HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/04/04 AGENDA FILE
239 4th Street · Bremerton, WA 98337 ,, Phone [360) 478-5280 · Fax (360) 478-5251
AUGUST 4, 2004
CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
1. PRE-COUNCIL STUDY SESSION: 5:00 - 5:30 P.M. in Council Conference Room
A. General Council Business
2. CALL TO ORDER: 5:30 P.M. in Council Chambers
A. Pledge of Allegiance
B. Invocation
3. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Claims & Check Register (#AB04-145)
B. Minutes of Meeting - July 7, 2004 (#AB04-146)
C. Acceptance of two EPA State & Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG) totaling $3,686,000 for
Wastewater System Improvements (#AB04-147)
D. Contract Award with INSITUFORM TECHNOLOGIES, )NC. for "Shore Drive Sewer - 2004
Improvements Project" (#AB04-148)
E. 2005 - 2007 Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between Kitsap County and the City of
Bremerton to form a HOME Consortium under the National Affordable Housing Act
(#AB04-149)
4. MAYOR'S REPORT
5. NEW BUSINESS - There are no New Business Items this week...
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS - ORDINANCES & RESOLUTION
A. Ordinance [First Reading] vacating an Underground Portion on the South Side of Second
Street (#AB04-150)
B. Resolution No. 2933, regarding the "Downtown Bremerton Pedestrian/BTC Access
Improvement Project" Initiative (#AB04-151)
7. PUBLIC RECOGNITION - Comments limited to 3-minutes
8. COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS
9. ADJOURNMENT OF CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS MEETING
E-mail: citycouncil@ci.bremerton.wa.us · Web: www. ci.bremerton.wa.us
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 BREMERTON
CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: Approval of Claims and Checks Committee Meeting Date:
Register COUNCIL MEETING Date:
Department: Financial Services
Presenter: Cathy Johnson
Phone: 473-5296
SUMMARY: Consent agenda item. Approval of payroll, checks and electronic 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:
1) Check#'s ,~..,xg,(,g~t~ through~andEFT's ~'3~i0 through~3~f~
2) Regular Payroll for tile ~fpe~d endin~ - - in the ~ount of $
3) Retiree Payroll for the pay period ending in the mo~t of $
COUNCIL ACTION: [] Approve [] Deny [] Table [] Continue [] No Action
DATE SUBMITTED: JULY 30, 2004 BILL# O
AGENDA BILL
CITY OF BREMERTON
CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: Minutes of Meeting- Committee Meeting Date: N/A
JULY 7, 2004 COUNCIL MEETING Date: August 4, 2004
Department: City Council
Presenter: Daren Nygren,
Council President
Phone: (360) 473-5280
SUMMARY: Attached are the minutes for the Council Meeting held JULY 7, 2004.
ATTACHMENTS: Minutes for JULY 7, 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 ACIION: [--] Approve [] Den5 [~[ fable [] Continue [] No Action
TAPES #1957 & #1958
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
Wednesday, July 7, 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, July 7, 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 Lod
Smith.
The meeting opened with the Pledge of Allegiance led by Council Member Cecil McConnel{, followed
by the invocation provided by Pastor G.T. Johnson formerly of Brownsville United Methodist Church.
President Ny!:lren made the following announcements:
1. A Pre-Council session was held in the Council Conference Room from 5:00 to 5:30 P.M.;
2. Item 3(B) was pulled from the agenda;
3. Item 3(C) was removed from the CONSENT AGENDA and heard as Item (4B) under NEW BUSINESS;
4. Item 3(D) was pulled from the agenda;
5. Item 4(B) was removed from NEW BUSINESS and heard as Item 5(A) under PUBLIC HEARINGS;
6. Item 5(A) was changed to Item 5(B); 5(B) was changed to Item 5(C); 5(C) was changed to Item 5(D);
and 5(D) was changed to Item 5(E)
7. Although the Public Hearing for Item 5(C) was heard tonight, there was no action taken.
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Check numbers 291855 through 291890; EFT-6287 through EFT-6290; P8291, P6295, 291586,
EFT-6292 and EFT-6294 in the amount of $175,532.36 (#AB04-125)
u...~...~.4~, c~.u~... ~ ..... /~^mn~ !27) Item heard under NEw BUSINESS
#00t5 MISIClU (Priest/McConnell) Move to approve the Consent Agenda as presented.
MAYOR'S REPORT
There was no Mayor's Report this evening; however, President Ny,qren introduced Cris Larsen, Armed
Forces Festival Chairman, who provided an update on the Armed Forces Festival, and presented an
award to Mike Shepherd for the I st annual "Best Float Entry by a Council Member".
4A - AGREEMENT WITH PORT BLAKELY COMMUNITIES~ INC. REGARDING THE PRE-PURCHASE
SCOPE OF WORK FOR EASTPARK ACQUISITION (#AB04-129): The Economic Development
Department has recommended that the City of Bremerton enter into a Pre-Purchase Scope of Work
(Due-Diligence) Agreement with PORT BLAKELY COMMUNITIES, INC. for the potential sale/purchase of
Eastpark which is City owned property consisting of approximately 47-acres of land that currently has no
structures or improvements. The City desires to see the property developed as an urban medium
density residential neighborhood (6 to 10 unites per acre) with a sense of place and locality, quality
construction, neighborhood amenities and landscaping, innovative design and respect for the
environment. PORT BLAKELY COMMUNITIES, INC. has the background and experience to perform pre-
purchase analysis (due-diligence), plan, design, and construct a residential development on that site.
Mr. Nyl:lren added that this was an initial agreement that did not bind either party to develop the
property, but rather, allows PORT BLAKELY COMMUNITIES, INC. a 90-day fact-finding period; and assured
members of the public that there would be an opportunity for community involvement in the development
stage, Mr. Lubovich clarified an amendment to the contract prior to the vote.
TAPES #1957 & #1958
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
Wednesday, July 7, 2004
Page 2 of 6
There were no comments from the public.
#0280 M/S/C/U (Arends/McConnell) Move to approve the Pre-Purchase Scope of Work Agreement as
amended between the City of Bremerton and PORT BLAKELY COMMUNITIES, INC. regarding the Eastpark
property; and authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement upon concurrence by the City Attorney of
the language therein.
4B - PARKING MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT WITH DIAMOND PARKING SERVICES~ LLC FOR THE
BREMERTON HARBORSIDE PARKING GARAGE (#AB04-'127): Paula Johnston, City Clerk,
explained that BREMERTON HARBORSlDE PARKING MANAGEMENT hired DIAMOND PARKING as manager for
the Bremerton Harborside Parking Garage for a three-year period. The agreement includes a base rate
of $4558 monthly, a 2% incentive for revenues over $40,000 annually, and labor rate for additional
services. It also establishes times for lot checks and maintenance.
There were no comments from the public.
#0228 M/S/C (Arends/McConnell) Move to approve the BREMERTON HARBORSIDE PARKING MANAGEMENT
Agreement with DIAMOND PARKING for the management of the Bremerton Harborside Parking Garage;
and authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement and other documents necessary to carry out these
agreements in substantially the same form as presented.
Voted in favor of Motion: Priest, Shepherd, Robinson, Arends, Maupin, Short, Gehring, Nygren
Abstained: McConnell
Motion carried: 8-Yes; 1-Abstention
5A - FY'03 & FY'04 HUD-GRANTED PROGRAM FUNDS FOR "AMERICAN DREAM DOWN-
PAYMENT INITIATIVE (ADDI) USE & OUTREACH PLAN" {#AB04-130): Michelle Eichhorn,
Community Development, explained that as a member of a HOME consortium with Kitsap County, the
City will receive a total of approximately $58,270 or 45.4% of each years ADDI funding from Federal
fiscal year 2003 and 2004 for the purpose of making down-payment assistance to Iow-income families
who are first-time homebuyers. It is recommended that these funds be designated for the City's
Homebuyer Assistance Program. In accordance with the requirements of the program, the City will
conduct targeted outreach to tenants of public housing, and to other families assisted by public housing
agencies, for the purpose of ensuring that these funds are used to provide Homebuyer assistance for
such residents.
There were no comments from the public.
#0595 M/S/C/U (Shepherd/Arends) Move to approve the use of HUD-granted "American Down Payment
Assistance Initiative" (ADDI) 2003 and 2004 Program Funds in the amount of $58,270 for funding
homebuyer assistance activities.
5B - PUBLIC HEARING FOR 2005 DRAFT CDBG/HOME POLICY PLAN AND APPLICATION FOR
FUNDING (#AB04-t3t): Michelle Eichhorn, Community Development, summarized that a study
session with the Council was held on June 9, 2004 to review the 2005 CDBG/HOME Policy Plan and
Application. Recommendations from the Council are listed on page A. An advertised public meeting
was held on June 23, 2004 and there were no recommended changes from the public at that time.
There were no comments from the public.
#0740 M/S/C/U (Arends/Maupin) Move to approve the 2005 CDBG/HOME Policy Plan and Application
as amended.
3
TAPES #1957 & #1958
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
Wednesday, July 7, 2004
Page 3 of 6
$C - ORDINANCE [FIRST READING] AMENDING BMC SECTIONS 21.02.230 AND 17.04.060 (E)
RELATING TO DEVELOPMENT AND PERMIT REQUIREMENTS FOR FENCES {#AB04-132): Chris
Hugo, Community Development Director, mentioned that in recent years, violations of the city's fence
height standards have become more prevalent. At the conclusion of a Council's Study Session in April,
the DCD was directed to draft ordinance amendments to address provisions for special use permits,
entry features, and permit requirements. The Council's direction also confirmed retaining the existing
height standards in the code. The Planning Commission conducted a workshop on the proposed
amendments on April 15, 2003; and held public hearings on June 17 and July 15, 2003. The
Commission recommends the attached ordinance to the Council for adoption. Mr. Hullo provided a
POWER POINT presentation to show examples of properties with various conforming and non-conforming
fences to provide further details of the proposed amendments and to aid in the discussion of issues that
still required resolving, i.e. fence height.
President Ny.qren explained that no action would be taken on this item tonight however; he decided to
keep it on the agenda so as to take public comment from those who attended the meeting tonight.
Jack Garrett provided pictures of his property to show that the fence on his property has been in
existence since 1974, and questioned whether his property would be "grand fathered".
Jerry VanFossen owns a few properties and the City, but was unaware of the fence ordinances until he
attempted to repair one of his existing fences. He felt there were legitimate instances where a chain-link
fence higher than 3 feet was reasonable and necessary, and added that the City's fence heights should
at least be consistent with the County's.
Donald Pennin.qton supported the request made earlier by Mr. Garrett, and additionally expressed his
concerns with the areas of the ordinance which he believed infringed on property rights, and added that
exceptions should be made for those properties located in "high traffic" areas or for those who owned
"high risk" animals such as pit bulls.
William Schnarr also discussed the issues uniquely related to those whose property sits on a corner
and is in a high traffic area. Mr. Hu.qo clarified that this ordinance would apply when there is a corner
property and both yards facing each street are front yards by definition.
Eric Youncler provided comments to express his concern with aspects of the ordinance such as the
added requirement for a permit; and was disappointed that citizens were not being allowed to ask a lot of
questions and receive answers from staff in attendance. President Ny.qren determined that due to the
number of questions, he asked that they be submitted in writing, and assured Mr. Younger that he would
be provided the answers. Mr. McConnell asked that Council members also received a copy of the
questions with the answers.
Paula Johnston added that a letter submitted by Jim Adrian listing his concerns with the permitting
requirements and fence heights was included as a part of the record.
Mr. Hullo addressed the issues raised by Mr. McConnell regarding front-yard three-foot setbacks.
Mr. Gehrinfi took exception with the restriction for a 42" chain link fence height after calling around and
finding out that the standard height available for purchase was 48". Mr. Hu,qo explained that the 42"
height limit has always been in the ordinance, and was not implemented by him; and that Council has
not provided direction for any changes to the draft of the ordinance before Council tonight.
