HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/07/04 AGENDA FILE
239 4th Street · Bremerton, WA 98337 · Phone (360) 478-5280 · Fax (360) 478-5251
***AMENDED***
JULY 7, 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 (~AB04-125)
~ry~,,~_~ lc; th= F!r.=r._--=_
~ ~ ~¢'. Parking Management Agreement with DIAMOND PARKING SERVICES LLC for the Bremerton
Harborside Parking Garage (ffA, B04-127)
4. NEW BUSINESS
A. Agreement with PORT BLAKELY COMMUNITIES, INC. regarding the Pre-Purchase Scope of
Work for Eastpark Acquisition (~B04-129)
~,~ ~ FY-'03 and FY-'04 HUD-granted Program Funds for "American Dream Downpayment
Initiative (ADDI) Use & Outreach Plan' (fi-AB04-130)
5. PUBEC HEARINGS - ORDINANCES & RESOLUTIONR
J~ ~. Public Headng for 2005 Draft CDBG/HOME Policy Plan and Application for Funding
(~,B04-131)
C El'. Ordinance [First Reading] amending BMC Sections 21.02.230 and 17.04.060(e) relating to
Development and Permit Requirements for Fences 0f-AB04-132)
J) ,¢. Resolution No. 2931, regarding approval and ratification of KITSAP CONFERENCE CENTER
at BREMERTON HARBORSIDE Change Orders (fi-AB04-133)
J~ ~. Resolution No. 2932, Setting a Headng Date of August 4, 2004 for Vacating a
Subterranean Portion of Second Street (~,B04-134)
6. MAYOR'S REPORT
7. PUBLIC RECOGNITION - Comments limited to 3-minutes
8. COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS
9. ADJOURNMENT OF CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS MEETINR
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
,. po. ~
AGENDA B!LL
CHY C'OL~%qL ~
SUBJEC-F~ ~pp~t,l al af Cq;dn-,- ~*od C'he,/!:~ Committe,~ Meeting Da~e:
Depamnent: Financial Service~
Presenter: Cathy Johnson
Phone: 473-5296
SUMMARY: Consent agenda item. Approval of payroll, checks and electronic fired translbrs.
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:
l) Check #'s~,~?/~""'- through~D?/~>()_and EFT's //~¢0.~ throngh~:~4~-
?ffa25?6 L'%'2'~,~9 ~t/5'-~ · ~zz'~'T-- ~? ~~'in the amount orS
2) Regular Payroll flor the pay ~efidd ending, in the amotmt of $
3) Retiree Payroll for the pay period ending in the amount orS
COUNCIL ACTION: [] Approve [] Den3 [] Table [] Continue [] No Action
DATE SUBMITTED: June 21, 2004 BILL
AGENDA BILL
C TY or B M RTON d
SUBJECT: Setting ~e S~ level for ~e Commi~ee Meet~g Date: J~e 30, 2004
Finance Officer Position COUNCIL M~ET~G Date: July 7, 2004
Dep~ent: Fin~ce
Presemer: Michael R. Wilson
Phone: 473-5590
SUM~RY: Cathy Jonson h~ been appointed to ~e position of Fin~ce Officer wi~ ~e
~p~ment of Fin~ci~ Se~ices effective July 1, 2004. Ca~y's c~ent sal~ ~ Depmy Ci~
Tm~urer is B~d 14, Rate 8 ($5,973/momh). Since Cathy has more th~ 25 years of experience in
worhng for ~e Ci~ of Breme~on ~d will ~sme ~e added res~nsibilities of ~e Fin~ce Officer
position, it is mco~eMed that her s~ be adjumed to B~d 16, ~te 7 ($6,433/month).
ATTACHMENTS: Letter of Appointment
FISCAL IMPACTS (hclude Budgeted Amour): The fisc~ im~ct ~11 be ~ additio~ $2,760 in
perso~el cost to ~e Fin~ce division budget. At this time, no additional appropriation is ~ticipated.
DEPART~NT DI~CTOR:
o°NSENT AGEND
OPE~TIONS:
CO~CILP~SIDENT: - ~ ~ -
0 '
~COMMENDED MOTION: I move to approve se~ing ~e s~ for Ca~y Jonson ~ ~e
Finance Officer at B~d 16, Rate 7 effective July l, 2004.
COLrNCIL ACTION: [] Approve [] Deny [] Table [] Continue [] No Action
Department of Financial Services
239 Fourth Street, Brernerton, WA 98337
Telephone: 360~478-5290
Fax: 360-476-5200
mwilson@ci, brernerton, wa. us
Michael R. Wilson, Director of Financial Services
June 18, 2004
Catherine Johnson
545 NW Fairwood Way
Bremerton, WA 98311
Re: Letter of Promotion
Dear Cathy:
It is with great pleasure to confirm your appointment and promotion to the position of Finance
Officer for the Departtnent of Financial Services, City of Bremerton. The effective date of this
promotion will be July 1, 2004, to relatively coincide with the recently-approved reorganization
of the Department of Financial Services.
Your salary will be adjusted to such level as approved by the City Cotmcil (minimum 5%) to be
effective on the date of your promotion. Finance Operations wilt be a division within the
Department of Financial Services and you will continue to be supervised by the Director of
Financial Services.
Although you have been performing many of the Finance Officer duties in your position as
Deputy City Treasurer over the past two years, the changes in your responsibilities and title will
certainly improve our organization. I know you will find the enhanced and refined focus of your
responsibilities to be professionally rewarding and challenging.
Your dedication, expertise, positive attitude and willingness to take on a tremendous work load
has been most appreciated. I clearly could not have found a better candidate to be the new
Finance Officer. You certainly deserved this promotion! Congratulations on your appointment
to this very important management position for the City of Bremerton.
4~.erely'
Michael R. Wilson
cc: Carol S. Conley, Human Resources Director
Personnel File
DATE SUBMITTED: BILL
AGENDA BILL
CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: Bremerton Harborside Parking Committee Meeting Date: June ~ 2004
Management Agreement. COUNCIL MEET1NG Date: ~ '7-"'7~'t~
Department: Ecoffomic Dev.
Presenter: Gary Sexton
Phone: 473.5282
SUMMARY: The Bremerton Harborside Parking Management hires 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.
ATTACHMENTS: Bremerton Parking Management Agreement
FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): Estimated cost of Parking Management
APPROVALS: ~ervices would be approximately $56,000
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR: ~Z~~~
FiNANCE DIRECTOR:
OPERATIONS: .} / :~ CONSENT AGENDA
RECOMMENDED MOTION: 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.
COUNCIL ACTION: [~Approve [] Deny [] Table [] Continue [] No Action
Bremerton Harborside
Parking Management Agreement
Parking No. D586
Date: 06/ /04
RE: BREMERTON HARBORS[DE PARKING
100 WASHINGTON AVENUE
1. The effective date of this agreement is July 25, 2004, and will continue for a period of three
(3) years expiring July 24, 2007.
2. This agreement constitutes the Management Agreement between the City of Bremerton
("City") and Diamond Parking Services LLC ("Diamond Parking"). Diamond Parking will
operate the parking facility at Bremerton Harborside Levels P2 and P3 and any pay parking
on Level P 1, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, as an independent contractor under the terms
and conditions set forth below. A diagram of the floor plans is attached hereto as
attachment A.
3. COMPENSATION:
a. Base Rate: The City shall pay Diamond Parking a base management rate of Four
Thousand Five Hundred Fifty Eight Dollars ($4558.00) per month which fee shall
compensate Diamond Parking for all costs including, but not limited to, wages,
supervision, management, insurance, payroll taxes, benefits, equipment costs,
supplies, uniforms, daily and weekly routine maintenance, and cleaning and
sweeping (excluding monthly street sweeper cost) associated with the performance
and within the scope of services of this agreement.
b. Incentive Fee: The City shall pay Diamond Parking an incentive fee equal to 2% of
gross revenues over $40,000 monthly (e.g. $50,000 gross revenue, Diamond
Parking will receive a bonus of $200.00) "Gross Revenue" includes, and is limited
to, all revenues (cash and credit card) excluding tax, received for parking levels P2
& P3 and metered parking on Pl. Excluded from Gross revenue are parking time
allowances (pursuant to separate agreements) for the Hampton Inn and Suites, the
restaurant, and Kitsap Transit reserved parking.
c. Additional Services:
i. Diamond Parking at the request of the City, not less than 72 hours in
advance, shall provide additional parking checkers and attendants at the
agreed rate of $15.50 per hour including but not limited to, labor, benefits,
uniforms, supervision, insurance, accounting, profit, overhead, and any
other cost associated with the performance and within the scope of services
of this agreement.
ii. Diamond Parking at the request of the City not less than two weeks in
advance, shall provide event valet parking at the rate of $20.00 per actual
employee time card hour, including but not limited to labor, benefits,
Bremerton Harborside/Diamond
Page 1 of 6
uniform, supervision, insurance, accounting, profit, overhead, and any other
cost associated with the performance and within the scope of services of this
agreement.. A Diamond Parking manager or supervisor will be on site for
all valet services provided.
4. LOT CHECKS:
a. Week Days: Diamond Parking shall check the site and collect revenues not less
than four times daily, with morning checks between 7 am - 9 am; lunch time checks
between 11 am - 1 pm; afternoon checks between 2 pm 4 pm and evening checks
between 6 pm - 9 pm.
b. Weekends: Diamond Parking shall check the site and collect revenues not less than
twice daily, at lunchtime between 11 am - 1 pm and evening between 5 pm - 8 pm.
c. Random Checks: Diamond Parking shall provide the City with a monthly schedule
setting forth random checks at times other than the above agreed and scheduled
times. The random check times will substitute for equal number of scheduled check
times. The City may, at is sole option, modify or reject any random check
schedules.
d. Special Events: Diamond Parking shall meet with a representative of Columbia
Hospitality on a monthly basis to review and provide supplemental parking services
for functions and events scheduled for the Bremerton Harborside, Kitsap
Conference Center and the boardwalk.
5. COLLECTED REVENUE: All revenue collected by Diamond Parking pursuant to this
agreement belongs to and are assets of the City and Diamond Parking may not deduct or
withhold any amounts from such funds. All collected revenue shall be remitted to the City
each business day or as otherwise directed by the Department of Financial Services.
Diamond Parking shall follow and comply with the requirements of the Department of
Financial Services for revenue collection, deposits and reporting procedures for the revenue
collected under this agreement.
6. PARKING REVENUE EQUIPMENT: Diamond Parking, at its own expense, shall install
VENTEK pay boxes with envelope option for check and scrip payments at two locations
each on parking levels P2 and P3 (south elevator and east exits), or other equipment that
may be agreed between the parties. Diamond Parking will provide standard pay boxes on
level P1 for such parking spaces as may be requested by the City of Bremerton, said
equipment shall remain in the ownership of Diamond Parking.
7. NON CHARGED PERMITS: At the City's sole option, the City shall receive up to 35 non
charge quarterly permits with Diamond Parking providing individual parking permit
numbers.
8. MAINTENANCE: Diamond Parking shall be responsible for maintaining the parking area
in a professionally neat and clean condition and appearance. Diamond Parking will daily
pick up any litter within the parking structure. As reasonably necessary, Diamond Parking
will sweep or mop individual and/or isolated spills, and check fire extinguishers. Diamond
Parking shall report defective lights and otherwise clean and perform minor maintenance as
Bremerton Harborside/Diamond
Page 2 of 6
reasonably necessary. The City shall remain responsible for any and all costs of Capital or
Property Improvements, and maintenance and repairs beyond minor maintenance.
9. RELATIONSHIP OF PARTIES: Diamond Parking represents that it is skilled in providing
parking management services and is performing independent functions and responsibilities.
Diamond Parking and it's personnel are independent contractors and not employees of the
City. Diamond and its personnel have no authority to bind the City or to control the City's
employees and other contractors. None of the benefits provided by the City to its
employees, including, but not limited to, compensation, insurance, and unemployment
insurance are available from the City to the employees, agents, representatives, or sub-
contractors of Diamond Parking. Diamond will be solely and entirely responsible for its
acts and for the acts of Diamond's agents, employees, representatives and sub-contractors
during the performance of this Agreement.
As an independent contractor, Diamond Parking is responsible for its own management.
The City's administration and enforcement of this Agreement shall not be deemed an
exercise of managerial control over Diamond Parking or its personnel.
As an independent contractor, Diamond Parking is responsible for payment of all taxes and
licensing fees necessary to perform its obligations under this Agreement. These taxes and
fees include but are not limited to State industrial insurance, Business & Occupation, State
professional licensing, and City business licensing. If any taxes or fees due the City have
been declared delinquent, the City may withhold the delinquent amount, plus any additional
charges arising from the delinquency, from any payments due Diamond Parking.
10. iNDEMNIFICATION: Diamond Parking shall defend, indemnify and hold the City, its
officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers harmless from any and all claims,
injuries, damages, losses or suits, including all legal costs and attorney fees, arising out of or
in connection with the negligent or otherwise deficient performance of this Agreement,
except for that portion of the injuries and damages caused by the City's negligence.
The City's review or acceptance of any of the work when completed shall not be grounds to
avoid any of these covenants of indemnifications.
Should a court of competent jurisdiction determine that this Agreement is subject to RCW
4.24.115, then, in the event of liability for damages arising out of bodily injury to persons or
damages to property caused by or resulting from the concurrent negligence of Diamond
Parking and the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers, Diamond
Parking's liability hereunder shall be only to the extend of Diamond Parking's negligence.
IT IS FURTHER SPECIEICALLY AND EXPRESSLY UNDERSTOOD THAT THE
INDEMNIFICATION PROVIDED HERE IN CONSTITUTES THE CONTRACTOR'S
WA1VER OF IMMUNITY UNDER INDUSTRIAL INSURANCE, TITLE 51 RCW,
SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS INDEMNIFICATION. THE PARTIES
FURTHER ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THEY HAVE MUTUALLY NEGOTIATED THIS
WAIVER.
The provisions of this section shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement.
Bremerton Harborside/Diamond
Page 3 of 6
11. INSURANCE: Diamond Parking shall procure and maintain for the duration of the
Agreement, insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damage to property which
may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the
Diamond Parking, its agents, representatives, employees, and/or sub-contractors.
Before beginning work on the project described in this Agreement, Diamond Parking shall
provide a Certificate of Insurance evidencing:
a. Automobile Liability: Insurance with limits no less than $1,000,000 combined
single limit per accident for bodily injury and property damage; and
b. Commercial General Liability: Insurance written on an occurrence basis with limits
no less than $1,000,000 combined single limit per occurrence and general aggregate
for personal injury, bodily injury and property damage. Coverage shall include but
not be limited to: blanket contractual; products/completed operations/broad form
property damage; and employer's liability; and
Any payment of deductible or self insured retention shall be the sole responsibility
of the Diamond.
All required policies shall be provided on an "occurrence" basis.
The City shall be named as an additional insured on the Commercial General
Liability insurance policy, as respects work performed by or on behalf of the
Diamond Parking and a copy of an endorsement that is acceptable to the City,
which names the City as an additional insured shall be attached to the Certificate of
Insurance.
Diamond Parking's insurance shall be primary insurance as respects the City and
the City shall be given thirty (30) days prior written notice by certified mail, return
receipt requested, of any cancellation, suspension or material change in coverage.
The City also reserves its unqualified right to require at any time and for any reason,
proof of coverage in form of a duplicate of the insurance policy with all
endorsements as evidence of coverage.
12. INSPECTION: Diamond Parking shall keep all records related to this contract to include
but not limited to; the records listed above for at least six (6) years following expiration or
termination of this agreement, or deliver the records to the City. Diamond shall keep all
records in its regular business and shall keep the records in an orderly manner as may be
directed by the City to assure easy access and reference to the records and shall make all
records available for inspection and copying by the City during business hours.
13. RECORD KEEPING AND REPORTS: All revenue collections, deposits and reporting
procedures shall be in accordance with City Finance Department requirements. Upon the
commencement date of this contract, any additional banking requirements directed by the
City that result in additional service fees will be paid by the City.
Bremerton Harborside/Diamond
Page 4 of 6
7
14. PERSONNEL: Diamond Parking shall be responsible for all aspects of recruitment and
selection of parking enforcement personnel.
a. As a condition of employment, all employees including Diamond's managers and
supervisors are subject to pre-employment drug and alcohol abuse screening.
Random drug and alcohol screening shall also be required throughout the term of
this contract.
b. Diamond shall provide all enforcement personnel with professional appearing
uniforms consisting of shirts, trousers and jackets. Uniform design must be
approved by the City. All personnel are to be in complete uniforms at any time they
are engaged in duties.
15. SEVERABILITY: Should anypart of this Agreement be foandvoid, thebalance ofthe
Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.
16. MODIFICATION: This Agreement may only be modified by written instrument signed by
both Parties.
17. WRITTEN NOTICES: All communications regarding this Agreement shall be sent to the
parties at the addresses listed below by registered or 1st class mail, or by personal service,
and shall be deemed sufficiently given if sent to the addressee at the address stated in this
Agreement or such other address as may be hereafter specified in writing.
Copy To:
City Address Diamond Parking Diamond Parking
City Clerk Jon Diamond
239 4th Street 3161 Elliot Avenue PO Box 809
Bremerton, WA 98337 Seattle, WA 98212 Bremerton, WA 98337
18. WAIVER: Failure to enfome any provision of this Agreement shall not be deemed a
waiver of that provision. Waiver of any right or power arising out of this Agreement shall
not be deemed waiver of any other right or power.
19. NON-WAIVER OF BREACH: The failure of the City to insist upon strict performance of
any of the covenants and agreements contained herein, or to exemise any option herein
conferred in one or more instances shall not be construed to be a waiver or relinquishment
of said covenants, agreements or options, and the same shall be and remain in full force and
effect.
20. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS: Diamond Parking shall comply with all applicable
Federal, State, and local laws in performing its obligations under this Agreement.
21. CHOICE OF LAW AND VENUE: This Agreement shall be interpreted according to the
laws of the State of Washington. Any judicial action to resolve disputes arising out of this
Agreement shall be brought in Kitsap County Superior Court.
22. ATTORNEY'S FEES: In the event of litigation to enforce any of the terms or provisions
herein, each party shall pay all its own costs and attorney's fees.
Bremerton Harborside/Diamond
Page 5 of 6
23. ASSIGNMENT: Diamond Parking shall not assign any interest in this agreement without
the prior written consent by the City, which shall not be unreasonably withheld. Any
assignment of this agreement by the Contractor without the whtten consent of the City shall
be void; provided however, that the claims for payment under this agreement may be
assigned.
24. NONDISCRIMINATION: Contractor shall not discriminate in employment or services to
the public on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, marital status, or
disability, except for employment actions based on bona fide occupational qualifications.
25. TERMINATION: This Agreement may be terminated, at will, by either party upon sixty
(60) days notice. This Agreement may be immediately terminated for cause by a Party if
the other Party substantially fails to perform through no fault of the terminating Party, and
the non performing Party does not commence correction of the failure of performance
within five (5) days of the terminating Party's sending notice to the non-performing Party.
Rights Upon Termination: In the event of termination, the City shall pay for all services
satisfactorily performed by Diamond Parking to the effective date of termination, as
described on a final invoice submitted to the City. After termination, the City may take
possession of all records and data within Diamond Parking's possession pertaining to this
contract which may be used by the City without restriction.
