The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About07/21/04 AGENDA FiLE 239 4th Street · Bremerton, WA 98337 · Phone (360) 478-5280 · Fax (360) 478-5251 ***AMENDED*** JULY 21, 2004 CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 1. PRE-COUNCIL STUDY SESSION: 5:00 - 5:30 P.M. in Council Conference Room A. 10-minute Executive Session to "REVIEW LABOR NEGOTIATIONS" per RCW 42.30.140(4)(b) B. 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 (#AB04-137) B. Addendum #1 to Interlocal Agreement with the City of Port Orchard for Cooperative Water System Development in the Port Orchard 580 Zone/Bremerton 580 Zone (#AB04-138) ~ ~,~'. Budget Adjustment within the Department of Public Works & Utilities to eliminate an Engineering Technician II position; and adding an Engineering Technician ~I position (#AB04-139) D. Amendment No. I to Agreement between the City of Bremerton and Columbia Hospitality, Inc. (#AB04-140) E. Professional Services Agreement with HUCKELL/WEINMAN ASSOCIATES, INC. for 2003-2004 Comprehensive Plan SEPA/EIS (#AB04-141) F. Approval to hire Kenneth J. Mickelsen as Parks & Recreation Director at Rate 7 of Pay Band 19; and to Confirm his Appointment to the Position (#AB04-142) 4. MAYOR'S REPORT 5. NEW BUSINESS A. Setting the Salary Level for Cathy Johnson as the Finance Officer at Rate 6 of Pay Band ~)o 16 - Postponed from July 7, 2004 Council Meeting (#AB04-126) 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS - ORDINANCES & RESOLUTION A. Ordinance [First Reading] amending Section 9A.48.030 of the Bremerton Municipal Code relating to Criminal Impersonation (#AB04-143) B. Ordinance [First Reading] amending BMC Sections 21.02.230 and 17.04.060(e) relating to Development and Permit Requirements for Fences - Continued from July 7, 2004 Council Meeting (#AB04-132) 7. PUBLIC RECOGNITION - Comments limited to 3-minutes 8. COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS 9. ADJOURNMENT OF CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS MEETING E-mail: citycouncil@ci.bremerton.wa.us · Web: w~vw. ci.bremerton.wa.us CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7/g,/ot SPEAKERS LIST PLEASE NOTE THAT ALL REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION FROM THE CITY OF BREMERTON MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING. THANK YOU. PLEASE PRINT YOUR NAME BELOW IF YOU PLAN TO SPEAK DURING THE COUNCIL MEETING TONIGHT / AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON 3 A CiTY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Approval of Claims and Checks Committee Meeting Date: Register COUNCIL MEEI'ING Date: ~ "-,~ ]-I~ ~t~ Department: Financial Services Presenter: Cathy Johnson Phone: 473-5296 SUMMARY: Consent agenda item. Approval of payroll, checks and electronic fund transfers. ATTACHMENTS: FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount):. APPROVALS: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY: FINANCE DIRECTOR: MAYOR: FISCAL/BUDGET: OPERATIONS: CONSENT AGENDA [] COUNCIL PRESIDENT: RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to Approve: 1) Check#'s ~?;~,]~/ through ~,?a];,~9,~VandEFT's~)_2~_ ~ through ~cfi,~O?(9 /:, r.~'x°/~d~ in the amount of$ .~,7~'~>~,,~.~'~, 2) Regular Payroll for the pay period ending in the amount of $ 3) Retiree Payroll for the pay period ending in the amount of $ COUNCIL ACTION: [] Approve [] Den~, [] Table [] Continue [] No Action DATE SUBMITTED: June 24, 2004 BILL # 0~ ~ I :'~- AGENDA BILL 3 ~ CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Addendum No. 1 to Interlocal Committee Meeting Date: July 14, 2004 Agreement with the City of Port Omhard for COUNCiL MEETING Date: July 21, 2004 Cooperative Water System Development in Department: PW&U, Engineering the Port Orchard 580 Zone/Bremerton 580 Presenter: Michael C. Mecham Zone Phone: 473.5288 SUMMARY: This Addendum Agreement No. 1 amends the Interlocal Agreement with the City of Port Orchard to allow for expanded water service to the West 580 pressure zone. The agreement also delays the construction of the West 580 reservoir. ATTACHMENTS: Addendum No. 1 to Interlocal Agreement FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): None. APPROVALS: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY: FINANCE DIRECTOR: MAYOR: FISCAL/BUDGET: · ,,~'~'w'--'---- CONSENT AGENDA OPERATIONS: .0 COUNCIL PRESIDENT: ~ ~ ~,.