Mr. Shepherd appreciated that Mr. Gehring took the time to obtain information on chain link fencing
height easily available to consumers; and discussed homeowner's use of vegetation for "screening". Mr.
Hu.qo explained that the current ordinance is "silent" regarding the use of landscaping.
TAPES #1957 & #1958
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
Wednesday, July 7, 2004
Page 4 of 6
Mr. Short commented that the Council requires further deliberation on this issue to consider use of
"grand fathering", application of front-yard definitions, fences used for security and noise buffering,
permitting costs, and all the other questions raised tonight. Noted that DCD has a pamphlet available
which discusses the information needed to build a fence in compliance with City code.
Mr, Maupin added that this ordinance will address these and other important issues, and believed that a
permitting system was the best way to monitor fence regulations. He also pointed out the added
language to allow entry features.
Mrs. Arends also raised the issue regarding the application of front-yard definitions. Mr, Hugo replied
that standard zoning regulations are applied, and responds to which yard is on the street, regardless of
where the "view" might be.
Ms. Priest noted that it was heard over and over from citizens during the Comp Plan public meetings
that aesthetics were valued to address the "visual appeal" of the City.
#3477 M/S/C/U (McConnell/Gehring) Move to continue Public Hearing to July 21, 2004.
5D - RESOLUTION NO. 2931~ REGARDING APPROVAL AND RATIFICATION OF KITSAP
CONFERENCE CENTER AT BREMERTON HARBORSIDE CHANGE ORDERS {#AB04-'125): Roger
Lubovich submitted that expenditures in the form of contract modifications related to the Kitsap
Conference Center at Bremerton Harborside have been approved by the Director of Economic
Development, and the work detailed in the contract modifications has been completed pursuant to
Bremerton City Code 2.76.400 (a). The City Council must approve change orders of an aggregated
value exceeding $250,000.
TAPE #1958
Eric Younger asked if the Council members should have approved the Change Orders before they
were executed, thereby creating a request that the Council approve an "illegal contract". Mr. Lubovich
established that lengthy discussion was held on whether or not the Council has granted authority to the
Economic Development Director to execute Change Orders, and it was determined in this instance that
a ~conservative approach" for ratification would be taken; and further established that this was not an
"illegal contract". Mr. Younger expressed his concern that the Economic Development Director did not
sign this Agenda Bill. President Ny~lren explained that the Economic Development Director had agreed
to sign it, but it was ultimately decided that the Mayor would sign this particular Agenda Bill. Mr~
Younger lastly, questioned how the Council could approve these Change Orders totaling $1,944,999.00
when "Unknown" was listed under the "Fiscal Impact" section of the agenda bill. President Nygren
explained that "Fiscal Impact" refers to the City's budget; and Mr. Lubovich further explained that it was
not known during the initial discussions whether or not a Budget Adjustment was required, but it was
later determined that the Change Orders could be funded with money that was budgeted and held in
reserves for these types of items; therefore, no Budget Adjustment was necessary. Mr. Short
addressed the opinion of the Audit Committee on this issue; which included a recommendation to move
forward and ratify the adjustments because the funding was available. Also, that the requirements of the
BMC need to clearly specify issues of authority; and the Executive office needs to improve
communications.
Mr. McConnell expressed his concern that a violation occurred with how the Change Orders were
executed, and that the Council was not informed earlier; therefore he would not support this Resolution.
Mrs. Arends pointed out that after information on this issue was brought to the Council, President
Nygren appointed an Ad-Hoc Committee to study the concerns, and it was then determined that
although different processes were used to obtain the numbers, the final numbers were ultimately the
same.
5
TAPES #1957 & #1958
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
Wednesday, July 7, 2004
Page 5 of 6
Mr. Shepherd addressed issues with the fountain, including the lack of a response to previous concerns
expressed about the costs and whether or not a fountain would actually bring additional people to the
Conference Center.
Mr. Maupin agreed that a misunderstanding occurred regarding the authority of the Project Manager,
and that after lengthy discussions were held, he agreed that the Council would approve these Change
Orders, as well as all future Change Orders; and pointed out that the fountain was included in the
original plans, but no money for the fountain was available at that time.
#0500 M/SIC (Arends/Maupin) Move to pass Resolution No. 2931 approving and ratifying contract
modification expenditures for the Kitsap Conference Center at Bremerton HarborSide.
Voted in favor of Motion: Maupin, Short, Gehring, Arends, Nygren
Voted opposed to Motion: McConnell, Priest, Shepherd, Robinson
Motion carried: 5-Yes; 4-No
SE - RESOLUTION NO. 29327 SETTING A HEARING DATE OF AUGUST 4~ 2004 FOR VACATING A
SUBTERRANEAN PORTION OF SECOND STREET (#AB04-t34): Roger Lubovich, City Attorney,
stated that the City initiated the vacation of a subterranean portion of Second Street at the corner of
Washington Avenue and Second Street. The vacated area will be incorporated into the abutting
property owned by Kitsap Federal Credit Union. This is a Class t! right-of-way and compensation will be
required in accordance with BMC 11.20.140. Staff requests that a hearing date of August 4, 2004 be
established to consider the proposed vacation.
There were no comments from the public.
Mr. McConnell asked how the value of the property to be vacated was determined. Mr. Lubovich
stated that the action before them was merely to set the hearing date, and that more information would
be available at that time; but answered the value was provided as $90,000 by the appraiser.
#0632 MISICIU (Arends/McConnell) Move to approve Resolution No. 2932 setting a hearing date of
August 4, 2004, to consider vacating a subterranean portion of Second Street.
PUBLIC RECOGNITION
Bruce Waterbury was here to represent the YMCA, and announced the Senior Games would begin
tomorrow on July 8, which would include a dinner at the President's Hall on Saturday night. He also
presented the first medal of the Games to Council President Nygren for his support.
COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS
Mike Short provided a briefing on the issues discussed at the last KRCC Policy Board meeting he
attended along with Mrs. Arends.
Will Maupin added that as part of the Senior Games, he was in charge of the 3-on-3 basketball
tournament that would be held on Saturday from 10:00 AM to 3:00 PM at the Bremerton High School
Gym.
Carol Arends also attended the KRCC Policy Board meeting and added that a public hearing to discuss
further issues of the population study would be held on July 27 in Silverdale; and planned to attend a
PSRC Board Meeting on July 8 to discuss proposed road projects and current traffic concerns relating to
the Highway 305 corridor.
TAPES #1957 & #1958
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
Wednesday, July 7, 2004
Page 6 of 6
Mike Shepherd announced that the CHARLESTON CINEMA was again offering free summer matinees;
discussed the recommendations made by the "Fireworks Committee"; entered a number of the Senior
Games events; amazed at how much support has been provided for the downtown redevelopment; was
pleased at the interest shown in monorail as an alternative mode of transportation in the area; and
added that Concerts at Evergreen Park will be held on Tuesdays from 6:00 to 8:00 PM.
Wendy Priest announced the "Peanut Butter & Jam Concert Series" was beginning Wednesday, July
14, from 11:30 AM to 1:00 PM at the corner of 4th Street and Washington Avenue.
Cecil McConnell asked the Council members to continue to submit their recommendations for Charter
changes; and questioned whether the Council would hold a Study Session to critique the Council's new
meeting format. President Ny~lren replied yes.
Brad Gehring commented on the recent District 1 and 2 Community Meeting and thanked Michelle
Eichhorn of Community Development and City Attorney Roger Lubovich for attending; asked for
volunteers for the "Eastside Community Fair" planned for Lions Field on Saturday, August 21 which
would include a display on bicycle safety; and lastly, announced a "Blues Concert" would be held at the
Admiral Theater on Saturday, August 28 and would include a motomycle show.
Daren Nygren thanked Mrs. Arends for chairing the ad-hoc committee regarding the Change Orders for
the Conference Center issues; and Mr. Shepherd for chairing the committee on Fireworks issues, as
well as committee members.
With no further business, the meeting of the City Council was adjourned at 8:02 P.M.
Prepared and Submitted by:
LORI SMITH
Legislative Assistant
Attest:
PAULA JOHNSTON, Interim City Clerk
DAREN NYGREN, City Council President
City of Bremerton
DNIP J/Islcge
DATE SUBMITTED: June 24, 2004 BILL
AGENDA BILL
CITY OF BREMERTON
CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: Acceptance of EPA Grants Committee Meeting Date: July 28, 2004
COUNCIL MEETING Date: August 4, 2004
Department: PW&U, Engineering
Presenter: Tom Knuckey
Phone: 473-2376
SUMMARY: The City was earmarked to receive two State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG) in
EPA's 2002 Appropriation Act for wastewater system improvements. The total amount offered is
$3,686,000, both grants require minimum matching funds of 45%. The $1,940,000 grant will
partially fund CSO Reduction Improvements in the Pacific Avenue Basin, and the $1,746,000 grant
will partially fund upgrades to the Wastewater Treatment Plant.
ATTACHMENTS: Excerpt from US EPA STAG Award Memorandum, Grant Summary
FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): The grants require a 45% match. The Pacific
Avenue Basin CSO Reduction Project is funded by this grant, with match from existing PWTF Loan
No. PW-04-691-010 and SRF Loans No. L0300034 and L0400003. The WWTP Upgrades are funded
by this grant with match from existing PWTF Loan No. PW-00-691-010 and rates. The grants, loans,
and rate expenditures for these projects are included in the rate study, the 2004 budget, and the current
and draft CIP.
APPROVALS: ~ ,
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR.Q ~~'c~/
FINANCE DIRECTOR:
MAYOR:
OPERATIONS: ~ _~-/~ ~,/~ '(~,~ ~ '~',,o,~,~ ~'~,,,-',~ ~o
/!
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to approvetwo EI~ STAG Grants totalling $3,686,000, and
authorize the Mayor to finalize and execute the grant agreements.
COUNCIL ACTION: [] Approve [] Deny [] Table [] Continue [] No Action
ab, Agenda Bills 2004, Acceptance of EPA Grants
ACCEPTANCE OF EPA GRANTS
SUMMARY
The combined sewer overflow reduction plan update recommends various sewer and storm drain
improvements in the Pacific Avenue basin. In addition the Capital improvement plan calls for
several improvements to the Charleston wastewater treatment plant. Engineering staff are
coordinating receipt of EPA STAG grants in the amount of $3,686,000. These grants require a
45% match. The match funds used to qualify for these grants will come from two PWTF loans and
two SRF loans. These loans have been previously approved by City Council. The loans all have
20-year terms, with interest rates varying between 0.5% and 1.5%.
The improvements in the Pacific Avenue basin include: · Pump station CE-6 and force main improvements.
· Storm drain separation at five specific sites.
· Repair of existing sewers at specific locations.
· Collector storm drain construction on a priority basis.
· Trunk storm drain construction.
The Improvements to the Charleston wastewater treatment plant include: · New anaerobic digester
· Engine generator
· New boiler
· Filter press for biosolids dewatering
· Headworks mechanical bar screen
· Sluice gates for enhanced flow management during storm events
All revenues and expenditures are in the budget, Capital Improvement Program, and are included
in the calculations of the rates study.
The trunk storm construction is anticipated to be designed and constructed as part of the
Pedestrian Improvements BTC Access project. In the last week management of this project has
been transferred to the WSDOT. We have been in communication with the WSDOT project
manager and he indicates that the CSO project can be designed and constructed as part of the
BTC access project. Engineering staff has also set up the accounting procedures so costs for
each project can be accounted for separately.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended by staff that the City Council approve the EPA STAG grants in the amount of
$3,686,000.
