HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/22/03 AGENDAFILE
239 4th Street · Bremerton, WA 98337 · Phone (360) 478-5280 · Fax (360) 478-5251
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
JANUARY 22, 2003
PRE-COUNCIL STUDY SESSION: 5:00 - 5:30 P.M. in Council Conference Room
A. General Council Business
CALL TO ORDER: 5:30 P.M. in Council Chambers
A. Pledge of Allegiance
B. Invocation
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Minutes of Meeting - January 15, 2003 (#AB03-007)
CLAIMS/CHECK REGISTERS
COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS
MAYOR'S REPORT
PUBLIC RECOGNITION - Comments limited to 3-minutes
NEW BUSINESS - There are no New Business items scheduled this week...
PUBLIC HEARINGS - ORDINANCES & RESOULTION~
A. Ordinance [First Reading] authorizing the issuance of the Revenue Bonds for the
Conference Center Parking Garage~Plaza (#AB03-008)
B. Resolution No. 2882, Renewing the'~1oratorium relating to Wireless Communication
Facilities (#AB03-009)
C. Resolution No. 2883, Renewing the Moratorium relating to Off-Premises Signs (#AB03-010)
ADJOURNMENT OF CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS MEETIN~
A STUDY SESSION WILL BE HELD IN THE COUNCIL CONFERENCE ROOM
IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE REGULAR COUNCIL IVEETING FOR A
PRESENTATION ON "BROADBAND" WITH MARY McCLURE, EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR OF KITSAP REGIONAL COORDINA TING COUNCIL...
E-mail: citycouncil@ci.bremerton.wa.us · Web: www.ci.bremerton.wa.us
Cary Bozeman MAYOR'S PRIORITIES FOR 2003
TOP PRIORITIES
Complete permitting on Conference Center and begin construction in March.
· Complete permitting on the Government Center and begin construction in March
· Sign agreement with a developer to plan and design the Eastpark community.
· Work with all our partners and Kitsap Transit to assure the continued passenger only ferry
service.
Purchase the US Bank building and complete the design of our new Municipal Court and
Public Safety Building.
· Purchase property for our new downtown Fire Station and complete architectural design of
the building.
· Complete engineering and design work on the ferry tunnel under Pacific Avenue.
· Complete design and permitting of the Phase One of the new downtown waterfront
condominiums.
· Work with the Navy and the shipyard to begin development of their new downtown parking
garage, and their terrorist protection project on Pacific Avenue.
· Work with the Bremerton Housing Authority to see that the redevelopment planning and
design work for Westpark is completed in 2003.
IMPORTANT PRIORITIES
· Work with the Bremerton School District on the siting of the new Bremerton Middle School.
· Improve communications and coordination with the City Council.
· Secure funding for the refurbishment of Building 50 which will house our new Naval
Museum on the Maritime Park.
· Develop a Youth Commission to begin addressing the needs of young people in our City.
· Organize and hold a "Bremerton Night" in Olympia for all members of the State Legislature.
· Sign agreement for bringing a multiplex movie theater to downtown.
AGENDA BILL
BREMERTON crrY COUNCIL
1. SUBJECT:
MINUTES OF MEETING -
JANUARY 15, 2003
FOR AGENDA OF: JANUARY 22, 2003
ORIGINATING DEPT: CITY COUNCIL
ORIGINATOR: CAROL ARENDS, PRESIDENT
DATE SUBMITTED: JANUARY 16, 2003
2. L~ZL__F,.&RA_N__C_E~: (Comment on back if necessary) 3. EXHIBITS:
ENDORSEMENT []
MAYOR:
INFORMATION []
APPROVED FOR SUBMITTAL BY
CO%CIL PRESID. ENT:
4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION:
5. RECOMMENDATION:
PULLED [] TABLED []
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE:
APPROVED []
6. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL:
ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL:
EXPIRATION DATE:
REVIEW DATE:
DISAPPROVED [] AMENDED [] DATE:
3A
8. AGENDA BILL NO.:
9. IMPACT OF NON-PASSAGE:
10. IMPACT ON STAFFING. BUDGETS. FACILITIES. EOUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCES:
11. RESEARCH SOURCF,,~:
TAPE #1874
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
January 15, 2003
The weekly meeting of the City Council of the City of Bremerton was called to order in the City
Council Chambers, 239 4th Street, Bremerton, Washington, Wednesday, January 15, 2003, at
5:30 P.M., with Council President Carol Arends presiding. Council members present were Mike
Short, Eric Younger, Mike Shepherd, Ed Rollman, Daren Nygren, Cecil McConnell, and Wayne
Olsen. Council member Will Maupin was absent. Also present were Assistant City Attorney
Simon Stoker; Deputy City Clerk Paula Johnston; and Legislative Assistant Lori Smith.
The meeting opened with the Pledge of Allegiance led by Council Member Cecil McConnell,
followed by the invocation provided by Reverend Paul Meeker of Our Savior's Lutheran
Church.
President Arends made the following announcements:
1. A Pre-Council session was held in the Council Conference Room to discuss updates to
the meeting Agenda;
2. A Study Session will take place in the Council Conference Room immediately following
the regular business meeting to discuss "GENERAL COUNCIL BUSINESS"; and
3. Item 9A - RESOLUTION NO. 2884 SUPPORTING THE PLACING OF A COUNTYWIDE 1/10%-OF-
1% SALES TAX MEASURE ON THE BALLOT TO PROVIDE CONSISTENT FUNDING FOR 911 SERVICE
was added to the Agenda.
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Minutes of Meeting - January 8, 2003 (#AB03-004)
B. Purchase of a Fairway Mower for Gold Mountain Golf Complex (#AB03-005)
#0025 M/S/C/U (McConnell/Olsen) Move to approve Consent Agenda as presented.
CLAIMS & CHECK REGISTERR
Vouchers audited and certified by the auditing officer as required by RCW 42.24.080, and those
expense reimbursement claims certified as required by RCW 42.24.090 have been recorded on
a listing that had been made available to the Council.
#0040 M/S/C/U (Younger/McConnell) On January 15, 2003 the Council approved payment for
Check Numbers 277535 through 277833 in the amount of $798,091,48.
COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS
Daren Nv~lren encouraged any citizen who was inconvenienced during the construction work
on the pump station and supply lines in the Manette area to call 478-5315; and also referred to
a recent article in The SUN regarding Eastpark, and reiterated that the pubtic will have a
chance to participate and provide input on how Eastpark is developed.
Ed Rollman thanked Pamela Buckingham for expressing her concern about the damage to
sidewalks and curbs caused by skateboarders at a previous Council meeting, and indicated that
Risk Management researched her idea for a solution. He was pleased to report that sample
"flat bars" have been purchased by the City to test their use, and that he would provide a
progress report on their effectiveness next week.
TAPE #1874
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
January 15, 2003
Page 2 of 3
Mike Shepherd congratulated the Admiral Theater for their efforts in scheduling successful
events, such as their recent sold out concert with Ado Guthrie; announced the annual Martin
Luther King Memorial Scholarship Foundation Luncheon would be held Saturday, January 18;
and lastly discussed the changes proposed by the State for the Passenger Only ferries, and
encouraged citizens to express their support for continued funding for the ferry system to their
State Legislators.
Mike Short announced the next District 8 & 9 Neighborhood meeting would be held Thursday,
January 23, 2003 from 6:30 to 8:00 P.M. in the Conference Room of the Oyster Bay Public
Works & Facilities Building to discuss "RECENT CHANGES IN CODE ENFORCEMENT".
Carol Arends reported that she would be attending the Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council
Transportation Policy Board meeting tomorrow in Silverdale, and noted that the Passenger Only
Ferries was a probable topic for discussion.
MAYOR'S REPORT - There was no report tonight.
PUBLIC RECOGNITION
Allen Shute expressed his concern that a citizen has not been appointed as a member of the
newly formed Parking Committee, and asked why the Council web page is not updated. Paula
Johnston, Deputy City Clerk reported that new Adobe software has been ordered, and the site
will soon be up to date.
Mark Caputo, Operations Manager for Kitsap Disposal Company, presented a copy of a Press
Release Notice informing City refuse customers that effective February 1,2003, a 1.1% rate
increase based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI) would be implemented. He also provided a
brief update on the service provided by the company, and informed citizens that they may call
(360) 674-7151 with any questions.
Gordy Byrd reported that he had collected 32,335 pencils, which he donated to the Bremerton
School District, and noted that he was next going to collect toothbrushes to donate to nursing
homes.
9A - RESOLUTION NO. 2884 SUPPORTING THE PLACING OF A COUNTYWIDE tlIoTH-oF-
1% SALES TAX MEASURE ON THE BALLOT TO PROVIDE CONSISTENT FUNDING FOR
911 SERVICE (#AB03-006): Fire Chief Al Duke and Police Chief Rob Forbes explained that
the City of Bremerton is asking the Kitsap County Board of Commissioners to place the 911
Replacement Tax Proposition on the April 22"~ countywide ballot. This proposition will change
the current way in which the countywide dispatch center (CenCom) is funded. The funding of
the dispatch center will be shifted from a property tax to a sale tax increase of 1/10th-of-l%.
Ron McAffee, Director of CenCom, was also available to answer any questions. The
Resolution in full was read into the record.
Gordy Byrd provided comments in support of this Resolution.
#0950 M/S/C/U (McConnell/Olsen) Move to pass Resolution No. 2884.
TAPE #1874
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
January 15, 2003
Page 3 of 3
With no further regular business, the meeting adjourned at 6:05 P.M. The Council then
reconvened in the Counci~ Conference Room for a Study Session to discuss "GENERAL COUNCIL
BUSINESS".
Prepared and Submitted by:
Attest:
LORI SMITH
Legislative Assistant
PAULA JOHNSTON, Deputy City Clerk
CAROL ARENDS, City Council President
City of Bremerton
CAIP JIIslcge
c: Normal Distribution;
File
AGENDA BILL
BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL
1. SUBJECT: FORAGENDA: 1/22/03
CONFERENCE CENTER BOND ISSUE 0RDINANCE ORIGINATING DEPT: Economic Development
(F i r s t Read i n§ ) ORIGINATOR: Gary Sexton
DATE SUBMITTED: 1/9/03
2. CLEARANCEI~: (Comment on back if necessary)
GARy SE~TO~I, E~onomic ,Developm~qt Director
/ rIS~ & BUPGET CHAmMAN
OPERA.NS CHAPMAN
ENDORSEMg~T ~; .~ ~ffiORMATION ~
aYOR
3. EXHIBITS:
-ORDINANCE NO.
-BOND SUMMARIES
APPROVED FOR SUBMITTAL:
COUNCIL PRESIDENT
4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION:
Council action and approval is required for adoption of the proposed ordinance
authorizing the ~ssuance of revenue bonds in the sum of $11,750,000.00, and the
execution of related agreements for the Conference Center Parking Garage Plazab/~J~.
5. RECOMMENDATION:
January 22: Move to approve Bond Ordinance on first reading.
January 29: Move to pass Bond Ordinance No~ on second reading.
'. NOTICE OF ACTION:
'ILLED [] TABLED [] APPROVED []
NCIL DIRECTIVE:
6. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL:
Director of Economic Development
ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL:
Director of Economic Development
EXPIRATION DATE: n/a
REVIEW DATE: n/a
DISAPPROVED []
AMEND?ADATE:
8. AGENDA BILL NO.: ~ 3 - 0~ ~
2. CLEARANCE COMMENTS (cont.):
4. SUMMARY STATEMENT (cont.):
The Parking Garage, Conference Center and Plaza Motel Restaurant,
office space and retail space is a project partnership of cost
splitting and construction including funding from Kitsap Transit, the
Kitsap County Public Facilities District, the City of Bremerton and
OPUS Northwest. The majority of the City funding contribution will be
through a 25 year variable rate demand bond, supported initially by a
Bank of America letter of credit, gross parking revenues in the sum of
$6,750,000.00 and the balance of $5,000,000.00 from the long term
general obligation.
5. IMPACT ON NON-PASSAGE:
Non passage would result in breach of contract and failure to proceed
with the Conference Center Project.
6. IMPACT ON STAFFING, BUDGETS, FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCES
There will be no additional staffing and budget resources beyond those
already budgeted.
7. RESEARCH SOURCES
DRAFT
C1TY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City of Bremerton, Washington, relating to the
incurrence of indebtedness; approving the documents relating to and
authorizing the issuance by the City of its WEEKLY RATE DEMAND
REVENUE BONDS, 2003 (Kitsap Regional Conference Center Parking
Garage), in the principal amount not to exceed $12,000,000, to pay part of
the costs of constructing and equipping a parking garage in connection
with the Kitsap Regional Conference Center; establishing a parking
system and parking system revenue fund to secure the bonds, authorizing
the publication and distribution of an official statement pertaining to such
bonds; authorizing the negotiated sale of such bonds; authorizing the
execution of certain of said documents and said bonds on behalf of the
City and other actions necessary or desirable to consulnmate the sale of
such bonds.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Bremerton (the "City") has determined that
the construction of a new regional conference center (the "Kitsap Regional Conference Center")
to be located adjacent to the Bremerton Ferry Terminal together with certain related amenities,
including a parking facility (the "Parking Garage"), a restaurant, public transit related facilities, a
hotel, pedestrian oriented retail space, pedestrian oriented public spaces and professional office
space will contribute to the region's economy and will benefit the residents of the City; and
WHEREAS, the Parking Garage will provide needed parking facilities for residents of
the City and other members of the public visiting the Kitsap Regional Conference Center and its
related facilities; and
WHEREAS, the City receives revenues from certain City-owned parking facilities, on
street parking meters and parking violations; and
WHEREAS, the City is authorized by Chapter 35.41 RCW to issue revenue bonds
secured by such revenues to finance the construction of the Parking Garage; and
WHEREAS, the City deems it necessary and advisable that revenue bonds in the
principal amount not to exceed $12,000,000 be sold and issued to provide funds to pay part of
the costs constructing and equipping the Parking Garage, pay interest on such bonds during
construction and six months thereafter and paying incidental costs and costs related to the sale
and issuance of such bonds; and
WHEREAS, the payment of the principal of and interest on the bonds to be issued will be
supported by a letter of credit to be issued by Bank of America, N.A.; and
DRAFT
WHEREAS, it is deemed necessary and advisable that certain documents necessary in
order for the City to issue and sell the bonds be authorized; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE C1TY OF BREMERTON DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Definitions. Unless the context otherwise requires, the terms defined in this
section, for all purposes of this Ordinance (including the recitals hereto) and of any ordinance
supplemental hereto, shall have the meanings heroin specified; words importing the singular
number include the plural number and vice versa:
"Additional Bonds" means one or more series of additional parity bonds of the City
issued as permitted pursuant to the Indenture.
"Bank" means Bank of America, N.A.
"Bond Fund" means the fund of that name created pursuant to Section 7.01 of the
Indenture for the purpose of paying and securing the principal of and interest on the Bonds.
"Bonds" means the 2003 Bonds and any Additional Bonds issued pursuant to the Indenture.
"City" means the City of Bremerton, Washington, a first class city, organized and
existing under State law.
"City Council" means the City Council of the City.
"Code" means the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as heretofore or hereafter amended,
together with all applicable rulings and regulations heretofore or hereafter promulgated
thereunder.
"Date of Issue" means the date and time when the 2003 Bonds are delivered to the
Purchaser in exchange for payment in full therefor
"Indenture" means the Trust Indenture, dated as of the Date of Issue, by and between the
City and the Trustee, including any indentures supplemental or amendatory thereto made in
conformity therewith.
