
286 4~ Street · Brcmerton, WA 98337 * (360)478-5275 · FAX (360)478-5278
January 4, 2000
Don Holtz
1542 Madrona Point Drive
Bremerton, WA 983 12
Ref: PL99-0083 Appeal of Building Permit #99-0151 for a garage at 1409 Madrona Point Drive
Dear Don:
The request for City Council review of the issued building permit for your proposed garage is
scheduled for a Closed Record Hearing before the Council on Wednesday, January 26, 2000. A
public notice of that hearing will follow in the next few days. This letter is meant to inform you
of Council Rule 12 - Hearings and Appeals - Closed Record which is enclosed.
Based on the rule, the following are the exact dates to provide any supplemental written
arguments directed to the record and any alleged errors. All parties of record may comment by
the appropriate dates below.
· The appellant or supporters of the Planning Commission decision (allow the issuance of the
bldg. permit to stand) may file supplemental supporting argument by January 10, 2000.
· Supporters or those opposed to the permit decision may file response argument to the appeal
or supplemental argument by January 17, 2000.
· The appellants or supporters may file a reply to that response by January 19, 2000.
If you have fiarther questions or need additional clarification, please call me at 478-5845.
Sincerely,
James Coombes
Planner
OF
Department of Community Development
286 4~' Slxeet · B~emerton, WA 98337 · (360) 478-5275 · FAX (360) 478-5278
January 4, 2000
R. Wes Henry Sr.
1502 Shorewood Drive
Bremerton, WA 98312
Ref: PL99-0083 Appeal of Building permit #99-0151 for a Garage at 1409 Madrona Point Drive
Dear Mr. Hem-y:
Your request for City Council review of the issued building permit for the Holtz Garage is
scheduled for a Closed l~ecord Heating before the Council on Wednesday, January 26, 2000. A
public notice of that hearing will follow in the next few days. This letter is meant to inform you
of Council Pule 12 - Hearings and Appeals - Closed Record which is enclosed.
Based on the rule, the following are the exact dates to provide any supplemental written
arguments directed to the record and any alleged errors. All parties of record may comment by
the appropriate dates below.
· The appellam or supporters of the Planning Commission decision (allow the issuance of the
bldg. permit to stand) may file supplememal supporting argumem by January 10, 2000.
· Supporters or those opposed to the permit decision may file response argument to the appeal
or supplemental argumem by January 17, 2000.
· The appellants or supporters may file a reply to that response by January 19, 2000.
If you have further questions or need additional clarification, please call me at 478-5845.
Sincerely,
James Coombes
Planner
PLEASE NOTE:
Per the City Attorney, the following
information is acknowledged as
received, and provided for review by
the City Council as added argument --
but will NOT be admitted into
' :lence as added facts
evl~
: ECEiYEO. CITY COUNCIL
.January $, :2000
To the Bremerton City Council
In Appeal of the Bldg. Permit issued for 1409 Madrona Pt. Dr. (PL99-0068)
Dear City Council Hembers:
Concerned neighbors and empathetic Planning Commissioners have expressed their
opinions which reflect the moral neighborhood attitude concerning the proposed placement of a
huge warehouse type metal structure (74 ft X 40 ft) at 1409 Madrona Point Drive.
Following are excerpts from documented opinions by concerned citizens, several Planning
Commissioners and .Ion Holan of DCD - as taken from the Tape and Plinutes of the 19 October
1999 Planning Commission hearing of the Appeal of the subject Permit. These are offered in
the hope that the Council will decide to allow the majority of citizens to have a voice
in protecting our neighborhood from wanton development proposals threatening it.
The comments are offered also to refresh / supplement your own required familiarity
with the Planning Commission proceedings et al. (Following is a brief reminder of a pertinent
portion of Council Rule 12) "The President asks if the Council members have listened to
the Tape and reviewed other evidence submitted in the prior Open Record Hearing
[the Planning Commission hearing], and excuses those who have not."
DCD .1on Holan stated that there is no definite law regarding this issue.
Paul Phillips stated: T live next to the property where the "carriage house" is to be built. ]~ met
Mr. Holtz when the property was for sale and was told that Mr. Holtz's intended use for the
property was to rent out storage for RV's, Boats, etc. I was concerned about the children in the
neighborhood because of increase traffic from people getting their belongings out of the
building.
Suzanne Holland'. stated: This is clearly a case of trying to push the law to the limit. All
through the city we are trying to reclaim pride in neighborhoods. Tf we need to abate some
properties, then we need to do that. We don't need to add to the problem. ! feel that it is a
separate issue. A commercial sized metal garage clearly does not conform to the character of
the neighborhood.