Jul 27 04 02:56p Encineering Division 360-4?8-5388 p.1
SPECIAL WATER AND WASTEWATER INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS (STAG ACCOUNT)
INCLUDED IN EPA'S FY 2.002 APPROPRIATIONS ACT
04/03102 -
Line 3%
Item Earmark Set- Grant Budget
# Earmark Designntion Amount Aside Amount Code Description
OreROn
261 Clackamas County 485.000 14.500 470.500 QI-~M For surface water infrastructure improvemenLs
259 Lower Jo]lo Day' Region 1.000.000 ]0,000 970,000 Q]R For · water and wastewster trca~nent facilities
262 Medford, CRy of 385,000 11,600 373.400 QID For comt~uction of water and wastcwater
Iteatmem facilities and groundwater protection
infrastructure project program
260 P0rdand. City of 1,250,000 37,500 1,212,5C0 QIW For the we! weatht:r demonstration project
k 2,000,000 60.000 1,940,000 AW2 For the combined sewer overflow projec!
1.800.000 54,000 !,746,000 AW2 Fo~' the combined sewer overflow treatment plant
, 485,000 t4,500 470,500 QIL For construclion of a wastewater treatmenL
Klickital County facility
323 Evtrctt, City of 250,0(30 7,500 242,500 QIH For pre-design and l~cilities planning of
combined sewer ovedlow treatmcm sites
320 Wahkialmm County Public !,500,000 45,000 1,455,000 QIS' For the drin]dng wat~ t'acility project
U61ity District
19 Region 10Total 21,155,000 634,600 20,520,400
HeadquarlerS
~73 Table Rock Lake Wastewatei- 2,000.000 60.000 1,940,000 QG¥ For t~e Table Rock Lake Wastewate~' ir. itiative
Initiative, MO in MO as a Natlonsl Conununity Decentralized
Demonstration Project
I Headquarters Totals 2,000,000 60,000 1,940,000
337 NationalTolals 346,$23,ff25 10,122,72~ 336,400,900
Grant Programs
5 Alaska 3,000.000 3.000.000 Far addressing above groun~ leaking fuel banks
236 Long Island Sound 4.000,000 120,000 3.880.000 QBO For water quality infrastructure improvements
2 Me'can Border Totals 9,000,000
Appropriation Act Total
without Mexican Border
337 Projects 344,523,62S
10
AGENDA BILL
CITY OF BREMERTON 3 b
CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: Award Contract for Shore Committee Meeting Date: July 28, 2004
Drive Sewer- 2004 Improvements COUNCIL MEETING Date: August 4, 2004
Department: PW&U, Engineering
Presenter: Mike Mecham
Phone: 473-5288
SUMMARY: Sealed bids for construction of the project titled "Shore Drive Sewer - 2004
Improvements" were opened on July 6, 2004. The engineer's estimate for the project is $265,000.
One bid was received for this project. Insituform Technologies, Inc.was the lowest responsive,
responsible bidder with a bid of $308,740.00 (including sales tax).
ATTACHMENTS: 1) Bid Tabulation; 2) Exhibit A; Contract Summary and Fiscal Summary
FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): The project is funded by a Water Quality Program
State Revolving Fund loan and is included in the 2004 budget. See Exhibit A, Fiscal Summary.
APPROVALS:
DEPARTMENT DiRECTOR:(,~~ ~/~7~ 7//~/0~'
CITY ATTORNEY:~.l ~/ ,-. ~/~J--'~ ~'-~--'~'~--~'~
MAYOR:
OPERATIONS:
COUNCIL PRESIDENT:
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to award a contract in the amount of $308,740.00 (including
sales tax) with Insituform Technologies, Inc. for construction of the project titled "Shore Drive Sewer
- 2004 Improvements" and authorize the Mayor to finalize and execute the necessary contract
documents for construction.
COUNCIL ACTION: [] Approve [] Deny [] Table [] Continue [] No Action
ab, Agenda Bills 2004, Shore Drive Sewer Imp, Bid Award
EXHIBIT A
Shore Drive Sewer, 2004 Improvements - Contract Summary
The work to be completed under this Contract generally consists of rehabilitation of
approximately 1610 linear feet of 18-inch sanitary sewer pipe with a cure-in-place-pipe
(ClPP) lining, rehabilitation of seven (7) manholes, reinstatement of laterals, surface
restoration, and erosion control.
There was only one bid at the bid opening, from Insituform Tech, for $306,740. A
second bid arrived approximately 5 minutes late from PEC, Inc. In a conversation with
City Engineering staff, PEC, Inc. indicated that their bid was for approximately $324,000.
A third potential bidder, Geico Services, Inc., stated in a conversation with City
Engineering staff that their bid would not have been the lowest bid. Geico stated they
did not submit a bid because they did not have a good working relationship with the
manhole rehabilitation subcontractor. Geico stated that the bid amount from Insituform
for the ClPP work was very competitive.
The Engineer's Estimate for construction of this project was $2§5,000, which is
approximately $44,000 less than the Iow bid. The primary difference was the manhole
rehabilitation cost using fiberglass inserts. The Engineer's Estimate for manhole
rehabilitation work was $77,000, whereas the Iow bid for this item was $126,000, a
difference of $49,000.
City Public Works staff have concluded that manhole rehabilitation can be accomplished
at less expense using something other than fiberglass inserts. The fiberglass inserts will
be deleted and manhole rehabilitation using a cementitious lining or epoxy coating will
be added to the contract via Change Order, resulting in savings of approximately
$80,000.
Fiscal Summary
The project is funded by a State Revolving Fund (SRF) Loan approved by Council on
June 16, 2004. The SRF loan funds this project, and additionally funds the Cherry
Avenue Beachmain project which is scheduled to bid later this summer. Loan terms are
as follows:
Loan Amount = $1,075,000
Loan Fee = $0
Match Required = $0
Term = 20-years
Interest Rate = 1.5%
Annual Debt Service (Approx) = $62,250
City of Bremerton
Shore Driver Sewer 2004 Improvements
July 2004
DATE SUBMITTED: BILL #
AGENDA BILL
CITY OF BREMERTON O¢ -!/-~
CITY COUNCIL ~~
SUBJECT: Inter-local Cooperation Committee Meeting Date: 7/28/04
COUNCIL MEETING Date: 8/04/04
Agreement between Kitsap County and the Department: DCD
City of Bremerton. Presenter: Michelle Eichhom
Phone: (360) 473-5375
SUMMARY: Approving this Agreement will allow Kitsap County and the City of Bremerton to
continue receiving an annual allocation of HOME funds from the Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD). Home funds allocated to the County have been just over one million dollars
annually and have leveraged many times this amount to support the development of housing for low-
income and special needs individuals and families living in Kitsap County. Not approving this
agreement would terminate this source of funding.
ATTACHMENTS:
1.) Inter-local Cooperation Agreement between Kitsap Urban County and the City of
Bremerton to form a HOME Consortium under the National Affordable Housing Act for
the Program Years 2005-2007 and as herein renewed.
2.) Inter-local Cooperation Agreement between Kitsap Urban County and the City of
Bremerton to form a HOME Consortium under the National Affordable Housing Act for
Program Years 2002-2004.
3.) Highlighted major language differences between the two agreements.
FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): Not approving this agreement would temfinate
this annual source of funding for the City. The current average aamual' allocation for the HOME
program is $500,790.
APPROVALS:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY:
FINANCE DIRECTOR:
MAYOR:
OPERATIONS: ~ .k~.~;z ~. ~ ,--~,,,o~,,,. AGENDA '~
COUNCIL PRESIDENT: - ~L-~_a4~
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to approve the 2005-2007 Inter-local Coot>erafion Agreement
between Kitsap .County and [he City o.fB~r~¢.erton~g.~i~,~~ ~ IF~ ~ ~ .;
COUNCIL ACTION: [] Approve [] De~y [] Table [] Continue [] No Action
14
Office of the City Attorney
Roger A. Lubovich, City Attorney
Memorandum
TO: City Council
Fi'em: Brett C. Vinson, Assistant City Attomey
Bio: Home Consortium Agreement with the County
081~: July 27, 2004
I have reviewed the contract and the changes and am of the opinion that there are no substantive
changes that cause concern. There were only two major changes. First, language allowing for
automatic renewal of the agreement was added. In addition, the language regarding the
determination of the distribution of HUD dollars has changed to be tied to HUD's calculation in
the Home Consortia Participating Members Percentage Report. These changes will allow for a
the City and the County to more efficiently and effectively provide the services contemplated
under this agreement.
Agenda title: Inter-local Cooperation Agreement between
Kitsap County and the City of Bremerton
Meeting dates: City Council Committee: 7/28/04
City Council: 8/4/04
Submitted by: Michelle Eichhorn, Comm. Development Program Administrator
Executive Summary
Subject: Approve the Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between Kitsap County and the City of
Bremerton to form a HOME Consortium under the National Affordable Housing Act
Justification: Approving this Agreement will allow Kitsap County and the City of
Bremerton to continue receiving an annual allocation of HOME funds from the
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Home funds allocated to the
County have been just over one million dollars annually and have leveraged many times
this amount to support the development of housing for low-income and special needs
individuals and families living in Kitsap County. Not approving this agreement would
terminate this source of funding.
Background: The attached Interlocal Agreement is part of the re-certification process required
by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for the three program years
2005-2007 and as renewed. This Agreement continues the HOME Investment Partnership
Program Consortium with the City of Bremerton and allows the County to continue receiving
HOME funds to provide housing and other services to low-inoome and special needs individuals
and families. Two major changes have been made to this Agreement. First, the previous language
did not allow for automatic renewal, and therefore this change adds the language that allows for
automatic renewal of the Agreement. Second, the language regarding the determination of the
distribution of HUD dollars between the County and City has changed to be tied to HUD's
calculation in the Home Consortia Participating Members Percentage Report.
Attachments: 1. Interlocal Cooperation Agreement Between Kitsap Urban County and the
City of Bremerton to form a HOME Consortium Under the National
Affordable Housing Act for Program Years 2005-2007 and as herein
renewed.
2. Interloeal Cooperation Agreement Between Kitsap Urban County and the
City of Bremerton to form a HOME Consortium Under the National
Affordable Housing Act for Program Years 2002-2004
3. Highlighted major language differences between the two Agreements.
17
Hi~,hli~,hted major language differences between the two Agreements
1. Lan~uaue allowing for Automatic renewal:
2005-2007 Agreement:
A. This agreement shall remain in full force and effect from thc date of execution and
approval by HUD for the period necessary to carry out all activities that will be funded for
three federal fiscal years: 2005, 2006 and 2007 and for such future fiscal years as this
agrcemcnt is automatically renewod.
13. The program year start date for the Urban County and the City ofBremcrton CDBG
programs as well as the HOME consortium HOME program is January 1, 2005, concluding
December 31, 2007 except as herein renewed.
C. This agreement shall automatically be renewed at the end of each three-year qualification
period, unless changes to thc agreement are required by HUD that would require the
execution ora new agreement, or iftbe COUNTY or CITY provides written notice that it
elects not to participate in the new qualification period. A copy of this notice must be sent to
the HUD Field Office. The COUNTY, by the date specified in HUD's urban County
qualification notice, shall noti~ the CITY of its right not to participate in the new
qualification period. A copy of this notice must be sent to thc HUD Field Office by the date
specified in the urban county qualification schedule in Section II.
D. The signatory parties agree to adopt any amendment to the agreement incorporating
changes necessary to meet the requirements for cooperation agreements set forth in an Urban
County Qualification Notice applicable for a subsequent three-year qualification period, and
to submk such amendment to HUD as provided in the urban county qualification notice. A
failure of any of the signatory parties to adopt such amendment will void the automatic
renewal provision for such qualification period.
E. The consortium members are required to remain in the consortium and cannot terminate
or withdraw during the entire period.
Prior 2002-2004 Agreement term language:
This agreement shall remain in full force and effect from the date of execution and approval
by HUD for the period necessary to carry out all activities that will be funded for three
federal fiscal years: 2002, 2003 and 2004. The consortium members are required to remain
in the consortium and cannot terminate or withdraw during the entire period. The program
year start date for the Urban County and the City of Bremerton CDBG programs as well as
the HOME consortium HOME program is January t, 2002, concluding December 31,2004.