"Letter of Credit" means the irrevocable, direct-pay letter of credit delivered to the
Trustee by the Bank pursuant to the Reimbursement Agreement, and shall include any
amendments and extensions thereof.
"Letter of Representations" means the Letter of Representations, between the City and
The Depository Trust Company as Custodian pertaining to the payment of the 2003 Bonds and
the "book-entry" system for evidencing the beneficial ownership of the 2003 Bonds prior to the
termination date of such book-entry system.
2
DRAFT
"Net Revenue" means the Revenues of the Parking System less the Operating and
Maintenance Expenses.
"Operating and Maintenance Expense" means all reasonable expenses incurred by the
City in causing the Parking System to be operated and maintained in good repair, working order
and condition, but excluding depreciation, any City-imposed taxes or payments in lieu of taxes,
and debt service on any obligations payable from the Revenues of the Parking System.
"Owner" means the person named as the registered owner of a Bond on the registration
books for the Bonds.
"Parking Garage" means the parking facility associated with the Kitsap Regional
Conference Center.
"Parking System" means the existing parking facilities and lots of the City, which is
comprised of the following properties: Roosevelt lots, City parking garage, Fifth and Park lot and
the Craven lots, all metered on street parking in the City and all fees collected from parking
violations, together with all additions thereto and betterments and extensions thereof heretofore
or hereafter made, including the Parking Garage.
"Purchase Agreement" means the Bond Purchase Agreement for the Bonds by and
between the City and the Underwriter.
"RCW" means the Revised Code of Washington, as amended.
"Reimbursement Agreement" means the Initial Reimbursement Agreement, dated the
Date of Issue, by and between the City and the Bank, including any amendments thereto made in
conformity therewith.
"Reimbursement Obligations" means all amounts owing from time to time by the City to
the Bank under the Reimbursement Agreement.
"Remarketing Agent" means (a) Banc of America Securities LLC or (b) any successor
remarketing agent for the Bonds appointed in accordance with the Indenture.
"Remarketing Agreement" means the Remarketing Agreement, dated the Date of Issue,
by and among the City, the Trustee and the Remarketing Agent providing for, among other
things, the orderly remarketing of Bonds following tenders and purchase as provided herein.
"Revenue Fund" means the Parking System Revenue Fund created in this Ordinance.
"Revenues of the Parking System" means all the earnings and revenue received by the
Parking System from any source whatsoever, except general ad valorem taxes, grants from the
state or federal governments, proceeds from the sale of the City property and bond proceeds.
"State" means the State of Washington.
3
DRAFT
"Trustee" means U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee, paying agent, registrar,
authenticating trustee and transfer agent, all in accordance with the Indenture, or any successor
thereto under the Indenture.
"2003 Bonds" means the City of Bmmerton, Washington Weekly Rate Demand Revenue
Bonds, 2003 (Kitsap Regional Conference Center Parking Garage), dated the Date of Issue, in a
principal amount not to exceed $12,000,000.
"2003 Project" means the payment of part of the costs of constructing and equipping the
Parking Garage, payment of interest on the 2003 Bonds during construction and six months
thereafter and payment of the incidental costs and costs of issuing the 2003 Bonds.
"Underwriter" means Banc of America Securities LLC.
Section 2. Purpose and Description of 2003 Bonds. The City authorizes the sale and
issuance of its "Variable Rate Demand Revenue Bonds, 2003" for the purpose of paying part of
the costs of the 2003 Project. The 2003 Bonds shall be in a principal amount not to exceed
$12,000,000 and shall have the terms and conditions, including date, denominations, number,
interest rate, maturity, and redemption as shall be provided in the Indenture.
Section 3. Establishment of Revenue Fund; Priority of Payments; Pledge of Revenues.
There is hereby created and established in the office of the Finance Director a special
fund to be designated as the "Parking System Revenue Fund" (the "Revenue Fund"). The City
shall deposit the Revenues of the Parking System into the Revenue Fund.
The City will use, pay out and distribute the Revenues of the Parking System in the
following order of priority:
(a) To pay Operating and Maintenance Expenses;
(b) To make payments into the Bond Fund in order to meet the required debt
service payments on the Bonds or to pay Reimbursement Obligations as provided in the
Indenture;
(c) To meet the required debt service on any revenue bonds issued having a
charge and lien on the Revenue of the Parking System junior to the 2003 Bonds and Additional
Bonds; and
(d) To redeem and retire any then outstanding revenue bonds or to purchase
any or all of those bonds in the open market, or to make necessary betterments and replacements
of or repairs, additions or extensions to the Parking System, or to transfer to the Street Fund or
Park Fund of the City as authorized by the City Council or for any other lawful purpose.
4
DRAFT
The Revenues of the Parking System are hereby pledged for the payment of the 2003
Bonds and any Additional Bonds which may be issued hereafter. This pledge shall constitute a
lien and charge upon such Revenues of the Parking System prior and superior to any other liens
and charges whatsoever, subject only to Operating and Maintenance Expenses.
Section 4. Other Covenants of the City. The City covenants and agrees with the Owners
of each of the Bonds and the Bank as follows:
(a) The City shall maintain, preserve and keep the Parking System in good repair, and
operate the Parking System in an efficient manner and at a reasonable cost.
(b) The City shall not incur any obligations secured by a lien on the Revenues of the
Parking System that is superior to the lien and pledge of the Revenues securing the Bonds.
Nothing herein contained shall prevent the City from issuing revenue bonds or other obligations
which are a charge upon the Revenues of the Parking System junior or inferior to the charge of
the Bonds upon the Revenues of the Parking System.
(c) To the extent that insurance coverage is available with responsible insurers, the
City shall keep the Parking System and the operation thereof insured against the risks of direct
physical loss, damage or destmction, and against accidents, casualties or negligence, including
liability insurance and employer's liability, at least to the extent that similar insurance is usually
carried by cities operating like properties (such insurance may include a program of self
insurance).
(d) The City will keep proper and separate accounts and records in which complete
and separate entries shall be made of all transactions relating to the Parking System, and it will
furnish the Owner(s) of the Bonds, at the written request of such Owner(s), complete operating
and income statements of the Parking System in reasonable detail covering any calendar year not
more than 120 days after the close of such calendar year and it will grant any Owner(s) of at least
twenty-five percent of the outstanding Bonds the right at all reasonable times to inspect the entire
Parking System and all records, accounts and data of the City relating thereto. Upon request of
any Owner of any of the Bonds, it also will furnish to such Owner a copy of the most recently
completed audit of the City's accounts by the State Auditor of Washington.
(e) The City may sell, transfer or otherwise encumber or dispose of any or all of the
properties, facilities or other part of the Parking System or any real or personal property
comprising a part of the System only consistent with one or more of the following:
(1) The City in its discretion may carry out such a sale, transfer or disposition
(each, as used in this subparagraph, a "transfer") if the facilities or property transferred are not
material to the operation of the Parking System, or shall have become unserviceable, inadequate,
obsolete or unfit to be used in the operation of the Parking System or are no longer necessary,
material or useful to the operation of the Parking System; or
5
DRAFT
(2) The City in its discretion may carry out such a transfer if the aggregate
depreciated cost value of the facilities or property being transferred under this subparagraph (2)
in any fiscal year comprises no more than 3% of the total assets of the Parking System; or
(3) The City in its discretion may carry out such a transfer if the City receives
from the transferee an amount equal to the greater of the following:
(A) An amount which will be in the same proportion to the net amount
of Bonds then outstanding (defined as the total amount of the Bonds less the amount of
cash and investments in the Bond Fund and accounts therein) that the Revenues of the
Parking System from the portion of the Parking System sold or disposed of for the
preceding year bears to the Revenues for that period; or
(B) An amount which will be in the same proportion to the net amount
of Bonds then outstanding (as defined above) that the Net Revenue from the portion of
the Parking System sold or disposed of for the preceding year bears to the total Net
Revenue for such period; or
(C) An amount equal to the fair market value of the portion of the
Parking System transferred. As used herein, "fair market value" means the most
probable price that a property should bring in a competitive and open market under all
conditions requisite to a fair sale, the willing buyer and willing seller each acting
prudently and knowledgeably and assuming that the price is not affected by coercion or
undue stimulus.
The proceeds of any transfer under this subparagraph (3) shall be used first, to
promptly redeem, or irrevocably set aside for the redemption of, Bonds, and, if any
proceeds remain, second, to provide for part of the cost of additions to and betterments and
extensions of the Parking System.
Section 5. Approval of Documents Pertaining to Issuance of 2003 Bonds.
(a) The City hereby authorizes, accepts and approves all the terms and conditions of
the following documents in substantially the forms available to the City on this date, which
documents authorize, inter alia, (i) the issuance of the 2003 Bonds in an aggregate principal
amount not to exceed $12,000,000 to provide part of the funds necessary for the 2003 Project;
(ii) the appointment of the Trustee to serve as such for the benefit of the Owners of the 2003
Bonds; (iii) the establishment by the Trustee of a "Bond Fund" and a "2003 Project Fund" as
special funds for the payment of and security for the 2003 Bonds; (iv) the appointment of Banc
of America Securities LLC, as the initial Remarketing Agent; (v) the pledge of Revenues of the
Parking System to the Owners of the Bonds and the Bank, as security for and to pay debt service
on the 2003 Bonds and the Reimbursement Obligations; and (vi) in the event the Revenues of the
Parking System are insufficient to pay the Reimbursement Obligations, the general obligation
pledge to the Bank, subject to an aggregate limit on such general obligation payments of
$6,000,000 over the term of the Bonds:
6
DRAFT
(1) The Indenture; and
(2) The Reimbursement Agreement; and
(3) The Initial Letter of Credit; and
(4) The Remarketing Agreement; and
(5) The Letter of Representations.
Section 3. Sale of 2003 Bonds. The City hereby authorizes and directs the Finance
Director of the City to negotiate the sale of the 2003 Bonds to the Underwriter to accomplish the
2003 Project. The 21303 Bonds shall be sold pursuant to the Pumhase Agreement in substantially
the form available to the City on this date, the terms and conditions of which the City hereby
accepts and approves. The 2003 Bonds shall be in the aggregate principal amount, mature on
such dates, bear interest at such rates per annum, be subject to redemption and/or prepayment,
bear such date(s), and be sold at such pumhase prices as are set forth in the Pumhase Agreement,
provided that:
(a) The principal amount of the 2003 Bonds shall not exceed $12,000,000;
(b) The initial Weekly Rate for the 2003 Bonds shall not exceed 5,50%; and
(c) The final maturity of the 2003 Bonds shall be no later than December 1, 2028.
The City authorizes and directs either the Mayor or the Finance Director of the City to
execute, for and on behalf of the City, a Purchase Agreement in substantially the form available
to the City on this date and conforming to the requirements of this Ordinance, and to deliver the
same to the Underwriter.
Section 4. Authorization to Conform, Execute and Deliver Documents and the 2003
Bonds and to Consummate Sale. The Finance Director and the Mayor of the City, or either of
them acting alone, am each hereby authorized and directed to execute, for and on behalf of the
City, and to deliver to the parties entitled to executed copies of the same, the Indenture, the
Reimbursement Agreement, the Remarketing Agreement, the Letter of Representations, the
Official Statement and all other certificates, documents and other papers which, in the judgment
of either the Finance Director or the Mayor of the City are necessary to the issuance, sale and
delivery of the 2003 Bonds for the 2003 Project, in each case, with such additions, deletions and
modifications as are hereafter deemed by the Finance Director or the Mayor of the City (whoever
actually executes such documents) to be necessary to conform such documents to the Purchase
Agreement and to each other, and/or to be in the best interests of the City.
The Mayor and the City Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to execute, for and on
behalf of the City, each and every 2003 Bond, in substantially the form set forth in the Indenture
and in the manner set forth in the Indenture.
7
DRAFT
The Finance Director and the Mayor of the City, or either of them acting alone, are
hereby authorized and directed to take such other actions to consummate the sale of the 2003
Bonds as may be necessary or desirable, as contemplated by the Purchase Agreement, including,
but not limited to, the approval, publication, execution and distribution of a preliminary and a
final Official Statement pertaining to the 2003 Bonds, as contemplated by the Purchase
Agreement.
Section 19. Contract; Severahility. The covenants contained in this Ordinance shall constitute
a contract between the City and the Owners of each and every Bond. The City unconditionally
covenants that it will keep and perform all of the covenants of the Bonds and this Ordinance. If any
one or more of the provisions of this Ordinance shall be declared unconstitutional or invalid for any
reason, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining provisions of this Ordinance or the
Bonds, and this Ordinance and the Bonds shall be construed and enforced as if such unconstitutional
or invalid provision had not been contained herein.
Section 20. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force ten days
after passage and publication of an approved summary, consisting of the title.
APPROVED by the City Council of the City of Bremerton, Washington, the __
January, 2003.
day of
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Bremerton, Washington, this __
January, 2003.
day of
APPROVED this
Council President
day of January, 2003.
ATTEST:
Cary Bozeman, Mayor
Kathleen McCluskey, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By.
Judith Andrews, Bond Counsel
PUBLISHED:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORDINANCE NO.
8
5FOTMP02 BoA 1/21/03 10:36 PAGE 3/3 RightFAX
City of Bremerton
January 6, 2003
Prepared By
Jane Towery
Managing Director
Banc of America Securities LLC
800 Fifth Avenue, Floor 34
Seattle, WA 98104
206-358-8991
206-358-8818 Fax
BankofAmerica~.
Banc of America Securities LLC
BOND TERM SHEET .................................................................................................................................... I
PROPOSED SCOPE OF INVESTMENT BANKING SERVICES AND FEES ....................................... 1I
PROJECTED TIMETABLE AND SCHEDULE OF EVENTS ........................................................... II 1
DESCRIPTION OF VARIABLE RATE DEMAND NOTES ................................................................... IV
REASONS TO SELECT BANK OF A~MERICA ......................................................................................... V
Bankof America .
Banc of America Securities LLC
L BOND TERM SHEET
ISSUER:
PURPOSE:
INTEREST RATE MODE:
INTEREST RATE PROTECTION:
ESTIMATED AMOUNT:
AMORTIZATION:
PREPAYMENT PROVISIONS:
PRIM3_Ry SECURITY:
ADDITIONAL BOND
GUARANTEE:
RATINGS:
COWENANTS & CREDIT TERMS:
UNDERWRITER:
REMARKETING AGENT
(if in variable rate mode):
TRUSTEE/PAYING AGENT/
REGISTRAR:
MATURITY OF BONDS:
DENOMINATIONS:
Cit3' of Bremer~on
Parking Garage
Weekly; multi-modal
To be determined.
$I 1,500,000
25 Years
Interest only 3 years, Payment of principal of a level debt service basis over
the term of the issue.
Pre-payable at any time without penalty with 30 days notice if in variable rate
mode. Pre-payable at 10 years if in fixed rate mode.
The gross revenues of Parking Revenue System.
Letter of Credit by Bank of America providing a guarantee of all principal and
interest due on the Bonds.
Letter of Credit, Standard & Poor's AA-, Fitch AA, Moody's AAI, long terra
ratings.
To be negotiated with Letter of Credit Bank.
Banc of America Seearities, LLC (the "Underwriter").
Banc of America Securities, LLC
To be determined.
25 year f'mal maturity.
The Bonds will be registered and issued in denominations of $100,000 in the
variable rate mode and integral multiples thereof. In the fixed rate mode, the
Bonds will be issued in denominations of $5,000 and integral multiples
thereof.