Commissioner Larry Stone stated: "Looking back in this Staff Report and the material from
1994, T'm the man who passed the motion, or made the motion to overthrow Don Pratt's ruling
relative to size, knowing full well we took the lid off. At the same time my feeling was, that
rules as they're drafted, are meant to be interpreted on some judgmental basis relative to the
situation itself. On that particular issue, we were talking about a piece of building or structure,
that comprised 6% of the property on a 22,000 sq ft lot. !t's a difficulty, and we were dealing
again with accessory, and the generally accepted term of accessory - is that something,
somewhat by nature, one way or another subordinate to the supporting property. Granted we
could get about 5 or 6 interpretations of that, but ! don't think that we had in mind, and
accessory dwelling of this magnitude relative to the so called parent property. T'm having a
difficulty, seeing that this is an urban residential R2 property, it's supposedly the structures in
there, [that] are to maintain the existing character and be consistent with the character, in
terms of open space, bulk, scale, and things of that nature. ~['m having a hard time, seeing that
in this particular case. Now, that's simply a statement, not an answer in any way shape or
form. From a legal standpoint, T think it's totally legal. But from the standpoint of adhering to
the requirements in urban residential, or in any interpretation as an accessory, ! don't think it
flies. ! don't think it makes the grade. ! don't think it's the size thing either, it's just that it is
relative to the property under which they call an accessory, by itself it would not fly. ]: don't
think it falls into the category of what ]:'d interpret an accessory. Z've admired your boat
frequently Mr. Holtz, and can understand your problem in housing it. But :]: don't think that this
is the solution ! can live with."
Commission Chairperson 3oan Dingfield stated: "~[ am concerned though, that the zoning
code speaks to accessory and incidental. Tt is silent on the size part of it. But, T think that the
issue of, ! don't think that it is that there should be that much confusion on what is accessory
or incidental to the primary structure. In my way of thinking, having the accessory structure
twice the size of the primary structure is just at odds with what [, and T'd be concerned, in
some of the other, in thinking about some other lots around town. There are many, there are '
many places in Bremerton where you have small houses on large lots, and [ would be
concerned if we opened up this box, of having no restriction on, or no consideration of what is
accessory or incidental. T would be concerned, [of] what would happen in the future to some of
the other neighborhoods in town as well as this existing neighborhood. [ think you would find a
significant change in the character of the neighborhood. When you start, when you start having
accessory structures that are twice the size of that primary. ! mean, ! know we've been
through this mill before, on the issue of accessories, be it on a separate and detached thing, or
whether it's an accessory dwelling unit as we've discussed before. But ]:'m very concerned that
you would particularly in this town, and the nature of some of the properties that we have
around the area. That you would see a significant change in the character of the
neighborhoods. This is, this neighborhood has a particular, ]: mean, it is one of the
neighborhoods where there are homes that are of a higher value, than other areas in town.
And ]: would be concerned about protecting the character of the neighborhood and protecting
that type. We were one of the building that has come up tonight and in both discussions and
pictures, the old Sign Shop, which has now, has been concerted back to a residential sort of
use or whatever, or is it not being used at all. When we heard that discussion, when we
discussed that issue, that was a permit that was allowed, outside of what were the codes of the
time. ]:t was the exception to the rule that was placed in time, and the neighborhood has been
dealing with that for a number of years because of, because of that exception that was made.
So, ]:'m concerned that we continue to protect character of neighborhoods. And while we
certainly want to allow infill, :[ don't think we're saying that nothing can be built there. ]: think
it's incumbent on us to think about character."
Commission Chairperson .loan Dingfield later asked Hr Holan for clarification: Regarding
the owner providing assurance that each property would be able to be developed separately, so
that there would be a primary structure on the lot, should one of the lots be sold; and enquired
further of his proposed Deed Restrictions.
DCD .1on Holan replied: That it was a requirement for the owner to demonstrate that prior to
the City issuing the building permit, l~f the lots were sold separately, the owner would have to
come in and get approval for the lot where the accessory structure is to make it conforming,
i.e., they would have to create a primary use (a single family house) on that property.
anyone were to buy this property, they should be aware that there is an issue with regards to
the single family dwelling where the garage is located. This deed restriction would be at the
time of sale of the property.
This last exchange between Mrs. Dingfield and Mr. Holan appears to demonstrate a bit
of fuzzy thinking on the part of DCD. The mechanics of emplacing an effective Deed
Restriction should preclude the described very casual approach - and should insist
upon the Restriction being in place (Recorded) as a condition for any further
consideration of Permit approval.
Sincere
To: Bremerton City Council re:Appeal No.-PL99-O068 :'R£CEIVED CITY COUNCIL OFFICE"-
FROM: R. Wes Henry Sr., 1502 Shorewood Dr. )-~TE__ {/7/~C~o~:)
Dear Sirs
As a Resident of the Shorewood drive a~4 Madrona
point area I would like to submit a request thatI building
permit #99-051 be denied for the followin$ reasons:
A. That the size of the garage in this instance is not
customary since it occupies a relatively large portion
of the lot it is situated; or
B. That the structure's size is a factor to determine a
customarily found accessory structure and that the proposed
garage exceeds the size of garages customarily found in
residential areas.
C. The use is not customary to uses in the neighborhood.
Further consideration should be given to:
A. Residential garages larger than necessary to accomodate
two or three cars are not customary in most residential
areas. Larger structures fall into the "WAREHOUSE" category
which is not permitted use in residential neighborhoods.
B. The desire to provide an indoor facility for the keeping
of large vehicles or equipment, such as recreational
vehicles, boats, commercial vehicles, farm equipment, etc.,
may not be customary in most neighborhoods and is not
considered a "right"
C. Height, size, volume and scale, in relation to the principal
structure and as customarily found in the neighborhood,
SHOULD be considered.
The fact that a FOR SALE sign is posted on the
adjacent lot for this structure indicates that this structure
is not for use of the purposed module home(permit #99-0150).
There are indications that this structure will be rental space.
