HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/01/04 AGENDA FILE
CITY COUNCIL 345 6th Street, Suite 600, Bremerton, WA 98337-1873 c~ (360) 473-5280
PLEASE NOTE - THE COUNCIL MEETINGS ARE NOW BEING HELD IN THE NEW
"NORM DICKS GOVERNMENT CENTER" LOCATED AT 345 6TM STREET
DECEMBER t, 2004
CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
1. PRE-COUNCIL STUDY SESSION: 5:00 - 5:30 P.M. in COUNCIL CONFERENCE ROOM 603
A. General Council Business
2. CALL TO ORDER: 5:30 P,M. in COUNCIL CHAMBERS LOCATED ON FIRST FLOOR
A. Pledge of Allegiance
B. Invocation
3. MAYOR'S REPORT
4. PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENTS
5. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Claims & Check Register (#AB04-242)
B. Minutes of Meeting - November 3, 2004 (#AB04-243)
C. Minutes of Meeting - November 10, 2004 (#AB04-244)
D. Appointment of John Lyall to the Bremerton Housing Authority Board of Directors (#AB04-245)
6. NEW BUSINESS - There are no New Business Items this week...
7. PUBLIC HEARINGS - ORDINANCES & RESOLUTIONS
A. Ordinance No. 4917 [Second Reading], adopting a new Bremerton Comprehensive Plan and
rescinding existing plans (#AB04-231)
B. Ordinance No. 4918 [Second Reading], amending Chapter 3.50 of the Bremerton Municipal Code,
decreasing the Cable Utility Tax from 8.5% to 7% for 2005 (#AB04-240)
C.Ordinance No. 4919 [Second Reading], amending Chapter 3.01 of the Bremerton Municipal Code,
updating Rates and Fees for 2005 (#AB04-241)
D. Ordinance [Flint Reading] authorizing the extension of an Agreement with BANK OF,AMERICA to
secure an $800,000 line-of-credit for the Kitsap Conference Center at Bremerton Harborside
(#AB04-246)
E. Ordinance [First Reading] adopting FY 2005 City of Bremerton Budget (#AB04-247)
F. Resolution No. 2~47, presenting Corflpiiance Schedule for Adoption of Development Regulations
per Growth Management Act (#AB04-248)
8. PUBLIC RECOGNITION
9. COUNCIL MEMBER REPORI'~
10. ADJOURNMENT OF CITY cOUNCIL BUSINESS MEETING
[] Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accommodations provided upon request. Those requiring special
accommodations should contact the City Clerk's Office at (360) 473-5323 by noon on the Monday preceding the
Council meeting.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
SPEAKERS LIST /~./,
PLEASE NOTE THAT ALL REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION FROM THE CITY OF
BREMERTON MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING.
THANK YOU.
PLEASE PRINT YOUR NAME BELOW IF YOU PLAN TO
SPEAK DURING THE COUNCIL MEETING TONIGHT
AGENDA BILL
CITY OF BREivIERTON
CITY COLFNCIL 5
SUBJECT: Approval of' Claims and Checks Committee Meeting Date:
Register COUNCIL MEETING Da're:
Depm~ment: Finm~cial'Services
Presenter: Cathy Joh21son
Phone: 473-5296
SUMMARY: Consent agenda item. Approval of payroll, checks mid electro~fic fund transfers.
ATTACHMENTS:
FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount):.
APPROVALS:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY:
FiNANCE DIRECTOR:
MAYOR:
FISCAL/BUDGET:
OPERATIONS: CONSENT AGENDA
COUNCIL PRESIDENT:
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to Approve:
d,5-?
1) Check #'s oc9~'-~O 3 throug~~ and EFr's ~t.~_through
in the amount of $
2) Regular Payroll for the pay period ending in the amount ors
3) Retiree Payroll for the pay period ending //- 30-f__)y in the amoum of $
COUNCIL ACTION: [] Approve [] Deny [] Table [] Conthme [] No Action
DATE SUBMITTED: November i~, 2004 BILL
AGENDA BILL
CITY OF BREMERTON
CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: Minutes of Meeting - Committee Meeting Date: N/A
November 3, 2004 COUNCIL MEETING Date: [ ' ,2004
Department: City Council
Presenter: Daren Nygren,
Council President
Phone: (360) 473-5280
SUMMARY: Attached are the minutes for the Council Meeting held November 3, 2004.
ATTACHMENTS: Minutes for November 3, 2004.
FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): 0
APPROVALS:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY:
FINANCE DIRECTOR:
MAYOR:
CONSENT AGENDA
FISCAL/BUDGET:
OPERATIONS:
COUNCIL PRESIDENT:
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to pass the ConsEnt Agenda as presented.
COUNCIL ACTION: [] Approve [] Deny [] Table [] Continue [] No Action
TAPES #1978 & #1979
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
Wednesday, November 3, 2004
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, November 3, 2004, at
5:30 P.M., with Council President Daren Nygren presiding. Council members present were Mike
Short, Will Maupin, Carol Arends, Mike Shepherd, Wendy Priest, Cecil McConnell, and Brad
Gehring. Council member Dianne Robinson was absent. Also present were City Attorney Roger
Lubovich; 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 Associate Pastor "Gordie" Gott'fred of Sylvan Way
Baptist Church.
President Nyqren made the following announcements:
1. A Pre-Council session was held in the Conference Room from 5:00 to 5:30 PM; which included
a 15-minute Executive Session to "REVIEW OF PERSONNEL PERFORMANCE" per R.C.W.
42.30.110(1)(g); and
2. Item 6B under PUBLIC HEARINGS on the agenda would be heard prior to Item 6A.
MAYOR'S REPORT - Mayor Bozeman...
· Congratulated Detective Andy Oakley on his recent retirement after 25 years with the City of
Bremerton's Police Department;
· Invited the Council to attend the Reception to commemorate the 50th Anniversary of the NAVAL
MEMORIAL MUSEUM OF THE PACIFIC on Friday, November 5 from 5:00 to 8:00 PM at the Naval
Museum located at 402 Pacific Avenue;
· Announced that the City of Bremerton would have a booth at the "Governor's 2004 Economic
Development Forum" to be held at the Greater Tacoma Convention & Trade Center on
Wednesday, December 1, beginning at 7:30 AM;
· Bob Drewell, Executive Director of the PUGET SOUND REGIONAL COUNCIL would be providing an
update on activities currently in progress in Bremerton to the Mayor tomorrow morning;
· He will be giving a presentation to FORWARD SHORELINE, a business group trying to develop a
downtown plan for their city which is adjacent to Seattle;
· Mike Anderson, Interim Director of the WASHINGTON STATE FERRIES plans on visiting
Bremerton in the next few weeks;
· The Mayor will be providing a tour to the Chairman and President of the Board of UNICO on
Sunday, November 16;
· THE GIRLS AND BOYS CLUB will be holding a fundraiser on Saturday, November 20 at the
Conference Center;
· Invited Council Members to the Annual City Christmas Party to be held on Thursday,
December 9 starting at 5:00 P.M. at the Conference Center;
· Congratulated Council Member Cecil McConnell and Council Members on the possible
passage of Charter amendments; and
· Received an additional positive recommendation from a law firm for Laura Lyon, newly hired
Finance Director.
PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENTS
Julie Graves of the Kitsap County Consolidated Housing Authority (KCCHA) announced that a
public meeting regarding an EPA Brownsfields Grant Application will be held Tuesday, November
@th at the Sinclair Building starting at 2:00 P.M. The application would include the purchase and
sale of the block between 7th & 8th Street, and Warren & Park Avenue.
TAPES #1978 & #1979
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
Wednesday, November 3, 2004
Page 2 of 4
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Check numbers 294862 through 295029, EFT-6504, EFT-6508, EFT-6510 through EFT-
6512, EFT-6514 through EFT-6524, and P-6513 in the amount of $663,071.32; Regular
Payroll in the amount of $633,101.54 for the pay-period ending October 15, 2004; and
Retiree Payroll in the amount of $70,906.37 for the pay-period ending October 31, 2004
(#AB04-227)
B. Acceptance of Public Works Trust Fund Loan for Repair of Brentwood Avenue Storm Drain
(#AB04-228)
C. Approval to set Pay Band for Director of Financial Services at Band 20; and Approval to
hire Laura Lyon as Financial Services Director at Pay Step 8 of Band 20 (#AB04-229)
#0315 M/S/C/U (Priest/McConnell) Move to approve the Consent Agenda as presented.
6B - ORDINANCE [FIRST READING1 ADOPTING A NEW BREMERTON COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN AND RESCINDING EXISTING PLANS (#AB04-231): Chris Hu,qo, Community
Development Director, provided a PowerPoint presentation of the proposed ordinance, which
adopts the new 2004 City of Bremerton Comprehensive Plan. He summarized that the
Comprehensive Plan is the result of nearly three years of community participatory activity
conducted under the City's Shaping Bremerton "Public Participation Program" adopted by Council
in 2002 to guide development of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed new plan represents a
completely new direction for the development of the City over the next 20 years, and relies on a
growth strategy that employs new "centers" of growth as a primary method of bringing new vitality
to Bremerton. The 2004 Comprehensive Plan meets all requirements for updating comprehensive
plans under the Growth Management Act (GMA). The GMA sets a deadiine of December 1, 2004,
for plan updates. The ordinance also rescinds all prior plans that are inconsistent with the
direction of the new plan.
It was clarified that maps shown during the PowerPoint presentation and copies of the Draft 2004
Comprehensive Plan and Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (ELS) are available
through the Department of Community Development and on the City's website at
www.ci.bremerton.wa.us.
Mr. Nyqren asked for clarification on the remaining meetings to be held on the Comprehensive
Plan. Mr. HuRO answered that the first reading may be continued to November 17th and second
reading is scheduled for December 1.
E.L. Sturdivant was concerned with the proposed housing density for the planned Centers.
Bill Palmer provided his comments on preferred alternative number 3; and expressed concerns
that the proposed plan may not benefit businesses in Bremerton and that planned Centers may
not work. Mr. Shepherd asked that the comments provided by Mr. Palmer at the Planning
Commission meetings be provided by the next Council meeting. He also expressed concern with
the tax incentive issue; and asked when Olympic College would be abte to discuss their issues
regarding campus boundaries. Mr. Hu.qo explained that the Council can update their
Comprehensive Plan every two years, and therefore would include comments from Olympic
College during the next update planned in 2006.
Ms. Priest expressed her particular concerns with transportation issues, including bicycle lanes.
Mr. Huqo provided a memo on this subject, and discussed his plan to meet with the Public Works
Department. He intends to be prepared to address this issue at the meeting on November 17.
TAPES #1978 & #1979
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
Wednesday, November 3, 2004
Page 3 of 4
Ms. Priest additionally asked if any areas could be identified to fall under the community character
development element. Mr. Hu.qo explained that centers could be defined during the public
process and then properties could be listed in that element at the next opportunity for an update.
Mr. Gehrinq offered questions regarding sub-dividing lots; and was interested in the costs of
providing safe bicycle lanes. Mr. Hu.qo provided clarification that larger lots can be retained
depending upon the zoning of the property.
Mr. Maupin reminded the public that there would be several more opportunities for comment.
President Ny,qren also thanked the Planning Department and members of the Planning
Commission for their efforts regarding the proposed updates to the Bremerton Comprehensive
Plan, and reiterated that all the information presented tonight is available on the City's website at
www.ci.bremerton.wa.us.
#1845 MISIClU (Maupin/Arends) Move to continue the First Reading of the ordinance adopting the
new 2004 Bremerton Comprehensive Plan to November 17, 2004.
6A - ORDINANCE [FIRST READING] ESTABLISHING THE PROPERTY TAX LEVY AMOUNTS
TO BE COLLECTED FOR 2005 (#AB04-230): Michael Wilson, Financial Services Director,
explained that this ordinance will establish the regular property tax levy in the amount of
$5,275,463 and EMS levy in the amount of $873,482 to be collected in 2005 which represents a
percentage increase of 1.0% from the previous year. In addition, the ordinance will establish an
excess property tax levy in the amount of $912,030 for debt redemption of the voter-approved
2002 Public Safety UTGO Bonds and $150,085 for debt redemption of the voter-approved 1997
UTGO Fire Refunded Bonds.
There were no comments from the public.
#2050 M/SIC (Arends/Short) Move to approve an ordinance on first reading setting the property
tax levy amounts to be collected in 2005.
Voted in favor of Motion: Priest, Shepherd, Arends, Maupin, Short, McConnell, Nygren
Abstained: Gehring
Motion carried: 7-Yes; 1-Abstention
6C - PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED FISCAL YEAR 2005 CITY OF BREMERTON BUDGET
(#AB04-232): Michael Wilson, Financial Services Director, provided a PowerPoint presentation
to afford the citizens of Bremerton an opportunity to be heard regarding the proposed Fiscal Year
2005 Proposed Budget. This is an informational item, and no action is required of City Council.
The Public Hearing will continue on November 17, 2004.
There were no comments from the public.
No action was required from City Council.
PUBLIC RECOGNITION - There were no announcements or comments made by the public.
COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS
Mike Short announced that all residents of Shorewood Drive might be particularly interested in
hearing a presentation regarding the "UppedLower NAD Park Closure" on Monday, November 15
from 7:00 - 9:00 P.M. at the Oyster Bay Public Works Facility located on 100 Oyster Bay Drive.
TAPES ~1978 & #1979
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
Wednesday, November 3, 2004
Page 4 of 4
Carol Arends provided a briefing on the KRCC Board meetings she attended this week; and
reminded everyone that the First Friday Art Walk event would be herd this week.
Mike Shepherd Evergreen Neighborhood Association would be holding a meeting to elect officers
on Sunday, November 6 beginning at 4:00 P.M. at the Caf6 Destino; encouraged people to see
the Chester Heights construction; and a joint District 4 & 5 meeting would be held Thursday,
December 2, with details soon to follow.
Brad Gehrin,q congratulated all of the candidates who ran for office, and provided an extra
congratulation to those who were successful; and congratulated KITSAP COUNTY BANK who
purchased his GEHRING BROTHERS store in order to provide some improvement to the Wheaton
Way corridor.
Daren Nyqren thanked the Olympic Board of Trustees for becoming involved in a dialogue with
the City; and announced the Council Meetings would continue to be hetd in the current City Hall
located at 239 4th Street until November 17 at which time the Council Meetings will be moved to
the Norm Dicks Government Center located at 345 6th Street.
With no further business, the meeting of the City Council was adjourned at 7:29 PM.
Prepared and Submitted by:
LORI SMITH
Legislative Assistant
Attest:
PAULA JOHNSTON, City Clerk
DAREN NYGREN, City Council President
City of Bremerton
DN/PJ/Is/cge
DATE SUBMITTED: November 10, 2004 BILL
AGENDA BILL
CITY OF BREMERTON
CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: Minutes of Meeting- Committee Meeting Date: N/A
November 10, 2004 COUNCIL MEETING Date: L.-:~ ~. ~ 2004
Department: City Council
Presenter: Daren Nygren,
Council President
Phone: (360) 473-5280
SUMMARY: Attached are the minutes for the Council Meeting held November 10, 2004.
ATTACHMENTS: Minutes for November 10, 2004.
FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): 0
APPROVALS:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY:
FINANCE DIRECTOR:
MAYOR:
FISCAL/BUDGET: CONSENT AGENDA
OPERATIONS:
COUNCIL PRESIDENT: !\&
RECOMMENDED MOTION. Move to pass the Consent Agenda as presented.
COUNCIL ACTION: [] Approve [] Deny ~] Table [] Continue [] No Action
DIGITAL RECORDING
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
Wednesday, November 10, 2004
The weekly meeting of the City Council of the City of Bremerton was called to order in the City
Council Chambers, of the NORM DICKS GOVERNMENT CENTER, 345 6th Street, Bremerton,
Washington, Wednesday, November 10, 2004, at 5:30 P.M., with Council President Daren Nygren
presiding. Council members present were Mike Short, Will Maupin, Carol Arends, Dianne Robinson,
Mike Shepherd, Wendy Priest, Cecil McConnell, and Brad Gehring. Also present were City Attorney
Roger Lubovich; City Clerk Paula Johnston; and Legislative Assistant Lori Smith.
Prior to the meeting, Council President Daren Ny.qren and Vice President Cecil McConnell cut
the ribbon for the Ribbon-Cutting ceremony held to commemorate the Council's first meeting in the
new Council Chambers. The meeting then opened with the Pledge of Allegiance led by Vice
President McConnell, followed by the invocation provided by Reverend Paul Meeker of Our
Saviour's Lutheran Church.
President Ny.qren made the following announcements:
1. A Pre-Council session was held in Council Conference Room 603 from 5:00 to 5:30 PM; and
included a 15-minute Executive Session to "Review Labor Negotiations" per R.C.W.
42.20.140(4)(b); and
2. Council will reconvene in Council Conference Room 603 immediately following the regular Council
meeting to hear presentations on upcoming agenda items and a Study Session to discuss the "FY
2005 Budget".
PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUCEMENTS
Council Member Mike Short announced a Neighborhood Meeting to discuss the "Upper & Lower
NAD Park Closure" would be held on Monday, November 15 from 7:00 to 9:00 PM at the Oyster Bay
Conference Room of the Public Works & Utility Building at 100 Oyster Bay Drive.
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Check numbers 295185 through 295274 and EFT-6525 through EFT-6526, EFT-6529 through
EFT-6531 in the amount of $789,257.02; and Regular Payroll in the amount of $608,429.94
for the period ending October 31, 2004. (#AB04-233)
M/S/C/U (PriestJMcConnell) Move to approve the Consent Agenda as presented.
With no further business, the meeting of the City Council was adjourned at 5:45 PM. The Council
then reconvened in Council Conference Room 603 for a LEGISLATIVE REVIEW SESSION to hear
presentations on upcoming agenda items.
Prepared and,_ Sub_mitred by:
~~~_
LoA
Legislative Assistant
Attest:
PAULA JOHNSTON, City Clerk
DAREN NYGREN, City Council President, City of Bremerton
DN/PJ/Is/cge
7
DATE SUBMITTED: November 18, 2004 BILL # __~ t.f ~ ~} ti c.~'
AGENDA BILL
CITY OF BREMERTON
CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: Appointment to the Committee Meeting Date: November 23, 2004
Housing Authority Board of Directors COUNCIL MEETiNG Date: December 1, 2004
Department: Executive
Presenter: Mayor Bozeman
Phone: 360 473-5266
SUMMARY: There is a vacancy on the Bremerton Housing Authority Board of Directors due to the
resignation of Art Morken Jr. It is recommended the vacancy be filled by John Lyall.
ATTACHMENTS: Application for appointment.
FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): n/a
APPROVALS:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY:
FINANCE DIRECTOR: ~
MAYOR:
FISCAL/BUDGET: CONSENT AGENDA?~5
OPERATIONS: - ~,,.~...., r
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
Motion to confirm the appointment of John Lyall to the Bremerton Housing Authority Board of
Directors.
COUNCIL ACTION: [] Approve [] Deny [] Table [] Continue [] No Action
Application For City Boards/Commissions/Committee
Note: As an applicant for a City Boszd, Commission or Commi~ee, your name, address, and
tel~honc number will be available to thc press and public, You will b~ contacted before any
action is taken on your appoinunent.
(Plca~ typc or prim cl~rly)
Date: Nov. 15~ 2004
Name: John~s~ FranciS~mot~ L~I HomoPhone:
Home Address: WA Bremct~on 98312
N1.rbflg~ ~ STATE cTrY ZiP
Occupation: Realtor Employer: Reid Real Estate--Bremerton
Work Address: 3330 Kilsap Way WA Bmma'ton 983 ! 2
r~vMs~ srs~r S'rAT£ crv/ ZI~'
Work Phone: (360) 377 0046 Fax: (360) 479 0833 E-Mail: jlyall('~Jaol.com
Education:
Bachelor of A.,~5--Sociai Science ~
Master of Arts---English
Maste~ of Science-Public Adm~ 'strat/on
L/mai l~cfcrcnccs (names and phone numbers):
David Fart 360 620 5414
Mo Anduiza 360 692 7431
Ann Lovell 3~0 373 8303
I am interested in sc~llg (pl~ check one. or more):
[] Disability Action Committe~ [] Planning Commission (1 $ ~rs. and old~)
Civil SarViCC Commission (1 $ yrs. arid older) B Parks & Recreation Corm~tissJofl
Urban Forest Committee Ethics Commission
Public Access Citizens Advismy Committee Parking Advisory BoaM
BCommunity DevdopmemBIock Grant Advisory Board I--] Mayor's Setext CommiTtee on [,aw £nfor~mant
Youth Council [] Br~merton Housing Authority v~
Safe Streets Steering CommiTtee [] Solid Waste Management
Board of Appeals, Housing/Building Codes [] Citizen's Commission on Council Salaries
[~] Other
Is this an application for reappolntment? No
City 2ppornw~,m .~llca,on
P~ge 1 of 2
9
If 7ce, how many ycave havc you served on tt~s commisslon/comn~ttcc?
Why a~ you appl~g for ~ts appoin~ent? I believe eve~ citizen has a rcs~nsibil~ to p~cipatc in thor
co~u~, in ord~ to m~e it a better pl~e to live. ~e Breme~on Housing Au~ority Bo~d is about to make
some major ch~g~s to B~on ~ ~ll m~e it a b~er pl~e to live. ~ wmt to p~cipato
~leh of your ~on~ an~or prof~sional in~ p~mpted you to apply for this appoh~en/?,My
p~onal in.est is helping B~mc~on to be ~ exciting nd d~i~blc pl~c ~ live. ~ beli~e thc B~on
Hous~g Au~odty Bo~d is ~ut to ~b~ on pmjcc~ ~at ~ll bring major ch~ge to ~is co~u~.
Thee projc~ will have posi~e eff~t on o~ cifize~ for m~ay ye~ W ~me.
Hsve you cvcr ~ on say o~r B~menon Bosrd, Co~issfon~ Comm/~ or T~k Forte? If y~,
pie~c list: Civil S~ice Co~issi~: Mayo~ Public S~c~ Bond EloCon T~k Fo~c.
Pl se your qusliflesi0ns for spp0 meat (include s ls, scfl , inl, ucsfi0n): Mut
~c ~ ~blic A~inis~on.. ~ ~c~ s~lls. G~ negoia~ng s~lls. Exccll~t org~zafio~
~lh. Good Listing.
~st src your ~mmuni~ iu~res~ (commi~e~, o~flons, specisl scgvlti~)? Bo~ M~ W~t
Sold R~ Cwss Ad~o~ Bo~; Bo~ M~ Wc~ So~ ~ Co,tit; P~t P~sid~t ~ver~
~l~'s ~e~; P~t Ro~ Mmber B~me~on S~phony
We welcome your willingness to serve Bremerton. For more information please contact thc Mayor's Office at
(360) 473-5266, FAX (360) 473-5853 or via cmail ~t mayor~ci.bremerton.wa, us. Please return the completed
form to: Mayor's Office, 239 4~ Street, Brcmcr~on WA 98337.
I~e2 of 2
10
CARY BOZEMAN, MAYOR
mayor~ci.bremerton.wa.us
November 19, 2004
MEMO TO: City Council
FROM: Mayor Bozeman
SUBJECT: Bremerton Housing Authority Board of Directors
Attached is a copy of a letter of resignation from the Bremerton Housing Authority Board
of Directors I received from Art Morken Jr.
Also attached is a letter to John Lyall who I am recommending replace Art Morken Jr.
on the Board. Mr. Lyall has resigned from the Civil Service Commission and we are in
search of his replacement. Please let me know if you know of anyone who would be
interested in serving on the Civil Service Commission.
Also, there is a vacancy on the Planning Commission due to the resignation of B. Scott
Buckingham and we are looking for a replacement for his position.
I plan to place the confirmation of John Lyall to the Bremerton Housing Authority Board
of Directors on the City Council agenda of December 1st. If you have any questions or
concerns, please contact me as soon as possible.
Thank you very much.
DATE SUBMITTED: October 27, 2004 BILL
AGENDA BILL
CiTY OF BREMERTON
CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: Public Hearing and Ordinance q'17 Committee Meeting Date: Sept 7, 2004
adopting new 2004 Bremerton COUNCIL MEETING Date: November~ 2004 ~
Comprehensive Plan and rescinding existing Department: Community
plans. Development
Presenter: Chris Hugo
Phone: 473-5243
SUMMARY: The proposed ordinance adopts the new 2004 City of Bremerton Comprehensive
Plan. The Comprehensive Plan is the result of nearly three years of community participatory activity
conducted under the City's Shaping Bremerton "Public Participation Program" adopted by Council in
2002 to guide development of the Plan. The proposed new Plan represents a completely new direction
for the development of the City over the next 20 years and relies on a growth strategy that employs
new "centers" of growth as a primary method for bringing new vitality to Bremerton. The 2004
Comprehensive Plan meets all requirements for updating comprehensive plans under the Growth
Management Act (CMA). The CMA sets a deadline of Decemher 1, 2004, for plan updates. The
ordinance also rescinds all prior plans that are inconsistent with the direction of the new Plan.
ATTACHMENTS: Draft 2004 Bremerton Comprehensive P~n ~ ava. ila~oia, a.3 bee.L o~ G~,.~.
Supplemental EIS ($epo.~,e.~-t[y I~0 ow )
Staff Report -' ~owuo. ~, bre~ .~, u ~
FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): No immediate direct impacts, although the
proposed Plan, in time, should produce higher efficiencies in service delivery and attract new growth
and investment to generate additional local tax revenues
APPROVALS:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY: ~ ~ -- _
MAYOR: ~.~-~"'//f/"/~(~....~ ".
FISCAL/BUDGET: PJ~ad q~/o? CONSENT AGENDA []
OPERATIONS: ~leard q/* [o ~;
RECOMMENDED MOTION: 0
Move to,apprzvz an ordinance adovting the new 2004 Bremerton Comprehensive Plan.ma--first
Move to pass Ordinance # ~q I '7 __ on second reading.
COUNCIL ACTION: [] Approve [] Deny [] Table [] Continue [] No Action
ORDINANCE NO. ~q17
AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of
Bremerton, Washington, adopting a new Bremerton
Comprehensive Plan.
WHEREAS, the City of Bremerton adopted a revised Comprehensive Plan in
1995; and
WHEREAS, the Growth Management Act of 1990 (GMA) requires update of the
Comprehensive plan by December 1, 2004; and
WHEREAS, the GMA established statewide goals, guidelines, and procedural
requirements to guide the development, coordination, implementation and financing of long-
range comprehensive plans; and
WHEREAS, in 2002 the City initiated a public process to create an entirely new
Comprehensive Plan to pursue a more effective growth strategy; and
WHEREAS, the new plan process was based on a land use inventory, a build-out
analysis, and the City's capacity to deliver urban services to support desired growth; and
WHEREAS, the new plan process was guided by the GMA as well as centers
growth strategies adopted by the Puget Sound Regional Council and in updated Kitsap
Countywide Planning Policies; and
WHEREAS, the Shaping Bremerton public participation program was established
in 2002 and directly guided the review of the 1995 Comprehensive Plan and the drafting of a
new plan; and
WHEREAS, all preliminary Comprehensive Plan drafts were openly discussed
during a series of advertised public meetings before being forwarded to the Planning
Commission; and
WHEREAS, a Citizens Coordinating Council comprised of active Shaping
Bremerton participants deliberated many months during 2003 and 2004 in helping to prepare a
draft Comprehensive Plan ("Draft Comprehensive Plan" or "Plan") for the Bremerton City
Planning Commission's consideration; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with RCW 43.21(c) and WAC 197-11, a draft
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) was filed on October 22, 2004; and
1
2004 Comprehensive Plan
22
WHEREAS, copies of the Draft Comprehensive Plan and SEIS were made
available to citizens and organizations and were distributed to local jurisdictions, libraries, and
state agencies for the mandatory sixty-day review period; and
WHEREAS, following the required comment period, the final SEIS based on the
draft SEIS dated October 22, 2004 (incorporated herein by reference) was issued on November
24, 2004, and became final on December 1, 2004; and
WHEREAS, the Bremerton Planning Commission held public study sessions and
public hearings on the Draft Comprehensive Plan ("Draft Comprehensive Plan" or "Plan") as
presented by staff and the staff report dated July, 15, 2003, as initially presented and
subsequently updated (the updated staff report hereby incorporated by reference), before
finalizing the Draft Comprehensive Plan and recommending it to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the Bremerton Planning Commission held numerous public hearings
on the Draft Comprehensive Plan which concluded on May 18, 2004, at which time the
Commission approved a preliminary recommended Draft Comprehensive Plan with revisions as
reflected in the updated staff report and updated Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Bremerton Planning Commission held an additional public
hearing on October 26, 2004, and after considering the public input, the presentation from staff,
the updated staff report on the Plan and the updated Draft Comprehensive Plan as presented,
(attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference), and following Commission
deliberations, the Commission approved a final Draft Comprehensive Plan as presented for
recommendation to the City Council for adoption; and
WHEREAS, the Bremerton City Council held public study sessions and public
hearings, considered the public input, the presentation from staff, the updated staff report on the
Draft Comprehensive Plan, the hearings records and the Planning Commission recommendation
on the Draft Comprehensive Plan as set forth in Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the Bremerton City Council finds that the Draft Comprehensive Plan
as recommended by the Planning Commission meets the goals and intents of the Growth
Management Act; is consistent with the Puget Sound Regional Council's regional growth
strategy based on Centers; is fully consistent with Kitsap County Countywide Planning Policies;
reflects the early, open and continuous input of Bremerton citizens through the Council-approved
Shaping Bremerton Public Participation Program; is supported by environmental analyses that
conclude that the Plan's centers growth strategy offers environmental benefits; furthers the City's
interests in efficient delivery of urban governmental services; and offers expanded choices for
housing, transportation, and economic growth, consistent with the quality of life values of the
community; NOW THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHiNGTON,
DOES HEREBY ORDAiN AS FOLLOWS:
2
2004 Comprehensive Plan
SECTION 1. Findings and Recitals Incorporated. The findings and
recitals set forth above are hereby incorporated by reference.
SECTION 2. New Bremerton Comprehensive Plan adopted. The Draft
Comprehensive Plan attached hereto as Exhibit A as recomxnended by the Planning
Commission, is hereby adopted as the new Bremerton Comprehensive Plan.
SECTION3. 1995 Comprehensive Plan superseded. The 1995 Revised
Comprehensive Plan (as adopted by Resolution No. 2508 and thereafter amended by
Resolution Nos. 2702 and 2752 and Ordinance Nos. 4525, 4545, 4570, 4572, 4594, 4597,
4606, 4707, 4544, 4722, and 4783, and any other resolution or ordinance not referenced herein
amending the 1995 Revised Comprehensive Plan) is hereby superseded and replaced and of no
further force or effect by the adoption of the new Bremerton Comprehensive Plan pursuant to
this ordinance. The fact that the 1995 Revised Comprehensive Plan is superseded and replaced
herein does not repeal or affect the existence or validity of the resolutions or ordinances
referenced in this section relating to the adoption and amendment of the 1995 Revised
Comprehensive Plan.
SECTION 4. Savings Clause. In the event of a conflict between the
provisions of this ordinance and the comprehensive plan as adopted by this ordinance and the
provisions of any previously adopted resolution or ordinance, the provisions of this ordinance
and the comprehensive plan as adopted herein shall prevail.
SECTION 5. Severabilit¥. If any one or more sections, subsections, or
sentences of this ordinance are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not
affect the validity of the remaining portion of this ordinance and the same shall remain in full
force and effect.
SECTION 6. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in
force ten (10) days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided by law.
APPROVED by the City Council the day of ,2004
PASSED by the City Council the day of ,2004
DAREN NYGREN, Council President
Approved this day of ., 2004
CARY BOZEMAN, Mayor
3
2004 Comprehensive Plan
14
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
PAULA JOHNSTON, City Clerk ROGER A. LUBOVICH, City Attorney
PUBLISHED the day of ,21)04
EFFECTiVE the day of _, 2004
ORDiNANCE NO.
R:\LEGAL\Ordinances\Community Developmentk2004 Comp Plan Adoption l.doc
4
2004 Comprehensive Plan
15
Staff Repo~c October 26, 2!)04
Staff Report, Bremerton Planning
Public Hearing Regarding Changes to the Draft
Recommended Comprehensive Plan
I. Amendments of the Planning Commission Recommended Draft
Comprehensive Plan Update.
Background
On May 18, 2004, the Bremerton Planning Commission recommended approval of the
Draft 2003-2004 City of Bremerton Comprehensive Plan Update to the City Counci!
Since that date, several changes to the draft have been made. The changes are viewed by
staffas minor, and are not intended to alter the intent, effect, or overall goal and policy
directions set by the approved draft. However, staff recommends that the Planning
Commission conduct a public hearing to consider the recommended changes. As the
changes could be considered substantive, this will assure that proper legal process has
been conducted.
Separate sections discussing each proposed change will follow,
Format and Voice
The draft has been reformatted. This reformatting includes a ne;',' page layout,
addition of graphics and illustrations, and some limited editing to change passive voice
active. The changes are seen within all elements of the primary plan document with the
exception of the City Services Element. Tile Techmcai A&pendices will not be
retbrmatted.
The new page layout and addition of graphics necessitate little explanation The
document now exhibits a two column per page desig-n with photos, drawings and other
gaphic aids added to illustrate text. The graphics include photos of areas within the City
as well as more generic photographs and illustrations t'rom regional and nalional sources
Staffhas endeavored to find examples that accurately illustrate the intent of the given
section of text.
Al_teration of text from a passive voice to active was performed to make the
document read better. Great care ,,,,as given to assure that the meaning ,,,,'as not altered.
Marine Industrial (MI) designation
A new designation appears in an area generally between Pennsylvania Avenue
and Margurite on the east and west and b? the Po:7 Washington Narrows on the north and
15th Street on the south This area v as designated Park Indust~al in the draft appro'~ ed
b?, the Pl~Paning Ccn'~mi~sion in }',la? The ne',,. (?rop,ssedi desi~aficn is called
Industrial" Ihe new designation is similar to the previous designation, but with a few key
differences. The new designation adds an emphasis on marine related industrial uses not
found in the "Indnstrial Park" designation. These marine related industrial uses include
boat storage. Emphasis (in both designations) on addressing the interface with nearby
residential areas remains. The Marine Industrial designation provides a even stronger
mechanism for protecting adjacent uses in that it requires an internal circulation system
within a mar/ne industrial site so that movement of boats and other activity will not occ~.tr
near neighboring properties. Both designations appear on page LU53 of the new draft.
Centers Supporting Residential (CSR) designation
A new designation called "Center Supporting Residential" (CSR) appears along
the north side of the Port Washington Narrows. This recommended change implements a
discussion at the Planning Commission meeting of July 20th, 2004. At that meeting, the
Commission moved to instruct staff to prepare a policy proposal for the land use element
related to connecting Downtown, the Harrison Emplo~,ment Center, and the Manette
Neighborhood Center. The CSR desig-nation applies to large parcels that are in close
proximity to the Downtown Regional Center, the Manette Neighborhgood Center and the
Harrison Employment Center and are linked to those centers by transit, a City designated
trail system, and other alternative transportation modes. The designation allows medium
density residential uses. Specific density is not delineated in the proposed text, but would
instead be added during development of implementing zoning. In the past, rnedium
density has been defined as up to 18 units per acre. The CSR designation is described on
page LU47 of the new draft. The recommended new text is as follows:
(New name) Core Centers Supporting Residential (CCSR)
General Development Parameters
Density: Varies, urban in nature
Height; Three stories maximum
Structure type: Medium density residential
Character: Well integrated, planned residential development
Policy Direction:
Create potential for residential development that will add a critical mass of
population supporting a strong downtown, the nearby Manette Neighborhood
Center, and the Harrison Employment Center. This residential population should
be able to circulate between the three centers by using the City's planned
"Freedom Trail", mass transit, and other non-motorized modes of transportation.
Discussion:
The Core Centers Supporting Residential designation provides for medium
density residential development in locations along, or very near, a public trail
system linking the Manette Neighborhood, Harrison Employment and Downtown
Regionat Cen[ers The designation provides opportunity for residential
development that places addilional population within easy walking distance of the
commercial activities i,'~ the three centers et the core of the Cit?'. In addition,
17
CCSR locations will be well served by public transit, The intenl of the designation
is to increase oppor[unity for significant population to locate near these centers
thus increasing their viability and level of activity, while at the same time
supporting a pedestrian option for circulation within a "loop" connecting these
three key closely related nodes of future growth.
Oyster Bay Neighborhood Center description
In the approved draft, a description of the Oyster Bay Neighborhood Center was
missing. The proposed amendment adds that description. The recommended description
appears beginning on page LU11 of the new draft.
The Oyster Bay Neighborhood Center is described as featuring open space and
trail systems that link the center to the nearby Oyster Bay shoreline and playfie[ds at
Westpark as well as taking advantage of excellent marine views. Heights at the core of
the center are carefully describes to encourage the protection and utilization of view
opportunities - especially for the residential component of the center. The Oyster Bay
center is described as an area that is not expected to develop as rapidly as several other
neighborhood centers in the Plan.
UGA designation and Eventual Growth Intent discussion
There is a change of approach regarding Urban Growth Areas included in the set
of proposed changes. This is evident in two locations in the new draft. First, there is a
new section in the introduction chapter entitled "Eventual Growth Intent" (see page
Introduction 10 in the new draft). Large portions of the text found in this ne,,,,' section
were previously found in a section called ~Unincorporated Urban Growth Area" This old
section was also on page Introduction 10 and was repeated in the Land Use Element on
page LU6.
The new "Eventual Growth Lntent" section describes a new policy direction for
most areas beyond the current (1995) Urban Growth ,a~'ea. A supporting '~Evenr_ual
Growth Map" on page Introduction 13 depicts most areas currently in the East Brerne~on
Unassociated UGA and a large area encompassing the SKIA area as pan of the eventual
~owth area. To clarify, the old section had indicated an intent to include these areas in a
new larger Bremerton Urban Growth Area while the new section indicates that most of
this geo~aphy is an area of future interest for the City bnt will not be included in a
proposed UGA at this time.
Ia the Land Use Element, a new section called "The Urban Growth Area" is
found on page LU22. This section essentially replaces the earlier draft's discussion. The
new UGA section - supported by the UGA Map on a following page - indicates that, at
this time Bremerton will propose a UGA that is essentially the same as the current (1995)
area. This is consistent with the new introduction section discussed above.
The reasons for this recommended policy change spring from the tec~ical
requirements of the Growth Management Act. In summary, one of the primary
requirements connected with establishing an Urban Growth Area Is making a
demonstration of abilit? to provide urban ser¥ices to that area At the current tin:e, thai
technical '.~ork is nat in place th~,~s making the asse~ntien that the CiL', UGA should extend
18
from the perspective of good planning policy, the City must continue to assert the logic
and benefit of eventually guiding the destiny of these larger areas.
There is one exception to this generally consistent change in philosophy. Gorst is
included in the proposed UGA now described in this Plan. The intimate relationship of
this area to Bremerton, its sep,'ice areas, and to its image and future, indicate to staffthat
it must be included in the UGA as soon as possible. Staff recommends that this proposal
be supported by a contmitment to provide the needed service analysis for Gorst as soon
as possible.
Finally, the recommendation to propose a more limited UGA at this time drives
inclusion of a new section recommending that Joint Planning Areas (JPA's) be
established in cooperation with Kitsap County. JPA's ore recomrnended at Erlands Point
and Rocky Point. JPA's could speed the ability of both jurisdictions to be prepared to
transfer these areas to full UGA status.
Amendments to the water section of the Technical Appendices
The Public Works Department has provided updated numbers for insertion in the
water section of the Technical Appendices. These numbers come from the draft 2005
Water Comprehensive Plan now under development. The changes do not affect the
sections ability to demonstrate adequate water capabilities to setw'e projected
development over the first six years of the Plan.
II. Summary of the DEIS
A Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) for the Comprehensive
Plan Update ',vas published officially in Friday October 22''a. There public comment
period began on that date and hms until November 22, 2004 at 4:30 PM.
The Draft SEIS identifies impacts and recommends mitigation measures as needed. In alt
cases the core conclusions of the draft SEIA support selection of Land Use Scenario #3.
The Draf~ SEIS also concludes that the Comprehensive Plan meets all requirements of
GMA and minimizes adverse environmental impacts adequately.
/'he Published Draft SEIA will be provided to the Planning Commission at the earliest
available date prior to the hearing.
Prepared by:
Paul Rogerson, Pla.ming Manager
10/21/04
City of Bremerton
Department of Community Development
Staff Report
Applicant or proponent (file number): City of Bremerton
Date of Proposal: July 15, 2003 (hearing before the Planning Commission)
IProposal: Adoption of City of Bremerton 2003 Comprehensive Plan Update
Contact: City of Bremerton, Department of Community Development: (360) 478-5275
Preface: Hearing Process, Recommended Schedule
The proposed City of Bremerton Comprehensive Plan Update is a large, complex
document. Presentation of an adequate staffreport, time for public testimony, and allowance for
Planning Commission questions and discussion will take significant amounts of time. Staff
recommends as a preface to this staffreport, that before proceeding with the hearing, the
Planning Commission consider a motion adopting the following schedule for future agendas. The
recommended schedule assigns discussion o£particular portions of the Plan to specific dates. To
implement this suggestion, the Planrfing Commission would, at the end of each evening listed,
continue the hear/rig to the suggested next suggested date rather than closed the heating
Suggested Hearing Schedule:
July 15 Discussion of process/hearing schedule, open hearing, presentation of
Introduction section, Land Use Element (includes first discussion of land use map scenario's),
public testimony, Commission discussion, continue hearing.
July 29 Re-open hearing, discussion of Community Character Element,
Environment Element, and Housing Element, public testimony, Commission discussion,
continue heating
August 12 Re*open hearing, presentation of Economic Development Element, CiD' Services
Element, Transportation Element, public testimony, Commission discussion, continue heating
August 26 Re-open hearing, presentation of Summation and Element consistency, Second
discussion of land use scenario's, selection of preferred alternative, close hearing, action.
Please note: Dates are on two week b~teI~,al, thi~ alla~'~ Cvmmission and staff adequate study/preparation
time. ,4ctual dates can be adjusted., ?referabl)' upon initial adoption oj the schedule.
t
This staff report will be configured hereafter to conform to the above order.
Procedural History and requirements
Existing comp plan adopted. The City of Bremerton adopted the comprehensive plan currently in
effect on April 5th, 1995. The plan is fully compliant with the Growth Management Act.
GMA requires update. In 2002, the Washington State legislature amended the Growth
Management Act to establish that Kitsap County and the jurisdictions within must revise their
comprehensive plans (and related development regulations), "On or before December 1, 2004, and every
seven years thereafter..."( RCW 36.70A. 130(4)(a))
City of Bremerton sets earlier target date. Respondhxg to an earlier legislative mandate that was
subsequently amended as related above, the City of Bremerton has committed to adopting a
comprehensive plan Revision (Update) in mid 2003. The Update comprehensive plan that is the subject of
this staff report and the public hearing)s) that it supports, is a response to that commitment.
Mandatory Elements. The Growth Management Act establishes at RCW 36.70A.070, that each
(city) comprehensive plan iacludes; 1) a land use element, 2) a housing element, 3) a capital facilities
element, 4) a utilities element (note: the capital facilities and utilities elements are combined in
Bremerton's plan under the title "City Services Element", 5) a transportation element, 6) an economic
development element, and 7) a park and recreation element.
Additional requirements. The Growth Management Act also includes several additional
requirements that govern the form of the Plan. These include a requirement that the plan be internally
consistent, compatible with the plans of adjacem jurisdictions, and include an assessment of an ability to
serve urban areas with urban services.
Citizen process
"Early and continuo,~s" public participation required. The Growth Management Act requires that
comprehensive plans be developed under a program of intense and continuous community participation
(RCW 36.70A.140). This Plan was developed after nearly one and a half years of just such citizen
leadership. The "Shaping Bremerton" process employed in the development ofth/s plan consisted of early
community workshops, followed by nearly a year of citizen subcommittee work focusing a different
citizens group on each plan element, and completed by the work of a "coordinating council" of citizens
who reconciled the work of the earlier ~oups into an internally consistent whole. Public hearings before
the Bremerton Plarming Commission and the City Council will complete the participatory program.
Elements;
Introduction Section:
In addition to setting the stage and providing some discussion of the structure and legal
requirements of Comprehensive Planning under the Growth Management Act, the primary
feature of the introduction section is a fairly detailed description of the population and
employment forecasts that form the basis of much of the remainder of the Plan.
Population projections. Population and employment projections are calculated for each
of 125 zones in the city.. For convenience and consistency, the zones employed were
Transportation Analysis Zones (TAZ's) employed by Kitsap County and for which at least some
historic data is available. Based on records of permit issuance for residences over the period from
1995 to 2000, existing 2000 data for each TAZ was projected forward to the year 2023 - the end
of the 20 year planning horizon employed by t~s plan. That projection was made by assuming
2
that the rate of residential development in most TAZ's would continue at approximately the same
rate as reflected by the 1995-99 growth. (about .46% annual) The viability of this growth was
checked by referring to the 2002 Kitsap County Buildable Lands Analysis. The Analysis
confirms that more than sufficient developable property exists to accommodate this level of
growth.
In addition to this "background" growth, new residential uses in the "centers" were added in
appropriate TAZ's.
Centers population expectations were calculated as follows.
Population projections for neighborhood and district centers were based on commonly accepted
models of centers size and proportion of residential to other uses. The potential residential
acreage of each center was calculated. Multiplying each centers' residential acres by assumed
residential densities and household sizes yielded a potential population within the center at full
build out. The full buildout was then reduced to a number that corresponds to the expected
population growth within the twenty year time frame. Th/s was accomplished through a
G.I.S/aerial photo based analysis of the proportion of land within the center that was
undeveloped or significantly underdeveloped. The analysis then looked at the relative availability
of key services such as water, san/tary sewer, storm sewer, and transportation at the center.
Centers were "rated as to what proportion of the full build out could be expected within the next
20 years. These calculations are reflected in Tables 1, 2, and 3 of Appendi× PP.
Population projections for two employment Centers, The Port Blakely Emplos~nent Center and
the Pope and Talbot Employment Center, were added based on discussions with the owners of
the sites. A modest buildout of 750 persons was assumed for each employment center over the
twenty year plam~ing period. That number was assi~med to the appropriate TAZ. It should be
noted that these calculations assume that no portion of the population in the two employment
centers will occur within the first six years of the p!am~ing period. As a result, total population
mhd employment figmres were employed for purposes of capital facilities anali~sis - including
that for transportation needs and growth impacts - that do not include these 1,500 additional
people.
Twenty year centers populations were disaggre~ated to appropriate TAZ's and added to the non-
center population projection for the T~Z. Final year 2023 population projections for each TAZ
and for the entire City resulted and are indicated on Table 4.
Footnotes following each table cite data sources, and provide additional detail regarding
methodology.
In summary' the following projections emerge;
Population:
Total projected City. population in 2023 is projected at just over 50,000 (Table 4, column
10), This is an increase of approximately 13,000 over the 2000 census figure of 37,165. Of
this increase~ 7574, or approximately 58%, occurs in the ne~' neighborhood or district
centers (see Table 4, colunm 8). Population in the I.!GA reaches oYer 58,500 compared to an
estimated 2000 population of 44,815.
22
Employment:
Employment is calculated in essentially the same manner. Year 2000 Kitsap County TAZ
employment data in seven categories was used to make projections of year 2023 employment by
applying growth rate data from the Washington State Department o£ Employment Security.
Employment projections are summarized in Appendix XX. Table 5. Employment forecasts for
each center were added to the appropriate TAZ without regard to category. Appendix XX Table
5, provides the resultant projection for each TAZ. Further details of non-centers employment
growth calculations are reflected in Table 6.
In sum, employment forecast indicates that overall employment in the City will rise from its
current level of approximately 45,000 to approximately 54,000 over the next twenty years. Of
that total growth of 9,000 jobs, about 4,000 or 45% will be in the centers. One factor suggested
here is that significant vacant and developable land area will be needed for employment
generating activities. It should be noted that those areas are already part of the City. Notable
large blocks among these areas are the Pope and Talbot and Port Blakely Properties in the west
hills area.
Land Use Element
After a discussion of existing land use conditions, the Land Use Element moves to a forecast o£
projected land use conditions. This section and those that follow are the heart of the Land Use
Element.
LandNeed. Through a complex series of calculations, the Plan estimates levels of
residential, commercial, and industrial land needed to accommodate the expected population.
These calculations are discussed on pages LO9 through LO13. Table LO.iv on page LU13
summarizes the result.
Table LO.iv Summary of Additional Land Need ~
Additional Land Needed (gross acres)
Type
314 -531
Neighborhood SF 37-124
Non-centers MF 144-172
Centers SF+MF 17-25
DT center MF
Total Residential 512-852
Center Commercial 52
Non-center Commercial
Total Commercial 127
126
industrial (to'~a!)
4
23
The population and employment projections for the outline of the challenge that the plan must
respond to. In the case of the land use element, it must be shown that adequate land is provided
for the new residences, commercial areas, industrial areas, parks, schools, and open space to
accommodate the expected population. This is the technical work of the Land Use Element.
In addition to demonstrating that adequate land is provided, the Land Use Element must show
that the organization of land uses responds to community vision, goals and policies. These
expressions of community desires form the policy framework, upon which the technical work
must be based.
Communi~ tZision. Goals, and Policies. Community participation efforts employed in
preparing the Land Use Element - and the other Plan elements as well - focused intense
community, attention of crafting a set of guiding principals that are to be used in responding to
the challenges implied by the population projections and land need calculations. The most
fundamental iteration of that set of principals is the Land Use Vision Statement found on the first
page of the Element (page LU1). Primary themes that emerge in the Land Use Vision Statement
are; providing for economic vitality and diverse lifestyles, providing housing and transportation
options, supporting and improving viable walkable neighborhoods, addressing shorelines views,
and parks needs, and protecting community charm, historical character, and cultural heritage.
The land use goals and policies that be~n on page LU 14 further expand and detail these basic
themes. Taken together, these themes form the policy framework upon which a response to the
challenges posed by the land needs must be hung. They are the heart of the Land Use Element
and guide the remainder of this Plan section. The land use scenario maps that follow represent
alternative responses to satisfying the vision and community goals expressed while addressing
the technical needs calculated.
Centers approach. In crafting a holistic response to the techrfical challenges and the
community's expressed vision, goals, and policies, it became evident that a physical planning
model built around the concept of urban "centers" presented the best possible solution. Two
general types of Centers are employed in the land use concept that shapes this Plan;
Neighborhood Centers and District Centers. In addition, the downtown is a regional center.
While this plan employs two general types, no two centers are envisioned to be exactly alike.
kVhile the centers types are based on sound planning principals that assess proper mixes of uses,
necessary quantities of residential and commercial uses, and proven design principals, there is a
range of mixes, quantities, and design approaches that can be successful. Within that range, then,
each center will vary somewhat as it responds to its neighborhood environment, its specific
function within the large fabric of the city, and local preferences. More detailed planning for
centers implementation will further recognize the particular quality of each center.
Neighborhood Centers
Neighborhood centers are the smaller of the two general types. Neighborhood centers provide a
focus for a single neighborhood area of approximately one square mile. Key sepeices are
provided within a walkable distance to the set-,ed neighborhood. Neighborhood centers place
services in locations and within a design paradig*n that encourage walking and reduce
5
24
dependence on automobile travel. This serves to reduce use of automobiles and reduces
congestion and pollution in Bremerton. In the early stages of implementation of the centers
concept in Bremerton, the first neighborhood centers may be expected to serve a somewhat
larger area until additional neighborhood centers become viable.
Size and intemal population and commercial bases for a neighborhood center are calculated to
combine with nearby residential areas to provide a market base for businesses. Small groceries,
shops, and professional and public services are encouraged. Moderately intense residential use is
incorporated above the commercial spaces within mixed use structures or near the center's core
to create a busy, pedestrian oriented, activity center. Design reference is ~ven to pedestrians to
the greatest degree possible. Neighborhood centers typically have at least one "focus amenity"
such as a park/open space, community center or civic space, post office or other public facility,
or a school. In sum, neighborhood centers place convenient and attractive nodes of mixed uses
within easy walking distance of a majority of Bremerton's citizens, adding a place for social
contact, and a pleasing urban experience.
District Centers
District centers are the larger center type. They are sized and designed to provide a focus, and
services, for several neighborhoods. Commercial and professional uses are more plentiful and of
larger scale than those in neighborhood centers. Residential uses are also focused in more dense
patterns. While district centers are characterized by a pedestrian based design ethic, they also
recognize that a segment of users will access the center by automobile. Alternative circulation to
and from nearby arterials, parking irrm~ediately outside the pedestrian core, and a recognition
that certain medium intensity employers may' locate within the center, are distinguishing
characteristics. District centers will typically have several key "focus amenities". In the larger
district centers, focus amenities may be needed on either side of major arterials to minimize
pedestrian/traffic conflicts.
Land Use Scenario Maps. During the Planning Commission hearing process, three
alternative map responses will be presented. Because; l) they are currently available in large-
format only, and 2) none has been chosen as the alternative to be moved forward, they are not
printed in the Plan document as yet - or in this staff report. A "place-holder" page is provided in
the Draft Plan indicating the future location of the one alternative that is chosen. This staffreport
will summarize the rationale and major features of each alternative map.
Scenario #1 Current Patterns
The "Current Patterns" alternative depicts the possible future development pattern if the
development rationale currently operating continues to guide development in the community.
Most notably, the scenario shows continuing expansion of new commercial development along
high traffic corridors. New "strips" of commercial development appear along busy arterial streets
such as Svlvan Way and Riddell Road - expanding the commercial areas into neighborhoods not
currently'witnessing such development. In addition, new areas along existing commercial
corridors such as Wheaton way are devoted to commercial expansion - effectively "widening"
these corridors and encroaching into current residential areas behind. Lands cm'rently designated
for apartments but vacant, are more fully built-out, introducing medium density housing
complexes into existing neighborhoods with increasing frequency. There are significant levels of
new single family subdivisions created at the per/phew of the City and into the surrounding
6
25
Urban Growth Area. This scenario does not attempt to respond to the vision, goals, or
policies created by the communit3 during the Shaping Bremerton process.
Seenarion #2 Moderate Implementation
Scenario #2 responds to the vision, goals, and policies. This map approach (and #3 to follow)
employ a community design that relies on the installation of"centers" to implement the guiding
vision, goals and policies received from the community. Scenerio #2 is subtitled, "Moderate
Implementation". This means that it attempts to support the creation of the centers model with
somewhat more tempered strategies than are employed by the third scenario. The primary
rationale' employed is as follows; 1) neighborhood centers, distr/ct centers, employment centers,
are designated, and 2) medium and high density residential designations on properties that are
vacant or that are not immediately adjacent to a center are replaced by low density residential
designation. In essence, the approach'reflects an effort to direct the majority of new multifamily
residential development and a large proportion of new commercial projects into centers by
reducing opportunity for that growth to disperse across the commun/ty. At the same time,
Scenario #2 avoids re-designating properties with existing development to legal non-conforming
status.