BankofAmerica .
Banc of America Securities LLC
BOND TERM SHEET
INTEREST DETERMINATION:
INTEREST PAYABLE:
OPTIONAL REDEMPTION:
INVESTOR'S OPTIONAL
TENDER:
REMARKETING:
LETTER OF CREDlT
& LIQUIDITY SUPPORT:
DRAWS ON L/C:
[f in variable rate mode, Bonds will be repriced weekly by the Remarketing
Agent on each Tuesday and will be effective for the weekly interest period
commencing Wednesday of the same week.
Variable rate bond interest will be payable monthly, and will be computed on
an actual/act-aa] day basis payable on the first business Wednesday of each
month. Fixed rate interest will be payable semiannually, and will be
computed on a 30/360 day basis.
Variable rate bonds will be callable at par by the City on any date upon 45
days prior notice to the Paying Agent, the IgC/Bank and the Remarketiag
Agent.
Upon seven calendar days prior written notification investors may demand
that the Bonds be repurchased at par plus accrued interest while the Bonds are
in a variable rate mode.
While in variable rate mode, the Remarketing Agent will remarket the Bonds
tendered by investors for repurchase. If the Bonds are not remarketed by the
end of business of the 7' day after tender notification, the Paying Agent will
draw upon the IgC in order to pay the purchase price and, pending
remarketing, the Bonds will be held by the Paying Agent for the account of
the Bank.
The IgC Bank will issue a dh'ect pay Letter of Credit. The L/C will be in an
amount equal to the outstanding principal on the Bonds plus interest equal to
an amount calculated at the maximum interest rate applicable to the Bonds.
The Paying Agent shall draw on the L/C to pay the principal of and interest on
the Bonds when due, whether at maturity or by reason of any redemption or
acceleration. The Paying Agent will also draw on the L/C for liquidity in the
event the Remarketing Agent is unable to market the Bonds after an optional
tender by an investor.
The City will enter into an agreement with the IgC Bank (the "Reimbursement
Agreement") which will obligate the City to reimburse drawings on the L/C
and will contain redemption requirements, indemnity provisions, security
provisions, and financial covenants satisfactory to the IgC Bank. Following a
draw on the L/C to pay interest, the interest component of the IgC will be
automatically reinstated except under certain circumstances whereby the D'C
Bank notifies the Paying Agent to the con~xary. Ifa drawing is made resulting
fi.om the exercise of the investor tender option, the laC will be reduced and
will not be reinstated until the Bonds are remarketed by the
BankofAmerica
Banc of America Securities LLC
BOND TERM SHEET
ACCELERATION:
RATING:
Remerketing Agent. Under the Reimbursement Agreement, such drawings
will be reimbursed. All other drawings will be reimbursed immediately on the
same business day. The Reimbursement Agreement may also specify the
terms and conditions under which the City may exercise any optional
redemptions or convert to a fixed interest rate on the Bonds.
The Bonds are subject to acceleration upon certain events, including, but not
limited to: default in the payment of principal or interest, other defaults of the
bond documents, taxability, bankruptcy or certain catastrophic events.
Based on the Bank's Letter of Credit rating.
LEGAL OPINIONS:
Legal opinions, in form and substance satisfactory to Underwriter and L/C
Bank and their respective counsel including the unqualified opinions of bond
counsel and City counsel.
Bank of America.
Banc of America Securities LLC
II. PROPOSED SCOPE OF INVESTMENT BANKING SERVICES AND FEES
B,MNC OF AMERICA SECURITIES' ROLE AS INVESTMENT BANKER
To carry out the issue on behalf of the City of Breme~on, Bane of America Securities LLC will provide the following
4 Organize the ttansaction by coordinating the activities of the bond counsel, letter of credit bank, bank counsel, and
paying agent;
4 Make the necessary contact with the appropriate parties and coordinate all activities required for issuance;
4 Coord~ate the preparation of an offering document to provide pertinent information about the ~'ansactiun to investors;
4 Coordinate credit enhancement via the Bank Letter of Credit;
4 Market the bonds to investors;
4 Close and fund the ~msaction;
4 Arrange for the effective reinvestmeut of bond proceeds pending disbursement, ifrequasted;
4 Arrange an interest rate cap, if dasired; and
4 Remarket Variable Rate Demand Bonds on an ongoing basis a~er issuance.
INVESTMENT BANKING FEES FOR THE UNDERWRITING/PLACEMENT OF THE ISSUE,
Banc of America Securities LLC's proposed investment banking fee for a fixed rate financing would be a maximum of
$8.50 per $1,000. This fee is to include all costs of the services described above, including structuring the issue, assisting
with and negotiating credit enhancement, coordinating issuer, rating and documentation activity, marketing, anderwfiting
and funding the issue,
REMARICETING FEES
The ongoing remarketing fee for a weekly variable rate issue would be established at I0 basis points, subject to a $5,000
minimum, annually for remarketing services provided.
COSTS OF ISSUANCE
Bane of America Securities would assist as requested in contacting, selecting and negotiating service fees with qualified
providers. All costs of the Underwriter are paid through the anderwriter's discount, except Undervn'iter's Counsel, which
fee is expected to be no more than $I0,000.
Banc of America Securities LLC
Bank of America~.
III. PROJECTED TIMETABLE AND SCHEDULE OF EVENTS
WEEK
WEEK2
WEEK
WEEK
WEEK
WEEK
WEEK6
Organizational Meeting to Determine Credit and Bond Structure,
Issuer Process, Responsibilities, & Schedule
Initial Negotiation of Letter of Credit Terms CITY/CE
Credit Enhancement Terms Finalized and Agreement Drattcd CITY/CE/CEe
Meeting of Full Financing Team to Define Documentation Required, All
Responsibilities and Schedule
Initial Drafts of Bond, Credit Enhancement and Underwriting BC/CEC/UW
Documents
Review and Comment on All Documents All
Documents in Substantially Final Form Distributed to AIl Parties
Issuer Action Authorizing Sale CITY/BC/UW
Price and Market Bonds UW
Execution of Bond Purchase Agreement I/UW
Finalization of All Documents ClTY/BC/CEC/UW
Closing and Delivery All
Responsible Parties
CITY/BC/UW
T~TY Financing Participants
issuer BC
Bond Underwriter CE
Paying A~ent CEC
Bond Counsel
Credit Enhancer
Credit Enhancer Counsel
BankofAmerica~
Banc of America Securities LLC
IV. DESCRIPTION OF VARIABLE RATE DEMAND NOTES
SUMMARY TERMS AND FEATURES OF TAX EXEMPT VARIABLE RATE NOTES
A general description of Tax Exempt V=__ariable Rate Demand .Notes ("low floaters" or "VRDNs") is provided on the
following pages. The primary features ofthese securities are described below:
4 Seven-day Variable Rate Demand Note. While interest rate reset periods from one to 180 days can be elected, the
seven-day VRDN continues to be the most common and liquid form of variable rate notes.
4 VILDNs issued at par providing a "put option" that gives the investor the option to put bonds for purchase to a
remarketing agent at par. The bonds may be put at any time by the bondholder, upon 7-days notice.
4 Credit support in the form of a Letter of Credit from a Bank providing an invesm~ent grade rating ora or higher.
4 A credit facility assuring liquidity of the weekly put option. This may be provided by the same credit enhancer
guaranteeing the primary debt service on the notes.
4 A Remarketing Agreement and Agent providing that any bonds put are resold to other third party investors on an
ongoing basis.
4 A bond maturity of up to 25 years, subject to the provision ofonguing credit enhancement through the Letter of Credit
facility.
4 Interest rates mode flexibility: while the initial issue will be in the form of a seven-day variable rate note, provisions
can be made for all or a portion of the issue to be converted to a fixed rate at the discretion and direction of the City.
PRIMARY BENEFITS OF V'RDNs
4 Lower interest rates reflecting a high grade investment rating and the highest degree of liquidity of any tax exempt
obligation:
- Tax exempt average rate, last l0 years: 3.10%
- Tax exempt average rate, last 5 years: 2.97%
Reduced disclosure requirements of the City, for both the initial offering and ongoing financial disclosure
requirements.
Prepayment flexibility; no "lock out" period on prepayment penalties.
Ability to limit interest rate risk through the use of interest rate management products, such as interest rate swaps or
caps.
4
4
4
BankofAmerica.
Banc of America Securities LLC
V. REASONS TO SELECT BANC OF AMERICA SECURITIES
4 Bank of America and Banc of America Securities have the financial resources and capabilities of the nations' largest
banking institution.
4 Banc of America Securities ("BAS") has the capability to underwrite, place or purchase all types of tax exempt and
taxable debt.
4 BAS has the specialized investment banking expertise in non-profit and project finance.
4 Extensive and curnmt experience in providing tax exempt and taxable bond financings and credit
4 Bank of America has the credit capacity and AA rating to back the bond issue and assure the lowest borrowing rate.
4 BAS has the diverse sales capacity to access effectively all elements of the municipal investor market; retail, corporate
and institutional.
4 Municipal sales and trading capacity provided d/rectly by our four underwr/ting desks.
4 BAS has the capacity to devalop and execute any of the debt options and serv/ces requ/red to meet the financing needs
of the City of Bremerton: bond underwriting, placement or purchase, provision and sol/citation of credit enhancement,
fixed or vurinble rate structures, ufilLzafion of interest rate products and inves~aent of proceeds.
4 Bank of America and Banc of America Securities has a strong community presence and accountability to the C/ty of
Bremerton. Bank of America's tradition and reputation as a corporate citizen of the Bremerton is extended and
enhanced by its commitment to the local government and non-profit agencies it serves, as well as the substantial
number of Bremertun citizens.
BankofAmerica.
Banc of America Securities LLC
0
0
10 yr History - BMA vs. RBI
8.00 n
7.00
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
BMA Bond Market Association Index is the average weekly reset rate for variable rate debt on a national basis.
RBI Revenue Bond Index is the 25-year Revenue Bond Index Rate for AA+ revenue bonds on a national basi,,
Legal Debt Capacity
City of Bremerton, Washington
Computation of Debt Capacity
(As of December 31, 2002)
2002 Collection Year Assessed Valuation
Limited Tax General Obiiqation Capacity
1.5% of Assessed Value
Less: Outstanding Limited Tax G.O. Debt
Abatement Line of Credit
Current Remaining Limited Tax General Obligation Capacity
Less: Future Commitments
Conference Center Parking Garage
Government Center
Future Remaining Limited Tax General Obligation Capacity
Unlimited and Limited Tax General Obliqation Capacity
2.5% of Assessed Value
Less: Outstanding Limited Tax GO. Debt
Less: Future Limited Tax G.O. Debt
Less: Outstanding Unlimited Tax G.O. Debt
Total Remaining Unlimited Tax and Limited Tax Capacity
$ 1,568,585,817
$ 23,528,787
(9,160,000)
(217,363)
$ 14,151,424
$ (5,OOO,OOO)
)/et to be determined
$ 9,151,424
$ 39,214,645
(9,377,363)
(5,ooo,ooo)
(13,609,000)
$ 11,228,282
CiTY OF BREM~RTON
Existing Bonded Debt
· Voted debt (Unlimited Tax General Obligation)
$2,00O, OOO
Unlimited Tax General Obligatlon Bonds
Outstanding Debt
(]fTT OF ~.rLF~TON
12/03/2002 219,233.75
07/01/2003 205.000 4.450% 14 23375
- 292,75313 292,753.13
06101121103 9.672 50 9.672.50
1t8/01/2003 631.75313 1.153,412.51
12/01/2003 339,000 2.500% 292.75313
0010112004 135,000 4.500% 9.672.50 144.672.50
- 288 515.63 2 g8.515.63
06/0112004 6,635.00 6.635.00
0810112004 988,515.63 6 t3.515.63 1.053,33876
18/01/2004 325,0~0 2.500% -
0210112005 140,000 4.550% 663500 146.635.00
284.453.13 284,453.13
06/01/2005 3,450.00 3,450.60
0810112005 1,053,991.26
12/01/2005 335.000 2.500% 284,453 I3 619,453.13
02/0112006 150.0~0 4.600% 3,45 OJXI 153,450.00
280.265.63 280,265.63
06/01/2006 280,265.63 620.265.63 1.053.981.26
12101/2006 340,000 3,000% 275.165.63 275.165,63
0610112007 625,165.63 900,331.26
12/01/2007 350,000 3.250% 275.165.63
269,478,13 269,478.13
0610112008 969,478.I3 634,478.13 903.956.26
19101/2008 365,000 3.750% -
- 262.63438 262.634.38
06/01/2009 262,634.38 642,634.38 905.268.76
12/01i2009 380.000 4.000% 255,03438 255.034.38
06/01/2010 650,034.38 985,06876
12/01/2010 395,000 4.000% 255,034.38
247.134.38 247.134.38
06/01/2011 247,134.38 657.134.38 904.268.76
121011201 l 410.000 4.250% 238,421.88 238,421.88
06/01/2012 901,843.76
12/01/2012 425.000 4250% 238,421.88 663,421.88
229,390.63 229.390.63
06/01/2013 674.390.63 903,781.26
12/01/2013 ~45,000 4250% 229.390.63
219,934.38 219,934.38
06/01/2014 899,868.76