This raises concern over repairwork, condition and cleaning of
stored properties, the disposal of toxic waste material to
accomplish these operations, especially in a sensitive area
less than one hundred and forty feet from Ostrich bay/
-
~o the Bremer~on Ci~ Council
~pp~lin~ the Buildin~ P~rmit issued for ]409 ~adrona ~oint
Several comments illustrating the reception of the Department of Community Development's
handling of the processing of the subject building permit.
# 1. Living in this affected neighborhood, I was surprised at the tide of resentment spawned by
the proposed construction at 1409 MP Drive. While the "carriage house" was the focus of the
emotional ground swell; what appeared to really make the neighbors angry was the calloused
manner in which DCD tried to keep the whole process a secret. DCD did not even g/ve the illusion
of forthrightness nor open government. In fact, everything associated with this matter seems to
have been done behind closed doors and in secrecy.
#2. At the Planning Commission hearing of the Building permit application - Commissioner
Wolfe asked Jon Holan - if the action was appealed - how soon would it be heard by the City
Council as he felt that the matter should be expedited. Holan replied "Sometime in November
(1999). Now BMC 21.02.900 States that Closed Record Appeals will be decided w/thin 60 days.
This signifies that the City Council should have heard the Building Permit Appeal w/thin 60 days
of it's submission. It was submitted on 25 October - and therefore should have been heard by 25
December. Wrong again Mr. Holan.
#3. Mr. Holan's job required familiarity with the City Council Rules and Procedures for
Closed Record Appeals was not in evidence when during the Planning Commission Hearing on
this matter - the Commission Chair stated that when at a Closed Record Appeal before the City
Council that the Council WOULD NOT T~4 KE ANY NEW TESTIMONY from either
Appellant or Applicant, The Council will read the Planning Commission Hearing record and
there }FILL BE NO OPPORTUNITY TO GIVE ANY NEW INFORM~TION for the Closed
Hearing.
While it should not be expected that the unpaid volunteers of the Planning Commission
would know the Council Rules and Procedures - it is to be expected that Mr. Holan does know
Rule 12 et al - and despite this knowledge he chose not to inform the citizens of the grossness of
the error, thereby allowing those citizens who were relying on the substance and accuracy of what
was disseminated at the Commission meeting to leave the chambers believing that no further
substantiation of their position was possible.
The citizens lef~ the Commission meeting convinced that they could not provide any
further inputs for the Council's consideration. This error of omission was not later corrected by
DCD .... and eventual correction of the status required the laws of Chance to present a factual
replacement for the erroneous information Not fair, not professional, not in the interests of
open government, and not in the interests of equal treatment under the laws.
#4. As a final NOTE relating to the delay of the Appeal - : House Bill No. 1724
(ESlt!i1724) is quoted: " (c). Any period for administrative Appeals of project permits, if an
Open Record Appeal hearing or a Closed Record Appeal, or both are allowed. The local
government by ordinance or resolution shall establish a time period to consider and decide such
appeals. The time period shall not exceed: (i) ninety days for an open record appeal hearing; (ii)
Sixty days for a Closed Record Appeal. The parties to an appeal may agree to extend the time
periods; and (d) any extension of time mutually agreed upon by the Applicant and the local
government."
Assuming that the Appellant is a party to the Appeal - he should have been consulted
in this time extension. It is most logical that the unilateral (Holan and Holtz) Applicant/City
"agreement" would be adjudged as having been made in singular consideration of the
Applicant.
THE SUBJECT PERMIT SHOULD BE DENIED ON THE BASIS OF - THE SUM
TOTAL OF PROCESSING IRREGULARITIES; AND THE STUDIED AVOIDANCE
BY DCD OF ADHERING TO THE SHORELINES MANAGEMENT ACT'S
APPLICABILITY TO ~ PROPERTY IN QUESTION.
Yours truly,
December 30, 1999
Betty Davies'P, ECEIVED 01'/COU ICIL OFFICE"
1541ShorewoodDrive ~ATE ) /7/.2°0o
Bremerton, WA 98312
£--..
Issue: P1-99-0068 - Site Plan 99-0150 and 99-0157 for Residence (PreFab)
and Garage 40'w x 74' long x 16' (PreFab)
At the Bremerton Planmng Commission on October 19, 1999 on issue P1-99-0068 the
vote fled 2 and 2. There were 3 Commissioners and Chairman Mrs. Dingfield. They left the
room and had a discussion. When they returned Chairman Mrs. Dingfield informed us, "The issue
would go before the Bremerton Council but no new written or oral testimony would be taken by
the Council.
! believe she was in error as Council Procedure Rule 12 (7/31/96) page 11
(1) Record (Hearings and Appeals - Closed Record) b. "Persons who participated in the open
record hearing are mrmitted to file an appeal or argument in support or in opposition to the
appeal recommendation,"
I would like to recommend:
(1) The Shoreline Heatings Board go over this issue because of the proximity to the shoreline (less
than 150' ) This building will have boats stored and cleaned and flushed out. The contaminants
could enter Ostrich Bay.
(2) Bremerton City Code does not allow the high noise level this 35' racing boat makes when the
engine is turned on. This neighborhood is waterfront. The residents pay high taxes for the privilege
to live in a quiet neighborhood. This structure will no way be compatible with surrounding
homes.
The lot has been divided into two lots. Mr Holtz does not plan on living in the PreFab house.
Those two structures will be metal or plastic siding.