Scenarion #3 Aanbitious Implementation
Scenario #3 is subtitled, "Ambitious Implementation". This subtitle refers to the relatively more
aggressive steps taken to support the establishment of centers. This scenario also clearly
implements the vision, goals, and policies developed by citizens. The primary, rationale
employed by Scenario #3 is: 1) neighborhood centers, district centers, employment centers are
designated, and 2) virtually all medium and high density residential designations (outside of
centers) are re-designated to low density residential. The approach reflects a stronger effort than
seen in scenario #2 to direct the majority of new multifarnily residential development and a large
proportion of new commercial projects into centers by reducing opportunity for that growth to
disperse across the community. In re-designating medium and high density residential properties
to low density residential ,and in some cases re-designating commercially designated properties
to non-commercial uses, this scenario would eventually result in a significant number of
properties becoming legal non-conforming under implementing zoning.
Impact Comparison Matrix'. The attached matrix presents a qualitative comparison of the effects
and impacts of the three land use scenario's. (see attachment A)
Land.dvailabilizy. This comprehensive plan must demonstrate that adequate land exists to
accommodate the projected growth. To make this demonstration, the Plan compares the land
needs discussed above with the designations depicted on the Future Land Use Map(s)
Residential Land Supply
The land needs analysis indicates that between 512 and 852 acres of additional residential land
will be needed over the next 20 years to accommodate the expected population increase. This
estimate is comprised of two primary components, non-centers residential need and centers need.
Of 13,000 ne~ populatmn, approximately 7 473 are ~ntended to be accommodated in Centers.
while the remaining 5,600 distributed n_- ~:l!I t~ n~n-centers locatloi,,s.
Residential population in non-centers locations
The Kitsap County Buildable Land Analysis estimates that, in 2002 there were 446 net vacant
residential acres in Bremerton. While the Buildable Land Analysis also estimates that there ~vas
that
an additional 224 net acres of underutxhzed residential lands, this analysis does not rely on
additional potential acreage, This is because the City is not confident about the methodology
used in the Buildable Land Analysis to determine the likelihood that a currently utilized parcel is
likely to be redeveloper for additional residential uses.
If the 446 acres that are more clearly available for siting residential uses is discounted by a 30%
market factor, it can be estimated that about 312 acres is likely to be available for residential
development. By dividing the 312 acres into the 5,600 population and employing an assumed
household size of 2.4 persons, it is calculated that by employing an average density of 7.5 units
per acre the expected population can be accommodated on the available acres. This densiW is
within the range assig, aed to the Low Density Residential land use designation in this Plan.
During implementation of this comprehensive plan, care will be taken to assure that average
density in new residential areas (outside of centers) in that range is enabled under zoning and
subdivision regulations.
(Temporary Note: A relatively small proportion of the available lands employed in this calculation are currently
desienated for medium or higt~ density residential nses. However, this calculation assnmes that all of these MDR and
HDt~ lands will be re-designated to LDR as depicted in Land Use scenario #3. It' Scenario #2 is chosen capacity will
increase due to MDK and HDR designations on currently developed parcels that reraain. If Scenario #1 is chosen,
and HDR desic, nations on vacant and currently developed parcels remain.
capacity will be even higher as IvlDR
In Sum, the calculations discussed in the draft plan demonstrate that there is sufficient
capacity in on existing lauds outside of centers to accommodate the expected increase in
population assigned to those areas. While the demonstrated capacity is at the low and of
the range of need calculated in the Plan, it must be noted that the number employed uses a
significant market factor, and assumes the maximum re-designation to lower density
ranges possible under the three land use scenario's currently under consideration. In
addition, it is known that there is a high amount of excess capacity available in centers that
would be able to accept additional residential growth (see discussion below). This acts as
"safety valve".
ResidentiaI population in centers.
The population projection employed by the draft plan was developed under an assumption about
the potential population accommodation of centers as designated and conceived by the Plan. In
other words, once a commun/ty decision to employ the centers concept is arrived at, and once the
potential centers are identified, sized, and assumptions about densities and mixes of uses in each
center arc developed, these factors are employed to calculate population accommodation
potential. In aau,~_on, full build-out population of each center is tempered by assumptions that
much less than full buil~-out will occur during the current 20-year planning period. The
population accommodation assumptions employed for centers in this plan represent only 20-50%
of the total potential population in an~' given center. Table XX, found in appendix PP of the plan
depicts the population calculations employed ~o, each c~nt~ ·
8
27
Given the methodoio~~ described above, it can be easily stated that the centers-related
proportion of overall population increases in the City during the 20-year planning period
are accommodate by design.
Commercial Land Supply
Vacant commercial land need is calculated in two major categories, centers commercial and non-
centers commercial. These needs are calculated at 65 and 52 acres respectively. (see table LU.iv,
page LU13 of the Plan).
Centers commercial land is calculated on (Table 1, appendix PP). This table indicates the
proportion of each mixed use center that that is expected to be available for commercial uses.
Those lands total to i35 acres. This number exceeds the amounted needed (65 acres). This
excess is attributable to the expectation that not all of the available commercial land in centers
will be built-out during the initial 20-year planning period.
The non-centers commercial land need is calculated at 52 acres (Table LU.iv). An estmate of
vacant commercial land. Outside of centers designations was performed by City staff using GIS
technology and a review of aerial photography. That estimate reveals that there are
approximately 86 acres of such land designated under scenario's #2 and #3. this, once again
exceeds the calculated need.
The issue of parcel size is crucial in such calculations and discussions. Commercial development
occurs at a variety of scales. It is important that at least some commercial properties are of
sufficient scale to accommodate larger stores and commercial establishments. The City analysis
indicates that several larger parcels are available in or near the Upper Wheaton District Center as
well as within the larger mixed use employment centers anticipated in the western areas of the
City (see land use map(s). While these western areas are formally designated for industrial uses,
the employment centers designation also calls for mixing corrmaercial (and residential) uses on
these properties.
Industrial Land Supply
The land needs analysis in the previous section indicates that approximately 126 new acres of
Yacant industrial land is needed within the twenty year planning period to accommodate the
expected population increase. All three scenario maps indicate large tracts ofindustriaI or
business park designation in the western areas of the CID'. Of the approximately 1,075 total acres
in these two land use designations, up to 90% is currently vacant. The pr/mary areas of vacancy
are on properties known as the "Pope and Talbot" and Port Blakely' properties. In sum, vacant
industrial land far exceeds the need calculated in the previous section of the Plan.
U~'ban Growth Area
This staff reJ~ort wi[! bc amended to include this section
9
28
Community Character Element
This staff report will be amended to include this section
Housing Element
This staff report will be amended to include this section
Environment Element
This staff report will be amended to include this section
Economic Development Element
This staff report will be amended to include this section
Transportation Element
This staff report will be antended to include this section
City Services Element
Utilities
Capital Facilities
This staff report will be amended to include this section
Land Use Scenarios and Plan consistency
This staff report will be amended to include this section
Decision Criteria:
This staff report will be amended to include this section
Staff Recommendation:
This staff report will be amended to include this section
Environmental Determination: pending P,C. action
Date and Method of Public Notice: Notice of public hearing of July 15, 2003 was
published in the Bremerton Sun on July 5,2003
staff Report Prepared by: Paul Rogerson, AICP, Planning Manager
Attachments;
Exhibit A: Lank U=e S,.enarlo, Impact Comparison Analysis
Exhibit B: Introduction q,,,-t
Exhibit C: Land Use Element
Exhibit D...Z ..... as per amended staff report
29
Staff Report
Before the Bremerton Planning Commission
Case # ................
Adoption of the 2003-2004 Bremerton Comprehensive Plan Update
January 20, 2004
Procedural Recommendations
Phasing of staff reports/plan topics and elements
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission receive staff briefings
regarding the 2003-2004 City of Bremerton Comprehensive Plan Update in a
phased manner. In such a phased format, the Commission would hear staff
reports on a limited portion of the plan during each of several evenings of public
hearing. Public testimony would be allowed following each presentation of a
portion of staff report.
This approach enables the Commission and public alike to digest this
large and complex document in reasonably sized "portions"
Staff estimates that - at a minimum three hearing sessions would be
necessary for this approach. Potentia~ hearings/staff report topics could be
arranged as follows;
Hearing opens (January 20th) Introduction to the Plan, Community Vision,
challenges identified, Centers concept.
First continuation (approx February 3rd) Population and employment projections,
land use element community character element.
Second continuation (approx February 17th) Transportation Element, Housing
element, Environment Element
Third continuation (approx March 2®) Economic Development Element, City
Services Element, Closing summary)
Continuance
To facilitate the phased hearing approach outlined above, Commission
should be prepared to continue hearings to subsequent sessions as necessary.
Staff recommends that approximately two weeks between sessions of the
hearing would be appropriate and allow sufficient time for public notice and for
staff to respond to instructions from the Commission issued at the previous
hearing session.
R:',Coma=unity De. velopm¢nt,shaping breme,'~on,CP hearings Pla,tuning Commission Staff
Report - adoption hearing 012004 fi.doc
30
Background
Community Process
On January 16, 2002 the City Council adopted by an 8-0 vote the
Bremerton Comprehensive Planning Public Participation Program instructing the
Bremerton Planning Commission to conduct an open, public process culminating
in a recommended Comprehensive Plan Update for consideration by the City
Council. With the assistance of staff, the Planning Commission has completed
and satisfied all requirements of that Program appropriate to date. The Public
Participation Program and files demonstrating this compliance are available at
the City's Department of Community Development. The Public Participation
Program is attached to this staff Report as Exhibit A.
Growth Management Act Requirements
While the foremost requirement placed on communities by the State's
Growth Management Act is perhaps that a plan address local challenges as
defined by "early and continuous public participation", There are a number of
technical requirements defined in the Act as well. These are too numerous to list
here in their entirety. However the following is a summary of the most important
of the GMA requirements.
In 1990 the Washington State Legislature passed the Growth
Management Act largely a response to the realization that "business as usual"
was leading to significant problems. The GMA provides a framework for each
community to address the challenges of growth and change in a more realistic
and sustainable way. It also recognizes that some central issues exist for all
communities and that these issues have implications for the state as a whole. At
the heart of the GMA is a requirement that each community deal with what had
become a traditional tendency toward sprawling development patterns. It has
been widely recognized that sprawl is central to the problems that are facing
Washington's communities, including rising traffic congestion, environmental
degradation, loss of the resource lands that provide the states' economic engine,
and costly regulatory/property rights conflicts. The Growth Management Act
outlines a planning framework that encourages each community to respond to
these issues (and others) in a way that is consistent with its unique situation and
in keeping with its vision, values, and goals as a community. The Act also
encourages the creation of local plans that address some key values of the
people of the State as a whole, and that such plans are coordinated from one
jurisdiction to the next. An important measure employed to assure this planning
approach is the requirement that all plans constructed under GMA address 13
basic planning goals.
The Thirteen Basic Goals of GMA
The thirteen goals of the Growth Management Act are as follows:
R:,,Comamu~~ Deve!opment~,shaping b:eme~on,,C,P hea~ngs'LPian.ning Con-.mission S[~ff
Repo~ - adoption hea~dng 012004 #l .doc
31
Urban Growth. Encourage development in urban areas where adequate public
facilities and services exist or can be provided in an efficient manner.
Reduce Sprawl. Reduce the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into
sprawling, Iow density development.
Transportation. Encourage efficient multimodai transportation systems that are
based on regional priorities and coordinated with county and city comprehensive
plans.
Housing. Encourage the availability of affordable housing to all economic
segments of the population of this state, promote a variety of residential densities
and housing types, and encourage preservation of existing housing stock.
Economic Development. Encourage economic development throughout the
state that is consistent with adopted comprehensive plans, promote economic
development opportunity for all citizens of the state, especially for unemployed
and for disadvantaged persons, and encourage growth in areas experiencing
insufficient economic growth, all within the capacities of the state's natural
resources, public services, and public facilities.
Property Rights. Private property shall not be taken for public use without just
compensation having been made. The property rights of landowners shall be
protected from arbitrary and discriminatory actions.
Permits. Applications for both state and local permits should be processed in a
timely and fair manner to ensure predictability.
Natural Resource Industries, Maintain and enhance natural resource based
industries, including timber, agricultural, and fisheries industries. Encourage the
conservation of productive forest lands and productive agricultural lands,
discourage incompatible uses.
Open space and Recreation. Encourage the retention of open space and
development of recreation opportunities, conserve fish and wildlife habitat,
increase access to natural resource lands and water, and develop parks,
Environment. Protect the environment and enhance the state's high quality of
life, including air and water quality, and the availability of water.
Citizen Participation and Coordination. Encourage the involvement of citizens
in the planning process and ensure coordination between communities and
jurisdictions to reconcile conflicts.
Public Facilities and Services. Ensure that those public facilities and services
necessary to support development shall be adequate to serve the development
at the time the development is available for occupancy and use without
decreasing current service levels below locally established minimum standards.
Historic Preservation. Identify and encourage the preservation of lands, sites,
and structures, that have historical or archaeological significance.
(RCW 36.70A.020)
In addition to responding to these thirteen goals, the GMA asks that each
community address certain additional core issues. Some of the key issues
addressed by the Plan and required by GMA are listed below:
R:',Communi~ De,, elopment shaping bren2e~on CP heafings,Pla~ming Commission Staff
Report - adoption heahng 012004 #1 .doc
32
Citizen Participation
The Act requires "early and continuous" citizen participation throughout the
planning process, A previous section oft this staff report summarizes the
extensive public participation effort that has been conducted.
Protection of Natural Resources and Critical Areas
The Act requires jurisdictions to identify and protect steep slopes, wetlands.
aquifer recharge areas, fish and wildlife habitat, and other critical areas as well
as forest, agriculture and mineral resource lands.
Urban Growth Areas
Following suggestions from its cities, Kitsap County was required to identify
existing urban areas, determine 20-year urban growth needs, and establish
Urban Growth Areas (UGA's) as needed to accommodate urban growth. The
existing cities and their UGA's are intended to accept the majority of the County's
new growth, as directed by the Countywide Planning Policies, thus relieving
development pressures in rural areas.
Coordinated Policies
Cities and counties work together to establish Countywide Planning Policies that
guide the individual planning programs and help ensure consistency.
Concurrency
Plans must be realistic and workable. If plans call for new development, the Plan
must indicate how the needed public services and utilities wilt be provided within
a reasonable amount of time. If adequate resources cannot be identified,
development cannot be allowed.
Levels of Service
in order to deal with traffic and congestion resulting from new development, new
requirements for transportation planning include the measuring of existing Levels
of Service (LOS), discussion within the community leading to adoption of future
Level of Service Standards reflecting levels of congestion and transportation
quality that are acceptable to the community, and a plan that assures that - as
development occurs -the adopted standard will not be violated. This is called the
concurrency requirement Plans under GMA may also require that other urban
services, such as police protection, water and sewer service, library services,
etc, be maintained at a LOS set by the community concurrent with growth. This
Plan does institute that requirement for 11 types of services.
Agency Compliance
Not only are local plans required to be consistent with each other, but State
agencies are also required to comply with local plans and development
regulations.
R:\Community Development,shaping bremerton ,CP heanng> ,P,a.nmng Commission Staff
Report - adoption heating 012004 ~1 .doc
4
33
Relationship to Regulations
Land use regulations are the tools that implement the Comprehensive Plan and,
therefore, must be consistent with the Plan. If the Plan shows high-density
residential development in a particular location, the Zoning Map must show a
similar zoning designation. If the Plan calls for certain street development
standards within iow-density neighborhoods, then these standards must be
adopted and applied as new development occurs.
Following preparation of the updated Comprehensive Plan, development
regulations will be prepared and revised as necessary. The pdmary regulations
to be dealt with include those governing critical areas; zoning; development
standards and guidelines; subdivisions; and shorelines.
Periodic Review and Update of the Comprehensive Plan
Following adoption of the updated Comprehensive Plan and related development
regulations, the City shall continually monitor their effectiveness and document
needed amendments. A major review of the Plan will be conducted at five-year
intervals and annual amendments will be considered in accordance with the
process established in this plan and implementing regulations.
Introduction to the Plan
Overview of Plan organization
The 2003-2004 Bremerton Comprehensive Plan Update is organized as
provided in the Growth Management Act. It is organized into elements
addressing Land Use, Transportation, Housing, Economic Development, Utilities
and Capital Facilities (addressed together within the City Services Element), and
Environment. In addition, the City has chosen to create a unique element
summarizing themes of the overall document in an urban design context. This
additional Element is called the Community Character Element.
Internally, each of these elements is formatted in a similar manner.
Typically, an element begins with a vision statement - prepared by citizens - that
outlines community vision for the future of Bremerton in a way that is specific to
that topic area. The element will then provide; 1 ) an analysis of existing
conditions and challenges visa vie the topic; 2) a forecast of future conditions
consistent with the plans' population forecast and other base assumptions; 3) a
set of goals and policies that represent the community's desired response to
those conditions and forecasts; and, 4) other data and/or descriptions that
provide additional detail regarding the solutions set-forth by the goals and
policies. These additional materials often include crucial items such as the Future
Land Use Map.
Four of the elements, Land Use, Transportation, Housing, and City
Services are accompanied by technical appendices. The appendix sections are
located in a companion volume entitled "Techn/ca/Appendices- 2003-2004 City
of Bremert. on Comprehensive P/an Update"
R3Community Development'shaping b~-~n~erton CP hearings,Planning Commission S~at'f
Repo2 - adoption hearing 0120,.,,4 =1 .doc
34
Challenges
During the initial stages of community dialogue, members of the public
identified a number of challenges. They were aware that - to create a successful
future - Bremerton would have to address these issues. The identified
challenges are not part of the Comprehensive Plan, but one particular issue is, in
fact, one of the major drivers of this plan. That issue is the fact that Bremerton
has not had significant population growth for several decades. The citizens
recognized that to recapture social and economic vitality it would be necessary to
create a new climate, offer new opportunities, and otherwise change the planning
model that has been employed during this period of stagnation, The vision
statement that followed, as welt as much of the remainder of the new plan, is a
response to these challenges.
Plan Foundation: the Community Vision
The 2003-1004 Bremerton Comprehensive Plan Update is based on a
vision of the future shared by Bremerton's citizens. During the initial stages of the
public process that guided the creation of this Plan, exhaustive effort by
community members led to the writing of a "Vision Statement" describing the
qualities, capacities, look and feel that community members felt should be
apparent in Bremerton by the end of the twenty-year planning period covered by
the Plan. In other words, citizens described the community that they wished to
create over the next twenty years. This pro¥ides the "target" toward which all
other goals, policies and recommendations contained in the plan seek to move
the community toward.
The Vision Statement is too long to re-print here. It is found at the
beginning of the Community Character Element of the Plan. In summary,
however, it speaks of a desire for strong neighborhoods, new opportunities for
vitality in urban centers, a strong downtown, and "healthy" growth.
Plan Themes
As citizens created goals and policies that would act as a guide, leading
individuals and, (especially) decision makers consistently toward the future
envisioned in the community's Vision Statement, a series of "themes" emerged.
Without preconception, citizens working on separate sections (elements) of the
Plan began to address a set of core ideas. These core ideas signaled that a
diverse array of citizens identified very similar ideas and needs as central to the
future success of Bremerton. Eventually, these core themes were assembled into
a new plan element that is now called the Community Character Element. The
themes are;
1. Distinctive growth, with viable neighborhoods and centers that provide
greater choice and convenience
2. Enticing new development, with a focus on the town center
3. Suppo~ive transpo~ation, with seamless, efficient, and varied choices
R:'..Comi'nupit}..' Development'.shaping bremer{on',CP hearings~P[apming Commission Staff
Report - adoption hearing 012004 #1 .doc
3§
4. Improved accessibility, especially for the pedestrian
5. Quality housing, with broader choices
6. Business support, with increased opportunity
7. Environmental management, integrating natural systems
8. Community service, focusing on assets
Design Review
As citizens refined community goals and policies, another primary
realization emerged; that many of the aspirations for the future guiding this Plan
were related to urban design issues. The citizen authors noted that the route to
reaching goals as varied as; 1) providing vital urban nodes a core for successful
neighborhoods, to; 2) returning to a more friendly pedestrian based community,
to; 3) increasing our attractiveness to new business and employment (just to
name a few) ALL ran through a consideration of the key design issues. The look
and feel, the way complex systems are integrated, and the amenities provided
needed to be carefully designed if the complex solutions being considered for
complex problems had any hope of successful implementation.
The Community Character Element especially summarizes the
communities recommendations visa vie urban design issues.
The Centers Concept
The final, and perhaps most important, realization that emerged from the
citizen-participatory process was that many of the challenges identified by the
Planning process, and the vast majority the goals set by the community as a
response, pointed toward the same solution - the idea of "centers". Community
desire for; stronger neighborhoods, more pedestrian oriented development, more
transportation options, increased housing choices, more locations for attracting
new business opportunity and employment, more efficient use of public dollars;
and for a more attractive, better designed community could all be addressed by
a concept called "centers".
In general, centers are carefully designed areas of mixed-use
development featuring retail, commercial, office, and residential uses within easy
walking distance. They provide living, shopping, employment, recreational, and
social opportunities at the core of a larger neighborhood. Often they are
described as similar to the old-fashioned small town downtown.
The Land Use Element describes the centers concept as implemented in
Bremerton. The section of this staff report on tl~e Land Use Element will provide
greater detail. That section will discuss centers characteristics, centers benefits,
the demographics of centers, and the part centers play in the larger planning
scheme presented by the Plan. The Plan will suggest that three types of centers
be located in Bremerton, neighborhood centers, district centers, and employment
centers. In addition the downtown is identified as a regional center. The Plan's
Future Land Use Map designates locations for all centers types.
R: Coranmnity Development,shaping bremerton CP hea.dngs',Pianning Commission Staff
Report - adoption heanng 012004 ,=1 .doc
36
Plan data
in addition to the challenges identified, and the community response to
those challenges as expressed in goals, policies, themes and concepts, the
2003-2004 Bremerton Comprehensive Plan Update has technical underpinnings
that also must be understood. As required by the GMA, the plan projects future
technical conditions and crafts a response. The eventual implementation of the
directions set by the Plan's goals and policies must be adequate to address
future conditions as described by population and employment projections and
related traffic forecasts, land needs, housing needs, economic conditions,
environmental challenges, financial needs - and the like.
The following section explains the methodologies and results of population
and employment projections that drive the technical factors addressed by the
Plan.
Population and Employment forecasts
population
By state law, the Washington State Office of Financial Management
(OFM) is tasked with providing a range of population projections for each county
in the State. It is left to the county, and the jurisdictions within, to cooperatively
decide how those new persons will be accommodated. It should be understood
from the outset that the OFM range - while mandated by State law (GMA) - is
quite broad.
Kitsap County and its jurisdictions, including the City of Bremerton, have
agreed that each jurisdiction should conduct a community dialogue about its
desired future, decide how it wants to grow, and calculate its ability to
accommodate some portion of the county population allocation. Bremerton has
conducted just such a process. The Comprehensive Plan Update is the
conclusion of that exercise. Citizens have spoken regarding the type of future
community they envision. The City has employed that vision to determine
locations for new growth and set development intensities. The resultant land use
map and policies accommodate new people and endeavor to attract new
commercial and industrial activity. The following population projections grow out
of that design and, in turn, guide the form and content of much of this Plan.
The population projection is guided by several key parameters. First, there
has been very little history of population growth in Bremerton during the past
several decades. However, sole reliance on such historical population trends for
forecasting purposes is not consistent with local, regional, or State goals that
include increasing the proportion of new growth that occurs in existing urban
areas, Under the Growth Management Act and the regional strategy agreed to
within the Kitsap County County-Wide Planning Policies, it is assumed that this
decades-old pattern of stagnant population levels within Bremerton will be
broken, Finally, this plar~ includes changes in community design ethic, and
R:,,Corrwnunity Development,shaping bremerton',CP hearings',PIa~aning Commission Sta~Y
Repo~ - adoption hearing 012004 #ldo:
$
37
emphasis on regulatory incentives, which should prove sufficient to attract larger
portions of County population growth to the City than in the past.
Perhaps foremost amongst these basic assumptions is the belief that the
new design ethic contained in this plan will attract significant levels of growth.
The key urban design concept contained herein is the "Centers Concept". While
centers are more fully discussed in the Land Use Element and throughout the
Plan, it is important to understand, that the population growth calculated is
based largely on the ability of the centers - including the revitalized downtown -
to attract new residential and commercial/office uses.
The following is a summary only.
For analysis, population and employment projections are calculated for each of
125 zones in the city. For convenience and consistency, the zones employed
were Transportation Analysis Zones (TAZ's) employed by Kitsap County and for
which at least some historic data is available. Based on records of permit
issuance for residences over the period from 1995 to 2000, existing 2000 data for
each TAZ was projected forward to the year 2023 - the end of the 20 year
planning horizon employed by this plan. That projection was made by assuming
that the rate of residential development in most TAZ's would continue at
approximately the same rate as reflected by the 1995-99 growth. The viability of
this growth was checked by referring to the 2002 Kitsap County Buildable Lands
Analysis. Analysis confirms that more than sufficient developable property exists
to accommodate this level of "background" growth throughout the City of
Bremerton.
In addition to this "background" growth, new residential uses in the "centers"
were added in appropriate TAZ's.
Centers population expectations were calculated as follows.
Population projections for neighborhood and district centers were based on
commonly accepted models of centers size and proportion of residential to other
uses. The potential residential acreage of each center was calculated. Multiplying
each center's residential acres by assumed residential densities and household
sizes yielded a potential population within the center at full build- out. The full
build-out was then reduced to a number that corresponds to the expected
population growth within the twenty year planning time frame. This was
accomplished through a Geographic Information System/aerial photo based
analysis of the proportion of land within the center that was undeveloped or
significantly underdeveloped. The analysis then looked at the relative availability
of key services such as water, sanitary sewer, storm sewer, and transportation at
each proposed center location. The proposed centers were "rated" as to what
proportion of the full build out could be expected within the next 20 years. These
calculations are reflected in Tables 1~ 2, and 3 of Appendix LU,
R:'~CommunJ~ Dev~lopment',shapin~ brem~non CP hea,fings,Plazming Commission 5ta~'i'
Report - adoption heating 012004 ~1 .doc
38
Population projections for two emp!oyment Centers, The Port Btakely
Employment Center and the Pope and Talbot employment Center, were added
based on discussions with the owners of the sites. A modest buildout of 750
persons was assumed for each employment center over the twenty year planning
period. That number was assigned to the appropriate TAZ. It should be noted
that these calculations assume that no portion of the population in the two
employment centers will occur within the first six years of the planning period. As
a result, total population and employment figures employed for purposes of
capital facilities finance planning - including that for transportation needs and
growth impacts - do not include any portion of these 1,500 additional people for
the growth expected because of new centers...
Twenty year centers populations were disaggregated to appropriate TAZ's and
added to the non-center population projection for the TAZ. Final year 2023
population projections for each TAZ and for the entire City resulted and are
indicated on Table 4.
TAZ boundaries do not always lay entirely within the current city limits. Table 4
adjusts certain TAZ populations to account for this. In addition, totals for
populations in all portions of all TAZ's are provided in Table 4 and 5. It should be
realized that these numbers indicate populations that are in areas not within the
current city boundary.
Footnotes following each table cite data sources, and provide additional detail
regarding methodology.
In summary the following projections emerge:
Total projected City population in 2023 is projected at just over 50,000
(Table 4, column 10). This is an increase of approximately 13,000 over the
2000 census figure of 37, ~65. Of this increase, 7,574 people, or
approximately 58% of the growth, occurs in the new neighborhood or
district centers (see Table 4, column 8). Population in the UGA reaches
over 58,500 compared to an estimated 2000 UGA population of 44,815.
Employment
Employment is calculated in essentially the same manner. Year 2000 Kitsap
County TAZ employment was used to make projections of year 2023
employment by applying growth rate data from the Washington State Department
of Employment Security. Employment projections are summarized in Appendix
LU, Table 5. Employment forecasts for each center were added to the
appropriate TAZ. Appendix LU Table 5 provides the resultant projection for each
TAZ. Further details of non-centers employment growth calculations are reflected
in Table 6,
R:~CommupJty Development',,shaping breme~on',CP headngs~P]anning Commission Staff
Repo~ - adoption hear4ng 012004 #1 .doc
i0
In sum, employment forecast indicates that overall employment in the City will
rise from its current level of approximately 45,000 to approximately 54,000 jobs
over the next twenty years. Of that total growth of 9,000 jobs, about 4,000 or 45%
will be in the centers Significant vacant and developable land area will be needed
for new employment generating activities. It should be noted that those areas are
already part of the City. Notable large blocks among these areas are found in the
Employment Centers based, especially the Pope and Talbot and Port Blakely
properties in the West Hills area.
The projections employed by this Plan are the most accurate estimates possible
of these key measures of the scale and scope of the future. These estimates are
the result of employing base data that does not always match completely with the
City's ideal needs and they utilize multiple steps that, in turn, rely on the best
estimates available of projected growth rates. They further attempt to make
predictions in a world affected by political and societal change that will happen in
future years. One of the base rules of planning is that such predictions will need
constant monitoring, reassessment, and recalculation.
(End, staff report portion for hearing of January 20, 2004)
R:',Comz-nunity Development shaping brememon CP heahngs'~,Pla~nming Co,remission Staff
Report - adoption hearing 012004 ~1 .doc
1.~
40
Addendum #1
(Addition to staff report for hearing session of February 3 rd, 2004)
Procedural Recommendations
Staff has some additional procedural recommendations.
First, Commission may wish to consider how comments from the public are
addressed during the hearing process. The options include the following;
1) Each commissioner is responsible to take whatever note of verbal testimony
they wish. An audio recording is being made of the hearing as well. Written
testimony is assigned an exhibit number and added to the public record as part
of a packet of testimony.
2) In addition to the above, at the conclusion of ant portion of the hearing,
Commission instructs staff to present additional information, analysis, or
recommendations related to any particular wdtten or verbal testimony. That
additional information can be presented as part of subsequent hearings.
Second, Commission may wish to clarify the deliberation process. Will
deliberations extend to additional Commission meetings after the closure of the
public hearing? If so, will staff be instructed to provide information, analysis
and/or recommendations related to testimony presented during (presumably later
stages of) the hearing, but not previously responded to? Legal counsel should be
consulted regarding this issue.
Land Use Element
Vision
The basis of the Land Use Element is a land use vision statement. That
statement is on the top of page LU1. In summary the vision for land use
recognizes that land use patterns and decisions affect economic vitality and
lifestyles. The statement envisions a future with a variety of jobs, housing and
transportation options, and convenient and dispersed locations for commercial
activities. It describes a walkable community with neighborhoods connected to
vibrant, mixed-use "town centers". It also reminds that waterfronts views and
parks are key parts of a successful urban environment.
Challenges
Like all Plan elements the Land Use Element, this element responds to three
types of challenges. Foremost amongst these are the vision, goals and policies
P,:'.,Connmuni,_~ Developrnen¢,shaping brerne:ton\CP hearings,Planning Commission Staff
Report - adoption heahng 012004 #1.doc
12
set forth by the community to guide us toward the future. These will be discussed
in later sections of this staff report. The element also responds to two other types
of challenges' technical challenges and the "concerns of the wider public".
Concerns of the wider public. While the aspirations of the local
community take the primary lead, the Land Use Element must also respond to
the concerns, needs, and rights of two larger constituencies; the people of the
region and the people of the State of Washington. This is accomplished in two
ways.
First, regional coordination is accomplished through making this and all
other elements of Bremerton's comprehensive plan, consistent with "County-wide
Planning Policies" adopted by the jurisdictions in Kitsap County. The County-
wide Planning Policies are adopted by the County and cities within to guide the
plans of each jurisdiction in ways that assure that the plans of one will not thwart
the plans of another. This is accomplished by setting a common policy framework
in many topic areas. The county-wide planning policies will be included in the
technical appendix that supports the Plan. Detailed description of the nature of
the consistency thus created is to complex to include in this report. However, it
should be noted that City staff has made all necessary efforts to assure such
consistency.
The second "wider public" that has a stake in a local plan is the people of the
State as a whole. The Growth Management Act includes numerous provisions
regarding the format, topics, and technical discipline that must be evident in a
Plan. By addressing these topics, local jurisdictions can assure the people of the
state that larger issues such as environmental protection, fair housing, and
sustaining natural resource lands is accomplished. This plan also addresses
those concerns. Throughout the public hearing process - and in this staff report -
staff will routinely comment on State requirements that apply to the creation of a
comprehensive plan. Most often, the3 underlying rationale for such requirements
of taw is to protect or forward the interests of the people of the State as defined in
the legislation.
Technical challenges. The Land Use Element - as well as most other sections
of this Comprehensive Plan - must respond to the specific challenges posed by
the type and scale of change expected over the next twenty years. In the
simplest terms, it must be shown in the Element that the projected population
growth that is delineated in the Plan will be accommodated with adequate land
for housing, businesses, and industry. The technical appendix provides a
detailed discussion of population projections, resultant expected land needs, and
other calculations and discussions that support the Element. Those technical
sections demonstrate that the land set-aside for each type of land use in this
Element responds to the need for such lands that result from the projected
growth.
R: Community Development',sl".,~ping breme~,_on CP hea.dngs~iamqing Co~m'nission Staff
R~po~ - adoption heafip, g 012004 ~!.do ~'
!3
42
Goals and policies
Goals and policies were developed by the community as a response to the
challenges outlined above. These - along with the vision statement that they
serve - form the heart of the Element. The goals and policies begin on page
LU13. While it is not possible to discuss each goals and supporting policy here, a
few of the most notable goals include the following;
· LU1 Identify and enhance distinctive neighborhoods, communities,
and centers throughout the City.
· LU4 Designate neighborhood, district, and employment
centers....that provide mixed-use environments which serve as the
primary focus for growth centers.
· LU7 Provide for walkability throughout centers and neighborhoods
· LU13 Achieve a vibrant and active downtown
Centers
This Plan - the land use section and all the others - is based on the centers
concept. "Centers" or "the Centers Concept" refers to a general development
model that calls for creation of new "downtown village" nodes. These nodes, or
"centers", cannot be standardized or cast in the same mold for use in any
location. In the Land Use Element each center in Bremerton is described
separately with particular attention to the types of heights, densities, and uses
that fit best in the particular location. Centers descriptions begin on page LU28.
In general, however, a center is a mixed-use area placing residences, many of
the basic services that they require, employment opportunities, and amenities
such as public spaces and parks, in a well integrated and somewhat
concentrated area. Centers will often have the "look and feel" of a small
downtown surrounded my moderate to high density residential uses. Common
characteristics are: 1 ) a core area characterized by well designed mixed-use
structures featuring residential uses above street level commercial or office uses;
2) a carefully designed pedestrian orientation that begins with the active street
frontages provided by the mixed-use core area - but also extending to the outer
areas of the center and into surrounding neighborhoods; 3) the presence of
public gathering places such as parks, or public plaza's; and 4) a well considered
linkage to public transit.
Neighborhood centers are designated at Manette, Perry Avenue Mall, the
intersection of Sylvan and Pine, the Haddon area north of Charleston, and on
Kitsap Way at Oyster Bay Road. Larger District Centers are designated on
Wheaton Way at both Riddell Road and at Sheridan, and in Charleston.
Employment Centers are designated in the Harrison Medical district and on a
large property in the West Hills area. Downtown Bremerton is a designated
"Regional Cente¢'. The element contains unique descriptions of each center
outlining its size, approximate characteristics. It is anticipated that more specific
R:",Co.,rLmupJty Development'shaping breme~on'.CP heatings PlanpJng Commission Staff
Repo~ - adoption hear/rig 012004 #1.doc
14
43
district plans will be created for each adding further details through local planning
processes.
Centers respond to the vast majority of the goals and policies in the Land Use
Element and in other elements of the Comprehensive Plan. The goals and
policies most directly applicable include those addressing better neighborhoods,
more transportation and housing choices, increased economic viability and
opportunity, and more efficient uses of public monies.
UGA
The Growth Management Act requires that local plans designate Urban Growth
Areas. The Land Use Element includes a discussion of UGA issues and a UGA
map on page LU10. The element proposes to expend the UGA as formerly
designated in the 1995 Plan. In summary, this proposal hinges on the recognition
that the growth future of large urban or industrial areas - not currently associated
with any city - should indeed be associated with a City, In the case of the
proposed area the logical city is Bremerton.
Other topics of note
Open Space
An important goal of the GMA is a requirement that communities include
open space in their land use design. The Land use Element includes an Open
Space Map (page LU12) that illustrates a network of open space comprised of
natural areas, more developed parks, and school yards. In addition, the open
spaces are connected by a series of connecting features such as trails, more
traditional pedestrian routes on sidewalks, and wildlife corridors. It should be
noted that the open space system is intended to be compatible with larger
regional projects such as the mosquito fleet trail. It also attempts to address the
need for wildlife to move across the urban area.
Note that the open spaces mapped are not land use designations, but
rather represent a proposed design for open space that should be accomplished
by a variety of other means including public acquisition, park planning, and
coordination in school planning, and incorporating trails and pedestrian facilities
in public and private development projects.
Area Specific Plans
On Page LU5, a brief section calls attention to the need for more specific
area planning in centers, at the special Redevelopment Opportunity Sites (West
Park and East Park), and in several other neighborhood areas.
Land Use Map and designations (revised)
The Land Use Map is located on Page LU36. It depicts the centers and
other land use designations. A detailed description of each hand use designation
R: Commurdt)Development~,shaping bremenon',CP hearings',Plan~aing Conm~n~ssion Staff'
Report - adoption hea:ing 012004 r-1 .doc
!5
44
employed by the Element begins on page LU37. In addition to the centers
previously discussed, major designations include CC (Commercial Corridor), a
new designation that seeks to encourage more creative development along
Kitsap Way and Wheaton Way. Note that these designations have been recently
revised to include several not previously found. The new designations include; I
(Industrial), BP (Business Park), and LTA (Limited Transition Areas).
In sum, the land use designations have been crafted by staff as the most efficient
and logical means possible of implementing the goals and policies created by the
community.
Decision Points
Land use "scenario's" (see LU8 and policies LUSa, LUSb)
Land Use goal LU8 points out a future "decision point" that the Planning
Commission wil~ be called upon to make during the hearing process currently
underway (see page LU17). Staff will require instructions as to the policy
direction that should be moved forward surrounding this issue. That instruction to
staff will not be needed until final action is taken buy the Commission.
In the current draft Plan, policies LUSa and LUSb present differing methods of
implementing land use approaches that encourage most multi-family
development to occur in centers. Before the end of the hearing process, the
Commission should advise staff as to the preferred method.
Both methods will be sent forward for environmental review with the chosen
method being describes as the "preferred option".
Public Comments recorded so far
(section rese~ed pending Commission instructions to staff)
Housing Element
Vision
The Housing Element is (also) based on a foundation provide by citizen
participation. That foundation is the Vision Statement for housing found in page
HS1 of the Element. The vision statement focuses on; quality homes; cohesive,
safe neighborhoods; safety; and broader housing choices. In calling for locating
new (housing) in strategic locations that support diverse lifestyles, more
R:',CormmupJty Development,shaping bremerton'~CP hearings',Pl mnming Commission Staff
Repo2 - adoption heahng 012004 #1 .doc
16
45
innovative housing choices, and capture local amenities, the Housing Element
suggests the centers concept as a key strategy.
The housing Element notes that," Coordination is particularly important
with the Land Use Element that prescribes types of uses, densities, and
measures to protect quality single-family areas while encouraging new growth in
strategic locations for new, more intense vibrant urban settings."
Challenges
Growth Management A ct requirements
The requirements of the Growth Management Act for preparation of a housing
element are relatively simple; inventory existing and proiected conditions and
needs; develop goals and policies to respond to the identified needs; identify
adequate land for the needed housing; and make adequate provisions for
housing that serves all economic segments of the community (commonly referred
to as the "affordable housing" requirement. This element satisfies all those
requirements. It should be noted that identification of adequate land is
demonstrated in the land use element and repeated in the housing appendix
section.
Housing Challenges in Bremerton
The Housing Element includes an extensive analysis of current housing
conditions and related factors such as income and demographics. Primary
among these challenges is the iow level of housing construction in the past
several decades, the aging of the housing stock, and a related deterioration of
typical housing conditions.
The Element also contains projections of future housing conditions and a
calculation of future housing needs. In sum, the element identifies that to replace
units lost to obsolescence and provide units for expected population growth,
between 5300 and 6400 new units will be needed over the twenty-year planning
period (see page HS9).
Other challenges. In addition to the requirements of the Growth
Management Act, and the unique challenges identified in the local community,
the Housing Element responds to the numerous mandates articulated in federal
funding protocols, the State of Washington's Growth Management Act, the
County-wide Planning Policies, and the Consolidated Plan of Kitsap County (a
County-wide housing report required for federal funding). Housing policies,
especially those providing for an equitable distribution of below-market
subsidized housing; require inter-jurisdictional coordination and cooperation in
meeting needs and in attracting new housing development. Therefore, housing
strategies are also recognized from other plans and other legislation for
integration with this element.
R:',Comrnunity De;,elopment shaping bremenon',CP hearings Pianning Co,wnmission Staff
Report - adoption hea.dng 0! 20a4 #1 .doc
46
Goals and policies
Goals and policies were developed by the community as a response to the
challenges outlined above. These - along with the vision statement that they
serve - form the heart of the Element. The goals and policies begin on page
HS10. While it is not possible to discuss each goals and supporting policy here, a
few of the most notable goals include the following;
H3 Provide a variety of housing types and densities to meet the changing needs
of Bremerton residents.
H4 Provide housing in mixed-use centers for a variety of incomes, age groups,
and household types.
H5 Promote access to quality affordable homes for all Bremerton residents
regardless of their economic capabilities or special needs.
Note: A special section of the Element follows the goals and policies section. Beginning
on page HS 16, the reader finds a section presenting a more detailed strategy for providing
affordable housing. The section presents ideas for coordination between the City and other
agencies involved in housing issues and some special strategies to encourage creetion of
housing units for middle and lower income residents.
H6 Build Strong, cohesive neighborhoods with a majority of Bremerton
households owning their own homes.
(note: end of public hearing session of February 3rd, 2004)
Community Character Element
Vision
The Community Character element is a unique section of the Comprehensive
Plan. It attempts to summarize themes that occur throughout the remaining
elements. Moreover, it also illuminates the recognition that these themes are
largely matters of urban design. The vision statement that introduces the
Community Character Element is the overall vision statement governing the
entire Plan. That statement was summarized in a previous section of this staff
report.
The Community Character Element highlights the goals and polices of the
Comprehensive Plan that focus on the quality of new growth in Bremerton. In
sum, it provides the foundation for citizens and city officials to prescribe design
parameters, incentive programs for new developments, and, most broadly, the
manner in which the city grows. This Element aspires to summarize and clarify
the issues of growth and to elevate understanding of the planning of our city's
R:\Cormmuni~' Development's, shaping breme.'-ton',CP hearings',P!anning Commission Staff
Repo~ - adoption heanng 0! 2004 #l.doc
physical future.
Themes
During the development of this Comprehensive Plan, goals and policies related
to functional areas - such as land use, transportation, economic development,
and the environment - were created. The citizens soon realized that a set of
distinct themes were also emerging. These themes encapsulate the community's
aspirations for the future. A second realization also became apparent - all the
major themes of the Comprehensive Plan were also largely speaking about
urban design issues. Without a preconceived intent, the community had identified
that the look, feel, and character of new development was, perhaps, the crucial
aspect in determining whether the community reached it's overarching goals of
becoming a better place to live. If one can understand the design-based themes
that underlay this plan, one can perhaps best understand the entire plan.
This staff report will not discuss the themes in detail, but simply list them. The full
discussions begin on Page CC3 of the Community Character Element.
1. Distinctive Growth, with Viable Neighborhoods and Centers that provide
greater choice and convenience
2. Enticing new Development, with a Focus on the Town Center
3. Supportive Transportation, with Seamless, Efficient, and Varied Choices
4. Improved Accessibility, especially for the Pedestrian
5. Quality Housing, with Broader Choices
6. Business Support, with increased opportunity
7. Environmental Management, integrating natural systems
8. Community Service, focusing on assets
Design Review
The Community Character also provides a discussion of the concept of design
review. This discussion indicates a realization that occurred during public
discussions that the more intense modes of development being discussed in the
Plan presented challenges. Careful design was necessary to insure that the
mixed-use environments discussed in the Plan met human needs, were viable
economically, and addressed concerns of the community surrounding more
intense urban environments. The Element suggests a general outline for how
R:'~Communit? Development'shaping bre:ne~omCP hearings~,,Planning Commission Sta~£
Report - adoption heating 012004 #1 .doc
19
48
urban design concerns might be addressed during Plan implementation. The
discussion of design review begins on page CC11.
Goals and policies
As with the other Plan elements, goals and policies developed by community
members form the foundation for the Community Character Element. In the case
of this Element there are only four goals presented. Each, however, is supported
by numerous policy statements that give them a relatively high degree of
specificity. The four goals are as follows;
CC1 Demonstrate excellent urban design qualities in new development
CC2 Assure that new development relates to surrounding uses and
provides for urban livability.
CC3 Provide for a safe, pleasant, and rich pedestrian experience.
CC4 Promote the development of areas of special character, encouraging
a diversity of communities within the city.
R:'.Cow2nurtity Development',$haping breme~on",CP headngs',Plamqing Com2-nission Staff
Repo~ - adoption hea.dng 012004 ~-1 .doc
Addendum #2
(Addition to staff report for hearing session of February 17th, 2004)
Recommended changes to land use maps and recommendation
regarding mapping issues (page LU36)
At the close of the public testimony portion of the February 3rd session of the
public hearing, the Planning Commission issued a series on instructions to staff
requesting further analysis of several issues raised during testimony. In addition,
Commission asked that the "Land Use Scenario Maps" discussed during the
planning process be brought to the hearing so that the public and Commission
could better understand the alternatives available for land use designations. The
following section of this staff report addresses both of these requests.
Many of the issues raised during testimony were matters relating to mapping.
Members of the public had suggested changes to the land use map for instance.
Staff recommends that the proper analysis of these "requests" should be made
on the basis of their consistency with the overall-directions set by the
comprehensive plan. As suggested above, Commission also requested that the
"land use scenarios" discussed during earlier phases of the comprehensive plan
drafting process be brought back during the current hearing process as a way to
assess the testimony. This then suggested a further refinement of the "scenario
maps" so that they better represented consistently applied alternative paradigms.
The result is that the scenario maps have been clarified so that each mapping
change suggested by testimony can be more clearly fit into the appropriate
scenario - or scenarios.
The scenarios can now be described as follows;
Scenario #1 No Change
Scenario #1 represents the approximate land use pattern that will occur with no
changes in land use designations or implementing zoning. These patterns and
implementing standards have been determined by staff to be inconsistent with
the intent and spirit of GMA. The scenario features the 1995 land use
designations and further assumes that density in Low Density Residential
designation will be continued at the levels currently found in the zoning code.
Existing zoning allows densities as Iow as one unit per acre in this area. For
reference, the implementing zoning is currently as follows; SF1 (1-3 units per
acre), SF2 (1-8 units per acre), and SF3 (3-$ units per acre.) In the 2002 Kitsap
County Buildabie Lands Analysis, it was estimated that during the period from
1995-1999 (the first five years under the current comprehensive plan)
R:~Cormmumb, Development'shaping brems~on C? hearings Pianning Commission Staff
Report - adoption heating 0 ] 2(!04 ~! ,doc
2i
§0
development in these areas was occurring at approximately 2.36 units per acre
on average.
Under this scenario, multi-family uses continue to spread in nearly all regions of
the City and UGA. Multi-family densities are approximately 10 units per acre
(current estimate from Buildable Lands Analysis). The result of this continuation
of very Iow density residential growth and this unstructured pattern of multi-family
projects is also an extensive pattern of new commercial growth along traditional
corridors - largely arterials outside of the current City. This pattern arises in
support of the new residential occurring widely across the landscape.
Scenario #~ assumptions:
1, Land use designations remain the same
2. There are no policy changes that drive changes in residential densities.
Development in the LDR designation continues at approx. 2.36 units per acre (per
2002 Buildable Lands Analysis)
3. Density as Iow as 2.36 du/ac in the City results in increased development outside
of the city, Automobile oriented commercial and office development occurs in
patterns best serving the highly dispersed residential base. Commercial
development infills along most arterial streets with slightly higher concentration in
areas of the UGA immediately outside of the City as residential growth outside of
the City outpaces that inside.
4. Absent policy changes, new multi-family development continues in a dispersed
pattern across the City and UGA. Redesignations and rezones routinely are
granted for new multifamily development. It occurs on many larger parcels and
occasionally in areas of congregated smaller parcels.
Scenario #2 Current Patterns
Scenario #2 appears on a map to be quite similar to scenario #1. There is a
significant difference however. This scenario assumes that, while the general
pattern currently employed will continue, Plan policies will require that
implementing zoning be changed to set a minimum density of 4 units per acre in
the LDR designation. This change represents an effort to bring the planning
design into rough compliance with at least one major requirement of the Growth
Management Act - that cities seek to assure minimum residential densities that
are "urban in nature". Multi-family residential uses continue to locate in nearly alt
regions of the City. In very limited cases, the rise in single family densities results
in some property owners developing single family projects where multi-family
projects may have previously been requested. This effect is limited. This pattern
suggests somewhat less new commercial along the traditional corridors than is
seen in Scenario #1, but a significant pattern of growth outside of the current City
limits remains.
Scenario #2 assumptions:
1 Land use pattern remains essentially the same as current (f995 Plan), but employs
2003 Update designations without centers,
2 Policy changes are made that assure residential densities in the LDR designation rise
to urban levels of 4 du/ac at a minimum for new development,
R2Conzm. upSty Development,shaping brim,., [o.. CP hearin,~s'.Plannin~ Commission Staff
Report - adoption heating 0! 2004 =1
-5:1_
3 Absent other policy changes, automobile oriented commercial and office uses infill
along most arterial streets within the City. Commercial growth also ex'tends along
arterials outside of the City but to a somewhat slighter degree than in scenario #f
4 Absent policy changes, new multi-family development continues in a dispersed pattern
across the City and UGA. As in scenario #I, new multifamily development occurs on
many larger parcels. Slightly higher densities in the LDR designation reduce the
market for medium density multifamily as compared to scenario #'I with fewer
redesignations and rezones of smaller parcels.
Scenario #3 Centers Concept
Scenario #3 represents the development pattern occurring as a result of full
implementation of the "centers" approach. It is the scenario that is fully consistent
with the goals and policies brought forth in the Draft Comprehensive Plan
Update, The scenario parameters discussed below are based on those goais and
policies.
Residential densities in the LDR designation rise to between 4 and 10 with
an average for new development of approximately 8 units per acre. Multi-family
uses occur only in the Centers. Parcels designated for multi-family outside of
centers are redesignated for Iow density residential use. Policies related to this
scenario suggest that existing multi-family development outside of centers be
more strongly protected from the deleterious effect of legal non-conforming
status by significant amendments in the zoning code as it relates to non-
conforming uses. Most new commercial and office development occurs in
Centers.
This scenario represents a combining of the former scenario's 2 and 3 which
were both centers based approaches. This combination is a result of analysis of
the legal ramifications of two major impacts of the two earlier scenarios. It was
determined that creating more extensive areas with legal non-conforming status
(essentially the former "scenario #3) was superior to allowing former multi-family
designations to continue on built-out parcels while removing them only from
vacant parcels (former scenario #2). This was determined to be less desirable
because of the perception and legal danger that the approach was treating
formerly equal properties in an unequal manner without defensible basis. In
scenario #3 therefore, essentially all multifamily residential designations outside
of centers are re-designated for Iow density residential use. The scenario
assumes that the resultant concentration of residential uses in centers will result
in a corresponding concentration of commercial uses in centers or in nearby
existing (connecting) corridors.
The resulting pattern is the most compact of the three, with very little new
commercial or multi-family activity in the current neighborhoods or along arterials
outside of existing areas.
Scenario assumptions;
Residential density in the CDR designation rises to 4-10 units per acre.
2.New medium and high density residential development occurs only in centers
3.A high proportion of new commercial and ofT'ice growth is also in centers
E.:..Corp~nu~t:,' Develop:.nent,shaping breme~,n~C-~? heatings' Piam~ir:g Corpmsission Staff
Repo~ - adoption hearing 012004 #1.doc
23
§2
4. Growth along arterial corridors in the city is limited to existing commercial
designations. There is little or no significant increase in commercial or office
growth along arterials in the UGA.
By applying these three rationales, it becomes logical to incorporate certain
changes in the maps as they apply to specific properties. The new maps depict
several of those changes.
Staff recommends that the methodology that be applied to analysis of testimony
regarding land use map designations be as follows. Staff should recommend
which, if any, scenario the change discussed by any testifying party fits into. The
recommendation from staff would supply the suggested appropriate scenario
placement (if there is one) and additional reference to plan goals and policies
that support the recommendation. Commission would not indicate approval or
disapproval of any particular recommendation as this would represent quasi-
judicial action in a legislative setting. Commission could discuss Plan goals and
policies that affect the map and determine if additions, subtractions, or re-
wording of existing goals or policies might affect the scenario maps. After
recommending any changes to goals and policies that it wishes to consider, staff
could revise the scenario maps to respond to the changes in policy. Commission
would then, during final deliberations, select a preferred scenario. Staff has
already stated in this staff report that it believes that scenario #3 is currently the
land use design that best implements the current set of goals and policies found
in the draft plan.
Staff recommends that this selection not occur until the end of the hearing
process. This is so Commission has had benefit of exposure to all plan elements,
the entire goal and policy framework found in the Plan, and all public testimony
and can make such a selection on the basis of a holistic understanding of the
Draft Plan and of public concerns.
Transportation Element
Vision
The Transportation Vision Statement forms the foundation of the Transportation
Element. The statement calls for a future transportation system that is
convenient, accessible, safe, and environmentally responsible. It envisions that
pursuit of those goals will mean creating a system that provides multiple
transportation alternatives and a system that is integrated with efforts to enhance
R:,,Com~nuniD' Deve!opmenf,shaping breme~on~CP hearings'Planting Commission Staff
Repo~ - adoption heating 012004 #] .doc
24
neighborhood character, vibrant and healthy neighborhoods, and economic
vitality.