12/01/2014 460,000 4250% 219,934.38 679,934.38
210,159.38 210,159.38
06/01/2015 900,318.76
12101/2015 480,000 4.375% 210,159.38 690,159.38
199.659.38 199.659.38
06/01/2016 904,318.76
12/01/2016 505,0~0 4.500% 199.659.38 704.659.38
188.296.88 t 88,296.88
06/01/20t7 901.593.76
12/01/2017 525.000 4.500% 188.296.88 7 13,296.88
176.48438 176.484.38
06/01/2018 902,968.76
12/01/2018 550,000 4.625% 176,484.38 726,484.38
163 365.63 163.765.63
06/0112019 738.765.63 902,531.26
12/01/2019 575,000 4.625% 163.765.63
150,468.75 150.468.75
06/01/2020 150,468.75 750,468.75 900,93750
12/01/2020 600.000 4.875% 135.843.75 135.843.75
06/01/2021 901,687.50
12/01/2021 630,000 5.250% 135.843.75 765.843.75
119 306.25 119,306.25
06/01/2022 903,612.50
12/01/2022 665.000 52250% 119,306.25 7 84,306.25
101,850.00 101,850.00
0610112023 903,700.00
12/01/2023 700.000 5.250% 101.850.00 801.850.00
83,475.00 83,475.00
06/01/2024 901,950.00
12/01/2024 735,000 5.250% 83,475.00 818,475.00
64,181.25 64,181.25
06101/2025
Ct. T1~ OF BP,~VlERTON
BOND DEBT SERVICE
Penod Annual
Ending Principal Coupon Interest Debt Service Debt Service
1210112025 775,000 5.250% 64,181.25 839,181.25 903,362.50
06101/2026 43 ,g37.50 43,837.50
1210112026 815.000 5.250% 43,837.50 858,837.50 902.675,00
0610112027 22.443.75 22,443.75
1210112027 855,000 5.250% 22,443.75 877.443.75 899,88T50
13.609.000 9,659.655.17 23,268,655.17 23,268,655.17
(~£FT OF BR~VE~R TON
BOND DEBT SERVICE
Ciw of Bren~llon
Unlimited Tm: General Obliga6on Bonds, 200~
12103~2002
06101/2003
06/01/2004
06/01/2005
12101/2005
06/0112006
06/01/2007
06/01/2008
06101/2009
12/01/2009
06/01/2010
06101/2012
12/01/2012
06/01/20t3
12/01/2014
06/0112015
1210112015
06/01/2020
06/0112021
06/01/2022
06/01/2023
06/01/2024
06/01/2025
292,753.13 292,75313
339.000 2500% 292,753.13 631.753 I3 924,506.26
288,515.63 298.515.63
325,000 2.500% 288.515.63 613,515.63 902,031.26
284,453.13 284,453.13
335.000 2.500% 284,453.13 619,453.I3 903,906.26
280,265.63 280,265.63
340,000 3,000% 280,265.63 620,265.63 900,531.26
275,16563 275,165.63
350,000 3250% 275.165.63 625,165.63 900,331,26
269,478.13 269,478.13
365,000 3J50% 269,475.13 634,478.13 903.956.26
262,6q4.38 262,634.38
380,000 4000% 262,634.38 642,63438 905,268.76
255.034.38 255.034,38
39s,000 4.000% 255.03438 650.034.38 905.06876
247.13438 247.t34.38
410.000 4.250% 247,134.38 657,134.38 904,268.76
238,421.88 238,42L 88
425,000 4.250% 238,421.88 663,421.88 901,843.76
229,390.63 229,390.63
445,000 4.250% 229,390,63 674,390,63 903,781.26
219,934.38 219.934.38
460.000 4.250% 219D34.38 679.934,38 899,868.76
210,159.38 210,159.38
480,000 4.375% 210,159.38 690,159.38 900,318.76
199,659.38 199,659.38
505,000 4.500% 190,659.38 704,659.38 904,318.76
188 2.96.88 188,296.88
525,000 4.500% 188.296.88 7 13,296.88 901,593.76
176,484.38 176,484.38
550,000 4.625% 176,484.38 726,484.38 902,968.76
163,765.63 163,765.63
575,000 4.625% 163,765.63 738,765.63 902,531.26
150,468/75 150,468.75
600,000 4.875% 150.468.75 750,468.75 900,937.50
135,843.75 135,843.75
630,000 5.250% 135.843.75 765,843,75 901,687.50
! 19,306 25 119 306.25
665.000 5.250% 119,306.25 784,306.25 903,612.50
10l ,850.00 101,850.00
700,000 5.250% 101,850.00 801,850.00 903,700.00
83.475.00 83,475.00
735,000 5.250% 03,475,00 818,475.00 901,950,00
64.18 L25 64,181.25
775,000 5.250% 64.181.25 839,1 g 1.25 903,362.50
C'ITT 0~: BRE2EEI~.TON
3~
C ~TY 0£ B RE~'ZER TO tV
BOND DEBT SERVIC~
Period Annual
Ending Pnnciprd Coupon hl~m~st Debt Service Debt Service
02/01/2003 205.000 4450% 14,233.75 219,233.75 219,233.75
08101/2003 9,672~0 9,672.50
0210112004 135.000 4500% 9,672.50 144,672.50 154,345.00
08/01/2004 6,635.00 6,635.00
02101/2005 140,000 4.550% 6,63500 146,635.00 153,270.00
08/01/2005 3,450,00 3,450.00
02/01~006 150.000 4.600% 3,450,00 i53,450.00 I56,900.00
630.000 53348/75 683,748.75 683,748.75
(TFYT OF BR~'v~ERTON
BOND DEBT SERVICE
06/01/2003
12/01/2003 455,000
06/01/2004
1~01/2004 480.000
06/01/2005
12/01/2005 5LXO,O00
06/01/2006
12/01/2006 520,000
06/01/2007
12/01/2007 545,000
06/01/2008
12/01/2008 575.000
06/01/2009
12/01/2009 600,000
12/01/2010 630,000
06/01/2011
12/01/2011 670.000
06/01/2012
12/01/2013 450.000
12/01/2014 475,000
12/01/2815 485,000
12/01/2016 515.000
12/01/2017 540,000
0610112020
19d01/2020 235,000
225,37 E25 225,371 25
*q 225.371.25 680,371.25 905,742.50
215,17500 215,175.00
** 21>,175.00 695,175,00 910,350.00
204,323.13 204.323.13
** 204.32313 704,323.13 908.646.26
192,696.88 192.696.88
*" 192.69688 712,696.88 905.393.76
180.35125 180,351.25
** 180,351.25 725.351.25 905,702.50
167.251.25 167.251.25
~" 167,251.25 742.251.25 909.502.50
153.196.25 153.196.25
** I53.196.25 753,196.25 906,392.50
138,398.75 138.398.75
*¢ 138 ~39825 768.39875 906,79750
i22,590.00 122.590,00
** I22 L590.00 792.590.00 915.180.00
105,717.50 105,717.50
** 105317.50 805,717.50 911,435.00
87/750.00 87,750,00
** 87.750.00 537,750.00 625,500.00
76,797.50 76.797.50
76.797_50 551,797.50 628.595.00
65,066.25 65.066.25
65,066.25 550,066.25 615,132.50
52.930.00 52,930.00
52.930.00 567,930.00 620.860.00
39,906.25 39.906.25
** 39,906.25 579,906.25 619,812.50
26,i 16.25 26,116.25
"* 26,11625 591,116.25 617.232.50
11.547.50 11,547,50
5~050% 11,547.50 231,547.50 243,095.00
5.992.50 5.992.50
5100% 5 ~992.50 240,992.50 246.985.00
9,160,000 4,142,355,02 13.302.355.02 13.302.355.02
CITF OF BRE~ERTON
· Non-voted debt (Limited Tax General Obligation)
limited Tax General Obligation Bonds
200~ 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 201~ 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
(JITT 0/: BR~RTON
BOND DEBT SERVICE
City of Bremenon
Limited Tax General Obligation Bonds, 2001
Dated Date 03/01/2001
Dehvery Date 03/12/2fl01
06/01/2003
1210112003
06/01/2004
1210112004
06/0112005
06701/2006
1210112006
06101/2007
06/0112005
12101/2008
0610112009
[2/01/2010
06/01/201I
06/01/2012
12101/2013
06/01/2014
1210112014
06/01/2015
1210112015
06/01/2016
06t01/2017
1210112017
0610112018
1210112018
0610112019
1210112019
0610112020
1210112020
67A57.50 67,457.50
110.000 4.125% 67,457.50 177457.50 244,915 00
65.18875 65,18875
115.000 4.125% 65,18875 ] 80.188.75 245.377.50
62,816.88 62,816.88
120.000 4.125% 62.816.88 182,816.88 245,633.76
60.341.88 60341.88
I25.000 4.125% 60 341.88 185,341.88 245,683.76
57,763/75 57,763.75
130.000 42 25% 57,763/75 187,76375 245.527.50
55.082.50 55,082.50
135.000 4.200% 55.082.50 190,082.50 245,165.00
52.247.50 52,247.50
140,000 4300% 52 ,247.50 192.247.50 2'44,495.00
49.237.50 49,237.50
145,000 4400% 49 23750 194.23750 243,475.00
46.04750 46,047.50
155.000 4A00% 46.04750 201,047,50 247,095.00
42,63750 42,637.50
160,000 4.550% 42,637.50 202,637.50 245.275.00
38.997.50 38.997.50
170,000 4.650% 38,997.50 208.997.50 247,995.00
35,045.00 35,045.00
175.000 4,750% 35,045.00 210,045.00 245,090.00
30.888/75 30,888.75
185.000 4.850% 30.8885/5 215,888 75 246.777.50
26.40250 26,40250
190,000 4900% 26.40250 216.402.50 242,805,00
21,747.50 2I ,747.50
200,000 4.950% 21,74750 221,747.50 243,495,00
16,797~0 16,797.50
210,000 5.000% 16,797.50 226,797.50 243,595.00
11 547.50 11,547.50
220,000 5.050% 11,547.50 231,547.50 243,095.00
5.99230 5.992.50
235,000 5.100% 5.992.50 240.992.50 246,985.00
2,920,000 1,492.480.02 4,412,480.02 4,412.480.02
C]2T Or_.
BOND DEBT SERVICE
City of B~emenon
Limited Tax General Obligation Re£ Bonds. 1998
Dated Date 08/15/1999
Delivery Date 08/I 7/1999
Period
Ending
0610112003 99,87 8/75 99,878.75
12/01/2003 175,000 4.300% 99,87875 274,878.75 374.757.50
12101/2004 185,000 4400% 96,116.25 281,116.25 377,232 50
06/01/2005 92,046.25 92,046.25
12/01/2005 195,000 4.500% 92,046.25 287.046.25 379,092.50
06/01/2006 87.658.75 87.65875
12/01/2006 200,000 4.600% 87,658.75 287.658.75 375,317.50
0610II2007 83.05 8.75 83,058.75
12/01/2007 210.000 4.700% 83,05875 293,058.75 376,117.58
06/01/2008 78,12335 78,123.75
12/0112008 220,000 4.750% 78,1235/5 298.123.75 376,247.50
06/01/2009 72.898.75 72,898.75
12/01/2g09 230,000 4.800% 72.898.75 302.898,75 375,797.50
0610112010 67.378/75 67,378.75
12/01/2010 240.000 4.850% 67,371t.75 307.378.75 374,757.50
12101/201 } 255,000 4.900% 61.55 8.75 316,55ig.75 378.117.50
06/01/2012 55.311.25 55,311.25
12/01/2012 265,000 4.950% 55.311.25 320,311.25 375622.50
06/01/2013 48.752.50 48,752.50
12/01/2813 280,000 5.000% 48,752.50 328,752.50 377,505.00
06/01/2014 41.752.50 41,752.50
12/01/2014 300.000 5.050% 41,75 2.50 341,752.50 383,505.00
0610112015 34,177.50 34,177.50
12101/2015 300,000 5.100% 34,17 7~50 334, I77.50 368,355.00
06/01/2016 26.527-50 26,527.50
12/0112016 325,000 5.I50% 26.52750 351,527.50 378,055.00
06/01/2017 18,15 8.75 18, I58.75
I2/01/2017 340,000 5200% I8,158.75 358,158.75 376,317.50
06/01/2018 9318.75 9,311t.75
1210112018 355,000 5.250% 9,318.75 364,318.75 373,637.58
4,075,000 1,945,435B0 6,020,43f00 6,020,435.00
3'7
CITY OF BP~:LERTON
BOND DEBT SERVICE
City of Brew~non
Limited Tax General Obligation Bonds. 1993
Dated Date 08~01/1993
Delivery Date 08/11/1993
Peflod Annual
Ending Pnncipal Coupon hmrest Debt Service Debt Service
06/01/2003
06/01/2004
06/01/2005
12101/2005
06101/2006
12101/2006
0610112007
1210112007
06/0112008
12101/2008
06101/2009
12101/2009
06/01/2010
1210112010
0610112011
06/01/2012
58,035.00 58,035.00
170,000 4.900% 58.035.00 228.035.00 286,070,00
53.870.00 53,87000
180.000 4900% 53.870.00 233,870,00 287,740.00
49.460.00 49,460.00
185,000 5.150% 49.460.00 234,480.00 283,92000
44,696.25 44~696.25
195.000 5.300% 44~696.25 239~696.25 284,392.50
39,52875 39.528.75
205,000 5,350% 39.52875 2 ~d,,528.75 284,057,50
34.045.00 34.045.00
220,000 5450% 34.045.00 254.045.00 288.090,00
28,050.00 28,050,00
230.000 5.450% 28,050 00 258,050 00 286.100.00
245,000 5.550% 21.782.50 266,782.50 288,565.00
14.98375 14.983,75
260,000 5.550% 14.983.75 274,983.75 289,967.50
7.76835 7.768.75
275,000 5650% 7,76835 282.768.75 290.537.50
2,165.000 704.440.00 2.869,440.00 2,869,z~0.00
CITY OF BREMERTON
Revenue Bonds (Utility Revenue)
Water & Sewer Revenue Bonds
Outstanding Debt
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
C~rTT 0£ BR~VLERTON ~
BOND DEBT SERVICE
City of Bremerlon, Wt~hington
Water & Sewer Revenue Bands
Total Outstanding Debt
Includes: 92B. 94
1L975,000
2.035,125.00 14,010,125.00
Debt
Service
2,802,620
2,803.720
2,g03,410
2,799,350
2,801.025
C£~~ OF ~q~ERTON
Period
Ending
BOND DEBT SERVICE
Dated Date 03/01/!994
Delivery Date 03/3111994
Principal Coupon Interest Debt Service
Debt
Service
03/01/2003 282460.00 282,460 00
09/01/2003 600,000 5.200% 282,460.00 882,46000 1,164,920
03/01/2004 266,860,00 266,860.00
09/01/2004 2.270,000 5.300% 266,86gD0 2,536,g60.00 2,g03,720
03/01/2005 206/705.00 206.70500
09101/2g05 2,390,000 5.400% 206,705.00 2.596.705.00 2.g0g,410
03/0112006 142.175230 142,175.00
09/01/2006 2,515,000 5.500% 142.175.00 2,657,175.00 2,799,350
03/01/2007 73,012.50 73,012.50
09101/2007 2,655,000 5500% 73,012.50 2,72g,012.50 2,801,025
10,430,000 1.942,425.00 12,372,425.00 12,372,425
PRELIMINARY CONFERENCE CENTER BOND FUND (FUND 201)
Fiscal Year 2003
REVENUES
Bond Proceeds
Interest Earnings
Total Revenues
$11,500,000
$130,000
$11,630,000
EXPENDITURES
interest on LFF External Debt
Operating Transfer Out (Fund 301)
Ending Fund Balance
Total Expenditures
415,000
11,000,000
215,000
11,630,000
PRELIMINARY CONFERENCE CENTER CAPITAL BUDGET (FUND 301)
Fiscal Year 2003
REVENUES
Operating Transfer In (Fund 201)
Public Facilities District
Kitsap Transit
Pad Sale
Arterial Street
Hotai Motal/Discretionary Reserve
Interest Earnings
Total Revenues
$11,000,000
$6,900,000
$4,000,000
$25O,OOO
$103,462
$183,317
$22,436,779
EXPENDITURES
Administration:
Project Administration
Financial administration
Professional Services:
Architectual Services (Conference Center, Parking Garage) (8.55%)
Consultant studies
160,000
50,000
1,946,270
85,000
Demolition and Relocation
Dump Fees
Environmental
Port of Bremerton Bed Purchase
Street Improvements
Plaza & offsite landscaping of optional components
Parking Garage
Construction
Conference Center
Construction
Plaza
Construction
Ending Fund Balance
Total Expenditures
129,000
80,000
130,518
90,000
103,462
183,317
10,671,952
5,547,389
2,740,266
519,505
22,436,779
C[TT OF B~IZRTON
BOND DEBT SERVICE
Period Debt Debt
Ending Principal Coupon I~te~esr Service Service
03/01/2003 46.350 46,350
09/01/2003 1.545,000 6.000% 46,350 1.591,350 [ ,637,700
1,545,000 92,700 1,637,700 1,637,700
AGENDA BILL
BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL
1. SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING ON
RESOLUTION TO RENEW MORATORIUM
RELATING TO WIRELESS COMMUNICATION
FACILITIES
2. CLEAgANCES: (Comment on back if necessary) 3. EXHIBITS:
CHRIS HUGO, Direc~r of Community Development
RoG~A. LUBOylCH, City Attorney
F~SC~L & B~GErT C~IRMAN
O~RAT~(5I~" CHAIRMAN
ENDORSEM~
MAYOR
FOR AGENDA: January 22, 2002
ORIGINATING DEPT: City Attorney's Office
ORIGINATOR: Roger A. Lubovich
DATE SUBMITTED: January 9, 2003
PROPOSED RESOLUTION ,/~Oo 2,~. 52.