2. Language regarding the determination of the distribution of HUD dollars
between the County and City has changed to be tied to HUD's calculation in the
Home Consorti# Participating Members Percentage Report:
2005-2007 Agreement:
Funds received by the Kitsap County HOME Consortium will be allocated between the
COUNTY and the CITY based on a proration of the HOME allocation as established by the
Federal allocation formula for the year or the most recent formula ifa current year formula
has not been established. The percentage of distribution between the COUNTY and the
CITY shall be as determined in HUD's HOME Consortia Participating Members Percentage
Report for each federal fiscal year. Provided, however, that if the federal allocation is
reduced due solely to one Party's program activities, the Party that caused the reduction in
funds shall have its allocation reduced accordingly.
Currently the distribution percentages identified by HUD are fift~-seven percent for the
County and forty-three percent for the City of Brcmerton.
Prior 2002-2004 Agreement:
Funds received by the Kitsap County HOME Consortium will be allocated between the
COUNTY and the CITY based on a proration of the 2001 HOME allocation, or on the actual
federal allocation for that year, if it is available. (For example, if the CITY's 2001 allocation
is $486,234 and the COUNTY's 2001 allocation is, $584,766 the proration would be CITY
45.4% of total and COUNTY 54.6% of total unless the actual federal allocation for that year
were available). Provided, however, that if the federal allocation is reduced due solely to one
Party's program activities, the Party that caused the reduction in funds shall have its
allocation reduced accordingly.
INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT
BETWEEN KITSAP URBAN COUNTY AND THE CITY OF BREMERTON
TO FORM A HOME CONSORTIUM UNDER THE NATIONAL AFFORDABLE HOUSING
ACT
PROGRAM YEARS 2005-2007 AND AS HEREIN RENEWED
This agreement is entered into between the City of B'emerton, (hereinafter the "City"), a Washington
Municipal Corporation, and Kitsap Urban County (hereinafter the "County"), pursuant to the
Interlocal Cooperation Act, chapter 39.34 RCW. Kitsap County Urban County includes Kitsap
County, and the cities of Bainbridge Island, Port Orchard and Poulsbo, all Washington Mmicipal
Corporations, pursuant to a separate interlocal agreement among those entities. This agreement will
become effective upon adoption by the parties and will continue until terminated asprovided herein.
I. RECITALS
A. WHEREAS, the Congress of the United States of America has enacted the National Affordable
Housing Act, HOME Investments in Affordable Housing Program, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 12721 (hereinafter
the Act) as implemented by the U SDepartment of Housing and Urban Development (hereinafter
"HUD") in 24 CFR Part 92, allowing units of general local government to enter into mutual
cooperation agreements to form a consortium for the purpose of obtaining funding as a participating
jurisdiction under the HOME Investment Partnership Program (HO~ Program); and
B. WHEREAS, the purpose of the HOME program per 24 CFR Section 92.1 is to strengthen public-
private partnerships through the allocation of funds among eligible state and local govemmats and to
expand the supply of decent, safe, sanitary, and affordable housing for low and very low income
Americans.
C. WHEREAS, it is found that the above listed objectives are pertinent to the concerns and needs of
the COUNTY and of the CITY; and
D. WHEREAS, eligibility for HOIV~ Investment Partnership funds is based upon criteria similar to
the criteria for eligibility for Urban County designation for CDBG fimds: and
E. W~rIEREAS, Kitsap County and the Cities of Bainbridge Island, Port Orchard and l~ulsbo have
requested Urban County status under the CDBG Program and the City of Bremerton qualifies as a
separate entitlement under the CDBG program; and
F. WHEREAS, Kitsap County and the Cities of Bainbridge Island, Port Orchard and Poulsbo have
entered into a separate Interlocal Agreement forming a consortium under the Home Program, which
agreement designates Kitsap County as the representative member to administer the Urban County~
HOME and CDBG programs; and
G. WHEREAS, COUNTY shall administer theHOME program as well as the Urban County CDBG
program and the CITY will administer its own CDBG program. Both of these programs will be
included in the County Consortium Consolidated Plan; and
H. WHEREAS, the COUNTY agrees to delegate to the Kitsap Rel~onal Coordinating Council
(hereinafter referred to as "KRCC") decision making authority as defined herein regarding the
Consolidated Plan, as the KRCC was established to have regional oversight, representation and
authority on certain issues affecting allof Kitsap County; and
I. WHEREAS, the signatory political subdivisions to this agreement have determined that obtaining
funding under the HOME Program will increase their ability to provide affordable housing for their
low and moderate income residents, and
J. WHEREAS, the Department of Housing and Urban Development has specified the minimum
provisions which must be included within any intergovernmental agreement for the cooperating
governmental bodies to qualify for Urban County eligibility.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises made herein and the mutual benefits
received hereunder, the parties agree as follows:
Il. DEFINITIONS
A. "Member" means a unit of local government which is a signatory to this agreement and therefore
of the consortium for the purpose of carrying out eligible activities under 24 CFR Part 92.
B. "Representative member" means the unit of local government designated hereafter as the one
member to act in a representative capacity for all members for the purl~se of this agreement ("lead
entity"). The Representative 1Vember will assume overall responsibility for ensuring that the
consortium's HOME Program is carried out in compliance with the requirements of 24 CFR Part 91
and 92, the housing objectives of the CITY and COUNTY as adopted in the Consolidated Plan, and
will assume responsibility for the requirements concerning the Consolidated Plan.
III. ACTIVITIES
A. The signatory parties agree to cooperate in undertaking, or assist in undertaking, housing
assistance activities for the HOME Investment Parmership Program in compliance with the
Consolidated Plan.
B. The signatory parties agree to jointly pursue and identify match requirements.
C. The signatory parties agree to take affirmative action to father fair housing in their jurisdictions.
Such actions may include planning, education and outreach, and enforcement components.
IV. ADMINISTRATION
A. COUNTY will be designated as the Representative Ivbmber and agrees to carry out such overall
responsibilities with the cooperation of the CITY in accordance with 24 CFR 92.101 as set forth
herein
B. COUNTY will administer both the Urban County's Community Development Block Grant
Program and HOME Investment Partnership Program. The CITY will administefits Community
Development Block Grant Program separately.
C. COUNTY, as the Representative M~mber, shall manage the entire HO1VE allocation on behalf of
the consortium, as set forth herein.
D. COUNTY agrees to carry out eligible activities in accordancewith and to generally follow the
requirements of 24 CFR Part 92.
E. CITY is responsible for submitting in a timely manner to the Representative I~mber all
information necessary for participation in the consortium as defined in 24 CFR Part 92. This incldes
all information necessary for the Consolidated Plan, the HOIVE program description and
certifications (24 CFR 92.150), and performance reports. The Consolidated Plan Annual Performance
Report, HOME Annual Performance Report, and the Annual ConsolidatedPlan information shall be
provided to the COUNTY by the dates specified by the COUNTY.
F. KRCC shall have decision making authority over areas specific to the Urban County's CDBG
Program as well as its portion of the HO1V~ allocation. The COUNTY, as administrative agency for
the HOME Program and the Urban County's CDBG Program, will be responsible for providing staff
support to KRCC in relation to these programs. The CITY shall have decisiomnaking authority over
areas specific to its CDBG entitlement as well as its portion of the HOME allocation.
G. The COUNTY is responsible for submitting the Consolidated Plan to the Department of Housing
and Urban Development. Development of the Consolidated Plan will require the participation of
citizens and organizations as well as input from the CITY. The CITY will provide specific
information concerning its housing and non-housing activities as well as its action plan relating to
HOME and CDBG activities to the COUNTY to be included in the Consolidated Plan.
H. The COUNTY agrees to adopt and implement the HOWE projects as approved by the KRCC and
the CITY provided such projects are consistent with the HOIvE Program requirements as set forth in
the applicable Code of Federal Regulations.
I. Funds received by the Kitsap County HOME Consortium will be allocated between the COUNTY
and the CITY based on a proration of the HOiVE allocation as established by the Federal allocation
formula for the year or the most recent formula ifa current year formula has not been est~lished.
The percentage of distribution between the COUNTY and the CITY shall be as determined in HUDg
HOME Consortia Participating Iv~mbers Percentage Report for each federal fiscal year. Provided,
however, that if the federal allocation is reduced (he solely to one Party's program activities, the
Party that caused the reduction in funds shall have its allocation reduced accordingly.
1. CITY agrees to set aside up to 5% of CITY's allocation for
reimbursement to COUNTY of COUNTY's actual costs for
administration of the CITY's portion of the HOME Program.
2. CITY will retain and control program income generated from its HONE
proration to utilize for HOME projects in accordance with applicable federal
regulations.
3
22
V. TERM OF THIS AGREEMENT
A. This agreement shall remain in full force and effect from the date of execution and approval by
HUD for the period necessary to carry out all activities that will be funded for three federal fiscal
years: 2005, 200(~ and 2007 and for such future fiscal years asthis agreement is automatically
renewed.
B. Thc program year start date for the Urban County and the City of Brcmcrton CDBG programs as
well as thc HOME consortium HOME program is Sanuary 1, 2005, concluding December 31, 2007
except as herein renewed.
C. This agreement shall automatically bc renewed at the end of each threeyear qualification period,
unless changes to the agreement are required by HUD that would require the execution of a new
agreement, or if the COUNTY or CITY provides written noti~ that it elects not to participate in the
new qualification pcrind. A copy of this notice must be sent to the HUD Field Office. The
COUNTY, by thc date specified in HUD's urban County qualification notice, shall notify the CITY
of its right not to participate in thc new qualification period. A copy of this notice must bc sent to thc
HUD Field Office by the date specified in the urban county qualification schedule in Section II.
D. The signatory parties agree to adopt any amendment to the agreement incorporating changes
necessary to meet the requirements for cooperation agreements set forth in an Urban County
Qualification Notice applicable for a subsequent thre~ycar qualification period, and to submit such
amendment to HUD as provided in the urban comty qualification notice. A failure of any of the
signatory parties to adopt such amendment will void the automatic renewal provision for such
qualification period.
E. Thc consortium members arc required to remain in the consortium and cannot terminate or
withdraw during the entire period.
4
DATED this day of ~ 2004.
CITY OF BREMERTON KITSAP COUNTY BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS, as Representative
Member of Urban County Consortium
Cary Bozeman, Mayor
Patty Lent, Chair
Approves As To Form:
Jan Angel, Commissioner
City Attorney
ATTEST: Chris Endresen, Commissioner
Paula Johnston, City Clerk ATTEST:
Opal Robertson, Clerk Kitsap County
6/4/99
5
24
CERTIFICATION
I hereby find that the terms and provisions of this Intergovernmental Agreement are fully authorized
under State and local law, and that the Agreement provides full legal authority for the COUNTY to
undertake or assist in undertaking essential community development and housing activities,
specifically urban renewal and publicly assisted housing.
RUSSELL D. HAUGE
PROSECUTING ATTORNEY
By:
Philip Bacus, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney
6
25
INTER.LOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT
BETWEEN KITSAP URBAN COUNTY AND THE CITY OF BREMERTON
TO FORM A HOME CONSORTIUM UNDER THE NATIONAL AFFORDABLE HOUSING
ACT
PROGRAM YEARS 2002-2004
This agreement is entered into between the City of Bremerton, (hereinafte~the "City"), a Washington
Municipal Corporation, and Kitsap Urban County (hereinafter the "County"), pursuant to the
Inteflocal Cooperation Act, chapter 39.34 RCW. Kitsap County Urban County includes Kitsap
County, and the cities of Bainbridge Island, Pot Orchard and Poulsbo, all Washington Municipal
Corporations, pursuant to a separate inteflocal agreement among those entities This agreement will
become effective upon adoption by the parties and will continue until terminated as provided herein.