Challenges
As with most elements of the Comprehensive Plan Update, the Transportation
Element must address some very specific challenges. Those challenges come
two primary forms; the requirements placed on transportation elements by state
law- the Growth management Act; and local challenges identified by community
members as they ted the writing of the Transportation Element.
Technical/GMA challenges
The technical requirements defined in the Growth Management Act for
Transportation Elements are probably the most detailed and stringent of any.
They include some that are similar to the requirements for other elements and a
few that are unique for transportation elements. The element must provide an
analysis of current conditions and a projection of conditions that are expected as
a result of the twenty-year growth forecast by the Plan. In addition to these
typical types of analysis, the transportation element must go further. It must
classify current conditions under a level of service (LOS) regime, predict future
levels of service, and compare these future levels with a Level of Service
Standard (or a set of LOS standards) adopted within the Element. The Element
must also describe additional facilities needed or programmatic solutions to
instances where future LOS violates the adopted LOS standard. Finally, the
Transportation Element must provide a Capital Facilities Program that
demonstrates a financial plan for funding needed facilities.
In addition, the Transportation Element must demonstrate that selected solutions
are consistent with several layers of regional and State transportation planning.
All these functions are satisfied by the Draft Element.
Challenges identified by the community
In addition to these technical challenges, the Transportation Element addresses
local desires and needs identified during the community participatory' efforts upon
which the Plan and the Element are founded. In the case of the Transportation
Element, the Vision Statement and its' supporting goals and policies illuminate
several issues that were seen by the community as transportation related
challenges. These include; 1 ) The need for more transportation options, 2) a
desire for more pedestrian opportunity in the City, and 3) protection of residential
neighborhoods from traffic.
Goals and Policies
As with the other elements of the Comprehensive Plan Update, the goals and
policies section presents citizens responses to the identified challenges. The
R:\.Con~munity Developn~ent',shaping br~nerton',CP heafings',Planning Commission Start
Report - adoption hearing 012004 #! .doc
25
54
section begins on page TR9. The section presents 13 broad goals - each further
detailed by numerous and more specific policies. In the interest of brevity, the
following is a listing of seven of the key goals found in the element. Readers
should consult the document for the supporting policies and to look at additional
goal/policy sets.
T1 Encourage the development of an integrated multimodal transportation
system that provides a variety of convenient transportation choices to improve
the movement of people, goods, and freight
T4 Protect residential neighborhoods from negative transportation impacts.
T6 Improve connectivity and mobility within Bremerton's transportation
system through the identification and implementation of improvements that
maintain Level of Service standards.
T9 Coordinate with Washington State Ferries and other possible providers to
operate ferry service to Bremerton that meets local service and commuter
needs, coordinates with all travel modes, and provides significant regional
service.
T11 Encourage the use of public transit and encourage transportation
agencies to operate and maintain local and regional service and facilities
that reduce the need for single-occupant vehicles and support the needs
of transit-dependent users.
T12 Provide a transportation system that effectively serves the needs of and
encourages pedestrian, bicycle and other non-motorized travel.
T13 Incorporate the needs of business and commercial traffic flow in the
development of transportation improvements that affect commercial and
industrial centers.
The Land Use Element also contains goals and policies with significant impact on
transportation issues. This is especially true in the case of the downtown where a
section of that element that lists the downtown goals and policies -including
some directly related to transportation.
Technical Analysis
Consultant, Parametrix, Inc. prepared the technical portions of the transportation
Element. The Parametrix document in its entirety is found in the Appendix
document as Appendix TR. John Perlic of Parametrix will discuss the technical
analysis. John's portion of the staff report will be attached as an Appendix B of
the report.
R:'~Commurdty Developmen¢,shap~ng breme~on'~CP hearings',_Plamzing Con.mission Staff
Report - adoption heaNng 012004 ~1 doc
26
55
(end, February 17~h session of public hearing)
Economic Development Element
Vision
The Economic Development Element begins with a Vision (statement) for
Economic Development. In summary, that foundational vision statement speaks
of a desire to bring economic vitality to Bremerton. It offers that a variety of jobs,
housing and transportation options, convenient services, and strategically
dispersed commercial activities are keys to bringing this desired vitality forward.
The vision statement includes recognition that good neighborhoods with a
distinctive focus and walkability are also keys. It specifically calls for a strong
downtown. It adds that views, waterfront areas and parks are also important to
economic success. Finally, the vision statement speaks of new vitality that is
sensitive to historical values and character. This vision statement is remarkable
in it's recognition that economic success is intimately tied to a wide spectrum of
issues that generally could be called "quality of life" issues.
Challenges
Following the vision statement in the Economic Development Element are two
sections that present an inventory of economic conditions and challenges facing
the community. The first is a section called City Profile. The City profile section
describes characteristics of Bremerton that are instructive as to its economic
climate and regional position. The section recaps demographic information,
geographic factors, and key economic trends. Following the City Profile is a
section entitled Inventory of Local and Regional Economy. This section provides
more complete date regarding population, employment trends, and a summary of
data, trends, and activity in six primary economic sectors.
Together these analytical sections summarize the challenges facing Bremerton in
the economic realm. Central issues that emerge include the following; 1) loss of
a large proportion of the retain sector to areas outside of the City; 2) a growing
number of people who live locally but work outside of the local economy -
notably in Seattle, doing significant amounts of their purchasing outside of the
local economy; 3) the largest employment sector being the government sector -
the slowest growing of all employment sectors; and 4) a general lack of
population growth and resultant new economic activity.
Goals and Policies
Once again, community-written goals and policies form the backbone of the
Element. The Economic Development Element presents goals and policies that
represent a response to the conditions and challenges brought forward by the
R:\Comwnm~i~' Development's, shaping brerne~on CP hearings,Planning Commission Staff'
Repo~ - adoption heating 012004 #1 doc
56
previous sections of the element. There are six goals and each goal as a number
of supporting policies. Only the goals are listed here. They are;
ECl Promote a vibrant environment for economic development
EC2 Maintain the existing asset of being a small city with convenience and
quality
EC3 Provide for a full-service, 24-hour, regional downtown center
EC4 Support the expansion of commerce
EC5 Establish Bremerton as a city that welcomes the opportunity to serve
business, residents, and visitors.
EC6 Provide greater economic opportunity for residents
Environment Element
Vision
The foundational vision statement for the Environment Element provides a focus
on sustainable growth. It envisions a future in Which development contributes to
the preservation of natural amenities and systems; and where the City
encourages environmental education, conservation, recycling, brownfield
redevelopment, and public acquisition of sensitive lands. Finally, the environment
element vision recognizes that walkability, access to views, and open space are
keys to a healthy community.
ChaLlenges
Growth Management Act
The primary challenge handed to communities under the Growth Management
Act is the requirement that so-called "critical areas" be designated and protected.
In addition, GMA requires that communities indicate how they will preserve open
space in the urban setting. Both these topics are addressed in the Environment
Element.
Local residents also identified environmental challenges not specifically
mentioned in the Act. These are also addressed by the Element. They include air
quality and brownfields.
Following the vision statement just summarized and a brief introduction section,
the Environme,qt Element provides sections discussing all the topics just listed·
· ' ~ ~n brem ~rton.CP hearings?la,nmng Cormm~ss~on Staff
R:\Cormmumt¥ Development'~hap g
Report, o adoption heating 01 ~004 Fl.doc 28
57
Goals and Policies
As in each element of the Plan, the community responded to the challenges
identified by creating goals for the future that would move the community toward
solutions that were consistent with the vision and with the remainder of the plan.
There are14 goals in the Environment Element. Each has a number of supporting
policies. It is not possible to list all goals and policies here. The following is a
summary of four of the most important goals.
E1 To ensure the long term health of Bremerton, promote sustainable growth
and activities
E4 Encourage conservation of critical areas and nonrenewable resources.
E7 Create an openspace system that increases the amount of openspace,
protects Bremerton's natural resources, and provides a source of beauty
and enjoyment for all residents.
Ell Integrate the natural and built environments to create and urban setting
with comfortable and secure ptaces for people to live, work and recreate.
RTCommuni~ Dev¢Iopment shaping bremer~on' CP hearings,Planning Con,zr.:~:s~on StafJ'
Report_ - adoption hea_dng 012004 #! .doc
58
Addendum #3
(Addition to staff repor~ for hearing session of March 2, 2004)
City Services Element
The City Services Element addresses services that are essential to a community
and its ability to grow, This element guides how the provision of services such as
water, sewer, parks, and schools support the future growth and development of
Bremerton.
This City Services element provides direction that will assure three primary goals
are met; 1 ) expected levels of quality for services will be maintained as growth
occurs, 2) the locations chosen for needed public and quasi-public facilities will
not conflict with other community goals, and 3) careful planning of public and
quasi-public facilities will assure the services are provided in the most cost-
efficient manner possible.
The City Services Element of the Bremerton Comprehensive Plan combines the
function of two plan elements required under the Growth Management Act, the
Utilities Element and the Capital Facilities Element. To accomplish this
· requirement in a manner that is clear, the element is divided into two distinct
sections, one called the Utilities Section and the other the Capital Facilities
Section.
Each section will present discussions of current and projected conditions,
including levels of service, as appropriate. In the case of the Capital Facilities
especially, the section will also discuss capital projects necessary to maintain
urban services at the levels of service acceptable to the community and present
a plan for financing those needed improvements. This exercise - commonly
called the concurrency requirement - will be discussed in greater detail in this
staff report. The Utilities and Capital facilities begin on pages CS12 and CS20
respectively.
Vision
Both sections respond to a City Services Vision prepared by the citizens who
guided creation of the City Services Element. The vision speaks of partnering
with residents, and public and private organizations to provide the services
needed to maintain and enhance Bremerton's quality' of life. In addition to the
more traditional "infrastructure" most people associate with City Services, the
vision mentions the importance of recognizing that we must address maritime
heritage, neighborhood vitality, and customer service in the process of matching
urban service provision with growth strategies,
R:,,Cormmunity Development',shaping bren~e~on".CP heafings",Planning Cmrnnission Staff
Report - adoption hea_dng 012004 #1 .doc
3O
59
Challenges
Perhaps more than any other element of the Comprehensive Plan, the
challenges addressed by the City Services Element are technical in nature. The
element has several primary duties; 1) set Level of Service (LOS) standards for
urban services and infrastructure that express the community's expectations for
the level of quality and/or quantity at which of those services should be
maintained as growth occurs; 2) assess future service needs as the expected
growth occurs in terms of projects and/or expenditures that will be incurred if the
LOS standards is maintained; and 3) provide a capital facilities program that
demonstrates a reasonable strategy for funding the necessary services.
In short, the capital facilities/utilities portions of a comprehensive plan is "where
the rubber meets the road" Aisc called by some the "truth in planning" sections,
this Element must demonstrate a strategy for maintaining urban services - at an
agreed-upon level - as growth occurs.
Goals and Policies
The goals and policies section of the City Services Element presents the
community-written road-map for addressing the challenges just mentioned. The
goals and policies section begins on page CS3. There are 28 goals, each with
supporting policies. The goals and policies are organized into sections
addressing key topic areas, the topic areas are; 1) General goals and Policies for
City Services; 2) goals supporting customer service and orientation; 3) goals
supporting safety and health; 4) goals related to beautification; 5) goals
addressing neighborhood revitalization; 6) goals supporting economic
development; and, 7) goals supporting consistency with the rest of the
comprehensive plan.
Key goals are as follows;
CS6 Ensure adequate funding for public facilities and services for existing
development and new growth
CS14 Facilitate the provision of utilities that are environmentally sensitive, safe
and reliable, aesthetically compatible with surrounding land uses, and available
at reasonable economic costs
CS22 Assure that all capital projects and expenditures are consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
CS25 Progressively become the primary provider of capital facilities and
services within the city's Urban Growth Area
CS26 Adopt Level of Service Standard(s) (LOS's) for public facilities reflecting
community preferences for quality of service delivery
R:',Cormmunit? Development shztping breme~on CP hearings,Plamning Commission StaCf'
Report - a~option heating 012004 #1 .doc
31
The Utilities Section
The Utilities Section of the City Services Element begins on page CS12. The
utilities section addresses services by pdvate service providers such as natural
gas, electricity, and telecommunications.
The services covered by the utilities section are not addressed in the same
manner as urban services that are publicly funded. These providers are either
driven by market forces and/or directed by Federal or State regulations or
franchises to maintain the utilities at adequate levels as growth occurs. It is
therefore assumed that the services will be maintained at what amounts to
acceptable levels of services as growth occurs. The physical locations of needed
facilities have been provided to the City and are shown on maps included in the
section. In so much as the new facilities projected occur in existing rights-of-way
or at pre-existing locations, there is minimal to no conflict with the future land
uses projected by this comprehensive plan. Because of these factors, the section
meets the two basic challenges that it must address; 1) assuring the these
privately controlled services will be provided at acceptable levels as growth
occurs; and 2) assuring coordination with the proposed land use patterns and
other portions of the remainder of the Comprehensive Plan.
The Capital Facilities Section
The Capita~ Facilities Section represents in many ways the point at which the
"rubber meets the road" in planning. This section, and its' supporting appendix,
establishes the community's strategy for paying for the patterns of growth that it
prefers. In the other elements of the comprehensive plan, the community has set
a course toward realizing its vision for the future. It has created goals and
policies that will help it establish the land use pattern, types of housing,
transportation system, urban design, and environmental protections that it
desires as the future unfolds. The Capital Facilities Section is where the
community puts forth a strategy to pay for the services needed to support the
desired type and intensity of growth. Without such strategies, the rest has no
meaning - and little hope of ever being accomplished.
That strategy has two major parts; the establishment of the community's desired
Levels of Service (and a related concurrency requirement); and the
establishment of a meaningful and related capital facilities program (CFP).
The Capital Facilities Program that supports the established LOS Standards is
contained in a large technical appendix.
R:~,Communi~' Development'.shaping breme~on'~CP heafings'~Plarming Co~TLmission Staff
Repo~ - adoption heating 012004 #1 .doc
32
61
The Capital Facilities Section addresses the full range of urban services provided
by public and quasi-public agencies. Under the County-wide Planning Policies for
Kitsap County, a "full range of urban services" is defined to include the following.
(CWPP A.3.d.i)
Police storm water potable water
Fire sewer (sanitary) solid waste
Transportation Parks & Rec. Facilities Schools
Telecommunications (including Broadband)
With the exception of telecommunications, which was addressed in the Utilities
Section, the Capital Facilities Section and its appendix presents discussions of
current conditions, projected conditions, level of services standards, and
implementation strategies for each type of service.
At the heart of the functions performed by this section is the requirement that the
community demonstrate how key urban services will be provided to new
development - and provided in a way that maintains the community expectation
that a clearly defined quality of life be maintained as growth occurs. This is
commonly called the concurrency requirement.
This concurrency demonstration entails several basic steps;
1 ) The community defines the Level of Service (LOS) Standards that must be
maintained for each urban service
2) The current LOS for each type of urban service is inventoried
3) Projections of the impact to levels of service created under the growth
assumptions of the plan are calculated.
4) If projected growth will result in the LOS for any particular urban service being
diminished below acceptable levels (LOS Standard), projects and other capotat
expenditures needed to return the LOS to acceptable levels (LOS Standard) are
identified.
5) Methods of funding the needed improvements are identified
6) tf funding cannot be identified, alterations to the growth assumptions, land use
design, or LOS Standard may need to be considered.
The LOS Standards for each type of urban services are discussed in an
appendix subsection devoted to each service type. In addition, the LOS
Standards are summarized in a table on page CS22.
Each subsection (see appendix) provides the required analysis of the projects or
other capital expenditures that will be necessary during the first six years of the
Plan to maintain services at the established LOS standard. These lists include
R:',Corrgnunity De~ elopment'.shaping bremcrton~CP heanngs ~Planmng Com.m~s~on SLari"
Report - adoption hear/ng 012004 #1 .doc
estimated costs. Finally, an analysis of the mechanisms available to fund the
needed facilities of services is provided. In all cases, this Plan establishes that
the needed funding can be realized over the next six years.
End, public hearing session of March 2, 2004
R:\Community DevelopmentLshaping bremertoniCP heafings',Piamning Cormmission St~££
Report - adoption hearing 012004 ~ 1.doc
34
63
Addendum #4
(Addition to staff report for hearing session of March 16, 2004)
Summary
This staff report has discussed in sequence each element of the 2003-2004 City
of Bremerton Comprehensive Plan Update. Taken together, the Plan elements
form a response to both technical and community-perceived challenges that must
be faced by the community during the coming twenty years. Each element
analyzes the challenges in a topic area. The responses are founded on "vision
statements" related to the topic areas. Citizen written goals and policies give
more specific direction to decision-makers and community members leading to
long-term implementation of the visions.
These community goals can be re-organized into themes that run through-out the
Plan. Such a reorganization facilitates an understanding that certain desires and
ambitions cut across all topic areas. These overarching ideas, community
ambitions, and values form the true heart of the Plan.
The Community Character Element provides one attempt at bringing several
Plan themes forward. This staff report wil~ provide another list of themes that help
summarize the Draft Comprehensive Plan Update. They are as follows;
1. A desire to revitalize Bremerton, to grow, and to increase economic
activity
2. A recognition that the development approaches of the past have lead to
stagnation
3. A desire to return to a more pedestrian oriented development pattern
4. A desire to combat the dominance of automobiles and traffic
5. A desire to include more sociatly interactive, safe and interesting urban
environments.
6. Recognition that the family structures of the past will not dominate the
future
7. A recognition that mixed use centers are a development pattern that
addresses the other desires and ambitions for the future.
8. A desire to balance growth with open space, trails, and a healthy
environment
In addition, some technical matters are attended to. These include;
1. Population and employment forecasts
a. Internal consistency
2. Level of Ser¥ice Standards and concurrency
3. Capital Facilities analysis
4. Urban Growth Area and regional growth issues
p.:~Co~-mmup2U Development,shaping b~merto,..,-P heatings 21arming Comm.,So,On ~.aff
Repo_rt - adoption heanng ('!t2004 #1.doc
Decision Points/Recommendation Issues
During the public testimony heard on January 20th, February 3rd and 17th, and on
March 2nd, testimony has been received on a number of topics. In the following
section staff summarizes the testimony and makes recommendations regarding
possible responses.
1. Elevate the importance of sidewalks in the Land Use Element. A
citizen made suggested that the general tone employed to discuss
sidewalks in the Land Use Element needed to be strengthened to more
strongly support the wide-spread emphasis on walkability and related
issues.
a. Staff recommendation:
i. strike word "sidewalks" from policy LUll
ii. add new policy LU1 m to read; To support walkability in
neighborhoods, centers, and commercial areas, require
installation of sidewalks as new construction occurs
2, Give the Economic Development Element a more positive "voice"
and a more innovative approach. The suggestion was made that the
Economic Development Element was somewhat dry and took an overly
negative view of current economic conditions. It was further suggested
that, at s minimum, such negativity should be accompanied by a more
positive outlook on future potentials. It was also suggested that a more
innovative approach to economic development was needed.
a, Staff recommendation, Staff has not had time to address this
testimony. Staff further recommends that this exercise be
scheduled after more pressing work on the comprehensive plan is
complete - perhaps as part of 2005 amendments.
3. Testimony was received opposing mention ora "tunnel" in the
Transportation Element. This testimony came from an individual who
opposed any mention of the "Bremerton Tunnel" in the Plan.
a. Staff recommendation; Previous to receiving this testimony, the
Planning Commission had instructed staff to remove the word
"tunnel" from the Transportation Element. The Bremerton
Transportation Center (BTC)/Pedestrian Improvements project
remains in the Transportation Element as a project discussion co-
equal with others.
R:",Com277umty Development'.shaping bveme~on CP hea,d, ngs'~ianning Cormmission Staff
Report - adoption head. ng 012004 #1 .doc
36
65
4. Provide an explanation in the Land Use Element at goal LUI7 as to
why the Seattle/King County Stormwater manual is recommended.
The Planning Commission requested this information be added.
e. Staff recommendation. Staff recommends that a "discussion"
paragraph be added after goal LU17 that reads; Di$cusaion; The
Seattle/King County Stormwater Manual is recommended for its ability to provide
storm water related development standards in a clear manner. Its use has the
additional advantage of providing consistency for many development
professionals who are familiar with it as a result of their work in most of the more
populeted portions of the State - where it is the more common document.
5. Rename the "Upper Wheaton" and "Lower Wheaton" District Centers
as the "North Wheaton Way District Center" and the "South Wheaton
Way District Center" respectively. This was suggested to help possible
avoid confusion between the location of the "Lower Wheaton Way Center"
and that portion of Wheaton Way the parallels the Port Washington
Narrows between Manette and the general vicinity of the Warren Avenue
bridge areas.
a. Staff recommendation. Staff recommends that this change be
made throughout the document and maps.
6. Place Erlands Point in the UGA. It was suggested that the Erlands Point
area be added to the proposed UGA.
a. Staff recommendation; With only small exceptions, the current
recommended UGA includes only areas with current UGA
designation. The suggested areas are either in the current CiTy
UGA or within the current "unassociated" UGA in the central Kitsap
area. The City has limited capacity to provide the full range of urban
services identified in the Plan to new areas, but assumes that ability
to serve has been demonstrated in the currently designated areas.
Staff cannot recommend addition of areas that are currently outside
of any designated UGA and therefore not associated with any
demonstration of service capacity.
7', Anderson Cove Area. It was noted that there is no specific mention of the
Anderson Cove area in the document. The person testifying felt that the
Plan should address this area specifically as it not only has some unique
problems, but unique opportunities as well. It was noted that the Housing
Authority was exploring a project in the area.
a. Staff recommendation. Staff recommends that Anderson Cove
area should be added to the list of sub-areas where additional area-
specific plans should be created in the future. That listing is on the
top of page LUC.
8. Various requested changes to the Land Use Maps, Parties have made
requests for changes to the draft land use scenario maps either through
testimony at hearing or previously submitted written requests.
P.:',ComrnurJ~y De~elopment',sha?ing br~me~omC? h~arings ~PIanning Corn_mission Staff
Repo~ - ~dopdon hearing 012004 #1 .doc
66
a. Staff Recommendation; Staff has analyzed each request and
placed the change requested on one or more scenario maps if it fit
the mapping paradigm employed to create the map. In some cases
the request did not appear to be indicated by any of the three
paradigms and there is no change shown. In scenario's 2 and 3 the
land use designation applied to reflect a requested change employ
the Draft 2003-2004 Comprehensive Plan Update's land use
designations and will not match the specific request if it referred to
the 1995 plan designation. Staff recommends that after
deliberation, the Planning Commission adopt all three scenario
maps as drafted or amended and designate one map as the
"recommended alternative map"
9. HE designation heights. This is not the base mapping issue regarding
the Olympic College boundary. It was suggested during testimony that the
height limit in the HE dgsignation be high enough to facilitate two or three
story buildings. This was seen as a way to encourage college expansion
to go "up" not "out".
a. Staff recommendation. Note that the height limit suggested for the
HE designation is already listed as 60 feet in the Draft plan (see
page LU48). To further support this suggested standard, staff
recommends that the HE land use designation be amended in the
section entitled "discussion" to read; Discussion; The HE
designation recognizes the O/ympic Co//ege campus./t encourages
appropriate growth of the campus facilities in ways that are
compatible with surrounding uses. Liberal height standards are
proposed for campus structures.
10.Maps. For purposes of moving the Draft 2003-2004 Comprehensive Plan
Update forward for SEPA analysis and later for City Council adoption, it
will be necessary to include all three land use scenario maps. In addition,
if either scenario map #1 or #2 is determined to be the recommended
map, additional changes to goals and policies to bring the Plan and map
into consistency will be needed.
a. Staff recommendation; Before through separate motion, or within
a motion to adopt the Plan, move to establish either land use
scenario map #1, #2, or #3 as the "recommended land use map".
End hearing session, March 16, 2004
R:',,Conxnunity DeYe!opment',shaping bremenon\CP hcarings'.Plapming Commission Staff
Report - adoption heating 012004 #I .doc
67
Addendum #5
(Addition to staff report for hearing session of March 30,200 4)
Transportation Element
Theirs are several recommendations we would like to make to this
element to ensure its consistency with the rest of the
Comprehensive Plan, what we heard from the Citizens who
participated in the process, and internal consistency.
Page 4-2 paragraph (2) titled Kitsap Way:
This section talks about improvements to be made to Kitsap
Way for capacity improvements. There is no mention about
bike paths and bike path improvement.
It is our recommendation that we add a bullet to include bike
path improvements. This is consistent with the goals and
policies of the transportation element and the bike path map
that is also contained in the transportation section,
'~ Page 4-2 paragraph (3) titled SR 304 (Navy Yard
Highway/Charleston Blvd/Burwell Corridor)
The last sentence of the initial paragraph in this section states
"A separate downtown project (the Downtown Bremerton BTC
Access/Pedestrian Improvements project) complements the
SR 304 project by further improving traffic circulation and
pedestrian mobility and safety in the downtown core."
It is our recommendation that this Sentence be removed per
the guidance the Planning Commission gave at our study
session pertaining to the Transportation Element and the lack
of input from the public making the tie this sentence suggests.
~ Page 4-5 first bullet point under heading 4.2.1 Proposed
Transit Projects
This bullet point states, "Bus P,apid Transit (BP, T) between
Kitsap Mall in Silverdale and Bremerton Transit Center. The
preferred a~temative extends from the Bremerton
Transportation Center north along Washington Avenue, across
the Manette Bridge, north on old Wheaton Way and Cherry
Street to a new Transit Center located between Old Wheaton
Way and Sheridan Street. From there the system would enter
SR 303, and continue north to S'lverdale.
, ' ~ ~ha m~ v~emertonxCp heanng,~ Planmno Corpm21ss~on
R:~Commurdb De,,e~oprnem,' p = ~ , .~_ · . o Staff
Report - adoption heating 012004 # 1. doc
68
It is our recommendation that the language about a "preferred
altemative" be stricken. The transportation committee was not
opposed to having Bus Rapid Transit options throughout
Bremerton, but it did recommend that this proposed alternative
NOT be recommended or endorsed in the Comprehensive
Plan.
We suggest making some adjustments to the proposed bike
paths and open spaces. The purpose of these adjustments to
make them more consistent with the centers policy and ensure
that the centers are connected through alternative
transportation methods.
Environment Element
· Finally, we finalized a few details in the environment chapter.
Most notably, we inserted a paragraph about stream/creeks
and riparian zones.
R:\Co~"mmuni~T Dev¢lopment'..shaping brememomCP h:arings',Ptarming Commission Staff
Report - adoption hearing 012004 #1 .doc
4,9
Planning Commission instructions to staff/amendments to plan
resulting from deliberations Comprehensive Plan adoption
4/20/04
[] 1. Integrate edits provided by Planning Commission members into Economic
Development Element. Edits will relate to adding a more "positive voice".
(pending P.C. notes) (later implemented by No. 's 29, 30, 31 below)
2. Remove sentence referring to BTC project from Transportation Appendix, page
4-2, paragraph (3).
3. Add ,'discussion note" after Goal LU 17 explahaing rationale for referencing King
County Stormwater Manual to read as follows; "The Seattle/King County
Stormwater Manual is recommended for its ability to provide storm water related
development standards in a clear manner. Its use has the additional advantage of
providing consistency for many development professionals who are familiar with
it as a result of their work in most of the more populated portions of the State -
where it is the more common document.
4. Rename Wheaton Way DC's to Wheaton/Pddell DC and Wheaton/Sheridan DC.
[] 5. Add discussion recommending that Erlands Point and Rocky Point be treated as
"Joint Planning Areas" Add the following paragraph at the end of the UGA
discussion ending on page LU9; "Joint Planning Areas (JPA's). In addition to the
proposed UGA, the City and County should investigate the potential for
additional planning coordination in specific areas. Study and analysis may lead to
inclusion of these areas in future recommended additions to Bremerton's UGA.
JPA's should be designated in the County Comprehensive Plan for the Erland's
Point and Rocky Point areas.
6. Add Anderson Cove to list of areas recommended for future sub-area planning.
List is in page LU 6.
[] 7. Re-write discussion portion of HE land use designation on page LU 48 to further
illuminate concept of"compatibility" with nearby uses/neighborhood. The new
discussion section to read as follows: "Discussion: The HE designation
recognizes the Olympic College campus. The desig-nation provides for growth at
the OC Campus, but promotes growth that is compatible with the surrounding
neighborhoods and other nearby areas. In general, the College is encouraged to
seek to accommodate new facility needs by growing "up" rather than by
occupying lands in the surrounding areas. Increased building height is suggested
to accommodate such growth. In addition, campus growth through infill of
underutilized ground area within the existing campus boundary is also
encouraged, The City will re-asses maximum lot coverage standards and consider
other re~a!atory measures to accommodate the desired infill."
70
5/4/04
[]. 8. Amend policy LU9i by adding the word "library" so as to read as follows:
"Centers should include at least one core amenity. These include; a public
meeting space, park, or plaza; a community center or school; or a public building
such as a post office, police substation, librat~v, etc. (boldface italics not to be
included in Plan.)
[] 9. Amend policy CC2f, discussion section, 2na paragraph, 1st sentence to read; "The
City should establish criteria for determining when planting strips between the
road and sidewalk should be required." Add new second sentence to read;
"Planting strips will typically be at least 5 feet in width and make maximum
possible use of indigenous plants."
10. Amend policy CC3a. by making several minor changes and by striking all words
after the word "sidewalks" so as to read as follows; "Encourage a sense of
neighborliness and community by orienting one or more entrance to a commercial
building toward the pedestrian sidewalk".
11. Amend policy CC2d to read as follows; "Promote consistent massing of
buildings".
[] 12. Amend discussion section following policy CC2d. by striking all existing
language and replacing with the following: "When new buildings are created
within an existing row of structures, attention should be given to the height and
mass of the new structure. In general, new structures should be similar in height
and mass to surrounding buildings. Variations in height and mass that respond to
desired changes in the character of the area as expressed in the comprehensive
plan or implementing zoning regulations should be allowed and encouraged."
13. Amend policy CC2e. to read as follows; "Human scale can be further achieved
through architectural detailing and by variation in the three-dimensional character
of the building as it rises skyward. Monolithic, vertical extrusions of the
maximum building footprint are strongly discouraged. Lower levels should be
differentiated architecturally from the rest of the building. Street level portions of
buildings should be occupied by active uses that create interest for the pedestrian
and architectural variety. In buildings along busy arterials, residential uses should
be on the second floor or above."
14. Amend policy T 1 a., second bullet point, by striking the ;vord "adequate".
15. Amend policy T2b to read as follows; "Reflect the urban nature of roadways
within Bremerton by promoting:"
71
t 6. Move first bullet-point under policy T 12a to become a new sixth bullet-point
under policy T8a and amend to read as follows; "-maximize safety for pedestrian
and bike path corridors."
17. Add a new policy T5d. to read as follows: "Promote creation of parking structures
in Centers that reduce surface-level parking.
[] 18. Add new bullet-point under new policy T5d. that reads as follows; "- parking
structures in centers (including the Downtown Center) should generally not face
pedestrian streets, but rather be placed in the interior o£blocks, provide retail
space along the street edge, or otherwise be accessory to a mixed-use project."
19. Amend policy CS 1 Ob by striking existing language and replacing with the
following; "Prepare, distribute, and educate citizens and public staff about
emergency preparedness plans including instructing Bremerton's citizens what
services will or will not be available immediately following an incident and listing
locations where support services will be provided."
[] 20. Add new policy E7e to read as follows; "£ncourage connectivity between open
space areas with a system of paths and trails for pedestrians, bicyclists, and other
non-motorized users."
21. Add new bullet-point under policy E3f. to read as follows: "Adopt incentive
based development standards which reward environmentally sensitive
development practices and projects and that lead to preservation of urban forests."
[] 22. Add new' bullet-point under policy £3d to read as follows; "Develop a "night
sees" ordinance that addresses issues of urban light pollution.
[] 23. Add new policy Elg. to read as follows; "consider the adoption ora local tree
ordinance that promotes retention of trees and forested areas as growth occurs."
24. Amend policy E3c to read as follows; "Encourage developers of new projects in
Brernerton, including public projects, to provide improvements that reduce the use
of single occupancy vehicles."
[] 25. Amend policy E6d. to read as follows; "Whenever reviewing development
proposals, identify habitats that may be adversely impacted."
26. Amend goal E7 by adding the words "and visitors." at the end.
27. Amend policy E8c to read as follows; "Promote alternatives to traditional
stormwater practices for new construction, encourage off-site filtration, and
require the use of current Best Management Practices."
72
5/18/04
28. Add new section describing the Reserve Center land use designation following
description of the DRC(Downtown Regional Center) description on page LU41.
New RC section to read as follows;
RC (Reserve Center)
Development Parameters:
Density; up to 20 units per acre
Height; mid-rise, ranging fi:om one to four stories. Higher buildings should be
generally concentrated nearer the center of the designated area.
Structure types: Mixed. Various commercial, residential and mixed-use structures
Location; As mapped.
Policy direction: The reserve center designation anticipates development patterns that
will be implemented beyond the 20 year planning horizon employed by this plan. This
designation seeks to preserve options for future development as a. neighborhood or
district center. Development occurring during the current planning period shouM be
carefully monitored so as to not preclude successful center-type development patterns in
the future.
Discussion; The Reserve Center designation recognizes that the area designated is likely
to be appropriate for development as a Neighborhood or District Center sometime beyond
the twenty-year horizon addressed by this plan wkile recognizing also that there is a
possibility of re-designation of the area to full center status even within the 20 years. It
recognizes that it is important to discourage types of development that - if they were to
occur in the shorter-term - would make future development as a center more difficult
and/or unlikely. Implementing zoning during the planning period should encourage
mixed-use development in buildings of more than one story and discourage site designs
that place parking and other non-pedestrian uses along the arterial street frontage. The
implementing zoning should also discourage the placement of new structures and uses
out-of-scale with eventual creation ora pedestr/an-or/ented commercial node. In the
immediate time fi:me, implementing zoning should treat this entire area in a like manner.
Uses during the period pre-dating the anticipated future re-designation as a center may be
a variety of commercial uses.
29. Amend Economic Development Element by re-writing introduction section, first
paragraph, to read as follows; "Bremerton, as the urban center of Kitsap County,
is a vibrant environment which fosters economic vitality through its broad
diversification of jobs and strategically dispersed commercial activities. The city
provides a superior natural setting, a nationally recognized quality of life, and a
regionally significant deep water port, home to a newly rebuilt state ferry terminal
and the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, the West Sounds largest employer.
Rediscovery of the city's qualities and its economic durability entices new
investments as well as rejuvenates residents and business in pursuit of the city's
economic interests.
73
30. Move "city profile" and "inventory" sections of Economic development Element
to a new Economic Development Appendix.
31. Re-write Economic Development Element Vision Statement to read as follows;
(per testimony from Richard Nerf 1/18/04) "Bremerton is a metropolitan city with
economic vitality and diverse lifestyles. The city provides a broad variety of jobs,
housing, transportation options, convenience services, and strategically dispersed
commercial activities. Communities and established neighborhoods within the
city each have a distinctive focus, yet all are walkable and well-connected to each
other, satellites to a vibrant downtown with the most interesting mix of activities.
Residents and visitors alike enjoy the accessible waterfi-onts, water and mountain
views, and urban parks. New development merges with established styles,
enhancing and protecting the charm, historical character of the city, and its
cultural heritage."
32. Strike existing and add new policy EC3a. to read as follows; "Encourage the
development of the downtown as a neighborhood as well as the heart of the city
and region."
33. Amend policy EC3c to read as follows; "Encourage services downtown for
commuters as well as residents.
34. Amend policy EC6d, 2nd bullet, to read as follows; "Support educational
oppommities through public, private, and higher education institutions."
35. Add a new policy EC41. to read as follows: "Encourage a more diversified
economic base to increase elasticity in the local economy."
36. Add a new (2nd) bullet point under policy EC4b. to read as follows; "Pursue
eligibility for all areas of the City that may qualify for State Empowerment Zone
designation."
37. Amend description of the Sylvan/Pine neighborhood Center on page LU31 in the
first sentence to replace words "is located at the" with "in the vicinity of'.
38. Amend description of the North Wheaton Way District Center, east portion, third
sentence, at the bottom of page LU32 by replacing words, "six to eight stories"
w~th "up to five stories".
39. Amend description of the Lower Wheaton Way District Center, page LU33, 4t~
paragraph, 5t~ sentence, by replacing the words, "Three to four stories" with "four
to five Stories".
40. Amend section describing the CC (Commercial Corridor) land use designation,
"discussion" section, page LU42 by adding the following; "Incentive-based
74
development should be encouraged with a priority on preserving existing
vegetation through the use of open space and vegetative buffers."
41. Amend last sentence of the CC (Commercial Corridor) land use designation,
"discussion" section, page LU42, to read as follows; "A full range of services
may be accommodated, including such uses as food markets, theaters, restaurants,
hardware stores and automobile-oriented businesses such as gas stations and fast-
food outlets."
42. Amend section describing the WW~. C (Wheaton Way ?developmen. t Corri.dor)
land use designation, page LU43, 4m paragraph, by adding the following to the
end of the paragraph, "Vehicular access should be encouraged on secondary roads
near or at the rear of sites whenever possible. Such secondary circulation routes
should be linked to those on adjacent sites and/or the existing street system
whenever possible. Site designs should consider the possibility of developing
secondary circulation routes within the corridor over time and linkages to the
circulation system in adjacent centers: Care should be takgn t~> assure that
providing such alternatives to access from the busy Wheaton Way frontage does
not introduce inappropriate traffic to neighborhood areas."
43. Amend discussion of the PSRS (Public Sector Redevelopment Sites) land use
designation, discussion portion, 3~d sentence, to read; "Potential development
includes mixed-use type residential developments with an open space component
that integrate sensitive commercial and/or office development as a secondary
component."
44. The following steps implement a general instruction to remove reference to
existing (adopted) neighborhood or specific area plans from the discussion of
Specific Area Plans found on pages LU5-6 and incorporate reference to the
adopted plans in appropriate land use designation sections, or other text sections,
that apply to the areas covered by the plmas.
a. Amend section of Land Use Element discussing Specific Area Plans, list
at the top of page LU6, by removing the parenthetical references to the
Charleston Community Plan, Harrison District Plan and the non-
parenthetical listing of the Campus/Evergreen Plan.
b. Add the following sentence to the discussion of the Charleston District
Center, page LU34, end of first paragraph; "The adopted Charleston
Community Plan will perform as a resource and beginning point for area
specific planning for the Charleston District Center."
c. Add the following sentence to the end of the discussion of the Hamson
Employment Center, page LU36; "The adopted Harrison District Plan will
perform as a resource and beginning point for area specific planning for
the Harrison Employment Center"
d. Add the following sentence to the discussion of the downto~vn regi°nal
center, page LU35, first paragraph; "The adopted Campus/Evergreen
75
District Plan, Plan will perform as a resource and beginning point for area
specific planning for those portions of the Downtown Regional Center
addressed by that plan.
45. Strike policy LU8a.
46. The following steps implement a general instruction to eliminate reference to
building height as expressed in feet in all descriptions of land use designations
Pages LU38-48.
a. Amend description of LDR land use designation page LU38, general
development parameters section, height subsection by striking the words,
"35 feet maximum"
b. Amend description of NC land use designation page LU39, general
development parameters section, height subsection by striking the words,
"45 feet maximum"
c. Amend description of DC land use designation page LU39, general
development parameters section, height subsection by sth 'king the words,
"50 feet maximum"
d. Amend description of CC land use designation page LU42, general
development parameters section, height subsection by striking the words
"35 feet max."
e. Pd-nend description of WW~rRC land use designation page LU342, general
development parameters section, height subsection by striking the words
"35 feet max."
f. Amend description of PSRS land use designation page LU44, general
development parameters section, height subsection by striking the words
"/35 feet maximum"
g. Amend description of NB land use designation page LU44, general
development parameters section, height subsection by striking the words
"/25 feet"
h. Amend description of LDR land use designation page LU38, general
development parameters section, height subsection by striking the words
"35 feet maximum"
47. a. Add the following sentence to the description of the downtown regional center,
page LU35, first para~aph following the nexv sentence added per instruction 43d
above; "Specific area planning for the entire downtown regional center that
considers these portions and all other areas within the designation will be
conducted".
48. Add "Downtown Regional Center" to the list of areas that will receive specific
area planning, top of page LU6.
49. Amend title ofGC ( General Commercial) land use designation, page LU45, to
"LC (Limited Commercial) (also amend labeling on Land Use Maps)
?~
50. Amend discussion of North Whcaton Way District Center, page LU32, first
paragraph, 8 sentence by striking the hyphenated phrase - although automobile
focused uses such as gas stations and repair garages are not permitted.".
Addendum #6
To the staff report on the Comprehensive Plan)
May 18, 2004
Staffhas one final recommendation. After review of the Land Use Element staffbelieves
that it is necessary' to define the parameters of the "Reserve Center" designation that
appears on the Scenario #3 Land Use Map in the Kitsap Lake area. This designation is
not considered to be a center designation. It is instead a more traditional land use
designation that should be implemented by a (single) zoning classification - but does not
necessarily requires a specific area plan for full implementation. The suggested
designation description is needed to guide development of that zoning classification~
The following designation description should be added at the bottom of page LU41
immediately after the discussion of the DRC (Downtown Regional Center) designation.
RC (Reserve Center)
Development Parameters:
Density; up to 20 units per acre
Height; mid-rise, ranging from one to four stories. Higher buildings should be
generally concentrated nearer the center of the designated area.
Structure types: Mixed. Various commercial and mixed-use structures
Location; As mapped.
Policy direction: The reserve center desi~nation anticipates development patterns that
vvill be implemented beyond the 20 .year planning horizon employed by this plan. This
desig-n, ation seeks to preserve optionL~ for.future development as a neighborhood or
district center. Development occurring during the current planning period should be
carefully monitored so as to not preclude successful center-type development patterns itl
the future.
Discussion; The Reserve Center designation recognizes that the area designated is likely
to be appropriate for development as a Neighborhood or District Center sometime beyond
the twenty-year horizon addressed by this plan. It recognizes that it is important to
discourage types of development that - if they were to occur in the shorter-term - would
make future development as a center more difficult and/or unlikely. Implementing zordng
during the planning period should encourage mixed-use development in buildings of
more than one story and discourage site designs that place parking and other non-
pedestrian uses along the arterial street frontage. The implementing zoning should also
discourage the placement of new structures and uses out-of-scale with eventual creation
of a pedestrian-oriented commercial node. In the immediate time frame, implementing
zoning should treat tiffs entire area in a like manner. Uses during the period pre-dating the
anticipated future re-designation as a center may be a var/ety of commercial uses.
78
Summary of status of specific land-use requests
The following section of this addendum to the staffreport summarizes staff
recommendation regarding the appropriate response to several items of testimony (all
found in the matrix of testimony provided to the Commission). These items are those that
made very specific requests to land use designations on specific parcel(s) of land. The
section describes how each Land Use Map scenario responds to the request.
1. Penn Plaza (William Palmer and McConkey)
Summary of request: At present the property in question is designated BP
(Business Park) on the north and MDR (Medium Density Residential) on the south.
The party testifying requests that the entire property receive a BP designation.
a. Scenario #1: refiects existing status wbJeh is consistent with the current
Ever~een Campus Plan
b. Scenario #2: suggests re-designation as requested (althou~ designation is
called "Industrial Park". This reflects Scenefio#2's philosophy of
continuing to allow expansion of commercial uses in a dispersed pattern
across the City based primarily on market request - but using new
designation set.
c. Scenario #3; coverts north portion designation to Industrial Park, wh/le
designating south portion Low Density Residential (up to 10 units per
acre). TbJs is based on Plan goals and policies that move all higher densiD,
residential uses to Centers while leaving industrial and business park type
uses in place (as there are no emplo3a'nent centers to send then to).
2. Roberts/O'Dormoghue property, vicinity of Northwest Corporate Campus
Summary of request: Designate property along Hwy 16 southeast of Gorst for
commercial use. (current plan designation is residential)
a. Scenario #I; The property receives a general commercial designation
reflecting scenario #1 philosophy that commercial uses would expand
along arterials.
b. Scenario #2; Properl)' received Industrial Park designation reflecting
scenario #2 philosophy that new designations will be used to address
traditional market forces calling for more industrial land.
c. Scenario #3; indicates designation of the subject property as part ef the
Northwest Corporate Campus Employment Center. This designation
potentially allows cormnercial uses, but subject to a future area-specific
planning process that lays-out a design approach for the entire
Employment Center.
3. Kitsap Coun~ Health D/strict; Health District Campus adjacent to Jackson Park
SurnmaD- of Request; Re-designate from current MF designation to
"General and Professional Office"
79
a. Scenario #1; refiects exiting MDR designation, request to re-designate for
public uses is not provided for in existing (1995) goals and policies.
b. Scenario #2; indicates re-designation as a Public Sector Redevelopment
Site reflecting the Scenario #2 philosophy that public agency needs will be
enabled as requested - but using new designation set.
c. Scenario #3; Indicates re-designation as Public Sector Redevelopment
Site reflecting Plan Goals and policies regarding providing public semfices
in accessible locations.
4. Whitcomb Property (William Palmer), vicinity, ofHwy 3 and Kitsap Way.
Summary of Request; designate one parcel "behind" existing motel for
commercial use. Current desig-aation is LDR.
a. Scenario #1; Property received CG designation, reflecting Scenario #1
pkilosophy that existing commercial designations are expanded near
arterials, etc.
b. Scenario #2; Property remains designated LDR, reflecting Scenario #2
philosophy that commercial expand near arterials, but not in locations not
fronting on an arterial. Remaining ownership receives Freeway
commercial designation, potentially increasing intensity, of uses.
c. Scenario #3 Property remains LDR Property remains designated LDR,
reflecting Scenario #2 philosophy that commercial expands only in
centers. Remaihing ownership receives Freeway commercial designation,
potentially increasing intensiDf of uses.
4. Rosander
Summa,w, of request: Designate the subject parcel to unspecified designation
allowing wood flooring sales and storage use.
a. Scenaho #1; Property is re-designated to Industrial Park reflecting
scenario #1 philosophy that the City would continue to allow- expanded
industrial uses in areas where industry already existed.
b. Scenario #2; Property, receives Industrial Park designation, essential same
rationale' as above
c. Scenario #3; Property receives Reserve Center designation. Reserve
Center will be implemented with zoning that allows a wide variety of
commercial uses while preserving the potential for furore neighborhood or
district center designation.
5. McDonald
Summary of request; designate portion of one lot to General Commercial
designation.
a. Scenario #t; Property is re-designated to GC reflecting scenario #1
philosophy that commercial uses expand in exiting commercial areas.
b. Scenmfio #2; Property is not re-designated consistent with scenario #2
philosophy that while co~maercial uses are generally expanded in existing
commercial areas, properties not fi'onting an arterial and adjacent to
existing residential areas would not be re-designated to commercial.
c. Scenario #3; Property is not re-designated reflecting scenario #3
philosophy that commercial uses are not generally not located outside of
centers or corridors (except large scale freeway oriented uses).
81
Minutes for
Planning Commission Meeting
May 18, 2004
1. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order by Commissioner Buckingham at 5:36 p.m.
II. Roll Call
Those present were: Commissioner Cockbum, Commissioner Kosusko, Commissioner
Streissguth, Commissioner Wood and Commissioner Buckingham. Quorum certified.
III. Approval of Agenda
Commissioner Buckingham introduced the agenda. A motion was made by Commissioner
Kosusko and seconded by Commissioner Wood to approve the agenda as presented. Called
for a vote: Cockbum: Yes; Kosusko: Yes; Streissguth: Yes; Wood: Yes; Buckingham: Yes.
The motion carried.
IV. Approval of Minutes
The minutes of the Special Meeting held on March 30, 2004, were presented for approval by
Commissioner Buckingham. A motion was made by Commissioner Streissguth and
seconded by Commissioner Wood to approve the corrected meeting minutes of March 30,
2004 as presented. Called for a vote: Cockbum: Yes; Kosusko: Yes; Streissguth: Yes; Wood:
Yes; and Buckingham; abstain. The motion carried.
V. PUBLIC MEETING
A. Call To The Public (public comments on any item not on tonight's agenda): Seeing
none, Commissioner Buckingham closed this portion of the meeting.
B. Public Hearing: Paul Rogerson, Planning Manager, began with the Staff Report.
Addendum #6 was distributed to the Commission before the start of the meeting. This
addendum contains issues that had come up during staff's examination of the plan over the two
weeks prior to this evening's meeting that staff felt needed to be remedied. Item #l on the
addendum recommended the addition of a description of the Reserve Center designation to the
Land Use element. It had been earlier recommended in Land Use Scenario #3, the application of
a designation to the Kitsap Lake area ("Reserve Center"), but the plan did not have a description
of what the parameters of the designation are. Staff's recommendation was to add the RC
(Reserve Center) designation be added to the plan on page LU-41, immediately after a similar
Planning Commission Meeting May 18, 2004 Page 1 of 18
82
description of the Do~vntown Regional Center. Commissioner Buckingham questioned the
density of up to 20 units per acre in the Reserve Center and wanted to know if that would allow
future neighborhood or district center designation. Paul explained that 20 units per acre is the
density recommendation used in other segments of the plan that discuss neighborhood and
district center designations. Staff also recommended a change in the language within the
development portion of the description in regard to structure types. It should read, "Structure
types should be mixed with various commercial, residential, and mixed use structures", noting
the insertion of the word "residential". Paul also proposed that in the discussion section it is
made clear that it may be appropriate to re-designate the areas as full centers sooner than the 20-
year plamfing period. The current language states that development of the area(s) as a full center
would not occur until sometime after the 20-year planning period; while that is the most likely
scenario, Paul wanted to be prepared in the event it takes less than 20 years. Chris Hugo,
Director of Community Development, added that the reason staff has not proposed to
designate the areas now is because everything that has a designation also has to have a
population assigned to it. At this time, approximately 21,000 in new growth in and around the
city has been included in the urban growth plan which works out to about a 50% increase in
population over the next 20 years. If the potential centers were added [to the plan] now, a certain
number of people for each center would have to be added to the estimation, pushing the number
over 21,000 which is already an ambitious amount. The amendment of the language is just to
prevent any frustration in the ultimate conversion of the traditional areas to centers; it would
allow for change in the interim but it would not work against the realization of a future center's
designation. Commissioner Buckingham noted that, since Addendum #6 only dealt with Land
Use issues, it would be timelier to discuss this addendum while deliberating on the Land Use
element after the Economic element had been addressed. All were in agreement.
Commissioner Buckingham asked for any comments related to the Economic element.
Commissioner Wood began with discussion regarding revamping the introduction with a more
positive note. Commissioner Streissguth proposed the Commission adopt the language of the
revised Mission Statement submitted through public comment. She also suggested moving the
city profile to an appropriate appendix and a re-write for the first paragraph of the element which
would read:
"Bremerton, as the urban center of Kitsap County, is a vibrant environment which
fosters economic vitality through its broad diversification of jobs and strategically
dispersed commercial activities. The City provides a superior natural setting, a
nationally recognized quality of life and a regionally significant deep water port,
home to newly rebuilt State ferry terminal and the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, the
West Sound's largest employer. Rediscovery of the City's qualities and its economic
durability entices new investments as well as rejuvenating residents and businesses in
pursuit of this City's economic interest."
Commissioner Streissguth remarked that by placing the city profile portion in the appendix, it
takes out current state of affairs that can become dated over time and makes the Economic
element consistent with the other element's formats. Commissioner Kosusko commented that
he was a little hesitant to change the vision statement without more consideration due to the fact
that the original had been drafted by citizens. He wanted to compare the original with the
proposed change before making that decision. Commissioner Wood read directly from an
example of an updated vision statement submitted by Richard Nerf on January 18, 2004.
Commissioner Streissguth had compared this example with the original and didn't feel there
Planning Commission Meeting May t 8, 2004 Page 2 of I8
were any substantive changes; it was more ora rephrasing of what already existed. It was agreed
by the Commission to change the first paragraph of the element as suggested by Commissioner
Streissguth, to rephrase the Vision Statement as proposed by Mr. Nerf, and to move the city
profile and inventory (list of existing conditions) to the appendix.
Commissioner Kosnsko noted that in §EC3, the element promotes a full-service, 24-hour
regional downtown center, but the section does not contain language regarding residents in the
downtown area; having full-time residents in the downtown center is essential to the economic
vitality of the area. Commissioner Buckingham agreed, noting the residential aspect may be
covered in the Housing element, but should also be mentioned in the Economic element when
describing what a full-service, 24-hour center is. Commissioner Streissguth suggested
referencing downtown residents under §EC3a, expanding the features that attract people to
downtown to include a residential component, or in §EC3d where there is discussion on
incentives for downtown redevelopment and reinvestment. Commissioner Kosusko thought it
should be treated as its own policy. There was some discussion on the vagueness of §EC3a and
it was decided some clarification should be applied such as listing the types of events or
programs envisioned to attract people to the downtown area. Commissioner Buckingham
thought a broad statement regarding livability downtown could be included in §ECl. Paul
Rogerson raised the issue of §EC3i which lists cultural activities and special events which
appears to repeat §EC3a which could then possibly be available for other uses. It was generally
agreed to rewrite §EC3a to include reference to residential uses. Chris Hugo commented that
one of the ideas used by other urban areas looking to revitalize their downtown area, including
residential uses, is to create a downtown that is not only the heart of the community, but also as
its own neighborhood. Once the idea of the downtown area being a neighborhood is introduced,
other residential amenities such as shopping (grocery and retail), services, etc. come into the
picture.
Commissioner Buckingham felt that, in §EC3c, "Encourage services downtown for
commuters", should include "... and residents". Chris Hugo thought there may have been some
significance to only having commuters listed, so he proposed it read "... commuters as well as
residents". All were in agreement to amend §EC3c as Chris proposed.
Chris Hugo proposed §EC3a to read, "Encourage the development of downtown as a
neighborhood as well as the heart of the City and region." The Commissioners approved of the
change. Commissioner Kosusko voiced some concern as to whether or not "neighborhood"
conveyed a strong enough sense of having full-time residents in the downtown area.
Commissioner Streissguth noted that there would be more opportunity over time to revisit this
issue, especially when the Commission deals with zoning, in terms of density and creating
consistency between implementing zoning and what the goals and policies are.
Commissioner Wood read directly from Citizen Judith Frieberg-Nerf's comments regarding the
Economic Development of Bremerton, dated January 15, 2004. In summary, her comments dealt
mostly with developing Bremerton's commitment to the arts and education, and promoting green
or eco-friendly businesses and what part the City could play in bringing about that vision.
Commissioner Kosusko expressed concern about making such specific changes/additions to the
plan at this time. Commissioner Buckingham noted that §EC3i covers arts and cultural events.