STAFF REPORT
UNOFFICIAL PLANN1NG COMMISSION
MINUTES
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPROVED FOR SUBMITTAL:
4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION:
A moratorium is currently in effect relating to wireless communications facilities. The moratorium will expire
at midnight on January 23, 2003. Staff is requesting a six (6) month renewal of the moratorium in order to
allow sufficient time to gather information, complete analysis and determine what, if any, reasonable
regulations are necessary. A public hearing is required to consider renewing the moratorium.
5. RECOMMENDATION:
Move to pass Resolution No. ~ ~q~renewing the moratorium relating to wireless communication facilities.
7. NOTICE OF ACTION:
PULLED[-] TABLED[-']
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE:
6. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL:
Director of Community Development
ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL:
Director of Community Development
EXPIRATION DATE: July 22, 2003
REVIEW DATE:
APPROVED [] DISAPPROVED [] AMENDI~-] ~E:
7-/9
8. AGENDA BILL NO.:
9. IMPACT OF NON-PASSAGE:
10. IMPACT ON STAFFING~ BUDGETS~ FACILITIES~ EQUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCES:
11. RESEARCH SOURCES:
RESOLUTION NO. ~ g~'-'-
A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of
Bremerton, Washington, relating to wireless communication
facilities, adopting findings of fact renewing a moratorium on the
acceptance of applications for any building, land use, or
development permit or approval for the purpose of siting and/or
development of wireless communication facilities within the City
of Bremerton.
WHEREAS, the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 (Pub. L. No. 104-104,
110 stat. 56, 31-136, hereinafter the "Act") was designed to remove regulatory barriers and
encourage competition among all types of communication companies; and
WHEREAS, the Act ratifies the authority of local governments to regulate
telecommunications services and carriers, but also limits local government's authority in certain
respects; and
WHEREAS, the City Council is currently reviewing its policies with regard to the
zoning and placement of wireless communication facilities as defined in RCW 35.99.010
(hereinafter "wireless communication facilities" or "facilities") in the City of Bremerton; and
WHEREAS, the City is facing an increasing number of applications for
construction of wireless telecommunication facilities within the City and the City has not yet
adopted a comprehensive telecommunications siting and design ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the City must adopt ordinances, policies or plans for dealing with the
inflow of telecommunication facilities to the City that will potentially deal with issues relating to
the siting and development of these facilities, including, but not limited to, the following:
· Zoning
· Clustering of facilities
· Collocation, development standards, visual impact mitigation, noise, tower
construction; and
WHEREAS, because the Bremerton Municipal Code does not adequately address
the various impacts that wireless communications facility uses present, the protection of the
public health, safety, and general welfare would be jeopardized by the establishment of such
facilities prior to a review of the matter and possible adoption of new regulations by the City
Council; and
WHEREAS, the citizens of Bremerton would be well-served if the City more
fully addressed and understood the potential impacts in the form of health, safety, economics,
hazards to traffic, and aesthetics these facilities impose upon neighboring properties and the
community as a whole; and
WCF Moratorium Renewal
WHEREAS, the City needs additional time to review existing information on the
effects of these facilities and to review the Bremerton Municipal Code in a comprehensive
fashion to determine what necessary code revisions are necessary to address the impacts of such
uses and to develop sufficient regulations to properly regulate the siting and development of
wireless telecommunication facilities; and
WHEREAS, RCW 35.63.200 authorizes cities to adopt moratoriums provided a
public hearing is held within sixty (60) days of adoption; and
WHEREAS, a moratorium of the zoning and placement of wireless
communication facilities is subject to the limitations of RCW 35.99.050; and
WHEREAS, on July 24, 2002, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2868
imposing a moratorium barring acceptance for any building, land use, or development permit of
approval for the purpose of siting and/or development of wireless communication facilities
within the City of Bremerton until additional review has been completed and any necessary code
revisions have been adopted by the City Council on the issue of wireless communication
facilities within the City of Bremerton; and
WHEREAS, RCW 35.63.200 provides that a city adopting a moratorium shall
adopt findings of fact immediately after the public hearing held within sixty (60) days of
adoption of the moratorium; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on August 14, 2002, before the City
Council and Resolution 2872~ was adopted continuing the moratorium until midnight January
23, 2003; and
WHEREAS, staff is requesting a six (6) month renewal of the moratorium in
order to allow City Council and staff sufficient time to continue gathering relevant information,
complete a thorough analysis of the information, determine what, if any, reasonable regulation is
necessary to mitigate the impacts, and prepare for adoption of permissible regulations to reguiate
such uses; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 35.63.200, a public hearing was held on January
22, 2003, to consider renewing the moratorium for a six (6) month period; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered all comments and materials
presented; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the protection of the health, safety, and
welfare supports renewing the moratorium on the acceptance of all applications for any building,
~ Resolution 2872 contains two typographical errors. Resolution No. 2868 (not 2867 as stated in Whereas
paragraph 2 and Section 3) imposed the moratorium relating to wireless communication facilities.
2
WCF Moratorium Renewal
land use, or development permit or approval under the Bremerton Municipal Code for the
purpose of siting and/or development of wireless communication facilities within the City of
Bremerton until additional review has been completed and any necessary code revisions have
been adopted by the Bremerton City Council; NOW THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON,
DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Recitals Incorporated. The recitals set forth in this resolution and
resolutions 2868 and 2872 are hereby incorporated as if fully set forth herein and are hereby
adopted as Findings of Fact.
SECTION 2. Renewal of Moratorium. Based on the Findings of Fact adopted in
Section I, the City Council hereby determines that it is necessary for the moratorium enacted in
Resolution 2868 and 2872 to be renewed for an additional six (6) month period. Accordingly,
the moratorium shall not expire until midnight on July 22, 2003, unless the moratorium is
shortened or extended by action of the City Council or until the effective date of any ordinances
establishing new regulations governing wireless communication facilities covered by this
moratorium, whichever is sooner, and during said moratorium, no building, land use, or
development permit or approval shall be issued nor shall any such permit application be accepted
for any such use within the City of Bremerton.
SECTION 3. Severabilitv. If any one or more sections, subsections, or
sentences of this Resolution are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not
affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Resolution and the same shall remain in full
force and effect.
SECTION 4. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect and be in force
immediately upon its passage.
day of
PASSED bythe City Council ofthe City ofBremerton, Washingtonthis__
,2003.
CAROL ARENDS, Council President
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ATTEST:
ROGER A. LUBOVICH, City Attorney
KATHLEEN MCCLUSKEY, City Clerk
R:\LEGAL\Resolutions\WCF Moratorium Renewal.doc
3
WCF Moratorium Renewal
Memorandum
To: Planning Commission
igC: Chris Hugo, Director of Community Development
Mitchelle Honore',
From: Paul Rogerson, planning Manager
Date: 12/17/2002
Re: Briefing on moratoria for off-premises signs and telecommunications towers.
This briefing memorandum serves to present information on two separate moratoria
currently in effect in the City of Bremerton. The memo will present background/nformation
on each followed by options for actions related to the impending expiration of each
moratorium. Staff seeks to receive Planning Comrrdssion recommendations for steps that
should be implemented.
"Billboards"
Procedural History
Resolution 2867, establishing a moratorium on acceptance of applications for, or approval
of permits for off-prera/ses signs was passed by the City Council on July 24th, 2002.
Subsequently, a public hearing was conducted and findings of fact supporting the action
were adopted by Resolution 2871, passed by the City Commission on August 14th, 2002.
Resolution 2871 establishes that the moratorium expires on January 23fa, 2003. Both
resolutions are attached.
Basis for the Moratorium
Resolution 2871 adopts findings of fact that establish the basis for the moratorium (see
attached). In summary, those £mdings establish that the City Council felt that time was
needed to review City policy and regulations regarding off-premises signs. The findings
state that the Council felt that such signs may be detrimental to the public heakh, safety and
welfare, and that potentiaI impacts needed to be studied in greater depth. In addition the
council af£mned its awareness that it must not infringe upon flee speech fights, but that such
moratoria were allowed under RCW 35.63.200.
Legal Notes
December f 7, 2002
RCW 35.63.200 provides the City Council not only the power to establish such moratoria,
but the ability to renew them as well (see attached). In sum, moratoria may be renewed for
additional six month periods if a public hearing is held and findings of fact adopted prior to
each reuewal. The City .Attorney's office has determined that the one-year type of
moratorium mentioned in the RCW is only available when first establishing moratoria.
Recommendations;
Staffrecommends that regulations in this area - like in ali others - must be consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan. At the current juncture, the 1995 Comprehensive Plan is
undergoing a complete re-write. For tiffs reason, it is illogical to base development of new or
amended development regulations on the 1995 Comprehensive Plan. Rather, any amended
or new regulations must be compared and related to the goals, policies, and maps currently
being developed for the updated Plan. Staff recommends, therefore that the moratorium be
renewed in order to give more time for such a comparison and for the related comprehensive
plan goals, policies, and maps to be further ref'med. The following methods of renewal are
possible.
1) Recommend to Council that the moratorium be renewed for six additional months.
Simple renewal of the moratorium is a relatively easy process. Staff suggests that City
Council be made aware that the reasons for tiffs renewal is related to progress on the
Comprehensive Plan (as stated above) and because Department of Community Development
staffing levels and workload has not allowed the staff to address the need for improving the
City's regulations for off-premises signs even regardless of comprehensive plan progress.
A public hearing would be required before the Council during which fmdings of fact would
be adopted. The new f'mdings should reflect the rationale for the extension. Additional six
month extensions would be possible - each requLring a repeat of the hearing/findings steps.
This option could create some friction with the sign industry and/or various potential
applicants for off-premises signs. The City does not present specific idea of when the
(renewed series of) moratoria might end. A moratorium renewal would take effect in mid
January, 2003 and expire again in mid July.
2) Recommend that the moratorium be renewed for six months and that a work program
- includingpublicparticipation steps - be implemented by the community development
departmena
This option differs from the first only in that an additional action would be instituted;
development of a work program for revisions to the zoning code implementing better
regulations for off-premises signs. This work program would be presented to Council, but
does not require formal action by them. Tiffs option has the advantage of offering the
concerned public and industry some timeframe for an end to the moratorium. It does,
however, also commit the city to staff and conduct a process leading to a draft of code
amendments for council consideration. It also helps the City avoid criticism that there has
been inadequate public process. This criticism was key in a case in which a court
"invalidated" a similar ordinance in the City of Bainbridge Island citing lack of sufficient
opportunity for prior input by the general public.
Recommended work program (if option #2 is chosen):
2
December 1 F, 2002
1. Convene "billboard work group" January
a. two plannmg commission members
b. two sign industry persons
c. two at-large citizens
d. two large Coordinating Council member
II. Collect examples of other regulations (staff). January
III. 2-3 meetings of work group Feb.-Mar.
IV. 1st Draft of code amendments Mar. 10
V. Public Workshop Mar. 15
VI. Draft code amendment for presentation to informal Planning Commission. March 30
VII. Publie Bearing before Planning Commission April 15
VII1. CounciIStudy session May 7
IX. Council hearing May 28
X. Final Adoption (June)
"Cell Towers"
Procedural History
Resolution 2868, establishing a moratorium on acceptance of applications for, or any
building, land use, or development permit or approval for the purpose of siting and/or
development of wireless telecommurfications facilities in Bremerton was passed by the City
Council on July 24th, 2002. Subsequently, a public hearing was conducted and findings of
fact supporting the action were adopted by Resolution 2872, passed by the City Commission
on August 14t~, 2002. Resolution 2872 establishes that the moratorium expires on January
23~d, 2003. Both resolutions are attached.
Basis for the Moratorium
Resolution 2871 adopts findings of fact that establish the basis for the moratorium (see
attached). In summary, those findings establish that the City Council felt that time was
needed to review City policy and regulations regarding w/reless telecommunications
facilities - commonly called "cell towers". The findings state that the Council felt that such
towers may be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, and that potential
impacts needed to be studied in greater depth. In addition the council stated that the City
should address issues including zoning, clustering, collocation, development standards,
visual impact mitigation, and construction -just to name a few. The Council also formally
noted that such moratoria were allowed under RCW 35.63.200.
Legal Notes
RCW 35.63.200 provides the City Council not only the power to establish such moratoria,
but the ability to renew them as well (see attached). In sum, moratoria may be renewed for
additional six month periods if a public hearing is held and findings of fact adopted prior to
each renewal. The City Attorney's office has determined that the one-year type of
moratorium mentioned in the RCW is only available when first establishing moratoria.
Recommendations;
December fL 2002
Staff reconunends that regulations in this area - like in all others - must be consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan. At the current juncture, the 1995 Comprehensive Plan is
undergoing a complete re-write. For this reason, it is illogical to base development of new or
amended development regulations on the 1995 Comprehensive Plan. Rather, any amended
or new regulations must be compared and related to the goals, policies, and maps currently
being developed for the updated Plan. Staff recommends, therefore that the moratorium be
renewed in order to give more t/me for such a comparison and for the related comprehensive
plan goals, policies, and maps to be further refmed. The following methods of renewal are
possible.
1) Recommend to Council that the moratorium be renewed for six additional months.
Simple renewal of the moratorium is a relatively easy process. Staff suggests that City
Council be made aware that the reasons for this renewal is largely because Department of
Community Development staffing levels and wor~oad has not allowed the staff to address
the need for improving the City's regulations for off-premises signs. A public hearing would
be required before the Council during which findings of fact would be adopted. The new
findings should reflect the rationale for the extension. Additional six month extensions
would be possible - each requiring a repeat of the hearing/findings steps. This option could
create some friction with the sign industry and/or various potential applicants for off-
premises signs. The City does not present specific idea of when the (renewed sches of)
moratoria might end. A moratorium renewal would take effect in mid January, 2003 and
expire again in mid July.
2) Recommend that the moratorium be renewed for six months and that a work program
- includingpublicpariz'cipation steps - be implemented by the community development
department.
This option differs from the first only in that an additional action would be instituted;
development of a work program for revisions to the zoning code implementing better
regulations for cell towers. Tiffs work program would be presented to Council, but does not
require formal action by them. This option has the advantage of offering the concerned
public and industry some timeframe for an end to the moratorium. It does, however, also
commit the city to staff and conduct a process leading to a draf~ of code amendments for
council consideration. It also helps the City avoid criticism that there has been inadequate
public process. This criticism was key in a case in which a court "invalidated" a similar
ordinance in the City of Bainbridge Island citing lack of sufficient opportunity for prior
input by the general public.
Recommended work program (if option #2 is chosen):
I. Convene "wireless telecommunications facility" work group
a. two planning commission member
b. two telecommunications industry person
c. two at-large citizen
d. two at large Coordinating Council member
II. Collect examples of other regulations (staff).
m. 2-3 meetings of work group
IV. 1st Draft of code amendments
V. Public Workshop
January
January
Feb.-Mar.
Mar. 10
Mar. 15
4
December ~7, 2002
VI. Draft code amendment for presentation to informal Planning Commission. March 30
VI1. Public Hearing before Planning Commission April 15
VIII. Council Study session May 7
IX. Council hearing May 28
X. Final Adoption (June)
Minutes o f
Planning Commission Meeting
December 17, 2002
I. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Kosusko at 5:33 p.m.