~ __ RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to approve Ad~(endum No. 1 to the existing Interlocal Agreement with the City of Port Orchard for Cooperative Water System Development in the Port Orchard 580 Zone/Bremerton 580 Zone, and authorize the Mayor to finalize and execute the necessary contract documents for the agreement. COUNCIL ACTION: [] Approve [] Deny [] Table [] Continue [] No Action ab, Agenda Bills 2004, Addendum I with Pt Orchard, 580 Zone 1 ADDENDUM NO. 1 TO INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT For Cooperative Water System Development In the Port Orchard 580 Zone / Bremerton 580 Zone This Addendum No. 1 amends the Interlocal Agreement (the "Agreement") entered into between the City of Bremerton, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "Bremerton," and the City of Port Orchard, hereinafier referred to as "Port Orchard" executed on December 26, 2001, and WHEREAS, the parties mutually desire to modify the responsibilities of each party with respect to the agreed upon provision of water; NOW THEREFORE All provisions in the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect except as expressly modified by tiffs document. For valuable consideration and by mutual consent of the parties, the modifications to the Agreement are as follows: I. 1. Amend Section 4. entitled "Water Supply" as follows: Delete the section titled "4200 Feigley Property" in its entirety and replace it with the following; Bremerton West 580 Zone Supply Port Omhard agrees to supply water for domestic use and fireflow to the Bremerton West 580 pressure zone via its 16 inch water main in Old Clifton Road, until such time as a separate Bremerton storage reservoir is constructed and operational. Fireflow rates/volumes and service pressures supplied by Port Orchard will be a minimum of 1,700 gpm for three hours at a minimum gradient of 540 feet at the connection. Bremerton agrees to supply water to Port Orchard, via its connection to the 16 inch Port Omhard watermain in Clifton Road (Old Clifton Road connection), to replenish the water supplied by Port Orchard to the Bremerton West 580 pressure zone. The water supplied by Bremerton to Port Orchard will be delivered at a minimum hydraulic gradient of 580. The volume of water supplied by Port Orchard to the Bremerton West 580 pressure zone shall be replenished by Bremerton on a continuous basis, or as otherwise agreed to. Distribution piping, as required by the City of Bremerton, will be extended by others from Port Orchard's water main in Old Clifton Road. Connection locations and details require approval from the City of Port Orchard. Master meters will be installed at the point of connection. Domestic meters will be installed and maintained by the City of Bremerton, or as otherwise agreed to, and be billed directly to the customer. Addendum No. I to Interlocal Agreement 1 2 2. Transmission Main: Delete all references in the agreement to the City of Bremerton "12-inch transmission main" and replace them with "16-inch transmission main". 3. Plan for Cooperative water System Development Amend the section entitled "Monitoring of Supplied Water" on page 8 of 11 as follows: Delete "4200 Feigley meter - For this connection Port Orchard is the supplying utility and Bremerton is the receiving utility." and replace it with the following: "West 580 Zone supply Meters - For these connections Port Orchard is the supplying utility and Brernerton is the receiving utility." The parties whose names appear represent that they are authorized to enter into a contract amendment that is binding on the parties of tiffs contract. 1N WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Addendum 1. to the Agreement on the day fully executed below. CITY OF PORT ORCHARD CITY OF BREMERTON By. By Cap/Bozeman Its Its Mayor DATE: DATE: APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Roger A. Lubovich Bremerton City Attorney ATTEST: ATTEST: Paula Johnston City Clerk Addendum No. 1 to Interlocal Agreement 2 3 DATE SUBMITTED: BILL AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Budget Adjustment - Personnel Committee Meeting Date: du 1 y 14, 20014 COUNCIL MEETING Date: duly 21, 20014 Department: Pub Wks & Utilities Presenter: P.R. Lucas ~'~ Phone: 473-2328 SUMMARY: During the Compensation and Classification Study completed in March of 2001, several employees received promotions within their classifications. One was an Engineering Technician II who was promoted to Engineering Technician III. The individual was placed in a vacant Tech III position rather than having an