26. DUPLICATE ORIGINALS: This Agreement may be executed in duplicate original.
CITY OF BREMERTON DIAMOND PARKING
By: By:
its: its:
Date: Date:
Approved as to form: Attest:
Bremerton City Attorney City Clerk
R:\LEGAL~Files\Curr~nt Active Files\Conference C~nter~Diamond Parking Management Agreement.doc
Bremerton Harborside/Diamond
Page 6 of 6
ATTACHMENT A
DATE SUBMITTED: June 21, 2004 BILL
AGENDA BILL
CITY OF BREMERTON
CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: Architectural Services for the Committee Meeting Date: June 30, 2004
Downtown Bremerton/Martin Lnther King COUNClL MEETING Date: July 7, 2004
Jr. Library Department: Finance
Presenter: Michael R. Wilson
Phone: 473-5590
SUMMARY: A committee comprised of three city staff and two Bremerton Regional Library staff
interviewed candidates to perform architectural services for the Downtown Bremerton/Martin Luther
King Jr. library renovation project. Miles Yanich & Company was selected by the committee to
perform architectural services and prepare "record drawings" for the library since such as-built
drawings are not available. A contract with Mr. Yanich's company in the amount not to exceed
$38,000 for library architectural services and up to $ t4,986 for the preparation of "record drawings"
for the library has been prepared for approval by the City Council.
ATTACHMENTS: AIA Contract between the City of Bremerton and Miles Yanich & Company
FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): The library capital project budget of $419,000 has
funds set aside in the amount of $52,98]5 for architectural services.
/
APPROVALS:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR: (_...~( _C~ ,.-< _ ,/~-----
CITY ATTORNEY:
MAYOR: i/ ~'"" -~
FISCAL/BUDGET:
OPERATIONS:
COUNCIL PRESIDENT: -
RECOMMENDED MOTION: I move to approve Yhe attached agreement with Miles Yanich &
Company to perform architectural services for the Dowmown Bremerton/Martin Luther King Jr.
library renovation project in an amount not to exceed ~ff'.5",& 9 ~6, o O0 ivte[vrJtTv~.ct preparation of
li?ary record draw~.ng.s"v~o-{-,ffo
COUNCIL ACTION: [] Approve [] Deny [] Table [] Continue [] No Action
13
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
Mar~in Luther King Library - Bremerton
The City of Bmmerton ("City") and Miles Yanick & Co. ("Consultant") referred to
collectively as the "Parties," enter into the following Agreement for professional services:
I. Scope: The Consultant agrees to perform the services more specifically described in the
Scope of Work, dated June 23, 2004, including any attachments thereto, attached hereto as
Exhibit A, which is incorporated by reference herein. The Scope of Work may be modified only
pursuant to Section VII.H. of this Agreement. If the Scope of Work provides for unspecified
additional services such services shall only be performed upon the express written request of the
City. Consultant further represents that the services furnished under this Agreement will be
performed in accordance with generally accepted professional practices in effect at the time such
services am performed.
II. Term: The City and the Consultant agree that work will begin on the tasks described in
Exhibit A immediately upon execution of this Agreement.
III. Compensation: In consideration of the services provided pursuant to this Agreement, the
City shall pay Consultant in an amount not to exceed fifty two thousand nine hundred eighty-six
dollars ($52,986) of which the Record Drawing Preparation, as outlined in Exhibit D, shall not
exceed fourteen thousand nine hundred eighty-six dollars ($14,986). Consultant's charges and
bills shall conform to the fee schedule attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by
this reference.
The Consultant shall submit regular billing statements detailing work performed and
amount charged on each task or portion thereof. The descriptions shall conform to and fall
within the categories set out in the Scope of Work and/or Fee Schedule. Upon receipt of a
conforming billing statement, the City shall promptly process payment. PROVIDED,
HOWEVER, the City reserves the right to prioritize scoped work and accelerate and/or delay
work tasks under the time frame set forth in Section II herein. The Consultant's labor rates and
billing fees shall be as delineated in Exhibit B.
Consultant shall not perform work beyond the Scope of Work, nor shall be compensated
for such work, unless the Scope of Work or amount of compensation is modified pursuant to this
Agreement. Consultant shall only be compensated for additional services if requested pursuant
to Section I and, if not otherwise provided, such compensation shall be in accordance with
Exhibit B.
If a billing statement does not conform to this Agreement, the City may withhold
payment until the statement is brought into compliance. Such withholding does not relieve
Consultant of its obligations under this Agreement. Payments by the City to Consultant shall be
in accordance with Exhibit C.
Bremerton/Miles Yanick & Co.
Martin Luther King Library
Page l of 7
IV. Relationship of Parties: Consultant represents that it is skilled in the matters addressed
in the Scope of Work and is performing independent functions and responsibilities within its
field of expertise. Consultant and its personnel are independent Consultants and not employees
of the City. Consultant and its personnel have no authority to bind the City or to control the
City's employees and other Consultants. None of the benefits provided by the City to its
employees, including, but not limited to, compensation, insurance, and unemployment insurance
are available from the City to the employees, agents, representatives, or sub-Consultants of the
Consultant. Consultant will be solely and entirely responsible for its acts and for the acts of
Consultant's agents, employees, representatives and sub-Consultants during the performance of
this Agreement. The City may, during the term of this Agreement, engage other independent
Consultants to perform the same or similar work.
As an independent Consultant, Consultant is responsible for its own management. The
City's administration and enforcement of this Agreement shall not be deemed an exercise of
managerial control over Consultant or its personnel.
As an independent Consultant, Consultant is responsible for payment of all taxes and
licensing fees necessary to perform its obligations under this Agreement. These taxes and fees
include but are not limited to State industrial insurance, Business & Occupation, State
professional licensing, and City business licensing. If any taxes or fees due the City have been
declared delinquent, the City may withhold the delinquent amount, plus any additional charges
arising from the delinquency, from any payments due Consultant.
V. Indemnification: Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold the City, its officers,
officials, employees, agents and volunteers harmless from any and all claims, injuries, damages,
losses or suits, including all legal costs and attorney fees, arising out of or in connection with the
performance of this Agreement, except for that portion of the injuries and damages caused by the
City's sole negligence.
The City's review or acceptance of any of the work when completed shall not be grounds
to avoid any of these covenants of indemnification.
Should a court of competent jurisdiction determine that this Agreement is subject to
RCW 4.24.115, then, in the event of liability for damages arising out of bodily injury to persons
or damages to property caused by or resulting from the concurrent negligence of the Consultant
and the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers, the Consultant's liability
hereunder shall be only to the extent of the Consultant's negligence.
IT IS FURTHER SPECIFICALLY AND EXPRESSLY UNDERSTOOD THAT THE
iNDEMNIFICATION PROVIDED HEREIN CONSTITUTES THE CONSULTANT'S
WAIVER OF IMMUNITY UNDER INDUSTRIAL INSURANCE, TITLE 51 RCW, SOLELY
FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS INDEMNIFICATION. THE PARTIES FURTHER
ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THEY HAVE MUTUALLY NEGOTIATED THIS WAIVER.
The provisions of this section shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement.
Bremerton/Miles Yanick & Co.
Martin Luther King Library
Page 2 of 7
VI. Insurance: The Consultant shall procure and maintain for the duration of the Agreement,
insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damage to property which may arise from or in
connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the Consultant, its agents,
representatives, employees, sub-consultants or sub-Consultants.
Before beginning work on the project described in this Agreement, the Consultant shall
provide a Certificate of Insurance evidencing:
1. Automobile Liability insurance with limits no less than $1,000,000 combined single
limit per accident for bodily injury and property damage; and
2. Commercial General Liability insurance written on an occurrence basis with limits no
less than $1,000,000 combined single limit per occurrence and general aggregate for
personal injury, bodily injury and property damage. Coverage shall include but not be
limited to: blanket contractual; products/completed operations/broad form property
damage; explosion, collapse and underground (XCU) if applicable; and employer's
liability; and
3. Excess Liability insurance with limits not less than 1,000,000 limit per occurrence and
aggregate.
4. Professional Liability insurance with limits no less than $1,000,000 limit per
occurrence/claim.
Any payment of deductible or self insured retention shall be the sole responsibility of the
Consultant.
All required policies shall be provided on an "occurrence" basis except professional
liability insurance (if required), which may be provided on a "claims-made" basis.
The City shall be named as an additional insured on the Commercial General Liability
insurance policy, as respects work performed by or on behalf of the Consultant and a copy of an
endorsement that is acceptable to the City, which names the City as an additional insured shall be
attached to the Certificate of Insurance. The City reserves the right to receive a certified copy of
all the required insurance policies and endorsements. The City further reserves the right to reject
any unacceptable policies and/or endorsements.
The Consultant's Commercial General Liability insurance shall contain a clause stating
that coverage shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is
brought, except with respects to the limits of the insurer's liability.
The Consultant's insurance shall be primary insurance as respects the City and the City
shall be given thirty (30) days prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, of
any cancellation, suspension or material change in coverage.
The City also reserves its unqualified right to require at any time and for any reason,
proof of coverage in the form of a duplicate of the insurance policy with all endorsements as
evidence of coverage.
Bremerton/Miles Yanick & Co.
Martin Luther King LibraD'
Page 3 of 7
VII. General Conditions:
A. Reports and Information: When requested by the City, Consultant shall furnish
periodic reports and documents on matters covered by this Agreement. The reports and
documents shall be furnished in the time and form requested. Consultant shall maintain
accounting records in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) to
substantiate all billed amounts.
B. Ownership and Use of Records and Documents: Original documents, drawings,
designs and reports, including those in electronic format, developed under this Agreement are the
property of the City. All written information submitted by the City to the Consultant in
connection with the services performed by the Consultant under this Agreement will be
safeguarded by the Consultant to at least the same extent as the Consultant safeguards like
information relating to its own business. If such information is publicly available or is already in
Consultant's possession or known to it, or is rightfully obtained by the Consultant from third
parties, Consultant shall bear no responsibility for its disclosure, inadvertent or otherwise.
All data, documents and files created by Consultant under this Agreement may be stored
at Consultant's office in Bainbridge Island, Washington. Consultant shall make such data,
docunaents, and files available to the City upon its request at all reasonable times for the purpose
of editing, modifying and updating as necessary until such time as the City is capable of storing
such information in the City's offices. Duplicate copies of this information shall be provided to
the City upon its request, and at reasonable cost.
All documents, including all reports, drawings, specifications, computer software or other
items prepared or furnished by Consultant pursuant to this Agreement, are instruments of service
with respect to the project and are the property of the City. Any reuse by the City for other than
the specific purpose intended will be at City's sole risk.
C. Consultant to Maintain Records to Support Independent Consultant Status: On the
effective date of this Agreement (or shortly thereafter), Consultant shall:
1. File a schedule of expenses with the Internal Revenue Service for the type of
business Consultant conducts;
2. Establish an account with the Washington State Department of Revenue and other
necessary state agencies for the payment of all state taxes normally paid by
employers, register to receive a unified business identifier number from the State
of Washington; and
3. Maintain a separate set of books and records that reflect all items of income and
expenses of Consultant's business, all as described in the Revised Code of
Washington (RCW) Section 51.08.195, as required to show that the services
performed by Consultant under this Agreement shall not give rise to an employer-
employee relationship between the parties which is subject to RCW Title 51,
Industrial Insurance.
Bremerton/Miles Yanick & Co.
Martin Luther King Library
Page 4 of 7
17
D. Work Performed at Consultant's Risk: Consultant shall take all precautions necessary
and shall be responsible for the safety of its employees, agents, and sub-consultants in the
performance of the work hereunder and shall utilize all protection necessary for that purpose.
All work shall be done at Consultant's own risk, and Consultant shall be responsible for any loss
of or damage to materials, tools, or other articles used or held for use in connection with the
work.
E. Place of Work: The Consultant shall perform the work authorized under this
Agreement at its offices in Bainbridge Island, Washington. Meetings with the City staff as
described in Exhibit A, Scope of Work, shall take place at the City's offices, or at locations
mutually agreed upon by the parties.
F. Entire Agreement: This Agreement and its Exhibits constitutes the entire agreement
between the Parties, and the Parties acknowledge that there are no other agreements, written or
oral, that have not been set forth in the text of this Agreement.
G. Severabilit¥: Should any part of this Agreement be found void, the balance of the
Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.
H. Modification: This Agreement may only be modified by written instrument signed by
both Parties.
I. Written Notices: All communications regarding this Agreement shall be sent to the
parties at the addresses listed below by registered or 1st class mail, or by personal service, and
shall be deemed sufficiently given if sent to the addressee at the address stated in this Agreement
or such other address as may be hereafter specified in writing.
City Address Consultant Address
City Clerk Miles Yanick
239 Fourth Street 600 Winslow Way E, #247
Bremerton, WA 98337 Bainbridge Island, WA 98110
J. Waiver: Failure to enforce any provision of this Agreement shall not be deemed a
waiver of that provision. Waiver of any right or power arising out of this Agreement shall not be
deemed waiver of any other right or power.
K. Non-Waiver of Breach: The failure of the City to insist upon strict performance of
any of the covenants and agreements contained herein, or to exercise any option herein conferred
in one or more instances shall not be construed to be a waiver or relinquishment of said
covenants, agreements or options, and the same shall be and remain in full force and effect.
L. Compliance with Laws: Consultant shall comply with all applicable Federal, State, and
local laws in performing its obligations under this Agreement.
Bremerton/Miles Yanick & Co.
Martin Luther King Library
Page 5 of 7
18
M. Choice of Law and Venue: This Agreement shall be interpreted according to the laws
of the State of Washington. Any judicial action to resolve disputes arising out of this Agreement
shall be brought in Kitsap County Superior Court.
N. Attorneys' Fees: In the event of litigation to enforce any of the terms or provisions
herein, each party shall pay all its own costs and attorney's fees.
O. Assignment: Any assignment of this agreement by the Contractor without the written
consent of the City shall be void.
VIII. Nondiscrimination: Consultant shall not discriminate in employment or services to the
public on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, marital status, or disability,
except for employment actions based on bona fide occupational qualification.
IX. Termination: This Agreement may be terminated, at will, by either Party upon sixty (60)
days notice to the other Party. This Agreement may be immediately terminated for cause by a
Party if the other Party substantially fails to perform through no fault of the terminating Party,
and the non-performing Party does not commence correction of the failure of performance within
thirty (30) days of the terminating Party's sending notice to the non-performing Party. Notice by
Consultant shall include a report showing the status of all items listed in the Scope of Work
current through the termination date.
If the City receives reimbursement by any federal, state, or other source for work described in
Section I herein, and that funding is withdrawn, reduced or limited in any way, or the project is
cancelled or substantially reduced after the execution date of this Agreement and prior to the
completion of the work, the City may summarily terminate this Agreement. Termination shall be
effective ten calendar days after Consultant's receipt of the written notice by certified mail.
A. Excusable Delays: The right of Consultant to proceed shall not be terminated nor shall
Consultant be charged with liquidated damages for any delays in the completion of the work due
to: 1) any acts of the federal government in controlling, restricting, or requisitioning materials,
equipment, tools, or labor by reason of war, national defense, or other national emergency; 2)
any acts of the City, its consultants, or other public agencies causing such delay; and 3) causes
not reasonably foreseeable by the parties at the time of the execution of the Agreement that are
beyond the control and without the fault or negligence of the Consultant, including, but not
restricted to, acts of God, fires, floods, strikes, or weather of unusual severity. PROVIDED,
HOWEVER, that the Consultant must promptly notify the City within ten (10) calendar days in
writing of the cause of the delay. If, on the basis of the facts and the terms of this Agreement,
the delay is properly excusable, the City shall, in writing, extend the time for completing the
work for a period of time commensurate with the period of excusable delay.
B. Rights Upon Termination: In the event of termination, the City shall pay for all
services performed by the Consultant to the effective date of termination, as described on a final
invoice submitted to the City. After termination, the City may take possession of all records and
data within the Consultant's possession pertaining to this project which may be used by the City
Bremerton/Miles Yanick & Co.
Martin Luther King Library
Page 6 of 7
without restriction. Any such use not related to the project which Consultant was contracted to
perform shall be without liability or legal exposure to the Consultant.
CITY OF BREMERTON CONSULTANT
By: CARY BOZEMAN By: MILES YANICK
its: Mayor its:
Date: Date:
Approved as to form: Attest:
Bremerton City Attorney City Clerk
R:\LEGAL\Contracts~FORMS~Professional Services Agreement Form (2003).doc
Bremerton/Miles Yanick & Co.
Martin Luther King Library
Page 7 of 7
20
EXHIBIT A SCOPE OF WORK 6/23/04 Page 1
Downtown Bremerton/Martin Luther King Jr. Library Proiect
June 11, 2004
Vision
The Bremerton Downtown/Martin Luther King Jr. Library shall be a multi-use, diverse
resource facility serving as a community focal point.
Objectives
1) Serve as community memory piece tying the past to the future - therae is the old
meets new (Library, Admiral Theatre and post office versus the new Government
Center, Conference and other new downtown facilities)
2) Self-service facility offering diverse programs and services
3) Improve public use through interior and exterior improvements, m~i~e the facility
more colorful/artistic, more welcoming -"ja~ up the place to bring the public
back"
4) Enhance the art-deco style and community character of the building
5) Make it a key walkable-destination facility for the public that will not be
dependent upon parking
6) Focus on use by downtown residents & employees who work in the downtown
core
7) Provide more new and diverse materials/resources in a more attractive and fun
environment to attract patrons
Priorities (project phasing)
1) Roof repairs
2) Replace windows with an deco style
3) Exterior improvements w/focus on front of the building, fr,~nt entrance/doors,
building color, landscaping, & signage. Convert bathroom:~ ruder entrance
stairs to maintenance/equipment storage. Prepare outside courtyard area for
placement of tables and benches (book reading, lunch)
4) Interior of building priorities:
· upgrade lighting with art deco style
rotunda and skylight/dome
· ceiling tile replacement
· new restroom
· HVAC system
· carpeting
· trim/woodwork
· imerior window treatment
DOWNTOWN BREMERTON/MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. LIBRARY Ex A-2
2004 CAPITAL RENOVATION PROJECT BUDGET
t0-Jun-04
PROJECT EXPENSE
Exterior
Rerooflng and weatherization $7,000
Exterior restoration, painting and coating 15,500
Entry lighting, fiber optics infrastructure 7,000
Replace exterior doors 6,000
Replace art deco style windows 60,000
Landscaping, signage, irrigation 5,000
Interior
Replace acoustical ceiling tiles 10,000
Painting, including decorative work 22,500
Replace flooring at main floor 38,000
Plumbing upgrades 20,000
Casework, trim and millwork replacement 10,000
New handicap accessible restroom 18,500
Replace lighting at main floor 25,000
Technology infrastructure upgrades 10,000
Electrical upgrades 12,500
HVAC ststem upgrades for air delivery 12~500
Sub-total 279,500
General Contractor Overhead & Profit 13.50% 37,733
Subtotal - Construction Expense 317,233
Washington State Sales Tax 8.60% 27,282
Consultant Services:
Architectural & Engineering 12.00% 38,068
Record drawings - architect 14,986
Administration, Bidding & Estimating Contingency 1.50% 4,758
Permits and fees 2,504
Subtotal - Project Expense 87,598
Subtotal - Combined Construction & Project Expense 404,831
Project Contingency 3.50% 14,169
Total Expense 5;419.000
PROJECT REVENUE
CDBG Grant 100,000
Gates Foundation Grant 100,000
Friends of the Library 19,000
City of Bremerton 100,000
Kitsap County 100,000
Total Revenue 5;419.000
EXmBI~ B
ARCHITECTURE LANDSCAPE DESIGNERS PLANNERS
Hourly Rate Schedule - Multiple of Direct Pemonnel Expenses (June 2002)
MuISDle of D/~ct Pm'$o/tr, e/E. xDenses jncka~a direct ~alaite~ of the Andittec~l pemonflst, and the portion of ~ ex)st of their
mandatory and ~JstOmal¥ conthbufions and bensfils r~alad thereto, such es federal, state and local employment taxes and
other statulo~ employee benefits, insurance, Nc~ leave, holidays,, vacations, penei~n and similar contributions and baneflt~.
~ J~ Blllina Rate
12.10 x 3.0~ ~
~ ~ De~mdaelon ef Primary
I. Mllee Yantok, Pflnolpst $g41 hour Pdmm7 architectural end landscape de$igfi
Registered Anti.ct respomibu~ for ell of the wo~ programming;
Senior Project Architect ,¢hedullng; meetings ~ client emi govem-
Proje~ Manager merit agora:tea; presentations,
& coat estimates; field inspections.