II. Roll Call
Those present were: Chairman Kosusko, Commissioner Buckingham, Commissioner Cockburn,
Commissioner Dingfield, Commissioner Kennedy, Commissioner Nelson and Commissioner Wood.
Quorum certified.
III. Approval of Agenda
Commissioner Kosusko introduced the agenda and stated that item 6.a. will not be discussed per Mr.
Rogerson. A motion was made by Commissioner Nelson and seconded by Commissioner Dingfield
to approve the agenda as amended. Called for a vote: Buckingham: yes; Cockbum: yes; Dingfield:
yes; Kennedy: yes; Nelson: yes; Wood: yes, and Kosusko: yes. Agenda approved as amended.
IV. Approval of Minutes
The Special Meeting of November 12, 2002, minutes were presented for approval by Commissioner
Kosusko. Commissioner Cockbum stated that he had abstained regarding the approval of the October
15th minutes - he did not attend that meeting. Commissioner Kosusko noted that there was a difference
in the motion "as corrected" versus "as written". After a short discussion it was decided it should mad
"as corrected." A motion was made by Commissioner l~ennedy and seconded by Commissioner
Wood to approve the minutes as corrected. Called for a vote: Buckingham: yes; Cockbum: yes;
Dingfield: yes; Kennedy: yes; Nelson: yes; Wood: yes; and Kosusko: yes. Minutes approved as
corrected.
V. Public Meeting
Chairman Kosusko moved directly to the call to the public portion.
A. Call to the Public (public comments on any item not on tonight's agenda). Seeing no comments
from the public, Commissioner Kosusko closed this portion of the meeting and moved onto the
public meeting portion.
B. Public Meeting,
1. Public Hearing: Commissioner Kosusko then opened the meeting up for public hearing.
a. None
Planning Commission Special Meeting
December 17, 2002 Page 1 of 8
2. Workshops:
Commissioner Kosusko then explained that there would be a short workshop
regarding the upcoming moratoria on cell-towers and billboards. He then turned the
floor over to Mr. Rogerson of the Department of Commtmity Development.
Mr. Rogerson referred the Commission to the memoranda and attachments. He
combined the presentations. The City currently have moratoriums on both off-
premises signs, commonly called 'billboards' and on wireless telecommunications
towers, commonly called 'cell towers '. Both those moratoriums were passed in a
two-step process on the same dates and both on the same dates - this upcoming
January.
He then recapped some of the important facts. In relation to billboards, that
moratorium was initially invoked by Resolution 2867 and subsequently adopted -
including findings of fact and conclusion and after public hearings as required by law
by Resolution 2871. The respective dates were July 24, 2002, and August 14, 2002.
Regarding cell towers, a similar process occurred. The moratorium on cell towers
was initially invoked by Resolution 2868, which was followed up by public hearing
and a formal adoption of the moratorium by Resolution 2872. The respective dates
were July 24, 2002, and August 14, 2002 - all this by the City Council. Both
moratoria expire on the same date: January 23, 2003, six months after the adoption.
This is the reason that we are coming to the Planning Commission.
Even though both these moratorium were adopted by the City Council staff wants to
recommend that the Planning Commission be involved in whatever occurs next
regarding these moratoriums.
Mr. Rogerson then went directly to staff recommendations, which are similar in both
cases. According to law there is no problem with readopting or renewing these
moratoria. The RCW (referred to in the staff report), provides that by simply holding
an additional public hearing and readopting or adopting new findings of fact that the
City Council can extend these moratoria for another six months. This is
recommendation number one - same recommendation applied to both moratorium.
The second recommendation from staff is that renewal be accompanied by a work
program that sets forth how staff will come up with better regulations before the
expiration of the second six-month period (the renewed moratorium).
Staff is strongly recommending that a work program be established - including the
establishment of a work group so there can be a public process for developing
adequate regulations for both the cell towers and the billboard. He then referred the
group to page three of the memorandum and reviewed the proposed work program for
the billboards. The recommended work program for the cell towers is essentially
identical.
The work group would be made up of two members of the Planning Commission, two
people from the respective industries (sign industry or wireless communications
industry), two at-large citizens, and two at-large members of the coordinating council
[not Planning Commissioners]. The reason for the at-large members of the
Planrfing Commission Special Meeting
December 17, 2002
Page 2 of 8
coordinating council is to get additional input from that group so the outcome of this
process can be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, which is being developed at
this time. That group would rely on staffto collect examples of other regulations in
the respective areas; hold two or three meetings to examine those example
regulations; develop a first draft of code amendments and take those to a public
workshop. After receiving feedback at the public workshop those draft code
amendments would probably be reworked to respond to the public comments and
presented to the Planning Commission in an informal workshop setting. The
Planning Commission would put the matter to a public heating and forward those
recommended changes to the zoning code onto the City Council. The council would
then hold a study session, a council hearing and consider adoption.
Mr. Rogerson explained the draft timeline for the process that is included in the
memorandum. Staff's goal is to get the whole process accomplished towards the end
of May or early June, 2003. If these moratoriums are extended, they will expire
approximately July 23, 2003. He reiterated that the process is the identical for the
cell tower moratorium. He then explained that staff is asking that the Planning
Commission approve the extension of the moratorium and considering appointing two
members to the workgroups. That would be two members for each work group, or a
total of four people committing to at least two or three meetings.
Mr. Rogerson stated his two-pronged request: 1) Get some feedback as to whether
the commission agrees with the proposed process. 2) If the commission does agree
with the process, to solicit some volunteers to participate in the work groups.
Commissioner Kosusko asked the commission if there were any comments or
discussion.
Commissioner Wood stated that it sounds fine just not very exciting.
Commissioner Dingfield asked if this moratorium on the cell towers applies to the
one that is already in process for the mid-town area? The Quest one?
Mr. Hugo replied that that was correct. He stated that it has a permit and has a legal
right to proceed. That application came in before the moratorium was enacted. So, it
was vested. The thing that could make this exciting is the fact that what is needed for
these regulations are vocational and design standards. What do these facilities look
like? This should be right up some designers ally.
Commissioner Cockburn said that there is quite a bit of controversy over the cell
towers. "Not in our neighborhood" kind of controversy. He said that he was not
aware if the billboards have the same hysteria because there are not any presumed
health consequences like there is from the cell towers. He said that he would be
interested in the billboard work group if we go forward.
Commissioner Buckingham volunteered for the cell tower work group.
Commissioner Dingfield said that she had comments on both. She believes that it is
really important that the Planning Commission support the moratorium. She further
explained that the support should be very public. She said that because of the process
planmng Commission Special Meeting
December 17, 2002
Page 3 of 8
we're in, we need to be very logical about what we're doing. If you look at the
design standards we're trying to put in place as part of the Comprehensive Plan -
while this may not be for just downtown, the citizens have been very active in the
Comprehensive Plan process because they have a vision for the city. Both of these
things visually impact what would happen in this city. We need to respect citizen
participation in that process. It will be very important for the City Council to know
that we've been hearing this all along. They have just been hearing it in bits and
pieces. As the public heating part of this goes forward she hopes that we (Planning
Commission) are going to encourage all the citizens who have been participating in
this to make sure that the City Council hears the same kinds of things. She further
stated that both these things really impact what the city will look like. As our
Directors have explained to us, after we complete the Comprehensive Plan process -
then we're going to be headed into the re-write of the zoning ordinance. She thinks
that as we move through the Comprehensive Plan process, it would be good to
hearing fi.om the commission regarding your approach might be for a zoning
ordinance and a time schedule on that because it would be important for the City
Council to hear that as well because everything is connected. She believes the
Planning Cormnission should proceed very deliberately and presented Bainbridge
Island and the Wheaton Way corridor as examples - healthy versus not healthy
respectively and the importance of citizen participation during the entire process.
Commissioner Buckingham agreed with Commissioner Dingfield. He said that we
should go ahead with extending the moratoriums and that option two is the best way
to go. He said that it should keep us from any potential legal problems. He also
agreed that it is good to have the public involved for several reasons: 1) we get their
opinion; 2) public relations standpoint - yes, we are listening and that is what we are
here to do. Incorporate their ideas; 3) fi.om the business standpoint - those business
owners who are interested in the outcome of this would like to know that something
is moving and that they will not just be waiting forever for us to make a decision.
Commissioner Kennedy asked if the City Council has to extend the moratorium for
another six months? She asked for clarification - are we (Planning Commission)
saying to the City Council that if they extend the moratorium another six months, we
would like to be involved in the process by which we write some guidelines since we
were not involved in the moratorium to begin with?
Mr. ttugo explained that by the City Charter and the BMC the Planning Commission
does have the duty and the authority to draft regulations, legislative amendments to
the zoning code. So we cannot have a new ordinance for these two items without
your participation.
Commissioner Kennedy responded by saying that if that is what we're going to be
doing we definitely need public input.
Mr. Itugo said that public participation is required by state law, just like everything
under GMA. We are just formalizing that discipline within the City. Once again, we
know what our duty is. I think it would be good for the Planning Commission to
make a recommendation to the City Council saying that you are recommending that
the moratoria be renewed and that you know have the time and work program to work
with the community to prepare ordinances for their consideration.
Planning Commission Special Meeting
December 17, 2002 Page 4 of 8
Commissioner Buckingham mentioned the problem that Bainbridge Island ran into,
that it was an insufficient opportunity for public input. Was that situation a
moratorium very similar to what we're working on here?
Mr. Hugo responded that it was actually a set of regulations for critical areas. An
idea was developed within the organization and brought to a first public hearing. It
was then adopted, then challenged and thrown out because it didn't meet the Growth
Management Act's requirement for early, open and continuous citizen participation.
This means that from the earlier stages you need to have the public invited into the
dialog to generate some of the input. I believe that what we are proposing meets the
test because the court says that you have to have at least one general public meeting
before you get the hearing. This is early on in the process and therefore, meets the
test. It is not before a draft is identified, but this is suggesting that we could at least
look at some other jurisdictions; a citizen based work group [industry people, people
involved with the Comprehensive Plan, and of course, you are citizens as opposed to
appointed or elected officials, some at-large people]. This mixture of participants
represents a citizen process. That citizen process identified some draft ideas that then
goes out for general public comment, which takes care of the whole issue of what that
court finding was about.
Commissioner Kosusko had several questions but stated that he supported extending
the moratoriums. He asked where the six month time period came from.
Mr. Hugo stated that it comes from state law.
Commissioner Kosusko said that his concern was whether six months was enough
time. He said that the comprehensive planning process is done at the end of
December, but it's not going to be. Is there enough time to complete this?
Mr. Hugo responded that if we were starting from scratch that he would be
concerned as well. However, since he has been through the billboard experience in
another city. It was long and painful. In this case, we have the benefit in both subject
areas. We have the benefit of more recent work by a lot of other jurisdictions that
have been through the painful special interest wars and community value wars. He
believes that we have good base to draw on particularly cell towers which are
extremely controversial. There are examples from Kitsap County, Pierce County and
Spokane County which were all done within the last two years. In some case those
ordinances are the product of two or three iterations in a two year period. Something
was tried; another tower went up; it was just creamed politically; so they went
through another process and tried it again. The same thing happened with billboards,
but to a lesser degree. He said that Spokane County just went through the billboard
wars, so they have some ideas there.
On off-premises signs, Bremerton is starting from a better point than many
communities. We already have a more limited size, I think you can only have 100
square feet. He mentioned that there is one billboard on Washington - it is now the
biggest thing you see since the Enetai Plaza Building was demolished. The
appropriate location for signs is something that we missed. There are some locations
around the Warren Avenue bridge that have been notable during the political season.
Planning Commission Special Meeting
December 17, 2002 Page 5 of 8
There was a short decision about a political sign that was mounted on a large track.
These are the kind of regulations that should be questioned, if it's mounted on a track
is it okay? In that case, it wasn't okay - according to our code, signs on vehicles have
to advertise what is inside the vehicle that the sign is put on. So that would have been
okay if the political candidate had been sitting in the track all the time. Since they
were not, those were not legal signs. We have some examples even in our own code
where the provisions are probably good and in other cases we'll have to look and see
what the rest of the world is doing. He stated that with that background we can make
it in six months just fine.
There was a short discussion about what action should be taken and procedural
matters.
Commissioner Kosusko asked if there was anyone else interested in participating in
the two work groups? Commissioner Cockbum volunteered for the billboard;
Commissioner Buckingham volunteered for the cell towers, two others are needed.
Commissioner Wood said that she would volunteer for billboards and Commissioner
Kosusko volunteered for the cell towers work group.
Commissioner Kosusko then asked about getting Coordinating Council at-large
volunteers, we can probably come up with but at-large citizens may be a little more
difficult. Directing his statement to staff, he then stated that you may know people
that have expressed interest in this topic.
Mr. Rogerson responded that staff does have leads and will do the leg work to locate
people from the industry and citizens.
A motion was made by Commissioner Kennedy and seconded by Commissioner
Dingfield to recommend to the City Council to extend the existing moratoriums
on billboards and cell towers and adopt the recommended work plan from the
Planning Commission as proposed by staff [Bill boards work group -
Commissioners Cockburn and Wood; Cell tower work group - Commissioners
Buckingham and Kosusko]. Called for a vote: Buckingham: yes; Coekburn:
yes; Dingfield: yes; Kennedy: yes; Nelson: yes; Wood: yes; and Kosusko: yes.
Motion carries.
b. Update on Comprehensive Plan Process
Mr. Rogerson explained that the staffhas been working along with the Coordinating
Council members on the three scenarios of the Land Use Map. The map shows
various centers locations. More recently members of the Planning Commission as
Coordinating Council have gone on a bus tour of those centers and looked at
neighborhood boundaries that might occur between those centers. There has been
two tours. Stafftook a smaller group of Coordinating Council members on the same
tour of the community last week again looking at centers, boundaries and locations.
Based on what we've heard from the Coordinating Council members on those issues,
staffhas spent the last two days working on refining the recommended boundaries for
centers and doing some work on boundaries for neighborhoods. The boundaries work
group will be meeting tomorrow afiemoon to discuss the results of those tours and
Planning Commission Special Meeting
December 17, 2002 Page 6 of 8
CITY OF BREMERTON
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that there will be a public hearing before the City
Council of the Cig, of Bremerton on
DATE: Januar~ 22. 2003 TIME:
5:30 P.M. OR LATER
in the City Council Chambers at City Hall, 239 Fourth Street, Bremerton, Washington, and all interested
persons are requested to be present. To be considered is the following:
~PPLICANT: City of Bremerton Department of Community
Development, 286 4th Street, Bremerton
ACTION: A resolution renewing for six months a moratoria on the
acceptance of applications for, or any building, land use, or development
permit or approval for the purpose of siting and/or development of wireless
telecommunications facilities in Bremerton. Original moratorium was
adopted on July 24tl~ 2002.
ALL PROTESTS AND OBJECTIONS TO THIS ACTION MUST BE FILED IN
WRITING IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK, 239 FOURTH STREET,
PRIOR TO CLOSE OF BUSINESS ON THE DATE OF THE HEARING.