There was some discussion about adding bullet points to §EC3, but Commissioner Kosnsko
reminded the Commission that §EC3 pertains only to the downtown region, but perhaps §ECl
Planning Commission Meeting Ma,,, 18. 2004 Page 3 of 18
84
might be more appropriate. Chris Hugo cautioned the Commission against introducing new
material into the plan at this time because of time constraints; the task at hand was to review and
comment on what the various committees had produced and any additional input should be
weighed in terms of how consistent it is with what the committee had presented, how much work
does it entail and how much time would be needed to implement the additions. Larger ideas can
be given to staffto hold on to until the first annual update. Items that appear to be critical should
be addressed immediately to prevent gaps in policy.
There was additional discussion regarding the higher education items in Judith Frieberg-Nerf's
comments. Commissioner Kosusko suggested expanding on §EC6d and include a reference to
higher education by changing the second bullet to read, "Support educational opportunities
through public, private and higher education institutions". There was general agreement on this
addition.
In response to Judith Frieberg-Nerf's suggestion on promoting eco-friendly businesses,
Commissioner Cockburn noted that, the way the plan was written, no reasonable business
would be precluded from being part of the Bremerton's economic plan and didn't see the benefit
of listing specific types of businesses. Chris Hugo asked if there was a policy statement about
diversification; he felt the public comment was questioning the diversity of businesses, noting
the main businesses within Bremerton are Puget Sound Naval Shipyard and car dealerships.
Paul Rogerson noted there were a couple of references to promoting new business within the
text and appendix, but thought those statements may not be strong enough to satisfy the request
for more specific language regarding diversity. Chris suggested adding a policy to §EC4 that
reads, "Encourage a more diversified economic base to increase the elasticity in the local
economy." The Commissioners were in agreement on this proposed addition.
Chris Hugo asked for clarification on broadening the geographic area for the empowerment
zone. It was his understanding the document was supposed to set the framework for a city-wide
empowerment zone designation. Paul Rogerson did not think that subject was addressed.
Matthew Keough, Growth Planner, responded in kind. [His full comment was not audible on
the recording as he was speaking from the audience and not using a microphone.] After reading
§EC4b regarding tax breaks and incentives, Chris remarked that that was what an empowerment
center was and suggested adding a comment to include enabling a city-wide empowerment zone
or something to that effect. This was an item that the State of Washington had been advised
would be included in Bremerton's Comp Plan. It was suggested to list this item as a second
bullet point under §EC4b that would read, "Maintain all eligible areas of the city as an
empowerment zone to qualify for state tax credits". All ~vere in agreement. Commissioner
Cockburn thought only certain areas were designated for empowerment zones, not the whole
city. Chris agreed, noting only census tract 8-13, (part of a "blight" designation), is currently
designated as an empowerment zone. When reviewing the criteria for getting tax breaks, nothing
that could be done in census tract 8-13 qualified, so an eligible piece of geography was created
that inherently wouldn't be eligible because of the types of .jobs created (primary jobs), the
magnitude of development that has to occur to create those jobs, and where the people have to
live in order to enable the tax break. He stated, "We made application to do something, and in
our form of application we limited our geography so greatly we made sure we could never do it.
That's what we did back in 1994." In talking with the State, the State said there was no reason
,vhy one wouldn't qualify as much of the city as one could because that has to do with where the
resident workers come from.
Planning Commission Meeting May 18, 2004 Page 4 of l 8
85
Moving on to the Land Use element, Paul Rogerson continued with the staff report. In
Addendum #6, there were five specific requests via public comments for changes to the 1995
Land Use map; the Commissioners' task is to assess how the changes fit (or do not fit) in one of
the three scenario maps that have been discussed throughout the deliberation process. This
portion of the addendum goes through the requests and relates to the Commissioners staff's
assessment of how the requests fit in one, more than one or none of the scenarios. The first
request was related to the Penn Plaza area at the end of Pennsylvania Avenue, submitted by Mr.
William Palmer and Mr. Paul McConkey. Paul read directly from the request which was asking
for the entire property in question to be redesignated as BP (Business Park). Under Scenario #1,
the north end of the property remains designated BP and the south end of the property remains
MDR (Medium Density Residential); in other words, no change to the existing designation. In
Scenario #2, the property is redesignated as requested. For clarification, Paul explained that the
designation BP is no longer available and would be referred to as IP (Industrial Park). Scenario
#3 recommends that the north portion be designated IP and the south portion be designated LDR
(Low Density Residential), which allows density in that designation to go as high as ten
residential units per acre. This is based on plan goals and policies that move all higher density
residential uses to centers while leaving industrial or business park type uses in place as there are
no employment centers to send them to. In reference to the scenario #3, Commissioner
Kosusko asked where a new business would be located. Paul rephrased his previous statement:
Limited areas of commercial or business park-type development would not fit easily into an
employment center because their large site or planned-unit approach to industrial park
development. In Scenario #3 staff did not recommend that all IP uses be thrust into non-
conforming status and essentially directed toward employment centers. It does allow some of
those types of uses to remain in place in contrast to what staff has done with multi-family
residential development, for example. Wemer Road is one of the IP designated areas that is not
part of an employment center; areas such as this exist primarily because not all of that type of use
is going to fit in the large plan environment of the employment center.
The second request was submitted by the Roberts and the Donahues, co-owners of a property in
the vicinity of Northwest Corporate Campus. The request was to designate their property along
Highway 16 (south and east of Gorst) for commercial use. In Scenario #1, the property receives
a general commercial designation, reflecting Scenario #1's philosophy that commercial uses
would expand along arterials. In Scenario #2, the property receives an Industrial Park
designation, reflecting Scenario #2's philosophy that new designations will be used to address
traditional market forces calling for more industrial land. It is a similar treatment of the property
as Scenario #1, but employs the new Industrial Park designation. In Scenario #3, the property is
designated as part of the Northwest Corporate Campus employment center. This designation
potentially allows commercial uses, but is subject to future area specific plan process. [Using the
Scenario #3 Land Use map, Paul showed the area of the Northwest Corporate Campus
employment center and where the property in question is located in relation to the center.] Chris
Hugo further clarified the location of the property; it is where Highway 16 comes around the end
of Sinclair Inlet. At this point, Highway 3 comes from Belfair and splits to run North and South.
The southbound traffic is heading toward Port Orchard and is merging right before this property,
so there are three-lanes of highway traffic and a merging lane of traffic with the speed limit
increasing to 50 mph. In Chris' opinion, the biggest issue is what can reasonably be achieved
with [that property] where the transportation is consistent with the land use. The transportation
function is this area is established, and it is a severe one; it is difficult road geometry because the
Planning Commission Meeting May 18. 2004 Page 5 ot 18
86
three lanes of Highway 16 traffic coming southbound around the comer creates a dangerous
situation for any vehicle attempting to access property along the road on the hillside. Under
Scenario #3, waiting until there is a sub-area plan that addresses all aspects [of this property and
its location], is most likely the only way this property could be redesignated from its current
LDR zoning. The terrain of the property makes it inaccessible from the highway; the current
access is via a long driveway that leads to an older single-family home. Chris commented that
sometimes you have to defer to the least dangerous situation; perhaps some development could
occur if the owners were able to secure access through the west side of the property (via
Sunnyslope, for example). Currently, with the situation of the road system, it is difficult to see a
better option than what is offered under Scenario #3. General Commercial could be another
option, but another growth strategy would have to be chosen and it wouldn't be consistent with
the overall plan framework; there is still the question as to how the County and State could
support a major road access at that property location. Chris speculated that the owners might not
have ever asked that question - if they had, it might have solved their interest in the
redesignation. Paul Rogerson further explained that when staff developed the paradigms used
to create scenario maps #1 & #2, they were not complex enough to address some of the
transportation issues. When staff recommended Scenario #1, for example, it was done on the
basis of the philosophy that did not have enough depth to it to anticipate or address all of the
issues Chris Hugo had described. Scenario #3, ~vhile it was not predicated with more attention to
transportation issues, it happens to address the transportation dilemma better than #1 or #2.
The third request was submitted by Kitsap County Health District asking to redesignate a piece
of property owned by Kitsap County Health District in the Jackson Park area from its current
designation of MDR to General/Professional Office (as described in their testimony). In
Scenario #1, staff recommends the property remain MDR; redesignated public use is not
provided for in this scenario that would indicate it should be redesignated. Scenario #2 indicates
that a public sector redevelopment site designation should be applied to the property reflecting
Scenario #2's philosophy that public agency needs will be enabled as requested, using the new
land use designation. Scenario #3 also indicates a redesignation to a public sector redevelopment
site for the Health District's campus of buildings in the Jackson Park area, arising from plan
goals that are in the current draft plan regarding providing public services, accessible locations,
etc. Commissioner Buckingham asked if there currently is a public sector redevelopment site
designation. Paul confirmed this; the designation is in the plan and is applied to the map, not
only to this parcel, but to East Park and West Park. The basic philosophy is it is in the public
interest to [redesignate] and there is an overriding public benefit.
The fourth request is in reference to the Whitcomb property with testimony provided by William
Palmer. The property is in the vicinity of Highway 3 and Kitsap Way. The request was to
designate a small parcel behind an existing motel for commercial uses; the current designation is
Low Density Residential (LDR). In Scenario #1, the property receives the commercial
designation that is requested, reflecting the scenario's philosophy that existing commercial
designations are expanded near arterials. In Scenario #2, the property remains designated LDR,
reflecting Scenario #2's philosophy that commercial expansion does happen near arterials, but
not in locations not fronting on that arterial. As an aside, Paul explained the remaining
ownership owned by this property owner receives the Freeway Commercial designation which
potentially increases the utility of this property. To clarify, this scenario does not redesignate the
parcel requested to Freeway Commercial, but does redesignate the other ownership this person
maintains in that vicinity to Freeway Commercial; there then is a benefit on existing property but
Planning Commission Meeting May 18, 2004 Page 6 of 18
87
does not receive the requested redesignation on the small parcel in question. In Scenario #3, the
property remains LDR, reflecting the Scenario #3's philosophy that commercial uses expand
only in centers. Remaining ownership receives the Freeway Commercial designation, potentially
increasing utility of the adjacent property but not on the property requested. The reason neither
Scenario #1 and #2 recommends the designation be reassigned to General Commercial [and
remains LDR] is because there is LDR designation immediately behind the property; currently
the property in the adjacent areas are developed for single family residential uses. Staff cannot
see that redevelopment of the property under the commercial designation (if it were given) would
be compatible with the nearby neighborhoods. [Using the GIS map, Matthew Keough showed
the Commissioners where the property the request is for is located.] The property is currently
accessible only through the residential neighborhood; there is no access via the existing General
Commercial area due to topography and the nature of the development on the site.
Commissioner Cockburn asked if [the property owner] wanted to expand the motel out [into
the redesignated] area. Paul replied that while the description provided did not specifically state
that, it is staff's opinion that that is the property owner's plan. He commented that without a
specific development request and uncertainty as to how the development would be accessed,
staff is hesitant to recommendredesignation at this time. If the property owner were to submit a
specific development request that demonstrated access would not be through the residential area,
adequate buffering would be provided between [the development] and the neighborhood, and
would require an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and a subsequent rezone, staff could
review the request differently. Without that additional information, staff felt [the request] was
not consistent with the goals and policies to recommend the redesignation. Chris Hugo asked if
there was opportunity for buffering on the north side [of the property] to protect the
neighborhood if the expansion were to occur. Paul responded that he could not say with
certainty, but he assumed it would be difficult to provide adequate buffering because of the size
of the development site. After viewing a short plat of the area on the GIS, Chris Hugo noted the
significance of the lots directly north of the requested redesignation site; these lots are all single-
family residences and there is a market for the current designation of LDR. Chris asked if the
requested site's topography would allow for single-family residence development. Dri Ralph,
Environmental Planner, confimaed this and explained there is a stream and other drainage
mrming through that particular piece of land.
The fifth request was submitted by John Rosander asking for redesignation for property he has
an interest in located in the Kitsap Lake vicinity. He was not specific about the designation he
was requesting, but he "wished have a designation that allowed a wood flooring sales- and
storage-type activity." Under Scenario #1, the property is redesignated as [Business] Park,
reflecting Scenario #l's philosophy that the City would continue to allow expanded industrial
uses in areas where industry already existed [there is currently adjacent industrial uses in the
general vicinity of this site]. In Scenario #2, the property receives an Industrial Park designation,
essentially the same rationale as above, but using the newer 2003/2004 designation to
accomplish the same outcome. In Scenario #3, the property receives the Reserve Center
designation (discussed earlier). The Reserve Center will be implemented with zoning that allows
a limited variety of commercial uses while preserving a potential for future neighborhood or
district center designation. Chris Hugo commented that he had recently met with the property
owner's representative. Mr. Rosander is not the property owner's official representative; he is
promoting the comp plan change because, as a citizen, a person can propose any change to the
[zoning] map through this legislative process; no person needs any particular standing to speak
for a property - they can speak on what they think is in the best interest of the City. In Chris'
Planning Commission Meeting May 18, 2004 Page 7 of 18
88
conversation with the attorney representing the property owner, it was made known that the
property owner wants to have the same plan designation as the adjacent commercial uses. That
redesignation is not an issue since both properties share frontage on a four-lane arterial. Chris
assured the attorney that his client will be treated the same as the other property owner, whatever
that is, under the center strategy. Chris said he would talk more about a zoning implementation
approach in the Director's Report. Paul Rogerson reminded the Commission that the Reserve
Center designation is the entire red "hatched" area on the GIS map, not just the area Mr.
Rosander was submitting a request for redesignation on.
The sixth and last request is on the McDonald property, with testimony supplied by Mr.
McDonald who is asking to redesignate a portion of a lot (approximately ~ of the lot) to General
Commercial. Under Scenario #1, the property is redesignated General Commercial, reflecting
Scenario #1's philosophy that commercial uses expand in existing commercial areas. Under
Scenario #2, the property is not redesignated, reflecting Scenario #2's philosophy that, while
commercials are generally expanded in existing commercial areas, properties not fronting on an
arterial and adjacent to exist residential areas are an exception to the role. In Scenario #3, the
property is not redesignated, reflecting Scenario #3's philosophy that commercial uses are
generally not located outside of centers or corridors, with the exception of large scale
commercial uses that are allowed in freeway-oriented areas. Chris Hugo asked if existing
commercial areas were allowed to be in-filled. Paul said that that policy had been discussed, but
staff did not consider this request to be in-fill. Chris clarified his question by adding the point
that there could be commercial [uses] outside of centers and corridors, but only when they in-fill
within a contained area. Commissioner Buckingham asked what currently exists on the lot in
question. Matthew Keough responded that the property is currently designated residential and
currently there is a house on the property; the portion of the lot that the owner is requesting a
redesignation has had some development by the property owner in the form of Mr. McDonald
expanding his business onto his residential lot. This expansion conflicts with zoning and the
Comprehensive Plan.
Commissioner Buckingham asked for any additional comments or questions concerning the
requests for redesignation. Seeing none, he moved on to deliberations on the Land Use element.
Commissioner Streissgnth started with a question of clarification on page LU-7, Urban Growth
Area (UGA): The last sentence in the first paragraph contains a question about the non-
associated UGAs and Commissioner Streissguth felt the question was partially answered with the
CPPs and a portion of the area that is being referred to [within the paragraph] is now associated
with Bremerton. It was her understanding that in the CPPs there was a section that runs from
Riddell Road to the ravine that is now associated [with City of Bremerton], and she asked if the
language should be amended to reflect consistency with the CPPs. Chris Hugo commented that
Commissioner Streissguth had raised a good point because this is an item that is timely now, but
is not going to have much value in a couple years. He did note that the reason this is in the Land
Use element is because there is a large paradigm to break which has not occurred yet, even with
the CPPs. Bremerton will have to make an historic case and it's being made [within the
deliberations]. If Bremerton is successful in redirecting that history into a more positive
outcome, using the CPPs and these arguments, in two to four years [the reference to non-
associated UGAs] will be taken out. Currently, the area above Riddell Road is still a non-
associated UGA and will remain as such until Bremerton makes a case and the County acts on it
in one of their own comp plan updates in the future that redesignates the UGAs.
Planning Commission Meeting May 18, 2004 Page 8 of 18
89
Commissioner Streissguth moved on to Open Space, directing the Commission to page LU-11
and the goals and policies (§LU2) on page LU-15. Both items discuss the linkage of a trail
system and pedestrian pathways. Commissioner Streissguth felt a reference to linkage between
centers should be added either to the text on page LU-11 or to the sub-goals in §LU2. Paul
Rogerson noted in §LU12b there is specific mention of pedestrian and bicyclist access between
communities, centers and neighborhoods. The Commissioners were in agreement that this
wording addresses Commissioner Streissguth's concerns adequately.
Commissioner Streissguth proposed the wording on page LU-31 be amended to read, "The
Sylvan/Pine neighborhood center in the vicinity of the namesake intersection..." instead of"...
located at the intersection..." Public comment had been received recommending this change;
there are different amenities in the vicinity that may be a more appropriate location for the actual
center, so when the neighborhood plan is developed, the neighborhood can have that discussion.
Commissioner Kosusko commented that this change would be consistent with the
Commission's past discussions of centers where the centers are not necessarily intersection-
centered.
On page LU-32, Commissioner Streissguth questioned the reference to the height restriction of
six to eight stories in the commemial [areas]; she felt the eight stories was inconsistent with what
had been decided on for other centers and wondered if the limit should be six stories or if a
[numerical measurement] should be used in place of a reference to the number of stories.
Commissioner Kosusko commented that what had been discussed previously was in reference
to inconsistencies with the WWRC designation, which is the corridor outside of the centers; that
item had been resolved, which leaves the question of the appropriateness of the eight-story
height restriction. Paul Rogerson noted that, although this topic had come up in several of the
past meetings, no change had yet been made because of the lack of clear direction on the
amendment. He pointed out that the District Center designation refers to a five-story/50-feet
maximum height limitation. Chris Hugo commented that, even at five stories, a local
amendment to the building code is needed to go four stories of wood over a first story concrete
podium. Commissioner Kosusko amended that statement by saying it was five stories of wood
over a first story of concrete; anything more than that would require a special exception. He
wondered if the height might be too restrictive because of the way heights are measured. Chris
reminded the Commission that it had been decided to propose removing the references to height.
Commissioner Buckingham then asked if any reference to the number of stories should be
removed from the text and refer only to the District Center designation and what is allowable
under that designation. Commissioner Kosusko pointed out that on the next page under "West
Portion" there is a four- to six-story height limitation and felt that if the references to height were
removed from "East Portion", it should be removed tl~roughout the document for consistency.
Paul spoke about the different height limitations and how each center is unique; in the
designation descriptions [later in the chapter] the general parameters are given which would be
the maximum height allowed for that area. It was agreed to remove the reference to five stories
on pages LU-32 and amend the "West Portion" to read "four- to five-stories" instead of"four- to
six-stories".
On page LU-42 under Commercial Corridor in the discussion section, Commissioner
Streissguth suggested to adding a sentence that talks about incentive based development and
encouraging placement of priority on preserving existing trees and vegetative buffers, especially
along Kitsap Way. Commissioner Streissguth offered to e~mail the exact wording of the
Planning Commission Meeting May 1 $, 2004 Page 9 of 18
additional sentence to Paul Rogerson after the meeting. Paul referred to a recommended staff
amendment on the same discussion paragraph pertaining to going with a form based zoning
approach. The last sentence in the discussion reads "... a full range of services are included as
permitted uses including grocery, theaters, etc." Paul's recommendation is to strike that sentence
because not only is it too specific, but it also is not consistent with the form based zoning
approach that will be discussed later in the meeting. Chris Hugo disagreed, saying there should
be additional discussion with staff and with Paul on how far form based zoning can be taken.
Chris felt [form based zoning] works best when trying to manage a mixed-use environment so
not retaining more traditional language in more sterile commercial enviromnents or industrial
parks; he advised against deleting that portion of the discussion section. It was agreed that no
change would be made until mom information regarding form based zoning was available.
Commissioner Kosusko proposed deleting the portion of that same sentence that reads "... as
permitted uses..." because the body of the paragraph is "plan language" and that phrase is more
regulatory zoning. It was agreed the sentence should read "A full range of services are
accommodated, including groceries, theaters, restaurants, hardware, and gas stations, etc."
Commissioner Cockburn asked if there were other corridors in addition to Kitsap Way that
have the Commercial Corridor designation, for example 11th Street or 6th Street. Using the map
for Scenario #3, Paul Rogerson pointed to the area designated Commercial Corridor, which is
essentially along Kitsap Way. The portions of 11th Street and 6th Street Commissioner Cockbum
was asking about are designated Commercial with no reference to a corridor designation.
Commissioner Streissguth again referred to page LU-32, specifically the Wheaton Way
Redevelopment Corridor and the circulation issues there. She felt the discussion portion of this
section should address the appropriateness for access from the rear of a business via a frontage or
local access road in portions of the WWRC area. She thought that there should also be a
reference in the discussion section dealing with buffering between commercial and residential
areas. Chris Hugo offered clarification: The first option of a frontage road was explained as a
suburban feature; they are primarily seen near large shopping malls in the form of large (six-
lane) arterials with smaller two-lane roads on each side that separates the uses tremendously
which result in large expanses of asphalt areas which is opposite of the goals the Commission is
working toward. Use of rear access roads is already referenced in the Land Use element and
Chris thought the addition of language regarding [traffic] circulation would be helpful.
Commissioner Streissguth mentioned that the comments they had discussed in the group were
reflecting local access, not necessarily frontage roads. Paul made note that in the fourth
paragraph on page LU-43, language was to be added regarding accessing properties from the rear
to retain pedestrian friendly streets. Matthew Keough suggested coordinating with the centers
adjacent to those areas because he feels that is where the Land Use committees were focused on
when buffering alternative circulation routes was discussed. This could be achieved by adding
the phrase, "... in coordination with the centers' alternative circulation routes and buffeting."
All were in agreement on those two issues.
Commissioner Streissguth moved on to the Public Sector Redevelopment Sites on page LU-44.
She felt a provision should be added for an open space requirement, her thought being, with
public projects it is the best opportunity to be looking at open space requirements and the link
there with public ownership. She did not see this as a strict requirement, but would like to have
language added to the discussion portion to reflect this thought. Her suggestion was, "Potential
development includes mixed-type residential developments with an open space component that
Planning Commission Meeting May 18, 2004 Page 10 of t 8
integrate context sensitive commercial and office development." Paul Rogerson made note of
that addition; all were in agreement.
In reference to the General Higher Education portion of the Land Use element, Commissioner
Buckingham questioned the scenario zoning maps which showed areas that are currently
residential, but are proposed to be zoned Higher Education. He asked if the maps should be
changed to reflect the decision of having Olympic College grow up rather than out. Paul
Rogerson replied that that would be a policy decision and reminded the Commission that the
intent of the scenario maps was to reflect the Higher Education designation in place today; what
is noted on the maps was taken directly from the current designation. Chris Hugo asked
Commissioner Kosusko if he knew what the Master Plan boundaries were. Commissioner
Kosusko responded that the Master Plan included the residential areas in question. The college
is currently in the process of putting together a SEPA for that entire Master Plan area. Chris
commented, "This doesn't mean that you're bound by anything, but the intent of the policy
statement is it was drafted or conceived by staff to essentially look at this and say, (as opposed to
the last public issue that came up about expanding north to the water), 'Stay within this boundary
and get more efficient and more vertical; convert asphalt to parking structures; get a more urban
style campus and stay away from a suburban model.'" Commissioner Buckingham asked for
clarification of the phrase "Stay within this boundary..." Commissioner Kosusko and Chris
Hugo both stated that the current Comprehensive Plan includes that area. Commissioner
Kosusko further explained that the architectural firm he works for is the architect for this
planning process and currently the college has buildings "in the pipeline" that they are getting
funding for: A four-story science building which is in the permitting process at this time and a
four-story humanities building which will be built in the space vacated by the original science
building. There are plans to construct an academic building and a performing arts center in the
area that is currently being used as residential and is located between Warren Avenue and
Broadway. Also, a parking garage will be constructed where the arts/music building is presently.
Chris Hugo added that to the south of the campus, there had been discussion of creating a more
"campus friendly" urban environment by encouraging campus oriented retail such as book
stores, coffee shops, music stores, etc. Paul Rogerson noted that on page LU-6 there is specific
language dealing with the ama south of Olympic College and how future planning could better
meet the needs of college students.
Referencing the list of Specific Area Plans, Commissioner Kosusko noted that "Special
Redevelopment Sites" on page LU-6 should be "Public Sector Redevelopment Site" per previous
discussions. Also, in addition to Westpark and Eastpark, the Health District site should be listed
in the description, as well as clear delineation between the Evergreen Park Plan and the
Campus/Evergreen Plan. Paul Rogerson commented that these changes will be regarded as staff
edits for clarification and would not be listed in the proposed amendments, Chris Hugo asked
for an explanation of why the Campus/Evergreen Plan was named as such. Matthew Keough
said that it was an existing plan from the 1995 Comp Plan that encompasses a large area which
includes Bremerton High School as well as Olympic College campuses and extends as far as the
Manette Bridge. Although it is a very generic name for a plan, it has some suggestions for future
projects, and staff does not want to lose sight of the provisions set forth in that plan which is why
it has continued to be honored. This does not prevent the Commission from issuing instructions
to make changes to reflect the acknowledgement that the area is too broad and needs to be more
specific to the neighborhoods within in it. Chris reminded the Commission that, unless the
existing sub-area plans have been posted/advertised for public comments, their formal validity
Planning Commission Meeting May 18, 2004 Page 11 of 18
expires once the Comp Plan has been adopted because the public did not have a chance to
comment on [the sub-areas]. The sub-area plans are of value because they provide information
on what the planning histories and desires of the neighborhood are so they are kept in [the
Planning Department] library and will be updated as time allows; that means the titles can be
changed any way the Commission wants, for example, splitting the Campus/Evergreen Plan in
two to clearly define these distinct areas. Chris also pointed out that the language in the
introduction of that section references anticipated planning or work, not completed work.
Matthew Keough confirmed that staff's intent in writing this section was to say that the work on
the community plans that had already been completed would be honored and, he thought, to
incorporate [the work] to keep the validity of them. Chris thought a better place in the element
for this item was in the section that discusses the various centers designations such as in the
Charleston Center designation which is based on the Charleston Community Plan. Matthew
suggested referencing the Campus/Evergreen District Plan elsewhere in the document because it
is the only existing district plan. Paul summarized the instructions to staff as "Move reference to
existing neighborhood plan, etc. on page LU-6 to discussions of ..." [Paul's sentence trails off
here.] Chris Hugo asked Matthew Keough and Paul Rogerson if there had been discussion of
the mixed-use district around Evergreen as a part of the expanded downtown area. Paul said
there had been mixed-use designation discussions which, in some cases, where that area falls
would decide if that would be a centers or land use designation discussion.
Commissioner Kosusko commented that in the Neighborhood Center and District Center
descriptions, there was still a reference to the height of buildings measured in feet as opposed to
the story restriction suggested at previous meetings. Paul Rogerson responded that discussion
earlier in the meeting dealt with the height restrictions and it was proposed that all reference to
height measurements in feet be stricken from the various land use designation discussions.
Commissioner Kosusko asked if the height limitation would be referred to in stories only,
would there be a definition as to what a "story" consists of. Chris Hugo said the specifics would
be explained in his explanation of form based zoning.
Commissioner Kosusko suggested that, since Bremerton does not have a Design Review Board,
the Planning Commission could be utilized to review projects and centers until regulatory
language is established. He was concerned about the amount of time that would elapse while the
centers are going through sub-area planning and committee meetings that need to occur;
opportunities may be lost in the centers during that time period. Chris Hugo explained that a
change like that would have to be presented in the form of an ordinance review which, in his
opinion, would not be any easier than creating another committee to get the design regulations in
place.
On page LU-41 in the description of the Downtown Regional Center, Commissioner Kosusko
asked for clarification on the boundaries of the DRC. Paul Rogerson replied that the DRC is
larger than the Calthorpe [Plan] Boundary (listed in the description); it extends from the
waterfront and shipyards to Warren Avenue on the west and to the edge of Evergreen Park on the
north. Paul suggested striking the reference to the Calthorpe Plan Boundary in the description,
as well as changing "DRC zone" to "DRC designation". All were in agreement on the editorial
corrections.
There was some discussion regarding the density definition in the Downtown Regional Center.
It was agreed upon that a minimum density should be listed in the description, not a maximum
Planning Commission Meeting May 18, 2004 Page 12 of 18
93
density. Commissioner Buckingham expressed concern over the proposed boundaries of the
DRC because they incorporate established neighborhoods and he felt that by expanding into
those neighborhoods, the Commission was not being consistent with other elements of the Comp
Plan. There are areas north of the Manette Bridge that could potentially be shops and businesses
and Commissioner Buckingham felt that type of activity would not be appropriate for any area
north of 6th Street and from Cogean to the water. Chris Hugo responded that there are two
paradigms and it is up to the Commission to determine which is appropriate. He continued:
"Some of the conditions in that area between 6~ and 11th include Pacific [Avenue] and Park
[Avenue] which both have quite mixed frontage environments and other uses which tend to disrupt
the residential area and character. But then Highland and Pleasant and down below the fire station
seem to have some nice neighborhood qualities. It's mixed, but them are some nice houses in there
and there are some that have been redone recently.., and downtowns do need a good residential
support environment around them. So maybe the thing to do is we need to say something here about
doing more sub-area planning... Finish the job (the Calthorpe effort) for the whole regional district,
including going up into the Evergreen neighborhood again and kind of confirming some things
because the neighborhoods have some ideas we need to consider. Right now the designation that
comes around there kind of picks up that south side of Evergreen Park and tries to recognize that
hillside from the park up towards 11th as a potential mixed-use environment where you can have some
three- and four-story condo development over some partial street-floor retail which could be really
interesting and urban and serve that neighbor hood well. I'm building off the Caf6 Destino back up
the hill with residential on top of more of that kind of neighborhoods serving retail or services or
restaurants. So there's one paradigm that would protect that residential between 6® and llth; there's
another one that says 'Go for it convert it all to three- or four-story residential.' Those are the two
things that could happen in there and that's what you have to decide amongst those two paths now."
Commissioner Buckingham liked the first option of establishing a sub-area plan that recognizes
the residential districts. He felt this is important on many levels for many reasons, especially in
keeping with the other elements, the areas discussed should be preserved. Commissioner
Buckingham did acknowledge that there would be in-fill activity going on in those areas. Chris
Hugo pointed out that the way the scenarios had been created by staff tended to be most
protective of low density neighborhoods that had been planned and zoned as such. The reason
the above scenario was presented this way is because under PSRC it is part of the urban center of
the metropolitan center that Bremerton is. Historically, it has been planned for the kind of
increased density that is shown; it has been that way in the past and is consistent with the
regional framework. Paul Rogerson reminded the Commission that any of the centers implies
automatically by the fact of center designation that there will be an area specific planning
exemise applied to it; during that exercise, compatibility issues will be dealt with. In Paul's
opinion, in addition to what Chris had covered, the reason the designation is as broad as it is, is it
is recognized that there is potential for linking Evergreen Park with the downtown, providing
continuity in pedestrian experience between downtown all the way to Evergreen Park; taking
advantage of the park as an amenity for increased intensity of development to help bring more
residential base to the center in general and to somehow meld all those factors along with the
ones [Chris] mentioned requires an exercise like an area specific plan. In other words, a center
designation would enable just the exercise necessary to accomplish that kind of synthesis.
Commissioner Buckingham asked if there was language that specifically states that there will
be sub-area planning. Paul replied that there was not, but if the Commission felt that this is one
of the areas where a specific area plan would be applied and would like to recommend that the
Planning Commission Meeting May t 8, 2004 Page 13 of 18
discussion paragraph repeat that which is found in §LU6 [on page LU-16], staff could make that
change. All Commissioners were in agreement to the proposed amendment.
Commissioner Kosusko commented that on the list of center on page LU-6, the Downtown
Regional Center had not been listed and thought it should be added. Chris Hugo responded that
the staff recognized that, even though there is a somewhat directed plan for the core, the support
environment around the core (west to Warren and north to Evergreen Park) is very mixed; there
are a lot of things that could happen there and more guidance is needed. At this time, areas
between Pacific Avenue and Warren Avenue are allowed to build higher than any building in the
core which is permitted in the existing zoning; this could lead to all kinds of speculative
possibilities so a revamping of the document is needed in the long run. Paul summarized the
staff instructions: Add reference to a specific area plan as needed in the Downtown Center and
add the Downtown Center to the list of areas subject to the specific plan requirement that is in
the discussion on LU-6. The Commissioners agreed on these two items.
On page LU-45, Commissioner Kosnsko discussed the inconsistencies of the General
Commercial designation, specifically how multi-family structures outside of centers is not
encouraged, but commercial uses [outside of centers] are not treated the same way. One of his
main concems was how other types of commercial designations have crept back into the centers
concept and thought there should be more language in the discussion portion of the document to
make the description more contained. Paul referred to the last sentence in the discussion section,
"Expansion of these areas is not consistent with the intent of this plan" as the key to the inclusion
of the General Commercial. Staff felt it was necessary to recognize the limited area of
commercial uses and not widely force them into non-conforming status. The area in question is
along 6th Street and a portion of High Avenue where there are some existing commercial uses
that are not part of the Charleston District plan and cannot be described as a corridor; also, the
nature of the businesses is not consistent with the description used to create the corridors. The
remaining existing commercial areas fall within the newer corridor designations. It was
suggested to change the designation name to Limited Commercial with the intent of "capturing"
areas and containing the commercial growth within those areas. It was further clarified that this
change of designation title was not to stop commercial growth, but to recognize that these are
areas are holdovers from the previous plan that need to be defined. It is understood that
commercial infill is allowed under the Limited Commercial designation, but expansion is not.
Commissioner Buckingham suggested spending more time on this subject and revisiting it at a
later meeting.
Commissioner Buckingham moved on to page LU-32, specifically the Wheaton Way/Riddell
District Center. He questioned why gas stations, repair garages, etc. where not allowed in an
area that is primarily accessed by automobiles. Commissioner Cockburn suggested
encouraging automobile specific businesses such as a repair shop within a parking garage. Chris
Hugo commented that that portion of the element is based more on the traditional way of looking
at zoning and the restriction of language used when trying to get away from an auto-dependent
zoning model. Chris thought that it might not be necessary to use that type of language or
perhaps in the discussion section, talk about it more in terms of relationships rather than outright
prohibition and keep in the ideas to make it more living friendly and not so auto-dependent.
That's not to say it won't be allowed for cars to still have a way to access the site and get auto
needs met. Commissioner Buckingham agreed, saying it needs to be remembered that
Wheaton Way is a highway; it is a major arterial - a road that has usage beyond the local intent
Planning Commission Meeting May 18, 2004 Page 14 of 18
for it and seems like an ideal location for gas stations, etc., if there is a need. Paul reminded the
Commissioners that the corridor designation should anticipate automobile oriented uses, but the
centers themselves were more pedestrian oriented; that is why this type of language crept in. In
the Staff Report, Director Hugo will be talking about a zoning approach that will move away
from the type of language that discussed what prohibited uses in various places are. Paul felt that
the dilemma of implementing this type of zoning approach is it may not be productive to go
through the plan and try to find and eliminate all the places where prohibiting various uses is
discussed until after the Commission had heard Chris' presentation and perhaps revisit this
subject at a future date if the Commission accepts the zoning approach. Commissioner
Cockburn commented that he thought the Wheaton Way/Riddell District Center is more
automobile oriented than the other centers and would remain that way. He felt perhaps there
should be focus on planning for it to be the most automobile oriented center and focus more on
walkability in the other centers. Chris Itugo commented that the Commission has to decide
what direction they want to take this subject because if the decision is to promote Wheaton
Way/Riddell as automobile dominant, it no longer is considered a center which promotes
residential growth with pedestrian access. Originally, Wheaton Way/Riddell was designated a
center because it seemed like there was much opportunity to redevelop land on the east side into
an urban village like University Village [in Seattle]. Commissioner Streissguth proposed
deleting the sentence in question because she felt the specificity is addressed Director Hugo's
proposal for zoning and this should be treated as a zoning matter. Paul summarized the
instruction to staff.' "To eliminate the phrase after the hyphen that says 'although automobile
focus uses such as gas stations or repair garages are not permitted.'" All were in agreement on
this proposed amendment.
Commissioner Buckingham asked for any other comment from the other Commissioners on the
Land Use element. Paul Rogerson recommended a 50th instruction to staff to clarify Land Use
Goal #8 and choose between the two policies offered. Chris Hugo explained that there were
two policies listed because there was concern about the issue of creating non-conforming
properties and what the liability would be to property owners and to the City. Since then, there
has been council from another city's attorney (not Bremerton's attorney) saying that non-
conforming properties still have the ability to be insured and to be borrowed against because
there are protected non-conforming rights in Bremerton's code. He went on to explain, "The
dilemma was if you come up with a growth strategy based on these goals and policies, then how
do you leave existing built up multi-family projects in the middle of nowhere - how do you leave
them and say that's OK without saying 'If it's OK there, why isn't it OK across the street?'"
That is what the [other] city's Land Use attorney challenged Bremerton with; to not create non-
conformities that will bring about issues for borrowing and insuring and without generating
unequal treatment under the current Land Use laws. The Land Use attorney advised that if
[Bremerton] has the right non-conforming protections in the zoning code (which Bremerton
does), then it should not be an issue. Paul noted in the instructions to staff to strike §LU8a. All
were in agreement. A motion was made by Commissioner Streissguth and seconded by
Commissioner Kosusko to close deliberations on the Comprehensive Plan, have staff
incorporate into the document the fifty proposed amendments, designate Land Use
Scenario Map #3 as the preferred option while retaining the other scenario maps for review
and analysis under SEPA, hold the Comprehensive Plan until the associated zoning
package is prepared and then forward all components as a preliminary decision to the City
Council for official review and adoption. Called for a vote: Cockbum: No; Kosusko: Yes;
Streissguth: Yes; Wood: Yes; Buckingham: Yes. The motion carried.
Planning Commission Meeting May 18, 2004 Page 15 of 18
96
VI. Business Meeting
A. Chairman's Report: Commissioner Buckingham acknowledged that completing
deliberations on the Comprehensive Plan to this point was a historic moment for the
Planning Commission, and also wanted to acknowledge Commissioner Wood's
contribution to the Commission.
B. Director's Report: Chris Hugo, Director of Community Development first spoke
about the Shoreline View Corridor issue. It has been decided to take a simple regulatory
change and add that into the zoning work; when the Commission goes through the zoning
update, the Shoreline View Corridors will be updated as well. It will be packaged and
advertised in a way so it can go through a public review process to be addressed with all
the new zoning. If the policy needed to be amended it would not be feasible to present
the Shoreline View Corridor in this manner, but the policy does not need to be amended,
only the regulation. Chris explained, "We'll advertise it and then talk about it during that
process, and then send it off to the State once we act on it. They have six months to
confirm what we've done after that."
Chris moved on to the subject of Commissioner Wood's replacement. An advertisement
had been posted in the Bremerton Sun; once applicants respond there will be a selection
process to find a replacement. Chxis reminded the Commission of Commissioner
Wood's additional duty as a member of the Capital Projects Review Committee, which
was an appointment by the Chairman; it is the discretion of the Planning Commission to
fill that position. If any [Commissioner] is interested in that position, they need to inform
Commissioner Buckingham because the Block Grant staff needs a replacement. This
committee meets every year and it would be beneficial to have somebody participate two
or three years in a row.
Chris then referred to copies from the County that had been distributed to the
Commissioners prior to the start of the meeting. The copies were of two Comp Plan
amendments that have come to the County's docket. The first is a proposal by Mr. Paul
Pazuki and Kitsap Transit dated May 5, 2004, to change the zoning in the area where
Highway 303 tums into Waaga Way from Urban Low Residential and Urban Restricted
to Highway Tourist Commercial. Examples of that usage are a motel, an outlet store or a
convenience store, etc. The area in question is adjacent to rural or non-UGA and has
some environmentally sensitive land near it. Our goal is to maintain a non-urban
separator between Bremerton and Silverdale and to retain as much non-urban frontage on
as possible on Highway 303. The second proposal involves changing the zoning of 144
acres of land outside the Urban Growth Area from rural residential (5 acre lots) to urban
restricted (1 - 5 dwelling units per acre). Having less than four dwelling units per acre is
not allowed under the GMA unless it is greatly restricted by environmental conditions.
There are no urban services in that area so this would involve moving the UGA
boundary. Chris stated that both of the proposals are inconsistent with the County-wide
planning policies as well as the direction that Bremerton is trying to go as a community.
Direction from the Planning Commission is needed as there is a hearing on June 22, 2004
with a comment period through that date. Both Planning Commission and City Council
can make comment on these two proposals. Chris encouraged the Commissioners to
Planning Commission Meeting May 18, 2004 Page 16 of 18
97
make comments, particularly on the proposal involving 144 acres because of the myriad
problems related to the fact that the County still has a land use category that is inherently
inconsistent with the GMA. Chris reminded the Commissioners that time was of the essence,
giving the interim forest lands as an example of ~vhat happens when comments am not
submitted within the time allotted. Commissioner Kosnsko remarked that the proposed
actions are counter to what the CPPs are presenting and therefore felt the [Planning]
department and City Council should make an argument against the proposals. All
Commissioners were in agreement. A motion was made by Commissioner Buckingham
and seconded by Commissioner Streissguth to have staff draft a letter to the County on
behalf of the Planning Commission suggesting the Bremerton Planning Commission
does not approve of the proposed actions and also recommend to the City Council that
they address the issue as well. Called for a vote: Cockbum: Yes; Kosusko: Yes;
Streissguth: Yes; Wood: Yes; Buckingham: Yes. The motion carded.
Zoning was the last subject in the Director's Report. Chris gave a brief overview of how
traditional zoning is currently accomplished and how Bremerton's view on zoning is
more contextual and relational. During his trip to Washington DC for the APA National
Planning Conference, he was introduced to some of the newest zoning concepts: Form
based zoning and performance zoning. Form based zoning is regulating based on how
the form of something fits into the streetscape or development environment such as
building rise, setbacks, building details, orientation of building to parking and to
entrances, etc. Another way to regulate is based on how things perform [performance
zoning]: How much traffic, light pollution or noise is generated, odor, glare off of
signage, etc. If the environmental aspects can be controlled in ways that can make it
compatible with the neighborhood, then perhaps all of the issues have been addressed.
Therefore, if the performance is compatible and the look is compatible, one might ask
what the zoning would be. Chris remarked that the zoning could be almost anything. He
has been doing research on "hybrid zoning" which is taking form based zoning and
performance zoning, "melding" them together and regulating on the result rather than
referring to a list of uses and prescribed setbacks. Chris went on to say that when centers
are being described with what could or couldn't be in one, at this point there is no definite
answer: If the right set of form based and performance based regulations, there are a lot
of things that could possibly fit, but [the projects] would have to prove they could fit.
Chris proposed taking this approach for Bremerton's mixed-use, but not in the low-
density neighborhoods environments or auto districts where the traditional zoning
methods work best. The Commissioners agreed with Chris that this sounded like a good
approach. Chris also commented that if Bremerton was to incorporate this new approach
to zoning, it would be among the first 100 local governments out of 12,000 in the US to
do so. Commissioner Buckingham expressed concern that, by using this new zoning it
would make the permitting process more complicated. Chris responded that, with
enough up-front knowledge on what "compatible" means in terms of form and
performance, through a simple administrative review process up to design review (for
more complex developments) the permitting process could be accomplished more quickly
and efficiently. Chris hoped to have some ordinance examples within a couple months to
present to the Planning Commission and then subsequently introduce the new zoning
approach to public groups such as homebuilders, developers, commercial property
owners, etc. to get them involved in the dialogue. Chris further explained that the
neighborhoods would like the new zoning approach because it protects neighborhoods
Planning Commission Meeting May 18, 2004 Page 17 of 18
98
more consistently, plus the focus on form and compatibility in the centers sets the stage to
ensure the centers will work well esthetically as well as operationally.
C. Old Business: Reminder to the Planning Commission regarding the roles and by-laws.
D. New Business: None.
VII. Adjournment
Meeting was adjourned at 9:03 p.m. The next regular meeting is scheduled for June 15, 2004.
Approved by:
B. Sc~ott,~ucki~i~, Chairman
Planning Commission Meeting May 18, 2004 Page l 8 of l $
Minutes for
Planning Commission Meeting
October 26, 2004
I. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order by Commissioner Streissguth at 5:30 p.m.
II. Roll Call
Those present were: Commissioner Cockbum, Commissioner Kennedy, Commissioner
Kosusko, Commissioner Nelson, Commissioner Streissguth, and Commissioner
Friedberg-Nerf. Quorum certified.
III. Approval of Agenda
Commissioner Streissguth introduced the agenda. She noted that the meeting minutes
from the October 19, 2004 Planning Commission meeting and recommended section IV.,
Approval of Minutes be removed from the agenda. A motion was made by
Commissioner Kennedy and seconded by Commissioner Kosusko to approve the
agenda as amended. Called for a vote: Cockburn: Yes; Kennedy: Yes; Kosusko: Yes;
Nelson: Yes; Streissguth: Yes; Friedberg-Nerf: Yes. The motion carried.
IX'. Approval of Minutes
(This item was removed from the agenda.)
V. PUBLIC MEETING
A. Call To The Public (public comments on any item not on tonight's agenda).
Seeing none, Commissioner Streissguth closed this portion of the meeting.
B. Public Hearing: Paul Rogerson, Planning Manager, began the Public Hearing
portion: "I have a staff report related to your public hearing on the Comprehensive Plan
this evening. A couple of housekeeping items before I start: recording volume in the
room. I think the Planning Commission members are aware; I want to make the members
of the public aware that the regular recording equipment that this mom will eventually
have is not yet installed and we're operating with some ancient recording equipment
tonight. We're not sure how well it's working and I'm going to ask everyone who
speaks, either from the public or members of the planning commission to lean close to the
mike and speak really loud. It may be that we're trying to pick up this entire meeting on
the little recorder in front of me, lbr example, or something like that; we'll just not real
100
sure. So please speak very clearly and a little louder than you normally would tonight so
we can get a good record of this hearing. Also, I want to ask you for your forbearance and
forgiveness for my attire; I'm dressed more casually than I believe a staff member should
be in this situation. Today was moving in day for the City staff on the sixth floor of this
building and we're all still reeling and physically exhausted and we're dressed to haul
boxes and unpack heavy equipment and I ask for your forgiveness for my appearance.
"The staff report for the public hearing. On May 18th of this year, 2004, the Bremerton
Planning Commission recommended approval of the draft 2003-2004 Comprehensive
Plan update to forward to the City Council. We're here tonight not to revisit that entire
Comprehensive Plan, but to review for you several small changes that have been made to
that draft plan since your approval of it last May. That's the first note: The scope of
tonight's hearing and I want to reiterate this is a public hearing, an official hearing, lt's
fairly limited - we'll talk about six or seven items. The first of those items is not
something I'll go into in a great bit of detail. I wanted to point out to the Planning
Commission members and to the members of the public that one of the changes you're
going to see in the Comprehensive Plan, when compared to that plan approved last May,
is that it has been completely re-formatted. It now is in a two-column format more like a
magazine. It's full of graphics that illustrate the points, the goals and the policies of the
Comprehensive Plan - something that you didn't see any of in the draft approved in May.
Enough said on that. The more substantive issues are what I want to cover next. The
first change in this Comprehensive Plan is the addition of a new designation called
"Marine Industrial". Ihat designation replaces a designation called Industrial Park in the
same location and that location, I'm going to walk to the map and point that out for you
and members of the public [walks to the map]. The Marine Industrial designation applies
on this location along the Port Washington Narrows roughly in the vicinity of
Pennsylvania Street. The designation replaces the Industrial Park designation that was
formerly there and is very, very similar in nature. That's why we don't believe this is a
substantive change. The uses allo~ved under this designation are not appreciably different
than those allowed under the previous designation with one small change: The small
change is that this designation now allows a set of marine related and storage uses. In
other words, a storage of boats and other related equipment. The emphasis in the district
is now slightly different in that activities in this land use designation can be marine
related storage and other things related to the use of the waterfront. It continues to
emphasize protection of adjacent neighborhoods by buffering techniques and others and
adds that protection by requiring that circulation of marine equipment, boats and the like,
as they are moved about on the site is within the site and does not take place on adjacent
streets. Once again, this is a change; it's still a light industrial type use but now with a
little bit more marine emphasis than the former designation included. I'm going to ask
the Chair at this point if you want to stop and entertain questions after each of these
sections or wait to the end of the Staff Report to entertain questions."
The consensus of the Commissioners was to wait to the end of the Staff Report for
questions.
101
Paul: "The second major change is the addition of the new designation called ~'Core
Centers Supporting Residential" (CCSR). In order for you to understand that
designation, I'm going to read large portions of it. Your staff report includes the
language that will be inserted in the Comprehensive Plan describing this designation. If
you move to the bottom of the second page of the staff report, you'll see both the policy
direction section that will be added and the discussion section that will be added. The
policy direction section reads, 'Create potential for residential development that will add
critical mass of population supporting a strong downtown, the nearby Manette
Neighborhood Center and the Harrison employment center. This residential population
should be able to circulate between the three centers by using the City's planned
"Freedom Trail", mass transit and other non-motorized modes of transportation." That's
the policy direction for this designation; FII point out where it is physically in a moment.
The discussion that would also be added to the plan reads, 'Ihe Core Center Supporting
Residential designation provides for medium density residential development in locations
along or very near a public trail system linking the Manette Neighborhood Center, the
Harrison Employment and Downtown Regional Centers.' The designation provides
opportunity for residential development that places additional population within easy
walking distance of the commercial activities in the three centers in the core of the city.
In addition, the CCSR locations will be well served by public transit. The intent of the
designation is to increase opportunity for significant population to locate near these
centers thus increasing their viability and level of activity, while at the same time
supporting a pedestrian option for circulation within a "loop" connecting these three
closely connected nodes of future growth. And to finish out that description, I want to
point where that is on the map. The CCSR designation is here on the north-east side of
the Port Washington Narrows, located essentially between the Manette Neighborhood
Center and the Harrison Employment Center, the Harrison Hospital district along the
shoreline of the Port Washington Narro~vs.
The third change in the Comprehensive Plan is the addition of language describing the
Oyster Bay Neighborhood Center. That center was designated in the earlier plan, but the
text describing the look, feel, and general dimensions of that center was not included in
the draft that you approved in May. That text has now been added; your staff report goes
into some detail about, in summary, what that text says. I'1l try to summarize it in even
t~wer words than the staffreport. The Oyster Bay Neighborhood Center is described as
featuring open space and trail systems that link the center to the nearby Oyster Bay
shoreline and playfields in the West Park area, as well as taking advantage of excellent
marine views. There's additional description in that text about ho~v heights should be
handled in the center, saying essentially that heights should be regulated such that there's
views from structures in most parts of the center northward to the Oyster Bay area - to
the marine environment.
[The next change] that we're describing for you tonight is a change in the way the
description of Urban Growth Areas is handled in the Comprehensive Plan. This is
evidenced in two places in the new draft: First there's a new section in the Introduction
chapter entitled '~Eventual Growth Intent" that's on page 10 of the Introduction section.
Large portions of the text found in this new section were previously found in a section
102
called "Unincorporated Urban Growth Ama". This old section was also on page
Introduction 10, or page 10 of the Introduction section, but has now been moved to the
Land Use element and is now found on Land Use page 6 (LU-6). The new "Eventual
Growth Intent" section describes a new policy direction for most areas beyond the current
1995 Urban Growth Area. The supporting Eventual Growth map is introduced on
Introduction 13 and depicts most areas currently in the East Bremerton unassociated
UGA as that future intent area. So to clarify, the old section had indicated an intent to
include all of these areas in a new, larger Bremerton Urban Growth Area. While the new
section indicates that most of this geography is now in this area of future interest, but not
intended to be part of the Urban Growth Area in the immediate future. The reasons for
this recommended policy change spring from the technical requirements of the Growth
Management Act and in summary the issue is that one of the primary requirements in the
Growth Management Act is that a city demonstrate an ability to provide urban services to
an Urban Growth Area that it wishes to designate. At this point, the City has not done the
necessary technical work to justify the existence or the claiming of that Urban Growth
Area. We do, however, intend to do that technical work in the very near future and so
that area is indicated as an area of future interest, but at this point we're not
recommending that we're prepared to formally designate it as an Urban Growth Area.
Them are some amendments in the Technical Appendices, too. These are of, well, 1 was
going to say little consequence, but actually they improve the ability of that section to
demonstrate our ability to provide urban services within the current city and our small
Urban Growth Area. Those amendments are to the water section of the Technical
Appendices and they simply substitute statistics and technical data from the 2005 Water
Comprehensive Plan update now being prepared by the Public Works department for
older data that had appeared there pmviously. So it's just animpmvement inthe
freshness, the newness of the data in the water section. It actually increases the ability of
that section to demonstrate adequate ability to serve water rather than, in any way,
detracting from that section's ability, so it improves that section.
Finally, just a piece of information for the Planning Commission, I'm holding in my hand
a copy of the draft supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Comprehensive
Plan. This was published officially on Friday, this past Friday, October 22"d, so it's nov,'
in the first few days of the 30-day public comment period that must accompany the
issuance of such a document. So for members of'the public, you should be aware that the
Environment Impact Statement for this Comprehensive Plan's been issued; the public
comment period runs from essentially now until November 22nd at 4:30 PM. Comments,
and there's information in the document about how to submit comments, but in essence,
they can be submitted to the Department of Community Development on the 6th floor of
this building, and if you have questions about the details of that, please see me after the
meeting. The document, as you can tell, is thick and technical and I'm going to be
polling the Planning Commissioners and ask them if you want a copy of it. If you'd
rather come to our office and examine a copy or if you want your own copy to take home,
we're certainly able to provide you one. I haven't handed you one directly tonight
because I'm not sure ho~v many of'you really want to get a copy. But the Comprehensive
Plan Environmental Impact Statement is available and finally I should summarize its
103
contents and [ can do that in about one sentence: In summary, the contents supports
selection of Scenario 3, Land Use Scenario 3 that you've already indicated was your
preferred alternative and the document does not identify any significant adverse
environmental impacts that are not mitigated by the Plan. So in other words, EIS
supports the Plan.
That concludes the staff report. I'd entertain any questions that you have.
Commissioner Streissguth: Do any Commissioners have questions for staff?.
Commissioner Nelson: A few more examples for the Marine Industrial besides the boat
storage; it's light industrial but .... (voice trails off)
Paul Rogerson: I want to make sure I understand the question, Commissioner Nelson,
you're asking what the permitted uses, what types of uses would be permitted...
Commissioner Nelson: What types of uses, yes.