II. Reglalafed Architec~ ~ hour Total quality management, production of
~enlor Designer ~tructJon contract documents, document coordi-
nation, landscape desigrl, cost estimates.
ill Registered Architect $76 / hour Project mac, get; architectural end ~ design;
Designer programmir~g; scheduling; meetings ~ c~ient
Project Manager and government agar'es; prelentations;
specifications & coat e~mates; q~mllly control;
preparstlort of cor~tnx~don drawings, techr,ical
corltns~ nlal~lgement; §eld inspections.
tV. Reglatered Architect ~ / hour Conatn~ffion contract document procluctioe team
DeNgn Productio~ Manager leade~, technical and da~gn aesistanoe a~:l
Senior Dmffspemon cost estimates; qtmldy control.
V. Landscape Architect la6 / hour Assists arc~itec~ wfd~ damgn and preparation of
Inteffot Oeeiglle~ landm all® development plans, interior
Other Spaclallat plans, or other spe~ieiized infom~atio~ and plans:
documentation, specifications and coat eafimates.
VI. Intermediate Dmfflpeelon $50 / hour Preparation of pmductio~ drawings and
VII. Junior [~raRapemon ~41 I hour lion malarial; code research; governmental
agency liiaon.
~/111. Admb~strator ~391 hour Job co~t a~::ounfing, pmje¢~ schedule upd~tes,
Drafting A~lalant ~$earc~, drawing, and document peeie-up and
production.
Consultant Fees: ~ +
Includes structurst, mechanical, eleclttcal, and civil engineers; inle~or and graphic designera; special consultants,
Relmburaabla F_xpermes Incurred on Behaff of C41e~: Ceat · 18%
(ag. filing fees, other fees. postage & shll:~ng, report & drawing reproduction, special services & supplies)
In-Houle Expenm: Bluap~nt~: $2.751 shest Mileage: $0.35 / mile
CAD plot~: $13.50 / sheet Per Diem: ~50 / pemon ! day
All accounts are due irl full ~l)on I'~ of I~lvolce,
Interest at the rate of 1.5% pm' month wi# be chmged on accounts due over 30 days.
23
PAYMt~NT$ TO THE ARCHITECT
Payments on account of services rendered and £or Reimbursable Expenses incurred shall
be made monthly u?on presentation of the Architect's statement of services. No deductions sM[t
be made from the Architect's compensation on account of penalty, liquidated damages or o:her
sums withheld from payments to contractors, or on account of the cost of changes in the ~fork
other than those for which the Architect has been adjudged to be liable.
Rehnbuxsable Expenses are in addition to compensation for. the Architect's services and
i~Clude expenses:incurred by the Architect and Architect's employees and consultants directly
related to the Project, as identified in the following Clauses:
.~ transportation in connection with the Project, authorized out-of-town travel and
subsistence, and electronic communications;
.z fees paid for securing approval of authorities having jurisdiction over the Proiect;
a reproductions,, plots, standard form documents, postage, handling and delivery of
Instruments of Service;
.4 expense of overtime work requiring higher than regular rates if authorized in advance
by the Owner;
$ renderings, models and mock-ups requested by the Owner;,
.~ expense of professional liability insurance dedicated exclusively to this Project or the
expense of additional insurance coverage or limits requested by the Owner in excess of
that normally carried by the Architect and the Architect's consultants;
.7 reimbursable expenses as designated in Paragraph
.~ other similar direct Project-related expenditures.
Records of Reimbursable Expenses, of expenses pertaining to a Change in Services, acad of
services performed on the basis of hourly rates or a multiple of DLrect Personnel Expense shgi be
available to the Owner or the Owner's authorized representative at mutually convenient times.
Direct Personnel Expense is defined as the direct salaries of the Architect's personnel
engaged on the Project a~d the portion of the cost of their mandatory and customary
contributions and benefits related thereto, such as employment taxes and other statutory
employee benefits, insurance, sick leave, holidays, vacations, employee retirement plan.,: and
similar contributions.
DATE SUBMITTED: 6/30/04 BILL # ~) ~' - /~'
AGENDA BILL
CITY OF BREMERTON q ~
CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT:Approval of Agreement with Committee Meeting Date: 6/30/04
Port Blakely Communities, Inc. Regarding COUNCIL MEETING Date: 7/07/04
Pre-Purchase Scope of Work for Eastpark Department: Economic Dev
Acquisition Presenter: Gary Sexton
Phone: 473-5282
SUMMARY: It is recommended that the City of Bremerton enter into a Pre-Purchase Scope of Work
(Due Diligence) Agreement with Port Blakely 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 traits per acre) with a sense of place and locality, quality construction,
neighborhood amenities and landscaping, innovative design and respect for the environment. Port
Blakely has the background and experience to perform pre-purchase analysis (due diligence), plan,
design and construct a residential development on the site.
ATTACHMENTS: Agreement
FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): None
APPROVALS:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR:
FINANCE DIRECTOR:
CO~CIL P~SIDENT:
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
Move to approve the Pm-~c~se Scope of Work Agreement ~tween the City ofBreme~on ~d
Po~ Blakely Co--unities. Inc. regarding the Eas~mk prope~y ~d authorize the Mayor to execute
the ~reement u~n conc~ence by the CRy Attorney of the l~guage there,.
COUNCIL ACTION: [] Approve [] Deny [] Table [] Continue [] No Action
28
AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE CITY OF BREMERTON
AND
PORT BLAKELY COMMUNITIES
This Agreement is made by and between PORT BLAKELY COMMUNITIES, whose
mailing address is 1775 Twelfth Avenue, Issaquah, Washington 98027, ("Blakely"), and the
CITY OF BREMERTON, a Washington municipal corporation, whose mailing address is 239
4th Street, Bremerton, Washington 98337 ("City"), for the site plan design of real property as
follows:
WHEREAS, The City is the owner of a parcel of property consisting of approximately
47 acres, legally described in Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, The City desires to see the property developed as an urban medium density
residential (6 to 10 units per acre) with a sense of place and locality, quality construction,
neighborhood amenities and landscaping, innovative design and respect for the environment; and
WHEREAS, Blakely has the background, experience and desire to perform due
diligence, plan, design, and construct a residential development on the site; and
WHEREAS, Blakely intends to sell lots to DR Horton ("Horton"), an experienced
national homebuilder, to construct homes on the Property, and Horton will actively participate in
the due diligence phases with Blakely; and
WHEREAS, It is the City's desire to sell the property for re-development by Blakely
pursuant to a design and capital improvement proposal acceptable to the City; and
WHEREAS, Blakely and the City desire to set out due diligence procedures in this
Agreement prior to the parties entering into a purchase and sale agreement for the Property;.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES TO THIS AGREEMENT AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
1. PROPERTY. The property, consisting of approximately 47 acres of land with
no structures or improvements situated thereon, commonly known as "Eastpark", is located off
Wheaton Way Bremerton, Washington (the "Property"), and is legally described in Exhibit A,
attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
EASTPARK / BLAKELY
Page 1 of 8
2. COMMENCEMENT DATE. The commencement date of this Agreement is the
last signature date appearing on the signature page of this Agreement ("Commencement Date").
3. PRE-PURCHASE SCOPE OF WORK (DUE DILEGENCES) During the
term of this Agreement, Blakely will perform or oversee due diligence including the follow tasks
and sequence:
A. PHASE I: (Thirty (30) days) CONCEPT LAYOUT AND ANALYSIS
a) Retain necessary consultants and perform a Level 1 environmental assessment
and determine ifa Level 2 assessment should be performed in Phase II due
diligence..
b) Perform a market analysis using Horton staff and/or consultants as deemed
appropriate by Horton.
c) Approve a Conceptual Layout prepared by Horton for site development, street
improvements, utilities, streetscaping, and residential mixes and styles. Said
Conceptual Layout will be used for Blakely's further due diligence analysis.
d) Obtain and perform title review.
e) Prior to completion of Phase I, Blakely will deliver to Gary Sexton, the City
Authorized Representative, the Conceptual Layout for City initial comments.
f) At the completion of Phase I and within 10 business days after receipt of the
City's response, Blakely will give written notice to the City whether or not,
based on its reasonable business judgment of the information obtained in the
Phase I review, it desires to proceed to due diligence Phase II. The City may
terminate the agreement if it disapproves the Conceptual Layout after giving
Blakely 10 business days to respond to any changes (and the reasons
therefore) requested in writing by the City to the Conceptual Layout. If the
Blakely approves Phase I and the City approves the Conceptual Layout, then
the parties will proceed to Phase II, which shall include:
B. PHASE II: (Forty (40) days from mutual approval to proceed to Phase ID
ECONOMIC AND TECHNICAL ANALYSIS
Blakely will:
a) Retain services and perform geotechnical testing, analysis, and assessment as
Blakely deems appropriate and necessary.
EASTPARK / BLAKELY
Page 2 of 8
b) Perform a Level 2 environmental assessment if determined appropriate or
necessary by Blakely.
e) Retain services and perform a site survey.
d) Perform civil engineering as Blakely deems necessary and appropriate.
e) Review and verify the City's appraised purchase price.
f) Prior to completion of Phase II Blakely will provide the City Authorized
Representative, with copies of all technical reports created in Phase II and a
Schematic Site and Development Plan. Additionally, as a component of the
Schematic Site and Development Plan, Blakely shall provide a phasing plan
consisting of (a) a layout reflecting phased purchase of the Property which
specifically delineates site area within each phase, not to exceed four (4) phases,
(b) a proposed allocation of the total purchase price to each phase; and (c) a
proposed schedule for phased closings within 30 days after final plat approval
of each phase. The schedule will be based upon the estimated time needed for
platting and other permits, as well as engineering and construction of
infrastructure needed to obtain final plat approval, and the schedule will be
subject to extensions for delay caused by strikes, utility company delays, permit
delays or other events beyond Blakely's reasonable control.
g) Blakely will propose a Development Agreement, under RCW 36.70B. 170 et
seq., to set forth the project envelope, SEPA determination, review procedures
for permits, and the applicable development standards for the project to be
developed by Blakely on the Property.
h) At the completion of Phase II and within 10 business days after receipt of the
City's response, Blakely will give written notice whether or not, based on its
reasonable business judgment of the information obtained and the City's
response in the Phase II review, it desires to proceed to due diligence Phase
HI. The City may terminate this Agreement if it disapproves the Schematic
Site and Development Plan or Development Agreement after giving Blakely
10 business days to respond to any changes (and the reasons therefore)
requested in writing by the City to that plan. If Blakely approves Phase II and
the City approves the Schematic Site and Development Plan, then the parties
will proceed to Phase Ill, which shall include:
EASTPARK / BLAKELY
Page 3 of 8
C. PHASE III: (Twenty (20) days from mutual approval to proceed to Phase III)
FINAL ANALYSIS AND CITY REVIEW
a) During Phase III, the City and City Council District Representative Daren
Nygren shall review the Schematic Site and Development Plan and the
proposed Development Agreement in such method and manner as the City
deems necessary and appropriate.
b) Prior to Completion of Phase III, Daren Nygren and the City Authorized
Representative will meet with Blakely to review both parties' analysis, and
comments. Blakely will review the financial feasibility of any City-requested
changes.
c) The City Council will hold a study session or other agreed review of the
proposed Development Agreement.
d) Upon completion of Phase Ill and within 10 business days after receipt of the
City's response, Blakely will give written notice whether or not, based on its
reasonable business judgment of the information obtained and the City's
response in Phase III review, it desires to proceed to sign a Purchase and Sale
Agreement. The City may terminate this Agreement if it disapproves the
Schematic Site and Development Plan or the Development Agreement after
giving Blakely 10 business days to respond to any changes (and the reasons
therefore) requested in writing by the City to that plan.
D. TERMINATION - PARTIES' RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS. In the event of
termination of this agreement by either party during any phase as provided in this
Section 3, each party shall he responsible for its own costs and expenses incurred
in performance under this agreement. By entering into this agreement, neither
party is obligated to pursue the purchase and sale of the Property except as
provided herein. Any sale of the Property by the City to Blakely is subject to the
execution ora Purchase and Sale Agreement by the parties and City Council
approval.
4. MODIFICATION: Upon joint written agreement, signed by the respective
Authorized Representatives, the scope of work and/or time allowances provided
herein may be modified.
EASTPARK/BI_A~ELy
Page 4 of 8
5. PURCHASE AND SALE:
If the parties jointly agree to proceed after Phase III, a Purchase and Sale
Agreement ("PSA") will be entered into that will include and incorporate the
following items:
a) Purchase Price: The purchase price shall be the city appraised purchase
price of Three Million Nine Htmdred Twenty One Thousand Dollars
($3,921,000) unless the parties should otherwise agree
i. Blakely will pay an initial down payment to the City in the sum of
Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($250,000) at the time of
signing of the PSA.
ii. At the closing of each Phase, Blakely will pay the portion of the
pumhase price for each phase consistent with the phasing plan
approved as part of the final Schematic Site and Development Plan
approved by the City. Blakely will have the right to adjust the size and
configuration of any phase from the phase layout in the Schematic Site
and Development Plan, with a corresponding adjustment in the
allocable purchase price for that phase. However, no Phase will be
less than 20% of the acreage of the Property without City approval nor
have a material adverse impact on the access to or the market value of
the other portions of the Property
iii. At Blakely's sole discretion the pumhase dates may be accelerated.
iv. Upon payment by Blakely of each respective phased purchase price,
the City shall deliver a deed and sign all necessary documents to
accomplish title transfer for the agreed phase property.
b) Development Agreement. The PSA will be conditioned on the approval and
signing of the Development Agreement as provided in Section 7 below.
6. STREETS, UTILITY AND PROJECT ENTRY CONSTRUCTION
The PSA also will include provisions related to the following:
a) The installation of streets, utilities, and project entry shall be in accordance
with the Schematic Site and Development Plan as agreed upon at the end of
Phase III above and incorporated into the PSA, except as may be otherwise
modified in writing between the parties.
EASTPARK / BLAKELY
Page 5 of 8
33
b) The parties anticipate that the streets, utilities and project entry construction
will occur in not more than two phases (which do not need to be consecutive
phases), but the final timing will be set forth in the Schematic Site and
Development Plan, or as otherwise agreed by the parties. At Blakely's
request, the City will sign and record easements and other related documents
to allow Blakely's grading, site access, construction of roads, utilities, storm
water facilities, signage, and other infrastructure or improvements on portions
of the Property not yet conveyed to Blakely. The City will accept streets and
utilities as normal under its platting process, and closing of each phase will
occur after final plat recording.
7. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.
Thc City Council will hold a hearing and make a decision on the proposed
Development Agreement. If the City approves the Development Agreement,
then the City and Blakely will sign the Development Agreement concurrently
with signing thc PSA.
g. ADDITIONAL TERMS
a) Blakcly and Horton and its agents, subcontractors and consultants shall have
the right to enter on the Property to conduct such inspections, studies, reports,
tests and/er surveys as Blakely deems reasonably necessary or desirable to
undertake Blakely's due diligence activities and to formulate and complete thc
Schematic Site and Development Proposal. In the event Blakely's testing
requires soil borings, digging, trenching or other disturbance of the site,
Blakcly will restore the site to a substantially similar condition as existed prior
to such testing. Blakely shall indemnify and hold thc City harmless from all
claims and liabilities arising from exercise of Blakely's entry rights.
b) Conveyance by the City to Blakely shall be by statutory warranty deed,
subject only to the "Permitted Exceptions" described below.
c) The purchase price for the property may be paid with in-kind real property
acceptable to thc City in its sole discretion.
d) Thc sale of the property to Blakely, being a negotiated sale pursuant to BMC
2.78.030(c)(1), shall bc subject to final approval of the City Council. This
approval shall occur at completion of Phase III and signing of the Purchase
and Sale Agreement.
EASTPARK I BLAKELY
Page 6 of 8
e) INDEMNIFICATION. Each party participating in this Agreement shall
defend, indemnify and hold the other party participating in this Agreement, its
officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers harmless from any and all
claims, injuries, damages, losses or suits, including all legal costs and attorney
fees, arising out of or in connection with the party's intentional acts and
negligence in its performance under this Agreement. The provisions of this
section shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement.
f) GOVERNING LAW. This agreement shall be governed and construed in
accordance with the laws of the State of Washington. If any dispute arises
between the City and Blakely under any of the provisions of this agreement,
resolution of that dispute shall be available only through the jurisdiction,
venue and rules of the Kitsap County Superior Court, Kitsap County,
Washington.
g) ATTORNEY'S FEES. In any claim or lawsuit for damages arising from the
parties' performance of this agreement, each party shall be responsible for
payment of its own legal costs and attorney's fees incurred in defending or
bringing such claim or lawsuit.
h) WRITTEN NOTICE. All communications regarding this agreement shall be
sent to the parties' Authorized Representative at the addresses listed below,
unless otherwise notified.
Developer City of Bremerton
Blakely 239 4th Street
1775 Twelfth Avenue, Suite 101 Bremerton, Washington 98337
Issaquah, WA 98027 360-478-5282
Authorized Representative Authorized Representative
ELIZABETH WILSON GARY SEXTON
Any written notice shall become effective upon delivery, but in any event three
(3) calendar days after the date of mailing by registered or certified mail, and shall be
deemed sufficiently given if sent to the addressee at the address stated in this Agreement.
i) ASSIGNMENT. Any assignment of this agreement without the written
consent of the City shall be void.
j) MODIFICATION. No waiver, alteration, or modification of any of the
provisions of this agreement shall be binding unless in writing and signed by a
duly Authorized Representative of the parties.
EASTPARK / BLAKELY
Page 7 of 8
k) SEVERABILITY. If any one or more sections, sub-sections, or sentences of
this agreement are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, that decision shall
not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Agreement and the
remainder shall remain in full force and effect.
!) ENTIRE AGREEMENT. The written provisions and terms of this
Agreement shall supersede all prior verbal statements of any officer or other
representative of any of the participating entities, and such statements shall
not be effective or be construed as entering into or forming a part of or
altering in any manner this Agreement. The entire agreement between the
parties with respect to the subject matter hereunder is contained in this
Agreement.
m) DUPLICATE ORIGINALS. This Agreement may be executed in duplicate
original.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the date
set forth below.