I. RECITALS
A. WHEREAS, the Congress of the United States of America has enacted the National Affordable
Housing Act, HOME Investments in Affordable Housing Program, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 12721 (hereinafter
the Act) as implemented by the U S Department of Hot~ing and Urban Development (hereinafter
"HUD") in 24 CFR Part 92, allowing units of general local government to enter into mutual
cooperation agreements to form a consortium for the purpose of obtaining funding as a participating
jurisdiction under the HOME Investment Partnership Program (HOIVE Program); and
B. WHEREAS, the purpose of the HOME program per 24 CFR Section 92.1 is to strengthen publio
private partnerships through the allocation of funds among eligible state and local governments and to
expand the supply of decent, safe, sanitary, and affordable housing for low and very low income
Americans.
C. WHEREAS, it is found that the above listed objectives are pertinent to the concerns and needs of
the COUNTY and of the CITY; and
D. WHEREAS, eligibility for HOME Investment Partnership funds is based upon criteria similar to
the criteria for eligibility for Urban County designation for CDBG funds: and
E. WHEREAS, Kitsap County and the Cities of Bainbridge Island, Port Orchard and Poulsbo have
requested Urban County status under the CDBG Program and the City of Bremerton qualifies as a
separate entitlement under the CDBG program; and
F. WHEREAS, Kitsap County and the Cities of Bainbtidge Island, Port Orchard and Poulsbo have
entered into a separate Interlocal Agreement forming a consortium under the Home Program, which
agreement designates Kitsap County as the representative member to administer the Urban County~
HOME and CDBG programs; and
G. WHEREAS, COUNTY shall administer the HOME program as well as the Urban County CDBG
program and the CITY will administer its own CDBG program. Both of these programs will be
included in the County Consortium Consolidated Plan; and
26
H. WHEREAS, the COUNTY agrees to delegate to the Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council
(hereinafter referred to as "KRCC") decision making authority as defined herein regarding the
Consolidated Plan, as the KRCC was established to have regional oversight, representation and
authority on certain issues affecting all of Kitsap Count~ and
I. WHEREAS, the signatory political subdivisions to this agreement have determined that obtaining
funding under the HOME Program will increase their ability to provide affordable housing for their
low and moderate income residents, and
J. WHEREAS, the Department of Housing and Urban Development has specified the minimum
provisions which must be included within any intergovernmental agreement for the cooperating
governmental bodies to qualify for Urban County eligibility.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises made herein and the mutual benefits
received hereunder, the parties agree as follows:
Il. DEFINITIONS
A. "Member" means a unit of local government which is a signatory to this agreement and therefore
of the consortium for the purpose of carrying out eligible activities under 24 CFR Part 92.
B. "Representative member" means the unit of local government designated hereafter as the one
member to act in a representative capacity for all members for the purpose of this agrement ("lead
entity"). The Representative IVember will assume overall responsibility for ensuring that the
consortium's HOME Program is carried out in compliance with the requirements of 24 CFR Part 91
and 92, the housing objectives of the CITY and COUNTY ~s adopted in the Consolidated Plan, and
will assume responsibility for the requirements concerning the Consolidated Plan.
III. ACTIVITIES
A. The signatory parties agree to cooperate in undertaking, or assist in undertaking, housing
assistance activities for the HOME Investment Partnership Program in compliance with the
Consolidated Plan.
B. The signatory parties agree to jointly pursue and identify match requirements.
C. The signatory parties agree to take affirmative action to further fair housing in their jurisdictions.
Such actions may include planning, education and outreach, and enforcement components.
IV. ADMINISTRATION
A. COUNTY will be designated as the Representative Member and agrees to carry out such overall
responsibilities with th: cooperation of the CITY in accordance with 24 CFR 92.101 as set forth
herein
2
27
B. COUNTY will administer both the Urban County's Community Development Block Grant
Program and HOME Investment Partnership Program. The CITY will administer its Community
Development Block Grant Program separately.
C. COUNTY, as the Representative Member, shall manage the entire HO1VE allocation on behalf of
the consortium, as set forth herein.
D. COUNTY agrees to carry out eligible activities in accordance with and to geneally follow the
requirements of 24 CFR Part 92.
E. CITY is responsible for submitting in a timely manner to the Representative I~mber all
information necessary for participation in the consortium as defined in 24 CFR Part 92. This includes
all information necessary for the Consolidated Plan, the HO1VE program description and
certifications (24 CFR 92.150), and performance reports. The Consolidated Plan Annual Performance
Report, HOME Annual Performance Report, and the Annual Consolidated Plan informationshall be
provided to the COUNTY by the dates specified by the COUNTY.
F. KRCC shall have decision making authority over areas specific to the Urban County's CDBG
Program as well as its portion of the HOIV~ allocation. The COUNTY, as administrative agency for
the HOME Program and the Urban County's CDBG Program, will be responsible for providing staff
support to KRCC in relation to these programs. The CITY shall have decisioarnaking authority over
areas specific to its CDBG entitlement as well as its portien of the HOME allocation.
G. The COUNTY is responsible for submitting the Consolidated Plan to the Department of Housing
and Urban Development. Development of the Consolidated Plan will require the participation of
citizens and organizations as well asinput from the CITY. The CITY will provide specific
information concerning its housing and non-housing activities as well as its action plan relating to
HOME and CDBG activities to the COUNTY to be included in the Consolidated Plan.
H. The COUNTY agrees to adopt and implement the HOIV~ projects as approved by the KRCC and
the CITY provided such projects are consistent with the HOIVE Program requirements as set forth in
the applicable Code of Federal Regulations.
I. Funds received by the Kitsap County HOIv~ Consortium will be allocated between the COUNTY
and the CITY based on a proration of the 2001 HOIV~ allocation, or on the actual federal allocation
for that year, if it is available. (For example, if the CITY's 2001 allocation is $486,234 and the
COUNTY's 2001 allocation is, $584,766 the proration would be CITY 45.4% of total and COUNTY
54.6% of total unless the actual federal allocation for that year were available). Provided, however,
that if the federal allocation is reduced due solely to one Party~ program activities, the Party that
caused the reduction in funds shall have its allocation reduced accordingly.
1. CITY agrees to set aside up to 5% of CITY's allocation for
reimbursement to COUNTY of COUNTY's actual costs for
administration of the CITY's portion of the HOME Program.
2. CITY will retain and control program income generated from its HOME
proration to utilize for HOME projects in accordance with applicable federal
regulations.
3
28
V. TERM OF THIS AGREEMENT
This agreement shall remainin full force and effect from the date of execution and approval by HUD
for the period necessary to carry out all activities that will be funded for three federal fiscal years:
2002, 2003 and 2004. The consortium members are required to remain in the con~rtium and cannot
terminate or withdraw during the entire period. The program year s~art date for the Urban County and
the City of Bremerton CDBG programs as well as the HO1VE consortium HOME program is January
1, 2002, concluding December 31, 2004.
DATED this day of ,2001.
CITY OF BREMERTON KITSAP COUNTY BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS, as Representative
Member of Urban County Consortium
Lynn Horton, Mayor
Chris Endresen, Chair
Approves As To Form:
Tim Botkin, Commissioner
City Attorney
ATTEST: Jan Angel, Commissioner
Kathy McClusky, City Clerk ATTEST:
Holly Anderson, Clerk Kitsap County
6/4/99
4
CERTIFICATION
I hereby find that the terms and provisions of this Intergovernmental Agreement are fully authorized
under State and local law, and that the Agreement provides full legalanthority for the COUNTY to
undertake or assist in undertaking essential community development and housing activities,
specifically urban renewal and publicly assisted housing.
RUSSELL D. HAUGE
PROSECUTING ATTORNEY
By:
Shelley Kneip, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney
G:\dcd\data~cdbg~c. RCC~Interlocal-bremerton.hom
5
30
Hiehli~,hted maior language differences between the two ARreements
1. Language allowing for Automatic renewal:
2005-2007 Agreement:
A. This agreement shall remain in full fome and effect from the date of execution and
approval by HUD for the period necessary to carry out all activities that will be funded for
three federal fiscal years: 2005, 2006 and 2007 and for such future fiscal years as this
agreement is automatically renewed.
B. The program year start date for the Urban County and the City ofBremerton CDBG
programs as well as the HOME consortium HOME program is January 1, 2005, concluding
December 31, 2007 except as herein renewed.
C. This agreement shall automatically be renewed at the end of each three-year qualification
period, unless changes to the agreement are required by HUD that would require the
execution of a new agreement, or if the COUNTY or CITY provides written notice that it
elects not to participate in the new qualification period. A copy of this notice must be sent to
the HUD Field Office. The COUNTY, by the date specified in HUD's urban County
qualification notice, shall notify the CITY of its right not to participate in the new
qualification period. A copy of this notice must be sent to the HUD Field Office by the date
specified in the urban county qualification schedule in Section II.
D. The signatory parties agree to adopt any amendment to the agreement incorporating
changes necessary to meet the requirements for cooperation agreements set forth in an Urban
County Qualification Notice applicable for a subsequent three-year qualification period, and
to submit such amendment to HUD as provided in the urban county qualification notice. A
failure of any oftbe signatory parties to adopt such amendment will void the automatic
renewal provision for such qualification period.
E. The consortium members are required to remain in the consortium and cannot terminate
or withdraw during the entire period.
Prior 2002-2004 Agreement term language:
This agreement shall remain in full force and effect from the date of execution and approval
by HUD for the period necessary to carry out all activities that will be funded for three
federal fiscal years: 2002, 2003 and 2004. The consortium members are required to remain
in the consortium and cannot terminate or withdraw during the entire period. The program
year start date for the Urban County and the City of Bremerton CDBG programs as well as
the HOME consortium HOME program is January 1, 2002, concluding December 31, 2004.
2. Language re~ardin~ the determination of the distribution of HUD dollars
between the County a~d City has chanRed to be tied to HUD's calculation in the
Home Consortia Par~icipatin[~ Members Percentage Renort:
2005-2007 Agreement:
Funds received by the Kitsap County HOME Consortium will be allocated between the
COUNTY and the CITY based on a proration of the HOME allocation as established by the
Federal allocation formula for the year or the most recent formula if a current year formula
has not been established. The percentage of distribution between the COUNTY and the
CITY shall be as de~ermined in HUD's HOME Consortia Participating Members Percentage
Report for each federal fiscal year. Provided, however, that if the federal allocation is
reduced due solely to one Party's program activities, the Party that caused the reduction in
funds shall have its allocation reduced accordingly.
Currently the distribution percentages identified by HUD are fifty-seven percem for the
County and forty-three percent for the City of Bremerton.
Prior 2002-2004 Agreement:
Funds received by the Kitsap County HOME Consortium will be allocated between the
COUNTY and the CITY based on a proration of the 2001 HOME allocation, or on the actual
federal allocation for that year, if it is available. (For example, if the CITY's 2001 allocation
is $486,234 and the COUNTY's 2001 allocation is, $584,766 the proration would be CITY
45.4% of total and COUNTY 54.6% of total unless the actual federal allocation for that year
were available). Provided, however, that if the federal allocation is reduced due solely to one
Party's program activities, the Party that caused the reduction in funds shall have its
allocation reduced accordingly.
DATE SUBMITTED: July 21, 2004 BILL #
AGENDA BILL
CITY OF BREMERTON
CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: Public Hearing and Ordinance Committee Meeting Date:
# vacating an underground COUNC1L MEETING Date: August 4, 2004
portion of Second Street Department: City Attorney's Office
Presenter: Brett Vinson
Phone: 473-2345
SUMMARY: The City initiated the vacation of an underground portion of Second Street at the
comer of Washington Avenue and Second Street. This date has been scheduled for a public hearing in
accordance with state law and the Bremerton Municipal Code for first reading on the proposed
ordinance vacating the subject property. The proposed vacated area will be incorporated into the
abutting property owned by Kitsap Federal Credit Union. This is a Class II right-of-way for which
compensation will be paid by the Kitsap Federal Credit Union.
ATTACHMENTS: 1.) Ordinance # ; 2.) Site Map; 3.) Engineering Staff Report
FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): No Impact
APPROVALS: (--'~ , , ,,
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR:~~~----~ ~~J ['kj,/~/{~t4I
CITY ATTORNEY: ~~ .~ ~
F~ANCE DI~CTOR: ~ [~~~
FISCAL/B~GET:
OPE~TIONS: ~/~' ~;
~COMMENDED MOTION:
A. Move to approve the attached ordinance on first reading, vacating an area underneath the south
side of Second Street, ~om Washin~on Avenue westerly to the alley at mid-block.