additional Tech III position added to the Department as had been done with other internal positions. The vacant Tech III position was underfilled at the time and it was the desire of the Department to keep it underfilled until an internal promotion register could be established. Mistakenly thinking that the Tech Ill position was still available, a register was created and the position formally offered to a Tech II. It wasn't until the paperwork reached the Budget Analyst that the error was brought to our attention. For this reason, City Council is requested to approve the elimination of one Engineering Technician II position and approve the addition of one Engineering Technician III position. ATTACHMENTS: Hiring Request Form and Offer Letter FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): None APPROVALS: ~ ..... -) ' ~ , DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR: '~~'/,~ _ CITY ATTORNE Y: ~~-"~--~ ~.~~~ F1NANCEDIRECTOR: ~~-' '](~.-et~ MAYOR: ~.~t..-? ~; ~ CONSENT AGENDA OPERATIONS: ~ }T' 4: 'c~'- ~' COUNCIL PRESIDENT: '-~/~ .t/~ ~,~ RECOMMENDED MOTION: That the City Council approve a budget adjustment in personnel within the Department of Public Works & Utilities eliminating an Engineering Technician II position and adding an Engineering Technician III position. COUNCIL ACTION: [] Approve [] Deny [] Table [] Continue [] No Action HIRING/PROMOTIONAL TESTING REQUEST CATEGORY (Please check one): X Civil Service [] Exempt (Management/Professional) [] Seasonal/Temporary/PART-TIME [] Promotional Fund/Department: 532.2061 1. Position Classification & Pay Data: a. Proposed Position Title: ENGINEERING TECHNICIAN III Requested Salary/Hourly/Range: $20.00-$23.53/HR b. Hours of work per day: 08 and per week: 40 c. Projected hire/promotional date: MAY 1, 2004 d. Projected termination date (if applicable): NA e. Number of positions of this classification being requested: ONE f. This is: An existing classification XX A new classification g. This is an authorized, budgeted position: XYes [] No h. Personnel cost and distribution: (To be completed by Finance) 2. Position Duties: (Please attach job description or detail the essential duties and functions of the position requested). 3. Other Information: (SEE REVERSE) REQUESTED BY DEPT: ,~-~-~--~--~--~--~~~ P. R. LUCAS, ADMIN MANAGER ~ MARCH 30, 2004 Supervisor -/~.,~' //_ Date W. EUGENE SAMPLEY, P.E~./~ ~ _ MARCH 30, 2004 Director /-/ '~ ~ Date APPROVED/DISAPPROVED: Explanation attached if disapproved: HR Director Date Finance Director Date Mayor Date 5 PUBLIC WORKS & UTILITIES ~..~ :: Administration May 25, 2004 Mr. Michael J. Westby Department of Public Works & Utilities 3027 Olympus Drive Bremerton, WA 98310-4799 Re: Engineering Teehnician ITl Position Dear Mr. Westhy: This letter is to confirm the offer extended to you on May 25, 2004 by me, for the Engineering Teehnician IH position in the Engineering Division of Public Works & Utilities. Your employment will start on Tuesday, June 1, 2004 at 7:30 AM. This is a regular 40-hour per week position. Your salary will be approximately $3882.00 per month (Wage Grade 13/Step-E plus 4% $23.20 per hour). Your immediate supervisor will be Thomas Knuckcy, Managing Engineer for Utilities at 3027 Olympus Drive, Bremerton, WA. This position has benefits. You will have a probationary period of six (6) months. During this time, the employment relationship may be terminated by either you or thc City with or without cause. Specific terms and conditions of employment for this position are set forth in the City's Civil Service Rules and the City's Labor Agreement with General Teamsters Local Union NO. 589. Congratulations on your promotion. Sincerely, Michael C. Mecham, P.E. Interim Direetor of Public Works & Utilities C: Thomas Knuckey, Managing Engineer/Utilities Civil Service Officer File DATE SUBMITTED: July 2, 2004 BILL # d;: ~{ "! '~{.5, AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON ~ CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Amendment No. 1 to Committee Meeting Date: July 14, 2004 Agreement between the City of Bremerton COUNCIL MEETiNG Date: July 21, 2004 and Columbia Hospitality, Inc. Department: City Attorney's Office Presenter: rt),Cxae ~ L.