Paul Rogerson: Well of course, the first part of that answer is we haven't developed the
implementing zoning so that complete list is not yet developed, but I can give you the
general description. The general description would be light industrial activities related to
marine use; propeller repair, for example, boat repair, that type of thing. And removal of
boats from water and storage on site for the purpose of repair or long-term storage.
Office uses that are related to marine activities, perhaps a restaurant to support marine
activities on the site - that's conjectural somewhat, but the bottom line that I'm trying to
get to is light industrial and supporting uses for a marine related activity center.
Commissioner Cockburn.' I have a question, Paul. On the CSR designation, is that just
unique to that one property or is it in any case when there's a request for a large
development of density between centers?
Paul Rogerson: Well, theoretically, at least, any property meeting the criteria set forth
for receiving that designation could receive it. The criteria are that it's adjacent to the
Freedom Loop Trail, adjacent to the three centers: The Manette Center, the Downtown
Center and the Harrison Employment Center. Discussion in the Comprehensive Plan
talks about it being a somewhat larger site; a site of several acres or more. I'm not clear
how many sites qualify; there's at least one that we're aware of at this time, but it's not
possible to write designations for a specific site without making it available to any site
that is generally the same.
Commissioner Kennedy: I have one question regarding the CCSR and you are stating
that it provides for medium density. I'm assuming that's 18 [dwelling units] per acre?
Or could that be ..... depending on the ..... [audio is not clear]
Paul Rogerson: The answer is somewhat similar to the one I gave a moment ago and
that was, first of all, the zoning hasn't been developed so there's an opportunity in the
104
public process involved with developing the zoning, that implements this Comprehensive
Plan, for the public to talk about what medium density residential means. You're entirely
correct when you say in the past, in the City of Bremerton, medium density went up to
about 18 units an acre, so I would assume that something in that range is most people's
general understanding of what "medium" means, but that would be part of a public
discussion at a later date.
Commissioner Streissguth: At this time I would like to open the Public Hearing for
public comment. Please step to the microphone - I'm not sure if we have any sort of
timing device that is working for our three-minute clock so we'll do our best to prompt
you in that regard.
Richard Neff: Richard Nerf from Madrona Point Drive in Bremerton. I may be out of
order here because this is not dealing with specifically with ... the items that Paul talked
about, so feel free to stop me if I'm wrong. I wanted to talk a little about a Land Use
designation, the "Commercial Corridor". It is contrasted to the Wheaton Way
redevelopment corridor, which the Wheaton Way redevelopment corridor gets a lot of
words in the Plan that indicates it's a great concern and a lot of talk about making it
better. The Commercial Corridor is to be attached to Kitsap Way and it's kind of thrown
in as a default value - well, we'll just put that on Kitsap Way. I think Kitsap Way needs
a little bit more attention. It is one of the more attractive arterials in Bremerton, and to
simply make it "Commercial Corridor" I think doesn't properly treat it - it needs a little
bit more attention. It's near good views of Oyster Bay; the area around West Park is
nicely forested and so just to put it in as something that's just your average strip center I
think does not do it justice. Thank you.
Susan Brown: Susan Brown, Bremerton. This is just a little picky thing. I've seen here
several times and I thought somebody would change it and it didn't get changed.
Introduction page 11, top of the second column, it talks about the late 80's being when
the retail activity bled out of the city into the suburbs. I believe that was the early 80's -
change that. Or late 70's.
Commissioner Streissguth: At this time we'll close public comment at this hearing.
(something about session - audio cuts out)
Commissioner Kennedy: I would like to put forth a motion that the Planning
Commission recommend these amendments to the Comprehensive Plan to the City
Council.
Para Wilson, Department of Community Development, questioned wording
(microphone not working).
Commissioner Kennedy: I think we just have to recommend for City Council
consideration the amendments to the Comprehensive Plan.
Commissioner Friedberg-Nerf: 1 second the motion.
205
Pam Wilson: There is a motion on the floor for the Planning Commission to recommend
the amendments to the Comprehensive Plan to City Council for consideration. It has
been properly seconded. And the question: Commissioner Cockburn: [comments from
the Commissioners] Was that not right?
Commissioner Cockburn: I have a question. Are we bringing up the Comprehensive...
are you trying to recommend the whole Plan update, or just the changes to the Plan
update?
Commissioner Streissgnth: Staffis stepping to the podium; perhaps they'll provide
some clarification on the actions that we took earlier in the year.
Paul Rogerson: Staff's understanding is you've taken action on May 18 recommending
the Comprehensive Plan forward to the City Council. At this time the public hearing is
limited in scope to the changes that have been made, so you're taking action on those
changes as Commissioner Kennedy has moved.
Commissioner Kosusko: This is a little discussion before we vote. With the addition of
the Marine Industrial designation, in looking at page LU-53 under the definition of IP
(Industrial Park), there is still reference there to ... the last sentence of the discussion
says, 'In cases where Industrial Parks are near shoreline areas, usage should be consistent
with the shorelines designation and must protect shorelines values.' I'm wondering if that
needs to be said now, and maybe that statement is transferred into the Marine Industrial
section rather than being in the Industrial Park section.
Paul Rogerson: Staff's recommendation would be to agree with you. That same
language, if that's the wish of the Commission, certainly could and should be transferred
into the Marine Industrial designation. That really essentially goes without saying
anyway, but good to reiterate, I think.
Commissioner Streissguth: Further discussion, or....?
Commissioner Kosusko: Under the short discussion there is of the Core Center
Supporting Residential - which, in the version I have was still the Center Supporting
Residential - the structure type is listed as medium density residential. There's really not
any discussion of a mixed-use character at all and I just wanted to confirm that that is
what we all believe we talked about for that area - that it is strictly a residential district
and doesn't include a mixed-use component at all. The reason I ask this is because there
are certainly properties along that.., in this area that are not residential. There's our
wonderful historic tavern, for instance, and with this designation, are we excluding that
use, do we want to exclude that use? Point of discussion with this definition.
Commissioner Cockburn: I guess to carry that on, would a daycare facility in there,
would that be. with that kind of density might be justified, by the market would that fit in
or not fit in?
106
Commissioner Kosusko: I understand we want to limit commercial development in that
area because we're trying to support the adjacent centers; we're not trying to create
another center. But there may be some things like daycare or a school or something that
also fits in that area that doesn't fit under the medium density residential label. Any
opinions?
Commissioner Streissguth: It was my understanding it would be just a residential
designation. I understand ~ve probably have existing uses [audio cuts out here] ...
second tavern wouldn't necessarily ...
Commissioner Kosusko: I'm not arguing for the tavern [laughter] I'm just asking a
general question.
Commissioner Streissguth: It's my understanding from discussion we had at the
meeting when we were considering this that it would just be a residential designation and
I would [audio cuts out] .. recollection is of that discussion.
Commissioner Cockburn: The applicant, though, wanted some mixed-use. [Audio cuts
out] ... gets that, but that's - what he would like would be some mixed-use, probably
along Wheaton Way, I would assume. Proponent, pardon me.
Commissioner Kennedy: Paul, at this point, once we create the designation, then don't
w-e go back when we put the zoning package together and actually have this discussion
and talk about what's included in the zone and what isn't and finalize that? Isn't this part
of the process, just the creation of the possibility, the creation of the designation, or am I
... [trails off]
Paul Rogerson: I wish I could give you answer that was that simple. Unfortunately I
think the truth is you're setting a policy direction in the Comprehensive Plan. If it steers
you narrowly in one direction then you would have a difficult time justifying going
anywhere else when you develop that zoning. So what you don't mention in the policy
document would be difficult to introduce at the zoning level because you're now
inconsistent; you're creating an inconsistency between the Comprehensive Plan and the
Zone Code which is a "no-no' under the Growth Management Act. You want to be
careful to set policy direction the way you intend to at this point. I might add, as long as
I've got the microphone going, that you probably want to be very careful and consider
what impact decisions in this designation will have on the success of the adjacent centers
because this property is very close, intentionally close, to three of the most important
centers in the city. So what you allow in this designation, then, won't be as strongly
supported in the marketplace in the centers.
Commissioner Kosusko: Maybe to help us, Paul, if you could maybe describe the
boundaries of this area. Does it in fact cross Old Wheaton Way or is it only on the west
side of Old Wheaton Way?
~.07
Paul Rogerson: This is pretty easy - the property that is currently suggested for this
designation is essentially the Bremerton Gardens residential area so that's entirely on the
water side of Old Wheaton or Lebo, I'm not sure what it is at that point, frankly. But it's
on the water side of the arterial only.
Commissioner Kosusko: So by saying that you're saying that the - I guess you're
saying that the Harrison Employment district in the Manette Center both reach to the
edges of that, or is there a gap in between.
Paul Rogerson: There's, I think, a common boundary with the Harrison Employment
Center or very near. There's more of a gap between this designation area and the
Manette Neighborhood Center, but even that gap is only a matter of a few hundred or a
few thousand feet.
Commissioner Kosusko: From my recollection I thought when we discussed this plan
designation, it would be something that actually touches those centers and completes the
loop. That's kind of how I remember the discussion, because I'm a little uncomfortable
just picking out a piece of property and giving it a plan designation and I'd rather it be a
larger plan issue where, in fact, if it is linking these two centers then it should in fact
touch the two centers. I don't know how much larger that makes it or what, but if we're
talking about supporting a Freedom Trail ... shouldn't it kind of cover the extent o£the
Freedom Trail.
Commissioner Kennedy: My understanding was that, in fact, that it would be on the
waterfront side, attached to the trail, between the two bridges so that you could make a
loop so that it's contiguous, that it goes all the way around to allow for that density.
[Audio cuts out here]
Commissioner Streissguth: [No audio] ... focusing on a single property that fits the
criteria for this designation and I would maybe like to remind the Commissioners that
there may in fact be other properties out there that fit this criteria. We had a particular
issue brought to us that we felt was an opportunity; something we kind of missed in the
plan to provide some linkages that support the goals and policies in [audio cuts out]. It
wasn't my understanding that the designation actually attached both sides of the water
between the bridges. It was my understanding - it was, in fact, a smaller area as indicated
on the map we have here tonight.
Commissioner Kosusko: Centers, because the centers extend...[trails off]. I would be
more comfortable as a planning designation if, one, it encompassed more than one piece
of property and, two, I think it does what we - how we describe it which is to link those
centers along the east side of the Narrows.
I'd like to make a motion to amend our previous motion to extend the plan area of the
CCSR to in fact link the Manette and Harrison Employment Centers along the west side
of Old Wheaton Way.
108
Commissioner Kennedy: I second that. Can I second an amendment to my own
motion? [General agreement from the other Commissioners].
Pam Wilson: We have a motion on the floor to amend the previous motion to also
extend the plan area of the CCSR to link the Manette and Harrison Employment Centers.
It has been properly seconded. And the question: Commissioner Cockbum: [Yes];
Commissioner Kennedy: [Yes]; Commissioner Kosusko:
Commissioner Kosusko: Point of order. What are we voting on here? Are we voting
on the full motion?
Pam Wilson: The original motion of recommending this to City Council plus the
amendment...
Commissioner Kosusko: So we're doing our final vote here.
Pam Wilson: Yes
Commissioner Kosusko: And nobody has any more discussion...I guess it's just me
[laughter]. I don't. Yes!
Pam Wilson: Commissioner Nelson: [Yes]; Commissioner Streissguth: [Yes];
Commissioner Friedberg-Nerf: [Yes]. That motion has passed, thank you.
Paul Rogerson: [This is] Staff, I thank you for your action and want to remind you all
that this Comprehensive Plan will begin the public hearing process in t¥ont of the City
Council in November - I believe the first hearing date is November 3, I don't want to
make that formal announcement without being certain. This plan now goes forward very
quickly to City Council so for the Planning Commissioners and the public, I invite you all
to begin attending City Council meetings and the next round of public hearings moving
towards adoption hopefully December 1. Thank you.
VI. Business Meeting
A. Chairman's Report: None.
B. Director's Report: {Paul Rogerson gave directors report) Chris, as some of
you may know, is currently across the block at the old City Hall briefing the City Council
on the zoning designations that are coming along quickly behind this Comprehensive
Plan. The reason that's important, I think, is because you all should know that you're
beginning to hear zoning that implements this Comprehensive Plan in public hearings
next month, and the Council's starting to get up to speed and certainly you're already up
to speed so the zoning ef[brt, the implementing zoning is coming along quickly and it's
109
another thing for everyone, the public and the Commissioners to keep track of. Thank
you.
Commissioner Streissguth: Paul, just for the public that's here, would you like to give
the schedule for that zoning o when we're going to be discussing that - the calendar for
that.
Paul Rogerson: I want to work from a memo. There's been a bit of a flux with the
public hearing schedule so let me qualify these by saying I believe this is the current
schedule. The current schedule includes a session before the City Council - that's the
first public hearing on the Comprehensive Plan on November 3. On Tuesday, November
9, the Planning Commission will have a workshop session on the zoning provisions,
implementing the Comprehensive Plan. On Tuesday November 16, the Planning
Commission is holding a public hearing on the zoning package that implements the
Comprehensive Plan. On Wednesday, November 17, the City Council will hear an
overview on those new zoning regulations. And on December 1, the City Council will
have its final public hearing on the Comprehensive Plan, theoretically and hopefully
leading to adoption on that date. And then in December, the fun only continues - on
December 15 and again on December 22 there will be a hearing before the City Council
on the zoning. So there's a full slate of public hearings both before this body and the
City Council on both zoning and the Comprehensive Plan over the next six weeks.
C. Old Business: None
D. New Business:
Commissioner Streissguth: I see in the handout we have a letter. Does staff want to
provide any introduction to the letter.'?
Paul Rogerson: ! apologize - the letter is from a property owner in the vicinity of thc
Northwest Corporate Campus who is essentially, and I'll summarize very quickly, asking
that their property be designated as part of the Northwest Corporate Campus which it is
under Scenario 3, so this property owner's request should be satisfied or they should be
happy that you've now adopted and continued to send that scenario forward as your
recommended alternative.
Dri Ralph, Environmental Planner, City of Bremerton: Commissioner Streissguth,
could I interject into Old Business really quickly? At your regular meeting a week ago, I
talked about appointing or suggesting a Planning Commissioner to help with the Critical
Area Ordinance update, and I think after that meeting I did have a couple of volunteers. I
wanted to make sure that that was the case and also to re-recognize the fact that the
County is having a meeting pertaining to Best Available Science at Central Kitsap Junior
High School tomorrow evening from 6 - 9 PM. If any of those said volunteers wanted or
had the opportunity to attend or anyone else. If you can, great; if you can't, that's fine as
well. Do I indeed have volunteers? [Commissioners gesture] Excellent! I'm seeing
110
indications of Jessica Kennedy and Linda Streissguth as volunteers, yes? [Commissioners
Kennedy and Streissguth agree]. Thank you.
VII. Adjournment
Meeting was adjourned at 6:20 p.m. The next regular meeting is scheduled for
November 16, 2004.
Respectfully submitted by:
Exec~tiv~tecreta~y /
Approved by:
Linda Streissguth, Vice-Chairman
111
To: Ci yCounci, Members MEETING ON
oat°:11/29 2004 /O
Re: Comments letters, Comprehensive Plan
Attached, please £md two letters providing comment on the Bremerton Comprehensive Plan. These
will be added to the record of the Council's public hearing on December 1 at which adoption of this
plan may occur.
The frrst letter is from Kitsap County. Even though the County has been aware of the substantive
Sues contained in the City's comprehensive plan for several months, and was sent a copy of the final
~!an over a month ago for formal comments pursuant to your heatings in November, these
~i0f~ts were not received until late in the day Wednesday, November 24~h. This was just prior to
the~gi ing h liday tly ly rily apid
v o . Consequen staff ana sis of these comments has been necessa r .
The ~ms rily bility
are prima requests for clarification, suggestions regarding reada , or
city ty g
out the need for cooperation between the and the Coun regardin e
~ion of the Plan. In no case does staff see any issue that would require major revision of
~ ~ ~ delay in Council action.
~e~nd gt d imply d th City fo pi
letter is from 1000 Friends of Washin on an s commen s e r an well
I will be prepared to answer questions regarding these letters at your hearing on December 1.
Friends ,/Washington
1000 Friends of Washington
1617 Boylston Avenue, Suite 200
Seattle, WA 98122 November 23, 2004
(206) 343-0681 phone
(206) 709-8218 fax
www. 1000friends.org
Aaron Ostrom
Executive Director Honorable Mayor Bozeman
Dave Russell City of Bremerton
President
Norm Dicks Government Center, 6th floor
Board of Trustees 345 6th Street
Jay Arnold Bremerton, WA 98337
Kirkland
Margot Blacker
Bellevue Dear Mayor Bozeman:
David Bricklin
Bainbridge Island Thank you, the City of Bremerton planning staff, the Planning Commission, and
Mahlon Clements
Seattle the City Council for recommending that urban comprehensive plans and zones
Vance Corum
Vancouv~ have a density of no less than four dwelling units to the acre outside of extensive
JeffEustis areas of high value critical areas. 1000 Friends of Washington applauds your
seattle recommended changes. These changes will provide development intensities that
Ray Gould
Edmonds more wisely use land to avoid the negative impacts of sprawl.
Bart naggin
Spokane Some of the benefits of making these changes to the comprehensive plan and
Bruce Lorig
Mercer Island zoning are:
Mary McCumber
Seattle · Compliance with the Growth Management Act requirement that land in
Henry McGee cities and county urban growth areas must have an allowed density of at
seattle least four dwelling units per acre.
Barbara Mclatosh
Poulsbo · Each home requires fewer tax dollars to serve with public facilities and
Bill Ross
Seattle services.
Dave Russell · Encouraging development in urban areas preserves open space, rural land,
Kirkland
Lincoln Runer farmland, and forest land. It will also have less environmental impact.
Blaine · Housing at these densities is more likely to be affordable by middle
Will Stelle
Seattle income families than very low density housing.
Margaret Studer
Anacortes We appreciate all of your work to update your comprehensive plan to comply so
Nancy Tosta
Burien closely with the Growth Management Act and make Bremerton a great place to
$odie Vice live and do business. Again, thank you for your efforts to make these changes.
Seattle
Daryl Williams Please let us know if we can be of any assistance on this matter as your
Tulalip Tribe comprehensive plan update process continues. Please notify Dara O'Byme email
dara@ 1000friends.org or Tim Trohimovich e-mail tim@ 1000friends.org of any
Advisory Board future public involvement opportunities.
James Ellis
Dick Ford
Virginia Gunby ~ncerely, .
Lucy Steers
EverettWilcock Dara O gyme ~
Urban Policy Advocate
CC: Chris Hugo, Director of Community Development
Daren Nygren, City Council President
11/24/2004 13:48 FAX 360 337 4925 KITSAP CO COMMTNITY DEV ~002
;~.~ ii! 614 DMSION ~REET M8'38. PORT ORCHARD WASHINGTON 98366'4682 Cindy Baker, Interim Director
i~!il (360)337-7181FAX(360)337-4925 HOMEPAGE-www,kitsaD~lov.c~q~Md/
November 23, 2004 [
CityofBremertonCityCouncil
Atlll:MayorBozeman
286FourthSffe~
Bremerto~WA 98337
Re: Comments on the City of Bremerton 2003-04 Comprehensive Plan Update
Dear Mayor and Council members,
The Kitsap County Department of Community Development (DCD) appreciates the opportunity
to provide colnments on the City of Bremarton 2003-04 Comprehensive Plan Update. As
previously noted, input from community members and affected jurisdictions will help produce a
document that reflects a balance of community goals, is based on solid information ~nd analysis,
and is ultimately defensible. In addition to the comments provided to the City Planffmg
Commission on March 16m and April 19~ 2004 respectfully, we offer the following observations
and hope to provide further comments upon the release of future draft Plans, their respective
appendices and implementing regulations before final adoption by City Council. Our comments
do not necessarily reflect those of the Bo~rd of County Commissioners ("Board") or the County
as a whole. Further comments f~om the Board or other County agencies maybe forthcoming.
Our general comments and related questions are as follows: {
· The City's DmR Plan directs anticipated population and ~mploymcnt growth.to a number
of identified centers. Such an approach appears to be consistent with the Growth
Management Act (GMA), the Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs) (existing and
proposed) and Vision 2020 and we support this effort.
· The City's Draft Plan also identifies the City's projected 2023 population ("just over
50,000 people"). We met with Paul Rogersen on February 26, 2004 on this [opic, and
through subsequent meetings with thc City and Kitsap Regional Coordinatidg Council
(KRCC) have a better understanding of the methods and assumptions used t, arrive at the
proposal population projection. However, there appears to be some inconsi ~ency
between the Planning horizon adopted by KRCC (2025) and that which is p aented ha
the Bremerton Comprehensive Plan (2023). The County has maintained its ns/tion that
the two target years should be the same. {
· ARer a cursory review of the Land Use Element received fi.om the City of Bremerton, we
find no general Goal/Policy direction to implement the City "Vision" as presented in
other elements of the Plan. If not already included, please provide, where allpropriate, the
necessary goals and related policies as they pertain to each of the designated "Centers"
contained within the Land Use Element.
11/24/2004 13:48 FAX 360 337 4925 KITSAP CO C0~ITNITY DEV ! [~0~3
The City has referenced the promotion of"Smart Growth Principals" "(sic)" (eg; Policy
CS 24) for development in the City and its respective UGA. The County is unaware of
the specific reference to "smart growth term/nology" adopted/n the revised CPP's and,
therefore, would suggest th/s be reworded so as not to create any confusion to the reader.
· The County is currently worldug in a committee w/th each of the local citi~' and
interested parties to identify an approach or method for identify/ng the urbal ~ land
capacity for all Urban Growth Areas (UGAs), consistent with the proposed t
amendments. We anticipate that the Cities' participation in the revised U1 a Land
Capacity Analysis (ULCA) may result in some modifications to your cum proposed
Land Capacity methodology. Unfortunately, we have not been able to loc~ any
reference to the process and would like to see some acknowled/~nent of the e cooperative
efforts related to future Plan updates.
The City's Draft Plan identifies a "non-associated" UGA as its future anne~ ition or
expansion area. The County has referred to this particular area as the "Cen~ al Kitsap
UGA" in the adopted 1998 Kitsup County Comprehensive Plan and the are; is identified
as a stand-alone unincorporated UOA on the County's Land Use Map. The 7.ity also
identifies the South Kitsap Industrial Area (SKIA) as part of its furore UG.a Again, the
County has identified this particular Industrial UGA as an unincorporated stand-alone
UGA and has recently adopted the SKIA Sub-Area Plan that supports this designation.
Urban services are provided by the County or by other service pwviders forboth of these
areas. We look fonvard to working with the City o£Bremerton (and other affected
jurisdictions, potentially including the City of Port Orchard and the Port of Bremerton) to
address these issues, as they may require amendments to each respective jurisdiction's
comprehensive plans. We understand the need for consistency with the existing and
proposed CPP amendments, and that most UGAs may eventually be associated with a
City. However, that process includes steps involving amendments to both the City and
County Comprehensive Plans, and these plans must also be crafted to reflect broad
community input. As directed by the Board, the County Comprehensive Plan will be
updated out to 2025 through a series of sub-area planning and annual amendment
processes over the next several years. These sub-area efforts may afford oppommifies to
address these issues.
· We also recommend that thc Drat~ City Comprehensive Plan include more discussion of
the Urban Reserve Areas CLIRS) and Joint Planning Areas (JPAs) that are identified in the
County Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Map, to the extent that these areas pertain to
the future sub-area planning efforts for these areas (Page LU-23). It appears that the City
is suggesting the County designate additional areas to be included in future Joint Planning
efforts. Is this policy direction, and if so is a recommendation forth coming to include
these areas in future sub-area planning efforts?
,, We also understand that the Transportation Planning division of the Kitsap County Public
Works Department had pwvided detailed comments in December 2003 related to the
level of service (LOS) issues that are identified in thc City's Draft Plan. We anticipate
that these comments will be addressed through collaborative efforts.
We appreciate the recognition of the Chico Watershed Alternatives Future Project and thc
potential incorporation of any findings from this effort. The County is also interested in
any proposed "Critical Lands Ordinance" revisions as they pertain to the Comprehensive
Plan reference for utilizing "Best Available Science" (page EN-18). We are unsure if any
11/24/2004 13:49 FAX 360 337 4925 KITSAP CO COM~TNITY DEV ~004
proposed revisions have undergone the required public review and comment period.
· In addition, the County is inteamted.in knowing if the City has made the corresponding
Zoning Code Amendments required for consistency and implementation of the updated
Comprehensive Plan. If so, we would like the opportunity to review those changes and
discnss the future possibility of utilizing the City development regulations in the effected
UGA, so as to create an easier transition when annexation occurs.
· Finally, we Wast that the City has taken the necessary steps to address and coordinate the
need to provide adequate Urban Services throughout the City and its respective UGA as
required under "GMA". Additionally, we encourage the City to establish and adopt a
timeline for future annexations as envisioned within the prescribed 20-yeur life of the
Plan. We believe the CWPP's have set forth the guiding principals and method for timely
annexation of each jurisdictions respective UGA (as adopted by the County) and strongly
support the Cities efforts to reflect those policies in your revised Comprehensive Plan
2003-04 update. In addition we would like clarification on the Cities position on
incorporation as it relates to the City Vision.
Thank you again for the opportunity to pmvida additional comments at this time. Also attached,
please find a copy of appropriate sections where we have identified specific areas ofconcem or
suggested.a change. We look forward to providing additional comments in the future. If you
have any initial questions, please enntact me at the number listed below or Jason Rico at (360)
3374997, or by email at Jr~ce~.l/tsap. wa. us.
Respectfully,
Cindy Baker,
Dopa~ tment of Community Development,
Interim Director
Cbaketl~co. kitsap, wa.us
{360) 337-7182
Cc: Board of County Commissioners
Malcolm Fleming
Shelley Kneip
GMA Index
City of Bremerton Planning Department
Office of Community Development (OCD)
Dept of Community Trade and Economic Development (CTED)
11/24/2004 13:49 FAX 360 337 4925 KITSAP CO COMMTNITY DEV ~005
KITSAP COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF, COMMUN!TY,DEVI.~LOPMENT
614 DIVISION STREET MSG6. PORT ORCHARD WASHINGTON 983664682 Cfndy Baker, Interim Director
(360) 337-7181 FAX (360) 3374925 HOME PAGE - ~t~v.kitsatmov. com/dcd/
Department of Community Development
Additional Comments
City of Bremerton
Draft Plan and Technical Appendices:
2003-2004 City of Bremerton Comprehensive Plan Update
In General:
· Sources are not listed for most of the illustrations/photographs.
· There were typos (homonyms) throughoat the documenL
* Cross-reference chapters with applicable CWPPs and confirm consistency.
· If possible, include more emphasis on regional cooperation and planning, interg0vemmental
coordination where appropriate,
Section Comment
Current Conditions: Please include the definition of net acreage for the estimated
Vacant Land 670 net acres of vacant or underutilized residential land in the
(LU Appendix Pg. 1) City in 2002. Does net acreage exclude critical areas and/or
roads? What would be the estimated gross acreage?
Current Conditions: Please clarify and address the use of net acreage as the basis
Vacant Land for calculating existing residential vacant land, eonsideri~ g that
(LU Appendix Pg. l) according to City Code Section 21.02.070, Gross Acre i,, he
basis for calculating the allowed residential development
density.
Current Conditions: Please clarify if the estimated 1,000 acres of vacant indu,, rial
Vacant Land land appears as a net area or a gross area calculation.
(LU Appendix Pg. 1)
Cmrent Conditions: Existing land use is shown to include 1,435 acres of existing
General commercial designated land. The City of Bremerton Land Use
(LU Appendix Pg. 1) Tables (Figure 140) indicated that Residential as a Secondary
Use is allowed in all existing commercial zones either outright
or with a Special Use Permit. Please clarify if the City's
calculation of existing residential development capacity and
future residential land needs has included the potential for, it
residential development within existing commercial designated
land.
Project Land Use Please clarify and address the use of net acreage as the basis
Conditions: for calculating needed future residential land, considering that
Calculation of Future according to City Code Section 21.02.070, Gross Acre is the
(LU Appendix Pg. 7)
/2004 13:50 FAX 300 337 4925 KITSAP CO COMMTNITY DEV
Land Supply: Please provide further analysis of development potential rthc
Residential Land 224 net acres of"underutilized" residential lands, given ~ at the
Supply 2002 Buildable Land Analysis methodology has not beech
! (LUAppendix, adopted bY the City of Bremerton. Please clarify ifthe £ ,Y's ~ I
Pg. 10) calculation of existing residential development capacity~ d
future residential land needs has included the full develo~ent
potential for "underutilized" msidantial lands.
LU Appendix Please provide clarification of the statistic in Table 1: L,,
Table 1: Population Household Size (persons per dwelling unit) that provides'
and Employment average of 2 persons per household, in contrast to an identified
Calculations - Household Size of 2.4 cited in the Residential Land Supply (LU
Bremerton Centers Appendix, Pg. 10) and the Kitsap County 2003 Census data that
indicates a countywide average of f 2.5088 persons per
household.
LU Appendix It appears that-the projected Household Size is rather high in
Table 4:20 year pop. comparison to national trends. Please verify the accuracy of
projections this information and include references for the reader.
Lu Appendix Statement that the City Industrial Land Supply "far exceeds the
Page 12-13 need" with an "extremely large" market factor. Concerns over
how this can be supported based on previous Kitsap County
Hearings Board decisions.
PLAN COMMENTS
Introduction 1.2 The paragraph states that "The Transportation Element covers
all areas within the City limits of Bremerton. If the City's
Comprehensive Plan is expanded to include areas beyond the
City limits, such as the Urban Growth Area (UGA) or Area of
Mutual Concern, the Transportation Element will be expanded
to ensure adequate services to those areas as well."
The transportation element is based upon a model that includes
areas outside of the incorporated area, however, the deficiencies
and improvements necessary in those areas don't match areas
that the comprehensive plan seems to indicate are areas for
incorporation. The transportation element needs to account for
transportation within areas to incorporate if they are included in
the plan.
Page 2-19 Passenger-Only Ferry Service - Indicates that this is a service
that ended, but I understand that it has been restarted. May
want to update.
Page 3-4 Non-HSS LOS standards. This section talks about the
development of the standards by PSRC. These have now been
adopted, may want to update.
Page 4-6 Passenger-only service reference again (see comments above)
Pg. LU26 Numbering system is somewhat confusing. Please verify the
method is consistent throughout the document.
LUik This appears to be rather vague. Possibly there is a need for
more specific design standards or connect existing design
standards in a more concrete way.
LUI lB Appears to be in conflict with LU7A.
2
11/24/2004 13:50 FAX 360 337 4925 IiITSAP CO CO~/TNITY DEV ~007
LU20B Clarify- the meaning of"promote the associations". This is
not clear to the reader.
LLI18 "Prohibit" not "discourage"
LLI20J The City may want to consider identifying and implementing ~
"reasonable measures" as alternatives for accommodating
!
growth if the population exceeds anticipated LIGA capacity, not
just expanding the UGA boundaries. ~
3
KITSAP COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
December 1, 2004
Chris Endresen
DISTRICT 1
His Honor Cary Bozcman, thc Mayor
Jan Angel City Council President, Daren Nygren
DISTRICT 2
City of Brcmerton
Patty Lent
DISTRICT3 286 Fourth Street
Bremerton, WA 98337
Re: Comments on the City of Bremerton 2003-04 Comprehensive Plan Update
Malcolm l:~grning Dear Mayor and City Council President,
Counly Administrator
On behalf of the Board of County Commissioners we would like to stress our concern
with two of the items referencing your future annexation of non-associated UGA's and
expansion areas. We endorse the comments identified in the November 23 letter from
our Department of Community Development and feel we need to show stronger concern
in areas you are proposing for land demand and land use.
Both the South Kitsap Industrial Area (SKIA) and the Central Kitsap UGAs were adopted
in the 1998 Kitsap County Comprehensive Plan as stand alone unincorporated areas.
These areas are in the process of subarea planning including full SEPA reviews and in the
case of Central Kitsap, the Barker Creek watershed planning will be included.
These areas were specifically not included as city urban growth areas because further
planning with the citizens of Central Kitsap, South Kitsap, Bremerton and Port Orchard is
required before annexation discussions would be appropriate. We understand your city's
need to update your comprehensive plan and we request that you remove the language
regarding annexation of county unincorporated land until the Bremerton and Kitsap
County reach an agreement on where the boundaries should be drawn.
Your reference to these two areas is premature in your 2003-04 comprehensive plan
update. It is in the Kitsap County schedule to have both subareas completed for our
: comprehensive plan approval in 2006.
The Board of County Commissioners appreciates your participation in this process and
we look forward to a smooth transitional effort in completing UGA boundaries mutually
agreeable to both the City of Bremerton and Kitsap County.
Sincerely,
/~9 ~ /L_.- ~ ? "' ~' ' ' ...... ' ....
. . ,, · / -_~. ~.~'~ \ '
· /~?.~ .~ ~ ~..-~ , . .
Patty Lent/Chair" ~ ~-- /(~hris Endresen, Commissioner Jan/;~Igel, Commissioner
/ "
WWW.ki~sapgov.com
12/01/2004 13:00 FAX 3803374415 Development Engineering ~001/003
Kitsap County Department of Community Development
614 Division Street (MS-26), Port Omhard, WA 98366-4699 C,/ndy Baker, Acting Director
December ,200 FILE COPy
Paul Rogerson, Planning Manager
City of Bramerton
345 6~ Street
Bramerton, WA 98337
RE: City of Bremerton Comprehensive Plan Update
Dear Mr. Rogerson:
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to review and comment on the proposed changes
and amendments to the City of Bremerton's Comprehensive Plan. We offer the following
comments to you for your review and consideration.
1. Land Use Element
a. Page LU-22, Urban Growth Area Section, Paragraph 1: The Plan abates that
~... cities are the appropriate lead agencies in eababllshing the future land uae
pattern, transportation system, and all related development standards."
Paragraph 3 states that'Development withlnthe City's UGA's should be
regulated by the City's development standards, and infrastructure should be
built to City Standards.'
i. There are no Inter-Local Agreements (II_A) or Urban Joint Plans
between the City and the County regarding the development practices
within the City's UGA boundaries. There are, however, Urban Joint
Planning Areas (Gorst, West of Klteap Lake), but no plans in place to
allow the County to require development to follow the City Standards.
ii. The Plan has no goals, policies, or guidance to achieve these
abatements, The opinion that 'cities are the appropriate lead agency"
should be removed from the plan, as GMA and state law still require
the County to plan these areas to county standards unless ILA's or
Urban Joint Plans (or Sub-Area Plans) dictate othen~vise.
2. Transportation Element
a. Page TR-5, Pedestrian and bicycle facilities, Paragraph 2: The Plan states
that it is not a 'serious problem on the minor artedal or collector streets" to not
have bicycle lanes on designated bicycle mutes, However, The Plan has no
definition or explanation of what a "sedous problem" is. There is no qualitative
or quantitative data backing this up. It is also a possibly conflicting statement
whe.n crossed with the following:
~. Policy TIA, #4: 'Pmservinu and extendina the COnnectivilyof the
pedestrian, bicycle, and grid street system'
ii. Goal T8: 'Ensure transeorletion system safety throuuh maintenance cf
In~a~, and incorporation of safely enhancements in
transportation improvement projects."
I~ ~0~37-4S44. FAX 9~0~97-4416 · Hems I~lge ,*~w.fd~.eem
12/01/2004 13:00 FAX 360337441§ Development En91neerin9 [~001/003
Kitsap County Department of Community Development
614 Division Street (MS-26), Port Orohard, WA 98366-4699 Cindy Baker, Acting Director
De°amber 4, 2004 FILE COPy
Paul Rogerson, Planning Manager
City of Bmmerton
345 6m Street
Bremedon, WA 98337
RE: City of Bremerton Comprehensive Plan Update
Dear Mr. Rogerson:
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to review and comment on the proposed changes
and amendments to the City of Bremerton's Comprehensive Plan. We offer the following
~omments to you for your review and consideration.
1. Land Use Element
a. Page LU-22, Urban Growth Area Section, Paragraph 1: The Plan states that
~... cities are the appropriate lead agencies in establishing the future land use
pattern, transportation system, and all related development standards."
Pawgraph 3 states that "Development withlnthe City's UGA's should be
regulated by the City's development standards, and infrastructure should be
built to City Standards."
i. There are no inter-Local Agreements (II.A) or Urban Joint Plans
between the City and the County regarding the development practices
within the City's UGA boundaries. There are, however, Urban Joint
Planning Areas (Goret, West of Kitsap Lake), but no plans in' place to
allow the County to require development to follow the City Standards.
ii. The Plan has no goals, policies, or guidance to achieve these
statements, The opinion that 'cities are the appropriate lead agency"
should be removed from the plan, as GMA and state law slill require
the County to plan these areas to county standards unless ILA's or
Urban Joint Plans (or Sub-Ares Plans) dictate otherwise.
2. Transportation Element
a. Page TR-5, Pedestrian end bicycle facilities, Paragraph 2: The Plan states
that it is not a 'serious problem on the minor arterial or collector streets" to not
have bicycle lanes on designated bicycle mutes. However, The Plan has no
definition or explanation of what a 'sedous problem" is, There is no qualitative
or quantitative data backing this up. It ia also a possibly conflicting statement
when crossed with the following:
i. Policy TIA, #4: °Pmservino and extendina the connectivity of the
pedestrian, bicycle, and grid street system'
ii. Goal TS: 'Ensure transoorlation system safety Ihrouoh maintenance of
~, and incorporation of safety enhancements in
transportation improvement projects."
Toll free from ~ 860.688.33~, Balnb#~ Is~and EO6-B42-2081 and Ol~lla 2~.851.4147
12/01/2004 13:01 FAX 3603374415 Oevelopment EngSneerin9 ~002/003
Bremerton Comprehensive Plan Update
December 1, 2004
Page - 2
qii. Goal T12: 'Provide a transportation system that effectively serves the
needs of end en~mLr~e~ pedeslrian, bicycle and other non-motorized
travel'
iv. Policy T12A, #1: "Maximize safatv when identifying pedestrian and
bike paths corrtdom.
v. Policy T12C: '~ and create new, engineered bike
hanes'
b. Page TR-6, Level of service standards, Paragraph 3: The Plan recommends
lowering the standard LOS of D to LOS of E or F along several arterial
corridors as an incentive for new development in these areas due to the less
impact cost reClulred from the development. What the plan fails to realize and
account for ia the public cost associated with not having the development 'pay
its way" to mitigate project impacts at the time of development. The City
would have to accommodate the high traffic congestion levels and slgnificent
delays at a future date w~ an unknown cost. This theory conflicts with the
City's transportation development ordinance that requires frontage
improvements to mitigate impacts. By Iowedng the LOS level, the City is
assuming a significant financial and economical risk. The high traffic
congestion and delay will, in effect, ddve businesses away rather then attract
them.
c. Page TR-6, level of service standards, Paragraph 4: Care should be given in
coordinating proposed LOS standards on State Routes. Coordination wifft
WSDOT should be considered.
d. Page TR-7, Future traffio volumes and level of service, Paragraph 2: It
appears there is a typographical mistake with 'page XX".
e. Page TR-9, Policy T1A ~¢2: This policy does not state whether it applies to on-
site locations, off-site locations, o~ both.
f. Page TR-11, Policy T3D: The City needs a law that requires Ihis. A policy
loosely stating "where possible" does not effectively allow staff to enforce this
policy's goal.
g. Page TR-12, Parking Goals and Policies: There is no mention of on-street
parking within neighborhood residential developments. A policy to require
parking (or not) should be included here.
h. Page TR-14, Policy T8A ~u,: This policy encourages "bus pull out lanes', but
does not specify in what locations. Clarification should be given as to the
location this is preferred (i.e.: Principle and Minor Arterials vs. Collector and
Local Roads,).
12/01/2004 13:01 FAX 3803374415 Development Engineering ~003/008
Bremerton Comprehensive Plan Update
December 1, 2004
Page - 3
i. Page TR-14, Policy T8A #5 and Policy TSC: Policy T8A #5 implies that U-rum
lanes should be examined and Incoqxxatad where appropriate. This policy
implies that some sort of Access Control (i.e.: median Islands, turn
restrictions, etc.) would be in place. However, Policy TSC implies that
'median obstacles' are used for reducing travel spccds. The two statements
need to be looked at together, and not isolated.
J. Page TR-16, Policy T12E: This policy does not appear to be in a logical
location under 'Non-Motorized" Goals and Policies.
3. Technical Appendices: Transportation Appendix
a. Appendix C 'Volume and Capacity Info~matlon': Please explain why the '2001
Existing" capacity values differ from the '2030 Altemative 1-No Action'
capacity values. Were some capacity changes considered in the No Action
altemative, or were the 2030 LOS standards set at a fixed desired level and
the capacity back calculated?
We hope this helps. If we can be of fiJrther assistance, please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
Development Engineering
Cc: Eric Baker, Planning
ORDINANCE NO. ~ 4/~
AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of
Bremerton, Washington, amending Chapter 3.50 relating to utility
taxes for 2005 decreasing the tax for cable utilities.
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to decrease the utility tax rate for cable
utilities for the year 2005; NOW THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON,
DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTIONL Section 3.50.050 of the Bremerton Municipal Code entitled
"Persons Subject to Tax - Amount" relating to utility taxes is hereby amended to read as follows:
3.50.050 PERSONS SUBJECT TO TAX - AMOUNT.
In addition to other taxes or fees that may be imposed or levied by the City, them is
hereby levied upon all persons (including the City) engaging in business within the City, a fee or
tax to be collected as follows:
(a) Gas. Upon every person engaging in the business of transmitting, distributing or
the selling of manufactured or natural gas, a fee or tax equal to six (6) percent of the total gross
income from such business conducted within the City.
(b) Water. Upon every person engaging in the business of providing water utility
service, a fee or tax equal to eight and one-half (8.5) percent of the total gross income from such
business conducted within the City. The total gross income from the business of providing water
utility service includes the "gross income from timber sales" of the utility as that term is defined
in this chapter.
(c) Wastewater. Upon every person engaging in the business of providing wastewater
utility service, a fee or tax equal to eight and one-half (8.5) percent of the total gross income
from such business conducted within the City.
(d) Stormwater. Upon every person engaging in the business of providing stormwater
utility service, a fee or tax equal to eight and one-half (8.5) percent of the total gross income
from such business conducted within the City.
(e) Cable. Upon every person engaging in the business of transmitting television
signals by means of a cable distribution system commonly known as television cable service, a
fee or tax equal to c~ght and c. nc half (~°.5)seven (7) percent of the total gross income from such I
business conducted within the City.
(f) Solid waste. Upon every person engaging in the business of providing solid waste
collection service, a fee or tax equal ten (10) percent of the total gross income from such
business conducted within the City.
(g) Electricity. Upon every person engaging in the business of producing,
transmitting, distributing or selling electricity, a fee or tax equal to six (6) percent of the total
gross income from such business conducted within the City.
(h) Telephone. Upon every person engaged in carrying on a telephone business for
hire or for sale of a commodity or a service within or partly within the corporate limits of the
1
2005 Utility Tax
City, a tax for the privilege of so doing business a tax equal to six percent (6%) of the total gross
income rendered within the City.
(1) "Deductions" In computing the telephone tax, there shall be deducted from
the gross operating revenues the following items:
(i) Amounts derived from transactions in interstate or foreign
commerce or fi'om any business which the City is prohibited from taxing under the Constitutions
of the United States or the State of Washington.
(ii) Amounts derived from that portion of network telephone service,
as defined in RCW 82.04.065, which represents charges to another telecommunications
company, as defined in RCW 80.04.010, for connecting fees, switching charges or cartier access
charges relating to intrastate toll telephone services, or for access to, or charges for, interstate
services or charges for network telephone service that is purchased for the purpose of resale.
(iii) Adjustments made to a billing or to a customer account or to a
telecommunications company accrual account in order to reverse a billing or charge that had
been made as a result of third-party fraud or other crime and was not properly a debt of a
customer.
(iv) A complete deduction from gross income shall be allowed for
credit losses, only to cellular telephone service companies which keep their regular books of
account on an accrual basis, for cash discounts and credit losses actually sustained by a taxpayer
as a result of telephone service business.
(2) Allocation of Income - Cellular Telephone Service.
(i) Service address: Payments by a customer for the telephone service
from telephones without a fixed location shall be allocated among taxing jurisdictions to the
location of the customer's principal service address during the period for which the tax applies.
(ii) Roaming phones: When the service is provided while a subscriber
is roaming outside the subscriber's normal cellular network area, the gross income shall be
assigned consistent with the taxpayer's accounting system to the location of the originating cell
site of the call, or to the location of the main cellular switching office that switched the call.
(i) Except for solid waste, utility taxes will be frozen at their current rates for a
period of two years through fiscal year 2005 unless City Council unfreezes the cap with a super-
majority vote of the whole Council as seated.
SECTION 2. Severability. If any one or more sections, subsections, or
sentences of this Ordinance are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not
affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance and the same shall remain in full
force and effect.
SECTION3. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in fome ten
(10) days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided by law.
APPROVED by the City Council the _ day of ,2004
PASSED by the City Council the day of ,2004
DAREN NYGREN, Council President
2
2005 Utility Tax
Approved this day of ,2004
CARY BOZEMAN, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
PAULA JOHNSTON, City Clerk ROGER A. LUBOVICH, City Attorney
PUBLISHED the day of _, 2004
EFFECTIVE the day of ,2004
ORDINANCE NO.
R:\LEGAL\Ordinances\Finance~005 Cable Utiliiy Tax Changes.doc
3
2005 Utility Tax
BILL
DATE SUBMITTED: November 16, 2004
AGENDA BILL
CITY OF BREMERTON
CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: Public Hearing on Ordinance q'h? Committee Meeting Date:
amending Ch. 3.01 BMC updating Rates and COUNCIL MEETING Date: November 23, 2004
Fees for 2005 Department: Financial Services
Presenter: Paula Johnston
Phone: 473-5323
SUMMARY: The proposed ordinance amends Rate Tables E and F of Chapter 3.01 of the
Bremerton Municipal Code to update the rates and fees for the Fire Department, Parks and Recreation
Department and Gold Mountain Golf Complex. All other rates and fees remain unchanged for 2005.
ATTACHMENTS:
Proposed Ordinance A~. q~]/~
FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount):
APPROVALS:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY:
MAYOR: (
FISCAL/BUDGET:
,,J~3[o~- CONSENT AGENDA []
OPE~TIONS:
CO~CIL PRESIDENT:
RECOMMENDED MOTION: ~['
Chapter 3.01 BMC to update the rates and fees for 2005.
2. I move to pass Ordinance No. { ?[ ~ on second reading mending Rate Tables E and F of
Chapter 3.01 BMC to update the rates and fees for 2005.
COUNCIL ACTION: [] Approve [] Deny 1~6 Table [] Continue [] No Action
ORDINANCE NO. ]~ q IQ
AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of
Bremerton, Washington, amending Chapter 3.01 of the Bremerton
Municipal Code updating Fire Department, Parks and Recreation
Department and Gold Mountain Golf Complex rates and fees for
2005.
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to update the rates and fees for the year
2005; NOW THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON,
DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTIONL Rate Tables Amended. Chapter 3.01 of the Bremerton Municipal
Code is hereby amended by amending Rate Table E (Fire Department), Rate Table F(2) (Parks
and Recreation program fees and charges) and Rate Table F(5) (Gold Mountain Golf Complex)
as set forth in Exhibit A of this Ordinance.
SECTION2. Severability. If any one or more sections, subsections, or
sentences of this Ordinance are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not
affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance and the same shall remain in full
force and effect.
SECTION 3. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force ten
(10) days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided by law.
APPROVED by the City Council the day of ,2004
PASSED by the City Council the day of ,2004
DAREN NYGREN, Council President
Approved this day of ,2004
CARY BOZEMAN, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
PAULA JOHNSTON, City Clerk ROGER A. LUBOVICH, City Attorney
PUBLISHED the day of ., 2004
EFFECTIVE the _day of ., 2004
ORDINANCE NO.
R:\LEGAL\Ordinances\Finance\2005 Rate Changes doc
I
2005 Rates
FIRE DEPARTMENT- RATE TABLE E
All Rates Listed Are "Not To Exceed" Fees
E. FIRE DEPARTMENT
RATE
1. AMBULANCE TRANSPORT FEE
ALS Residents $425
ALS Non-Residents $490
BLS Residents $360
BLS Non-Residents $420
Mileage $§7/mile
2. EMS SERVICE CALL TO ASSISTED LIVING, LONG TERM CARE $100 After
AND ADULT CARE FACILITIES first
response
per quarter
3. FIRE RESCUE BOAT RESPONSE
Resident $115
Non-Residents $200
4. HAZARD MATERIALS RESPONSE
Rice Hull Ash Actual Cost
per Bag
Absorbent Pads Actual Cost
per Bag
5. STAND-BY-TIME
Per crew of 3 $98/hour
Fire Engine - Crew of 4 $115/hour
6. ACTIVE FIREFIGHTING
Fire Engine $121/hour
Aerial Ladder $200/hour
7. FALSE ALARM FEE $120 for
second
$225 for 3
or more per
quarter
8. SPRINKLER/FIRE ALARM PLANS UBC or ICC
Rates*
*Uniform Building Code or Intemational Fire Code
EXHIBIT A
118
PARKS RECREATION DEPT - RATE TABLE F
All Rates Listed Are "Not To Exceed" Fees
F. PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT
RATE
2. PROGRAM FEES & CHARGES
(a) NEW PROGRAMS not to
exceed cost
plus 25%
(b)GLENN JARSTAD AQUATIC CENTER
ADMISSIONS
Youth (0-3 yrs.) NC
Youth (4-17 yrs.) $2~50
Adult (18-54 yrs.) $3.00
Seniors (55 & up) $2.50
Disabled $2.50
Adult Fitness $3.00
Senior Fitness $2.50
Disabled Fitness $2.50
Special Public $1.00
PUNCH CARDS
Youth 10 punch $20.00
Youth 20 punch $40.00
Adult 10 punch $24.00
Adult 20 punch $48.00
Senior/Disabled 10 punch $20.00
Senior/Disabled 20 punch $40.00
Fitness/Lesson 10 punch $24.00
Fitness/Lesson 20 punch $48.00
Senior/Disabled Fitness 10 punch $20.00
Senior/Disabled Fitness 20 punch $40.00
PASSES
Youth 6 months $108.00
Youth 12 months $207.00
Adult 6 months $132.00
Adult 12 months $253.00
Senior/Disabled 6 months $108.00
Senior/Disabled 12 months $207.00
SWIMMING LESSONS
Youth/Adult 30 min. $3.50
Private 30 min. $13.00
Semi-Private 30 min. $20.00
Parent Tot $3.00
Family Lessons 4 lessons $68.00
119
PARKS RECREATION DEPT - RATE TABLE F
All Rates Listed Are "Not To Exceed" Fees
ITEMS FOR SALE
Basic goggles $5.50
Deluxe goggles $13.00
Latex cap $3.50
Ear plug $2,25
Nose plug $2.25
New items not to
(includes Washington exceed cost
State Sales Tax) plus 75%
RATE
(c) ATHLETIC PROGRAM FEES
VOLLEYBALL
Co-ed (Fall & Winter) per team $210,00
Men and Women (Spring) per team $210.00
Men and Co-ed Sand (Summer) per team $110.00
Open Gym (Oct. - June) per person $2.00
SOCCER
Player's fee per player $40.00
BASKETBALL
Men's League (Fall & Winter) per team $425.00
Boy's League (Winter) per team $225.00
Girl's (Fall) per player $55.00
Blacktop League (Summer) no charge
SOFTBALL
Men's League (Spring) per team $450.00
Men's League - Players fee
(Spg) per player $17.00
Sunday Co-ed (Spring) per team $330.00
Sunday Co-ed - Players fee
(Spg) per player $12.00
Co-ed League (Fall) per team $360.00
Co-ed - Players fee (Fall) per player $13.00
Men's League (Fall) per team $360.00
Men's League - Players fee
(Fall) per player $13.00
TOURNAMENTS (SOFTBALL AND SOCCER)
-- INVITATIONAL TOURNAMENTS
Lions - One Day $ ......320.00
Lions - Two Day $350.90450.00
Lions - Three Day $46~99580.00
120
PARKS RECREATION DEPT - RATE TABLE F
All Rates Listed Are "Not To Exceed" Fees
RATE
Pendergast - One Day $299.99390.00
Pendergast - Two Day $495.99585.00
Pendergast - Three Day $~!5.99715.00
-- STATE TOURNAMENTS
Lions - One Day $279.99370~00
Lions - Two Day $400.00500.00
Lions - Three Day $5!0.00510.00
Pendergast - One Day $,=39~490.00
Pendergast - Two Day $550.00580.00
Pendergast - Three Day $7!0.00510.00
-- Regional and National Tournaments wilt pay no less
than State fees, but rates will be negotiated
5. GOLD MOUNTAIN GOLF COMPLEX
la) CASCADE COURSE RATE
Weekday 18 Holes * 27.0928.00
Weekend/Holiday 18 Holes (3) 35.0038.00
Weekday 9 Holes * !9.0020.00
Weekend/Holiday 9 Holes 22.9024.00
Weekday 9 Hole Continue* 8.00
Weekend/Holiday 9 Hole Continue 14.00
Twilight Weekday* 19.0020.00
Twilight Weekend/Holiday 22.0023.00
League Rate** 19.0020.00
Senior 18 Holes* 21.0023.00
Junior 18 Holes* 11.0013.00
Junior Twilight Weekend/Holiday 13.00
Annual Pass Single ! ,400.901,450.00
Annual Pass Couple 2,200.002,300.00
Annual Pass Family*** $2,300.00 plus
$200.00 per junior
Annual Pass Sr. Single** cj90~0950.00
Annual Pass Sr. Couple** ! ,~99.001,500.00
Semi Annual Single 700/750725.00/775.00
Semi Annual Couple I, 100/I, 1501,150.00/1,200.00
Semi Annual Sr. Single** 450/500475.00/525.00
Semi Annual Sr. Couple** 900/950850.00/900.00
Senior Punch Card** (2) 190.00
Regular 20 Rnd Punch Card ~,59.00475.00
121
PARKS RECREATION DEPT - RATE TABLE F
All Rates Listed Are "Not To Exceed" Fees
Regular 10 Rnd Punch Card ~258.00
Junior 10 Rnd Punch Card 85.00
Low Income Sr. Punch Card** **** (2) 80.0085.00
Corporate Pass,~'l~.v.. "r~v~-.~..*, ~..~.v *** (3 asterisks are deleted)(2) 2,200.00
~" ...... =-~ ~. 'I',~,~1~1.-,* *** (all asterisks are deleted) (2) ~ "J'~'~
...... 00
Daily Private Cart
..... 17.00
Annual Cart Fee 140.00
Shotgun Tournament (Not To Exceed) 18
Hole Green Fee
..... 50.00
* Monday through Thursday
** Not for Saturday, Sunday or Holiday
*** :~,-.-~--~-~ ~/~ ,,~o *~.~ ,~* ...... ., .... .~ *~ ~,~,~ ..... .~c ough September
-v~ ........ ~ ..................................... rom June thr
juniors may only play after 11 a.m. on weekends and holidays
**** Age 62 & up with household income < $18,000. RCW 71.38.070
1. A reduced rate, not less than the current twi-light rate, may be offered with the approval
of the Director of Parks & Recreation
2. May be used for twilight any day of the week including Holidays
3. Saturday, Sunday or Holiday (May - September Not to Exceed Rate)
(b) OLYMPIC COURSE RATE
Weekday 18 Holes* 37.00'10.00
Weekend/Holiday 18 Holes (2) 64~955.00
Weekday 9 Holes* 2! .0023.00
Weekend/Holiday 9 Holes 30.0033.00
Weekday 9 Hole Continue* !~.0017.00
Weekend/Holiday 9 Hole Continue 24-~9022.00
Twilight Weekday* 20.0022.00
Twilight Weekend/Holiday L;~;~026.00
Junior Twilight Weekend 20.00
League Rate** ! 8.0020.00
Senior 18 Holes* 30.0032.00
Junior 18 Holes* 20.0022.00
Cascade Passes And Punch Cards 10.00
Shotgun Tournament (Not To Exceed 18
Hole Green Fee) (2) ~5.0058.00
*Monday through Thursday
** Not for Saturday, Sunday or Holiday
**** Age 62 & up with household income < $18,000. RCW 71.38.070
1. A reduced rate, not less than the current twi-light rate, may be offered with the approval
of the Parks & Recreation Director.