B. Move to adopt Ordin~ce ~ ~ on second reading, vacating ~ area underneath the south side
of Second Street, from Washin~on Avenue westerly to the alley at mid-block.
COUNCIL ACTION: [] Approve [] Deny [] Table [] Continue [] No Action
R:\LEGAL\Ordinances~Public Works & Utilities\Vacation - 2nd St, Underground.ab.doc
33
SUMMARY OF UNDERGROUND STREET VACATION
FOR THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF SECOND STREET
Between Washington Avenue and Pacific Avenue
BACKGROUND
The Kitsap Federal Credit Union recently purchased the parcel of property at the
corner of Second Street and Washington Avenue to construct a new credit union
office. In order to provide adequate parking for the new building, the credit union
is proposing the construction of an underground parking lot. It is proposed that
the parking lot extend into the underground portion of the second street right of
way.
SUMMARY
Engineering staff, in cooperation with the Legal staff contacted all utility users of
the right-of way to determine the potential impacts of the vacation. There are
telephone, electric and natural gas facilities in the southern portion of Second
Street. In the ordinance, easements were retained to accommodate these
utilities. As a part of the construction some of these utilities will need to be
removed. The utilities can either be placed in the ceiling of the underground
parking or be relocated in the northern portion of Second Street. This is a
decision that will need to be made during the design of the credit union building.
At the conclusion of the construction, Second Street will function as part of the
City street system as it does today. The south half of Second Street will actually
be a structural part of the parking lot. The ordinance states that the street shall
be constructed in accordance with state and national standards to accommodate
the weight of typical traffic.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of
Bremerton, Washington, relating to the vacation of streets,
vacating an area underneath the south side of Second Street from
Washington Avenue westerly to the alley at mid-block, in the City
of Bremerton.
WHEREAS, the City has initiated the vacation of an area underneath the south
side of Second Street, from Washington Avenue westerly to the alley at mid-block, in the City of
Bremerton; and
WHEREAS, the City passed Resolution No. 2932 declaring its intention to vacate
this area underneath Second Street, from Washington Avenue westerly to the alley at mid-block,
which resolution also set a heating to take public comment or consider written objections to the
partial underground vacation; and
WHEREAS, fewer than fifty percent of the property owners abutting said right-
of-way filed written objections to this action prior to the time set for public heating herein; and
WHEREAS, a public heating was held with proper notice on August 4, 2004, in
the City Council Chambers of the Bremerton City Hall to take public comment or consider
written objections to this vacation; and
WHEREAS, this vacation is sought to incorporate the area into the abutting
property owned by Kitsap Federal Credit Union; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is in the best interest of the
public to proceed with the vacation; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON,
DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The foregoing recitals are incorporated as if fully set forth herein.
SECTION 2. The area underneath the south side of Second Street, from
Washington Avenue westerly to the alley at mid-block in the City of Bremerton, as described in
Exhibit A, which is attached and incorporated herein by this reference, is hereby vacated to the
abutting property owners subject to reservations of easements as set forth in Section 3 and
conditions for construction of improvements as set forth in Section 4.
1
Second Street Partial Underground Vacation
SECTION 3. Reservation of Easements.
1. The following easements are reserved in the area vacated:
a. An easement is reserved for the City of Bremerton, Public Works and
Utilities Department for construction, operation, maintenance and repair of City utilities over,
under and upon the entire area vacated pursuant to this ordinance.
b. An easement is reserved for Cascade Natural Gas for construction,
operation, maintenance and repair of gas lines and appurtenances over, under, upon and across
the existing facilities within the area vacated pursuant to this ordinance.
c. An easement is reserved for Qwest Corporation to construct, reconstruct,
modify, change, add to, operate, maintain, and remove telecommunication facilities, and
appurtenances over, under, upon and across the existing facilities within the area vacated
pursuant to this ordinance.
d. An easement is reserved for Puget Sound Energy to construct, reconstruct,
modify, change, add to, operate, maintain, and remove electrical facilities, equipment and
appurtenances over, under, upon and across the existing facilities within the area vacated
pursuant to this ordinance.
2. The utilities within the above-reserved easements may be rerouted and relocated
to an area outside the vacated area as requested by and at the cost of the abutting property owner
subject to approval by the Department of Public Works and Utilities.
3. The Department of Public Works and Utilities is authorized to release and
reconvey reserved City easement or easements within the vacated area when and if City utilities
are rerouted and relocated.
SECTION& Improvements within Vacated Area. The construction of any
underground improvements shall meet current vehicle loading requirements on the restored
roadway, curb, gutter and sidewalk over the vacated area as required by AASHTO and WSDOT
Design Manuals.
SECTION 5. Severabilitv. If any one or more section, subsections, or sentences
of this Ordinance are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not affect the
validity of the remaining portion of this ordinance and the same shall remain in full force and
effect.
SECTION 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
2
Second Street Partial Underground Vacation
Approved this day of ,2004.
CARY BOZEMAN, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
PAULA JOHNSTON. City Clerk ROGER A. LUBOVICH, City Attomey
PUBLISHED the day of ,2004.
EFFECTIVE the day of ,2004.
ORDINANCE NO.
R:\LEGAL\OrdinancesXPublic Works & Utilities\Vacation - 2nd St. Underground-oral.doc
3
Second Street Partial Underground Vacation
EXHIBIT A
Vacation of an underground portion of Second Street, of the Plat of the Town of
Bremerton, as recorded in Volume 2, of plats Page 030, records of Kitsap County
Washington, situate in Government Lot 1, Section 13, Township 24 North, Range 1 East,
Willamette Meridian, Kitsap County, Washington, more particularly described as
follows:
Beginning at a point at the northwest comer of Lot 8, Block 9 of said plat, also being the
Tree Point of Beginning; thence N l°35'17" W 20.03 feet to a line parallel with and
twenty feet north of the north line of said Block 9; thence S 88024'43" E 223.84 along
said parallel line; thence S 63°37'44" E 69.92; thence leaving said parallel line, S
26°22'16" W 20.00 feet to the said north line of Block 9; thence along said north tine N
63037'44" W 65.53 feet; thence N 88°24'43" W 218.34 feet to the Tree Point of
Beginning.
EXCEPT for that portion of the area two (2) feet immediately below and running
contiguous to the current surface grade of the above described property.
Vacation of Portion of Second Street, Subterranean
Page 1 of 1
37
m
~ PACIFIC A~ "--I
,~ cO
~ ~Z
Z-I
Em
0
0
City of Bremerton, Department of Public Works and Utilities
Engineering Division Staff Report
Vacation of an Area Underneath the South Side of Second Street
City Council/Public Hearing Date: August 4, 2004
Report Prepared By: Gunnar Fridriksson, Civil Engineer
SUMMARY
A. Applicant: City of Bremerton
239 Fourth Street
Bremerton, WA 98337
Location: An area underneath the south side of Second Street, from
Washington Avenue westerly to the alley at mid-block.
B. Attachment: Exhibit Map
BACKGROUND
The City of Bremerton has initiated the vacation of an area underneath the south side of
Second Street, from Washington Avenue westerly to the alley at mid-block. Kitsap
Federal Credit Union (KFCU) has proposed pumhasing the abutting property to
construct a new building with an underground parking garage. The design of the new
underground parking garage requires a portion of the structure to be located within the
right-of-way of Second Street. As this subterranean use of Second Street will not impair
use of the surface improvements on Second Street to the traveling public, the City has
initiated this vacation. The proposed vacation location is illustrated on the attached
exhibit.
RIGHT-OF-WAY CONDITIONS
· Functional Classification Local street, non-arterial
· Existing Right-of-Way Width (surface) 60 feet
· Proposed Right-of-Way Width (surface) 60 feet
· Pavement Width 36 feet
· Surface Type Asphalt
· Curb and Gutter Yes
· Sidewalks 12 foot
HEARING CONSIDERATIONS
BMC 11.20~120 sets forth issues that the City Council shall determine following the
Vacation Hearing. These issues and City staff positions are as follows:
1. Whether the street, alley or portion thereof is no longer required for public
use; and vacation of the described portion will better serve the public
good.
City Staff Position:
The surface of the right-of-way is required for local access and use, and will
need to be retained by the City at the full 60 foot width. The City will relinquish
use of an area underneath a portion of Second Street, below approximately 2
feet below existing finish grade at the curb and gutter on the south side of the
street.
2. Whether the vacation is consistent with the City Comprehensive Plan,
City Staff Position:
The proposed vacation does not conflict with the City Comprehensive Plan.
3. Whether the continued use of the proposed vacation as a public way is not
of such public benefit as to justify the costs of maintenance.
City Staff Position:
Loss of the subterranean use of Second Street will not increase or decrease the
City's maintenance responsibility in this area.
4. Whether substitution of a new and different thoroughfare would be more
useful to the public.
City Staff Position:
The roadway and its use shall remain and be unhindered by the loss of the area
underneath Second Street. No other thoroughfare would improve circulation in
this area.
5. Whether conditions may so change in the future as to provide a greater
public use or need than presently exists.
City Staff Position:
No future use of this portion of the area underneath Second St. is anticipated.
6. Whether objections to the proposed vacation are made by owners of
private property (exclusive of petitioners) abutting the same.
The abutting property owner is Bremer Trust, who will complete an agreement for
sale of the property to KFCU at the end of July. Both the Bremer Trust and
KFCU support the vacation.
July 22, 2004
Engineering Division Staff Report
Proposed Underground Vacation of a Portion of Second Street
Page 2 of 6
40
SHORELINE ACCESS
This portion of right-of-way does not provide shoreline access.
UTILITIES
All private utility companies were contacted. Cascade Natural Gas, Puget Sound
Energy, and Qwest will retain an easement. Utility easements will be reserved for the
existing City storm water and sanitary utilities. All easements for existing utilities will be
released upon redevelopment of the property by KFCU and construction of the parking
garage, and arrangements are made for the utility relocations.
SUFFICIENCY OF SIGNATURES
Not Applicable - The City initiated the vacation.
COMPENSATION
The City will receive compensation in the amount of $90,000.00 from KFCU for this
vacation. This is in accordance with an agreement between the City, Kitsap Transit and
KFCU for a "Kiss-n-Ride" drop off area for the Bremerton Transportation Center.
STAFF COMMENTS
The City Fire Department, Attorney, Department of Community Development, Police
Department, and Engineering all support this vacation.
Staff recommends approval of the vacation of an area underneath Second Street with
easements reserved for all existing utilities.
The construction of any underground improvements shall meet current vehicle loading
requirements on the restored roadway, curb, gutter and sidewalk over the vacated area
as required by AASHTO and WSDOT Design Manuals.
July 22, 2004
Engineering Division Staff Report
Proposed Underground Vacation of a Portion of Second Street
Page 3 of 6
Looking westerly on Second Street from corner of Second and Washington.
Looking easterly on Second Street from alley.
July 22, 2004
Engineering Division Staff Report
Proposed Underground Vacation of a Portion of Second Street
Page 4 of 6
Looking from ~ arage north of Second Street, south-westerly at vacation area
and abuttin(
Looking from parking garage north of Second Street, south-easterly at vacation area
and abutting property,
July 22, 2004
Engineering Division Staff Report
Proposed Underground Vacation of a Portion of Second Street
Page 5 of 6
,~3
DATE SUBMITTED: July 29, 2004 BILL # O 4 -- [
AGENDA BILL
CITY OF BREMERTON ~ B
CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: Public Hearing on Resolution Committee Meeting Date: Ju 1 ,/ 28, 2004
No. o~ q 3 3 regarding the Downtown COUNCIL MEETING Date: August 4, 2004
Pedestrian/BTC Access Improvements Department: City Attorney's Office
Project-Initiative Petition Presenter: Roger A. Lubovich
Phone: 473-2345
SUMMARY: Citizen's Initiative 101 was certified by the County Auditors office on July 23, 2004.