PORT BLAKELY COMMUNITIES CITY OF BREMERTON
By: Judd Kirk By: Cary Bozeman
Its: President Its: Mayor
DATE: DATE:
EASTPARK I BLAKELY
Page 8 of 8
. . 06/2cJ/2E~Od,. 16:47 1360d735850 KCCH~ P~GE 01
EXHIBIT "A"
ORDER NO.: 32071827
PARCEL I:
THAT PORTION OF PLAT OF UNITED STATES NAVY YARD ADDIT]0N TO BREMERTON
ACCORDING TO PLAT RECORDED IN VOLUME 3 OF PLATS, PAGE 63 AND THAT PORTION OF
BLOCKS 31 AND 32, C.D. HILLMAN'S NAVY YARD ADDITION TO BREMERTON ACCORDING TO
PLAT RECORDED IN VOLUME 3 OF PLATS, PAGE 129, IN KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON,
CONDEMNED IN UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT CASE NO. 347,
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT A FOUND 3' BRASS DISC MONUMENT AT THE CENTER OF SECTION 12,
TOWNSHIP 24 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST, W.M., IN KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SAID CENTER
OF SAID SECTION 12 BEING APPROXIMATELY AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE CENTERtJNES
OF SCHLEY BOULEVARD AND TWELFTH AVENUE; THENCE FROM SAID TRUE POINT OF
BEGINNING SOUTH 89'00'16' EAST A DISTANCE OF 280.86 FEET TO FOUND 7' DIAMETER
CONCRETE MONUMENT; THENCE SOUTH 02 °01'25" WEST A DISTANCE OF 314.09 FEET TO A
STANDARD BERNTSEN MONUMENT; THENCE SOUTH 02° 01'25" WEST A DISTANCE OF 575.25
FEET TO A STANDARD BERNTSEN MONUMENT; THENCE SOUTH 02'01'25" WEST A DISTANCE
OF 410.12 FEET TO A STANDARD BERNTSEN MONUMENT; THENCE NORTH 88-27'57' WEST A
DISTANCE OF 260.83 FEET TO A STANDARD BERNTSEN MONUMENT; THENCE SOUTH 02 o 01'25"
WEST A DISTANCE OF 280.04 FEET TO A STANDARD BERNTSEN MONUMENT; THENCE NORTH
87'58'35" WEST A DISTANCE OF 139.80 FEET TO A STANDARD BERNTSEN MONOMENT;
THENCE NORTH 29'44'22" WEST A DISTANCE OF 77.03 FEET TO A STANDARD BERNTSEN
MONUMENT SET 1.0 FOOT BACK OF EDGE OF SIDEWALK; THENCE ALONG A CURVE WITH A
RADIAL BEARING OF NORTH 29o44'22" WEST A RADIUS OF 427.72 FEET A DELTA ANGLE OF
08'28'14" AND AN ARC LENGTH OI= 53.23 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 68o43'82' WEST A DISTANCE
OF 216.26 FEET; THENCE ALONG A CURVE WITH A RADIAL BEARING OF SOUTH 21 · 18'08" EAST
A RADIUS OF 431.31 FEET A DELTA ANGLE OF 36°22'15" AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 273.79 FEET;
THENCE ALONG A CURVE WITH A RADIAL BEARING OF SOUTH 57'38'23' EAST A RADIUS OF
681.50 FEET A DELTA ANGLE OF 20'00'17" AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 227.47 FEET; THENCE
SOUTH 12o21'20· WEST A DISTANCE OF 105.56 FEET; THENCE ALONG A CURVE WITH A RADIAL
BEARING OF SOUTH 77°40'$3" EAST A RADIUS OF 461.80 FEET A DELTA ANGLE OF 25°54'48·
AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 218.78 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 14'33'28" EASTA DISTANCE OF 72.06
FEET; THENCE ALONG A CURVE WITH A RADIAL BEARING OF NORTH 75'26'32' EAST A RADIUS
OF 48.65 FEET A DELTA ANGLE OF 52°18'50" AND AN ~.RC LENGTH OF 44.42 FEET; THENCE
SOUTH 23°o5'29" WEST A DISTANCE OF 43.21 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 42'16'27' WE'.;~T A
DISTANCE OF 57.94 FEET; THENCE NORTH 46'43'53" WEST A DISTANCE OF 336.$0 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 02'00'24" EAST A DISTANCE OF 343.00 FEET TO A STANDARD BERNTSEN
MONUMENT; THENCE NORTH 02'00'24" EAST A DISTANCE OF 598.62 FEET TO A STANDARD
BERNTSEN MONUMENT; THENCE NORTH 02°22'13'. EAST A DISTANCE OF 374.04 FEET TO A
STANDARD BERN'i-SEN MONUMENT; THENCE NORTH 02o22'13" EAST A DISTANCE OF 3~t6.49
FEET TO A STANDARD BERNTSEN MONUMENT; THENCE NORTH 02'22'13" EAST A DISTANCE
OF 538.06 FEET TO A STANDARD BERNTSEN MONUMENT; THENCE SOUTH 89'00'33' EAST A
DISTANCE OF 599.00 FEET TO A STANDARD BERNTSEN MONUMENT; THENCE SOUTH 89° 00'33'
EAST A DISTANCE OF 373.17 FEET TO A FOUND 3" BRASS DISC MONUMENT AND THE TRUE
POINT OF BEGINNING.
·.. THIS LEGAL DESCRIPTION CONTINUES ON THE NEXT PAGE...
Page 1
06/29/2004 16:47 1360473.5850 KCCHA PAGE 02
EXHIBIT "A" Continued
Order No.: 32071827
PARCEL I1:
THAT PORTION OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 24 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST, DESCRIBED AS
FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT A CONCRETE MONUMENT AT THE CENTER OF SECTION '12. TOWNSHIP 24
NORTH, RANGE I EAST, W.M., IN KII'SAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON; THENCE NORTH 69'rJ0'4~"
WEST 1265.61 FEET TO A CONCRETE MONUMENT AND TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE
SOUTH ! "69'40" WEST 1970.21 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY BOUNDARY OF STATE
SECONDARY HIGHWAY NO, 303; THENCE ALONG SAID NORTHERLY BOUNDARY OF STATE
SECONDARy HIGHWAY 303 SOUTH 49 · 41'40" EAST 426.02 FEET; THENCE NORTH 1 o 59'40" F-A~T
2256.76 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89 o 00'48" WEST 320.08 FEET TO A CONCR~.-rE MONUMENT AND
TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.
END OF EXHIBIT "A" . . .
Page
DATE SUBMITTED: BILL # OY-/3O
AGENDA BILL
CITY OF BREMERTON
CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: Approval of the proposed use Committee Meeting Date: June 30th 2004
and outreach efforts associated with the COUNCIL MEETING Date: July 7th 2004
HUD granted American Dream Department: DCD
Downpayment Initiative (ADDI) 2003 and Presemer: Michelle Eichhom
2004 program funds in the amount of Phone: 473-5375
$58,270.
SUMMARY:
AMERICAN DREAM DOWNPAYMENT INITIATIVE: As a member ora HOME consortium with
Kitsap County, the City will receive a total of approximately $58,270 or 45.4% &each years ADDI
funding (fi.om Federal FY '03 and FY '04) for the purpose of making downpayment assistance to low-
income families who are first-time homebuyers.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that these funds be designated for the City's Homebuyer
Assistance Program. In accordance with the requirements of the pmgratn, 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.
ATTACHMENTS: Proposed ADDI Use and Outreach Plan
FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): There will be an additional $58,270 available for
funding downpayment assistance activities.
APPROVALS:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR:-'~ ~ "~ ~f~ .'v~/~_ ~
MAYO :
OPERATIONs:FISCAL/BUDGET: ' ~/'-J~'~/~~,. .--v~~~~ --~]CONSENT AGENDA~ ·~/o
RECOMMENDED MOTION: MOVE TO APPROVE THE USE OF HUD GRANTED "AMERICAN
DOWN PAYMENT INITIATIVE" (ADDI) 2003 AND 2004 PROGRAM FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF
$58,270 FOR FUNDING HOMEBUYER ASSISTANCE ACTIVITIES.
COUNCIL ACTION: [] Approve [] Deny [] Table [] Continue [] No Action
CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETING
JUNE 30, 2004
SUBJECT: The approval of the proposed use and outreach efforts associated with the
HUD granted American Dream Downpayment Initiative (ADDI) 2003 and 2004
program funds in the amount of $58,270. The Council will consider this item during the
July 7th meeting.
AMERICAN DREAM DOWNPAYMENT INITIATIVE: President Bush signed the
ADDI into law on December 16t~ 2003 under the American Dream Downpayment Act
(Public Law 1087-186). Funds made available under the ADDI statute will be allocated
to eligible HOME Participating Jurisdictions (PJ's) to assist low-income families become
first-time homebuyers.
As a member ora HOME consortium with Kitsap County (the PJ for this area), the City
will receive approximately $58,270 or 45.4% of each years ADDI funding (fi.om Federal
FY '03 and FY ~04) for the purpose of making downpayment assistance to low-income
families who are first-time homebuyers.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that these funds be designated for the
City's Homebuyer Assistance Progran~ 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.
ATTACHMENTS: ADDI Use and Outreach Plan
Additional information and copies of the proposed ADDI Plan for Use and Outreach can
be obtained by contacting Micbelle Eichhorn (360) 473-5375 or Shirley Akd (360) 473-
5211 at the City of Bremerton, Department of Community Development 286 4~ St.,
Bremerton WA. 98337.
CITY OF BREMERTON
AMERICAN DREAM DOWNPAYMENT INITIATIVE
PLAN FOR USE AND OUTREACH
SUBJECT: Proposed use and outreach plan for the American Dream Downpayment Initiative
2003 and 2004 funds from the United States Depa~ment of Housing and Urban Developmem.
AMERICAN DREAM DOWNPAYMENT INITIATIVE: The City anticipates receiving a
total of approximately $58,270 in funding ($26,729 from Federal FY '03 and $31,541 FY '04)
through the newly-established American Dream Downpayment Initiative (ADDI) progran~ The
funds will be used to assist low and moderate-income first-time homebuyers with downpayment
funding for the purchase ora home.
PROPOSED METHOD OF DISTRIBUTION: It is proposed that the City distribute ADDI
funds to projects in conjunction with approved HOME-funded Homeownership Assistance
activities. When an application is approved for regular HOME funding for Homeownership
assistance activities, and it meets the criteria for ADDI funding (first-time homebuyer, etc.), up
to $10,000 or 6% of the total home price (which ever is greater) of ADDI funding may be
allocated to such projects. By using ADDI funds only in conjunction with approved HOME-
funded projects, we will assure that the families receiving ADDI assistance are families suitable
for undertaking and maintaining homeownership.
PROPOSED METHOD OF OUTREACH: The ADDI program requires that the City conduct
targeted outreach to tenants of manufactured and 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, tenants, and families. It is proposed that the City
accomplish this by sending notification to the following: the Bremerton Housing Authority and
by providing information at the annual "Finding your way HOME" event. The notification will
explain the availability of Homeownership assistance (HOME and/or ADDI), the eligible uses of
the HOME and/or ADDI funds, and how individuals might be able to obtain assistance relating
to HOME and/or ADDI funding.
Additional copies of this proposed plan my be obtained by contacting Michelle Eichhom at the
City of Bremerton, Department of Community Development at 360-473-5375, Department of
Community Development 286 4t~ St., Bremerton WA. 98337.
DATE SUBMITTED: BILL
AGENDA BILL
CITY OF BREMERTON 5
CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: 2005 Draft CDBG~OME Co~ittee Meeting Date: 06/30/~
Policy P~ and Application CO~C1L MEET~G Date: 07/07/~
~esenter: Michelle Eic~om
Phone: (360) 473-5375
SUGARY: A audy session wRh the Co~cil wm held on 06/09/04 to renew the 2005
CDBG~O~ Policy PI~ ~d Applicatbn. R~o~endatiom ~om the Co~cil ~e listed on p~e A.
~ Mve~i~d public meethg was held on 6/23/04 ~d there were no r~o~ended c~ges from the
public at t~t thee.
A~ACHMENTS: CiWCo~cilReco~endatio~; A full copy of the "DRAFT 2005 ~DBG/H0~E
POLICY PLAN" is available in DCD.
FISCAL ~PACTS (Include Budgeted ~ount):
APPROVALS:
DEP~TMENT DI~CTOR:
CITY ATTO~EY:
MAYOR:
OPE~TIONS:
.
~COMMENDED MOTION. Move to approve tM ~05 CDBG~O~ Policy Plan and
Applicmion ~ ~ended.
COUNCIL ACTION: [] Approve [] Deny [] Table [] Continue [] No Action
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
Community Development Block Grant
2005 CDBG/HOME POLICY PLAN
and
APPLICATION FOR FUNDING
43
2005 CDBG POLICY PLAN DRAFT
CHANGES FROM 2004 POLICY PLAN
Throughout the document, minor wording changes have been made for consistency.
The document has been reformatted for improved readability as well.
Changes to Public Participation Plan
A change has been made to the Public Participation Plan, narrowing the criteria
for a "substantial amendment." This change will allow amendments within
contracts without going through a public hearing process.
The enclosed Draft shows the edits made to the Public Participation Plan.
Rating criteria, Capital Application
This table has been changed to add another ten points possible in the rating
standards for Capital Applications. This provides additional emphasis for project
readiness - up to 20 points now for the criterion. The additional ten points would
be awarded if there is site control and other funds are substantially committed or
in-hand. In addition, there should be reasonable expectation that the project will
be underway as soon as a contract is completed.
Introduction
CDBG/HOME Staff Contacts
CDBG Allocation Schedule
Citizen Advisory Committee
Public Service Applications
Capital And Planning Applications
2005 Proposed Distribution of CDBG Funds
CDBG Public Participation Plan
PART h 2005 CDBG/HOME ALLOCATION - GENERAEtNFORMATION
PART I1:2005 CITY OF BREMERTON CDBG ALLOCATION POLICY
Public/Human Service Criteria
Housing Activities Criteria
Capital Projects Criteria
Other Policies and Regulations That Apply
PART II1: CDBG Rating Criteria
PART IV: National Objectives and Eligibility Requirements
National Objectives (Benefit Criteria)
Eligible Activities
ineligibie Activities
PART V: 2005 CDBG APPLICATION
Public Service Applications
Funding Application Form
Response to Rating Factors
Attachments
Planning Applications
Funding Application Form
Response to Rating Factors
Attachments
Housing Applications
CDBG Funding Application Form
Response to Rating Factors
Attachments
Capital Projects Applications
CDBG Funding Application Form
Response to Rating Factors
Attachments
ADMINISTRATION AND PUBLIC SERVICE PROJECTS
Michelle Eichhorn, CDBG Program Administrator
Telephone: (360) 473-5375
Fax: (360) 473-5138
E-Mail: meichhom~ci.bremerton.wa.us
Mailing address: City o£Bremerton
Department of Community Development
286 4t~ Street
Bremerton, WA 98337
PLANNING AND CAPITAl, PROJECTS
Shirley Aird, CDBG Program Coordinator
Telephone: (360) 473-5211
Fax: (360) 473-5138
E-Mail: skirley.a/xd~ci.bremerton.wa-us
Mailing address: City of Bremerton
Depa,~nent of Community Development
286 4t~ Street
Bremerton, WA 98337
CITY OF BREMERTON
2005 CDBG ALLOCATION SCHEDULE
Wednesday 6/09/04 Present Proposed 2005 Policy Plan at City Council Study
Session, City Council Office, 5:00PM
Wednesday 6/16/04 Advertise Availability of 2005 Draft Policy Plan
(Ad to be placed in The Sun)
Tuesday 6/22/04 Public Meeting on 2005 Draft Policy Plan
DCD Conference Room, 286 4t~ Street, 3:00 PM
Wednesday 6/30/04 City Council Committee Meeting on Draft Plan
Wednesday 7/07/04 Bremerton City Council Public Hearing on 2005 Policy Plan
239 4t~ Street, 5:30 PM
Friday 7/14/04 Final 2005 Policy Plan and Application Packet Available
286 4t~ Street, DCD
Monday 7/19/04 Technical Assistance Meeting
DCD Conference Room, 286 4t~ Street, 3:00 PM
Tuesday 8/I 1/04 City Council Committee on Appointment of New Advisory
Committee Members
Wednesday 8/I 8/04 City Council Meeting on Approval of New Advisory Committee
Members
Friday 8/20/04 Applications Due in City of Bremerton
DCD, 286 4t~ Street (Postmark is not acceptable)
Friday 8/20/04 StaffTechnical Review
to Wednesday 9/08/04
Thursday 8/26/04 Advisory Committee Member Training
DCD Conference Room, 286 4e Street, 3:00 PM
Friday 8/27/04 CDBG Advisory Committee Review and Interviews
to Friday 9/17/04
Wednesday 9/22/04 Advisory Committee Recommendntiom to DCD Staff
Tuesday 9/28/04 Public Meeting to Comment on Funding Recommendations
DCD Conference Room, 286 4th Street, 3:00 PM
Wednesday 10/13/04 City Council committee meeting on Funding Recommendations
Wednesday 10/20/04 City Council Hearing on Funding Recommendations
239 4t~ Street, 5:30PM
Monday 11/15/04 Annual Action Plan to HUD
Saturday 1/01/05 CDBG Program Year Begins
47
Position term
~ 1 Member from the City at large
H. Emily Moshay 1/1/04-12/31/05
>' 2 Members from the West Bremerton Aret~
1/1/04-12/31/06
Tina Davis 1/1/04-12/31/07
Faye Flemister
} 2 Members from the East Bremerton Area
1/1/04-12/31/06
Roy Mclnnis 1/1/04-12/31/07
Ronald Smith
From then on 3 year staggered terms
,~ 1 Councilmember (appointed by the Council President)
Will Maupin 1/1/04-12/31/06
> 1 Planning Commissioner (appoLnted by Commission President)
To be Appointed by dune 20 1/1/04-12/31/06
Three Community Members appointed by the Mayor:
> 1 Member from the City at large
Joyee Davidson 1/1/04-12/31/05
~ 1 Member from the West Bremen-Ion Area
Kyle Cruver 1 / 1/04-12/31/06
> 1 Member from the East Bremerton Area
Mike Eversole 1/1/04-12/31/07
From then on 3 year staggered terms
Estimated Funding Available for the 2005 CDBG Allocation Process
Tentative Estimate of 2005 $631,000.00
Entitlement
Tentative Program income (PI) $200,000.00
Available
Total Entitlement + PI $831,000.00
Reallocated Funds prior year projects: $31,761.98
Total Available for allocation $862,761.98
Available for 2005 Public Service (15% of entitlement + PI ) $124,650.00
Available for COB DCD 2005 Planning and Admin (20% of entitlement + Pi) $166,200.00
subtotal $290,850.00
Available for Capital Projects ( 65% of entitlement + PI + recaptured capital project funds) $571,911.98
$862,761.98
DATE SUBMITTED: 6/21/04 BILL
AGENDA BILL
CITY OF BREMERTON 5~
CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: Public hearing and ordinance Committee Meeting Date: 6/30/0'3' O
regarding zoning text amendments to BMC COUNCIL MEETING Date: 7/7/0-3-~q'
21.02.230 and 17.04.060(e) relating to Department: Comm. Development
development and permit requirements for Presenter: Chris Hugo, Director
fences. Phone: 473-5243
SUMMARY: In recent years, violations of the city's fence height standards have become more
prevalent. At the conclusion ora Council 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 in the proposed amendments on April 15th,
2003, and held public hearings on June 17 and July 15tn, 2003. The Commission recommends the
attached ordinance to the Council for adoption.
ATTACHMENTS: Proposed ordinance
Staff report
Planning Commission minutes
FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): The requirement for a fence permit will generate
some additional stafftime that will be offset by reduced need for enforcement and a smal! permit fee.
APPROVALS:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY: '7
FiNANCE DIRECTOR:
MAYOR: (_~,
FISCAL/BUDGET: (~._.~,¢ ~-~,~)---'~--I CONSENT AGENDA []
OPERATIONS:
COUNCIL PRESIDENT:
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
Move to approve ordinance on first reading.
Move to pass ordinance on second reading.
COUNCIL ACTION: [] Approve [] Deny [] Table [] Continue [] No Action
50
· .?..... ~. ;.~.:::... ~... .~ ..,.~.~.-..~ ~..~,.: .:~2.~.~..i~.~'~i~.~;?.'_'.-~.~ '...:~.~{%'.'~,~?. ,.~ .~..~......... .. · .. ~ ..
., ... . :..
:% .?/~.:/..~?~ '~.~ '~:...'..~.'~.,~'~ .~:,~.~_:..~-...~ ~ '~:~. ~' · · . .... : ....
.... : .... .,. ..... ....:. :.~. :~'.:~ .......... ~~~~~ -~' ~ · . .~.. · :. · . ... .
~ ~' ~ ".. TO: O~Ny~ C~Pr~i~t
SU~: ~NC~, A~ it~ 5B, JMy ~ ~
' ' : ' Ny~
. : Mr. n:
If pouible ~o~ you ~ad thi~ I~ into ~e r~ord and d~t~bnte to ~e Co~a
the subj~t Ag~da I~m:
i ~ w~ ~ i~ to ~ my ~m~ a~ut t~ ~d& ~ ~ad~ to ~n~
The &~ i am ~n~ abo~ wo~d ~ e~t ~gi~ n ~t ~r any f~ abo~ ~ f~.