--a L- ~ ~ u i 0 ~, Phone: 473~-2345 SUMMARY: The current terms of the Agreement between the City of Bremerton and Columbia Hospitality, Inc. regarding management of the conference center require Columbia Hospitality to purchase all risk property insurance on the conference center and its furniture and fixtures. Columbia Hospitality does not have an insurable interest in the conference center or its furniture and fixtures. The conference center and its fumiture and fixtures will be added to the City of Bremerton's insurance when the City receives ownership of the facility. ATTACHMENTS: Proposed Amendment No. 1 to Management Agreement Between City of Bremerton and Columbia Hospitality, Inc. FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): Insurance premiums are budgeted within the Risk Management Fund APPROVALS: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR: OPERATIONS: COUNCIL PRESIDENT: "'-~ RECOMMENDED MOTION: I move to approve Amendment No. 1 to Management Agreement between the City of Bremerton and Columbia Hospitality, Inc. and authorize the Mayor to finalize and execute the amendment with substantially the same terms and conditions as presented. COUNCIL ACTION: [] Approve [] Deny [] Table [] Continue [] No Action 7 AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT BETVCEEN CITY OF BREMERTON AND COLUMBIA HOSPITALITY, INC. This Amendment No. 1, entered into as o£ the day of July, 2004, to that certain Agreement dated June 1, 2003, between the City of Bremerton and Columbia Hospitality, Inc. for management services at the conference center on the Bremerton waterkont is based upon the following recital o£facts: WHEREAS, Columbia Hospitality, Inc. does not have a legally insurable interest in the conference center or its £urniture and fixtures, the parties desire to amend the Agreement to delete the requirement that Columbia Hospitality, Inc. purchase all risk property insurance on the conference center and its furniture and fixtures owned by the City of Bremerton. NOW THEREFORE, and in consideration o£the mutual agreements contained herein, the parties do hereby agree: Section 7.1.7 of the Agreement is deleted in its entirety. 1N WITNESS THEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this Amendment No. I as of the day and year first written above. COLUMBIA HOSPITALITY, INC. CITY OF BREMERTON By: By: Cary Bozeman Its: Its: Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: Roger A. Lubovich, City Attorney RECEIVED FOR FILING: Paula Johnston, City Clerk R:\LEGAL~Files\Current Active Files\Conference Center - Roger\Columbia Hospitality Amend. 1 doc 8 management and operation of the Facility (collectively, "Contractor's Proprietary Information"). Contractor's Proprietary Information shall include, without limitation, software, budgets, worksheets and sales and market pi:ms or actions. The City may not access, use, copy, distribute, reproduce or allow access to or use of, Contractor's Propr/etary Information except in conjunction with Contractor's services provided hereunder. The City acknowledges and agrees that (i) all right, title and interest in and to Contractor's Proprietary Information, and all copyrights, trademarks or other intellectual property or proprietary rights relating thereto are and shall remain with Contractor, and (ii) that, except as expressly provided in this Section, no tight, title or interest in Contractors' Proprietary Information is granted under this Agreement. 6.19 Business License. Contractor shall obtain a City of Bremerton business license as required by Chapter 5.02 of the Bremerton Municipal Code prior to beginning work under this Agreement. 7.1 Liability/Casualty Insurance. Contractor shall, at all times durii~g the Term and at the City's sole cost and expense, to the extent specifically contemplated and permitted by the applicable Plan and Budget or otherwise authorized under Section 6.6, procure and maintain the following minimura coverages with cornrnercial carriers reasonably acceptable to both the City and Contractor. Contractor shall be the named insured, and the City shall be an additional insured, under the insurance policies obtained ....... pursuant to this Section. Al/ of the insurance policies obtained pursuant to this Section shall be pr/mary and non-contributory to any insurance maintained by the City. 7.1.1 Commercial General Liability insurance on an occurrence basis against claims for personal injury (including bodily injury or death) and property damage occurring on, in or about the Facility, or any elevator therein or otherwise arising under this Agreement in an amount not less than $1 million combined single limit for each occurrence. Tiffs insurance must include bodily injury and property damage liability, independent contractors' liability, contractual liability, products and completed operations liability, liquor liability, and personal and advertising injury liability, and may not include any exclusions for terror/sm; 7.1.2 Commercial automobile liability insurance on an occurrence basis against claims for injury or death to persons or damage occurring in or about the Facility with minimum limits of liability of $1 million combined single limit for each occurrence. Such insurance must include coverage for bodily injury liability, personal injury liability, property damage liability, and the operation ofoxvned, hired and non-owned vehicles. 