This initiative petition seeks to prohibit the City from constructing a traffic tunnel as a part of the
Downtown Pedestrian/BTC Access Improvements Project in downtown Bremerton. The City Council
has three options with regard to the initiative petition.
1) adopt the proposed ordinance as presented in the petition,
2) submit the initiative to a vote of the citizens, or
3) not submit the initiative to a vote of the citizens.
It is the City Attorney's recommendation that the initiative petition not be submitted to the voters for
the following reasons:
a. The subject matter of the initiative petition is not a valid subject pursuant to Seattle Building
and Construction Trades Council v. Seattle, 94 Wn.2d 740 (1980),
b. The issue presented in the initiative petition is now moot, and
c. Submitting the initiative to a vote of the citizens would be confusing in that the voters may
think they have an impact on the tunnel decision.
ATTACHMENTS: Proposed Resolution; Initiative 101 Petition; Letter of Certification
FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount):
APPROVALS:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY:
Pre-Council 7/28/04
FISCAL/BUDGET: CONSENT AGENDA []
OPERATIONS: Pre-Councl 1 7/28/04
_T.. "3
COUNCIL PRESIDENT: _,, -
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
I move to pass Resolution No. ~ q 3 ~ electing not to submit the initiative to a vote of the
citizens.
COUNCIL ACTION: [] Approve [] Deny [] Table [] Continue [] No Action
RSLEGA L\Departments-General\City Council\Tunnel.ab,doc 44
REsoLux o 3,q 33
A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of
Bremerton, Washington, taking action not to submit to the
qualified electors of the City of Bremerton at the November 2,
2004 General Election, Initiative Petition 101 relating to
construction of a vehicular traffic tunnel as part of the Downtown
Pedestrian/BTC Access Improvements Project.
WHEREAS, an Initiative Petition signed by registered voters, equal in number to
at least twenty-five percent of the total votes cast for all candidates for Mayor at the last
preceding City of Bremerton election, has been filed with the City Clerk as provided for in RCW
35.17.260; and
WHEREAS, the Petition seeks to prohibit the City from constructing a traffic
tunnel as part of the Downtown Pedestrian/BTC Access Improvements Project ("Project").
WHEREAS, the City Clerk, through the Kitsap County Auditor, on July 23, 2004,
verified the sufficiency of the signatures thereto; and
WHEREAS, RCW 35.17.260 provides for the matter to be presented to the City
Council within 20 days of certification of sufficiency of signatures for either adoption of the
ordinance as proposed or to forward the initiative to election on November 2, 2004; and
WHEREAS, the County Auditor requires a Resolution approved by the City
Council authorizing the placement of the proposition on the November General Election; and
WHEREAS, the State of Washington, in a letter from the Secretary of
Transportation received by the City on July 13, 2004, notified the City that the State is assuming
the Project; and
WHEREAS, because the State has assumed jurisdiction of the Project, the City
Council finds that the subject matter of the initiative petition is not a valid subject pursuant to
Seattle Building and Construction Trades Council v. Seattle, 94 Wn.2d 740 (1980), the issue
presented in the initiative petition is now moot, and submitting the initiative to a vote of the
citizens would be confusing in that the voters may think may think they have an impact on the
tunnel decision; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has three options when reviewing the initiative
petition: 1) adopt the proposed ordinance, 2) submit the initiative to a vote of the citizens, or 3)
decide not to submit the initiative to a vote of the citizens; and
WHEREAS, because of the above-noted findings, the City Cotmcil finds that it
would be inappropriate to submit the Initiative Petition to the voters; NOW THEREFORE
1
Initiative Petition 101
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON,
DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION1. The recitals set forth above are hereby incorporated as if set forth
herein in full.
SECTIONZ Initiative Petition 101 shall not be placed on the November
General Election.
SECTION $. Severabilitv. If any one or more sections, subsections, or
sentences of this Resolution are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not
affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Resolution and the same shall remain in full
force and effect.
SECTION 4. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect and be in force
immediately upon its passage.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Bremerton, Washington this __
day of ,2004.
DAREN NYGREN, Council President
APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST:
ROGER A. LUBOVICH, City Attorney PAULA JOHNSTON, City Clerk
R:\LEGALhlesolutions\City Council~Initiafive Petition.doc
2
Initiative Petition 101
46
07/23/2004 15:58 FAX 360 537 5769 KITSAP COUNTY ELECTIONS ~002
Karen Flynn
Kitsap County Auditor - Elections &
Voter Registration
1026 Sidney Avenue, Suite 175 * Port Orchard, Washington 98366-4678
Teleplioa~ (360) 337-7125 * Facsimile (360) 33%5769
Ad~ Ariwoo~a
Financial Services Men~jer
Winnie Flores-Logan
Chief Deputy Auditor
CERTIFICATE OF SUFFICIENCY
I hereby certify, in accordance with RCW 35.17.260, that the Petition
Initiative 101 from the City of Bremerton, Washington (Citizens Against The
Tunnel), was signed by at least twenty-five percent (2,060 of 8,238) of the votes
cast for all candidates for mayor at the last general election at the last preceding
general election.
WITNESS my hand and official seal of office affixed
this 23~ day of July 2004.
Adflli~listr'etion Accounts Payable Payroll Vehicle Llaenaln§ Public
(360) 337-7129 ($P,O) 337-7122 (360} 337.7123 (360) 337~,A4fl (360) 337-493S
Office of the City Attomey FILE
Roger A. Lubovich, City Attorney
Memorandum
TO: City Council
From: Roger A. Lubovi .,__ --
RO: Downtown Pedestn'an/i]TC Accesses Project - Initiative Petition
Dat0: August 2, 2004
Facts. On July 12, 2004, the City Clerk received a copy of a citizen's initiative which provides:
"The City of Bremerton shall not construct a vehicular traffic tunnel as part of its Downtown
Pedestrian/BTC Access Improvements project". (emphasis added) This initiative petition in
essence seeks to stop construction of a traffic tunnel as a part of the street improvements
proposed for State Route 304 in downtown Bremerton. The initiative was certified by the County
Auditors office on July 23, 2004 as having enough signatures to submit to the voters for an
election. On July 13, 2004, the City received a letter from Douglas B~ MacDonald, Secretary of
Transportation, Washington State Department of Transportation informing the City that the State
was assuming jurisdiction over the project.
City Council options. The City Council has three options with regard to the presented initiative
petition. The City Council may take action to:
1) adopt,the proposed ordinance as presented in the petition,
2) submit the initiative to a vote of the citizens, or
3) not submit the initiative to a vote of the citizens.
Recommendation. I recommend that the City Council vote not to submit the initiative to a vote
of the citizens for the following reasons:
a. The subject matter of the initiative petition is not a valid subject pursuant to
Seattle Building and Construction Trades Council v. Seattle, 94 Wn.2d 740
(1980),
b. The issue presented in the initiative petition is now moot, and
c. Submitting the initiative to a vote of the citizens would be confusing in that the
voters may think they have an impact on the tunnel decision.
Analysis. The primary question raised concerns the fundamental issue of whether this type of
decision, which basically is whether to construct a vehicular traffic tunnel as part of its
downtown street improvement to State Highway 304, is a proper subject for an initiative by the
citizens of Bremerton.
Downtown Pedestrian/BTC Access Improvements Project
August 2, 2004
Page 2
My conclusion, after reviewing the relevant cases in this state, is that the decision whether to
construct a tunnel as part of the improvement project is not subject to an initiative by the citizens
of Bremerton since the primary decision-making authority resides with the State Department of
Transportation and not the City Council of the City of Bremerton.
The Bremerton City Charter provides for the process of initiative and referendum by the citizens
of the City, which is to be exercised in the manner set forth in RCW 35.17.240 - 35.17.360.
Certain procedural requirements must be met, such as obtaining the required number of
signatures on the petition, before an initiative is valid. However, in addition to the procedural
requirements for an initiative petition to be valid, there are two tests that have been created by
the courts in this state and consistently applied to initiative measures to determine if they concern
valid subjects for the exercise of the power of initiative. Not all types of city council actions are
subject to the initiative and referendum process. I will briefly outline these tests and how they
apply to the facts in this situation.
The first test applied by the courts in Washington is whether the underlying council action is
legislative or administrative in nature. The power of the people to adopt legislation directly
through the initiative process is limited to actions that are legislative in nature. See Ruano v.
Spellman, 81 Wn.2d 820 (1973). If an action is deemed to be administrative in nature, then the
decision in not subject to initiative or referendum powers.
In this context, an act is character/zed as legislative or administrative according to the following
two tests:
Actions relating to subjects of a permanent and general character are usually regarded as
legislative, and those providing for subjects of a temporary and special character are
regarded as administrative...
In addition, the power to be exercised is legislative in nature if it prescribes a new policy
or plan, whereas it is administrative in nature if it merely pursues a plan already adopted
by the legislative body itself or somepower superior toit. Citizens for Financially
Responsible Government v. Spokane, 99 Wn.2d 339 (1983).
Applying these tests to the facts in this situation, a decision concerning whether to construct the
street improvement project to SR 304 by means ora tunnel is not a legislative decision of the city
council. The street improvement is an action that will be of a permanent and general character,
however, the decision to construct a major street improvement to SR 304 in downtown
Bremerton by means of a vehicular traffic tunnel merely pursues a plan already adopted by some
power superior to it, in this case, the State.
The key decisions relating to this project are no longer subject to the control of the City Council.
This is true for the underlying decision whether to pursue the project at all and also for the
decision whether the project should be completed by means of a vehicular traffic tunnel or a
surface street. These key decisions are not being made by the City but rather by the State.
Downtown Pedestrian/BTC Access Improvements Project
August 2, 2004
Page 3
One earlier Washington court case that needs to be considered in this analysis is Seattle Building
and Construction Trades Council v. Seattle, 94 Wn.2d 740 (1980). In that case, an initiative was
proposed by citizens in Seattle to withdraw the city's participation in a limited access highway
project (an improvement to a portion of Interstate 90). The initiative was challenged as being
beyond the powers of the initiative process. The Washington Supreme Court applied the tests
outlined above and concluded that the initiative process did not apply because the actions
remaining to the City of Seattle were administrative in nature and thus not subject to a citizen's
initiative.
The conclusion in the Seattle Building Council case is applicable to the situation in Bremerton.
The court emphasized in that case that the highway being constructed was a limited access
facility governed by the procedures in Ch. 47.52 RCW. As a limited access facility, the state had
full jurisdiction, responsibility and control over it. While Seattle had a voice in determining the
type of facility to be constructed, its participation was limited to the role provided in Ch. 47.52
RCW. If the city disapproved of the plan proposed by the state highway department, it could
only file that disapproval in writing with the state Secretary of Transportation and request a
heating before a board of review. After a hearing before the board, the board makes the final and
binding decision, subject to revision only by stipulation of the parties.
The court concluded the role of Seattle in the Interstate 90 improvement project was merely
administrative in nature. The city had no authority to act in a legislative capacity in regard to the
location and construction of the limited access facility. The city could not ban construction of
the facility nor refuse to cooperate in construction once the plan had been adopted. The key
decisions regarding the project were made by the state.
In Bremerton, although the portion of the street project under consideration is not a limited
access facility, the result is the same in that the decision whether to proceed with construction of
the project rests with the State, not the City Council. The decision whether to construct a traffic
tunnel as the means of accomplishing the project also rests with the State. So in my opinion, the
key facts in the Seattle Building Council case are similar to the facts in Bremerton and it seems
likely that the court would reach the same conclusion.
The second court-created test that must be applied to determine if an action ora city council is
subject to the initiative process is whether the underlying grant of authority by the state
legislature in regard to the action being taken is to the city as a corporate entity or to its
legislative authority (which is the city council for cities). See Lince v. Bremerton, 25 Wn. App.