In ~ &~ iss~ ~ s~ff R ~ that the ~on fdr t~ &~ge is ~ ~su~
foot ~it in ~ fro~ yard ~ ba~k whi~ ap~ to ~ som~t ol n
i have no i~ ~w ~y f~ ~ ~st~d ac ~p~d in ~ w~ in B~e~ but
~'is ~er~. T~ ~on prep~ Woutd m~ B~n t~ most ~cfive
~ Mns~, ~d ~r~ Counti~ induing ~1 of~e ~ ~.
~e~n ~i~s ~ve ~ i~Mllag f~ for o~r 1~ y~, most ~ ~H~
~ of p~sage of ~s Or~a~ wo~d be placing m~y mo~ ti&~ ~ nontomp~ee for
pu~ ~ a kg~ f~ ~im~y ~ca~ th~ dM not ob~ a ~rmit. 1'his wiU si~ta~t~
i~e ~ work of ~ ~ cem~ ~e to n~ o~ ~or 6 f~ ~ RI~R~
~ ~ 1~ b~ ~o ~ ~t~ ~ witho~ a pe~ ~ n ei~ if I do not ~ow th
~' ~n~ install a 6 f~t fm~ h~ ~ i to ~ that I ~ a ~t for ~ f~c~? ' ' :
T~ ~M i~ ap~ to be ~ofold:
L Is ~e ~ s~ foot f~ce ~ctlon in ~ ~ont y~d s~back ~on~ ~ w~ do so
~ of y~ ~ns~ w~t ~ p~ce a ~ f~t ~ ~ ~ ~t yard ~ b~k ? (R sh~d
~ n~d ~at in so~ ~ it is not p~c~c~ ~a~ of topo~phy~ lot ~e~ or
I~on to move The pro~ ~z f~ ~ce ~yn~ ~e ~ba~)
lmt~ of a 6 foot ~ce in t~ f~ ya~ ~back ~ ~h~ce on~ seine of s~u~ and
ao~fim~ pro~ so~ ~i~ ~r~om ~e~ ~ ~v~ ve~ bray s~ in
Br~on for ~ich a s~ foot ~.ce would provi~ n noi~ and s~u~ b~r, Warr~ Ave
~e and ~ pla~ i~ ~oM r~k on ad~ac~( ~sy st~.
Hremertan cnn he nnd is · dtmEeroos plat~ at Chics and a three foot fence providts
no security at ald~.. ]~t does ._~_l, tnmewhmt ironic that tl~ O~dlnm~tc dots Dermic m $ foot
_b_fi,_e ia C,~mm-rtial zoots and a 10 foot ~' iu ln&~.trial ~e~ for softty and se~uflty for
the b,~;n~.t,~ bat the _,~? onfion for safety amd security is not afforded to ute c~tJ~u
~heir midenc~, i.e. your COOSt~I~JMS ' , · ·
~ ! in and Ironnd my home in the past 7 years the (o]lowinR unfortoeato ew. qts have Cajun pl~e~
~ ~ ' 1. Durin~ new ¢oostmcfion about SJ000.00 of mdthm.
i. 2. A stereo/tope dctk sto~ from one of our vehicles
? ~ 3. A murder thru Moth away
~ ' 4. Tools stolon from the yard on two occasions.
i,: ~. A ~o-eart stolen from the yard. ;' * ' ~ ~ '
= 6. Two tir~ on one of the family veh~Jes pundured ' ' '
~' ' '/. On two ~casions the~ were seriom alcohol related accidents in front on the house, one of
:': which destroyed a City installed chain link fence the other destro}~cl my vehicle parked On
,, ~, ~ : : 'the rood. ; ..... , ,
!' "' if [ lived in a commercial zone and was able to install a 6 foot fence in the front yard stablest
"~ some of abe shove would not have occurred.
:!i": · '
There is also an inconsistency in the fence st4bach requirement. There h no restriction
ve~etatlon height in the front yard setback but there is for t fence. The problan is
vegetation takes a long he to grow and dose up to the tzb~t tht it provides the safet~ and
~ seeb~ty that some o~ your tofls~toent~ may wJuJt
2. What is the best method to communicate to the citizens requirements for Whlcb there is a
' Cefiaiuly not by req~rio8 a permit which will place maay mor~ out of compliance and create
"" ' an unnetusary admiui~trat4ve burden on ali in the process
· ' a. Send out u notice in th~ City water bill.
..::'- b. Send oUt u notice with the Rtrbale bill
, ' c. Make an annouurenstnt on BCAT
.~i cl. Issue a Pre~ releise with the Patriot.
: ' e. Disens~ at all of the Council nci~hborhood meetina~.
il...:, ..= .' CONCLUSION: "
'~ ' 1. There should be no chan~e in the pernfitfio~ requi~rements for fences,
2. Council shouhi reconsider six foot fences in front yard setbacks and provide some
'; '~ reasonable provisions for permittinR same in the interests of personnel safety ....
· ."', so,ur/ay And privacy
i:.~ · " '. .' ·
:~' ~ · Resp.etffu?ly submitted : '
~.~, · , , ,
~-~, : - · ~P.~:JII~8 :' . · '.
i~.~:: " ' .:..'. O ~ : . .: ~. .
i~ ~ ~ · · · .-~...":-..:'?. · ':
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
ZONING CODE TEXT AMENDMENT
STAFF REPORT
PROPOSAL: Text amendment to Section 21.02.230 and Section 17.04.060
(e) of the Bremerton Municipal Code relating to fence
regulations.
DATE OF REPORT: JUNE 8, 2003
APPLICANT OR PROPONENT (FILE NUMBERS): City of Bremerton (PL03-0018)
CONTACT: Chris Hugo, Director- Community Development Department; Phone: (360)473-5243
LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: This proposal applies to all districts within the city.
Background: One of the most chronic violations of City development codes is the
construction of higher fences than the zoning code allows. Currently, the Code
Compliance section has about a half dozen open cases, including some that have been
unresolved for the better part of a year. There are dozens of other visible violations that
the Department has not cited. Some of the observed violations are entirely new
installations, and some of these consist of fairly elaborate designs and expensive
materials.
One of the reasons that there are so many violations of the code is that the City does
not require a building permit to construct a fence. The requirement for a fence permit
varies city-to-city, and there are good arguments both to require and not to require a
permit. Late last year, the Department sent a letter to all fence companies in the area to
ask their cooperetion in meeting the code previsions in all their installations, but some
of the new violations are recent installations by local companies.
The City's current regulations limit fence heights in front yards (anywhere in the
required setback area) to 3 ft. if the fence is solid or 42" if it is open chain link. These
limitations reflect community standards to allow front yard views up and down
residential streets. In most communities across the nation, this has been the tradition in
Iow-density neighborhoods for many generations.
A property owner can seek a higher fence height by applying for a special use permit.
This can be processed as an administrative decision or as a Hearing Examiner
decision. In the first case, the application fee is $320 and in the latter it is $636. These
fees often amount to a substantial percentage of the construction cost of the fence.
The criteria for considering a greater height include findings of increased security and
privacy. These are exactly the functions of a fence, which means that all applications
should be approved. This raises the question, "If all applications for a special use permit
automatically satisfy the decision criteria and demand approval, why are we making the
public apply for a special use permit to begin with?" On the surface, it could appear that
the City is just attempting to generate additional revenue - in actuality, the fees are
more than consumed by legal notice and staff time. Still, the criteria seem to undermine
the overall purpose of the special use permit requirement.
The matter of regulating fence heights is one of policy. What is the neighborhood
character that the City wants to maintain? Do fences separate neighbors and erode a
sense of community, or do they promote good neighbor relations and make Bremerton
a safer place? What about homes along high traffic streets? Can higher fences help
buffer the impacts of the street and help these homes maintain a reasonable living
environment? The Department's dilemma is that fences continue to be built contrary to
the code, and in some cases there may be justification for a higher fence.
PROPOSED CODE TEXT AMENDMENTS:
1 ) Revise BMC 21.02.230 to make the following changes:
· revise the maximum allowed height of chain link fences from 42 inches to
48 inches
· add decision criteria to the Type Ill SUP procedures to allow fences up to
8 feet in side and rear yards only under limited conditions
· provide for greater maximum allowed heights for architectural
appurtenances such as entry trellises or gates.
2) Revise BMC 17.04.060(e) to only exclude temporary fences and fences under
two feet in height to the list of '~Vork Exempt from Permit"
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION (SEPA): A Determination of Non-Significance was
issued on the original development regulation as a non-project action in accordance
with WAC 197-11 on June 16, 2003. The proposed text amendment is considered a
minor revision to the original regulation with minimum substantive effect. There is no
change to the bulk regulations that control the overall use intensity of a site. A
memorandum that states this conclusion has been entered into the official record.
DECiSiON CRITERIA: As provided in BMC 21.02.925. the City Counci/ may approve an
amendment if the fo/lowing questions can be answered, 'Yes:'
(1) Is the proposed change consistent and compatible with the Comprehensive
Plan ?
(2) Will the proposed change be consistent with all other provisions of the
affected code and avoid conflicts with other codes?
FINDING OF PLAN/ZONING CONSISTENCY: The proposed code text amendments are
intended to add clarity to existing provisions regulating fence installations and to add a
permit requirement to insure compliance with regulations. There are no substantive
elements of the proposed amendments that relate to Plan consistency. The amendment
must also be found to be consistent with all other provisions of the Zoning Code.
~'/'~/~ ,¢1' June 8, 2003
Staff report prepared by: Chris R~go, D'irectoj - Dated
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of thc City of Bremcrton, Washington, amending
Section 21.02.230 and Section 17.04.060(e) of the Bremerton Municipal Code relating to fence height
regulations.
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to amend the current provisions of Section
21.02.230 of the Bremerton Municipal Code to establish criteria for the granting of a Special Use
Permit for side and rear yard fences over six (6) feet in height and to make other related
amendments; and
WHEREAS, the City Council also desires to amend the provisions of Section
17.04.060(e) of thc Bremerton Municipal Code relating to building permits under the Uniform
Building Code to require building permits for certain fences; NOW THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON,
DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTIONI. Section 21.02.230 of the Bremerton Municipal Code entitled
"Fences and Walls" is hereby amended to read as follows:
21.02.230 FENCES AND WALLS.
(a) Fences and walls shall observe the following height and setback requirements:
(1) Residential Zones.
i. Maximum height shall be six (6) feet.
ii. Maximum height within the front yard setback area shall be three (3)
iii. On comer lots with two front yards for structure setbacks, the Director
can determine that one of the yards can be declared a "secondary" from yard for the
purposes of this section and may permit a six (six) foot maximum height fence in that
yard if the following conditions are met:
a. The three foot maximum height will still apply to the full depth of
the other yard which is declared to be the one of the residences primary orientation.
b. The higher fence will not block any existing street views from an
adjoining residence with its primary orientation to that same street.
c. The higher fence shall not be closer to the residence's street of
primary orientation than the front faCade of the residence.
(2) Commercial Zones.
i. Maximum height shall be eight (8) feet.
ii. Maximum height shall be six (6) feet when adjacent to a public right-
of-way, or to a residential zone.
(3) Industrial Zone.
i. Maximum height shall be ten (10) feet.
ii. Maximum height shall be six (6) feet when adjacent to a public right-
of-way, or to a residential zone.
(b) A Type IH Special Use Penuit may be requested granted for higher fences or walls up
to eight feet high along property lines in a side or rear yard that are designed and intended for
enhanced security, greater residential privacy or other reasons that will be of benefit to all affected
properties, only if all of the following criteria are met:
(1) the fence or wall is necessary to provide privacy and security between a
residential and a non-residential use;
(2) the design of the fence will present a "finished" appearance on its outside face;
and
1
Fence Height Regulations
and design of a fence or wall is subject to the approval of the City Engineer when visibility or public
safety is an issue.
(d) No electric or electrified fences shall be permitted within the City of Bmmerton.
(e) Barbed wire or similar wire protective devices are permitted only in non-residential
zones above a height of six (6) feet and shall require a Type m Special Use Permit if ;vit~An ~r
adjoining any residential zone.
(f) Notwithstanding the provisions of (a) (1) ii. above, architectural appurtenances such as
trellises or entry gates that define a walkway or driveway entry are allowed in a front yard up to 90
(ninety) inches high, provided that
i. no individual structural support for such features shall be more than 12
(twelve) inches square in section,
ii. any gate shall not obscure more than 20% of visibility to the yard as viewed
perpendicular to the gate's installation, and
iii any entry feature greater than 3 (three) feet in height shall not be mom than 6
(six) feet wide for a walkway entry or more than 16 (sixteen) feet wide for a driveway entry.
SECTION 2. Section 17.04.040 of the Bremerton Municipal Code entitled
"Amendments to the International Building Code - Administration" is hereby amended as to
read as follows:
17.04.040 AMENDMENTS TO THE INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE -
ADMINISTRATION.
The following local amendments to the International Building Code previously adopted
in BMC 17.04.030 are hereby adopted and incorporated into the International Building Code:
(a) General - Building code appendices adopted. Section 101 of the International
Building Code, entitled "General," is amended by adding the following new subsection 101.5:
Sec. 101.5 Building code appendices adopted. Appendices C, H, I,
and J to the International Building Code are hereby adopted; however,
the public works director shall have the authority to enforce and
interpret Appendix J and, accordingly, all references to the "building
official" in Appendix J shall be substituted with the words "public
works director."
(b) Duties and powers of building official - Lot lines and setback lines. Section 104
of the International Building Code, entitled "Duties and Powers of Building Official," is
amended by adding the following new subsection 104.12:
Sec. 104.12 Lot lines and setback lines. Notwithstanding the
authority of the building official to administer and enforce the
building code, the building official shall have no duty to verify or
establish lot lines or setback lines. No such duty is created by this
code, and none shall be implied.
(c) Work exempt from permit. Section 105.2, of the International Building Code,
entitled "Work exempt from permit," is amended by amending Building exemption number 2 as
follows:
2. Fences not over 26 feet (I 829mm) high.
2
Fence Height Regulations
(ed_) Board of Appeals. Section 112 of the International Building Code, entitled
"Board of Appeals," is amended by substituting Section 112 with the following:
Sec. 112 Board of appeals. The City of Bremerton hearings
examiner is designated as the board of appeals in order to hear and
decide appeals of orders, decisions, or determinations made by the
building official relative to the suitability of alternate materials,
design, and methods of construction and appeals of the reasonable
application and interpretation of the building codes. Appeals shall be
made as set forth in section 17.04.140 of the Bremerton Municipal
Code.
SECTION 3. Severability. If any one or more sections, subsections, or
sentences of this Ordinance are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not
affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance and the same shall remain in full
force and effect.
SECTION4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force ten
(10) days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided by law.
APPROVED by the City Council the day of ., 2004
PASSED by the City Council the day of ,2004
DAREN NYGREN Council President
Approved this day of ,2004
CARY BOZEMAN, Mayor
ATFEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
PAUL A JOHNSTON, City Clerk ROGER A. LUBOVICH, City Attomey
PUBLISHED the day of ., 2004
EFFECTIVE the _day of ., 2004
ORDINANCE NO.
R:~LEGAL\Ordinances\Community Development~Fence Height Regulations (with permit language).doc
3
Fence Height Regulations
Minutes for Approval of
Planning Commission Meeting
June 17, 2003
I. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order by Commissioner Kennedy at 5:35 p.m.
II. Roll Call
Those present were: Commissioner Buckingham, Commissioner Kosusko, Commissioner Nelson,
Commissioner Wood and Commissioner Kennedy. Quorum certified.
III. Approval of Agenda
Commissioner Kennedy introduced the agenda. Mr. Hugo requested a revision to the agenda under
the public meeting phase - switch la and lb, due to the fact that lead staffwas briefing the City
Council. A motion was made by Commissioner Kosusko and seconded by Commissioner
Buckingham to approve the agenda as revised. Called for a vote: Buckingham: yes; Kosusko: yes;
Nelson: yes; Wood: yes; and Kennedy: yes. Agenda approved as revised.
IV. Approval of Minutes
The Regular Meeting of May 20, 2003, minutes were presented for approval by Commissioner
Kennedy. A motion was made by Commissioner Nelson and seconded by Commissioner Wood
to approve the minutes as written. Called for a vote: Buckingham: yes; Kosusko: yes; Nelson: yes;
Wood: yes and Kennedy; abstained. Minutes approved as written.
V. Public Meeting
Commissioner Kennedy moved directly to the call to the public portion.
A. Call to the Public (public comments on any item not on tonight's agenda). Seeing no
comments from the public, Commissioner Kennedy closed this portion of the meeting and
moved onto the public meeting portion.
B. Public Meeting
1. Public Hearing: [Commentary notes are enclosed in brackets.]
a. PL03-0018 - An ordinance amending Section 21.02.230 and Section 17.04.060(e) of
Bremerton Municipal Code relating to fence height regulations and permit
requirements. Commissioner Kennedy introduced this item and tumed the meeting
over to staff, Mr. Hugo.
Plaiming Commission Meeting June 17, 2003 Page 1 of 25
57
Mr. Hugo presented the staff report. He stated that the Commissioners had some
background on this previously. This proposal is being brought in an attempt to correct
some deficiencies of the fence regulations that are causing difficulty with compliance.
There are also some issues of potential inequities and problems with property entries s
that are not addressed in the code. The largest problem is that there are too many
fence installations in the city that violate our standards for fences. This is despite the
fact that over a year ago, staffsent out an appeal to all fence contractors in the area
with a copy of all the cities regulations. We asked for their cooperation in all
installations and that they adhere to the city's standards. We asked them to advise
their clients that there are standards and that they, the contractors, carmot do whatever
the client wishes - if it doesn't comply with the city's standards. Unfortunately that
appeal has not been respected. Some of the companies that we ensured received the
letter continue to install new fences that violate the code.
The biggest issue is with height. The code is written around a very traditional, friendly
neighborhood concept of fences. Higher fences are appropriate in back yards where
there is a desire for privacy. But in fi'ont yards, we still hold to the notion of openness
and having light and air come into our big picture windows and the front of our homes.
Front yards then are limited to fences of no higher than three feet if they are solid and
no higher than 42 inches it is a chain link fence. However, all over the city we see
fences that are being built up to six feet and sometimes even higher, regardless of
these limitations.
In this proposal, you have a draft of the ordinance. The working draft did not get put
into a hearing draft that would reflect some of the comments made by the Commission
during the workshop on this item. The major changes to our ordinance, comes in two
areas.
The first is in 21.02.230, which lays out the dimensional standards for fences. There is
a revised requirement in Section (b) that now limits the granting of a Type III Special
Use Permit (SUP) for higher fences to side and rear yards. It also lays out a set of
criteria, the first of which is that the fence or wall has to be shown necessary to
provide privacy or security between a residential and a non-residential use.
We have had people who wanted to put up an eight foot fence in the back yard just to
get better separation from their neighbors. Perhaps the thinking is that maybe ifa
higher fence (greater than six feet) is warranted that it should be to provide safety and
security from a non-residential use. We should not be walling off the whole
neighborhood with fortress-like, eight foot high fences. The Type III SUP is still
available, but only in side and rear yards and it is only allowed if we are shielding
between residential and non-residential use.
The second area of change is in the design of the fence. The design will present a
finished appearance on its outside face. We don't define finish. This is being
proposed as a Type III. Mr. Hugo recommended that we keep it as a Type III. He said
that this type of application should face a very high level of review. It shouldn't be
anything that our staff reviews. It should go through an open, public review process
where neighbors can comment on it. Part of that comment could be directed at the
visual appearance of the fence. Will it be a neighbor-friendly fence? The hear/ng
examiner should make the determination because of the variety of mater/als and styles
Planning Commission Meeting June 17, 2003 Page 2 of 25
58
offences. Mr. Hugo thinks it would be very difficult to predefine this. However, the
hearing examiner, based on experience, public comments and submittal of fence
design could determine if an applicant has shown a good finished side of the fence to
your neighbor or not. Mr. Hugo said that the City Attorney had reviewed this
language and had no problems with it (finish) being an undefined tenn. So, he was not
recommending any changes to this portion of the code.