The entire resolution is on file and available for review at the Department of
Community Development. For more information regarding this action, you may contact
Chris Hugo, Director of Community Development, at (360) 478-5243
DATED at Bremerton,Washington this 1 lth day of January, 220/~)
P gerson
Planning Manager
AGENDA BILL
BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL
1. SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING ON
RESOLUTION TO RENEW MORATORIUM
RELATING TO OFF-PREMISES SIGNS
2. CLE.4RANCES: (Comment on back if necessary) 3. EXHIBITS:
C~UG0 ~ire~0r o~ommunity Development
ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CiW Attorney
OPEf~TION~HAm~N
ENDORS~ ~
MAYOR~ ,~
FOR AGENDA: January 22, 2002
ORIGINATING DEPT: City Attorney's Office
ORIGINATOR: Roger A. Lubovich
DATE SUBMITTED: January 9, 2003
PROPOSED RESOLUTION [qo , 2_ S~e~.~
STAFF REPORT
UNOFFICIAL PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPROVED FOR SUBMITTAL:
COUNCIL PRESIDENT
4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION:
A moratorium is currently in effect relating to off-premises signs. The moratorium will expire at midnight on
January 23, 2003. Staff is requesting a six (6) month renewal of the moratorium in order to allow sufficient
time to gather information, complete analysis and determine what, if any, reasonable regulations are necessary.
A public hearing is required to consider renewing the moratorium.
5. RECOMMENDATION:
Move to pass Resolution No. ~. ~3 to renew the moratorium relating to off-premises signs.
7. NOTICE OF ACTION:
PULLED [] TABLED [] APPROVED []
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE:
6. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL:
Director of Community Development
ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL:
Director of Community Development
EXPIRATION DATE: July 22, 2003
REVIEW DATE:
DISAPPROVED [] AMENDEq ~:
8. AGENDA BILL NO.:
9. IMPACT OF NON-PASSAGE:
10. IMPACT ON STAFFING, BUDGETS~ FACILITIES~ EQUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCES:
11. RESEARCH SOURCES:
RESOLUTION NO. ~ ~ ~
A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of
Bmmerton, Washington, relating to off-premises signs, adopting
findings of fact renewing a moratorium on the acceptance of
applications for any building, land use, or development permit or
approval for off-premises signs within the City of Bremerton.
WHEREAS, the City Council is currently reviewing its policies under the zoning
code with regard to the zoning and placement of off-premises signs in the City of Bremerton
identified heroin as signs that contain a message or directs attention to a business, profession,
product, event, activity, or service that is not related to a use or activity conducted or offered on
the premises or at the location where the sign is located, excluding official road directional signs
and includes the sign face(s) that contain(s) the message or direction noted above, as well as the
pole or other structure upon which the sign face is attached (hereinafter "off-premises signs");
and
WHEREAS, the City a number of off-premises signs are currently located in the
City of Bremerton and there is a possibility that the City could, in the near future, receive more
applications for off-premises signs that would significantly increase the number of such signs
located within the City; and
WHEREAS, the City Council is concerned about the potential impacts that such
signs may create that would be detrimental to public health, safety, and general welfare of the
citizens of the City of Bremerton; and
WHEREAS, because the Bremerton Municipal Code does not contain regulations
to adequately address the various impacts that off-premises signs present, the protection of the
public health, safety, and general welfare would be jeopardized by the continued establishment
of such signs prior to a review of the matter and possible adoption of new regulations by the City
Council; and
WHEREAS, the citizens of Bremerton would be well-served if the City more
fully addressed and understood the potential impacts in the form of health, safety, economic,
hazards to traffic, and aesthetic impacts these signs impose upon neighboring properties and the
community as a whole; and
WHEREAS, the City needs additional time to review existing information on the
affects of these signs and to review the Bremerton Municipal Code in a comprehensive fashion
to determine whether it sufficiently addresses the impacts of such uses; and
WHEREAS, the Bremerton City Council understands that communication
displayed by off-premises signs may be protected by the First Amendment of the U.S.
Constitution and/or Article I, Section 5 of the Washington State Constitution; and
1
Off-Premises Signs
Moratorium Renewal
WHEREAS, the Bremerton City Council does not intend by this resolution to
impermissibly infringe upon any protected free speech rights; and
WHEREAS, RCW 35.63.200 authorizes cities to adopt moratoriums provided a
public hearing is held within sixty (60) days of adoption; and
WHEREAS, on July 24, 2002, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2867
imposing a moratorium barring acceptance for any building, land use, or development permit or
approval for off-premises signs within the City of Bremerton until additional review has been
completed and any necessary code revisions have been adopted by the City Council on the issue
of off-premises signs within the City of Bremerton; and
WHEREAS, RCW 35.63.200 provides that a city adopting a moratorium shall
adopt findings of fact immediately after the public hearing held within sixty (60) days of
adoption of the moratorium; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on August 14, 2002, before the City
Council and Resolution 2871 was adopted continuing the moratorium until midnight January
23, 2003; and
WHEREAS, staff is requesting a six (6) month renewal of the moratorium in
order to allow City Council and staff sufficient time to continue gathering relevant information,
complete a thorough analysis of the information, determine what, if any, reasonable regulation is
necessary to mitigate the impacts, and prepare for adoption of permissible regulations to regulate
such uses; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 35.63.200, a public hearing was held on January
22, 2003, to consider renewing the moratorium for a six (6) month period; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered all comments and materials
presented; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the protection of the health, safety, and
welfare supports renewing the moratorium on the acceptance of all applications for issuance of
any building, land use, or development permit or approval under the Bremerton Municipal Code
for off-premises signs until additional review has been completed and any necessary code
revisions have been adopted by the Bremerton City Council; NOW THEREFORE
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON,
DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
t Resolution 287l contains two typographical errors. Resolution No. 2867 (not 2868 as stated in Whereas
paragraph 2 and Section 3) imposed the moratorium relating to off-premises signs.
2
Off-Premises Signs
~ ~? Moratorium Renewal
SECTION 1. Recitals Incorporated. The recitals set forth in this resolution and
resolutions 2867 and 2871 are hereby incorporated as if fully set forth herein and are hereby
adopted as Findings of Fact.
SECTION2. Renewal of Moratorium. Based on the Findings of Fact adopted in
Section 1, the City Council hereby determines that it is necessary for the moratorium enacted in
Resolution 2867 and 2871 to be renewed for an additional six (6) month period. Accordingly,
the moratorium shall not expire until midnight on July 22, 2003, unless the moratorium is
shortened or extended by action of the City Council or until the effective date of any ordinances
establishing new regulations governing off-premises signs covered by this moratorium,
whichever is sooner, and during said moratorium, no building, land use, or development permit
or approval shall be issued nor shall any such permit application be accepted for any such use
within the City of Bremerton.
SECTION3. Severability. If any one or more sections, subsections, or
sentences of this Resolution are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not
affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Resolution and the same shall remain in full
force and effect.
SECTION 4. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect and be in force
immediately upon its passage.
day of
PASSED bythe City Council ofthe City of Bremerton, Washingtonthis__
,2003.
CAROL ARENDS, Council President
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ATTEST:
ROGER A. LUBOVICH, City Attorney
KATHLEEN MCCLUSKEY, City Clerk
R:\LEGAL~Resolutions\Off-Premises Signs Moratorium Renewal.doc
3
Off-Premises Signs
Moratorium Renewal
Memorandum
1o: Planning Commission
¢C: Clms Hugo, Director of Community Development
Mitchelle Honore',
From: Paul Rogerson, Planning Manager
Date: 12/17/2002
Re: Briefing on moratoria for off-premises signs and telecommunications towers.
This briefing mcunorandum serves to present information on two separate moratoria
currently in effect in the City of Bremerton. The memo will present background information
on each followed by options for actions related to the impending expiration of each
moratorium. Staff seeks to receive Planning Commission recommendations for steps that
should be implemented.
,,BillbOards''
Procedural History
Res01ution 2867, establisking a moratorium on acceptance of applications for, or approval
ofpervmts for off-premises signs was passed by the City Council on July 24t~, 2002.
Subsequently, a public hearing was conducted and fine[rags of fact supporting the action
were adopted by Resolution 2871, passed by the City ComnUssion on August 14t~, 2002.
Resolution 2871 establishes that the moratorium expires on January 23~, 2003. Both
resolutions are attached.
Basis for the Moratorium
Resolution 2871 adopts fmdings of fact that establish the basis for the moratorium (see
attached). In summary, those findings establish that the City Council felt that time was
needed to review City policy and regulations regarding off-premises signs. The findings
state that the Council felt that such signs may be detrimental to the public health, safety and
welfare, and that potential impacts needed to be studied in greater depth. In addition the
council affn-med its awareness that it must not infringe upon free speech rights, but that such
moratoria were allowed under RCW 35.63.200.
Legal Notes
December 'l Z, 2002
RCW 35.63.200 provides the City Council not only the power to establish such moratoria,
but the ability to renew them as well (see altached). In sum, moratoria may be renewed for
additional six month periods if a public hearing is held and findings of fact adopted prior to
each renewal. The City Attorney's office has determined that the one-year type of
moratorium mentioned in the RCW is only available when first establishing moratoria.
Recommendations;
Staff recommends that regulations in this area - like in all others - must be consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan. At the current juncture, the 1995 Comprehensive Plan is
undergoing a complete re-write. For this reason, it is illogical to base development of new or
amended development regulations on the 1995 Comprehensive Plan. Rather, any amended
or new regulations must be compared and related to the goals, policies, and maps currently
being developed for the updated Plan. Staff recommends, therefore that the moratorium be
renewed in order to give more time for such a comparison and for the related comprehensive
plan goals, policies, and maps to be further re£med. The following methods of renewal are
possible.
1) Recommend to Council that the moratorium be renewed for six additional months.
Simple renewal of the moratorium is a relatively easy process~ Staff suggests that City
Council be made aware that the reasons for this renewal is related to progress on the
Comprehensive Plan (as stated above) and because Department of Community Development
staffmg levels and workload has not allowed the staffto address the need for improving the
City's regulations for off-premises signs - even regardless of comprehensive plan progress.
A public hearing would be requ/red before the Council during which findings of fact would
be adopted. The new findings should reflect the rationale for the extension. Additional six
month extensions would be possible - each requiting a repeat of the hearmg/fmdings steps.
This option could create some friction with the sign industry and/or various potential
applicants for off-premises signs. The City does not present specific idea of when the
(renewed series of) moratoria might end. A moratorium renewal would take effect in mid
January, 2003 and expire again in mid July.
2) Recommend that the moratorium be renewed for six months and that a work program
- includingpublicparticipation steps - be implemented by the communing development
departmena
This option differs fi.om the £~rst only in that an additional action would be instituted;
development of a work program for revisions to the zoning code implementing better
regulations for off-premises signs. This work program would be presented to Council~ but
does not requize formal action by them. This option has the advantage of offering the
concerned public and industry some timeframe for an end to the moratorium. It does,
however, also commit the city to staff and conduct a process leading to a draf~ of code
amendments for council consideration. It also helps the City avoid criticism that there has
been inadequate public process. This criticism was key in a case in wkich a court
"invalidated" a similar ordinance in the City of Bainbridge Island citing lack of sufficient
opportunity for prior input by the general public.
Recommended work program (if option #2 is chosen):
2
December 'i 7', 2002
I. Convene "billboard work group" January
a. two planning commission membexs
b. two sign industry persons
c. two at-large citizens
d. two large Coordinating Council member
II. Collect examples of other regulations (staff). January
Ill. 2-3 meetings of work group Feb.-Mar.
IV. 1~t Draft of code amendments Mur. 10
V. Public Workshop Mar. 15
VI. Draft code amendment for presentation to informal Planning Commission. March 30
VII. Public Hearing before Planning Commission April 15
VIII. Council Study session May 7
IX. Council hearing May 28
X. Final Adoption (June)
"Cell Towers"
Procedural History
Resolution 2868, establishing a moratorium on acceptance of applications for, or any
building, land use, or development permit or approval for the purpose of siting and/or
development of wireless telecommunications facilities in Bremerton was passed by the City
Council on July 24~, 2002. Subsequently, a public hearing was conducted and fmdings of
fact supporting the action were adopted by Resolution 2872, passed by the City Commission
on August 146, 2002. Resolution 2872 establishes that the moratorium expires on January
23~a, 2003. Both resolutions are attached.
Basis for the Moratorium
Resolution 2871 adopts findings of fact that establish the basis for the moratorium (see
attached). In summary, those f'mdings establish that the City Council felt that time was
needed to review City policy and regulations regarding wireless telecommunications
facilities - commonly called "cell towers". The fmdings state that the Council felt that such
towers may be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, and that potential
impacts needed to be studied in greater depth. In addition the council stated that the City
should address issues including zoning, clustering, collocation, development standards,
visual impact mitigation, and construction -just to name a few. The Council also formally
noted that such moratoria were allowed under RCW 35.63.200.
Legal Notes
RCW 35.63.200 provides the City Council not only the power to establish such moratoria,
but the ability to renew them as well (see attached). In sum, moratoria may be renewed for
additional six month periods if a public hearing is held and findings of fact adopted prior to
each renewal. The City Attorney's office t~as determined that the one-year type of
moratorium mentioned in the RCW is only available when first establishing moratoria.
Recommendations;
3
December "17', 2002
Staff recommends that regulations in tkis area - like in all others - must be consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan. At the current juncture, the 1995 Comprehensive Plan is
undergoing a complete re-write. For this reason, it is illogical to base development of new or
amended development regulations on the 1995 Comprehensive Plan. Rather, any amended
or new regulations must be compared and related to the goals, policies, and maps currently
being developed for the updated Plan. Staff recommends, therefore that the moratorium be
renewed in order to give more t/me for such n comparison and for the related comprehensive
plan goals, policies, and maps to be further re£med. The following methods of renewal are
possible.
1) Recommend to Council that the moratorium be renewed for six additional months.
Simple renewal of the moratorium is a relatively easy process. Staff suggests that City
Council be made aware that the reasons for this renewal is largely because Department of
Community Development staffmg levels and workload has not allowed the staff to address
the need for improving the City's regulations for off-premises signs. A public hearing would
be required before the Council duhng which f'mdings of fact would be adopted. The new
f'mdings should reflect the rationale for the extension. Additional six month extensions
would be possible - each requiring a repeat of the hearing/fmdings steps. This option could
create some friction with the sign industry and/or various potential applicants for off-
premises signs. The City does not present specific idea of when the (renewed series of)
moratoria might end. A moratorium renewal would take effect in mid January, 2003 and
expire again in mid July.
2) Recommend that the moratorium be renewed for six months and that a work program
- includingpublicparticipation steps - be implemented by the community development
department.
Tiffs option differs from the first only in that an additional action would be instituted;
development ora work program for revisions to the zoning code implementing better
regulations for cell towers. This work program would be presented to Council, but does not
require formal action by them. This option has the advantage of offering the concerned
public a~d industry some timeframe for an end to the moratorium. It does, however, also
commit the city to staff and conduct a process leading to a draft of code amendments for
council consideration. It also helps the City avoid criticism that there has been inadequate
public process. This criticism was key in a ease in which a court "invalidated" a similar
ordinance in the City of Bainbridge Island citing lack of sufficient opportunity for prior
input by the general public.
Recommended work program (if option #2 is chosen):
I. Convene "wireless telecommunications facility" work group
a. two plarming commission member
b. two telecommunications industry person
c. two at-large citizen
d. two at large Coordinating Council member
II. Collect examples of other regulations (staff).
m. 2-3 meetings of work group
IV. 1"t Draft of code amendments
V. Public Workshop
January
Feb.-Mar.
Mar. 10
Mar. 15
4
December 17, 2002
VII.
VIII.
IX.
X.
Draft code amendment for presentation to informal Planning Commission.