7.1.3 Employment practices liability insurance (with an extended reporting period not less than one (1) year in the event that the coverage is given in a "claims made" form) in an amount not less than $1 million for each occurrence and without any exclusion for terrorism; 7.1.4 Excess or "umbrella" liability insurance no less broad than the underlying coverages on an occurrence basis providing excess coverage in a total amount no less than $5 million in the annual aggregate; 7.1.5 Worker's compensation insurance as shall be required by and be in conformance with the laws of the State of Washington, including employers liability insurance with limits of not less than $1 million for each accident and disease for all of Contractor's employees working with the Facility and $1 million in the aggregate; 7.1.6 Professional liability insurance (with an extended reporting period not less than one (1) year in the event the coverage is given in a "claims made" form) for errors and omissions that may arise out of the negligent acts of Contractor while providing professional sel~'ices as manager of the Facility. The minimum amount of this insurance must be $1 million for each occurrence and may not include any exclusion for terrorism; and 4D;~D~e~ ow~ned b 7.1.7 All Risk property insurance on the Facility and the FF&E therein > y the City insur/ng 100% of the replacement cost; ' 7.1.8 Such other insurance coverage (including employee dishonesty) reasonably requested by Contractor to insure against other insurance risks not covered under the above subsections that are commonly insured against by Contractor or owners of similar conference facilities. 7.2 Policies and Endorsements. All insurance policies furnished and maintained under this Section shall include a requirement that the insurer provide each party at least tl'firty (30) days written notice of any cancellation or material change in the terms and provision of the applicable policy. As soon as practicable prior to the effective date of the policies furnished and maintained hereunder, each party shall provide the other with certificates of insurance evidencing that the insurance requirements of this Agreement have been satisfied. Contractor and the City acknowledge and agree that the policies and limits described above shall be subject to adjustment by the parties fi.om time to time during the Term to reflect changes in the insuring practices for facilities similar to the Facility and changes in insurance products. 7.3 Waiver of Subrogation. Each party shall request its respective insurance compan/es to waive subrogation against the other party and its Affiliates (as applicable ) and their respective authorized representatives on account of any loss, damage, injury and all liability of every kind and nature arising from any risk generally insured against under any insurance policies carried by the parties or required to be carried by the parties under this Agreement. 8. Equal Opportunity. 8.1 Services. Contractor shall not discriminate against any person or persons because of race, sex, age, creed, color, physical disability, HIV infection, veteran's state, 16 ~0 DATE SUBMITTED: BILL # $~ 4 ~ i q51 AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON ~ E CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Professional Services Committee Meeting Date: July 14 Agreement with _Huckell/Weinman COUNCIL MEETING Date: July 21 Associates, Inc._ for Comprehensive Plan Depadment: Community Development SEPA/EIS. Presenter: Hugo Phone: 5243 SUMMARY: The professional services contract presented is for consultant services to prepare a required SEPA (State Environmental Policy Act) analysis of the 2003-2004 Comprehensive Plan Update. The document prepared will be a full EIS (Environmental Impact Statement). Total contract amount is $65,000 (see fiscal impacts section below for details) ATTACHMENTS: Proposed professional services agreement (with exhibits) FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): The project addressed is funded by a budgeted general fund expenditure of $35,000 and State Grant of $30,000. No additional funding is requested APPROVALS: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY: FINANCE DIRECTOR: MAYOR: FISCAL/BUDGET: '- ~ ,~--~ *"W;'~ / /' ~ ........ ,z ........CONSENT AGENDA [] OPERATIONS: COUNCIL PRESIDENT: RECOMMENDED MOTION: I move to approve the professional services agreement for __Comprehensive Plan SEPA analysis between the City of Bremerton and _Huckell/Weinman Associates, Inc. and authorize the Mayor to finalize and execute the agreement pursuant to substantially the same terms and conditions as presented. COUNCIL ACTION: [] Approve [] Deny [] Table [] Continue [] No Action PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT City of Bremerton and Huckeli/Weinman Associates 2003-04 City of Bremerton Comprehensive Plan Update SEPA/EIS. The City of Bremenon ("City") and HuckellAVeinman Associates ("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 11, 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 fumished under this Agreement will be performed in accordance with generally accepted professional practices in effect at the time such services are 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. The parties agree that the work described in Exh/bit A is to be completed as provided for in the work schedule attached hereto as Exhibit B or as hereafter amended by agreement of the Parties; provided however, that additional time shall be granted by the City for excusable delays or extra work as provided for in section IX (A) 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 $65,000, provided that, by mutual agreement, the Parties may elect to add work described in the "Additive Alternative to Scope of Work, attached hereto as Exhibit D. If the additive alternative is added, the amount in this section may be renegotiated. Consultant's charges and bills shall conform to the budget attached hereto as Exhibit C and incorporated heroin 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 ofWork and/or Budget. 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 hame set forth in Section II herein. The Consultant's labor rates and billing fees shall be as delineated in Exhibit C. 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 C. Bremerton/Huckell/Weinman] 2003-04 Comprehensive Plan Update SEPA/EIS] Page 1 of 7 12 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. 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, and agents 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 injures 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 Bremerton/Huckell/Weinman] 2003-04 Comprehensive Plan Update SEPA/EIS] Page 2 of 7 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. 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 Liabili~ 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 $I,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 (ifrequired), 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. Bremerton/Huckell/Weinman] 2003-04 Comprehensive Plan Update SEPA/EIS] Page 3 of 7 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. 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 Kirkland, Washington. Consultant shall make such data, documents, 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 Bremerton/HuckellAVeinman] 2003-04 Comprehensive Plan Update SEPA/EIS] Page 4 of 7 15 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. 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 Kirkland, 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. Severability: 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 of Bremerton, DCD Huckell/Weinman Associates 286 4t~ Street 270-3ra Avenue, Suite 200 Bremerton, WA, 98337 Kirkland, WA 98033 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. Bremerton/HuckellAVeinman] 2003-04 Comprehensive Plan Update SEPA/EIS] Page 5 of 7 L. Compliance with Laws: Consultant shall comply with all applicable Federal, State, and local laws in performing its obligations under this Agreement. 