The third point is that an additional fence or wall height shall not detract from adjacent
residential property owners' use and enjoyment of their property. This could be
approached several ways. We could require property owners in the neighborhood to
sign off on the proposal, giving their approval. He said that he didn't like that
approach because you never know who the next property owners might be. People sell
their homes. It should not be something that is voted on by the current community or
the current profile of the community. It should be something that is found to be
acceptable in long duration. To do that, people in the neighborhood should comment.
The hearing examiner has to listen to those comments and decide if, over time, the
people change is it likely to reflect the same type of comments that future neighbors
will have. If they do, is this (eight foot fence) something that is really necessary? He
said that the public comment and the hearing examiner reflecting on that comment is a
judicious way to deal with the potential impact or consequence of higher fences.
Mr. Hugo referred the group to Section (f'). This section is where we note that some
people put nice architectural features into their entries such as trellises or entry gates.
This ordinance now provides for that. He read directly from the draft ordinance:
"...architectural appurtenances such as trellises or entry gates to define a walkway or
driveway entry are allowed in a front yard up to 90" high, provided that no individual
structural support for such features shall be more than 12" square in section, any gate
shall not obscure more than 20% of visibility to the yard as viewed perpendicular to
the gate's installation and iii) any entry feature greater than three feet in height shall
not be more than sixteen feet wide for driveway entry."
Ninety inches is not what you had during the workshop. It was 84" or seven feet. He
said he bumped it up to seven and a half feet. He then mentioned that he had looked at
some garden magazines and that the majority of the trellises were seven feet, some
were higher. The standards for the entry way and drive way (iii) was actually tested
out on a couple of our compliance cases - these are comfortable standards for what
you would expect on a normal installation.
He then moved on to Section 2. This section sets up the conditions for requiring a
building permit for most fences. The only fences that will be exempt from the
requirements of a building permit are fences not more than two feet high or fences that
are temporary for construction fences. The temporary fences on construction projects
tend to be put there for security and public safety. They are protecting deep wholes on
the site, dangerous equipment, potential exposure to electrical, etc - these fences need
to be over six feet high, just to keep people who don't have a right to be on the
property off the site when it's not occupied. The only thing that is really critical in this
section is under (2)(e), which reads:
Planning Commission Meeting June 17, 2003 Page 3 of 25
"Work Exempt from Permit" A building permit shall not be required for the following:
..... 2) Fences a) not exceeding 2 feet in height, and b) fences not exceeding eight feet
in height installed on a temporary basis, such as construction site fences, for a period
not exceeding 12 months."
If someone needed something beyond that (12 months), they could come in and ask for
an extension. Extensions are common practice for all kinds of permits in our
department. So if we have a major project, like our downtown projects that may take
18 months, we can accommodate that. He said this concluded the staff report and
asked if there were any questions.
Commissioner Kennedy asked if the Commission had any questions for Mr. Hugo.
Commissioner Wood asked what happens when a person is half-way through a fence
project that is non-compliant. She spoke ofa specific project on Pacific Avenue. Mr.
Hngo answered by saying that if the department sees work going on that is out of
compliance, even if it is a fence, we will stop-work it. We do it as quickly as we can
because we can save the property owner money if we catch it early. This is one of the
reasons for the building permit requirement. The requirement for a building permit
allows us to stop and measure any fence activity we see to determine if there is an
issue or permit requirement. If it is a construction fence that is not over eight feet,
there is not a permit issue and not a compliance issue. Anything else, our field people
can do a quick check and confirm that there is a building permit. If they don't have a
building permit, then it is a stop-work immediately. Then they will have to come in
and submit plans. The plans would have to be checked off as compliant and from that
point on, they are directed down a safe path for them and a compliant path for us. In
time, with enough public notice and public education, we will hope that most people
will just come to our office, review their plans, pay their $50.00 permit fee and get
started off correctly. The fee will be nominal, not much more than $50.00.
Commissioner Kosusko asked if this was basically a bigger stick, an easier way to
identify fences that are out of compliance. Mr. Hugo said yes, and that it also gets the
contractors in the mode of working through a process. In business the typical contract
will state that the contractor is responsible for securing all approvals and permits. That
way, if we go back to the property owner about a fence that is out of compliance, the
owner has recourse against the contractor. Contractors will not suffer too many of
those setbacks before they all start following the roles. He believes this ordinance will
be an effective tool to get us fence installations that are in compliance. Over time, it
should reduce trauma in the community and reduce our workload for compliance.
Commissioner Kennedy asked a question about the three foot maximum in the front
yard. Why was the height a foot taller for cyclone fences? Mr. Hugo stated that in
the current code it is six inches taller for cyclone fences. The reason is that they don't
make 42 inch cyclone fence as a standard. They do make 48 inches. This is a policy
call for the Planning Commission and the City Council. We put 48 inches in so that if
someone says that three feet isn't tall enough to safeguard my child or keep my dog in
the yard, they have the option of putting in a 48 inch cyclone fence. Forty-eight
inches should keep in most smaller dogs and children. Strictly a reference to the
safety issue, but there are aesthetic impact and if you don't think that is the right trade-
off, go back to something else. Commissioner Kennedy stated that she thought it
Planning Commission Meeting June 17, 2003 Page 4 of 25
would be nice to have that front height be the same for whatever kind offence you put
up. There was a short discussion about the visual impact of cyclone fences and the
safety issue of small children and pets. Mr. Hugo stated that when he briefed the City
Council about this issue, they were not very sympathetic to increasing anything. There
were proponents on both sides of the 42 inch versus 48 inch cyclone fence issue as
well.
Commissioner Buc 'kingham asked if there the 48 inches is the only standard height
for cyclone fences or is there a standard 36 inch standard. Mr. Hugo said that he
believes there is a 36 inch standard. Commissioner Buckingham then stated that this
would not create an undue burden on people wanting to build fences if it were lowered
to the 36 inch. Mr. Hugo agreed.
Commissioner Kosusko stated that during the workshop they discussed conditions for
fences on top of retaining walls or bulkheads. Where the measurement is taken? If the
retaining wall is over 30 inches, the fence need to be almost guardrail height. Mr.
Hugo said that yes, they had discussed that issue. He said that this is almost a bigger
issue than we have the ability to take on right now. The Commission will need to
come back to it. This is one of those gray areas in the code that needs some definition.
He said that the staff will need to go out and look at some of the contextual examples
that the Commission provided and come up with some ways that we can discuss it in
the code that makes sense. Commissioner Kosusko asked how he thought this would
be applied right now. Mr. Hugo said it would applied on a case by case basis and as
consistent as possible.
Commissioner Buckingham asked about Section (2)(e)(2)(a). Work exempt from
permits, fences not exceeding two feet in height. He asked how this height was
determined. Mr. Hugo stated that up to two feet could be like a little picket fence. If
someone is doing that around their front yard, we would have no interest in that at all.
It would be entirely decorative, cannot possible get in the way of views, and if one of
our field people sees one of those going up, we won't worry about it. Now, if it goes
up to about 30 inches, someone on our staffmay show up to measure it and ask if there
is a permit.
Commissioner Buckingham asked if there was an idea of what the 'nominal fee' for
the building permit would be. Mr. Hugo said that he had mentioned $50.00 (about
one hour work of staff time), which would be enough that the public would be
compensated just for the permit recordkeeping. It would be a simple permitting
process, but we would at least look at the plans and make sure that there are no
violations regarding setbacks. We would look at a simple site plan and pay attention
to it out in the field.
Commissioner Nelson asked a question regarding community education. He wanted
to know if we were creating any brochures or special documents to share with people.
Mr. Hugo said that we do have brochures. He feels this is a community paradigm.
People have seen folks build fences any way they wanted to for 50 years and believe
this is normal business. So they are not inclined to come in and find out what the roles
are, particularly if their fence contractor who ignores all the rules - which seems to be
the model here. He spoke of one particular fence contractor who continues to violate
Planning Commission Meeting June 17, 2003 Page 5 of 25
61
the rules. This upsets him since he wrote them a personal letter and asked them to stop
doing it. They don't seem to care.
Commissioner Nelson said that he didn't see the issue offence heights on busy streets
or arterials being dealt with in this draft ordinance. Mr. Hugo said that this concept is
one that he finds some favor with because he drafted something like that about ten
years ago, for another city. It was adopted. He has looked at it again and said that it
probably would not work in Bremerton.
The idea was to look at our high volume, vehicular arterials like 11th Street, coming
down towards Warren Avenue. Warren is a State travel route through the City.
Allowing people who have residential properties along that street to build a higher
fence to give them some screening from noise, litter, and high visibility of all the
strangers going past their front yard. He discussed this with the City Council and they
did not find favor with it. He said that he would not want to bring something forward
that he believes will be "dead on arrival" when it comes from the Commission. Mr.
Hugo stated that the Commission could bring it back up and put it in but that it was his
clear direction fi.om the City Council that the idea of higher fences being allowed for
noise buffers would not fly.
When he reviewed the conditions included in the other city's ordinance, he doesn't
think it could work here because of the environments that it dealt with were fairly
degraded environments today. The kind of fence you would have been required to
build in that other city probably would not have been built by anyone. The fences had
to be solid or articulated with breaks in the fence, landscaping on the outside of the
fence within those setbacks - it would have been a very expensive fence. Then the
condition under which you could have that fence: you still had to have the ability to
come out of your driveway and have enough distance to see up and do~m the sidewalk
to make sure you weren't backing out and causing a pedestrian danger. There are rich
enough place where people would do it because they have the money and the need for
that degree of privacy. This problem is not addressed here; we haven't solved
anything; and this is something for the staff and the Commission to figure out. They
are bad environments.
Conunissioner Nelson asked how we arrived at a $50.00 for the fee. He thought it
was a little high. Mr. Itugo stated that considering the cost of a cedar fence that he
doesn't think $50.00 is very much. People put thousands of dollars into fences and
spending $50.00 to get it right is money well spent. That is what we are there for to
make sure they get it right so that they don't have to back up. We have people doing
thousands of dollars worth ofretro-fits on brand new fences. One guy down on Oyster
Bay got a five or six foot high fence all around their property and had to cut three feet
offofthat, re-do the rails. When they are done it will be well over $1,000.00.
Without these changes, they would have had to take down about a $10,000.00 entry
gate. Fifty dollars is a pretty good deal. Mr. Hugo says that it is fairly generic. There
is probably 15 minutes of counter time; 15 minutes to check out the site plan; and then
there will be a little bit of field time to make sure, as part of the official inspections,
that everything is being done according to the plan.
Commissioner Kennedy asked if there were any further questions for Mr. Hugo.
Planning Commission Meeting June 17, 2003 Page 6 of 25
62
Commissioner Buckingham asked about the transition. Ii'someone were in the
process of constructing a fence (that is conforming to the current code) when this
ordinance is adopted, how would they be affected? Mr. Hugo stated that it'they are
conforming, we would not expect them to come in now and get a permit. This would
be from the date o£adoption. From that date forward, anyone who embarks on any
activity would have to comply. Anyone in the process right now o£building a non-
compliant fence, just like anyone else - we go out right now and stop-work them and
get them to undo what they have done.
Commissioner Kennedy opened the floor for public testimony.
Mr. Loui Mitchell of 2333 l0b Street, Bremerton. He said that he was at juvenile
court today addressing this very issue. He said that he is a victim of malicious
mischief and has been for several years. Finally, witnessed and apprehended the
.juvenile. The first instance, he got a quote from Viking Fence of $4,100.00. He said
that he also has a bulkhead property that was referred to. He said that they (Viking
Fence) did know the rules and regulations and quoted them to him.
Mr. Mitchell said that the reason he was interested in getting a fence was not to keep
.juveniles out for future incidents, but to keep his dog in. The second backup was to
have a dog. On the street where he lives, there is lots o£traffic that comes from
Callow Avenue and cuts off`to points unknown.
He's had three trees broken off`at the base after replacing them a second time. He has
had flowers and plants pulled out o£his front yard property. He knows that a 3-4 foot
£cnce is too little to preclude someone interested in doing damage. They did
apprehend a person who had a record. It continues and he said he didn't know i£he
would get any compensation for the fence. Fences are expensive. Chain link £ences
are cheap. He believes that the way this ordinance is written, it will encourage more
chain link fences. He thinks the motivation is dogs, on his street there is a ton o£dogs.
When a dog barks, all the lights come on and everyone looks out o£their windows. It
is not an inconvenience any more - it is a benefit to hear a dog bark in certain
neighborhoods.
He described it as fortuitous that he has had that recent experience and is at the
hearing. He said that he would need to keep at least a medium sized dog in his front
yard, which is his intent and reason for getting a quote from Viking Fence. Even
medium sized dogs are capable of jumping. Then he would have a liability. If the
highest fence that he could install would be a chain link fence - he would have to
weigh the unattractiveness of the chain link against com£ort and security. He would
probably not put in the chain link and briefly described his home. He believes that
many people would go £or the chain link fence which would actually increase what
you (PC) are trying to prevent.
Commissioner Kennedy then closed the public comment section and opened it back
up to the Commission.
Mr. Hugo said that he wanted to note that currently thc 42" chain link height is in the
code. He has interpreted that to mean that it is okay to have a little bit higher £¢ncc as
long as you can see through it. We have had some applications in which people
Planning Commission Meeting June 17, 2003 Page 7 of 25
wanted to have a wood fence that was higher. He has told them they could not go
higher than three feet if the fence is solid. However, they could go to another six
inches with a top rail that is only supported every four feet or so. Still that top six
inches is as transparent as a two inch tube rail across the chain link fence. The only
reason for that distinction was one of transparency. So, if you go away from the 42
inches, it take away his ability for this interpretation allowing another six inches of
decorative wood-style top on a solid fence. He said he would do the same thing with
the 48 inch height chain link fence. However, it is easy at 42 inches and not so sure it
would be as easy at 48 inches.
There was a short discussion about the height, solid versus transparent, and definitions.
Commissioner Kosusko stated that we have to decide what is important. Is it more
important to have an aesthetic pleasing streetscape or that someone can have a barking
dog at the sidewalk barking at you when you walk by. He thinks that if everyone is
participating in their street front and it is attractive/inviting some of these issues of
vandalism start to go away. This, in his mind, is a more proactive way to handle it
rather than allowing someone to build a higher barrier.
After a short discussion the consensus of the group was that the maximum height
should be 36 inches, no matter what it is made of. This discussion included the desire
for a more "walkable" city as mentioned in the draft Comprehensive Plan and the
arterials and canyon like streetscapes.
Mr. Hugo stated that the SEPA Determination regarding this item will not be official
until two days hence. He asked the Commission to continue this item until the next
regularly schedule meeting and take final action one month from now. A non-project
DNS (Determination of Non-Significance) will be issued. There won't be any
substantive issues with SEPA. We didn't quite make the publication date so we need
this item continued.
Commissioner Kennedy closed the discussion on this item and asked for a motion. A
motion was made by Commissioner Buckingham and seconded by Commissioner
Kosusko to continue PL03-0018 - An ordinance amending Section 21.02.230 and
Section 17.04.060(e) of the BMC relating to fence height regulations and permit
requirements - until the next regularly scheduled meeting (July 15, 2003). Called for
a vote: Buckingham: yes; Kosusko: yes; Nelson: yes; Wood: yes; and Kennedy: yes.
Motion carries.
b. PL03-0027 - Consideration of an ordinance adding a new section 21.~.2,350 to the
Bremerton~Municipal Code entitled "Wireless Teleco~~a_c.i. lities." The
proposed section would add siting standards an_....d-t~rm'~ing_ pr..ocess requirements for
the placement of wireless tel~es in~u_ding antenna arrays on
existin~ stm~ tow. elsI' .Within t~,Cit~ ofBiTy~I
m and then tumed the floor over to Mr.
Planning Commission Meeting June 17, 2003 Page 8 of 25
64
Minutes for Approval of
Planning Commission Meeting
July 15, 2003
I. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order by Commissioner Kennedy at 5:32 p.m.
II. Roll Call
Those present were: Commissioner Cockbum, Commissioner Nelson, Commissioner Wood and
Commissioner Kennedy. Quorum certified.
III. Approval of Agenda
Commissioner Kennedy introduced the agenda. A motion was made by Commissioner Nelson and
seconded by Commissioner Wood to approve the agenda as written. Called for a vote: Cockbum:
yes; Nelson: yes; Wood: yes; and Kennedy: yes. Agenda approved as written.
IV. Approval of Minutes
The Regular Meeting of June 17, 2003, minutes were presented for approval by Commissioner
Kennedy. A motion was made by Commissioner Nelson and seconded by Commissioner Wood
to approve the minutes as written. Called for a vote: Cockbum: abstained; Nelson: yes; Wood: yes
and Kennedy; yes. Minutes approved as written.
V. Public Meeting
Commissioner Kennedy moved directly to the call to the public portion.
A. Call to the Public (public comments on any item not on tonight's agenda). Seeing no
comments from the public, Commissioner Kennedy closed this portion of the meeting and
moved onto the public meeting portion.
B. Public Meeting
1. Public Hearing: [Commentary notes are enclosed in brackets.]
Planning Commission Meeting July 15, 2003 Page 1 of 7
65
a. PL03-0018 - Continued. An ordinance amending Section 21.02.230 and Section
17.04.060(e) of Bremerton Municipal Code relating to fence height regulations and
permit requirements. Commissioner Kennedy introduced this item and turned the
meeting over to staff, Mr. Hugo.
Mr. Hugo stated that this was presented to the commission at the last regular meeting.
It was continued because we hadn't completed the SEPA comment period yet. It
concluded two days after the last meeting. That comment period has now been
concluded and a Determination of Non-significance has been issued. We have also
mn through the 60-day agency review period stipulated by state law for state agency
comment. It is, therefore, timely for the commission to take action on this item.
He noted fi.om the minutes that there was commission consensus to limit the height of
all fences in the front yard setback to three feet, regardless of the type offence
material. This is referenced in provision 21.02.230(a)(1)(ii), which currently reads,
"Maximum height within front yard setback area shall be three feet, except in
open mesh cyclone type fence may not exceed a height of 42 inches."
When presented for public hearing the staff had proposed the cyclone type fence be
allowed up to 48 inches. After the commission's discussion there was a suggestion
that all fences should be limited to the same three foot height limit in the front yard.
That is where the staff report stands at this time.
Commissioner Kennedy opened the public hearing portion for this item. She
explained the procedure of public comment. Seeing no public comment, she closed
the public comment portion and opened the floor for comments and questions from the
Commission.
~ Commissioner Wood stated that she thinks the three foot [limitation] across the board
-~1Ky seems to be more appropriate.
~¢~0~~ A motion was made by Commissioner Cockburn and seconded by Commissioner
Nelson to recommend that PL03-0018 as amended [21.02.230(a)(1)(iii) limiting
fence heights in the front yard setback area to three feet regardless offence
material] for adoption to the City Council. Called for a vote: Cockburn: yes;
Nelson: yes; Wood: yes and Kennedy; yes. Motion carries.
b. Pursuant to State o f Washington Growth Management~.,~et'f, as detailed in thc Revised
Code of Washington (RCW), Section 36.70A.03~--T~e public .hearings before the
Planning Commission and later, before th.f,.C~ Council, provide an explicit
opportunity for public reviewing potential revisions to the citT's
comprehensive plan.~?
Commission_ _ . ces. s ofth.e.?.ublic hearing. She
explai~here.will be .an opportunity for
p~~~en,t~sti,mony, can be accepted
.~6~~o ss oner Buckingham had arrlveA.
Planning Commission Meeting July 15, 2003 Page 2 of 7
CI Y COUNCIL 0FFICE
From: Eric Younger ?I'£ ~__~!0~ ~
To: Darren Nygren, CJ~ Council President r~i~ di~
Note: Responses from DCD in italics
As promised, here are my questions from Wednesday's council meeting. As
agreed upon. a wri~en response from the appropriate ~ity o~cials is
requested.
1. This item was brought to ~ouncil ~ommi~ees on 6/30/0~ for presentation
at the ~ouncil meeting the following week. What is the reason for the one-
year delayT
Following Council Commiffees and dimction by the Council to revise
the draft for hearing, the item was pulled from the agenda a few days
prior to hearing. (Staff has never been informed of the reason.)