309 (1980), and Leornard v. Bothell, 87 Wn.2d 847 (1992).
If the grant of authority is to the city as a corporate entity, direct legislation by the people in the
form of initiative or referendum is permissible. If the grant of power is to the legislative
authority of the city, then initiative and referendum is prohibited.
Downtown Pedestrian/BTC Access Improvements Project
August 2, 2004
Page 4
When applying this test, it is necessary to determine the statutory grant of authority underlying
the action involved. The primary statute applicable to this situation appears to be RCW
35.22.280, which contains a list of powers granted to first class cities such as Bremerton. The
statute provides;
Any city of the first class shall have power...
(7) To lay out, establish, open, alter, widen, extend, grade, pave, plank, establish
grades, or otherwise improve streets, alleys, avenues, sidewalks, wharves, parks,
and other public grounds...
(12) To construct and keep in repair bridges, viaducts, and tunnels, and the
regulate the use thereof;
Because this statute does not reference the city council, the primary grant of authority by the
state legislature to construct and improve streets and construct tunnels is to the city as a corporate
entity. This leads to the conclusion that this action under this test is subject to the citizen
initiative process.
After reviewing the two tests applied by courts in this state to determine if an action by the City
Council is subject to the initiative process, it appears that the proposed subject of the initiative,
which prohibits the City from constructing a vehicular traffic tunnel as a part of the
improvements to SR 304, is not valid for the initiative process in Bremerton because the decision
of the City Council is administrative in nature pursuant to Seattle Building Council.
Ci.ty Council Action. A decision must be made by the City Council when an initiative measure
is successfully submitted by the citizens. As noted above, the City Council has three options
when reviewing the initiative petition: 1) adopt the proposed ordinance, 2) submit the initiative
to a vote of the citizens, or 3) decide not to submit the initiative to a vote of the citizens. The City
Council is directed by RCW 35.17.260, after receiving a valid initiative, to either pass the
proposed ordinance within twenty days or cause an election to be held on the next appropriate
election date and submit the initiative to a vote of the citizens of the City.
However, in view of the tests outlined above, the initiative proposed is not a proper subject for
an initiative. As noted above, this is because the subject of the initiative relates to an
administrative action. Some city councils have refused to submit an initiative measure to the
voters because they have deemed it to involve an issue that is not properly subject to the
initiative process.
The courts in this state have reviewed initiative measures before they are submitted to the
electorate for a vote in order to make the determination of whether the proposed law is beyond
the scope of the initiative process. Seattle Building Trades Council v. Seattle, 94 Wn.2d 740
(1980). The courts will apply the tests outlined above and make this determination.
Downtown Pedestrian/BTC Access Improvements Project
August 2, 2004
Page 5
The state statutes that govern the initiative process for the City of Bremerton also provide a
reference to submitting a proposed initiative to the courts. It provides in RCW 35.17.290 that if
the clerk finds the petition insufficient, or if the city council refuses either to pass the initiative or
order an election, then any taxpayer may commence an action in superior court in order to obtain
a decree ordering an election to be held.
Additionally, because of the action by the State to take over the project, the subject matter to be
voted on by the citizens is moot. Any vote against the tunnel project will have no impact on the
State's action relating to the same since the State is the decision maker. A vote by the citizens on
the initiative may cause confusion in that the voters may believe their vote will have an impact
on the project when in fact it will not.
Conclusion. Because the proposed subject of the initiative, which prohibits the City from
constructing a vehicular traffic tunnel as a part of the improvements to SR 304, is not valid for
the initiative process because the decision of the City Council is administrative in nature
pursuant to Seattle Building Council, it is my recommendation that the City Council vote to not
submit the initiative to a vote of the citizens.
~--~ Washington State Transportation
Building
Department of Transportation 3~0 Maple Park Avenue S.E.
Douglas B. MacDonald P.O. Box 47300
Secretary of Transportation Olympia, WA 98504-?300
360-705-7000
TTY: 1-800-833-6388
July 13, 2004 www.wsdot.wa.gov
The Honorable Cary Bozeman
Mayor, City of Bremerton
Councilman Daren Nygren,
Council President, City of Bremerton
239 Fourth Street
Bremerton WA 98337
Re: Downtown Bremerton Pedestrian/BTC Access
Improvement Project
Dear Mayor Bozeman and Councilman Nygren:
I write today regarding the Downtown Bremerton Pedestrian/BTC Access Improvement Project
on State Route 304. I understand that the draft Environmental Assessment stage of this project
should be completed shortly.
As we move from the draft Environmental Assessment to the final Environmental Assessment,
WSDOT must step forward to fulfill its statutory responsibilities for management of this state
highway project.
State law requires WSDOT to "exercise all the powers and perform all the duties necessary,
convenient, or incidental to the planning, locating, designing, constructing, improving,
repairing, operating, and maintaining [of] state highways" (See RCW 47.01.260.)
We are prepared to handle the complex scope issues and public involvement question required
of such a project. The Environmental Assessment may raise many issues that will have to be
addressed with the community before the project could proceed.
WSDOT looks forward to continuing to work with the City of Bremerton. Randy Hain,
WSDOT's Olympic Region Administrator, can be reached via telephone at (360) 357-2605 with
any questions.
Sincerely, ,.~ ,.~ 7
Douglas B. MacDonald
Secretary of Transportation
DBM.'jaa
cc: Randy Hain, WSDOT, 47440
Larry Ehl, WSDOT, 47322
From: "Elizabeth & Don Drury" <dedrury@wavecable.com>
To: <citycouncil@ci.bremerton.wa.us>
Date: Tue, Aug 3, 2004 1:15 PM
Subject: FW: Proposal for Bremerton Tunnel
..... Original Message .....
From: Elizabeth & Don Drury [mailto:dedrury@wavecable.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2004 11:12 AM
To: Bremerton City Council
Cc: Bozeman, Cary
Subject: Proposal for Bremerton Tunnel
Dear Mayor Bozeman and Members of the Bremerton City Council,
I have followed the saga of the proposed tunnel by the Bremerton ferry
landing for many months. I considered writing a letter earlier, but thought
it would be unnecessary. I am not one to write letters to have them printed
in the newspaper. However, I continue to read letters from people in the
paper who seem to be thinking that you are not listening to the people!
While I do not live in Bremerton, I have a definite interest in this matter.
My husband and I live in Seabeck, not very far away. We have lived in Kitsap
County for over thirty years and before that in King County. I often use
the Bremerton ferry (depending on how convenient the schedule is to where I
am headed in Seattle). Returning home from Seattle, I am not preparing to
shop in downtown Bremerton. I am usually tired and my one stop might be at a
grocery to buy bread or milk.
In my opinion, the majority of cars coming off the ferry are trying to get
to areas unrelated to downtown Bremerton.
I have been excited to learn of plans to tunnel under the streets near the
ferry terminal. It would be wonderful to have more pedestrian friendly
streets and parks in the downtown area near the waterfront. This will draw
me to Bremerton.
It would be helpful, I would think, to point out that there will be an exit
for the City of Bremerton from the tunnel. I truly believe, when there is a
working tunnel to channel ferry traffic away from the business district,
Bremerton will have the opportunity to become a rather nice city. I believe
shop owners will like the ambiance and so will all of us who live nearby.
I believe I have been reading the letters (in The Sun) of many disgruntled
property owners of stagnant, depressed, old buildings in downtown Bremerton.
I have often wished that the owners would tear down those buildings and
create parks until the interest is evident in constructing new buildings in
a more interesting commercial pattern that would allow views of the water
and mountain and would draw shoppers to new businesses. To think that our
present setup will bring people back to Bremerton is not visionary.
I truly believe that this matter is to be handled by the Highway Department
of the State of Washington. With input from the community, I am confident
that the design will be pleasing to all concerned.
Sincerely,
(Gretchen) Elizabeth Drury
11525 Seabeck Hwy N W
Seabeck, Washington 98380
(360)830-3024
From: Phil Williams
To: Council, City
Date: Tue, Aug 3, 2004 2:26 PM
Subject: SR 304 Route in Downtown Bremerton
A question was raised at the Council study session on 7/28 regarding the specific route of SR 304 in
downtown Bremerton. The State's Project Manager from the WSDOT Local Programs Office, Neal
Campbell, provided the following answer via e-mail on 7/29:
"We checked that out. Our state highway log lists the whole loop. Burwell
down Pacific onto 1st and into the ferry terminal, out of the ferry terminal
onto 1st, Washington and back on Bum/ell. The Washington side of the loop
is listed as the 304 couplet. Some commercial maps do not show both sides
of the loop."
If you have any further questions please contact either Mike Mecham or myself. If you wish to contact the
State directly you can e-mail Neal at campben~,wsdot.wa. Rov
CC: Johnston, Paula; Lubovich, Roger; Mayor, The; Mecham, Mike; Sampley, Gene
Gene David Hart
P.O. Box 773
Bremerton, WA 98337
August 4, 2004
Senator Patty Murray
111 Russell Senate Office Bldg.
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Patty,
1. Well, here it is August 2004. And I'm reminded of the book, The Guns of August.
That's the book about the failure to communicate -- thilure, which began World War I, 90
years ago. Fortunately, President Kennedy read that book just before the beginning of the
Cuban Missile Crisis, 42 years ago. And he applied to the Cuban Missile Crisis the
book's learned lessons in failure to communicate -- helping America to end the Crisis,
preventing World War III, paying the price of I American life, and bearing the burden of
1 American life lost, to get it all done.
2. Well, now we have another failure to communicate. This time it's here in Washington
State, today. Norm Dicks, Cary Bozcman and even a majority of the Bmmerton City
Council insist on spending 28 million dollars to build a tunnel through the heart of
Bremerton; rather than use the money for a sensible surface street alternative, honor
3,000 citizen's unalienable right to a binding vote about it, and address the higher
transportation priorities which exist in Washington State.
3. Patty, give this message to Norm.
4. If Norm wants millions of dollars to prevent the death of 7 more angels on Highway 3
between Gorst and Belfair; if he wants millions of dollars to prevent the death of 1 more
angel at the Burley-Olalla intersection on Highway 16; and if Norm wants millions of
dollars to build a bridge across Sinclair Inlet to decrease the level of danger for fatal and
major-injury transportation collisions in the Gorst corridor, to save travel time, to prevent
that daily air pollution and to improve air quality over Sinclair Inlet; then tell him you
pledge to work hard to get that money for him.
5. But without a binding vote by the people, respective to the tunnel, you pledge he will
get -- not 1 penny for a tunnel through the heart of Bmmerton.
Sincerely,
GENE DAVID HART
P.S. Sorry I missed you at Kitsap's last Jefferson-Jackson supper. I was simply too sick
and tired to attend and suffer the political tom foolery that goes on, while our children
remain uneducated, our fellow citizens are being killed on Washington State streets,
roads and highways, and our people are without jobs.
PUBLIC COMMENT BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL on 4 August, 2004 by Helen Miller
Council President and Council Members: CO~
I offer comment concerning Council Resolution 2933, regarding the "Downtown
Bremerton Pedestrian/BTC Access Improvement Project" (Initiative #AB04-151)
I question the propriety and the legality of the Resolution being considered this
evening -
At this point in time - there is a City Study - but NO PROJECT.
Where is the precedent for asking people to vote on a matter that is as yet
undetermined ?
Can a relatively small City group legally qualify to place a measure like this on a State
ballot ?
I also understand that the State Transportation Department has, or will be assuming
control of the Pedestrian Friendly Project .... Which further makes the assumptions upon
which the Initiative is predicated - moot.
I am also concerned about the cost the taxpayers of our community would have to
bear for putting the Initiative on the November Ballot, if that is indeed possible. Especially
when no one in the city has identified the source of the $8,000 to $20,000 cost to put the
measure on the ballot. This concern is based on what was being said by the Administration
during the Budget Negotiations last year - that "there was not a nickel to spare in the
approved budget."
In light of the questionable legality and costs - it would be inappropriate for the
Council to approve putting this measure on the Ballot.