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 afler 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 (I0) 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 Bremerton/Huckell/Weinman] 2003-04 Comprehensive Plan Update SEPA/EIS] Page 6 of 7 17 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 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: By:. its: its: Date: Date: Approved as to form: Attest: Bremerton City Attorney City Clerk R:~LEGAL\Contracts~FORMS\Professional Services Agreement Form (2003).doc B remerton/Huckell/Weinman] 2003-04 Comprehensive Plan Update SEPA/EIS] Page 7 of 7 EXHIBIT A SCOPE OF WORK (JUNE ] 1, 2004) City of Bremerton and Huckell/~Veinman Associates 2003-04 City of Bremerton Comprehensive Plan Update SEPA/EIS. PHASE 1 - DRAFT EIS Task 1.0 Project Start-up and Kick-off Meeting Objective: Clarify/define project objectives, schedule SEPA options, and EIS altc~rnatives Activities: Meeting between HWA and City staff to clarify project goals, objectives, schedule, options and strategies for SEPA compliance, and to review potential alternatives Products: Written statement of project objectives, clarified SEPA approach, draft alternatives, and project schedule. Task 1.1 Project Description Objective: Write draft descriptions of Comprehensive Plan Proposed Action and alternatives (three assumed) to be analyzed in the EIS. One round of review and comment by the City and one round of revision by the HWA is assumed. Products: Written draft description of proposed action and alternatives. Task 1.2 Scoping Objective: Establish scope of EIS Activities: HWA will attend and assist City Staffat one Scoping meeting. A minimum of two HWA team members will attend. HWA will assist the City in preparing the SEPA Threshold Determination Products: EIS Scope Task 1.3 Draft EIS Preparation Objective: Prepare the Preliminary Draft EIS for City review. Activities: Land Use, Population, Housing and Community Character. HWA will describe and analyze land use, population, housing impacts of the proposed plan and alternatives. Growth in Centers will be a focus. HWA will provide an analysis of aesthetic impacts and mitigation related to plan goals and policies. Housing discussion will consider housing types, amounts, needs and the relationship of housing factors to affordability. The Land Use, Population, and Housing section will be prepared at a level of detail that may enable the City to incorporate relevant analysis for a planned action SEPA document in the future, or to otherwise enable expedited SEPA analysis of future projects. As an option, the Kitsap County Consolidated Housing Authority may contribute to the preparation of the EIS to advance planning and environmental review for the Westpark proposal. If they so elect, the EIS would also provide a focus and more detailed analysis of this proposal. Transportation. HWA will review the transportation section prepared by other consultants. That document will serve as the basis for the Transportation section of the EIS. Environment. HWA will prepare the section of the EIS by using mostly existing, published materials and inventories on wetlands, streams/ftsheries, wildlife and habitat. City Services. HWA will analyze impacts on public services consistent with those required under the 2003-2004 draft Kitsap County-wide Planning Policies. The analysis will rely largely on existing City planning documents and data from other service providers. Economic Development. HWA will address employment projections and other aspects of economic policy derived from the Comprehensive Plan. Products: Preliminary Draft ElS for internal review by City. Camera ready Draft EIS incorporating City comments. (assumes one round of review by City) Task 1.4 Comment Period/Public Meetings Objective: Receive public comments on Draft EIS Activity: HWA will attend City Planning Commission and/or City Council meetings as requested (total of 2-3 meetings) to summarize the major findings in the Draft EIS and to receive public comments. City will tape record and provide a transcript to HWA. Product: Record of public meeting comments PHASE 2- FINAL EIS Task 2.0 Response to Comments/Preliminary Final EIS Objective: Respond to comments on Draft EIS Activity: HWA will review all comments on the Draft ElS, and write a Preliminary Final EIS for City review including responses as appropriate. HWA will respond to and discuss City review of Preliminary Final EIS (one round review/response anticipated) Products: Preliminary Final ElS Task 2.1 Produce Final EIS Objective: Prepare-camera ready Final EIS and one CD version. Activity: HWA will review City comments on the Preliminary Final EIS. Make revisions as necessary, and