2. If implemented, what will be the fiscal impactT Mr. Hugo mentioned a $50
permit fee with the rest of the cost of the program to be paid through the
General Fund. Is the ~ouncil prepared to increase the budget to pay for
this program7
This is a maffer of internal time managemenL DCD will spend less
time chasing violations and those savings will offset the residual
cost (after fees) of project review and inspection.
~. Does the D~D have any idea how ~any fence permits would be issued on
a yearly basisT
There is obviously no statistical histo~, but 2-3 per month is a
ballpark figure.
4. The staff repo~ mentions that there are good arguments not to require a
fence permit. Please provide the pros and cons.
Pros: save citizens the expense of removing potions of recent
investments; avoid neighbor confrontations over illegal installations;
reduce DCD expense of non-compliance actions; inform neighbors
and ci~ staff that new installations meet code.
Cons: applying for a permit will take an hour of someone's time; the
cost of a permit, whatever the Council determines it to be.
5. Will a waterfront homeowner that is required to obtain a fence permit also
have to pay the $2,000 plus shoreline permit fee just to build or repair a
fence on his property?
The proposed fence permit will be a requirement under the building
code and it will implement revised rules that already exist in the
Zoning Code. There will be no cost or regulatory effects associated
with Shorelines other than those that currently exist.
6. Why isn't the current fence ordinance being enforced?
It is being enforced, after the fact of installation. That is the whole
point of the proposed permit. . . to be proactive with this issue and
catch problems before they are created (not unlike other building
permit requirements).
7. When was the City's current fence ordinance enacted? Were there any
standards/requirements before the enactment of our current fence
ordinance? If so, what were the standards?
The staff has not had time to research this yet.
8. What will be done about existing fences not in conformance with the
BMC? Approximately how many properties within the City are not in
compliance? Does this include any City-owned properties?
Owners of non-conforming fences may be able to prove grandfather
status with photos or other documentation. Those fences that are
not grandfathered may be subject to compliance actions if a citizen
submits a complaint.
The City has no inventory offences.
9. Page 2 of the staff report has the statement "But in front yards, we still
hold to the notion of openness and having light and air come into our big
picture windows and the front of our homes." Who is we? Is the person
who made this comment at least a City resident?
This comment has been made by Planning Commissioners and
several Council members. It is mostly just a statement of common
sense.., it is the way that most subdivisions are designed today-
apparently a reflection of what people still expect.
10.The staff report indicates it would be wise for the hearing examiner to
determine what is an acceptable finish on a case-by-case basis. Is it good
policy to let a hearing examiner, who does not live in our community,
determine our community's standards? Instead, shouldn't he have
objective criteria to apply which I thought was the purpose of implementing
the hearing examiner in the first place?
The "good neighbor" design of a HIGHER fence that may be
requested by a Special Use Permit is one of the proposed criteria to
guide the Hearing Examiner's consideration on this application. This
and other criteria are proposed additions to the existing ordinance -
there is no mention of this in the Staff Report.
11 .The staff report indicated that this permit measure was aimed to get at
fence contractors. What prevents the contractor from continuing to do
business as they have by putting in their contracts that the customer bears
the responsibility for securing any applicable permits?
The Staff Report makes no statement about who the permit proposal
is "aimed at." Legally, the property owner is the only entity
responsible for complying with development regulations. The owner
may specify that the contractor secure all necessary permits and
approvals, but the accountability remains with the owner.
12. If a person builds a fence that is not in conformance with the code will
they be required by the City to make corrective actions to bring it into
compliance? Does the City, in making its code enforcement decisions,
make a determination whether the cost to bring the property into
compliance is too high for the infraction involved?
Yes, the City has pursued many successful corrections through
compliance actions. No - the Courts will not allow arbitrary
judgments of "cost/benefit" into the compliance equation. Either the
rule is met, or the project is subject to correction.
13. My understanding is the City does code enforcement on a complaint
basis. If a complaint is filed, and the property is found not to be compliant
(and does not qualify as a non-conforming use exception) will the City
enforce the code?
Yes, consistently. There are several recent examples of this
performance.
14. With the proposed 36" height limits, large dogs are more apt to escape
from their yards. Will the City be found liable (for resultant damages due
to the dog escaping) since the property owner was limited to an
insufficient fence height by the City's fence ordinance?
This is a question for the City Attorney; however, there is no inherent
"right" to a fence -just as there is no inherent right to a swimming
pool in the front yard. These standards are all set by local legislation
based on local policies. The suggestion for those with large dogs is
to fence them in the rear yard- one of several options that dog
owners can consider.
15. What about repair of existing fences? Will a permit be required? How
about repair of an existing, legally non-conforming fence? Will this be
allowed?
The code already has provisions for maintenance and repair of
grandfathered uses under the Non-Conforming Uses section. No
permit will be required to repair a fence.
Building and Development Specialist 280 Fourlh Street
jlunceford~ci.bremeKon.wa.us Bremerton, WA 98337
June 12, 2003
Jackie D. Garrett
1347 Rainier Avenue
Bremerton, WA 98312
re: t347 Rainier, file #C03-342
Ms. Garrett:
While inspecting another property in the neighborhood, I noted a fence on your property located at 1347 Rainier
Avenue exceeds the maximum height allowed by the Bremertun Zoning Ordinance. The Zoning Ordinance allows
wood fences to be a maximum of three (3) feet in height in the front yard setback of any residentially zoned
property. Because your property is on the corner, you are considered to have two front yards; one on Rainier and
one on 15t~ Street. Since your fence is more than 3 feet in height, it is in violation of this regulation.
At this time, we would like to offer you the opportunity to voluntarily abate this condition without the need for
official action from our department. We will reinspect the site in 2 weeks to verify compliance with this request. If
you have any questions, you may contact me at (360) 478-5213.
Sincerely,
Janet K. Lunceford '
Building and Development Specialist -~L,~~'''-~''~
Garrett Jack KPWA
From: Janet Lunceford [jlunceford@ci.bremerton.wa.us]
Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2004 9:08 AM
To: jgarrett@kpt.nuwc, navy. mil
Subject: Fence Ordinance
Mr. Garrett--! promised you and your wife that I would let you know when
the proposed fence ordinance would go before the City Council. The
ordinance has finally been scheduled to have its first reading on the
July 7th agenda,at 5:30 pm in the City Council Chambers. The Director
of Community Development will present the ordinance, which will require
that permits be obtained prior to installati~,n of fences. The provision
of the zoning code that prohibits wood fences in excess of 3 feet in
height in the front yard is not proposed to be changed and there will
still be a provision that allows a property owner to apply for a Special
Use Permit for a higher fence; the difference will be that the criteria
for approval of an SUP will be "tightened up" and approval will be
harder to obtain.
I encourage you to come to the meeting and explain to the Council how
corner properties such as yours would be impacted by the ordinance. If
you can't come personally, you can write a letter to the Council and ask
that it be read into the record.
Feel free to call me if you have any questions: 473-5213.
Page 1 of 1
Garrett Jack KPWA
From: Janet Lunceford [jlunceford@ci.bremerton.wa.us]
Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 10:49 AM
To: JGarrett@kpt.nuwc.navy.mil
Subject: Re: Fence Requirement
This is not a criticai issue right now, Do whatever you need to do for your family If your neighbors have something from the City from the street
widening project, it would probably apply to you even if YOU don't have a copy on your title. If you can get it to me within the next 6 weeks, that would
be fine,
Please don't think that I don't understand the problem with the dog and the landscaping; you have not been singled out, there are numerous fence
height issues in the City and I'm laking on a few at a time.
>>> Garrett Jack KPWA <JGarrett@kpt.nuwc.navy.mil> 06/17/03 10:12AM >>>
Ms. Lunceford, As far as we can find out so far, during the time period when
15th Street was widened, the city entered into an agreement with some of the
homeowners that they would erect the fences due to the loss of property and
that the homeowners
would maintain the fences, I will look into the city records to confirm
that. I do in fact have neighbors on 15th that do have the same agreement
and from what I understand do know where I can find the paperwork given a
little time, It however will have to wait until I get back from getting my
Father-in-law I really would appreciate it if you could stop by our home
and look at our back yard. I think you would understand the horror that we
are going through at the thought of lowebng the fence. We have a pond, many
valuable plants, an open patio with all of our yard and gardening tools and
a 10 year old female German Shepherd. We have always tried to maintain our
propedy in the highest possible manner as to not detract from the beau!y of
our city We have been block watch captains since we moved into this house
in 1989. We work really hard to make this city a safe place to be proud of
and I guess we are both wondering why we are being singled out when our
fence is stained, well maintained and rehects pride of ownersmp and w,llun
a few blocks either side of us there are run down shanties that should not
be allowed to house animals much less people. I also drive to and from
keyport to work each day and along wheaten way there are fences that are as
high as mine with blackberries, stinging nettles, and who knows what else
growing over them and they have been there for as many years as we have
owned our home I am truly sorry for my initial message on your answering
machine, but if you had any idea of the work that has gone into this small
place to make it what it is today, I think you would understand why I was so
upset that someone was going to destroy what we have worked so hard to
create. Thank you for your time.
Mr. Jackie D and Mrs Teri C. Garrett
7/03
DATE SUBMITTED: BILL # ~4 - I
AGENDA BILL
CITY OF BREMERTON 5~
CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: Resolution regarding approval Committee Meeting Date: June 23, 2004
and ratification of Kitsap Conference Center COUNCIL MEETING Date: July 7, 2004
at Bremerton Harbor Side Change Orders Department: Economic
Development
Presenter: Gary Sexton
Phone: 473-5282
SUMMARY: Expenditures in the form of contract modifications related to the Kitsap Conference
Center at Bmmerton Harbor Side have been approved by the Director of Economic Development and
the work detailed in the contract modifications has been completed and pursuant to Bremerton City
Code 2.76.500(a) the City Council must approve change orders of an aggregated value exceeding
$250,000.
ATTACHMENTS: Resolution and contract modifications
FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): unknown
APPROVALS:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY:
FINANCE DIRECTOR:
MAYOR: (~
'~(~'x-.--~-.~ ~.) CONSENT AGENDA []
OPERATIONS:
COUNCIL PRESIDENT:
RECOMMENDED MOTION: I move to pass Resolution No. ~ ~ 3 [approving and ratifying
contract modification expenditures for the Kitsap Conference Center at Bremerton Harbor Side.
COUNCIL ACTION: ['"] At?nrove I--I Denv [fi~ Table [--I Conlinlm [~1NIc~ Ar'finn
RESOLUTION NO. ~ ff 3 t
A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of
Bremerton, Washington, approving and ratifying certain
expenditures related to the Kitsap Conference Center at Bremerton
Harbor Side.
WHEREAS, expenditures in the form of contract modifications in the amount of
$1,944,999.00 related to the Kitsap Conference Center at Bremerton Harbor Side have been
approved by the Director of Economic Development and the work detailed in the contract
modifications has been completed; and
WHEREAS, the City Council pursuant to Bremerton City Code 2.76.500(a) must
approve change orders of an aggregated value exceeding $250,000;
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON,
WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION L Approval and Ratification. Pursuant to Bremerton Municipal Code
2.76.500(a), the City Council authorizes and ratifies the payment of the contract modifications
totaling $1,944,999.00, copies of which are attached as Exhibit A, and further directs the
Department of Financial Services to issue payment as appropriate to the contractor for the value
of the contract modifications.
SECTION2: Severability. If any one or more sections, subsections, or
sentences of this Resolution are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not
affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Resolution and the same shall remain in full
force and effect.
SECTION 3. 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
RSLEGAL~Resolutions\conf center change order.doc
1
Conference Center Change Orders
Office of the City Attorney
Roger A. Lubovich, City Attorney
Memorandum
TO: City Council
From: Brett C. Vinson, Assistant City Attorney
RO: Conference Center Change Orders
Ilato: June 21, 2004
It has been brought to my attention that Exhibit A to the proposed resolution regarding
Conference Center change orders is ambiguous and hard to follow. Below is a list of change
orders identifying the eight change orders attached as Exhibit A to the resolution and their
respective dollar amounts.
Change Order Amount
Kitchen layout $11,536.00
Mod 13 $399.00
Fountain $1,686,477.00
Site AV & electrical $99,831.00
Mod 17 $0.00
3 Additional Circuits $855.00
SSR#18 Rev. 1 $50,895.00
Bond Costs $95,006.00
TOTAL $1,944,999.00
Exhibit A
OCT 1,2003 CHANGE ORDER #1 - 10-1-03
Project: "
Kitsap County Conferenc~ Center
Bremerton, WA
(425) 519-B811 Fax: (425) 864-5997 '
From: To:
Jeff Winter Michael Hlastala
Bargreer) Eilin~'son Inc. OPUS Northwest
1275 M e'cer Street 915 - ~ 18th Avenue SE
Seattle '/VA 98109 Suite #300
(800) 522-0131 Fa>:: (2_06) 682-2367 Bellevue, WA
(425) 519-6811 Fax: (425)864-5997
The following is a recap of the changes to our contract made as indicated on the correspondence
dated September 26[h and the email from Bob Taylor September 30th.
Please feel free to contact me with any questions.
Thank you,
item Qty Desoripdon Sell Each
23 1 ea RANGE, GAS, HEAVY DUTY, 36" 4,120.00
Wolf Range Model No. KFS-6J-27
Range, 36" Commander Heavy-Duty, Gas, 6 (30,000 BTU) open
burners, convection oven base, 1-1/4" front manifold, s/s front, bullnose,
stub back, black epoxy powder coat sides, 6" adj. legs
1 ea LP gas
1 ea Rear gas connection (1-1/4" tailpipe and 1-1/4" pressure regulator 285.00
1 ea 115v/60/1 std. (nc)
Bargreen Ellingson Inc.
OCT 1,2003. Kitsap County Conference Center
Item Qty Description Se~l Eacl
1 ea 120v/60/lph, 7.2 amps, 1/2 bp, cord w/3-prong plug, per deck
Extended Total for item No. 32.2 4,691.00
32.3 1 ea EQUIPMENT STAND
Cleveland Range Inc. Msdel No. ES21301 -828.06
Equipment Stand, open sliding shelf base, stainless steel, one set of pan
racks, adjustable legs (for models 2'I-CET-8, 21-CET-16 & 21-CGA-5)
35 1 ea DISH STORAGE SHELVING
Metro Mode~ No. CUSTOM
Dish Storage Shelving to consist of the followin"g:
1 3 ea PCD 11A "Poker Chip" Dish Dolly, 26-5/8" X 31-7/8" X 26-5/8", -654.00
adjustable, dish size 4-1/4" to 11-3/4", removable towers, two-handed
access, foam core, resistant to cracking, peeling & chippir]g, polymer
construction
1 It FREIGHT Freight for the above units -325.38
Extended Total for Item No. 35 -8,827.38
41 I ea FLOOR TROUGH
Advance Tabco Model No_ FFTG-1254 1,234.00
Floor Trough, 12"W, 54%, 4"D, w/fiberglass grating, s/s removable
beehive strainer, 4" O.D. waste pipe 4%, pitched towards waste
54 4 ea CART, DiSH
Metro Model No. PCDllA -654.00
"Poker Chip" Dish Dolly, 26-5/8" X 31-7/8" X 25-5/8", adjustable, dish
size 4-1/4" to 11-3/4", removable towers, t~vo-handed access, foam core,
resistant to cracking, peeling & chipping~ polymer construction
I It FREIGHT Freight for the above dish dollies. -238.64
Extended Total for Item No. 54 -2,854.64 '
62 1 es DISHTABLE, CLEAN 721.00
Advance Tabco Model No. DTC-S30-84R
Straight-Clean Dishtable, left-to-right, 10" backsplash, 3" rolled front &
side rims, stainless steel legs, with stainless steel crossrails, 83" long,
14/304 stainless steel
62.1 1 ea CLEAN DISH TABLE --
TRS Company Model No. 02-2319-62 -1,752.00
Clean Dish Table
Bargreen Ellingson Inc.
/MO
OCT 1,2003 Kitsap County Conference Center Page 4 of 4
BP-,EMC01
Item Qty Description Sell Each Sell Total
63.1 1 ea WALL FLASHING 9tl.00 911.00
TRS Company Model No. 02-2319-63
In Original Quote - S/S Wall FIashing.
84.1 1 ea WALL SHELF 810.00 810.00
TRS Company Model No. 02-2319-64
In Original Quote - S/S Wall Shelf.
65 1 ea SINK, THREE COMPARTMENT 2,071.00 2,071.00
Advance Tabco Model No. 94-23-60~24RL
Regaiine Sink, three compartment, w/left & right-hand drainboards, 20"
front-to-back x 20" W-compartment, 14" deep, with 10" high splash, s/s
open frame base, boxed crossrails, 24" drainboards, s/s bullet feet,
14/304 stainless steel
3 ea K-18 Drain, lever operated with built in overflow, 2" IPS 162.00 486.00
3 ea K-4 Support Bracket, for lever drains on sinks 45.00 135.00
Extended Total for Item No. 65 2,692.00
86 1 ea PRE-RINSE UNIT 228.00 228.00
T& S Brass Model No. B-0133-B
Pre-Rinse Unit, 8" O:C. wall mounted faucet, 1/2" IPS female eccentric
flanged inlets, 34"H, 15" overhang, 18" riser, B-0107 spray valve,
B-0044-H flexible stainless steel hose, B-0109-01 8" wall bracket
1 ea B-0156 Add-On Faucet, for pre-rinse units, 12" nozzle, includes 3" 57.00 57.00
nipple, for pre-rinse units
1 ea B-0231 Sink Mixing Faucet, with 12" swing nozzle, wall mounted, 8" 93.00 93.00
centers on sink faucet with 1/2" IPS eccentric flanged female inlets, lever
I~andles
Extended To[al for Item No. 68 378.00
Total 650.98
Grand Total 650.98
Bargreen Ellingson Inc.
~3,.'2084 !7~ 57 13~04735~0 K,~H~
~0~ NTAiN CBt~_NGt~
~ of~ 2nd ~y of Fe~C04,
~evelop~r ~d Lma~ Ag~n~y a~ee as follows:
1. Consn~ction for plma foden ~d sm~ f~ as issued by WET Des i~ will
co~n~e ~ediately ~ th~: follo~g c~ges to ~c c~t~ a~'eement.
a. ~us will ~ ~e f~'~ ? cost ~d ~thoke C,)m~c~on F~ ~d
Con~fio~ [0~ m~k4ips). Opus will add ~s 1.5% :~0I ~d 8.5% WaST zo
sub/c onsulz~t co~
~crc ~ Say.ga ~at :~v~to Br=m~non a~.r ~ ~pktpar th~ Con~ ~
Br~m~n ~ pay Opu,~ (2om ~k o~ Br~mc2om ¢lavi=g~) ~ 4.5% F~c for all
h~d ~d ~o~
~ET ~bs ~c as ncEodatcd by Lc~ AE~cy~ ~cEazd' ng ~.T La b~ ~c
A~ecm~ts Op~ is actk~g ~ Agent for pa~t of s~ces_ ~T Labs Inc
~ ~SS ~OF, ~e p~es h~sm have executed t~s ~ge Order ~e d,ay
~d ~ ~ above
~e Develops,
By
Its AU~z~ ~eprescnttvc
Opu~ Northwest LLC
WET ~lgn Contra~ held by Opus
Fountain CO
Te~s Fee Without Fee
Op~s Hardm~ (~Udget e~ma~e to date) - $681,471 $681.471
WET Design hardco~ $706,000 $70B.000
OpUS B&O T~ ~ I 1/2% - $19.988 $0
Subtotal hardcos~ $~,352,~14 '
Opus Fee ~ 4.~% $80,883 (380.a63) $0
~T o~ hardco~
(~5,173) $114,e64
Total Hard~'0S{S $1,533,5¥4"
To~l hard and so~ cos~ "' $~,782,359 (~5,8gl) ~~'
VICE PREVENTIVE MAINTENA. NCE
DESIGN ' cQNSTRUC~i'tON · SER "'
LIGHTING MAINT~NANOE ' ~N~RGY MANAGEMENT ' OOMMUNIG~TIONB
J~nua~ 27, 2004
OPUS No~hwest
Mr. Brian Fy~ll .