The view corridor which was the easement off Madrona Point Drive was released to Mr. Holtz as
a condition for his purchase of the property. This is the land, the view corridor; 15 feet wide and
located on the left side of the property ......... and does not improve the view of the residents across
the road. In fact the large warehouse sized metal structure will block their view.
Mr Holtz does not want to live next to this himself. Why inflict this on the people who will have to
live around it.
If this passes it will be "Spot Zoning". Bremerton residential neighborhoods deserve better.
We ask that this permit be denied.
Thank you...
Davies
Betty
"RECEIVED. CITY COUNCIL OFFICE"
Paul Scheyer DA]~ I / 7/,~7c~ o c) December 23, 1999
2111 Madrona Point Drive
Bremerton, WA 98312
(360) 377-7916
Reference: APPEAL (PL99-0068) of Building Permit issued for 1409 Madrona Point Drive.
Ladies and Gentlemen of the Bremerton City Council:
I appreciate the oppommity to provide written testimony for this Closed Record Hearing
concerning the APPEAL of the Building Permit issued for 1409 Madrona Point Drive. My
participation via written testimony for the Open Record Planning Commission Appeal Hearing
gives me status to participate in this Closed Record City Council hearing.
The City Council is requested to uphold this Appeal of the Building Permit - until a
Shorelines Conditional Use permit is obtained, which would of necessity make exception to the
View Corridor requirements - in light of the corridor illustrated in thc 1409 Madrona Point Drive
Site Plan.
The Bremerton Shorelines Master Plan (BSMP) Table 3-2, page 3-27 Key 2, requires a
minimum view corridor of Twenty-Five (25) PERCENT of the average parcel width.
"Parcel" is defined in the Bremerton Municipal Code, page 21-13, as "a continuous
quantity of land in single ownership or under single control, consisting of one or more lots, and
considered a unit for the purposes of development. In this case, the "Parcel" contains a Primary
Structure and an Accessory Structure. The "Parcel" contains two lots, but the view corridor
shown on the 1409 Madrona Point Drive Site Plan does not meet the twenty-five percent (25%)
View Corridor requirement.
The City Council is requested to uphold this Appeal until a Conditional Use Permit is
obtained, or until the required View Corridor is established for the 1409 Madrona Point Drive
"Parcel"'s development.
Sincerely,
Paul D. Scheyer / other appellants of record
Reni Grant
PO Box 437
Bremerton WA 98337
(360)479-7844
Res: 1418 M adrona pt. Dr. :gECEiYED CITY COUNCIL OFFICE"
/
Bremerton WA 98312
January 10, 2000
To: Bremerton City Council
239 4th Street
Bremerton WA 98337
Re: PL99-0068 Appeal of Bldg. Permit No. 99-0151
for a new garage at 1409 Madrona Point Drive
in a single family residential (SF-3) zoning
district. Appellant: R. Wes Henry Sr.
To reiterate my letter of October 18, 1999 to the ECD, I have NOT
changed my view concerning the above.
I would like to ask the City Council to deny the granting of the
above building p~rmit for the proposed 3000 sq. ft. metal storage
building at 1409 Madrona Pt. Dr. It seems inappropriate for an
area zoned residential.
.Said building is TWICE THE SIZE of the 1500 sq. ft. modular
proposed to accompany it.
.Parking for the modular is to be the first two spaces inside
the garage. This would make access to the larger remaining
portion very difficult.
.Contradictorily, if the lot with the modular were sold as
a separate piece, parking would be designated directly in
front of the modular...which then says:
.IF THE LOT WERE SOLD SEPARATELY, THE LOT WITH THE GARAGE WOULD
STAND APART. It was my understanding that one cannot have an
accessory building standing on a lot without an accompanying
residence in a residential area.
This seems like a way to slip in a storage building that will
eventually stand on it's own...circumventing the city's zoning
requirements.
I would strongly urge you to deny this pgrmit.
Reni
JAN 1 S 2000
BREMERTON
BUILDING DEPARTI~IENT
~ /~
~ ' ' ~ ~ I n ~"
~~.~~ ~ ~11 ~ ,.-,
%11
1
BR~:MERTON January 16, 2000
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
Betty Davies
16541 Shorewood Drive
Bremenon, WA 98312
ISS~: P1-99068
Site PI~ 99-0150 & 99-0151 for residence ~d G~GE 40'X 74' X 16' to Eves, 20' R~er
heist: Metfl Prefab co~ction.
~er loo~ng at ~e Bluep~ts for ~e Shop S~e Bml~ng ~. Hol~ sub,ned m the DCD
office, I find:
1. ~ey ~e NOT F~ (see a~ehed)
2. Discrep~cy in size of ba~oom w. shower- 16' x 16', or 6' X 10'
3. It ~11 obs~ct water ~ew of~e o~en of pro~W across ~e road and nei~bors in
· e ~ont duplex.
4. It is to be bmlt of~T~ ~d a P~F~
5. Co~d ~e ~emions ~ter a~er he obtains a ~it ?
I s~ke ~ ~. McCoy, the dealer for t~s s~c~e. His name is on ~e blueprint. I gave ~m
similm ~me~ions ~d he replied "Oh you me~ SHOP S~E:. ~. Hol= leads us to believe he
needs t~s size to store his racing boat in; yet he advertises that boat for sale in mag~ines.
The FOR S~E Si~s are still on the pro~.