2. Saturday, Sunday or Holiday (May - September Not to Exceed Rate)
122
DATE SUBMITTED: November 10, 2004 BILL # 0 ~[ q.'~q~
AGENDA BILL
CITY OF BREMERTON .':-,,
CITY COUNCIL /
SUBJECT: Public Hearing and Ordinance Committee Meeting Date: November 23, 2004
authorizing the extension of an agreement COUNCIL MEETING Date: December 1 & 8, 2004
with Bank of America to secure an $800,000 Department: Financial Services
line of credit for the Conference Center Presenter: Michael R. Wilson
Phone: 473-5590
SUMMARY: The Conference Center needs to extend and increase the mount of interim financing
to pay for pre-opening operating costs and initial capital expenses and to fund operating deficits for
the new Kitsap Conference Center at Bremerton Harborside. The City's bank, Bank of America, has
submitted a proposal for the extension of an $800,000 line of credit for the conference center. This
line of credit will be a varibale rate issue (based on prime rate minus 79 basis points) through issuance
of general obligation bonds.
ATTACHMENTS: 1) Conference Center financial plan (BofA line of credit proposal), and 2)
Conference Center 10-year operating budget
FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): The Conference Center Operating Fund shall
repay this line of credit through the use of General Fund monies, hotel/motel taxes and conference
center revenues· The fiscal impact will be: 1) repayment likely coming from the General Fund, 2)
quarterly payments of approx. $33,333 for a six-year term and an average annual interest payments of
$15,500.
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR: <-' d
CITY ATTORNEY:
OPERATIONS:
COUNCIL PRESIDENT: .
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
Move to approve on tn:st reading an ordinance authorizing the Mayor to execute an agreement with
the Bank of America for securing an $800,000 line of credit to fund the pre-opening and initial
operating expenses for the Kitsap Conference Center at Bremerton Harborside.
Move to pass Ordinance No. on second reading.
COUNCIL ACTION: [] Approve [] Deny [] Table [] Continue [] No Action
123
DRAFT 12/1/04
For Discussion Purposes Only
CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHiNGTON ~ __
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City of Bremerton, Washington relating to the
incurrence of indebtedness; providing for the sale and issuance of a limited tax general
obligation bond, 2004, in a principal amount not to exceed $800,000 to establish a non-
revolving line of credit (converting to term loan) to finance the first year start up costs
of the Kitsap Regional Conference Center; providing for the date, form, terms,
registration privileges, maturity, interest rate and covenants of the bond; establishing a
debt service account for the bond; and providing for the delivery of such bond to Bank
of America, N.A., Seattle, Washington, in exchange for such line of credit.
WHEREAS, the City of Bremerton, Washington (the "City") has constructed the Kitsap
Regional Conference Center (the "Conference Center") in the City which is owned and operated by the
City; and
WHEREAS, RCW 39.46.050 authorizes local governments to establish lines of credit with any
qualified public depository to be drawn upon in exchange for its obligations; and
WHEREAS, the City deems it necessary and advisable that that the City incur indebtedness and
issue its limited tax general obligation bond in a principal amount not to exceed $800,000 to establish a
non-revolving line of credit to finance the first year start up costs of the Conference Center, with such
line of credit to convert after one year to a fully-amortizing six-year term loan; and
WHEREAS, the incurrence of indebtedness by the City will not cause the total indebtedness of
the City to be incurred without the assent of the voters of the City to exceed the limitations set forth in
Chapter 39.36 RCW, and
WHEREAS, Bank of America, N.A. (the "Bank") has submitted a commitment to establish a
nonrevolving line of credit, converting to a term loan, on the terms and conditions set forth herein in
exchange for the bond; and
WHEREAS, the City Council deems it in the best interests of the City to accept such offer, to
deliver the bond to the Bank and to establish such line of credit; now therefore,
THE CITY OF BREMERTON DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Definitions. As used in this ordinance, the following terms shall have the following
meanings:
"Bank" means Bank of America, N.A.
"Bond" means the "City of Bremerton, Washington, Limited Tax General Obligation Bond,
DRAFT 12/1/04
For Discussion Purposes Only
2004" authorized by this ordinance.
"Bond Account" means the Limited Tax General Obligation Bond Account, 2004 created in the
Conference Center Operating Fund in this ordinance.
"Bond Register" means the registration books for the Bond maintained by the City.
"City" means the City of Bremerton, Washington.
"Code" means the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, together with all applicable
regulations thereunder.
"Conference Center" means the Kitsap Regional Conference Center.
"Draw Request" means the written request by any person authorized to make a draw firom the
Line of Credit, as more fully described in Section 4 of this ordinance.
"Finance Director" means the City's Director of Finance.
"Hotel-Motel Taxes" shall mean those revenues received by the City derived l~om excise taxes
imposed by the City pursuant to chapter 67.28 RCW on charges made for lodging within the City.
"LIBOR Interest Rate Period" means a period between one month and twelve months in length,
but not exceeding the maturity date of the Bond, consisting of one-month increments, specified in a
Request for Draw or a notice of change to the LIBOR Rate Mode. The first day of the LIBOR Interest
Rate Period must be a London Banking Day. The date of the last day of the LIBOR Interest Rate
Period and the actual number of days during the interest period will be determined by the Bank using
the practices of the London inter-bank market.
"LIBOR Portion" means each portion of principal of the Outstanding Principal Balance of the
Bond accruing interest in the LIBOR Rate Mode.
"LIBOR Rate" means the average per annum interest rate (rounded upwards, if necessary, to
the nearest 1/100 of 1%) at which U.S. dollar deposits would be offered for a period equal to the
LIBOR Interest Rate Period starting on that day by major banks in the London inter-bank market, as
shown on the Telerate Page 3750 (or any successor page) at approximately 11:00 a.m. London time,
two London Banking Days before the commencement of the interest period. If such rate does not
appear on the Telerate Page 3750 (or any successor page), the rate for that LIBOR Interest Rate Period
will be determined by such alternate method as reasonably selected by the Bank. The actual first and
last days of the LIBOR Interest Rate Period will be determined by the Bank using the practices of the
London inter-bank market, taking into account any days on which banks are required or permitted to
be closed in New York or London.
"LIBOR Rate Mode" means the mode during which a LIBOR Portion bears interest at a rate
equal to 65% of the LIBOR Rate, plus a spread of .99%, for the duration of the LIBOR Interest Rate
Period selected, calculated on the basis of actual number of days elapsed over a year of 360 days.
2
DRAFT 12/1/04
For Discussion Purposes Only
"Line of Credit" means the non-revolving line of credit, to be termed out over six years,
authorized by this ordinance to be established with the Bank.
"London Banking Day" means a day on which Bank's London Banking Center is open for
business and dealing in offshore dollars.
"Net Revenue" means the Revenue less Operation and Maintenance Expenses.
"Operation and Maintenance Expenses" shall mean all reasonable expenses incurred by the
City in causing the Conference Center to be operated and maintained in good repair, working order and
condition, including without limitation: management fees or other payments to third parties payable in
respect of the operation of the Conference Center; personnel costs; the cost of ordinary maintenance
and repair; utilities; supplies; food and beverage service and supply costs; equipment purchase and
lease payments; administrative expenses; the costs of advertising, marketing and business promotion;
deposits, premiums, assessments or other payments for insurance; taxes and assessments; all as
determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles applicable to the City and its
operations. The term Operation and Maintenance Expenses does not include any depreciation of or
capital expenditure for the Conference Center.
"Outstanding Principal Balance of the Bond" means the aggregate of all funds that the City has
drawn from the Line of Credit pursuant to the Bond less the aggregate of all principal payments on the
Bond made by the City.
"Owner" means the person who is named as the registered owner of the Bond on the Bond
Register.
"Paying Agent" means the City in its capacity as paying agent for the Bond.
"Prime Rate" means the interest rate designated and published by the Bank as its prime rate, as
such prime rate may change. The Prime Rate is set by the Bank based on various factors, including the
Bank's cost and desired return, general economic conditions and other factors, and is used as a
reference point for pricing some loans. The Bank may price loans to its customers at, above, or below
the Prime Rate. Any change in the Prime Rate shall take effect at the opening of business on the day
specified in the public announcement of a change in the Prime Rate.
"Prime Rate Mode" means the mode during which the Outstanding Principal Balance of the
Bond not constituting a LIBOR Portion bears interest at a variable rate equal to 65% of the Prime Rate,
minus a spread of 0.79%, calculated on the basis of actual number of days elapsed over a year of 365-
366 days.
"Project" means the payment of all or part of the start up costs of the Conference Center,
including but not limited to, the first year of the pre-opening management services expenses and
furnishings and equipment for the Conference Center.
"Purchase Offer" means the commitment letter dated November 30, 2004/~om the Bank to the
City to provide the Line of Credit in exchange for the Bond under the terms and conditions set forth in
this Ordinance.
3
DRAFT 12/1/04
For Discussion Purposes Only
"Registrar" means the City in its capacity as registrar and transfer agent for the Bond.
"Revenue" shall mean all earnings, revenue and money received by the City fi.om or on account
of the operation and/or ownership of the Conference Center, including the income from investments of
money in the Conference Center Operating Fund or fi.om any other investment thereof(except the
income fi.om investments irrevocably pledged to the payment of the Bond pursuant to a refunding or
defeasance plan).
Section 2. Finding, Purpose and Description of Bond. The City authorizes the sale and
issuance of its "Limited Tax General Obligation Bond, 2004" (the "Bond"), to finance the Project and
to pay the "incidental costs and costs related to the sale and issuance" (as defined in RCW 39.46.070)
of the Bond.
The Bond shall be issued as a single bond in the principal amount not to exceed $800,000; shall
be dated the date of the first Draw Request thereunder; shall be issued in fully registered form as to
both principal and interest; and shall be numbered in such manner and with any additional designation
as the Registrar, deems necessary for purposes of identification. The Bond shall mature on
December ,2011.
Portions of principal under the Bond shall bear interest in one of two variable rate modes (the
LIBOR Rate Mode or the Prime Rate Mode), as determined by the Finance Director. Amounts drawn
on the Bond pursuant to a Draw Request shall bear interest in the Prime Rate Mode unless the LIBOR
Rate Mode is elected. The City hereby delegates to the Finance Director authority to convert portions
of the Outstanding Principal Balance of the Bond from one interest rate mode to the other as follows:
(a) In order to request a conversion to the LIBOR Rate Mode (or to specify a new LIBOR
Interest Rate Period for the Bond), the Finance Director shall give notice ora mode change or
extension to the Bank no later than 12:00 noon, Pacific time, on a London Banking Day that is at least
three London Banking Days before the new LIBOR Interest Rate Period. Each such LIBOR Portion
shall be an amount in excess of $250,000.
(b) In order to request a conversion to the Prime Rate Mode, the Finance Director shall give
notice of the mode change to the Bank by 1:00 p.m., Pacific time, on the day on which the mode is to
be changed.
Each LIBOR Portion shall automatically be converted to the Prime Rate Mode after the
expiration oftbe LIBOR Rate Period if no new LIBOR Rate Mode is timely specified in accordance
with this paragraph. The notice of a mode change or extension shall be substantially in the form
attached as Exhibit B. The notice ora conversion to, or extension of a LIBOR Rate Mode shall specify
the selected LIBOR Interest Rate Period, as applicable, and applicable dollar amount.
Interest on the Outstanding Principal Balance of the Bond shall accrue from the date such
principal is drawn under the Bond until paid. Interest shall be payable quarterly, on each March 1,
June 1, September 1 and December 1, beginning March 1, 2005, tmtil maturity or prior prepayment of
the Bond. Interest on any principal prepaid shall be paid upon prepayment. Principal on the
Outstanding Principal Balance of the Bond shall be paid in quarterly installments on each March 1,
4
DRAFT 12/1/04
For Discussion Purposes Only
June 1, September 1 and December 1, beginning March 1, 2006 to the maturity or prior prepayment of
the Bond. The amount of such principal installments shall be set in an amount equal to the
Outstanding Principal Balance on the Bond on December 1, 2005, divided by 24.
Section 3. Place, Manner and Medium of Payment. Both principal of and interest on the Bond
shall be payable by the City in lawful money of the United States of America. Interest on the Bond
and principal installment payments and any prepaid principal thereof shall be paid by check or draft
mailed on or before the applicable payment date to the Owner at the address for such Owner appearing
on the Bond Register on the day such payment is made; provided, that the Owner may be paid
principal and interest by wire transfer to an account in the United States, but only if such Owner makes
a written request of the Paying Agent, received before the close of the Paying Agent's business on the
business day immediately preceding the date scheduled for payment of such principal and interest,
which request shall specify the account number and address which request may provide that it remain
in effect until changed or revoked in writing. The final principal installment of the Bond, together with
all interest accrued thereon, shall be paid at maturity to the Owner at the address for such Owner
appearing on the Bond Register on the day such payment is made. Upon request of the City following
receipt of such final principal payment, the Owner shall surrender of the Bond at the office of the
Paying Agent. The Registrar shall keep sufficient books for the registration and transfer of the Bond.
The Outstanding Principal Balance of the Bond on any particular day shall be the aggregate of
all funds that the City has drawn from the Line of Credit fi.om the date of the Bond to that day less the
aggregate of all principal payments made by the City on or before that day. Interest on a particular
principal amount so advanced shall be determined fi.om the date of the advance of Bond proceeds
pursuant to a Draw Request.
Section 4. Draw Requests. The City may make multiple Draw Requests under the Line of
Credit for the purpose of obtaining funds to pay the costs of the Project and to pay the incidental costs
and costs related to the sale and issuance of the Bond. The Draw Requests may be made to be
effective on any business day prior to December 1, 2005; provided, that the first Draw Request shall be
accompanied by the Bond and the other documents described in Section 13 hereof. Draw Requests are
not subject to approval by the Bank, but shall be limited to an aggregate outstanding principal amount
of $800,000. No Draw Request may exceed the total Project costs and issuance costs to be paid fi.om
the proceeds of such Draw Request, and such proceeds shall be immediately applied to pay such costs.
Amounts drawn pursuant to Draw Requests shall be recorded in such form as the City and the Bank
shall agree. Any Draw Request to be made in the LIBOR Rate Mode must be in a minimum principal
amount of $250,000.
The Finance Director or such other person as the Finance Director may designate are hereby
authorized to make a request for draw pursuant to the Bond. A Draw Request shall be made in writing
signed by any one of such authorized persons at any time prior to December 1, 2005.
Section 5. Prepayment. The Bond shall be subject to optional prepayment prior to maturity, in
whole or in part on any date, plus accrued interest to the date freed for prepayment. There shall be no
prepayment fee for prepayment of portions of the Bond bearing interest in Prime Rate Mode or ifa
LIBOR Portion is prepaid on an interest rate reset date. The Bond shall be subject to a prepayment fee
ifa LIBOR Portion is prepaid prior to its interest rate reset date. Such prepayment fee shall be
DRAFT 12/1/04
For Discussion Purposes Only
calculated in accordance with Exhibit C hereto.
Section 6. Debt Limit Not Exceeded. The City finds and covenants that the Bond is issued
within all constitutional and statutory debt limitations presently applicable to the City.
Section 7. Pledge of Full Faith, Credit and Resources; Hotel-Motel Taxes; Revenue of
Convention Center. The Bond is a limited tax general obligation of the City. Unless the principal of
and interest on the Bond is paid from other sources, so long as the Bond is outstanding, the City hereby
irrevocably covenants to make annual levies of taxes upon all property within the City subject to
taxation without a vote in amounts sufficient, together with any other money legally available therefor,
to pay such principal and interest as the same shall become due. The City hereby irrevocably pledges
its full faith, credit and resources to the annual levy and collection of such taxes and for the prompt
payment of such principal and interest.
The City hereby irrevocably covenants that the annual tax provided for herein to be levied for
the payment of the principal of and interest on the Bond shall be within and as a part of the tax levy
permitted the City without a vote and that a sufficient portion of each such annual tax levy to be made
so long as the Bond is outstanding, together with any other money legally available therefor, will be
and is hereby set aside, pledged and appropriated for the payment of the principal of and interest on the
Bond as the same shall become due.
The Net Revenue and Hotel-Motel Taxes are hereby pledged, for the equal and ratable benefit
of the Owner of the Bond, as security for payment of the principal of and premium, if any, and interest
on the Bond, subject to the provisions of this Ordinance permitting the application of amounts held
hereunder to the purposes set forth herein. Such pledge is hereby declared to be a prior lien and charge
on the Net Revenue superior to all other liens and charges of any kind or nature whatsoever.
Section 8. Form of Bond. The Bond shall be typewritten, printed or lithographed on good
bond paper in a form consistent with this ordinance and Washington law.
Section 9. Execution of Bond. The Bond shall be signed on behalf of the City with the
facsimile or manual signatures of the Mayor and the City Clerk, and shall have the seal of the City
impressed or a facsimile of such seal imprinted on the Bond.
In case either or both of the officers who shall have executed the Bond shall cease to be such
officer or officers of the City before the Bond so signed shall have been delivered by the Registrar or
issued by the City, such Bond nevertheless may be authenticated, delivered and issued and upon such
authentication, delivery and issuance, shall be as binding upon the City as though those who signed the
same had continued to be such officers of the City. The Bond also may be signed and attested on
behalf of the City by such persons as at the actual date of execution of the Bond shall be the proper
officers of the City although at the original date of the Bond such persons were not such officers of the
City.
Section 10. Registration; Nontransferability. The City shall keep, or cause to be kept, at the
Finance Director's office, the Bond Register.
DRAFT 12/1/04
For Discussion Purposes Only
The City may deem and treat the Owner of the Bond as the absolute owner thereof for all
purposes, and the City shall not be affected by any notice to the contrary. Payment of the Bond shall
be made only as described in Section 3 hereof. All such payments made as provided in Section 3
hereof shall be valid and shall satisfy and discharge the liability of the City upon the Bond to the extent
of the amount or amounts so paid.
The City covenants that, until the Bond shall have been surrendered and cancelled, it will
maintain a system of recording the ownership of the Bond that complies with the provisions of the
Code.
The registered ownership of the Bond may not be transferred, except for transfer to a successor
in interest to the Owner as a result of merger or consolidation.
Section 1 I. Mutilated, Lost, Stolen or Destroyed Bond. If the Bond becomes mutilated, lost,
stolen or destroyed, the City may authenticate and deliver a new Bond of the same maturity and
interest rate and of like tenor and effect in substitution for such mutilated, lost, stolen or destroyed
Bond, all in accordance with law. If such mutilated, lost, stolen or destroyed Bond has matured, the
City at its option, may pay the same without the surrender of the original Bond. However, no such
substitution or payment shall be made unless and until the applicant shall furnish (a) evidence
satisfactory to the City of the destruction or loss of the original Bond and of the ownership of such
original Bond, and (b) such additional security, indemnity or evidence as may be required by or on
behalf of the City. No substitute Bond shall be furnished unless the applicant shall reimburse the City
and the City for their respective expenses in the furn/shing of such substitute Bond. Any such
substitute Bond so furnished shall be equally and proportionately entitled to the security of this
ordinance with any other Bond issued under this ordinance.
Section 12. Defeasance. If money and/or "government obligations" (as such obligations are
defined in Chapter 39.53 RCW, as now in existence or later amended) maturing at such times(s) and
bearing such interest to be earned on such obligations (without any reinvestment thereof) as will
provide a series of payments which shall be sufficient, together with any money initially deposited, to
provide for the payment of all of the principal of and interest on all or a portion of the Bond, when due
in accordance with its terms in accordance with a refunding plan adopted by the City, are set aside in a
special fund (hereinafter called the "trust account") to effect such payment and are pledged irrevocably
for the purpose of effecting such payment, then no further payments need be made into the Bond Fund
for the payment of the principal of and the interest on such Bond, the Owners thereof shall cease to be
entitled to any lien, benefit or security of this ordinance except for the right to receive the money and
the principal and interest proceeds on the obligations set aside in the trust account, and such Bond shall
no longer be deemed to be outstanding under this ordinance.
Section 13. Sale of the Bond. The Bank has proposed to purchase the Bond under the terms
and conditions provided in the Purchase Offer, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A, and is
incorporated herein by this reference. The City Council fmds that accepting the Purchase Offer is in
the Town's best interest and therefor accepts the offer contained in the Purchase Offer and authorizes
the execution of the Purchase Offer by the Mayor of the City.
The Bond will be prepared at City expense and will be delivered to the Bank in accordance
7
DRAFT 12/1/04
For Discussion Purposes Only
with the Purchase Offer, together with: (a) the approving legal opinion of Gottlieb, Fisher & Andrews,
PLLC, bond counsel, of Seattle, Washington, and (b) a copy of this Ordinance. Bond counsel has not
been retained to monitor, and shall not be responsible for monitoring, the City's compliance with any
federal law or regulations to maintain the tax-exempt status of the interest on the Bond. The City shall
pay to the Bank a loan fee of $1,500 upon delivery of the Bond, and pay or reimburse Bank for the
payment of the Bank's legal fees incurred with respect to the Line of Credit.
The proper City officials, including the Finance Director, are authorized and directed to do
everything necessary for the prompt issuance, execution and delivery of the Bond to the Bank in
accordance with the Purchase Offer, and for the proper application and use of the proceeds of the sale
thereof.
Section 14. Delivery of Bond. The proper City officials, including the Finance Director, are
authorized and directed to execute and/or approve, as appropriate, all documents, and to do everything
necessary for the preparation and delivery ora transcript of proceedings pertaining to the Bond, and
the preparation, execution and prompt delivery of the Bond to the Bank and for the proper application
and use of the proceeds of the sale thereof.
Section 15. Establishment of Bond Account; Application of Bond Proceed~ There is hereby
created and established in the office of the Finance Director a special account to be designated as the
"Limited Tax General Obligation Bond Account, 2004" (the "Bond Account") in the Conference
Center Operating Fund.
The money and investments in the Bond Account shall be used by the City, together with any
other money legally available and designated therefor, to pay the principal of and interest on the Bond,
when due.
Net principal proceeds of the Bond shall be deposited, upon receipt, in the Conference Center
Operating Fund, and shall be applied solely to pay part of the costs of the Project and the incidental
costs and the costs of issuance of the Bond.
Except as provided by the Code and Section 15 of this ordinance, the interest and profits
derived fi.om the investment of Bond proceeds deposited into the Conference Center Operating Fund
shall be deposited in the Conference Center Operating Fund and applied as described in the preceding
paragraphs.
Except as provided by the Code and Section 16 of this ordinance, if any money allocable to the
Bond proceeds in the Conference Center Operating Fund remains in such fund the after payment of all
the costs of the Project or atter termination of the Project by the City, such money shall be transferred
to the Bond Account. Pending application as described in this Section 14 and subject to the
requirements of the Code and Section 16 of this ordinance, money in the Conference Center Operating
Fund may be temporarily deposited in such institutions or invested in such investments as may be
lawful for the investment of City funds.
Section 16. Tax-Exemption Covenantg. The City covenants that it will not take or permit to be
taken on its behalf any action that would adversely affect the exclusion of the interest on the Bond
8
DRAFT 12/1/04
For Discussion Purposes Only
from gross income for purposes of federal income taxation, and will take or require to be taken such
acts as may be permitted by Washington law and as may from time to time be required under
applicable law to continue the exclusion of the interest on the Bond from gross income for purposes of
federal income taxation. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the City will not invest or
make or permit any use of the proceeds of the Bond or of its other money at any time during the term
of the Bond which would cause the Bond to be an "arbitrage bond" within the meaning of section 148
of the Code.
The City further covenants that, if the City issues more than $5 million in tax-exempt bonds in
the calendar year 2004, the City shall calculate or cause to be calculated, and shall rebate to the United
States, all earnings from the investment of Bond proceeds that are in excess of the amount that would
have been earned had the yield on such investments been equal to the yield on the Bond, plus income
derived from such excess earnings, to the extent and in the manner required by section 148 of the
Code.
The City has not been notified of any listing or proposed listing by the Internal Revenue
Service to the effect that the City is a bond issuer the arbitrage certifications of which may not be
relied upon.
The City will take no actions and will make no use of the proceeds of the Bond or any other
funds held under this ordinance which would cause the Bond to be treated as a "private activity bond"
(as defined in section 141(b) of the Code) subject to treatment under said section 141(b) as an
obligation not described in section 103(a) of the Code, unless the tax exemption thereof is not affected.
The City hereby designates the Bond as a "qualified tax-exempt obligation" for purposes of
Section 265 of the Code (relating to the deduction by financial institutions of the interest incurred to
carry tax-exempt debt) and authorizes and directs the proper City officials to execute and deliver all
documents necessary to evidence such designation to any and all interested parties. The City further
covenants not to issue more than $10,000,000 of such "qualified tax-exempt obligations" during 2004.
Section 17. Financial Reports. The City agrees to provide the Bank (a) a copy of the City's
annual State Audit Report as soon as such report is available, with unaudited annual financial
statements within 180 days of the completion of each fiscal year; (b) a copy of the City's annual
budget within ninety days of the budget cycle; and (c) semi-annual operating statements for the
Conference Center, including Hotel-Motel Taxes and Net Revenue, as of each June 30 and December
31, within 45 days of the end of each such reporting period.
Section 18. Events of Default. Any one or more of the following events shall constitute an
"event of default" under this ordinance: (a) nonpayment of principal, interest, fees or other amounts;
(b) violation of covenants; (c) inaccuracy of representations and warranties; (d) bankruptcy and other
insolvency events; (e) creditor or forfeiture proceedings being instituted by or against the City; and (f)
actual or asserted invalidity of any loan documentation or security interests. If an event of default
occurs due to nonpayment of principal, interest, fees or other amounts when due, then the Bank may
increase the interest rate spread by two (2) percentage points.
Section 19. Contract; Severability. The covenants contained in this ordinance shall constitute a
contract between the City and the Owner of the Bond. The City unconditionally covenants that it will
9
DRAFT 12/1/04
For Discussion Purposes Only
keep and perform all of the covenants of the Bond 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 Bond, and this
ordinance and the Bond shall be construed and enforced as if such unconstitutional or invalid provision
had not been contained in this ordinance.
Section 18. 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 __ day of
December, 2004.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Bremerton, Washington, this day of
December, 2004.
Daren Nygren, Council President
APPROVED this __ day of December, 2004.
Cary Bozeman, Mayor
ATTEST:
Paula Johnston, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By_
Judith Andrews, Bond Counsel
PUBLISHED:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORDINANCE NO.
10
DRAFT 12/1/04
For Discussion Purposes Only
EXHIBIT A
[Purchase Offer]
DRAFT 12/1/04
For Discussion Purposes Only
EXHIBIT B
CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON
LINE OF CREDIT
RATE CERTIFICATE NO.
TO: BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.
DATE OF RATE CERTIFICATE:
On behalf of the City of Bremerton, Washington (the "City"), I hereby certify that:
1. I am the Finance Director, or the authorized designee, as defined in Ordinance No.
adopted by the City on December ~, 2004 (the "Ordinance"), and that I am authorized
to file this Rate Certificate under Section 3 of the Ordinance and to make the
representations on behalf of the City set forth herein.
The City requests that the dollar amount indicated of the Bond bear interest at (check one of the
following):
[] the Prime Rate Mode beginning at the end of the current LIBOR
Interest Rate Period
[] the LIBOR Rate Mode as to $ (must be $250,000 or
more) for a Month Rate Period
3. If the Draw will bear interest at the LIBOR Rate Mode, the applicable Interest
Rate Period shall begin (check one):
[] At the end of the current LIBOR Interest Rate Period, or
[] On (insert date at least three London Banking Days after this certificate is given to
the Bank).
THE CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON
By:
Finance Director
DRAFT 11/30/04
For Discussion Purposes Only
EXHIBIT C
Prepayment Fee in LIBOR Rate Mode
Under the LIBOR Rate Mode, if principal amounts are prepaid prior to the expiration of the
LIBOR Interest Rate Period, whether by voluntary prepayment or otherwise, the prepayment
shall be accompanied by a prepayment fee. The prepayment fee shall be in an mount sufficient
to compensate Bank for any loss, cost or expense incurred by it as a result of the prepayment,
including any loss of anticipated profits and any loss or expense arising ~om the liquidation or
reemployment of funds obtained by it to maintain the LIBOR Portion or from fees payable to
terminate the deposits from which such funds were obtained. The City shall also pay any
customary administrative fees charged by Bank in connection with the foregoing. For purposes
of calculating the prepayment fee, Bank shall be deemed to have funded the LIBOR Portion by a
matching deposit or other borrowing in the applicable interbank market, whether or not the
LIBOR Portion was in fact so funded.
CONFERENCE CENTER FINANCIAL PLAN
revised 11/10/04
· The Conference Center should operate as a business and be funded as an internal service_fund.
General Fund revenues or associated reserves are not currently available to fund the Conference
Center pre-opening or on-going operating expenditures.
· The Conference Center should be segregated from the funding, budgeting and management of the
Parking Garage since the Parking Garage is supported by General Fund revenues
· Department of Financial Services shall set up a separate fund and budget to account for
associated Conference Center revenues and operating and capital expenditures
· Establish a joint operating account and a reserve account between the Concessionaire and the
City's Department of Financial Services.
· Establish a line-of-credit of up to $800,000 to pre-fund the first year of pre-opening management
services expenses, furnishings and equipment, and initial beginning fund cash to meet the
Conference Center's cash flow and contractual requirements. Estimated initial costs are
approximately $709,000.
· Establish a policy to pledge and budget hotel/motel taxes that the City receives in excess of
$90,000 or other amount committed to the Admiral Theater toward the Conference Center to
support the pay off the initial line of credit.
· Terms of Line of Credit:
P Credit Facility: $800,000 non-revolving Line of Credit, converting to Term Loan. Tax-
Exempt, Bank Qualified.
> Security: Net revenue pledge of the General Fund, City's Hotel-Motel taxes and Conference
Center revenues.
P Maturity: Seven years from closing date, estimated to be December 1, 2011.
~ Interest Rate: Bank of America Prime Rate:
· A tax-exempt rate per year equal to 65% of Bank of America's Prime Rate minus 79
basis points, changing on the date of any Prime Rate change.
· As an indication only, as of I 1-10-04, 65% of Prime less 79 bp is 2.46% based on the
Prime Rate of 5.00%.
~ Availability: Draws up to the total amount of the Credit Facility for 18 months from closing
date. The balance outstanding on the Credit Facility at that time shall be converted to a term
loan, fully amortizing over six years.
~ Issuance Cost: 1) Origination Fee: An origination fee of $1,500, payable at closing, and 2)
Bond Counsel - approximately $5,000
P Repayment: Interest only through December 1, 2005, payable quarterly on the first day of
each March, June, September and December, with first payment commencing March 1, 2005.
Beginning March 1, 2006, the City shall make quarterly payments of $33,333.33 principal,
plus interest, over the remaining six-year term.
· In a collaborative effort between the Concessionaire and City, maintain a business plan for the
operation and funding of the Conference Center.
124
Legal Debt Capacity
................. Ci~ of Brem~erto~n~__W~as__h_ington
Computation of Debt Capacity
(As of December 31, 2004)
2005 Collection Year Assessed Valuation ~$ ~ 1,860,078,939
Limited Tax General Obliqation Capacity (100% capacity) (no vote required)
1.5% of Assessed Value iS 27,901,183
Less: Outstanding Limited Tax G.O. Debt , (8,167,500)
Abatement Line of Credit (217,363)
Current Remaining Limited Tax General Obligation Capacity $ 19,516,320
Less: 2003 Debt
Conference Center Parking Garage $ (4,975,139)
Government Center ....... (6,405,000)
Future Remaining Limited Tax General Obligation Capacity $ 8,136,181
Limited Tax General Obligation Capacity (85% capacity threshold) (no vote required)
1.5% of Assessed V~.al_u_e- ........ I$ I 27,901,184
E~5% debt capacity threshold I ~- 23,716,006
Less: Outstanding Limited Tax G.O. Debt
Abatement Line of Credit I ~1~,,363)
Current-Remaining Limited Tax General Obligation Capacity I~ i 15,331,143
Less: 200~ De--~t- ...........................
Conference Ce_ri. tear pa_rk_ing Garage ...... !$ (4,975,139)
Government Center i i (6,405,000)
Future Remaining Limited Tax General Obligation Capacity !$ 3,951,004
Unlimited and Limited Tax General Obligation Capacity (3~5 maiority vote required)
2.5% of Assessed Value ~i 46,501,973
Less: Ou_tst_artdi~.ng_ Limi~ted Tax G.O. Debt . _... _;_ (8,384,863)
Less: Future Limited Tax G.O. Debt ~ i (11,380,139)
Less: Outstanding Unlimited Tax G.O. Debt ~ i (12,189,000)
Total Remaining Unlimited Tax and Limited Tax Capacity I$ i 14,547,971
General Obligation Debt Capacity
{88% thm~hold}
Debt Capacity
Unused, 3.95,,
~ Debt Capacity
17% ~ / Used, 8.40,35%
Gov't Center
Used, 11.40,
48%
125
DATE SUBMITTED: November 19,2004 BILL
AGENDA BILL
CITY OF BREMERTON '7
CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: Approving and adopting the Committee Meeting Date: November 22, 2004
City of Bremerton 2005 Annual Budget COUNC1L MEETING Date: December 1, 2004
Department: Financial Services
Presenter: Michael R. Wilson
Phone: 473-5590
SUMMARY: A preliminary annual budget for fiscal year 2005 has been prepared and filed in the
Office of City Clerk for the City of Bremerton; public hearings have been held for the purpose of
fixing the final City Budget; and the City Council has deliberated and made adjustments and changes
deemed necessary and proper.
ATTACHMENTS: 2005 Annual Budget Ordinance
FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgete/d Amount):
/
APPROVALS: /
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY:
FINANCE DIRECTOR:
MAYOR:
OPERATIONS: I B~
COUNCIL PRESIDENT: ~[
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
A. I move to approve on first reading the ordinance relating to the adoption of the City of Bremerton
2005 Annual Budget.
B. I move to pass on second reading Ordinance No. relating to the adoption of the City of
Bremerton 2005 Annual Budget.
COUNCIL ACTION: [] Approve [] Deny [] Table [] Continue [] No Action
127
DATE SUBMITTED: November 16, 2004 BILL # ~ .fy - ~
AGENDA BILL
CITY OF BREMERTON
CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: Public Hearing on Ordinance ~qt~ Committee Meeting Date:
amending Ch 3.50 BMC decreasing the tax COUNCIL MEETiNG Date: November 2~, 2004
for cable utilities. Department: Financial Services
Presenter: Paula Johnston
Phone: 473-5323
SUMMARY: The proposed ordinance amends Chapter 3.50 of the Bremerton Municipal Code to
decrease the utility tax rate for cable utilities from 8.5% to 7% for the year 2005.
ATTACHMENTS:
Proposed Ordinance
FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount):
APPROVALS:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY: ~
FINANCE DIRECTOR:
MAYOR:
FISCAL/BUDGET: Pi't- O.,o~.<l [ff,C,?dO~ CONSENT AGENDA []
OPERATIONS: Pf~.' Co~,:I ti}~-3/~
COUNCIL PRESIDENT: t 9o,.-o~ v ~
~COMMENDRD MOTION:
1 ..... ~ ........ ~i ~ea~g~ Cable util~o-~r
~5.
2. I move to pass Ordinance No. ~ ~t ~ on second reading decreasing the cable utility tax to 7%
for 2005.
COUNCIL ACTION: [] Approve [] Deny [] Table [] Continue [] NoAction
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of
Bremerton, Washington, approving and adopting the financial
budget for the several funds of the City of Bremerton for the fiscal
year 2005, and appropriating the amounts set forth in each budget
to each fund in accordance with RCW 35.33.075.
WHEREAS, State law, Chapter 35.33 RCW requires the City to adopt an annual budget
and provides procedures for the filing of estimates, a preliminary budget, deliberations, public
hearings, and final fixing of the budget; and
WHEREAS, a preliminary budget for the fiscal year 2005 has been prepared and filed in
the Office of the City Clerk for the City of Bremerton; public hearings have been held for the
purposes of fixing the final City Budget; and the City Council has deliberated and has made
adjustments and changes deemed necessary and proper; NOW THEREFORE,
THE C1TY COUNCIL OF THE C1TY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON,
DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION L That the 2005 Annual Budget for the City of Bremerton,
Washington, on file in the office of the City Clerk, covering the period from January 1, 2005,
through December 31, 2005, with regular revenues and unencumbered fund balances of
$129,227,011 and expenditures and ending fund balances of $129,227,011 is hereby approved
and adopted, and the respective amounts provided for in said budget for the several funds of the
City of Bmmerton are hereby fixed and adopted as follows:
ESTIMATED REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES FOR THE YEAR 2005
General Fund
City Council $ 242,634
Executive 261,331
Financial Services 1,110,064
Legal 584,593
Human Resources 356,933
Community Development 1,070,052
Municipal Court 845,310
City Auditor 118,329
Law Enforcement 8,557,335
Fire/Emergency Medical 5,765,204
General Facilities 530,965
1
2005 Budget
General Parks 2,757,258
Engineering 470,730
Economic Development 104,012
Non-Departmental 4,485,235
Ending Fund Balance 2,350,000
Total General Fund $ 29,929,985
Arterial Street (101) l 6,237,545
Street (102) 2,493,677
Contingency Reserve (103) 1,636,300
Civic Improvement (104) 288,800
Parking System (105) 2,132,301
Community Development Block Grant (106) 3,352,399
Abatement Revolving (108) 357,330
Police Special Projects (110) 278,300
Public Access Television (113) 237,420
Gift & Donations Fund (114) 109,274
Conference Center Operating (120) 1,246,131
Bond Fund (201) 1,964 310
LID Guaranty (202) 171 500
Conference Center (301) 200 000
Government Center (305) 150 000
Park Facilities Construction (310) 548 240
Public Safety Bond (302) 8,965 825
Maritime Park (303) 2,885 000
General Government Capital Improvement (308) 2,279,000
Pedestrian/BTC Access (309) 4,359,000
Water Utility (401) 8,778,736
Water Capital Improvement (402) 5,803,000
ULID 2002-01 (403) 935,860
Gold Mountain Golf Complex (407) 3,865,280
Wastewater Utility (451) 12,295,010
Wastewater Capital Improvement (452) 3,530,000
Stormwater Utility (481) 1,561,027
Stormwater Capital Improvement (482) 180,000
Utility Debt Reserve (499) 539,000
Risk Management (503) 2,611,507
Equipment Rental Reserve (510) 6,160,906
Information Services (511 ) 1,009,239
Police & Fire Pension (601) 2,135,109
Total All Funds $129,227,011
SECTION 2. That the totals for the funds noted in Section 1 above as set forth in
the official "City of Bremerton 2005 Annual Budget" adopted herein, are hereby appropriated for
the fiscal year 2005.
2
2005 Budget
SECTION3. Effective January 1, 2005, the base wages of those employees
covered under the "management, professional, confidential & fiduciary" pay plans shall be
increased by 2.5%.
SECTION 4. Nothing contained herein shall be construed to require the City of
Bremerton or its officers to fill any vacancy in any of the positions established by this ordinance
resulting from the discharge, resignation or retirement of such employee. Nothing herein
contained shall require the City of Bremerton or its officers to pay the maximum amount
budgeted for any position shown therein.
SECTION 5. Severabilitv. If any one or more sections, subsections, or
sentences of this Ordinance are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not
affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance and the same shall remain in full
force and effect.
SECTION 6. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force ten
(10) days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided by law.
APPROVED by the City Council the day of ,2004
PASSED by the City Council the day of ,2004
DAREN NYGREN, Council President
Approved this day of ,2004
CARY BOZEMAN, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
PAULA JOHNSTON, City Clerk ROGER A. LUBOVICH, City Attorney
3
2005 Budget
PUBLISHED the day of ,2004
EFFECTIVE the day of ,2004
ORDINANCE NO.
R:~LEGAL\Ordinances~Finance\2005 budget ordinancel.doc
4
2005 Budget
City Council - Hotel/motel tax revenues ......... Page
From: <PNWCBREM@cs.com>
To: <citycouncil@ci.bremedon.wa.us>
Date: Wed, Dec 1,2004 4:17 PM
Subject: Hotel/motel tax revenues
Dear Council Members
Please follow the guidlines set forth by the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee
regarding the hotel/motel tax.
These organizations are the backbone of the tourism industry here in Kitsap
County. There will be nowhere for the visitors at the Conference center to go
if the museum, the Admiral Theater, the Turner Joy etc are not funded. The
tourism bureau and the Chamber of Commerce are both vital to the visitors to our
area. We either want tourism to flourish here in Bremerton or we do not.
The Conference center needs to be self sustaining .......... somehow I thought
that was the way it was planned in the beginning.
I am counting on you to follow these recomendations.
Sincerely
Annetta Butler
Proprietor
Pacific Nodhwest Costume
City Council - Hote!!motel tax disbursement i!~ 2005 Budget Page 1 !
From: "Elliot Gregg" <EGREGG@kitsapcu.org>
To: <citycouncil@ci.bremerton .wa .us>
Date: Wed, Dec 1, 2004 4:38 PM
Subject: Hotel/motel tax disbursement in 2005 Budget
Honorable Members of the Council,
In review of the 2005 Budget, please give full consideration to the
recommendation of the lodging tax committee recommendations for
allocation of the hotel/motel tax disbursement.
The committee's recommendations respect the fact that the Admiral, the
Chamber, the KPVCB, the Historical Museum, Turner Joy, and Science Fair
all continue to contribute to the attractiveness and promotion of
Bremerton as a tourist destination.
The committee's recommendations also express gratitude and financial
support to the new conference center.
Thank you for your consideration of the committee's recommendation.
Sincerely,
Elliot E. Gregg
Bremerton Chamber Board Member
This email is intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. If you are not the
intended recipient, be advised that you have received this email in error and that any use, dissemination,
forwarding, printing, or copying of this email is strictly prohibited.
Although this email has been scanned for the possible presence of computer viruses prior to dispatch, we
cannot be held responsible for any viruses or other material transmitted with, or as part of, this email
without our knowledge.
~ December 1, 2004
BREMERTON
C H A M B E R
Council President Daren
City of Bremerton
345 Sixth Street
Bremerton WA 98337
Dear Council President Nygren,
The Bremerton Area Chamber of Commerce is encouraging you to support
the recommendations of the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee as follows:
$ 90,000 Admiral Theatre
$ 44,496 Bremerton Area Chamber of Commerce
$ 35,000 Kitsap Peninsula Visitor & Convention Bureau
$ 13,733 Kitsap County Historical Society Museum
$ 13,000 Bremerton Historic Ships / USS Turner Joy
$ 2,000 Washington Science & Engineering Fair
(remaining balance to the Kitsap Conference Center at Bremerton
Harborside)
The Committee, formed in accordance with state law, spent many hours
reviewing applications privately and during two committee meetings this fall.
Recommendations were made after careful consideration was given to the
best ways to encourage economic development via tourism, ~vhich was the
intent of the State Legislature in creating lodging tax.
The Committee is comprised of tourism industry professionals who represent
both generators and recipients of lodging tax. It is the duty of the Committee
to be good stewards of the money collected and to do what is necessary to
support and encourage tourism in our community. It was with these purposes
in mind that the Committee made the recommendations. The Chamber
wholeheartedly supports the considerable knowledge of these professionals
and backs their decision completely.
We know that the City Council is considering giving all the money to the
Bremerton Area Conference Center in the future, however, we believe strongly that
Chamber of Commerce opportunities for investing in tourism should be evaluated continuously and
with an eye towards increasing the size of the hotel/motel tax "pie".
301 Pacific Avenue Increases in the tax revenue are a barometer of the health of tourism within
P.O. Box 229 our community. The City's own estimates reflect that hotel/motel taxes will
8remerton WA 98337 be less over the next several years with all of the money going to the
(360) 479-3579 Conference Center. We believe that investing in tourism through marketing,
www.bremertonchamber.org
tourism support services, museums and quality events will increase hotel/motel taxes and thus
economically benefit the entire community.
By not supporting the Committee's recommendations, the following services and products may
no longer exist:
· One-on-one assistance in person and via telephone at the Chamber's Visitor Information
Center and at the waterfront booth
· Free mailings to people interested in visiting the area
· Television, radio and print advertising coordinated by the Kitsap Peninsula Visitor and
Convention Bureau and done in conjunction with the Chamber
· Eye-catching brochures created and distributed by the Kitsap County Historical Society
Museum and Bremerton Historic Ships Association
· Marketing materials to reach out to potential participants at the Washington Science and
Engineering Fair
· Newly created Kitsap Sports Council
· Web advertising
· Signage
Please seriously consider the negative impacts on tourism if these services and products are not
available in our community.
We therefore encourage the City Council to support the Committee's original recommendations
as being the best use of lodging tax funds so that tourism can continue to be an economic engine
in Bremerton and Kitsap County.
Please feel free to contact me at 479-3579 or silvia~bremertonchamber.org if you have any
questions.
Sincerely,
Silvia Klatman, IOM
Executive Director
Christine Grenier - Fwd: Hotel/Motel Tax Allocation Page 1 !
From: City Council
To: Daren Nygren
Date: 12/1/04 8:46PM
Subject: Fwd: Hotel/Motel Tax Allocation
FYI...
>>> "Grant Griffin" <grant@visitkitsap.com> 12/1/2004 4:53:31 PM >>>
Dear Councilman Nygren,
This email may be too late to reach you before your meeting tonight, but
I need make the attempt. I am very disappointed to find that the council
will be passing on the Hotel/Motel allocations tonight without having
any public input. I attended the study session last month where some
review was discussed, but no comments (except Rob's) were allowed on the
council's remarks. The legislation and intent of having allocation
committees is to make city councils jobs a little less burdensome by
having people from the tourism industry review applications thoroughly,
and judge them on the return on investment and tourism value to the
community. The Bremerton council historically has paid little attention
to the committee's recommendations, and allocated on a personal opinion
basis. This defeats the whole process, and discourages those of us who
know the tourism industry when our good faith efforts are ignored.
I heard comments from one councilman who looked at the VCB application,
and wondered out loud what "printing a brochure about gardens and
nurseries had to do with tourism. Also the bed and breakfast brochure.
These are private businesses and they should do their own advertising".
Well, garden and nurseries are extremely popular tourism destinations,
and the more the traveling public knows about what we have in Kitsap,
the more dollars are spent in our communities. I am sure that the
council members are familiar with Elandan Gardens, Herronswood Nursery,
Blodel Reserve, all of which have a national reputation. B&B's are very
popular, and Kitsap has over 50 to choose from Plus they pay the
lodging tax. These are small items, but it shows me that not much time
was spent reviewing the VCB submittal, or any of the others for that
matter. Another councilman mentioned that the City of Bremerton's web
site has been getting a lot of praise from folks in other cities because
it is so good. It is, but it is not where travelers go to get tourism
information about Bremerton. They go to the chamber's site or the VCB's
site. We are averaging over 30,000 visits per month, and in November it
topped 57,000! There are very few tourism sites in the State of
Washington that can boast those numbers.
I could go on, but that most likely would be an exercise in futility.
Grant I. Gdffin, Executive Director
Kitsap Peninsula Visitor and Convention Bureau
32220 Rainier Avenue NE
P.O. Box 270
Port Gamble, WA 98364
360.297.8200/Fax 360.297.8208
www. visitkitsap.com
Attention Council Members:
Please find below the recommendations of the
Lodging Tax Advisory Committee regarding
funding allocations for Fiscal Year 2005
Organization Requested Amount Recommended Amount
Chamber $44,496 $44,500
City of Bremerton $175,000 $31,800
(Conference Center)
Historical Museum $13,733 $13,700
Kitsap VCB $35,000 $35,000
Historic Ships $13,000 $13,000
WA Sci. & Engr. Fair $2,000 $2,000
Total Requests for Fiscal Year 2004 $283,239
Total Funding Available $-t40~00 (Projected for 2005)
Please note that per an Operating Agreement with the Admiral Theater,
$90,000 is requested for allocation and that amount is not included in the
total funding available for FY2005
· :..:..:..:..:..:..:..:..:..:..:..:..:..:..:..:..:..:..:..:..:..:..:..:......:......:..:..:..:..:..:..:..:..:..:..:..:..:..:..:..:..:..:..:..:..:.