Public Hearing before Planning Commission
Council Study session
Council hearing
Final Adoption
March 30
April 15
May 7
May 28
(June)
Minutes of
Planning Commission Meeting
December 17, 2002
I. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Kosusko at 5:33 p.m.
II. Roll Call
Those present were: Chairman Kosusko, Commissioner Buckinghana, Commissioner Cockburn,
Commissioner Dingfield, Commissioner Kennedy, Commissioner Nelson and Commissioner Wood.
Quorum certified.
III. Approval of Agenda
Commissioner Kosusko introduced the agenda and stated that item 6.a. will not be discussed per Mr.
Rogerson. A motion was made by Commissioner Nelson and seconded by Commissioner Dingfield
to approve the agenda as amended. Called for a vote: Buckingham: yes; Cockburn: yes; Dingfield:
yes; Kennedy: yes; Nelson: yes; Wood: yes, and Kosusko: yes. Agenda approved as amended.
IV. Approval of Minutes
The Special Meeting of November 12, 2002, minutes were presented for approval by Commissioner
Kosusko. Commissioner Cockburn stated that he had abstained regarding the approval of the October
15th minutes - he did not attend that meeting. Commissioner Kosusko noted that there was a difference
in the motion "as corrected" versus "as written". After a short discussion it was decided it should read
"as corrected." A motion was made by Commissioner Kennedy and seconded by Commissioner
Wood to approve the minutes as corrected. Called for a vote: Buckingham: yes; Cockbum: yes;
Dingfield: yes; Kennedy: yes; Nelson: yes; Wood: yes; and Kosusko: yes. Minutes approved as
corrected.
V. Public Meeting
Chairman Kosusko moved directly to the call to the public portion.
Call to the Public (public comments on any item not on tonight's agenda). Seeing no comments
from the public, Commissioner Kosusko closed this portion of the meeting and moved onto the
public meeting portion.
B. Public Meeting
1. Public Hearing: Commissioner Kosusko then opened the meeting up for public hearing.
a. None
Planning Commission Special Meeting
December 17, 2002 Page 1 of 8
Workshops:
Commissioner Kosusko then explained that there would be a short workshop
regarding the upcoming moratoria on cell-towers and billboards. He then turned the
floor over to Mr. Rogerson of the Department of Community Development.
Mr. Rogerson referred the Commission to the memoranda and attachments. He
combined the presentations. The City currently have moratoriums on both off-
premises signs, commonly called 'billboards' and on wireless telecommunications
towers, commonly called 'cell towers'. Both those moratoriums were passed in a
two-step process on the same dates and both on the same dates - this upcoming
January.
He then recapped some of the important facts. In relation to billboards, that
moratorium was initially invoked by Resolution 2867 and subsequently adopted -
including findings of fact and conclusion and after public heatings as required by law
by Resolution 2871. The respective dates were July 24, 2002, and August 14, 2002.
Regarding cell towers, a similar process occurred. The moratorium on cell towers
was initially invoked by Resolution 2868, which was followed up by public heating
and a formal adoption of the moratorium by Resolution 2872. The respective dates
were July 24, 2002, and August 14, 2002 - all this by the City Council. Both
moratoria expire on the same date: January 23, 2003, six months after the adoption.
This is the reason that we are coming to the Planning Commission.
Even though both these moratorium were adopted by the City Council staff wants to
recommend that the Planning Commission be involved in whatever occurs next
regarding these moratoriums.
Mr. Rogerson then went directly to staff recommendations, which are similar in both
cases. According to law there is no problem with readopting or renewing these
moratoria. The RCW (referred to in the staff report), provides that by simply holding
an additional public heating and readopting or adopting new findings of fact that the
City Council can extend these moratoria for another six months. This is
recommendation number one - same recommendation applied to both moratorium.
The second recommendation from staff is that renewal be accompanied by a work
program that sets forth how staff will come up with better regulations before the
expiration of the second six-month period (the renewed moratorium).
Staffis strongly recommending that a work program be established - including the
establishment of a work group so there can be a public process for developing
adequate regulations for both the cell towers and the billboard. He then referred the
group to page three of the memorandum and reviewed the proposed work program for
the billboards. The recommended work program for the cell towers is essentially
identical.
The work group would be made up of two members of the Planning Commission, two
people from the respective industries (sign industry or wireless communications
industry), two at-large citizens, and two at-large members of the coordinating council
[not Planning Commissioners]. The reason for the at-large members of the
Planning Commission Special Meeting
December 17, 2002 Page 2 of 8
coordinating council is to get additional input from that group so the outcome of this
process can be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, which is being developed at
this time. That group would rely on staff to collect examples of other regulations in
the respective areas; hold two or three meetings to examine those example
regulations; develop a first draft of code amendments and take those to a public
workshop. After receiving feedback at the public workshop those draft code
amendments would probably be reworked to respond to the public comments and
presented to the Planning Commission in an informal workshop setting. The
Planning Commission would put the matter to a public heating and forward those
recommended changes to the zoning code onto the City Council. The council would
then hold a study session, a council hearing and consider adoption.
Mr. Rogerson explained the draft timeline for the process that is included in the
memorandum. Staffs goal is to get the whole process accomplished towards the end
of May or early June, 2003. If these moratoriums are extended, they will expire
approximately July 23, 2003. He reiterated that the process is the identical for the
cell tower moratorium. He then explained that staff is asking that the Planning
Commission approve the extension of the moratorium and considering appointing two
members to the workgroups. That would be two members for each work group, or a
total of four people committing to at least two or three meetings.
Mr. Rogerson stated his two-pronged request: 1) Get some feedback as to whether
the commission agrees with the proposed process. 2) If the commission does agree
with the process, to solicit some volunteers to participate in the work groups.
Commissioner Kosusko asked the commission if there were any comments or
discussion.
Commissioner Wood stated that it sounds fine just not very exciting.
Commissioner Dingfield asked if this moratorium on the cell towers applies to the
one that is already in process for the mid-town area? The Quest one?
Mr. Hugo replied that that was correct. He stated that it has a permit and has a legal
right to proceed. That application came in before the moratorium was enacted. So, it
was vested. The thing that could make this exciting is the fact that what is needed for
these regulations are vocational and design standards. What do these facilities look
like? This should be right up some designers ally.
Commissioner Cockburn said that there is quite a bit of controversy over the cell
towers. "Not in our neighborhood" kind of controversy. He said that he was not
aware if the billboards have the same hysteria because there are not any presumed
health consequences like there is from the cell towers. He said that he would be
interested in the billboard work group if we go forward.
Commissioner Buckingham volunteered for the cell tower work group.
Commissioner Dingfield said that she had comments on both. She believes that it is
really important that the Planning Commission support the moratorium. She further
explained that the support should be very public. She said that because of the process
Planning Commission Special Meeting
December 17, 2002
Page 3 of 8
we're in, we need to be very logical about what we're doing. I£you look at the
design standards we're trying to put in place as part of the Comprehensive Plan -
while this may not be for just downtown, the citizens have been very active in the
Comprehensive Plan process because they have a vision for the city. Both of these
things visually impact what would happen in this city. We need to respect citizen
participation in that process. It will be very important for the City Council to know
that we've been hearing this all along. They have just been hearing it in bits and
pieces. As the public heating part of this goes forward she hopes that we (Planning
Commission) are going to encourage all the citizens who have been participating in
this to make sure that the City Council hears the same kinds of things. She further
stated that both these things really impact what the city will look like. As our
Directors have explained to us, after we complete the Comprehensive Plan process -
then we're going to be headed into the re-write of the zoning ordinance. She thinks
that as we move through the Comprehensive Plan process, it would be good to
hearing from the commission regarding your approach might be for a zoning
ordinance and a time schedule on that because it would be important for the City
Council to hear that as well because everything is connected. She believes the
Planning Commission should proceed very deliberately and presented Bainbridge
Island and the Wheaton Way corridor as examples - healthy versus not healthy
respectively and the importance of citizen participation during the entire process.
Commissioner Buckingham agreed with Commissioner Dingfield. He said that we
should go ahead with extending the moratoriums and that option two is the best way
to go. He said that it should keep us from any potential legal problems. He also
agreed that it is good to have the public involved for several reasons: 1) we get their
opinion; 2) public relations standpoint - yes, we are listening and that is what we are
here to do. Incorporate their ideas; 3) from the business standpoint - those business
owners who are interested in the outcome of this would like to know that something
is moving and that they will not just be waiting forever for us to make a decision.
Commissioner Kennedy asked if the City Council has to extend the moratorium for
another six months? She asked for clarification - are we (Planning Commission)
saying to the City Council that if they extend the moratorium another six months, we
would like to be involved in the process by which we write some guidelines since we
were not involved in the moratorium to begin with?
Mr. Hugo explained that by the City Charter and the BMC the Planning Commission
does have the duty and the authority to draft regulations, legislative amendments to
the zoning code. So we carmot have a new ordinance for these two items without
your participation.
Commissioner Kennedy responded by saying that if that is what we're going to be
doing we definitely need public input.
Mr. Hugo said that public participation is required by state law, just like everything
under GMA. We are just formalizing that discipline within the City. Once again, we
know what our duty is. I think it would be good for the Planning Commission to
make a recommendation to the City Council saying that you are recommending that
the moratoria be renewed and that you know have the time and work program to work
with the community to prepare ordinances for their consideration.
Planning Commission Special Meeting
December 17, 2002
Page 4 of 8
Commissioner Buckingham mentioned the problem that Bainbridge Island ran into,
that it was an insufficient opportunity for public input. Was that situation a
moratorium very similar to what we're working on here?
Mr. Hugo responded that it was actually a set of regulations for critical areas. An
idea was developed within the organization and brought to a first public hearing. It
was then adopted, then challenged and thrown out because it didn't meet the Growth
Management Act's requirement for early, open and continuous citizen participation.
This means that from the earlier stages you need to have the public invited into the
dialog to generate some of the input. I believe that what we are proposing meets the
test because the court says that you have to have at least one general public meeting
before you get the hearing. This is early on in the process and therefore, meets the
test. It is not before a draft is identified, but this is suggesting that we could at least
look at some other jurisdictions; a citizen based work group [industry people, people
involved with the Comprehensive Plan, and of course, you are citizens as opposed to
appointed or elected officials, some at-large people]. This mixture of participants
represents a citizen process. That citizen process identified some draft ideas that then
goes out for general public comment, which takes care of the whole issue of what that
court finding was about.
Commissioner Kosusko had several questions but stated that he supported extending
the moratoriums. He asked where the six month time period came from.
Mr. Hugo stated that it comes from state law.
Commissioner Kosusko said that his concern was whether six months was enough
time. He said that the comprehensive planning process is done at the end of
December, but it's not going to be. Is there enough time to complete this?
Mr. Hugo responded that if we were starting from scratch that he would be
concerned as well. However, since he has been through the billboard experience in
another city. It was long and painful. In this case, we have the benefit in both subject
areas. We have the benefit of more recent work by a lot of other jurisdictions that
have been through the painful special interest wars and community value wars. He
believes that we have good base to draw on particularly cell towers which are
extremely controversial. There are examples from Kitsap County, Pierce County and
Spokane County which were all done within the last two years. In some case those
ordinances are the product of two or three iterations in a two year period. Something
was tried; another tower went up; it was just creamed politically; so they went
through another process and tried it again. The same thing happened with billboards,
but to a lesser degree. He said that Spokane County just went through the billboard
wars, so they have some ideas there.
On off-premises signs, Bremerton is starting from a better point than many
communities. We already have a more limited size, I think you can only have 100
square feet. He mentioned that there is one billboard on Washington - it is now the
biggest thing you see since the Enetai Plaza Building was demolished. The
appropriate location for signs is something that we missed. There are some locations
around the Warren Avenue bridge that have been notable during the political season.
Planmng Commission Special Meeting
December 17, 2002 Page 5 of 8
There was a short decision about a political sign that was mounted on a large truck.
These are the kind of regulations that should be questioned, if it's mounted on a truck
is it okay? In that case, it wasn't okay according to our code, signs on vehicles have
to advertise what is inside the vehicle that the sign is put on. So that would have been
okay ifthe political candidate had been sitting in the truck all the time. Sincethey
were not, those were not legal signs. We have some examples even in our own code
where the provisions are probably good and in other cases we'll have to look and see
what the rest of the world is doing. He stated that with that background we can make
it in six months just fine.
There was a short discussion about what action should be taken and procedural
matters.
Commissioner Kosusko asked if there was anyone else interested in participating in
the two work groups? Commissioner Cockbum volunteered for the billboard;
Commissioner Buckingham volunteered for the cell towers, two others are needed.
Commissioner Wood said that she would volunteer for billboards and Commissioner
Kosusko volunteered for the cell towers work group.
Commissioner Kosusko then asked about getting Coordinating Council at-large
volunteers, we can probably come up with but at-large citizens may be a little more
difficult. Directing his statement to staff, he then stated that you may know people
that have expressed interest in this topic.
Mr. Rogerson responded that staff does have leads and will do the leg work to locate
people from the industry and citizens.
A motion was made by Commissioner Kennedy and seconded by Commissioner
Dingfield to recommend to the City Council to extend the existing moratoriums
on billboards and cell towers and adopt the recommended work plan from the
Planning Commission as proposed by staff [Bill boards work group -
Commissioners Cockburn and Wood; Cell tower work group - Commissioners
Buckingham and Kosusko]. Called for a vote: Buckingham: yes; Cockburn:
yes; Dingfield: yes; Kennedy: yes; Nelson: yes; Wood: yes; and Kosusko: yes.
Motion carries.
b. Update on Comprehensive Plan Process
Mr. Rogerson explained that the staffhas been working along with the Coordinating
Council members on the three scenarios of the Land Use Map. The map shows
various centers locations. More recently members of the Planning Commission as
Coordinating Council have gone on a bus tour of those centers and looked at
neighborhood boundaries that might occur between those centers. There has been
two tours. Stafftook a smaller group of Coordinating Council members on the same
tour of the community last week again looking at centers, boundaries and locations.
Based on what we've heard from the Coordinating Council members on those issues,
staffhas spent the last two days working on refining the recommended boundaries for
centers and doing some work on boundaries for neighborhoods. The boundaries work
group will be meeting tomorrow afternoon to discuss the results of those tours and
Planning Commission Special Meeting
December 17, 2002
Page 6 of 8
CITY OF BREMERTON
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that there will be a public hearing before the CiW
Council of the City of Bremerton on
DATE:
January 22~ 2003
TIME:
5:30 P.M. OR LATER
in the City Council Chambers at City Hall, 239 Fourth Street, Bremerton, Washin~on, and all interested
persons are requested to be present. To be considered is the following:
APPLICANT: City of Bremerton Department of Community
Development, 286 4tb Street, Bremerton
ACTION: An resolution renewing for six months a moratoria on the
acceptance of applications for, or any building, land use, or development
permit or approval for off-premises signs within Bremerton. Original
moratorium was adopted on July 24tb 2002.
ALL PROTESTS AND OBJECTIONS TO THIS ACTION MUST BE FILED IN
WRITING IN THIg OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK, 239 FOURTH STREET,
PRIOR TO CLOSE OF BUSINESS ON THE DATE OF THE HEARING.
The entire resolution is on file and available for review at the Department of
Community Development. For more information regarding this action, you may contact
Chris Hugo, Director of Community Development, at (360) 478-5243
DATED at Bremerto n, Washington this 1 lth day of Janu ary~~.~_ .&..G.(..~_~_
{/Paul Rogerson
Planning Manager