~ Feb~ 1998 Hol~ applied for a M~ne Boat Business at 1533 Shorew~d Drive, and it
wm &nied because the pro~ was SF3. The l~t I hem& so is 1409 ~drona Point ~ve.
~en ~. Hol~ 'stored' his boat at 1533 Shorewood Drive he s~ed it up.(LO~) A neighbor
on Beach ~ve asked him to ~ it off ~ ~e noise was dis~pting a f~ily pa~. ~ Hol~
i~ored the request and ran the boat en~ne for more th~ fo~ additional minutes. Will t~s
Mp~n at ~e Ma~ona Point Shop ? Do we not have a Noise Level Code / Ordin~ce ?
Pleme read Table 3-2, Site Development, pg2 of 3 in ~e Bremenon Shorelines ~ter Pro~.
"The applic~t sh~l ob~ si~es of all adjoining prope~ o~ers who do not object to the
propel - in order to ve~ thru a proposal ~11 not imp~ adjoimg water views." Note;for
B~ng Heigh~ 20 to 35 fe~- a ~ Co~dor of 35% of the prope~ ~idth is ~ate~
~a~ you
j. No motion to rescind or r~:onsider ~e initial quasi-judicial decision may be
brought by any Council member £ollowing close of the meeting.
RULE 12 - HEARINGS AND APPEALS - CLOSED RECORD
~ If the hearing is a closed record appeal or hearing, the record of the prior open
record appeal or pre-decision hearing may be supplemented with written argument directed
To ~¢ record and aw/alleged errors. Argument shall be submitted as foltows:
a. The Deparcrnent of Community Development shall assign a hearing date in
coordination with the Council upon the filing of an appeal or pre-decision
recommendation from an open record appeal, with sufficient time to allow
~ling of argument.
b. Only applicants for ~e permit or approval, owners of the property at issue,
or persons who participated in the open record hearing are permitted ~o file an
appeal or arsument in support or in opposition to the appeal or
recommendation.
c. The appellant shall file a list of issues on appeal with supporting argument
on each with the Council office 16 days (3rd Monday') prior to the assigned
hearing date. Supponers of a pre-decision recommendation may file argument
in support by this deadline. Those opposing the appeal or pre-decision
recommendation may file responsive argumem to issues raised in the appeal
or supporting argument 9 days (2nd Monday) prior to hearing. The
appellants/supporters may file a reply 7 days (Wednesday) prior to hearing.
2. Hearin_~ Procedure'.
~" a. After the appearance of fairness inquiry-, the President will announce tha~~''
the decision will be based on materials received in evidence at the previous
open hearing; traxtscrip~ of the prior hearing', the final decision or
recommendation from the previous hearing; and written argument svhich has
been submitted in a timely manner. The Presidezst asks if Council members
have listened to the tapes amd reviewed other evidence ~ubmined in the prior
~ open record hearing, and excuses those who have not.
b. (a) Staff presents the recommendation or decision of the commission or
board which reviewed the action, gives general background and answers
Council questions regarding the record.
UTES gOM THE PtAN mG
COMMISSION MEETING DO NOT REFLECT THE ACTUAL
STATEMENTS MADE BY THE PUBLIC IN EITHER CONTENT OR
FLAVOR. THE MINUTES ARE THEREFORE AN INACCURATE
RECORD OF THOSE PROCEEDINGS.
Rendition 1409 Madrona Point Drive witg proposed Warehouse / Garage
Obviously NOT an ingredient of a Neighborhood Beautification Effort
A 40 ft by 74 foot Metal Warehouse Lype edifice is NOT A CUSTOMARY structure for
this neighborhood. While an obvious affront to the immediate neighbors - guests or prospective
purchasers en route to neighborhood homes on Madrona Point, (which are valued in the multiple
hundreds of thousands of dollars) would be forced to pass this visual abomination -which
experience would depreciate their evaluation of the entire neighborhood
Mr. FIoitz - "I hope that this project will beautify what is currently in the neighborhood."
probably based upon Mr. Holtz's other statement "This property has been a vacant field for man),
years that had collected garbage. " which is in contradiction of the neighborhood memories
of the lot having been a fenced orchard - the garbage started collecting only after Mr.
Hoitz took down the fence, cut down all the trees and shrubbery, and allowed the
junk to pile up.
Mr. Hoitz's quotations above and Mr. Holan's quotes below are based upon
the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes.
INt~IDENTAL NQTE; When questioned during his presentation of the Staff Report to the Planning
Commission, :DCD's Mr. Jon l~olan stated that "It was a prefabricated building, but that he did not
believed that the materials were metal." Drawings provided and approved by DCD are from
METALLIC BUILDING COMPANY and METAL is predominant in the buildings description.
NOT THE ENGINEER C~ REC~
FOR THE O~RALL PRO,~ECT.
I J J I Ii I I '7:01 FNR~EW * H~STON, EXAS · P.O. BOX ~338
. 'Z~ ~041 (713) ~6-~88 ~P ~2~
.,,DES~IP~: FRAME CROSS SEC~ON ...
. ':': ~ST~. SEA~E REAL~, INC. · I ~'o ~ST: DON.~OL~ .