***PROPOSED***
Organization Council Recommended
Amount
Chamber $29,000
City of Bremerton $100,000
(Conference Center)
Historical Museum $11,000
Kitsap VCB $22,000
Historic Ships $11,000
WA Sci. & Engr. Fair $2,000
Draft Proposal to City Council 12/1/04
Re: Lodging Tax Advisory Committee Recommendations
04worksheetwendy.doc
CITY OF BREMERTON
2005 BUDGET
UPDATED BUDGET SUMMARY
2005REVENUESOURCES-ALLFUNDS
BEG LIC. INTER- CHARGES FINES 2005
2004 FUND AND GOV'T FOR AND OTHER TOTAL
FUND BUDGET BAL. TAXES 'ERMIT: REVENUE SERVICE FORFEITS REVENUE BUDGET
General Fund:
City Council 62,427 74,923 74,923
Executive 117,975 99~482 99,482
Financial Services 3,206,~38 3,148,500 338,750 315,667 3,802,917
Legal 121,674 145,789 145,789
Human Resources 91,101 113,757 113,757
Community Development 698,100 383,500 290,000 673,500
Municipal Cour~ 761,676 208,250 487,200 25,000 720,450
City Auditor 36,674 34,655 34,655
Law Enforcement 704,747 27,050 475,972 105,400 18,000 13,000 639,422
Fire/Emergency Medical 1,335,500 860,000 3,900 480,800 1,000 1,345,700
General Facilities 0 78,884 78,884
Parks 627,500 443,380 162,700 606,080
Engineering 25,500 25,000 25,000
Economic Development 0 0
Non-Departmental 18,422,020 16,105,755 101,800 498,394 77,000 2,436,477 19,219,426
Beginning Fund Balance 600,000 2,350,000 2,350,000
TotaI General Fund 26,811,032 2,350~000 20,114,255 876,100 978,266 2,467,987 506,200 2,637,177 29,929,985
Special Revenue Funds:
Ar~erlal Street 9,698,270 9,090,545 7,057,000 90,000 16,237,545
Street 2,391,809 241,154 280,000 555,000 335,023 1,082,500 2,493,677
Contingency Reserve 890,000 766,300
Civic Improvement 437,000 47,800 240,000 1,000 288,800
Parking System 1,747,509 367,251 3,000 303,850 1,458,200 2,132,301
Comm. Dev. Block Grant 4,027,788 849,519 2,023,125 479,755 3,352.399
-- Abatement Revolving Fund 197,100 95,000 21,730 240,600 357,330
Police Special Projects 255,000 220,300 20,000 38,000 278,300
Public Access Television 217,420 l 0,000 39,000 78,000 110,420 237,420
Gift & Donation Fund 112,658 90,732 200 18,342 109,274
Conference Center Oper 865,000 113,191 897,940 235,000 1,246,131
Discretionary Reserve 1,020,000 0
Total Spec. Rev. Funds 21,859,554 11,891,792 559,000 0 9,713,125 1,848,068 323,850 4,033,642 28,369,477
Debt Service Funds:
Bond Fund 1,958,780 260,000 1,054,750 649,560 1,964,310
L.1.D. Guaranty 169,800 169,000 2,500 171,500
TotaIDebt Service Funds 2,128,580 429,000 1,054,750 0 0 0 0 652,060 2,135,810
Capital Improvement Funds:
Conference Center 13,770,809 200,000 200,000
Government Center 7,862,956 150,000 150,000
Park Facilities Constructio~ 928,606 176,630 140,000 231,610 548,240
Public Safety Bond 9,950,998 6,855,305 2,110,520 8,965,825
Madtlme Park 1,000,000 2,425,000 460,000 2,885,000
General Govt Cap Imp 766,000 1,100,000 840,000 100,000 239,000 2,279.000
Pedestrian/BTC Access 5,700,000 4,359,000 4,359,000
Tot. Cap. Proj. Funds 39,979,369 8,481,935 840,000 0 7,024,000 0 0 3,041,130 19,387,065
2005 REVENUE SOURCES - ALL FUNDS
BEG LIC. INTER- CHARGES FINES 2005
2004 FUND AND GOV'T FOR AND OTHER TOTAL
FUND BUDGET BAL. TAXES PERMIT~ REVENUE SERVICE FORFEITS REVENUE BUDGET
Enter.nriae Funds:
Water Utility 13,002,591 1,749,290 6,693,450 335,996 8,778,736
Water Capital 0 1,500,000 4,303,000 5,803,000
ULID 2002-01 963,654 7,006 928,854 935,860
Gold Mountain Golf Comp 4,195,728 315,280 2,307~000 1,243,000 3,865,280
Wastewater UtiliW 21,976,127 1,058,701 50,000 10,636.309 550.000 12,295~010
Waste Capital 0 3,530,000 3,530,000
Stormwater Utility 1,190,804 218,527 1,332,500 10,000 1,561,027
Storm Capital 0 180,000 180,000
Utili~ Debt Reserve 539,000 539,000
Total Enterprise Funds 41,328,904 3,348,804 50,000 0 0 22,469,259 0 11,619,850 37,487,913
Internal ~erviee Funds:
Risk Manageraent 2,306,071 1,287,000 1,324,507 2,611,507
Equipment Rental Reserve 5,814,141 2,436,103 793,485
Information Services 756,440 92,446 916,793 1,009,239
Total Internal Service Fu] 8,876,652 3,815,549 0 0 0 1,710,278 0 4,255,825 9,781,652
Trust & Agency Funds
Police & Fire Pension 1,903,141 34,460 34,790
Total Trust & Agency 1,903,14! 34,460 0 0 34,790 0 0 2,065,859 2,135,109
Total AlI Funds 142,887,232 30,351,540 22,618,005 876,100 17,750,181 28,495,592 830,050 28,305,543 129.227,011
2005 EXPENDITURES - ALL FUNDS
2oo4 I /SUPPLIES& CAPITXL DEBT ENDING I 2005
FUND BUDGET IPERSONNEI~ SERVICES OUTLAY SERVICE OTHER FUND BA1
General Fund
City Council 211,149 26,393
Executive 255,037 ~ 80,411
Financial Services 948,081 ~ 278,940
Legal Department 529,351~
Human Resources 291,824 ~ 116,316
Community Development 947,983 ~ 147,962 17,500
Municipal Court 799,932 ~ 230,470
City Auditor 106,879
Law Enforcement 7,891,535 0
Fire/Emergency Medical 5,385,756 ~ 725,874 0
General Facilities 508,040 ~ 403,887 33,000
General Parks 2,392,835 ~ 803,82 1 8,500 21,000
Engineering 287,647 ~ 97,928
Economic Development 150,509 ~ 27,029
Non-Departmental 4,748,510 ~ 1,125,394 0
Ending Fund Balance 1,355,964
2,350,00~
TotalGeneralFund 26,811,032 41,500 432,000 3,010,529 2,350,000 I 29,929,985
I
Special Revenue Funds:
Arterial Street 9,698,270 9,106,795 I 16,237,545
Street 2,391,809 21,000 I 2,493,677
Contingency Reserve 890,000 681,020
Civic Improvement 437,000 I I 62,000 28,000 175,000 23,800 I 288,800
Parking System 1,747,509 I I 508,407 80,000 1~159,287 384,607 I 2,132,301
Comm. Dev. Block Grant 4,027,788 I 142,288 I 1,389,817 970,775 849,519 I 3,352,399
Abatement Revolving 197,100 [ 5,000 I 36,500 234,100 81,730 I 357,330
Police Special Projects 255,000 [ I 86,800 56,000 135,500 I 278,300
Public Access Television 217,420 ] 172,559 I 46,049 I ' 18,812 I 237,420
Gift & Donations Fund 112,658 ] 750 I 80,825 0,000 17,699 I 109,274
DiscretionaryC°nferenceCenterOperReserve 1,0 0,000 '0001 51,0001 1,132,009 35,000 28,122 [ 1,246,1310
Total Spec. Rev. Funds 21,859,554 I 1,971,593 I 4,303,838 7,223,000 283,100 2,986,082
Debt Service Fund: 11,601,864 28,369,477
Bond Fund 1,958,780t 0 1,71M,310
260,000 [ 1,964,310
LID Guaranty 169,800
171,500 I 171,500
CapitaIT°tal DebtlmnrnvementService FUndFunds: 2,128,580 0 1,704,310 0 431,500 2,135,810
Conference Center 13,770,809 200,000 I 200,000
Government Center 7,862,956 150,000 I 150,000
Park Facilities Consh-uctk 928,606 _ 110,000 425,080 13,160 I 548,240
Public Safety Bond 9,950,998 7.971,000 691,240 303,585 I 8,965,825
Maritime Park 1,000,000 2,885,000 I 2,885,000
General Govt Cap Imp 766,000 940,000
Pedestrlan/BTC Access 5,700,000 4,359,000
Tot Cap Improv. Funds 39,979,369I 0I 110,000 16,654,080 704,400 940,000 978,585 I l~,'~:~
2005 EXPENDITURES - ALL FUNDS
2004 /SVPPLgES ~l C~IXnL DEBT E~mNG 2005
Enterprise Funds:
Water Utility 13,002,591 3,130,653 I 0 288,219 1,320,805 8,778,736
Water CapitalI 5,703,000 100,000 5,803,000
[JLID 2002-01 963,654 20,000 532,500 ~ 383,360 935,860
Sold Mountain Golf Corn 4,195,728 137,673 I.~5~[Z_I 15o,o00 625,728 192,362 3,865,280
¢/astewater Utility 21,976,127 2,341,76 0 5,654,625 5,208 12,295,010
Waste Capital 3,430,000 100,000 3,530,000
8tormwater Utility 1,190,804 624,923 0 67,358 1,561,027
Storm Capital 80,000 100,000 180,000
Utility Debt Reserve 539,000 539,000
Risk Managcmentlnternal Yotal Enterprise FundSservice Funds: 41,328,9042,306,071 9,383,000 7,101,072 2,796,364 2,808,0931,287,000 37,487,9132,611,507
Equipment Rental Reserve 5,814,141 1,010,955 4,113,100
Information Services 756,440 73,500 92,446 1,009,239
Totallnt. Svc. Funds 8,876,652 1,010,552I 2,194,099I 1,084,455 0 0 5,492,546 9,781,652
Trust & Agency Fund
Police & Fire Pension 1,903,141 175,000 34,460
Total Trust & Agency 1,903,141 1,925,649 I 175,000 0 0 0 34,460 2,135,109
Tot. Non-GeneralFunds 116,076,200 11,142,811I 15,947,304 34,344,535 9,792,882 6,722,446 21,347.048 99,297,026
TotalAll Funds 142,887,232 28,680,747 22,505,324 34,386,035 10,224,882 9,732,975 23,697,048 129,227,011
CITY OF BREMERTON
2005 BUDGET
UPDATED PERSONNEL RECAPS
2005 STAFFING LEVELS
2002 2003 2004 2005
General Fund
Executive 3.25 3.25 2.00 2.00
City Council 10.38 10.38 10.60 10.60
Financial Services 12.00 13.25 12.00 12.00
Human Resources 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
Community Development 9.00 12.00 12.00 13.00
Legal 3.50 3.50 3.50 3.00
Municipal Court 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00
Law Enforcement 77.00 76.00 77.00 77.00
Fire/Emergency Medical 55.00 56.00 58.00 58.00
Parks 21.20 20.45 20.45 21.70
City Auditor 1.25 , 1.25 1.20 1.20
General Facilities 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.25
Engineering 3.88 3.88 3.98 4.94
Economic Development 0.50 0.50 1.50 1.50
Total Generar Fund 210.96 214.46 216.23 219.19
Other Funds:
Street 20.00 20.00 20.00 20.17
Comm. Dev. Block Grant 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00
Ecomomic Development 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50
BKAT 0.75 0.75 1.00 1.00
Convention Center Operating 1.00
Utilities Eng ineering 18.12 20.12 20.02 21.36
Water, Wastewater, Storm Utility 76.00 78.00 78.00 76.20
Gold Mountain Golf Course 1.55 1.55 1.55 1.55
Risk Management : 1.50 1 50 1.50 1.00
Equipment Services (ERR) 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.21
Information Services 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00
Totar Non-General 131.42 135.42 135.57 135.99
Total A. Fa.ds I 342'381 349.881 351.8ol 355. BI
STAFFING AUTHORIZATION - ALL DEPARTMENTS/FUNDS
2004 2005 2005 Monthly Salary Range
JOB CLASSIFICATION BY DEPARTMENI BUDGET BUDGET Minimum Maximum
City Council
City Council Member 9.00 9.00 750 800
Legislative Assistant 1.00 1.00 3,645 4,442
Council/Auditor Assistant 0.60 0.60 3,144 3,830
10.60 10.60
Executive
Mayor 1.00 1.00 6,900 6,900
Executive Assistant 1.00 1.00 3,645 4,442
2.00 2.00
Financial Services
Director of Financial Services 1.00 1.00 6,276 7,646
Finance Officer 1.00 1.00 5,412 6,593
City Clerk 1.00 1.00 4,442 5,412
Assistant Finance Officer 1.00 1.00 4,903 5,973
Budget Analyst 1.00 1.00 4,024 4,903
Accounting Assistant Sr. 3.00 3.00 3,062 3,604
Office Assistant Sr. Spec. 1.00 1.00 3,062 3,604
Accounting Assistant II 2.00 2.00 2,760 3,233
Payroll Specialist 1.00 1.00 3,062 3,604
12.00 12.00
Legal/Risk
City Attorney 1.00 1.00 7,279 8,868
Paralegal 1.00 3,645 4,442
Legal Assistant 1.00 0.00 3,303 4,024
3.50 3.00
Human Resources
Director of Human Resources 1.00 1.00 6,276 7,646
Civil Service Officer/H~ Specialist 1.00 3,645 4,442
Civil Service Officer/HR Assistant 1.00 3,645 4,442
Human Resources Analyst 1.00 1.00 3,830 4,666
3.00 3.00
Community Development
Director of Community Development 1.00 1.00 6,593 8,034
Planning Manager 1.00 1.00 5,151 6,276
Development Manager 1.00 1.00 5,151 6,276
,Office Assistant Sr. 1.00 1.00 2,760 3,233
Planner I 3.00 4.00 3,807 4,484
Building Development Specialist II 3.00 3.00 3,807 4,484
Building Development Specialist I 2.00 2.00 3,233 3,807
12.00 13.00
STAFFING ALq'HORIZATION - ALL DEPARTMENTS/FUNDS
2004 2005 2005 MOnthly salary Rang~
JOB CLASSIFICATION BY DEPARTMENI- BUDGET BUDGET Minimum Maximnm I
Municipal Court
Muncipal Court Judge 1.00 1.00 7,837 7,837
Court Services Manager 1.00 1.00 4,442 5,412
Probation Officer 1.00 1.00 3,416 4,019
Legal Teclmician Sr. 1.00 1.00 3,062 3,604
Legal Technician 6.00 6.00 2,760 3,233
10.00 10.00
City Auditor
City Auditor 1.00 1.00 5,686 6,927
Council/Auditor Assistant 0.20 0.20 3,144 3,83C
1.20 1.20
Police Department
Police Chief 1.00 1.00 6,927 8,440
P6ii~ec~f:aiff::::i::::i::i::i::::::: :::: ::::: : :::: :: : :: ::200:::: 200 : 6i7~ ~;~37
Police Sergeant 7.00 7.00 5,455 5,933
Police Officer 49.00 49.00 4,091 5,293
Home Detention Coordinator 1.00 1.00 3,416 4,019
Warrant Server 3.00 3.00 3,416 4,019
Administrative Analyst 1.00 1.00 4,227 5,151
Police Records Specialist II 4.00 4.00 2,909 3,416
Police Records Specialist I 1.00 1.00 2,619 3,062
Office Assistant Senior 4.00 4.00 2,760 3,233
Traffic Safety Coordinator 1.00 1.00 3,026 3,026
TOTAL STAFFING 77.00 77.00
Fire Department
Fire Chief 1.00 1.00 6,927 8,44C
Assistant Fire Chief 1.00 1.00 5,973 7,278
========================================================================================================= ::~ 00 :::: ::::: ::3 00: :: :::::::: 6~
Office Assist~t II 1.00 1.00 2,487 2,909
58.00 58.00
Parks & Recreation
Director of Parks & Recreation 0.75 0.75 6,276 7,64~
Administrative Analyst 0.95 0.95 4,227 5,151
STAFFIkNG AUTHORIZATION - ALL DEPARTMENTS/FUNDS
2004 2005 2005 Monthly Salary Range
JOB CLASSIFICATION BY DEPARTMENT BUDGET BUDGET Minimum Maximnm
Athletics/Aquatics Manager 1.00 1.00 3,830 4,666
Recreation Manager 1.00 0.00 3,830 4,666
Parks Maintenance Supervisor 0.00 1.00 4,484 5,297
Office Assistant III 0.75 0.75 2,619 3,062
Office Assistant II 1.00 1.00 2,487 2,909
Parks Facilities Specialist 1.00 1.00 4,019 4,740
Parks Service Specialist, Sr. 6.00 4.00 3,416 4,019
Parks Service Specialist 2.00 4.00 3,062 3,604
Parks Laborer (Incl. 0.5 FTE Conf. Cnt.) 0.00 4.75 2,243 2,619
Recreation Program Coordinator III 1.00 1.00 3,416 4,019
Recreation Program Coordinator II 2.00 2.00 3,233 3,807
Recreation Program Coordinator I 1.00 1.00 2,760 3,233
19.45 24.20
General Facilities
Maintenance Coordinator II 1.00 0.65 4,019 4,74E
Maintenance Coordinator I 0.00 0.35 3,604 4,2413
1.00 1.00
Engineering
City Engineer 0.20 0.30 6,276 7,646
Office Assistant Sr. 0.25 0.30 2,760 3,233
Project Manager 0.10 0.09 5,151 6,276
Accounting Assistant Sr. 0.50 0.10 3,062 3,604
Managing Engineer 0.50 0.65 5,412 6,593
Civil Engineer II 0.45 0.25 4,740 5,594
Civil Engineer I 0.10 0.20 4,240 5,011
Engineering Technician Sr. 0.30 0.30 4,740 5,594
Engineering Technician II 0.00 0.05 3,233 3,807
Engineering Technician IH 0.81 1.25 3,604 4,240
Engineering Technician IV 0.77 1.15 4,019 4,740
3.98 4.64
Public Works
PW&U Director 0.10
Administrative Analyst 0.10
PW&U Financial Manager 0. I 0
0.30
Economic Development
Director of Economic Development 0.75 0.75 6,593 8,034
Grants Writer (Contract) 0.00 0.00
Project Adminislrator (Funded in Cap. Projects) (Contra¢ 0.00 0.00
1.50 1.50
TOTAL GENERAL FUND 215.23 221.44
STAFFING AUTHORIZATION - ALL DEPARTMENTS/FUNDS
2004 2005 2005 Monthly Salary Range
JOB CLASSIFICATION BY DEPARTMEN1- BUDGET BUDGET Minimum Maximum
Community Development Block Grant
Community Development Programs Administrator 1.00 1.00 4,227 5,I 51
Community Development Programs Coordinator 1.00 1.00 4,024 4,903
2.00 ' 2.00
BKAT
Public Access Manager 1.00 1.00 3,830 4,666
Program Coordinator (Contract)
Production Coordinator (Contract)
Technical Assistant (Temp P/T)
1.00 1.00
Various Capital Projects
Dh'ector of Economic Development 0.50 0.25 6,593 8,034
Office Assistant Sr. Temp) 0.50 0.00
Economic Development Specialist 0.25 3,144 3,830
Grants Writer (Contract) 0.00 0.00
Project Administrator (Contract) 0.00 0.00
1.00 0.50
Gold Mountain Golf Course
D~rector of Parks & Recreation 0.25 0.25 6,276 7,646
Administrative Analyst 0.05 0.05 4,227 5,i51
Conlract Administrator 1.00 1.00 3,830 4,66~
Office Assistant 1II 0.25 0.25 2,619 3,062
1.55 1.55
Public Works & Utilities
Street Department
Public Works Operations Manager 1.00 1.00 5,412 6,593
Electronics Supervisor 1.00 1.00 4,484 5,297
Street Service Specialist Supervisor 2.00 2.00 4,484 5,297
Sign Shop Service Specialist Supervisor 1.00 1.00 4,484 5,297
Electronics Technician 4.00 5.00 4,019 4,740
Journey Level Electrician 1.00 1.00 4,019 4,740
Street Service Specialist Sr. 3.00 3.00 3,604 4,240
Street Service Specialist 5.00 5.00 3,233 3,807
Sign Shop Service Specialist Sr. 1.00 1.00 3,604 4,240
Sign Shop Service Specialist 1.00 1.00 3,233 3,807
20.00 21.00
Engineering
City Engineer 0.80 0.70 6,276 7,646
Managing Engineer 1.50 1.35 5,412 6,593
Project Manager 1.90 1.91 5,151 6,276
Office Assistant Senior 0.75 0.70 2,760 3,233
Office Assistant II 1.00 1.00 2,487 2,909
Accountmg Assistant Sr. 1.00 0.90 3,062 3,604:
Civil Engineer III 1.00 1.00 5,011 5,88C
Civil Engineer II 2.55 2.75 4,740 5,594
Civil Engineer I 0.90 0.80 4,240 5,011
Engineering Technician Sr. 1.70 1.70 4,740 5,594
Engineering Technician IV 4.73 3.85 4,019 4,740
STAFFING AUTHORIZATION - ALL DEPARTMENTS/FUNDS
-- :: :: :2~04:2r~s S~ratS~Tea~i :~OT:¥
2004 2005 2005 Monthly Salad' Range
OB CLASSIFICATION BY DEPARTMENq[ BUDGET BUDGET Minimum Maximum
Engineering Technician III 1.19 2.75 3,604 4,240
Eugineering Technician II 2.00 1.95 3,233 3,807
21.02 21.36
Utilit3, Operations (Water, Wastewater, Stormwater)
Director of Public Works & Utilities 1.00 0.90 7,278 8,868
Proj eat Manager 1.00 1.00 5,151 6,276
Utility Operations Manager 1.00 1.00 5,151 6,276
Water Resources Manager 1.00 1.00 5,151 6,276
Wastewater Manager 1.00 1.00 5,151 6,276
Forestry Manager 1.00 1.00 5,151 6,276
Wastewater Treatment Plant Manager 1.00 0.00 4,666 5,686
Financial Manager 1.00 0.90 4,227 5,151
Administrative Analyst 1.00 0.90 4,227 5,151
Utility Accounts Supervisor 1.00 1.00 4,019 4,740
Accounting Assistant H 2.00 2.00 2,760 3,233
Office Assistant Senior Spec. 1.00 1.00 3,062 3,604
Office Assistant Senior 2.00 2.00 2,760 3,233
Water Operator Lead 1.00 1.00 4,019 4,74¢
Water Operator Senior 2.00 2.00 3,604 4,24C
Water Operator 2.00 2.00 3,233 3,807
Wastewater Treatment Plant Operations Supv. 1.00 1.00 4,484 5,297
Wastewater Treatment Plant Maint. Supv. 1.00 1.00 4,484 5,297
Wasterwater Treatment Plant Operator I 3.00 3.00 3,807 4,484
Wastewater Treatment Plant Operator II 2.00 2.00 4,019 4,740
Wastewater Treatment Plant Maint. Tech. 3.00 3.00 3,416 4,019
Computerized Maint. Mgmt. Sys. Tech. 1.00 1.00 4,019 4,740
Joumey Level Electrician 1.00 1.00 4,019 4,740
Maintenance Coordinator II 1.00 0.35 4,019 4,740
Maintenance Coordinator I 1.00 0.65 3,604 4,240
Water Resources Operations Supervisor 1.00 1.00 4,484 5,297
Water Distribution Supervisor 1.00 1.00 4,484 5,297
Forestry Service Specialist Supervisor 1.00 1.00 4,740 5,597
Utilities Service Specialist Supervisor 1.00 1.00 4,484 5,297
Facilities/Inventory Supervisor 1.00 1.00 3,604 4,240
Lead Utilities Service Specialist 3.00 3.00 4,019 4,740
Forestry Service Specialist Senior 2.00 2.00 3,416 4,019
Utilities Service Specialist Senior 7.00 7.00 3,604 4,240
Utilities Service Specialist 9.00 9.00 3,233 3,807
Cross Connection Control Specialist 1.00 1.00 4,240 5,011
Lead Water Distribution Specialist 1.00 1.00 4,019 4,740
Utilities Meter Reader 1.00 1.00 3,062 3,604
Utilities Customer Service Representative 1.00 1.00 3,604 4,240
WWTP Laboratory Technician 1.00 1.00 3,604 4,240
Water Resources Assistant 1.00 1.00 2,909 3,416
Environmental Technician 2.00 2.00 4,019 4,740
78.00 76.70
STAFFING AUTHORIZATION - ALL DEPARTMENTS/FUNDS
2004 2005 2005 Monthly Salary Range
JOB CLASSIFICATION BY DEPARTMEN~f BUDGET BUDGET Minimum Maximum
Risk Management
Risk Manager 1.00 1.00 5,412 6,593
1.50 1.00
Equipment Maintenance
Fleet Manager 1.00 1.00 4,442 5,412
Accounting Assistant II 1.00 1.00 2,760 3,233
Lead Automotive Equip. Tech. 1.00 1.00 4,019 4,740
Automotive Equipment Tech 3.00 3.00 3,604 4,240
6.00 6.00
Information Technology
Manager,. Information Serv. & Purchasing 1.00 1.00 5,151 6,276
Network Administrator 1.00 1.00 4,484 5,297
Customer Service/PC Technician 1.00 1.00 4,019 4,740
PC Technician 2.00 2.00 3,604 4,240
5.00 5.00
TOTAL EMPLOYEES 352.30 357.55
2005 STAFF DISTRIBUTION
City Council
~t ~mber ~ 9.00~'9.0(
Executive Assistant 1,0C
Financial Services
Director of Financial Services
Finance Officer
Assistant Finance Officer
Deputy City Clerk
~.ccounting.~Assistant Sr
3fflee AssL Sr. S c.
~ayroll Specialist
In formatio n.~Ser vices
Dir. of Community Dev.
Developmen~t Manager
Office Assistant, Senior
Planner 1
~Administrator
~Coordinator
Eourt Services Manager
?robation Offi..~cer
Legal Technician
Eity Auditor
ty Auditor
~2ouncil/Auditor Assistant
2005 STAFF DISTRIBUTION
Police Department I
Police Chief
Police Captain
Police Lieutenant
Police Officer
Police Records Spec. II
Police Sergeant
Administrative Analyst
Dffice Assistant Sr.
traffic Safety Prog. Coord
Wan'ant Server
~lome Detention Coordinator
?ire Department
Fire Chief
Assistant Fire Chief
Battalion Chief
Fire Captain
Fire Cap. - Dep Fire Marshal
Fire Captain - Medical Officer
Fire Lieutenant
Fire Prey. Off/Pub Ed (1 new)
Firefighter (I new)
Paramedic/Firefighter
Office Asst. Sr.
Office Assistant II
~arks & Recreation
,ir. of Parks & Recreation
Administrative Analyst
Athletics/Aquatics Mgr.
Contract Administralor Parks
Parks Maintenance Manager
parks Maintenance
Parks Facilities Spec.
Parks Service Spec. Sr.
?arks Service Specialist
?arks Laborer
lecmation Prof,. Coord. l
~.ecreation Prog. Coord. I1
~.ecreation Prog. Coord. III
Office Assistant I[
Office Assistant ffi
Economic Development
Dir. Economi{
'roject Admin (new contract)
Public Works & Utilities
PW&U Director
Office Asst. Sr. Spec,
Project Manager
Administrative Analyst
Office Assistant I1
PW&U Financial Manager
~ ccountant (new Vacant)
zcounting Assistant II
~[~ccounting Assistant ffi
ccounting Assistant Sr
Utility Accounts Supvr
2005 STAFF DISTRIBUTION
[~ositions [~ I- I~ I¢/~/~' I~ I¢ I~
Water Resources
Water Resources Mgr.
Water Resources Op Supv
Water Operator Lead
Water Operator Sr
Water Operator
Environmental Tech
Wa~er Resources Asst. (1/2 New)
Electronics Technician New)
Wastewater Treatment Plant
Accounting Assistant Sr 1.00 1.00
Electronics Technician 1.00 1.O0
Journey Level Electrician 1.00 1.00
Wa3FFP Comp Maint Mgt Sys 1.00 1.00
WVFFp Lab Technician 1.00 1.00
W~VTP Maintenance Supv 1.00 1.O0
WWTP Maintenance Tech 4.00 4.00
WWTP Operations Supv 0.09 0.91 1.00
WWTP Operator [ 0.67 2.33 3 00
WWTp Operator Il 0.21 1.79
Utility Operations
~Utility Operations Mgr. 0.60 0.30 0.10 1.00
Utilities Cust Serv Rep 0.35 0.30 0 30 0 05 I 00
')ffice Assistant SF 0.60 01;0 0]1~ I'00
Lead Utilities Serv Spec 1.00 0.83 0.17 2 00
Lead Water Dist Spec 0.89 0.75 0.36 9'O0
Vlaint Coordinator I 0.35 0.65 1.00
Vlaint Coordinator Il 0 65
3tilities Meter Reade, 00.37~ 0.25
iUtilities Serv Spec 5.11 2.37 1.52 9 00
Utilities Serv Spec Sr 3.69 1.57 1.74 7.00
Utilities Serv Spec Supvr 0.52 0.48 1.00
Water Distribution Supv 1.00 1.00
Engineering
City Engineer I 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.10 O0
Office Assistant Sr i o. OllllllO. OlO. OlO.,Olll ll .OO
Office Assistant 1I 0.50 0.40 0.10 1.00
Accounting Assistant Sr. 0.10 0.60 0.10 0.20 00
Civil En neer 0 90 0 75 '
. . [~. .~ · 0.05 00
Clwl Engineer II 0.25 I. 10 0.35 1.00 0.30 3.00
Civil Engineer Ill 0.90 0.10 1.00
Engineering Tech 1I (I New) 0.05 0.20 0.05 0.74 0.63 0.33 2,00
Engineering Tech Ill 1.25 0.10 0.55 0.55 0.55 3.00
EngineeringTechSr I 0.30 I 0.20 I I I I I070 I 0~5 I 0~5 I II I I I 2'O0
Managing Engineer 0.65 0.10 0.45 0.70 0.10 2.00
EngineeringTechiiI(UiPdTemp)l I"O01 III IIII IIIIIl.00
FP~O~ee~ryM~)~.;~seiron ~ 0.09 I 0.96I [ I I [ o,5ol o.451 I I I I I I 2,oo
~orestr~ Mgr. 1.00 1.00
~restry Serv Spec Supv 2.00 2.00
'~Forestry Serv Spec Sr I .O0 1.00
2005 STAFF DISTRIBUTION
I ~ I..*1 ~/~l~J ~1 ~1 ~'1 ~f #/,.~/
~ I~ I~ I..~ I~/,~'/~ I~* I~ I~
Positions
'Public Works Operations
Accounting Assistant Sr
Street Serv Spec Supv
Street Serv Spec Sr
Stl~a Serv Spec
~ Supv
Sign Shop Serv Sec Sr
Electronics Supvr
Electronics Technician
Io._umey Level Electrician
Neet Manager
Office Assistant Sr
Lead Auto Equipment Tech
Automotive Equipment Tech
Total Employees (FTE's)
Temporary/Seasonal/Part Time
Util. Temp/Seasl/PT [ OAt[ 2.93[ I ] [ 5.14I 1.10[ 1.03[
Parks Teml~/Seas/Part time
Administration (I RPT)
Maintenance (I 1 Seas)
Aquatics (4 RPT; 21 Seas)
, Athletics (3 Seas)
Recreation (1 RPT; 65 Seas)
Senior Center (4 RPT; 9 Seas)
Total Parks
Executive
Admin Serv/Finane~
Legal
Police
Adnfinistration
IIKAT
~/Seas/Par t thne
CITY OF BREMERTON
2005 BUDGET
UPDATED PROGRAM SHEETS
CITY COUNCIL
General Fund
Mission Statement:
The City Council is the City of Bremerton's legislative body and as such is responsible for the development and
adoption of all City legislative policies and approval of all appropriations. In addition to those duties specified in the
Charter of the City of Bremerton, Council Members serve on various committees to develop, review and oversee the
enforcement of policies and procedures related to the City.
Function Description:
The powers and duties of the City Council are to organize and regulate the City's internal affairs; defme the functions,
powers and duties of City employees; fix compensation and working conditions of City employees, establish/maintain
civil service/merit systems and retirement/pension system; adopt and enforce ordinances relating to and regulating
local or mtmicipal affairs and appropriate to the good government of the City; exercise all powers for the City,
including acquisition, sale, ownerstfip, maintenance, protection, restoration, use, leasing, disposition, vacations,
abandonment, beautification of public ways, real estate of all kinds, structures, water ways, or other improvements or
use of real or personal property; exercise powers in regard to all aspects of collective bargaining; provide for rendering
of local social, cultural, recreational, educational, governmental, or corporate services including the operating and
supplying of utilities and municipal services; powers of eminent domain, borrowing, taxing, and the granting of
franchises; and other duties.
Obi ecfives/Programs:
Perform the duties and responsibilities prescribed under Title 35A RCW, establish the City's vision and policies and
adopt goals and objectives within a funding mechanism ensuring timely achievement. During February 2003 the
Council submitted a letter to the Mayor outlining their collective goals and objectives for 2003. Those goals are as
follows:
1. Develop a fmancial plan for the City with long-range vision and goals, and short-term priorities
2. Improve community teamwork and communications
3. Stimulate small business expansion, new economic growth and vitality in downtown and in the neighborhoods
4. Promote, encourage, and embrace the community's diversity
5. Take the initiative and provide visionary leadership on policy issues
The Council Members will focus on these same goals in 2005, but the goals may be refmed by Council in early 2005.
: 2002~Ct~ : ;2003.~ema! 2004Budget ;. 2005
Personnel 157,888 178,929 193,024
Supplies, Services and Taxes 12,264 7,586 18,125 26,393
Capital Expenditures
Debt Service
Transfers
-- TOTAL 170,152 186,515 211,149 ~
Staffing Level 10.38 10.38 10.60 ~
C
EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT
General Fund
Mission Statement:
Provide admin/strative direction and leadership to ensure the delivery of quality services as required by law or
mandated by the public to enhance the health, safety and general well-being of the citizens of the City of B remerton
Function Description:
The Executive Department function is to coordinate and direct the overall administration of all City departments. The
Executive Department is directed by the Mayor who is the administrative head of the City government. The
responsibilities include: administrating programs and policies established by the City Council; direction and
coordinating departmental operations; informing the Council on City affairs, problems and future needs; reviewing
policies and regulations involving municipal governmental management overseeing the preparation of the City's
annual budget and all major projects; providing assistance in responding to citizen requests developing and promoting
employee morale; and performing all other duties for the effective operation of the City of Bremerton.
Obi ecfives/Programs:
The ongoing objectives of the Executive Department include:
1. Overall management of all City functions and services
2. Implementing Council policies and directives
3. Providing Intergovernmental coordination
4. City representation
5. Liaison between Council and staff
6. Budget preparation and implementation
7. Regular and special reports
8. Coordinating the activities of various deparmaents
9. Providing the guidance and support for the development of effective programs
10. Providing the planning, evaluation, analysis, control, and general management of the programs
11. Oversee marketing of the City.
C~tegb~ 200~tual ; 2003~etual , :2004Budge~ 2005~Ud~et
Personnel 265,357 305,659 175,487
Supplies, Services and Taxes 110,185 36,157 79,550 80,41
Capital Expenditures
Debt Service
Transfers
TOTAL 375,542 341,816 255,037
Staffing Level 3.25 3.25 2.00
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES
General Fund
Mission Statement:
The Department of Financial Services strives to provide efficient and cost effective centralized services and support to all
City departments to assist in improving the productivity and performance of City operations, City officials and staff. The
Department shall seek to protect and maintain the fiscal integrity and financial solvency of the City government through
development and implementation of fiscally and operationally sound budgets, policies and procedures.
Function Description:
The Department of Financial Services is comprised of a multitude of operations comprised of the Finance Department,
City Clerk, Public Access Television (BKAT) and Information Technology. The Finance Department provides service
support for both the external users and internal users by providing information to facilitate the decision-making process.
The department's major program responsibilities include: annual budgeting, general accounting, purchasing, payroll,
taxes/fees, accounts receivable, management reporting, accounts payable, financing, interim and annual reports, and the
preparation of various documents for the state and other professional organizations. The City Clerk Division manages
activities as prescribed by state law including responsibility for official city records, public information disclosure,
customer service, records and contract management, tax/license administration and City Council liaison.
Objectives/Programs:
1. Treasury/Management. Responsible for the management of the City's cash, investment portfolio, banking services
and £mancial programs. The Director of Financial Services serves as the chief fiscal advisor to the Mayor, Council
and City Departments.
2. FinancialPlanning and Management. Manages the development of the budget, capital improvement program and
fmancial forecasting. Staff serves as in-house consultants to all departments, helping them resolve operational,
budget, capital and other fiscal and policy-related issues. Ensure the City maintains a sound financial basis to deliver
the desired and required level of City services to the community. Explore various funding sources and improve the
high level of cost efficiencies in the delivery of service. Keep the Mayor, City Council and departments advised on
the financial condition of the City. Annual financial reports are supplied to the Mayor, City Council and all
department directors/managers, as are supplementary financial reports as requested during the year.
3. Financial Operations. Provides support services in the areas of Accounts Payable, Payroll, Purchasing and General
Accounts Receivable. Review with the Mayor and City Council on a quarterly basis the deparmaental budget status,
financial investment and projected revenues and expenditures. Coordinate on-going update of the City's financial
management policies in order to ensure the sound and responsible financial planning and management of the City's
resources. Coordinate the development ora plan with the departments to improve the administration, reporting,
accounting, auditing and budgeting of City financial resources.
4. Accounting/Reporting. Manages the recording and reporting of all financial transactions and activities occurring
within the City in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. Accounting personnel serve as
consultants to all departments to assist in the development of accounting procedures that fit operational needs.
Category 2002 Actual 2003 Budget 2004 Budget 2005 Budget
Personnel 825,937 830,619 728,736 831,124
Supplies 106,474 141,220 219,345 278,940
Services
Inter~;overnmental Charges
Capital Expenditures
TOTAL 932,411 971,839 948,081 1,110,064
Staffing Level 12.00 13.25 12.00 12.00
5. 2006 Budget Preparation. Prepare and submit to the Mayor a proposed balanced 2006 City Annual Budget, CIP
Budget and appropriate budget amendments. Continue to work on the process and format changes to improve
departmental accountability/performance and the effectiveness, and substance of the budget following GFOA
standards of excellence.
6. City Council Support. Provide parliamentarian support of Council meetings and scheduler for agenda items. Inform
and advise the Council on fiscal policy matters and current topics. Respond to requests of the Council on matters
affecting City fiscal and administrative matters and prepare and submit to the Council such reports as may be required
or deemed advisable.
7. Records Management. Coordinate imaging and archiving and retention systems for all City departments, and work
with the State Archivist electronic retention of City records. Expand on-line City records library on the City website.
8. Contract Negotiations and Management. Library for all City contracts, leases and legal documents; monitor for
insurance and expiration; and directly manage city-wide service contracts and leases. Develop for Board approval a
policy authorizing the execution and administration of cuntracts under prescribed monetary limits. Negotiate various
types of agreements for delivery of support services and program/project services.
9. Customer Service. Prov/de cashiering, clerk and tax' license services to citizens. Implement programs for city staff
that will enhance the delivery of customer service and communication. Provide citizens with an informed, helpful,
respectful and positive experience when dealing with City staff and receiving quality, responsive level of services.
10. Parldng System and Conference Center: Provide for the planning, funding and management of the City's parking
system and Conference Center.
11. Tax/License. Provide collection and accounting services for local license less and taxes.
12. Codes & Ordinances. Maintain and Bremerton Municipal Code and review ordinances for codification.
13. Website. Provide support and coordination assistance for the Website with Information Technology division and the
webmaster.
14. Pension Boards. Administer LEOFF I benefits programs. Examine the benefits and need for purchasing long-term
health care insurance for LEOFF I retirees.
15. PurchaslngAdministration. Coordinates the City's procurement and contracting activities.
16. Auditing of Tax Collections and Payments. A substantial amount of the City's General Fund revenue resources come
from the collection of utility and B&O taxes (30% of General Fund revenue) wh/ch collections may be adversely
impacted due to inadequate levels of auditing. Conduct annual audits of the collection of utility and B&O taxes,
including auditing payments to the State.
17. E-services. Expand and enhance E-services on the City website for licensing, permitting and bill paying.
18. Cable Franchise. Partner with Kitsap County on future cable televisions franch/se renewals to promote regional
uniformity of the franctfise terms, fees and integration of public access television programming/services.
19. Purchasing/accountspayable. The City spends considerable time and resources in processing purchases and claims.
Reduce the number of purchase orders processed through implementation of a purchase-card system, and work
toward a paperless accounts payable and purchasing system. Revamp the City's purchasing policies and procedures
and contracting authority policies.
CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
General Fund
Mission Statement and Function Description:
The mission and function of the City Attorney's Office is to provide quality legal services for the City of Bremerton,
oversee the prosecution of all criminal violations of the Bremerton Municipal Code, limit and reduce liabilky
exposures, and provide legal advice and training to the Mayor, City Council, and all departments of the City.
Obi ectives/Programs:
Mandatory Objectives ($453,830)
1. To advise and represent all City elected m~d appointed officials, employees, boards, conm~ittees, task forces, and
commissions on the day-to-day operations of City government and civil legal matters pertaining to the City of
Bremerton. The Charter and Bremerton Municipal Code direct that the City Attorney shall be the legal advisor of
the City and represent the city in all legal matters involving the city.
2. Be responsible for all litigation involving the City and prosecute all criminal misdemeanor cases as well as
infractions and code violations on behalf of the City. Municipal prosecution is handled through a contract with
Kitsap County Prosecuting Attorney's Office. The Charter and Bremerton Municipal Code direct that the City
Attorney shall be the legal advisor of the City and represent the city in all legal matters involving the city.
Essential Objectives ($99,220)
1. Implement a public records request ordinance and policy and conduct training to all City departments. The
ordinance and policy will provide the City with a comprehensive program for complying with public disclosure
laws.
2. Continue to review and propose for update, City codes and policies. These reviews and updates will provide a
more efficient and effective City government.
Discretionary Objectives ($17,510)
1. Implement an internal assignment tracking system. This system will provide for more efficient tracking of work
assignments and provide City employees with a central point of contact in the City Attorney's Office.
category 2002 Actual 2003 Ac~ ;2004 Budget 2005 Bu~
Personnel 333,055 ' ~ 325,96i
Supplies, Services and Taxes 450,952× 203,390
Capital Expenditures 0
Debt Service 0
Transfers 0
TOTAL 784,007 529,351
Staffing Level 5.0 5.0 3.5
HUMAN RESOURCES
General Fund
Mission Statement:
To provide consistent and timely guidance and direction to management and employees in all Human Resources
functions including recruitment, selection, orientation, development and training, labor relations, and to ensure
compliance with established policies and procedures, labor contracts and muployment laws.
Function Description:
The Human Resources Department provides administrative and personnel services to all departments of the City and
acts as a conduit between employees and management. TN~s is accomplished by monitoring compliance with
established policies and procedures, labor contracts, employment laws, and by managing the City's "human resources"
to meet the City's established goals and objectives. Human Resources is responsible for providing support to
employees and management by performing the centralized functions of recruitment, selection, orientation, benefits
enrollment and administration, development and training, and labor and employee relations, including contract
negotiations and administration. Human Resources also serves as a resource in assisting administrative and managerial
personnel in managing, motivating, and disciplining employees effectively, and assuring compliance with all legal
requirements such as the Civil Service Code through the Civil Service Officer and Civil Service Commission,
Bremerton Municipal Code, RCW, Equal Employment Opportunity, Fair Labor Standards, ADA, FMLA, and
Collective Bargaining Laws. Human Resources primary goal is to design, evaluate, refine, and implement legally
sound Human Resources policies and procedures that will support organizational goals and fulfill the City's workplace
needs as economic conditions continue to change.
Objectives/Programs:
1. Employment and recruiting - Recruitment, testing, interviews, etc.
2. Orientation - Enrollment of new employees
3. Compensation - Wage and salary administration, job descriptions, job evaluation and analysis, payroll interface,
salary surveys
4. Benefits - Leave policies and administration, insurance benefits administration, pension and deferred comp
administration, unemployment flexible spending account (Section 125) administration
5. Employee/Departmental Services - Employee benefits/status changes, problem troubleshooting for departments,
counseling, pre-retirement planning
6. Etnpl~yee and ~rganizati~nal Relati~ns ~ Discip~inary pr~cedures ~versight~ exit interviews~ uni~n/~ab~r re~ati~ns
including negotiation of contracts and contract administration/interpretation, oversee grievance/arbitration issues,
employee communications, EEO and labor law compliance at the Federal, State and local level
Category ; 2002 Actual 2003 A2ctual 2004 Budget 2O05B~d~et
Personnel 225,318 210,595 233,939
Supplies, Services and Taxes 51,642 43,224 57,885 116,316
Capital Expenditures
Debt Service
Transfers
TOTAL 276,960 253,819 291,824 ~
Staff'nag Level 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
General Fund
Mission Statement:
Work with out community to make Bremerton a place of sound social, economic and physical health by providing
collaborative planning processes and responsive development services to achieve the community's desired future.
Function Description:
The Depamnent functions include cilywide and neighborhood planning for growth and development, environmental
planning, administering land use and environmental codes, administering the Uniform Building Codes, enforcing land
use, building and nuisance codes, conducting plan review and inspections, providing public information on community
plans and development roles, and providing program administration for CDBG and HOME program activities.
Obi ectives/Programs:
1. Current Planning. The Current Planning division is responsible for assisting the public by providing information
(in person, by telephone, and in whting) regarding zoning, land use, subdivision, and environmental regulations.
Activities also include providing processing permit applications, reviewing building permits for compliance with
applicable land use requirements, and interpretation and application of multiple City and State regulations. Staff
support with and presentations before the Hearing Examiner and City Council are also normal functions of this
division.
2. Building. The Building division is responsible for the administration and enforcement of the Uniform Building,
Fire, Plumbing, and Mechanical Codes as adopted by the State of Washington and the City of Bremerton. These
personnel are also responsible for the administration of the Washington State Energy Code. These functions
involve reviewing building plans, providing information to the public, coordinating with other departments and
agencies, issuing permits, and conducting project inspections.
3. Growth Planning. Facilitating public involvement in planning for the City's healthy future is the main
responsibility of the Growth Planning division. The planning team helps prepare and maintain the Comprehensive
Plan and its various components: neighborhood, sub-area, special purpose and environmental plans including the
Shoreline Master Program. Growth Planning is also responsible for dra~ing regulations and capital programs to
knplement these plans.
4. Code Compliance. The City Council enacts local roles for land use, property maintenance, and building safety.
The Code Compliance section helps insure that property owners adhere to these rules for development and use of
property. The focus of Code Compliance is to gain the cooperation of the owner and attain compliance. If
compliance is not voluntarily achieved, the staff of this section utilizes corrective procedures that may require a
decision of tile City Council or Heating Examiner for remedy.
5. CDBG/HOME. The CDBG/HOME division administers federal HUD-funded CDBG and HOME grants. This
includes conducting the annual allocation process, providing technical assistance to applicants and grantees,
contract monitoring, and reporting to HUD. The program coordinates capital projects and is coordinated with the
City's Comprehensive Plan. The division is also responsible for the City's Rehabilitation Loan and Down
Payment Assistance Programs.
6. Annexations. Proposes areas for annexation within UGA, assists annexation petition processes, verifies statutes
are met, informs unincorporated areas of annexation benefits, confn'ms service availability with other departments.
categor~ ; [ 2002 ~tual I : 2003 ~-Ct~ 2004 Budget 2005
Personnel 647,486 769,343 806,817
Supplies, Services and Taxes 40,634 46,564 123,666 147,962
Capital Expenditures
, Debt Service
Transfers 17,500 17,500 17,500 17,500
TOTAL 705,620 833,407 947,983
Staffmg Level 11.0 11.0 12.0 13.0
MUNICIPAL COURT
General Fund
Mission Statement:
The Bremerton Municipal Court aims to fully and fairly hear every individual who has business before the Court.
Everyone appearing in Court or in the clerk's office shall be treated with courtesy, dignity and respect. We are honored
to serve the citizens of Bremerton and others who have court business here.
]Function Description:
The Bremerton Municipal Court is a court of limited jurisdiction for the City heating cases involving alleged violations
of City ordinances and State misdemeanor statutes, traffic and parking infractions, requests for orders of protection, and
heating examiner appeals.
Obi eefives/Programs:
To fully and fairly hear all cases involving alleged violations of City ordinances and State misdemeanor statutes,
parking and traffic infractions, requests for orders of protection and hearing examiner appeals. ($744,1 19)
Justification:
Mission and Function
Implementation:
Maintain current staffmg levels and service contracts
Provide training to judicial position and staff to ensure quality customer service
Manage all available options and resources to enhance jail alternatives reducing the use of costly incarceration
($58,832)
Justification:
Most cost efficient
Available options offer rehabilitation that is proven to reduce recidivism
Available resources are therapeutic vs. punitive and have been proven to reduce recidivism
Implementation:
Maintain current staffing levels
Provide training to judicial position and staff to insure most current and proven programs and techniques are
being utilized
Increase budgeted pro tern dollars to help ensure the movement of all cases toward early, efficient and just
disposition ($8,200)
Justification:
Increased need for pro tern judicial officer to handle growing judicial conflicts and affidavits of prejudice
Increased need for pro tem judicial officer to enable presiding judge to fulfill his obligation from
various committee assignments for the District and Municipal Court Judge Association (DMCJA)
Increased need for pro tern judicial officer to allow for presiding judge to fulfill administrative and management
duties mandated by newly enacted Supreme Court Rules
Category Personnel 2002 540,6i3 ~al 2003 580,173 A~al :2004 582,313 Bridget 2005~~
Supplies, Services and Taxes 181,290 71,018.06 217,619 230,470
Capital Expenditures
Debt Service
Transfers
TOTAL 721,903 651,191 799,932
Staffing Level 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0
Implementation:
Contract for one (1) pro rem to hear contested infraction calendar and other judicial conflict matters
Realign legal technician duties to incorporate judicial correspondence responsibilities
_ Pr~videc~ntinu~ustrainingandeducati~nt~judicial~f~cerandstafft~ensureahighlevel~fc~mpetencyant~
efficiency ($4,000)
Justification:
Legislative changes and technology advancements necessitate continued training to provide access to
justice to the public and adjudication of criminal matters in a just and timely manner
Implementation:
Attendance and participation in Judicial, Court Management and Presiding Judge Conferences
Provide applicable soflware and equipment training to both judicial officer and staff
Develop and implement both technological and programmatic initiatives to increase efficiency and increase revenues
$4,658)
Justification:
Access to justice issues - ADA requirements
Improved services by utilizing existing technology to support courtroom personnel
Better utilization of staff resources and space
Increase collection of fines by milizing new technology in the collection field
Improved accessibility to the citizens of Bremerton to make payments during non-court hours
Implementation:
Install computer at Judge's, Prosecutor's and Defense Attorney's station to utilize various state supported
reporting software
Revamp current filing system
Implement and advertise use of Internet and off site credit card payment
Implement and advertise use of ATM Debit transactions at clerk counter
Research options and feasibility of providing strategically placed kiosk for payment of city services and frees
eliminating citizen requirement to interact with city and/or court clerk staff
Provide a secure courtroom for the process of criminal cases that protects litigants, witnesses, spectators and court
personnel (no additional cost to budget)
Justification:
Instill public confidence and trust in the judiciary process
Protect the litigants, witness and spectators during all court proceedings
Protect the defendant's civil rights and due process
Protect court personnel in the administration of duties in the judicial process
Access to Justice issues - ADA requirements
Implementation:
Install audio/video equipment to conduct legal in-custody video arraignments
Research options of secondary placement of monitors outside of courtroom
Secure domestic violence calendar by enhancing court/police protocol Realigning current staffing schedules to
monitor court areas
Provide adequate working space for judicial officer(s) and staff (no additional cost to budget)
Justification:
Current judicial and clerk workspace is insufficient
Jury room is grossly inadequate
Access to Justice issues - ADA requfi'ements
Implementation:
Work closely with police department representatives and project manager to develop design, build and
transition into Law and Justice Center
Revamp current filing system to allow for better use of limited space
CITY AUDITOR
General Fund
Mission Statement:
As defined by the Institute of Internal Auditors, Internal Auditing is an independent, objective assurance and
consulting activity designed to add value and improve an organization's operations. It helps an organization
accomplish its objectives by bringing a systematic disciplined approach to evaluate and hnprove the effectiveness of
risk management, control, and governance processes.
Function Description:
The City Auditor's Office conducts financial, compliance and performance audits to assure citizens, elected City
Officials and management that municipal departments are utilizing resources in an effective and efficient manner. The
audits are conducted i~ accordance with government auditing standards. The Charter for the City of Bremerton
requires that the city have an auditor and audit committee.
Objectives/Programs:
Provide departmental and program audits based on audit risk and perform other special audits or projects as
approved by the Audit Committee.
· Provide assistance to City Council and city staff as requested and approved by the Audit Committee.
g~ : : 2002 Act~l 2003 ~ctU~ 2004 Budget 2005Bml-~et
Personnel 100,822 94,623 102,~35 ~~
Supplies, Services and Taxes 8,964 3,843 4,244 ~ ~
Capital Expenditures
Debt Service
Transfers
TOTAL 109,786 98,466 106,879
Staffing Level 1.25 1.25 1.20 1.20
LAW ENFORCEMENT
General Fund
- Mission Statement:
The primary mission of the Bremerton Police Department is to coordinate and lead the efforts within the community to
preserve the public peace, protect the fights of persons and property, prevent crime and generally provide service to the
citizens of Bremerton. The Department serves the people of Bremerton by providing Law Enforcement service in a
)rofessional and courteous manner and it is to these people that the Department is ultimately responsible.
Function Description:
The Bremerton Police Department is responsible for the maintenance of public order, responding to incidents of
:fiminal activity, traffic control, criminal investigations, crime prevention and other related public services. The Chief
of Police and all Officers under his direction are tasked with enforcement of all Federal Laws, Washington State Laws
and City of Bremerton Ordinances within the boundaries of the City of Bremerton.
Objectives/Programs:
Administration ($1,307,117) Mandatory
Provide Admin/strative oversight and support service in areas that include, but are not lhnited to the following:
Budgeting
Policy and Procedures
Resource Allocation
Personnel
Grant preparation and tracking
Records Management
_ Front Counter Services
Warrant / Subpoena / Protection Order Service
Community Outreach and Education
Fingerprinting
Public Disclosure
Concealed Weapon Permits
Criminal Records Checks
Investigations ($923,823) Essential
The General Investigations Unit is responsible for the on-going investigative follow-up of felony crimes as well as:
Apprehension of offenders
Development of intelligence information
Cultivation of informants
Creating and maintaining cooperative and effective working relationships with other Law Enforcement
agencies and the Kitsap County Prosecutors office
Location of missing persons
Recovery and return of stolen property
Assist crime victims
Supervision of Warrants Uhit
category : 2002 ~etual ~;: 2003 ACtual 2004 BUdget 2005 Burger i
Personnel 5,742,221 5,824,160 6,128,734
Supplies, Services and Taxes 1,527,051 946,824 1,762,801
Capital Expenditures 15,853 8,813
Debt Service
-- Transfers
TOTAL 7,285,125 6~779,797 7,891,535
Staffing Level 76.0 76.0 77.0 77.0
Patrol ($3,811,987) Mandatory
The Operations Division of the Police Department consists of the largest number of employees. The primary mission
of the Operations Division is to provide "first responder" services to the citizens of Bremerton to preserve and protect
life and property while being the "front line" of communication with the citizens of Bremerton.
K-9 Unit: Provide K-9 units to enhance the ability to capture crimhial suspects in otherwise
dangerous/hazardous situations. To allow for the detection of illegal narcotics to stop the proliferation of drug
trafficking in the community.
[Vest Park: Provide Officer presence and assistance to Bremerton Housing Authority, in a low income,
section eigl~t housing area with a tradition of Iffgh crime rates. Tiffs is funded by the Federal Government.
School Resource Officer: This officer is the Police Department liaison to the School District and has direct
contact with the school administrators on a daily basis. Provides juvenile crime follow up and intervention in
all Bremerton schools. This is partially funded by the School District.
Mountain Bike Patrol: Provides a street level interaction in a community friendly format that gives greater
mobility, accessibility and deterrence as well as proactive approach to community problem areas.
Water Safety Unit: Provide marine patrol service on Kitsap Lake.
Reserve Officer Program: Consists of volunteer Reserve Police Officers who assist with special events,
transport prisoners and support operational needs as required.
Explorer Program mentors: The Operation Division provides Mentors and Advisors for tiffs program
involving youth 14 to 21 years of age.
Firearms training unit: Provides up-to-date real training to prepare officers for critical incidents such as
active shooter incidents, officer rescue etc.
Defensive tactics/Use of force training unit: Trains officers in the use of force and techniques for gaining
control of offenders with the least amount of fome needed while maximizing officer safety.
Bomb Squad: One officer from the department is trained in Bomb identification and disposal. He works in
conjunction with the State Patrol Bomb unit for Kitsap County wide shared coverage.
Swat: One Officer participates on the Kitsap County Swat team as pm of a multi-agency shared effort to
provide Swat service to all agencies in the county.
Chaplains: Used for all critical incidents to provide care and comfort to the citizens of Bremerton. This all
volunteer program also provides assistance to Officers.
DUI emphasis: The traffic unit participates in Kitsap County wide emphasis patrols on a monthly basis and
also provides services in the following areas:
Traffic Safety emphasis
School Zone enforcement
Traffic Trailer Utilization
Pedestrian Safety
Safety and education programs
COPS Grant: One new patrol officer.
Capital Equipment: Provides for Taser eqttipment, rifles and rifle light systems.
Special Operations Group ($687,410) Essential
The Special Operations Group (SOG) is responsible for the investigation of drag and vice-related crime. Tiffs group of
Detectives works closely with our Operations Division as well as the West Sound Narcotics Enforcement Team
(WestNET) and the Drug Enfomement Agency (DEA) to effectively reduce/eliminate the manufacture, sale and use of
illicit drags in the City of Bremerton.
Crime Scenes Office ($181,238) Essential
Crime Scene Investigation involves the use of scientific methods, physical evidence, deductive reasoning, and their
interrelationships to gain explicit knowledge of the series of events that surround the commission of a crime. The
Crime Scene Investigation Unit responsibilities include but are not iirnited to the following: Collection of evidence
Storage of evidence and found property
Processing for latent prints
Processing for DNA evidence
Processing for fibers
Sampling for fluids
Photography
Scene sketching
Community Resources ($120,442) Essential
The objective of this program is to create partnerships between the Police Department and the Community,
emphasizing crime reduction and/or prevention. Services provided include but are not limited to the following:
Creation and support of Block Watch Programs
Citizens Academy
Landlord/Tenant Training
Explorer Program
Community Outreach
Special Event Coordination
Crime Statistics
Department of Community Development (DCD) funding for Serious Habitual Offender Community Action
Program (SHOCAP)
YWCA ALIVE Program
Traffic Safety Task Force ($48,486) Discretionary
This program facilitates the coordination of all Kitsap County Law Enforcement Agencies to address traffic and under
age drinking related issues within each jurisdiction. The Traffic Safety Task Force coordinator provides direction and
oversight to a variety of programs designed to reduce the number and severity of traffic related deaths and injuries
within Kitsap County. These programs include the following:
Monthly DUI Emphasis Patrols
School zone enforcement
Seatbelt enforcement
Child passenger restraint education
Grim Reaper mock crash scenarios
Military Alcohol Treatment Department (ATD) classes
Reduce Under Age Drinking (RUaD) emphasis patrols
Explorers ($5,199) Discretionary
The intent of law enforcement exploring is to educate and involve youth in police operations, to interest them in
possible law enforcement careers (police officer, police dispatcher, corrections officer, prosecuting attorney, crime lab
technician, etc.). The law enforcement-exploring program has three main themes that all goals and objectives must
provide for. These are:
To further the Explorer's education.