916 ~Sth Ave. SE, Suite SOO
Bellevue, WA 98006
Fax: (426) 5~9-6800
Re. Kitsap County Convention Center
infrastructure and Pl~z~ Audio System Rev.3
Electrical proposal
Sexton in
Dear Brian,
' We have restructured our previous proposals to meet the scope requested by GaW
the Analysis Pla~ Audio Notes emailed 12-16203 and our meeting with Gaw last week. We
have followed the Owners requested changes except we hav~ increased the guard rail speaker
ction also inc uded remowng all speakers from planters on
+~ ~14% This dire ........ ~=m will work well except that areas of
counts from (10) ~u~ A~V subcontractor believes tn~ ~3¢-~ in the planters will now
the upper plaza.
the upper plaza walkway that would have been covered by speakers
While we did not model the coverage, it becomes
have much lighter or non-existent coverage, ares no~hward from the
pre~ dear that if we odly have speakers in the western railing that
southern ramp, we will lose some coverage as the plaza area enlarges toward the upper
fountain- The plaza areas from the where the railing ends at the top of the stairs east to the
fountain will not have much sound, as we will not have any speakers in that area.
We propose to provide and install the following:
1. (7) 50A site receptacles - (2) in floor boxes
2. AV Room power, L.V. Sleeving, Mechanical Connections, Fire Alarm & Lighting
3. power Distribution for site AV room
4. Change AV Vendor to Lump sum.
Providing ~ Electrical Services
Seattle Branch
21919 20~ Avenue SE-, Suite 200, Bothell, WA 98021
Phone (425) 483-6869 · Fax (425) 488-614-4
81
Valley F~iestric hdi. astrucmrs and Plaza Audio System Rev. 3
General ~ ~ OgM's
General 1/ Warran~
General 1 6 Month and End of Warranty Period Checkout
NPUT SOURCES ,, ?':-. :~.-~'
CD 1 Denon DN-600F CD Player
Tuner 1 TOA DT-920 Receiver W/MB-DT920 Rack Mount K
Mixer 1 Biamp 601 Source Mixer
DSP 1 Mackie DX810 Digital Signal Processor
RVC 1 Mackie DX-RVC Remote Volume Control
RVC 1 MacMe DX-SW4 Select Control
Fountain Amplifiers 2 QSC 204V Power Amplifier
=ountain Amplifiers 1 QSC CX902 Power Amplifier
Fountain Am plifiers 2 QSC 302 Power Am plifier
Promenande Amplifiers 1 QSC 204V Power Amplifier
Marina / Channel Amplifiers 2 QSC 1SA-750 Power Amplifier
Misco JC8WP8HT70 Weatherproof Light Base Speat
Type 1 Light Sase Speakers 14 and Transformer
Type ~ Light Sase Speakers 14 Atlas VP161-8 VP Grille (Custom Mountto Light Base
Type 1 Light Base Speakers 14 Custom Designed Light Base Speaker Encbsure
Type 3 Promenande Speakers 6 Atlas SM-52T-B Surface Speaker
Type 4 Promenade Speakers 3 Atlas SM-82T-B Su~ace Speaker
Type 5 Marina / Channel Speakers 7 Community R.5-HP High Output Speaker
JBL Control-30 Surface Mounted Fountain Mid/High
Type 8 Fountain Speakers 10 Speaker and Mount
Type 9 Fountain Speakers 5 JBL SB210 Su~ace Mounted Fountain Subwoofer
Misco JC8WP8H%70 Weatherproof Speaker and
Beezeway Ceiling Speakers 3 Transformer
Beezeway Ceiling Speakers 3 Atlas 95-8-5 Enclosure
Beezeway Ceiling Speakers 3 Atlas 62-8W Grille
Field Cable 2 West Penn ~226 Speaker Wire
Field Cable 2 West Penn ¢C210 Speaker Wire
=etch Panel I 11 position XLR Patch Panel
Cable & Connectors' 1 Internal Rack Cabling and Connectors
Wireless Mic 1 Sennheiser Wireless Handhold Microphone
~ack 1 Middle Atlantic DWR-35-22 Wall Mounted Equipment F
Rack 1 Blanks and Vents
Rack Power 1 :ower Distribution
Rack Grounding 1 Copper Bus Bars and Grounding Lugs for Racks
Misc. 1 Panduit Internal Rack Raceway
Labelin~ 1 Custom Laser Engraved Equipment Labels and Panels
Commissionin9 Pre-Energizing Tests
~r Verification Tests
Commissioning I System ~m~
Commission?g
VMlc' Electric J~nfrastructur~ and Plaza .&udio System Rev. 3
Commissioning I Amplifier Level Adiustmeots
Commissioning I Final Tweek and Adiust
Commissioning Final Acceptance Tests W/ Owners Reps.
Commissianin.q User Instruction - Site
Commissioninq Onsite Event Support for First Event
Travel Allowance I Travel and Per Dieum
Exclusions:
~. (4) boxes in upper railing for speakers- see detail 5-A~01
2. Telephone, Data or Coax cabling to floor boxes
3. Connections to WET Design Pumps or Lighting
4. 360 systems, TCR8 Multi-track player both provided by WET Design.
5: OPUS or Mac-miller costs orfees
Total $ 92,272.00
Alt. 1. Delete (7) Type 5 Channel Speakers, cabling and associated amplifiers ($ 8,723.00)
If you have any questions or require further information, please contact me at 425.483.6869.
Sincerely,
~0~ Derlson
Design Build Manager
3
Kitsap County Conference Cent-er
Kitsap County Conference Center
Bremerton, WA
(425)519-6811 Fax: (425)864-5997
Jeff Winter
Bargreen Ellingson Inc.
'1275 Mercer Street
Seattle, WA 98109
(800) 525-0'13'1 Fax: (206) 682-2367
BRESTEAM
; M od ~ h:;21-C ET;'I 6
Cle~land ,,
SteamCraft® Ll/tra 5 A ODEL' [] 21-CET-16
COUNTER TYPE DESIGN
PRESS UREL ESS CONVECTION STEAMER
ELECTR/C S TEAM GENERA TOR, 16 KW
C/eve~ant/Standar[/Features ITEM NUMBER
JOB NAME / NUMBER
·Cooking Capacity for up to five 12- x 20" x 2~" deep
Cafeteria Pans.
· Innovative PowerPak Electric Steam Generator: Two
Special Stainless Steel Fire Bar Heating Element. Strong 14
Gauge Stainless Steel Construction. Large 5 gallon genera-
tot reservoir for faster steam cooking production. Fully insu-
lated rear mounted steam generator.
Easy Access Cleaning Port: Generator Cleaning Port
located on the outside, top of the unit. Not necessary to
remove hot panels orpan rack guides.
· Generator Cleaning Light: Indicator Light located on the
front of the unit warns operator it is time to de[ime genera-
tor.
· Instant Steam Stand By Mode: Hold generator at a
steaming temperature. Allows unit to start cocking instantly.
· Durable 14 Gauge, Stainless Steel Construction:
For compartment door, cavity and steam generator.
· One 60 Minute Electro-MechanicaITimer and Switch for
manual operation: Audible signal for cooking time
completion.
· Main Power On/Off Switch: With Automatic Water FilL
· Exclusive Steam Cooking Distribution System:
Maintenance Free Exclusive Brass Steam Jets produce a
high velocity convection steam without fans. Coved Corner ;hown with optional
design in cooking compartment distributes heat evenly, and
is easy to keep clean. Creased tap & bottom enhance
drainage. Cold water condenser behind drain maintains a
dry steam. Fully Insulated cooking compartment for thermal Shallbe CLEVELAND, SteamOTa~' TL~.i:ra 5, one
efficiency. P, emovabie Stainless Steel Slide Racks for easy Counter-Type Steamer, Model 21-CE7--15, __w
cleaning. __Hz, 3phase, heav}/dutyall StainlessSteelcor
· Automatic Generator Drain: Contains a "Water Jet" Spray mounted, insulated Steam Generator with Re/no;
F~.Jnse Drain Cleaning Cycle to keep drain clear. Water Level Controls and Automatic Steam Generz
· Exclusive Automatic Remote Probe Type Water Level
· Exclusive "Cool to the Touch"Two-Piece Compartment ~1 ON/OFF Steam Switch for compartment cont
Door Design: Free floating inner door with reversible gas- [::1 Equipment Stand (ES21301)
ket provides an air tight seal. Stainless Steel Siam/Latch
Door Latch mechanism for reliability. ~ 4' Stainless Steel Legs (LF4)
· Left Hand Doer Hinging: Compartment Doors hinged on E3 Equipment Stacking Stand ShelfType (ES24z
the left, controls on the right. E~ Dissolve' Descale Solution, 6 one ga[ion con
markings (106174)
· Available in moat voltages, three phase or~ly.
~ Cafeteria Pans in depths of 1~, 2~" and 4-
~Options & Accessories ~ water Filters
E~ Right hand Door Hinging, Controls on the Left (DHR)
E3 ~lectronic Timer with Compensating Load Feature (ETC)
Conference Cente~.6~ Bargreen EllingsOn Inc, Pag
Kit~ap
Oounty
EB 4,2004 STEAMER QUOTE - 2-4-04 Page 1 of 3
BRESTEAM
Project:
Kitsap County Conference Center
Bremer[on, WA
(425) 519-6811 Fax: (425) 864-5997
To:
From: Harvey Nelson
Jeff Winter OPUS Northwest
Bargreen E[lingson Inc. 915 - 118th Avenue SE
12T5 Mercer Street Suite ¢300
Seattle, WA 98109 Bellevue, WA
(800) 525-0131 Fax: (206) 682-2367 (425) 519-6811 Fax: (425) 864-5997
The following are pdces on steamer options. Item #32 is listed in the contract as an ALTERNATE.
The other two steamers are "connectionless" units, they do NOT require direct connections to a
water or drain source. However, they ARE electric units, while the original unit is GAS.
Please feel free to call with any questions.
Sell Each Sell Total
Item Qty Description
32 1 ea STEAMER, CONVECTION COUNTERTOP
Cleveland Range Inc. Model No. 21CGA5
SteamcCaft~ Ultra 5 Convection Steamer, Gas, Countertop, one
compartment, five 12 x 20 x 2-1/2" pans per compartment capacity,
automatic controls and automatic boiler blowdown, s/s construction,
75,000 BTU Freight: 1 85.90 185.90
Weight: 286.000
1 ea 1-Year Limited Warranty, standard
1 aa Natural Gas (specify altitude if over 2000 feet)
Iea VOS 115 115 volts, 60 hz, I phase for controls (n/c)
1 ea SCS Steam shut off switch
Bargreen Ellingson Inc.
FEB 4,2004 Kitsap County Conference Center
Item Qty Description Sell Ea{
1 ea 9797-50 Kleensteam® CT, Water Filter Assembly, for counter top
steamers, includes (1) 4CB5 cartridge, (1) AR-10 filter cartridge, dip tube
& ScaleKleen 7.0-oz. packet, wall-mounting bracket and gauge assembly
Extended Total for Item No. 32 8,185.51
32. 1 1 ea *** OPTIONAL *** ( ) STEAMER, CONVECTION COUNTERTOP 5,124.0
- Cleveland Range Inc. Model No. 1SCE
SteamCub PlusTM, Steamer & Holding Cabinet, Countertop, Elec., one
compartment, (5)12x20x2-1/2" pan cap., solid state digital controls, w/3
operating modes, steam & hold, continuous steam & holding, Iow water
alarm, s/s const., 6"legs, 9Kw
Weight: 190.000 Freight: 123.5
1 ea 1-Year Limited Warranty, standard
1 ea 2083 208 volts, 60-hz, 3-ph, 26 amps, (nc)
1 ea 6KW 6.0 KVV, option (n/c)
Extended Total for Item No. 32.1 5,244.50
32.2 1 ea *** OPTIONAL *** ( ) STEAMER, CONVECTION COUNTERTOP 3,299.01
Groen Model No. VRC-3E-LH,208
(141410) VortexTM Convection Steamer, Elec., Countertop, (3) 12x 20x
2-1/2" pans cap., conv. fan, on/off button, 90 min. timer, steam/hold
ctrls, 4-gal. water reserv., dr hinged L, s/s int'r & ext'r, (no water or drain
hook~up), 9 kw, 208v/3-ph, (STOCK)
Weight: 150.000 Freight: 97.56
'-~._.~x~te~ded Total for Itemq~l~o. 32~96.50~-~'-~... ~
2.3. --' 1 ea *** OPTIONAL *** ( ) STEAMER, CONVECTION COUNTERTOP 4,997.0(:
Cleveland Range [nc. Model No. 21CET16
~ Steamcraft® Ultra 5 Convection Steamer, Elec., Countertop, 1
compartment, (5) 12 x 20 x 2-1/2" pans per compartment capacity,
- automatic controls and automatic boiler blowdown, s/s construction,
1 6kw
Weight; 190.000 Freight: 123.50
1 ea 1-Year Limited Warranty, standard
1 ea VOS1 208 volts, 60-hz, 3-phase, standard (n/c)
'[ ea DHR Right hand door hinging, controls on left 186.00
1 ea MC ON/OFF compartment controls only, no timer (NC)
..__.~% ea LF4 P/N 06158 4" stainless steel legs for 21CET8, 21CET16, and 154.00
21 CGA5
Extended Total for Item No. 32.3 5,460.50
Total
Grand Total
'~..~ /~.~argreen Ellingson Inc. /
Mode_____~h 21CET~ 6 _ Item# 32:3
I. Compartment has capacity for:
Five, 12" x 2g" x 2¢-" deep Cafeteria Pans.
{ WATER QUALITY REQUIREMENT
The recommended minimum water quality standards
whether untreated or pre-treated, based upon 10 hours
~ of use per day, and a Daily Blawdown, are as follows:
¢¢~ TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS hess than 60 parts per million
TOTAL ALKALINITY less than 20 parts per million
SILICA hess than 13 parts per million
~8.~a- ~2~" pH FACTOR greater than 7.5
?~smm ~zz~mm CHLORINE less than 30 parts per million
8EN~.AT0R Consult a iocalwater treatment specialist for an on site
water analysis for recommendations concerning steam
~" generator feed water treatment (if required), in order
to remove or reduce harmful concentrations of miner-
/ als. The use of highty mineralized water will mean that
more frequent servicing of the steam generator will be
proof that it will be suitable for the generator.
TOP VIEW
FRONT VIEW RIGHI' SIDE Vt~ ~o-~
REAR
ELECTRIC (~) WATER ~) DRAINAGE [] CLEARANCE .
(NOT 70 SCkLE}
S~CT. ~ .^6~ 6
89
~, ...... ~, ~l~'-'~nn inc. page: 32:~-2
Gary Sexton - RE: Review of Bargreen cut sheets
From: "HJastala, Mike" <Mike. Hlastala@opusnw:com>
To: "Bob Taylor" <btaylor@talariscc.com>
Date: 1/29/2004 10:33 AM
Subject: RE: Review of Bargreen cut sheets
OC: <g sexto n@ci.bremer~on.wa, us>
He knows this number. He signed a change order for the added amount.
Thanks
.... Original Message-----
F~m= Bob Taylor [mailto:b~ylor~lariscc.com] / ~ ~ ~.
~nt: Thursday, 3anua~ 29, 20~ 9:54 AN ~ ~ ~m .~
To: Hla~la, Mike / ~ '' ' ~
CC: gse~on¢ci.breme~on.wa.us / ¢ ~ t~,~ ~
Subje~: RE: Revie~ of Bargr~n cutCeB / / J ~'; ' _/ i. ~'
The steamer need~=only ~ga s[eame~ c~mb~you let
this and make the ch~h~~~ us s~~~CHI recommem
a significant quanti~ ~"po~er chic doll~d ~ base ~or the Ce~ This added up
Can you please tell me ~ow much the 3 compa~¢ns~allat~on ~d mater~l cost~ did
previously w~th Gaw Se~on and he did approve the changes. I have c.c.d GaW on the emafl f~
rea~rmation.
Thanks,
Oener~ M~ager, T~s Coherence Center
Seaffie, ~A.
ml~scc.com
' 206-349-3150
90
K~C~ Kilchen Options
Hlastaia, Mike
To: jeffM cM ullen @velectric.com
Subject: RE: KCCC Kitchen Options
than ks
..... Original Message .....
From: ]effMcMullen@velectric.c0m [mailto:]effMcMullen@velectric.corn]
Sent: Thursday, February 12~ 2004 8:39 AM
To: Hlastala, Mike
Subject: KCCC Kitchen Options
Mike - Cost to connect 9kw power to the steamer is $750 (ROM). All the electric steamers that E
has listed are 9KW, so it doesn't matter to us which one is selected....electrically they require th~
power.
Jeffrey McMullen
Sr. Project Manager
T 253.988.1392
F 253.445.0937
jeffmcmullen ~velectric.com
91
2/12/2004
INVOICE FOR PAYMENT AND PERFORMANCE BOND
To: Cityof Bremerton Job number: 2t39.01
245 Fourth Street Invoice No.: Bond
Bremerton, WA 98337 Invoice Date: 24-Apr-03
Attn: Gary Sexton Terms: 30 Days
cc: Opus NW Accounting
Re: Bremerton Conference Center
Bond costs - Opus Northwest L.L.C.
For:
1. Bond costs per Marsh Invoice attached. $95,006.00
TOTAL DUE:I $95,006
Please remit to: Opus Northwest L.L.C.
915 118th Avenue SE Suite 300
Bellevue, WA 98005
Attention: Brian Fyall
DATE SUBMITTED: July 1, 2004 BILL # ~q- / 3
AGENDA BILL
CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: Resolution No. o~ q3~P, Committee Meeting Date: ~7~4HEAR0 AT PRE-COUNC
setting a heating date of August 4, 2004, for COUNCIL MEETING Date: July 7, 2004
vacating a subterranean portion of Second Department: City Attorney's Office
Street Presenter: Brett Vinson
Phone: 473-2345
SUMMARY: The City initiated the vacation of a subterranean portion of Second Street at the comer
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 II 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.
ATTACHMENTS: Resolution
FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): The City will receive up to 50% of the appraised
value of the property pursuant to BMC 11.20.140
APPROVALS: ~ ~
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR:"
CITY ATTORNEY: " ~ .............
FINANCE DIRECTOR: ; t' ~
MAYOR:
FISCAL/BUDGET: CONSENT AGENDA []
OPERATIONS:
COUNCIL PRESIDENT:
RECOMMENDED MOTION: I move to approve Resolution No. .,~ ? ;_~ setting a hearing
date of August 4, 2004, to consider vacating a subterranean portion of Second Street.
COUNCIL ACTION: [] Approve [] Deny [] Table [] Continue [] No Action
95
RESOLUTION NO..~
A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of
Bremerton, Washington, establishing a hearing date for the
proposed partial subterranean vacation of Second Street.
WHEREAS, the City has initiated the partial subterranean vacation of a portion of
Second Street, NOW THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON,
DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. A public hearing wilt be held on August 4, 2004, at 5:30 p.m. or
later at the Bremerton City Hall, 239 Fourth Street, Bremerton, Washington, to take public
comment or consider written objections to the vacation.
SECTION 2. If fifty percent or more of the property owners abutting said right-
of-way file written objections to this action prior to the time set for public hearing herein, the
hearing shall be canceled and there shall be no further proceedings under this resolution.
SECTION 3. Severability. If any one or more sections, subsections, or
sentences of this Resolution are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not
affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Resolution and the same shall remain in full
force and effect.
SECTION4. 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
RSLEGAL~Resolutions\Vacation portion 2nd Street.hrg.doc
1
Second Street Partial Vacation - Public Hearing