~ ~ L~A~ON: BREMERTON, WA , c~ BY:
· SV '(]3~1]C]1SNO3 .3B NV::) ,, NOIJ. DI'INISNO:D ~O3 ,, (]3FISSI
"' '' '- :i -IVNI-/ ION NOLLINI3':]0 A8 3~JV '.Llhl~3d ~I03 C)N13B 'SC)NL~V~JQ 353H. L f~
'3139d~00 S'i~ 03U3015NO0"
....... ' 3B N¥O .,NOUO'nmSNO:) UO~I,. a3nss~ SON~V, BO AqNO 'SlN3rm:)oa
· IO3POBclj]NL 30 NOLLVI3BdB3.LNI B3dOBd .RBI3NOD O J. SI '4SOdBnd
Ut3t~I~ "AINO NOLL¥£N]S3Ud3U IYrLLd3:DNOO .UO3 '3~Y~ tINY
"IvA08ddV 10J,, I 66/90/L'0 .,,V J. ON NOLJlNI:I30 AEI 3JYV 'lVAO~ddg: ~103 9NI38 'SONIMV~IO 3S3HJ. J~
28 SKATER 1994 ~
'X!g..".,,., r l ~:Iq~~' I',ll,~le~'~;H~ ~14.-~~' ntp!:
1~ 21' HALL~ VECT~ ~4n ~,
q7 2~' ACTIVE THUNDER, ~il~,*
J~1 S~AB ~ Twin 3~0 MPI%. q~;tr ~P~l l~!rl (1:u I~lr,t tnui .... h'lii,~,
81ackhawk drives. Exl steering K-~)ian~ nn,~r~ tl,l~J ,,r~ ~r~;~t & mrq~:r
Sil~t choice. Full cover. All factory nr,gmnl fil;w~ gGg r~f~f; ~ 7 lr: , ~ 1,1 ),,h,, ~r,,,r.,; 1999 AWESOME POW~BOATS
Only B0 hours (apDrox). M~n[ cendlt,p,~ fSG2) f,f)2 22'.~,1 ~'~, CAT, r:! ,,';'/uiF, rl.qffuq Irvdra;llic J;mk
;¢'~, h', ~ th;)': "~,l=l J.'lt~J/'lt
Fresh Drives. N~w B~ 7~. I athmu I r,,qhwRl~r ~1';,' J RH,:~:~ ~t~r~,uql ;~(I" I ii
Steering, Oil exhaust & mounm. New Hull '~ $3R.{XX). (203) ;' HI .'2! / rjr 1995~KATER 28' rl:~, ~ )'~nn,:,~m 121 new
Cle~. Must ~1. Financing ~y ~ availabe 15 ;~ 5 r,ff~hr,,~ ,-,ml,,~ue ahJm~num ~rm~er
$~,~. ~. J~ (7~) 57~ 2~4 ~ Best of Everything" (516) ~9-~02 NY
93 FOUNTAIN 29 FEVER, Mint
Design. $3,000 10 Disc "Shock ~en,*t*'-:
CD Sler~ System Myco Dual Axlp
Standout from the Pack 'w,th t~'.~ ~l',".': nr,m ~knt~, trnd~r ;' / 2 n ~vl~,,' ~ ,t, m,d J SKATER P~"q,: '. vm .;hr, w~th cqbm 5~0
Room
Condilgn
Fresh
WGlOr
Toy~
(web): angethre.com/msljoebreed.~qden[ 97 21 ~KATER
~ ~' ~ONOW CAT, New interior & qnu(-. Rnnt nf nv,-rylhit,q. Mnlic,,n, miy ~2,t9 ()00 hk:,,-N,cer~ (3G0)698-8140WA~.~
sound syslem. White Gaffrig gauges. L¢~s rigf]¢ll Pmfm:H ~k.31¢r irai!fff $4R RI)f) Chef) ~988 ~LLCRA~ ~A~J Ill ~',
than 25 hours on new twin 2 4L. Bemmlm ~703) 33g-6065 VA
mance. Call Tony Ior dermis Try $28.ga0 iRf~drivrm
(612) 802-4572 ¢ (612) 891-324 ~ MN Ct~,;a~u IL
SELLt Will nelivnr F~ee anywhe~¢, in the
Conlinnntql I1% T/,.f~ MrrOr~:~se' HP 500'S
· TO~J~ ~ ~. ~ HP Evinrude 1~ Freshwater mt~v. ! ,~ded. V~ry iow hours,
hours. Original owner All options Porlecl Immac;,flate Wdl mmmrler trades. Sacrifice
~"J~jH.T~n3.0Ltr. 225's.(5y, condition $25,000 Billy(214) 631-1102TX $9q.901 Call CI,,,s (903) 432-2268 or
extended waranty]. Rigged by Ocean
Outboard. Best of everything. 20 dial r, C~m~om ngqrd wilh nH Ih~ hem hy I)aves 1~ ~' ~ARAB fw,~ 525 SC. C~I
hours Ioial on engines and hull Th~s
brand new boaU Always stored inside Oann Marine R~R Stereo. CHstom sler~. Tralle~.$127.500 (B10) 716-O494 MI
White with blue, yellow and orange uphotostery 8 hours un new 4~ c4 Bern "
accents. EFX vinyl 1o~, can ~ remov~ Marine PeHnrmance blower inDIct includ- 38' ~9~ CI~E~J~ Fresl~ water
Photos and Spec. Sheet _available. mg BDS. Lee Inl~r(;(~let. ,J&E. Crower. Isky boat. original owner. E',.cellent condition.