To encourage the Explorer's participation in a rewarding and productive service activity.
To enhance the Explorer's preparation for future roles as citizens, community members, leaders, and in furore
law enforcement careers.
Facilities ($28,000) Essential
['his fund provides for the cost of repairs associated with electronic equipment such as:
Portable radios
Vehicle radios
Light bars
Flashlights
Fraffic Unit ($247,871) Mandatory
The mission of the Traffic unit is to create safe streets with reasonable traffic flow. To educate and enforce traffic
safety laws. To work in partnership with Engineering to create common sense traffic solutions to complex traffic
issues. To provide professional, technical, collision investigation and reconstruction for critical incidents as they
occur. This is accomplished by three assigned officers.
Motorcycles: This is comprised of two officers operating motorcycles on varying schedules to address traffic
enforcement issues. They are used as manpower allows.
Fatal investigations: All traffic fatalities in the City are investigated by the Traffic unit. This includes in-
depth scene analysis, event reconstruction, and follow up investigations. Detailed reports and information are
generated for review by the City to determine liability and need for safety changes.
Off Duty-Contracted ($93,900) Essential
This fund provides for the cost of providing off duty Police Officers services to private businesses and organizations
via contractual arrangements with the City of Bremer~on. Reimbursement for these expenditures are shown on the
revenue side of the budget.
Home Detention ($85,424) Essential
The objective of this program is to provide an alternative to incarceration. Although these are costs associated with
this program, it produces savings for the City by eliminating per diem incarceration costs when utilized by Bremerton
Municipal Court.
Care/Custody of Prisoners ($440,000) Mandatory
This fund provides for incarceration costs as well as costs associated with medical care and prescription drugs for
prisoners.
Central Dispatch Services ($486,853) Mandatory
Central Communications (CenCom) provides call taker and dispatch service for the Bremerton Police Department. In
addition, CenCom responds to inquires relating to vehicles and wanted persons information (Warrants) as well as
information relating to Domestic Violence Orders (DVO's) and No Contact Orders (NCO's).
FIRE/EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES
General Fund
Mission Statement:
The mission of the Bremer~on Fire Department is to heighten the quality of life for the citizens of Bremerton in a safe
and efficient man~er by the prevention of fires, the mitigation of natural and manmade hazards and providing
assistance to citizens in the need of emergency services.
Function Description:
The Fire Department is responsible for protecting the citizens of Bremerton from the adverse effects of unfriendly
fires, sudden medical emergencies, hazardous material incidents, and mad-made or natural disasters. Major program
currently includes fn:e suppression, emergency medical first response, fire suppression education, code development,
public safety education and disaster planning.
Obj ectives/Programs:
Administration
1. The Bremerton Fire Depar[ment has an administrative staff of four individuals consisting of the Fire Chief, an
Assistant Chief, an Office Assistant Senior Specialist and a Office Assistant 1I. The Administration provides
overall direction, coordination and support of the Department's resources and efforts.
Fire Suppression
1. The Fire Suppression division encompasses a wide range of services involving not only the traditional fn:efighting
role, but also emergency medical response, service calls and first response to HazMat and technical incidents.
Fire Prevention and Investigation
1. The Fire Marshal's Office is a critical element in the total system of fire protection to the community. The office
is responsible for; plans review, attending pre-construction meetings, researching codes and providing contractors
with all frre requirements for construction, inspecting buildings for final occupancy and helping all contractors
understand code requirements.
2. The office also performs all fire investigations, prepares all criminal reports for the county prosecutors, performs
juvenile f~resetter intervention and submits all evidence for furore prosecution.
3. The office performs all public fire education, public relations and acts as the department information officers.
4. The division provides for the enforcement of the Un/form Fire Code as it relates to general fire and life safety
practices wkich are followed in commercial occupancies.
5. To attain the division's goals, the division is staffed with 3 people, two Firefighter/Fire Prevention Officers and
one Captain/Deputy Fire Marshal.
Personnel 2002 ~a14,509,470 :: 2003~ma14,540,677 ~O04Budget4,843,309 20
Supplies, Services and Taxes 495,311 563,750 542,447 725,874
Capital Expenditures
Debt Service
-- Transfers
TOTAL 5,004,781 5,104,427 5,385,756
Staff'Lng Level 55.0 55.0 58.0 58.0
6. The objective of the Bremerton Fire Marshal's Office is to improve life safety for the citizens of Bremerton, to
reduce fire deaths, property loss due to fire, loss of jobs and preserve businesses and revenues within the City.
Rescue & Emergency Aid
1. The EMS Division of the Bremerton Fire Depattment is responsible for medical/trauma responses, EMS
personnel, EMS training (in conjunction with the Training Division), EMS equipment and supplies. There are a
total of 17 certified paramedics that provide Advance Life Support and 33 Emergency Medical Technicians (EMT)
that provide Basic Life Support. All members of the Bremerton Fire Department are dual function, they respond
as both medical technicians and firefighters.
2. The EMS Division's objective is to provide the highest quality Emergency Medical Services to the public. The
objectives are met with quality training, equipment, supplies and personnel.
3. EMS Training Objectives are accomplished both in house and externally. EMS is continually evolving and
challenging all EMS personnel.
4. Equipment. As in most medical fields there continues to be equipment changes and needs. Bremerton Fire
Department's goal and objective is to continue to stay current with necessary equipment needs.
5. Supplies: As with any supply issues the challenge is to stay within budget and to maintain a suitable disposable
and re-usable supply inventory for any emergency large or small.
6. Personnel: The main objective for personnel is to provide the highest level of service.
Training
1. The Training Division oversees all training required by the fire department to meet the mission statement of the
Bremerton Fire Department. The training is driven by meeting compliance objectives (mandates) as outlined with
the state RCW's and WAC's as determined by Washington State Depamnent of Labor and Industries 296-305.
2. Additional training, both internal and external is then blended to enhance the mandated training by using industry
standards to achieve these mandates. This type of training is often offered in the form of conferences, seminars
and/or guest speakers.
3. Additional training is offered to enhance career-building opportunities for those members wishing to advance their
careers. This type of training is generally college level courses with an emphasis on getting a degree.
FaciFtties
1. The facilities program oversees the maintenance/construction of the three City fire stations in Bremerton. These
buildings are used to house fire department personnel on a 24/7 schedule 365 days a year.
2. Maintaining these stations to meet local and state codes allows a healthy/safe work environment for our
employees. Maintenance of these buildings includes interior and exterior of the buildings as well as the grounds.
Electrical/mechanical systems, plumbing roofs, paint, doors appliances/furnishings are all items that require
continual maintenance/repairs.
3. These buildings are designed for a life expectancy of 40-50 years.
4. All three of the fire stations are over 20 years old and require continual upgrading to avoid possible costly repairs
due to neglect. In 2005 we should see the completed construction of the new headquarter/Station #1.
ALS Billing Services
1. Bremerton Fire Department's patient transport billing is accomplished through a contract with Systems Design in
Silverdale, Washington. The Bremerton Fire Department has had a working relationship with Systems Design
since 1992.
2. A Medical Incident Report (MIR) is generated for every patient that Bremerton Fire Department transports. Each
MIR is inputted into the Fire Department's data base for statistical, research, billing and reconciliation
information. A copy of each transport MIR is sent to Systems Design for processing and billing of insurance
compahies, Medicare, Medicaid and, if necessary, directly to the patient or residence. By direction of the City and
State Auditor's offices, Bremerton Fire Department staff personnel reconcile and quality assure all accounts each
month. At this time a charge of $20.50 plus postage is billed to the Fire Department for each report processed by
Systems Design.
3. The funds that are collected by Systems Design or receipted at City Hall are deposited in the General Fund.
Central Dispatch Services
1. Bremerton Fire Department is dispatched through a countywide dispatch service called CenCom (Central
Communications). The City of Bremerton has been a partner in the county wide dispatch center since 1976.
2. The objective of CenCom is to dispatch all life threatening medical and fire calls within 60 seconds o£the time the
call is received.
3. At the end of 2004 or the beginning of 2005, CenCom should be mov'mg into their new facility at the Kitsap
County Readiness Center.
GENERAL FACILITIES
General Fund
Function Description:
General Facilities Maintenance is a division of the Utilities Operations Division of Public Works & Utilities under the
direction of the Utility Operations Manager and is responsible for the upkeep and maintenance of ail City buildings
and grounds, other than Parks and Recreation Department, and for keeping track of all departmental equipment and
supplies. The General Facilities activities include maintaining City bu/ldings and properties consistent with sound
property management principles.
Obi ectives/Programs:
1. Maintain City buildings and properties consistent with property management principles.
2. Manage the custodial services and u~/form maintenance contracts
3. Manage the Fire One fn:e and intrusion alarm contract.
4. Manage annual elevator and boiler inspections
5. Perform the General Facilities capital Improvements projects. ($33,000)
Catego~ 2002 ~ctu~ 2003 ~ctu~ 20~ Budget 2005
Personnel 65,877 56,887 69,145~
Supplies, Services and Taxes 424,085 357,088 347,436 403,887
Capital Expenditures 4,316 27,963 82,200 33,000
Debt Service 1,485 9,258 9,259
Transfers
TOTAL 495,763 451,196 508,040
Staff'mg Level 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.25
PARKS AND RECREATION
General Fund
Mission Statement:
Bremerton Parks and Recreation is committed to enriching the lives of Bremerton citizens with aquatic, athletic and
recreational opportunities for persons of all ages and provide safe and attractive parks and facilities for play, health and
fitness, enjoyment, and celebrations.
Function Description:
The Parks & Recreation Department provides safe, attractive and fun parks, facilities and recreation programs for the
enjoyment of Bremertoffs citizens and contributes to a better quality of life. The Department operates and maintains
the Sheridan Park Community Center, Bremerton Senior Center, Glenn Jarstad Aquatic Center, and Ivy Green
Cemetery, as well as Gold Mountain Golf Complex. The Department maintains 310 acres representing 31 parks and
beautification areas (e.g., Gateway, Hal's Comer, Central Business District, and miscellaneous floral garden displays)
throughout the City. The Department also plans and kmplements a wide variety of recreation programs and special
events for all ages, abilities and interests year around, and provides support for other City and community events.
Obj ectives/Programs:
Administration
1. Provide overall administrative support to the Parks and Recreation Department in areas that include, but are not
limited to:
Resource Planning
Budgeting
Park and Recreation Commission Coordination/Interface
Personnel
Grant Preparation and Tracking (e.g. CDBG, lAC, DOE, ALEA, UPARR, etc.)
Payroll
Accounts Receivable/Payable for the Department
Park and Facility Rentals/Reservations
Public Interface (Telephone and Counter) for all Sheridan Park Community Center Patrons
Maintenance
1. Provide maintenance support to 31 separate park locations and numerous beautification areas throughout the City.
Maintenance functions performed include, but are not lknited to, the following:
Ground Maintenance (Mowing, Trimming, Edging, and Blowing)
Restroom Maintenance (14 each)
Litter Control
Flower and Shrub Maintenance (including greenhouse operation)
Leaf Gathering
Irrigation (22 sites)
categ0rYPersonnel 2002 ACtUal1,533,855 2003 3/Ctfiai1,635,680 200~ BUdget 1,764,307 20 !:
Supplies, Services and Taxes 785,975 661,838 607,528 803,821
Capital Expenditures (714) 7,480 8,500
Debt Service 20,495 21,000 21,000
Transfers
TOTAL 2,319,116 2,325,493 2,392,835
Staffing Level 21.45 21.45 20.45 21.70
Playground/Play Toy Maintenance, including Weekly Inspection of 16 "Big Toys"
Tree Maintenance within the urban forests and the Central Business District
Path and Trail Maintenance
Herbicide/Fertilizer Application
Building Maintenance
Equipment Repair
Park Improvements (Projects)
Aeration/Seeding/Sodding
Brash Clearing/Chipping
Maintenance Support to Special Events
Vandalism Repair and Cleanup
Ball/Soccer Field Preparation and Maintenance (e.g. Striping, Dragging, etc.)
Pressure Wash Sidewalks ia the Central Business District
Maintenance support to Gardens at Blueberry and Matan
Maintenance of 6 tennis court sites
Buoy maintenance on Kitsap Lake
Management/Maintenance of Urban Forest Areas (ie. NAD, Forest Ridge, Stephenson Canyon, EastPark
Nature, NAD Marine)
2. Adjust water service costs to reflect a new water rate established for municipal property & facilities.
3. Add the new Conference Center and Gateway Phase II to the Maintenance schedule.
4. Enhance the level of maintenance of City parks by implementing some organizational improvements to the Parks
Department: delete Recreation Manager, Lead Service Specialist and two Parks Specialist Sr. positions; and add
two Parks Laborers and three ~A-time Parks Laborers, Parks Maintenance Supervisor, and an additional ½-time
Laborer position funded to support the Conference Center Park plaza.
Cemetery
1. Operate and maintai~ Ivy Green Cemetery. This includes all the related maintenance tasks described above, plus
typical cemetery related business (e.g. sale of plots, burials, ordering and placement o£headstones, etc.). Examine
shifting operation & ownership to the private sector.
~4quatics
1. Operate and maintain the Glean Jarstad Aquatic Center providing a wide range of safe and quality programs for
the diverse group of pool users. Programs offered include, but are not limited to, the following:
Public, Family, Adult, and Special Swims
Lap Swimming
Water Aerobics
Water Walking
Arthritis, Multiple Sclerosis, and Expectant Mom Aquatic Exercise
Lessons (Parent/Child, Preschool, Youth, Adult, Family)
Water Safety Instruction
Lifeguard Training
CPR/First Aid Tmiulng
Fitness Instructor
School Programs (Bremertnn, CK Off Campus, Private Schools)
YMCA Partnership (Member Access, Selective Swim for Disabled, Friday Teen Program, Saturday Lessons,
Saturday Family Splash and Jam)
Bremerton High Girls and Boys Swim Team
Age Group Swimming and Diving Teams (e.g. Olympic Aquatic Club, Kitsap Diving Club)
Olympic College (Intramural Swimming and Instructional Program)
Rehab and Therapy (e.g. Kitsap Physical Therapy, MVP Therapy, Puget S6und Therapy, etc.)
Rentals (Parties and Banquets)
Special Events (e.g. April Pools Day)
2. Provide the pool as a venue for the 2005 after school RecJam Program.
3. Manage the accessibility hnprovement project utilizing Community Development Block Grant Funding (Assumes
success in obtaining CDBG Funding for this project in 2005).
Athletics
1. Provide athletic programming that include, but are not limited to, the following: Youth T-Ball
Basketball (Men's/Boy's)
Softball (Men/Women/Seniors/Teen/Coed/Tournamems)
Soccer (Women's Indoor and Outdoor)
Volleyball (Men/WomerffCoed/Sand/Girls)
Youth Sport Camps
Note that the field maintenance costs associated with the athletic programs shown above are included under
"Maintenance".
Community Recreation
1. Continue to provide a comprehensive community recreation program for the citizens of Bremerton. Programs
offered include, but are not limited to, the following:
Preschool (e.g. Terrific Two's, Preschool Fun, Little Explorers, Tiny Tot Sports, Indoor Playground, etc.)
Free Summer Playground Program
Youth Day Camps
Summer SPARKY Program for Special Populations
Special Events (e.g. Arbor Day Celebration, Daddy/Daughter Dance, Flashlight Hikes at Gold Mountain,
Halloween Party, Costume Bali, etc.)
Recreation Leaderskip Program
Theater Camp for Youth
Summer Concerts in the Park
Blackberry Fun Run
Adult Dance (e.g. Ballroom, Belly, Hula, Clogging, etc.)
Educational Arts (e.g. Home Maintenance, Financial Planning, Master Gardener Workshop, etc.)
Adult Fitness (e.g. Yoga, Tai Chi, etc.)
2. Provide a Wednesday early release after-school RecJam program for elementary school age children grades 1
through 5 at two Bremerton elementary schools utilizing the Ice Arena and Aquatic Center as off site venues.
Senior Center
1. Provide a comprehensive recreation program to serve the senior population (55 and older) o£ Bremerton. Programs
include, but are not limited to, the following:
Educational/Enrichment (e.g. Book Club, TOPS, Investment Club, 55 Alive, etc)
Dance (e.g. Tap, Square, Ballet, Ume, etc.)
Fitness (e.g. Aerobics, Tai Chi, Yoga, Treks, Senior Softball, etc.)
Games (e.g. Pinochle, Pool, Mar Johng, Ping Pong, Bridge, etc.)
Arts and Culture (e.g. Senior Singers, Drawing, Drama, Paint'mg, Woodcarv'mg, etc.)
Trips - approximately 40 annually (Local, State, National, International), Trip Brochure is generated twice
annually
SUMS Fundraisers
Luncheons - approx/mately 7 per year
Annual Volunteer Recognition Event for over 70 incredible volunteers
Annual Talent Show at the BCT
Socials - approximately 4 per year
Senior Craft Fair
Holiday Events
Pool Tournaments (twice monthly)
Produce the "Active Us" newsletter 5 times annually
ENGINEERING
General Fund
Function Description:
Engineering is a division of the Public Works and Utilities Department managed by the City Engineer. Engineering
manages comprehensive planning, design and construction of City infrastructure; traffic engineering; development
project review and permitting; provides engineering services to all City departments; obtains grant and low interest
loan funding from federal, and state sources; regional coordination.
Objectives/Programs:
1. Establish new street revenue source to fund pavement management and signal needs.
2. Complete design and construction of annual capital projects.
3. Complete Comprehensive Stormwater Plan for Phase II Regnlations.
4. Acquire GPS survey gear, and begin GIS inventory of City infi'astructure.
Personnel 259,744 271,213 269,912
Supplies, Services and Taxes 28,242 24,875 17,735 97,928
Capital Expenditures
Debt Service
Transfers
TOTAL 287,986 296,088 287,647 ~
Staffing Level 5.10 3.98 4.94
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
General Fund
Function Description:
The Economic Development Department is focused on enhancing the economic vitality o£ the City of Bremerton
through public investment, private investment and pannering as the cornerstone of the downtown revitalization plan.
Objectives/Programs:
1. In FY 2005, the Economic Development Department's operation will continue to be staffed with the following:
Economic Development Director and Office Assistant Sen/or
Projects Administrator - contract position to be funded out of Capital Projects (75%) and Economic
Development Department (25%)
2. Successfully manage capital projects.
3. Attract private investment.
4. Attract new employers.
5. Establish Bremerton as a destination.
6. Strengthen the downtown core and waterfront.
7. Provide enhanced activities and amenities for the community.
C~ :i ; ;~ 12002~etu~ ~i: 2003Ac~) 200~[ B~d~et 2005Budget
Personnel 25,951 61,688 98,324 ~
Supplies, Services and Taxes 31,571 10,774 52,185 27,029
Capital Expenditures
Debt Service
Transfers
Ending Fund Balance
TOTAL 57,522 72,462 150,509 ~
Staff'mg Level .5 .5 2.0 1.5
ARTERIAL STREETS
Special Revenue Fund
Function Description:
The At,rial Streets Fund is managed by the Engineering Division of the Public Works & Utilities Department as a
dedicated capital construction fund for the purpose o£making capital improvements to the City's aCterial street system.
As a standard policy, most of these funds are leveraged as match for federal highway grants for new construction
identified in the Transportation Improvement Plan. Approximately 25% of gas tax revenue is set aside each year for
maintenance overlays on arterial streets.
Objectives/Programs:
Thc following is a list of transportation system capital improvement projects which are scheduled to be planned,
designed and/or constructed in 2005:
1. Design and acquire right-of-way for the Navy Yard Highway Phase I-D of the SR 304 project.
2. Design the Auto Center Way project.
3. Design and construct the Warren Avenue OffRamp.
4. Design and construct pedestrian improvements on Harlow Drive
5. Provide an annual upgrade of traffic signal equipment
6. Complete annual maintenance overlays.
Category- Revenue 2002 Actual 2003 Actual 2004 Budget 2005 Budget
Beginning Fund Balance 818,596 632,723 625,770 9,090,545
Taxes
Licenses & Permits
Intergovernmental 2,112,342 1,467,646 8,822,500 7,057,000
Ch0xges for Services 804 944
Fines & Forfeits
Miscellaneous Revenues 42,519 20,401 25,000 85,000
Non-Revenue Receipts
Other Financin~ Sources 225,000 5,000
Total 2,974,261 2,121,714 9,698,270 16,237,545
Category - Expenditures 2002 Actual 2003 Actual 2004 Budget 2005 Budget
Personnel 41,000
Supplies, Services and Taxes 47~750
Capital Expenditures 2,341,540 1,495,031 9,072,500 7,042,000
Debt Service
Transfers
Ending Fund Balance 632,722 626,683 625,770 9,106,795
TOTAL 2,974,262 2,121,714 9,698,270 16,237,545
Staffin~ Level 4.6 3.9 6.8 6.06
CIVIC IMPROVEMENT
Special Revenue Fund
_ Function Description:
This Fund was established as a special revenue fund for the collection and expenditure of Lodging Taxes as provided
under Chapter 67.28.180 RCW. These funds may be used for stadium facilities, convention center facilities,
performing arts facilities, visual arts centers and the promotion of tourism.
Objectives/Programs:
The Lodging Taxes collected and receipted in the Civic Improvement Fund shall be used and distributed for 2005 as
provided below:
1. City of Bremerton Conference Center ($100,000)
2. ChamberofCommerc¢ ($29,000)
3. HistoricalMuseum ($11,000)
4. Kitsap Visitor& Convention BUreau ($22~000)
5. Historic Ships ($1t,000)
6. WA Science & Engineering Fair ($2,000)
7. Admiral Theater ($62,000)
8. lnterfundLoun ($28,000)
Category - Revenue 2002 Actual 2003 Actual 2004 Budget 2005 Budget
Beginning Fund Balance (18,737) 81,383 205,000 47,800
Taxes 255,395 203,140 230,000 240,000
Licenses & Permits
Intergovernmental
Charges for Services
Fines & Forfeits
Miscellaneous Revenues 4,599 3,256 2,000 1,000
Non-Revenue Receipts
Other Financing Sources
TOTAL 241,257 287,779 437,000 288,800
Category - Expenditures 2002 Actual 2003 Actual 2004 Budget 2005 Budget
Personnel
Supplies, Services and Taxes 152,147 130,919 202,147 137,000
Capital Expenditures
Debt Service 7,727 27,853 27,853 28,000
Transfers 197,000 100;000
Ending Fund Balance 81,383 129,007 10,000 23,800
TOTAL 241,257 287,779 437,000 288,800
Staffing Level
GENERAL GOVERNMENT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
Capital Improvement Fund
Function Description:
This fund accounts for expenditures related to various General Government capital improvement projects, major leases
and purchases and special projects approved by the City Council. Excise taxes from real estate sales are receipted into
this fund for the purpose of funding certain capital improvement projects as permitted by state law.
Objectives/Programs:
1. Government Center. Allocate funds to the General Fund to record payments on the bonds issued by the Kitsap
Consolidated Housing Authority to finance the construction oft he Government Center capital project. ($210,000)
2. Conference Center Park Plaza. Allocate $220,000 to the Parking System fund to record principal and interest debt
service payments on the bonds issued to finance the construction of the Park Plaza capital project at the Kitsap
Conference Center at Bremerton Harborside. Allocate an additional $250,000 to be used to pay down principal
debt for the Park Plaza. ($470,000)
3. Downtown Bremerton Library Project. This capital project will entail renovation of the exterior and interior of
the downtown library with $319,000 coming from Kitsap County, CDBG, Gates Foundation and Friends of the
Library, in addition to $100,000 of matehing funds from the City of Bremerton. ($419,000)
4. Kiss-N-Ride. Transfer funds to the Arterial SWeet fund to pay for the costs of acquiring easements for the
construction of Kiss-N-Ride project. ($135,000)
5. Parks Development. Resources from this fund will be used to hnmsfur to the Parks Development Fund (Fund 310)
~'or capital improvements to the City parks system. ($125,000)
6. General Govt. Facility Projects. The following capital projects will be funded in 2005: new heating system for
apparatus bays and garage doors at f'~re station #2 ($40,000), new garage doors and concrete/asphalt replacement
at fire station #3 ($65,000), and roof repair/replacement and gate installation/fencing at SOG Bldg. ($40,000)
7. Street Overlay Program. Provide funding for street overlay capital projects. ($100,000)
Category - Revenues 2002 Actual 2003 Actual 2004 Budget 2005 Budget
Beginning Fund Balance 1,190,699 1,900,409 250,000 1,100,000
Taxes 652,757 781,506 510,000 840,000
Licenses & Permits
Intergovernmental 100,000
Charges for Services
Transfers
Miscellaneous Revenues 56,954 39,329 6,000 i 139,000
Non-Revenue Receipts 1,500,000
Other Financing Sources - CDBG 100,000
Total 1,900,410 4,221,244 766,000 2,279,000
Category - Expenditures 2002 Actual 2003 Actual 2004 Budget 2005 Budget
Personnel
Supplies, Services and Taxes
Capital Expenditures 664,000
Debt Service
Transfers 3,435,600 440,000 940,000
Endin~ Fand Balance 1,900,410 785,644 326,000 675,000
TOTAL 1,900,410 4,221,244 766,000 2,279,000
Staffin~ Level 0 0 0 0
NON-DEPARTMENTAL
General Fund
Function Description:
This General Fund Non-Departmental budget accounts for activities of a general nature not associated with a specific
service function or department
Objectives/Programs:
1. Legislative - payment to Kitsap County Auditor's Oftiee for voter registration and election services. ($69,000)
2. Emergency Services - the City contracts with Kitsap County Emergency Management Services for the delivery of
a comprehensive, all-hazards emergency management program. ($49,749)
3. Employee Benefits - the City pays to the State of Washington for unemployment compensation paid on behalf of
employees who have terminate employment with the City. ($65,000)
4. Employee Benefits - set aside reserve funds within this Non-Departmental budget to fund employee cost of living
compensation and increases in medical benefits. ($190,812)
5. General Government services - payments for participation in professional associations, including the Puget Sound
Regional Council ($9,506), Association of Washington Cities ($21,281), Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council
($24,029), and Kitsap Regional Economic Development Council ($30,000).
6. Alcoholism Program - local governments are legally responsible for expending at least 2% of collected liquor
excise taxes and profits for alcoholism programs. ($25,245)
7. Health Services - the City contracts with the Bremerton-Kitsap County Health District for certain public health
support and services. ($42,886)
8. Natural Resources - the City is responsible for funding the enforcement of the "Clean Air Aef' through the Puget
Sound Clean Air Agency. ($11,827)
9. Navel Museum. ($8,000)
10. Grant writer ($20,000)
11. Public Access Television/BKAT - the City provides a regional public access television station. ($35,000)
12. Animal Control - The City euntraets with the Humane Society for animal control services ($181,634)
13. Payment of Goverument Center Debt ($411,000)
14. Operating Transfer Out - the General Fund transfers monies out to financially support the following funds: Street
Fund ($543,000), Risk Management Fund ($502,237), Convention Canter Operating Fund ($100,000), Bond Fund
($284,170) and ($2,065,859) for the transfer of Police & Fire Pension to a Trust Fund.
Category 2002 Actual* 2003 Actual* 2004 Budget 2005 Budget
Personnel 2,381,289 2,556,441 390,508 255,812
Supplies, Services and Taxes 2,336,165 3,267,104 1,131,293 1,125,394
Capital Expenditures 190110 172,542 77,700
Debt Service 59,108 852,565 411,000
Transfers 614,934 736,337 3,149,009 2,993,029
TOTAL 5,581,606 7,584,989 4,748,510 4,785,235
Staffing Level
WATER UTILITY
Enterprise Fund
Function Description:
The Water Operating Utility serves a population of approximately 55,000 people and PSNS. The Utility is an
enterprise fund which was established to maintain a water supply system in compliance with state water quantity and
quality requirements. The Water Utility completes all activities associated with the day-to-day operation and
maintenance of the water system including planning, engineering, management, billing, meter readings, utility service
requests, development review, permit fees, emergency/breakdown repairs, facilities inspection, supplies, monitoring,
public outreach, maintenance management and all other labor, material, equipment and overhead costs associated with
the operation and maintenance of the water system. Revenue for this program is provided through monthly water
rates, grants and loans.
Objectives/Programs:
~Fater Resources
1. Water Resources Manager. Manages the water resource and quality control programs for Bremerton's drinking
water system. The water system is comprised of 12 production wells, 9 water pump stations, 16 reservoirs, Casad
Dam, and surface water supply from the 1.4 billion gallon Union River Reservoir. The average demand is about 8
MGD serving 16,000 accounts. Bremerton's water supply is one of the few unfiltered systems in the country.
Responsible for enviroumental regulatory compliance including monitoring drinking water quality, combined
sewer overflows, baseline stream flows, stormwater, and the biosolids site.
2. Operate and maintain the City's drinking water system in compliance with all State and Federal drinking water
regulations.
3. Provide customer education on water quality and quantity. Complete annual Customer Confidence Report.
4. Manage water rights and applications.
5. Supply State and Federal monitoring and operating reports by required deadlines.
6. Represent the City on water quality and quantity committees such as the Groundwater Management committee,
Water PAK, Water Utility Coordinating Committee, and WRIA 15 Watershed Planning Committees. Participate in
update of the Kitsap County Coordinated Water System Plan.
Category - Revenue 2002 Actual 2003 Actual 2004 Budget 2005 Budget
Beginning Fund Balance 3,862,816 3,091,336 1,376,775 1,749,290
Taxes
Liceases & Permits
Intergovernmental 29,000
Ch~ges for Services 6,051,373 6,540,283 6,720,000 6,693,450
Fines & Forfeits
Miscellaneous Revenues 327,015 364,179 419,616 330,534
Non-Revenue Receipts 106,308 907,647 4,486,200 5,462
Other Financing Sources 600 102,739
TOTAL 10,348,112 11,035,184 13,002,591 8,778,736
Category - Expenditures 2002 Actual 2003 Actual 2004 Budget 2005 Budget
Personnel 2,722,216 2~762,446 2,740,853 3,130,653
Supplies, Services and Taxes 2,381,609 2,609,764 3,142,582 3,181,517
Capital Expenditures 1,837,995 4,051,186 5,610,700 0
Debt Service 286,037 325,732 279,758 288,219
Transfers 28,919 857,542
Ending Fund Balance 3,091,336 1,286,056 1,228,698 1,320,805
TOTAL 10,348,112 11,035,184 13,002,$91 8,778,736
Staffing Level 39.6 50.0 40.63
* Capital Budget of $ 5,703,000 reflected in newly created Water Utility Capital Improvements Fund. Transfer of $174,571 to the Water
Utility Capital Improvements Fund & $ 682,971 to GF PILOT.
7. Perform CSO flow and water quality monitoring as required by Federal regulations and legal agreements. Assist
with CSO Components of the Sewer Comprehensive Plan.
g. Work with Forestry Manager to provide biosolids site monitoring and reporting in eomplianee with Federal, State
and local regulations. Prepare and transmit Annual CSO Report to PSA by January 31 per Consent Decree.
9.Continue to improve water system security
10.Continue upgrade of Water Telemetry System (SCADA).
11. Conduct and complete a comprehensive rate study that will examine the operating and capital funding needs and
debt obligations of the Water Utility and determine and recommend adjustments to the water utility rates and
system development charges.
Forestry
1. Forestry Manager. Responsible for management of the City's 8,500 acres of forested Utility lands and provide
watershed protection/security and timber revenue. Maintains 60 miles of forest roads per state Forest Practice
regulations, manages timber harvest, reforestation, plantation maintenance, and the Biosolids Program.
Coordinates fishery and other environmental issues on Water Utility Forestlands.
2.General Forestry
Generate $1,500,000 in timber revenue subject to market conditions.
Reforest 60 acres with approximately 30,000 Douglas Fir seedlings
Implemant Road Maintenance and Abandonment Plan per DNR regulations (ESA driven).
3. Biosolids Program
Develop additional forest application sites with achievement of Class A biosolids.
Revise monitoring schedule with Bremerton-Kitsap County Health District.
4. Salmon Restoration
Complete inter-agency agreements for fish hatchery operation.
· Host annual salmon viewing and Kid's Fishing Day.
Utilities Operations
1. Utilities Operations Manager - Responsible for all field maintenance and day labor construction for 269 miles of
-- distribution water lines and 30 miles of transmission water lines and reads 16,000 water meters; the Backflow &
Cross-Connection section is responsible for identifying and eliminating connections that could cause
contam'mation to the water system; the Customer Response Dispatch section responds to customer service requests
for all of PW&U divisions.
2. Water system
Continue Water Main Flushing Program
Continue Undersized Main Replacement Program
Continue Meter Maintenance Program
Continue Reservoir Cleaning Program
Continue Hydrant and Valve Maintenance Program
Continue Service Line Replacement Program
Continue Utility Locates
3. Backflow and Cross Connection
Continue Cross-Connection Program
Continue with implementation of fireline backflow assembly upgrades
Continue Grease Trap Inspection Program
Continue setting up new billing accounts.
Continue assisting utility billing operations.
Continue updating existing billing accounts
4. Customer Response / Dispatch
· Provide one to two-hour response to any call from a customer with a problem
Customer feedback and satisfaction are the primary goals
WASTEWATER UTILITY
Enterprise Fund
_ Function Description:
The Wastewater Operating Utility system provides for sewerage transmission, treatment and disposal services for
approximately 39,000 residents in the City, PSNS and surrounding areas. Thc Wastcwater Utility program completes
all activities associated with the day-to-day operation and maintenanc~ of thc wastcwater system including planning,
engineering, management, billing, meter readings, utility service requests, development review, facilities inspection,
emergency/breakdown repairs, permit fe~s, supplies and testing, maintenance management and all other labor,
material, equipment and overhead costs associated with the operation and maintenance of this system. Revenue for
this program is provided through monthly wastcwater rates, systems development charges, grants and loans.
Objectives/Programs:
Wastewater
1. Wastewater Manager. Responsible for maintenance and operation of conveyance (pump stations) and treatment of
all City wastewater. The Charleston Wastewater Treatment Plant treats up to 30 million gallons per day 0VIGD),
the Manette CSO Treatment Plant will t~eat up to 20 MGD, and the conveyance system includes 35 pump stations.
2. Comply with all regulatory mandates.
3. Complete Sewer Comprehensive Plan Update.
4. Design and construct upgrades of pump stations
5. Improve emergency power supply at the WWTP and pump stations.
6. Continue SCADA improvements at pump stations.
7. Improve public image.
Utilities Operations
1. Utilities Operations Manager. Responsible for all field operations for the collection system in the sewer utility.
This division maintains 21 miles of sewer transmission mains, and 146 miles of combined sewer collection system.
Category- Revenue 2002 Actual 2003 Actual 2004 Budget 2005 Budget
Beginnin~ Fund Balance 3,994,390 577,791 920,392 1,058,701
Taxes 65,073 58,835 50,000 50,000
Licenses & Permits
Intergovernmental 114,192 33,231
Charges for Services 8,817,857 9,110,772 9,655,735 10,636,309
Fines & Forfeits
Miscellaneous Revenues 84,381 361,663 50,000 50,000
Non-Reveane Receipts 4,959,686 3,007,061 11,300,000 500,000
Other Financing Sources 15,529 500,000
TOTAL 18,051,108 13,649,353 21,976,127 12,295,010
Category - Expenditures 2002 Actual 2003 Actual 2004 Budget 2005 Budget
Personnel 1,725,118 1,989,643 2,193,514 2,341,768
Supplies, Services and Taxes 2,750,648 2,976,488 3,322,815 2,647,425
Capital Expenditures 8,763,980 3,840,904 9,990,000 0*
Debt Service 4,233,409 4,588,171 5,822,221 5,654,625
Transfers 162 22,500 1,645,984'
Ending Fund Balance 577,791 231,647 647,577 5,208
TOTAL 18,051,108 13,649,353 21,976,127 12,295,010
~ Staffing Level 30.85
* Capital Budget of $ 3,430,000 reflected in newly created Wastewater Utility Capital Projects Fund. Transfer of $745,000 to the new
Wastewater Capital Projects Fund & $ 900,984 to GF - PILOT
2. Sewer
Continue Video Program for Line Inspection.
Continue Sanitary Main Replacement Program.
Continue jetting of all sanitary lines.
- Continue Grease Interceptor Program.
Continue Manhole Inspections Rehabilitation Program.
Continue Cleanout Installation Program on sewer laterals.
Continue Root Control Program.
3. Conduct and complete a comprehensive rate study that will examine the operating and capital funding needs and
debt obligations of the Wastewater Utility and determine and recommend adjustments to the wastewater utility
rates and system development charges.
STORMWATER UTILITY
Enterprise Fund
Function Description:
The Stormwater Operating Utility program, which services a customer population based of 38,000 residents, has been
established to provide a city storm drainage capital improvement and maintanance program. The Stormwater Utility
program supports the Wastewater Utility in the CSO Control Program. The Stormwater Utility program completes all
activities associated with the day-to-day operation and maintenance of the stormwater system including planning,
engineering, management, billing, development review, facilities inspection, maintenance management and all other
labor, material, equipment and overhead costs associated with the operation and maintenance of this utility. Revenue
for this program is provided through monthly stormwater rates and fees.
Objectives/Programs:
Utilities Operations
1. Utilities Operations is responsible for all field operation and day labor construction for the collection system in the
storm utility. This division maintains 114 miles of storm sewers, 13 miles o£open ditches.
2. Continue Video Program for line inspection purposes.
3. Conduct and complete a comprehensive rate study that will examine the operat'mg and capital funding needs and
debt obligations of the Stormwater Utility and determine and recommend adjustments to the stormwater utility
rates and system development charges.
Storm
· Continue Jetting for Storm Lines.
Continue Catch Basin and Curb Debris Plug Prevention Program.
Continue Oil/Water Separator Program.
Continue with Street Sweeping Program
Continue Open Ditch Line Maintenance Program
Respond to calls for assistance with storm-related flooding.
Continue storm drainage main replacement program.
Category - Revenue 2002 Actual 2003 Actual 2004 Budget 2005 Budget
Be~'mning Fund Balance 685,325 709,302 155,804 218,527
Taxes
Licenses & Permits
Intergovernmental
Charges for Services 936,197 1,047,266 1,025,000 1,332,500
Fines & Forfeits
Miscellaneous Revenues 16,328 3,115 10,000 10,000
Non-Revenue Receipts 427,385
Other Financing Sources
TOTAL 2,065,235 1,759,683 1,190,804 1,561,027
Category - Expenditures 2002 Actual 2003 Actual 2004 Budget 2005 Budget
Personnel 457,092 509,896 655,698 624,923
Supplies, Services and Taxes 251,369 323,669 383,447 575;908
Capital Expenditures 647,472 82,931 50,000 0*
Debt Service
Transfers 539,713 100,000 292,838*
Ending Fund Balance 709,302 303,474 1,659 67,358
TOTAL 2,065,235 1,759,683 1,190,804 1,561,027
Staffing Level 7.5 8.5 8.5 8.19
· Capital Budget of $80,1)00 reflected in the newly created Stormwater Capital Improvements Fund. Transfers include $100,000 to the
Wastewater CSO, $80,000 to the Stormwater Capital Improvements Fund & $112,838 to the GF - PILOT.
RISK MANAGEMENT
Internal Service Fund
Mission Statement:
Assure the cost effective protection of City Assets, resources and personnel through the identification and management
of the City's various exposures to loss.
Function Description:
The Risk Management Fund was established to consolidate the financial recording and administrative tracking of all
property and casualty insurance activities in one eust center with joint costs to be shared by all funds as appropriate.
This fund provides for insurance premiums, claims investigation and payment, expenses for defending litigation,
preparation of insurance specifications, loss control, risk evaluation, safety education and workers' compensation.
Objectives/Programs:
1. Assure compliance with the State's industrial insurance laws by providing mandatory workers' compensation
benefits in a cost-effective way. Oversee self-insured claim payments, departmental return to work programs,
claimant appeals, and conformity with medical restrictions placed on injured workers. Maintain sufficient reserves
to cover incurred losses so operational budgets are not impacted by large losses.
2. Identify program and project liability loss exposures and hazardous working conditions. Recommend effective
prevention, mitigation and financing techniques to City Council, Mayor, department heads, managers, and
supervisors. Conduct risk management training for managers and staffand supervise Safety Officer.
3. Design~ neg~tiate~ pr~~ure and administer the City~s pr~perty~ ~iabi~ity~ w~rkers~ ~~mpensati~n~ and surety
insurance and self-insurance programs. Present, negotiate, and resolve City insurance claims and secure recovery
_ from others for damages done to City property.
4. Investigate, evaluate, defend, and resolve self-insured liability claims presented by attorneys, insurers, businesses,
and the public alleging City negligence. Maintain sufficient reserves to cover incurred liabilities so operational
budgets are not impacted when a large loss becomes payable.
Category - Revenue 2002 Actual 2003 Actual 2004 Budget 2005 Budget
Be$inning Fund Balance 1,915,872 990,876 1,000,000 1,287,000
Taxes
Licenses & Permits
Intergovernmental
Charges for Services
Fines & Forfeits
Miscellaneous Revenues 1,023,938 1,029,688 1,306,071 1,324,507
Non-Revenue Receipts
Other Financing Sources
TOTAL 2,939,810 2,020,564 2,306,071 2,611,507
Category - Expenditures 2002 Actual 2003 Actual 2004 Budget 2005 Budget
Personnel 95,960 143,300 330,921 275,336
Supplies, Services and Taxes 773,560 766,005 975,150 1,049,171
Capital Expenditures
Debt Service
Transfers 1,079,414 42,000
Ending Fund Balance 990,876 1,069,259 1,000,000 1,287,000
_ TOTAL 2,939,810 2,020,564 2,306,071 2,611,507
Staffing Level 1.5 1.0
5. In conjunction with City attorneys, review and evaluate proposed City contracts, bid specifications, license
applications, and permit requests and recommend risk transfer and reduction techniques. Analyze and approve
contractors' insurance.
6. Maintain risk management information system for loss reports to City Council, department heads, division
managers, and insurers. Prepare complex financial analysis of projected losses, reserves and retention levels
necessary for adequate loss financing and budgeting.
7. Provide direction and support for the Safety and Health Committee and City supervisors as they strive to enhance
workplace safety. This includes funding minor equipment purchases designed to reduce exposures to hazardous
conditions.
EQUIPMENT RENTAL & RESERVE
Internal Service Fund
Function Description:
The Equipment Rental & Reserve Fund is an internal service fund which finances the operation, repair and
replacement of City vehicles. Revenues are generated through user fees paid by departments utilizing fleet services.
Objectives/Programs
1. The Equipment Services Division is within the Public Works and Utilities Department. The Division manages the
repair and replacement of all City vehicles and equipment including fire trucks, police cars, backhoes, road graders
and other such equipment. Responsible for maintaining vehicle and equipment records, required reports, cost
analysis and replacement schedules.
2. Maintain fleet availability at 95% or beret.
3. Expand in-house OEM warranty program.
4. Review fleet to ensure departments have the appropriate equipment for their needs.
5. Ensure technicians are up-to-date on needed training and certifications.
6. Update fleet replacement and management policies and procedures consistent with the changing customer needs.
7. Develop program 1o begin implementation of alternatively fueled vehicles.
8. Provide service, repair and replacement of all remaining Police Department vehicles brought into the ER&R Fund
in 2004. Charge cost of service of these vehicles and other General Fund vehicles directly to those General Fund
departments utilizing fleet services.
Category- Revenue 2002 Actual 2003 Actual 2004 Budget 2005 Budget
Beginnin$ Fund Balance 4,022,648 4,086,744 3,942,735 2,436,103
Taxes
Licenses & Permits
Inter$ovemmental
Charges for Services 1,251,151 702,824 793,485
Fines & Forfeits
Miscellaneous Revenues 769,468 764,766 968,889 ]~54,732
Non-Revenue Receipts 28,919 56,826 79,693 1,604,586
Other Financing Sources 14,972 109,419 120,000 72,000
TOTAL 6,087,158 5,017,755 5,814,141 6,1607906
Category - Expenditures 2002 Actual 2003 Actual 2004 Budget 2005 Budget
Personnel 353,881 389,800 342,501
Supplies, Services and Taxes 834,429 7,734 694,470 694,350
Capital Expenditures 807,812 681,508 620,000 1,010,955
Debt Service
Transfers 4,292 118,089
Ending Fund Balance 4,086,744 4,210,424 4,109,871 4,113,100
TOTAL 6,087,158 5,017,755 5,814~141 6:160,906
Staffing Level 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.21
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
Internal Service Fund
Mission Statement:
To empower all City departments to process the information necessary for them to perform their assigned function(s)
as efficiently and cost effectively as possible and to provide, where possible, electronic copies of the public
information requested by citizens.
Function Description:
Information Technolog~ provides City departments with customized automated systems, computer hardware/software
support, local/wide area network infrastructure support. Information Technology provides design assistance,
acquisition, installation, training and maintenance of hardware and sofl~vare systems. Information Technology is
responsible for the day-to-day operation, growth planning and security of all computers and the entire City natwork.
Objectives/Programs:
Administration
1. Support for the operation of all computers and related equipment and soft, yarc used on those computers. This
includes research, acquisition, installation, training and general support Cnand holding). Functions require
communicating and working with department heads and elected officials to identify the level of support
requirements. ($170,235)
2. Repair/Maintenance of computer equipment and software, including printers and other devices/components.
Includes computer and monitor replacement programs. ($269,700)
3. Support and monitoring of network operation. ($65,000)
Category - Revenue 2002 Actual 2003 Actual 2004 Budget 2005 Budget
Beginning Fund Balance 92,446
Taxes
Licenses & Permits
Intergovernmental
Charges for Services 756,440 916,793
Fines & Forfeits
Miscellaneous Revenues
Non-Revenue Receipts
Other Financing Sources
TOTAL 0 0 756,440 1,009,239
Category - Expenditures 2002 Actual 2003 Actual 2004 Budget 2005 Budget
Personnel 346,366 353,151 376,433 392,715
Supplies, Services and Taxes 291,125 384,769 310,007 450,578
Capital Expenditures 13,516 70,000 73,500
Debt Service
Transfers
Ending Fund Balance 92,446
TOTAL 651,007 737,920 756,440 1,009,239
Staffing Level 5.5 5.0 5.0 5.0
Internet ConnectiviO~
I. Information Technology maintains and provides access for City depainzments to other governmental agencies via
the Inter Governmental Network (IGN). This connectivity includes the Court's access to the Office of
Administrator of the Courts for the District Court Information System (DISCIS), the Police Depamnent's access to
State Patrol's Information System, the Police Department's access to the County's I-LEADS Police Records
System and various departments' (DCD, Fire, Tax & License, Engineering) access to the County's Land
Information System (LIS).
2. In addition to access to other agencies, Information Technology also provides citywide access to the Internet via
the same IGN.
($28,500)
Document Management
1. Assist departmental scanning needs. Information Technology will assist departments with their document
management needs, maintaining scanners, servers and software.
2. Maintain Document Servers.
3. Mainta'm Scanning Software. ($5,000)
4. Replacement Scanners. ($22,500)
Systems & Programming
1. Support for the Pentamation Accoanting and Payroll products and full support for the City's Tax & Liccnse and
Utility Billing applications. ($54,500)
2. Support for all other automated systems used by the City, including Police Records, Land Information System,
cashiering. ($77,550)
3. Entry into Microsoft Software Assurance program. Microsoft no longer allows software upgrades. You buy a
support license that allows you to mn the latest version of their software. Initial buy-in estimate. ($75,000)
Infrastructure Upgrade and Maintenance
l. Continue to mainta'm and build out the high speed network providing either gigabit or 100 megabit links to all
departments. Add resiliency to the existing infrastructure by providing ready spares for crucial network
equipment. The time is here when the City cannot function without network connectivity. ($55,500)
}Febsite
1. The City now has a website that ranks with the best government sites. It is anticipated that during 2005 we will
commence interactive website applications. Information Technology provides one-half of the funding for a
position in Public Works for Website support. ($18,932)
Parking
1. Replace handheld computers. We have to upgrade the old (very old) Parking System. The upgraded software will
not work with our existing handheld computers. ($16,000)
2. Maintain Parking System. ($7,500)
Provide sufficient cash flow to adequately fund services and maintain fund balance to carry cash over into next fiscal
year.
POLICE AND FIRE PENSION
Trust & Agency Fund
_ Function Description:
This department was established to account for and record pension payments for firefighters and law enforcement
officers who were hired under the LEOFF I Retirement System and Prior Retirement Acts. This program pays for
medical premiums, pension and disability payments for law enforcement officers and firefighters hired prior to July 1,
1979, and who are vested in the system.
Objectives/Programs:
1. Record FY 2005 expenditures out of this pension program for all qualified retired law enforcement officers and
firefighters.
2. Provide medical insurance to qualified retired law enforcement officers and firefighters for long-term medical
liability coverage.
Category - Revenue 2002 Actual 2003 Actual 2004 Budget 2005 Budget
Beginning Fund Balance 34,460
Taxes
Licenses & Permits
Intergovernmental 34,790
Charges for Services
Fines & Forfeits
Miscellaneous Revenues
Non-Revenue Receipts
Other Financing Sources 1,903,141 2,065,859
TOTAL 0 0 1,903,141 2,135,109
Cat~gory - Expenditures 2002 Actual 2003 Actual 2004 Budget 2005 Budget
Personnel 1,601,639 1,758,229 1,730,741 1,925,649
Supplies, Services and Taxes 104,621 162,762 172,400 175,000
Capital Expenditures
Debt Service
Transfers
Ending Fund Balance 34,460
TOTAL 1,706,260 1,920,991 1,903,141 2,135,109
Staffing Level
DATE SUBMITTED: November 17, 2004 BILL #
AGENDA BILL
CITY OF BREMERTON
C1TY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: Resolution presenting Committee Meeting Date: 11/23/04
compliance schedule for adoption of COUNCIL MEETING Date: 12/1/04
development regulations per Growth Department: DCD
Management Act Presenter: Chris Hugo
Phone: 478-5283
SUMMARY: The proposed resolution lays-out a schedule for adoption of development regulations
necessary to implement the 2003-2004 comprehensive plan (scheduled for adoption this date.)
Adoption of such a resolution is mcommeded by the State Department of Community, Trade and
Economic Development (DCTED) as a means of assuring interested parties that the City is working
actively to meet deadlines established by the Growth Management Act.
ATTACHMENTS: Resolution
FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): none
APPROVALS:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR:
FINANCE DIRECTOR:
MAYOR: ((~ ~_ ._./._ ']~~,
FISCAL/BUDGET:
OPERATIONS: ..... ~ ,.~, ~! L'~'~'7~~ CONSENT AGENDA
COUNCIL PRESIDENT:
RECOMmeNDED MOTION:
Move to pass Resolution No. ~-']or7 presenting compliance schedule for adoption of development
regulations per the Growth Management Act.
COUNCIL ACTION: [] Approve [] Deny [] Table [] Continue [] No Action
RESO VTtO q'7
A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of
Bremerton, Washington, documenting efforts of the city to update
development regulations and providing a schedule for adoption.
WHEREAS, the City of Bremerton is required to plan under the provisions of the
Growth Management Act, RCW 36.70A; and
WHEREAS, RCW 36.70A. 130(4) sets deadlines for required updates of
development regulations implementing the Comprehensive Plan and the deadline for Kitsap
County and all planning jurisdictions within Kitsap County as December 1, 2004; and
WHEREAS, the City of Bremerton has encouraged early and continuous public
participation in the update process and has held numerous workshops, public interest surveys and
community meetings to gather public input for consideration in the required update of the
Comprehensive Plan related development regulations; and
WHEREAS, the City of Bremerton has determined through the public
participation process and the analysis of growth within the city limits and current urban growth
area that no expansion of the urban growth area is necessary at this time to accommodate the
projected growth; and
WHEREAS, the City of Bremerton has developed a comprehensive plan
replacing the 1995 Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, the replacement comprehensive plan was adopted on December 1,
2004; and
WHEREAS, the City of Bremerton is committed to complete appropriate
implementing development regulations and amend corresponding portions of City Codes in early
2005 to maintain regulatory consistency, and
WHEREAS, the City of Bremerton has formed a working group under the
direction of the Planning Commission to amend the Critical Areas Ordinance through
incorporating best available science; NOW THEREFORE
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON,
DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City Council shall continue its good faith efforts to comply
with the requirements established under RCW 36.70SA. 130(4) and complete and/or adopt the
above-referenced development regulations on the following dates:
1
GMA Compliance
133
December 21, 2004 Public Hearing before the Planning Commission regarding initial zoning
package
January 5, 2005 City Council work session regarding Initial Zoning Package 2005A (base
residential zone, initial centers zones, single-purpose commercial and
industrial zones, and procedural updates)
January 2005 Public hearing before the City Council regarding initial zoning package
January 2005 Public meetings considering Critical Areas Ordinance update and
Shoreline Master Program amendments
February 2, 2005 Final adoption, initial zoning package
March 1, 2005 Draft Critical Areas Ordinance Update and Shoreline Master Program
amendments to Department of Community Trade and Economic
Development
March 2005 Public heatings before Planning Commission regarding Critical Areas
Ordinance Update and Shoreline Master Program amendments
April, 2005 Public hearings before the City Council regarding Critical Areas
Ordinance update and Shoreline Master Program amendments
May 1, 2005 Adoption Critical Areas Ordinance update and Shoreline Master Program
amendments
The schedule set forth above is the anticipated schedule for processing and adopting the
subject development regulations and may be subject to change based on public participation and
related factors.
SECTIONZ. Severabili.ty. 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.
SECTION3. Ef. fective Date. This Resolution shall take effect and be in force
immediately upon its passage.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Bremerton, Washington this __
day of ,2004.
DAREN NYGREN, Council President
2
GMA Compliance
134
APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST:
ROGER A. LUBOVICH, City Attorney PAULA JOHNSTON, City Clerk
RSLEGAL\Resolutions\Community Development\GMA compliance Resolution 1104.doc
3
GMA Compliance
135