R~e/pleasure hard back seat cover, fl~t Roller Valve Trmn. elc WPM external sle~ fwm 4C~/JRS ddves. Very reliable,
c~nvas and c~kp~t covers. Skater trmler lng Tri axe! ~rniler with Weld wl~eels, i w~rvthmgworks! Only 380 hours $75.~.
Asking $79.5~0 bul willing Io n~olm~e Immaculate.
due to tinily illness. (910) 259-8100 d~ys Todd lot more infn faf)0) 771-2R54 X 102 19~ ~t [OUlt~li LlOHtllll~ 525
~!9~45~-_e475 even:.NC UT MerCruiser/Bravo e,ves Latham st~ring.
~ ~R Race Pleasure. 1992 ~ ~ FO~T&I~ LOADED HP 500 Race fairing. Fresh waler, Garde kepi. One
~rcuw 2.5's. Skaler trailer, p~tos dyad- hours. Triple Axle Trailer, $ 74.5~ (702) ~ner. Mycolrailer, $1~.~ (812)537-6~8
able. (217) 4~ 7~ IL ~-2331 NV
Januaxy 17. 2000
City of Bremerton
Department of Commbnity Development
246 4~ Street
Btemerton, ~,¥A 98337
Fax 478-5278
Re: Holtz Garage (Madrona Poi.nO Appeal to be heard before City Council January 26,
2O0O
As a party of record, i would like to make some further comments on tlns apphcat~on.
This oversized garage,. (carriage kouse) in a residential area is needed to provide covered
storage for a large bo*at. The applicants don't merely want room for the boat and trailer,
but th. er want room f~}r the truck used to tow the boat. They don't want the i'aconvenience
of unhooking the trudk from the Ira-tier.
Tho~ of us who live on the channel between Ostrich and Oyster Bays or on the waterfront
aaywhe~e close to tMt area are vet5~ familiar with this particular boat and the loud sound it
tnakes. ~,~&en ~t id!el in the channel, it sounds like a hel.icopter. ~hen the boat is brought
in from be,.ng used, ix must be cleaned and ~e engine flushed. The boat was slored ft:r a
period of time at the ~'°rn-ter blan..son Sign build':,ng. The neighbors close to ti~at bu/I.ding
are a!so faro[ilar wit'.d how loud the boat is when it is fired up. it ,-s absolutely
inappropriate to sugJect the neighborhood to no'~ mTly the size of this garage, bu.'. !o tile
noise this boat :naked.
Most of us are trymg hard to unpr~e our ne~ghbornood~ aJ~d our pro.perry va2~es. ",Phis iq
a nice waterfront neighborhood with some lovely homes. Some houses ~e ,xicer than
others, as m most neighborhoods. A number of photos were showt~ at uh~ Planni.ng
Commission hearing u) show that not ~.[l the yards are pristine. Some of tl~ose photos
were of the home next to mine I live on South Ma_tree Drive--in the same C~ty, but
h,-u'dty ;,n :he same neighborhood! Please don't penalize the residents that are trying to
improve thru: propeflies by using the homes and yards that aren't as nice as !he sknnc~.ard
for the neighborhood.
This project is tota~ty out of character with the rest of the neighbortmod.
Suzanne Hciland
1801 South Mzrine Drive
Bremert..on, WA 98312
Bremerton Cindy Council
259 -~th Street
Bremerton, WA 98~37
Dear Council M~mbers:
Re. Planning Commission Hearing (PL 99-0068) Permit No. 99-0151 for
a ~ra~e on a residential lot at 1d09 ~'~drona Pt. Dr.
i~om the size of the ~_~ara~e, ~+ is ~uite obvious that D~ u-~ is
~±a_nnin~ vo oua~a a storage shed on the Io~ '_or nas ~,e_~_~ use, with
no space or Lnlenvion to ~aild a house on the same lot.
o~_~c .... will be totally out o£ place in our residential com-
munity. How wcuid you like this mons:rosity in ~otur view window?
Please look aV Chis as though +~
.... s were your neighborhood ~d s~.~r this
from happening.
Sincerely,
Eugene F. Iamb
:'RECEIVED CITY COUNCIL
OFFICE,,
January l7,2000
Bremerton City Council
Bremerton, WA
Dear Sir or Madam:
I am writing to express my opinion regarding the construction of a proposed "garage" on
Madrona Point Drive. As I understand the project, the owner is attempting to build an enormous
storage building, with the intent of locating a modular or manufactured home on the site, so that the
storage building qualifies as a garage.
This is a clear attempt to circumvent the spirit of the zoning code. This is a residential
neighborhood, in fact this is one of the most cohesive neighborhoods in the Ciw of Bremerton Home
and property values are high here, and for the most part, homes are well kept. We moved to
Bremerton in 1998, and purchased our home here on Madrona Point largely because of the qualiw, of
the neighborhood. It is obvious that (most) residents here value the cohesiveness and beauw' of the
area. In addition, many neighbors are investing in their homes with upgrades, remodels, and
additions. To allow a warehouse type building to be built here is a slap in the face to all the neighbors
who are trying to make Bremerton a better place to live.
There is a lot of land in the City of Bremerton which is suitable for storage buildings such as
the one proposed. There is no good reason to allow this to go forward in a residential zone. Please
do not allow one of the nicest areas in the city to be blighted by an eyesore of such major impact.
Barbara Miller
1436 Madrona Point Dr.
Bremerton, WA 98312
BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL
SUCBSTITLVI~ AGENDA BILL
1. SUBJECT: FOR AGENDA OF: January 26,2000
Refer back to Planning Commission Item ORIGINATING DEPT: Community Dev.
PL99-0083, relating to issuance of Building Permit ORIGINATOR: Jon Holan
for garage at 1409 Madrona Point Drive DATE SUBMITYED: Jmluary 24,2000
2. ~_~I~ARANCES:~,(Comment on back if necessary) 3. EXItlBITS: City Attorney Memorandum of
GlehnaMalanca, City Attorney
ENDORSEMENT [] INFORMATION [] APPROVED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FOR SUBMITFAL:
4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION:
A Planning Commission decision of October 19, 1999, on a Type I Administrative Decision, was appealed to
the City Council. A tie resulted at the hearing before the Planning Commission. The Bremerton Municipal Code
provides that Type I Administrative decisions may be appealed to the Planning Commission, for a final
decision. An appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to Superior Court is available. Since the City
Council does not have jurisdiction to hear this appeal, it is recommended that this matter be referred back to thc
Planning Commission for further consideration per the commission's Rules and By-laws relating to tie votes by
the Commission.
8. RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council refer this matter back to the Planning Commission for further
consideration consistent with the Planning Commission Rules and By-laws.
Record Motion:
Move to refer Planning Commission Item PL99-0083 back to the Planning Commission for entry of a written
decision after continuation, and further consideration, of the October 19, 1999 hearing on Appeal of Building
Permit No. 99-0151 for a garage al 1409 Madrona Point Drive.
9. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL:
ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL:
EXPIRATION DATE:
REVIEW DATE:
10. NOTICE OF ACTION
PULLED [ ] TABLED [ ] APPROVED [ ] mS~d'PROVED [ ] ~m~ED [ ] DATE:
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE: 11. AGENDA BILL NO.: 0 0 -- O ~ 3
2. CLEARANCE COMMENTS:
5. IMPACT OF NON-PASSAGE:
Applicant's and Appellant's rights would not be addressed.
6. IMPACT ON STAFFING~ BUDGETS~ FACILITIES~ EQUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCES:
None.
7. RESEARCH SOURCES:
To:. Mayor Lynn S. Horton; Jori Holan, Director of Community Development; and City Council
From: Gle~ma Malan~a, City ARon~/~Ox'~
[~m~: 01/'24/00
Re: Appeal from Plmming Commkssim of Permit f~r Garage at 1409 Madrona Point Drive
On October 19, 1999, an appeal was heard by the Planning Commission ctmllmging the issuance of a
Building Permit for an accessory sUucture to be located at 1409 Madrena Point Drive. The initial
appeal to tho Planning C~ was of the Site Plan Review/Building Pemait. With a two-tm
two vote by the Planning Co, ..... ission, the appeal frilled.
Tlan~ was ora Type I Administrative decision per BMC 21.02. g40. BMC 21.02.840 (c)
~lhat Type I decisions tnny be appealed to the Planning Commission. See also BMC
2I;~'.(b) (1). The City Council does not have jurisdiction to hear an appeal fr~xn the Planning
~ of a Type I AdminisU-ative Decision. It is recommended that this matter be remanded to
~'~ Commission for entry of a written decision. ARer entry of the Planning Commissim's
~~ion, Appellants would have appeal rights in Kitsap County Superior Court under
~ 36-70C RCW.
In ~ .future, the Legal Dep~mt will review the Planning Commission's agenda with ~he
C~ Development Depamnent, and will provide an atterney from this office to assist in all
Figure 840
PERMIT PROCESSING SUMMARY
Plan. Comm. Plan. Comm. Plan. Comm. City Council
DECISIONS Admin. Admin Public Open Open Open
Recommend Decision Meeting Hearing Hearing Hearing
Recommend Recommend Decision Decision
Type 1Deeisons :8 :8 (on nppeal)
Type II Decisions
> Short Subdivision :8 * (on appeal)
~- Variance :8 * (on appeal)
>- Aclmin. SUP * * (on appeal)
~- Z.O. Spec. Exception * 8 (on appeal)
~ Minor Plat Amend. :8 :8 (on appeal)
>- SEPA Determination :8 :8 (on appeal)
>- Env. Ama Determin. :8 * (on appeal)
>- Design Review :8 :8 (on appeal)
>- Interpretation :8 :8 (on appeal)
Type HI Decisions
>- Prelim. Subdiv. Plat * ·
~- Final Subdiv. Plat * *
>- Vacation of Subdiv. · ·
>- Planned Unit Dev. · :8
>- PUD Major Amend. * :8
>- Binding Site Plan * *
~- Non-admin. SUP * *
:~ Rezone :k :k
:~ Develop. Agreement ~ ~ :it
Type IV Decisions
>- Annexation *
~ Urban Renewal Plan ~
>- DisL/Neigh. Plan ~:
~. Comp. Plan Amend. :It
>- Dev. Reg. Adopt. *
~- Dev. Reg. Amend. *
Shoreline Decisions
>' Sub. Dev. Permit ~-- :~ ........ * (on appeal)
~ Con& Use Permit * ........ * ~ (on appeal)
~- Variance * ..... * * (on appeal)
>- Permit Revision ---- - * ........ * (on appeal)
>- blaster Program * ----
Amendment
(legislative)
Title21 Appendix: Page43