produce one camera-ready Final EIS and one Compact Disk version in an agreed upon format. The City will print, copy, and distribute. Products: One camera-ready version of the Final ElS One compact disk version of the Final EIS Task 2.2 Public Meeting/Hearing Presentation of Final EIS Objective: Present Final EIS at public meetings and hearings Activity: HWA will attend Planning Commission and/or City Council public meetings and hearings as requested by the City. At the meetings or heatings HWA will summarize the major conclusions of the Final EIS and respond to questions. A total of 2-3 meetings is anticipated. Products: Meeting presentation(s) EXHIBIT B City of Bremerton Comprehensive Plan Update SEIS Schedule 2004 2004 May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Phase 1 Task 1.0 Project Kick-off Meeting Task 1.1 Project Description/ Alternatives Task 1.2 Scoping/ Scoping Meeting (optional) Task 1.3 Draft EIS Preparation/ Publication Task 1.4 Comment Period/ Public Meeting Phase 2 Task 2.1 Response to Comments/ Preliminary Final ElS Task 2.2 Camera-Ready Final ElS · Task 2.3 Public Meetings and as scheduled by Hearings the City EXHIBIT C City of Bremerton Comprehensive Plan SEPA ElS BUDGET (Revised 6/1/04) TASK HWA KPFF PENTEC LMN Project Mgmt & Coordination 6,000 ~ (20 wks @ 3 hrs/wk = 60 hrs)~ Draft ElS: Project Description/Alternatives 2,400 Miscellaneous Sections 1,600 Existing Conditions & Impact Analysis: Air 2,000 Water 3,000 Plants & Animals 3,000 Land & Shoreline Use 7,000 Aesthetics 3,000 Public Services 4,000 Stormwater/Utiiities 9,000 Housing, Pop., & Employment 4,000 Subtotal DEIS 21, 000 9,000 6,000 3,000 Document Edit/Revisions 2,000 FEIS~ 5,000 1,000 1,000 Meetings (76 hours)2 4,600 f, O00 1,000 1,000 Consultant Mark-Up (10%) 2,400 Expenses~ f, 000 Consultant Subtotal 51,000 1t,000 8,000 ' 5,000 1. This amount should be considered a minimum for preparation of a Final ElS. It assumes a small number of comments, and no additional substantive analysis. The number and nature of comments cannot be accurately predicted and may require a greater level of effort. This budget item would be reassessed following receipt of comment letters. 2. Includes one project kick-off meeting, one scoping meeting, presentation of DEIS to City Council and Planning Commission (2-3 meetings), and presentation of FEIS at public meetings or headngs (2-3 meetings). 3. Includes estimated cost for copies, parking, travel. Does not include cost to pdnt ElS; assumes that City will pttnt and distribute ElS. Assumes one internal review draft of DEIS and one of the FEIS. 23 Exhibit D Additive Alternative to Scope of Work City of Bremerton/Huckell/Wienman Associates, Inc. Additive Altemative to Task 1.3, Amend the activities section by adding the following: As an option, the Kitsap Consolidated Housing Authority may contribute to the preparation of the EIS to advance planning and environmental review for the Westpark proposal. If they elect to do so, the EIS would also provide a focus and more detailed analysis of this proposal. (notes: 1. electing to exercise this additive alternative will require amendment of the Professional Services Agreement between the City of Bremerton and Huckell/Weinman Associates dated , contract # .) 2. electing to exercise this additive alternative implies amendment of tasks 1.4, 2.0, 2.1. and 2.2 as necessary to address the additional information and analysis introduced under task 1.3 as amended.) Agreed: CITY OF BREMERTON CONSULTANT By: By:. its: its: Date: Date: Approved as to form: Attest: Bremerton City Attorney City Clerk 24 DATE SUBMITTED: 7-9-04 AGENDA BILL lil~ '~0 5/'-/ CITY OF BREMERTON · CITY COUNCIL ~ ~ SUBJECT: Approval to hire Director of Committee Meeting Date: ~ (~.~;,x(' t I - 7-/'/'~ Parks & Recreation above Step 1 of the COUNCIL MEETING Date: ? -,~/- 0 ~ assigned pay band and to confirm his Department: Executive appointment to the position. Presenter: Mayor Bozeman Phone: 473-5266 SUMMARY: The BMC Chapter 2.50, Section 2.50.032 (a) requires Council confirmation for the appointment of a Department Director and approval for an initial salary rate which exceeds Rate 1. Council confirmation and approval is requested to hire Kenneth I. Mickelsen as Director of Parks & Recreation at Pay Rate 7 of Band 19. Mr. Mickelsen's career spans over 30 years in the public sector, 24 years of which were with the City of Ashland, Oregon as Parks & Recreation Director from 1979 through 2003. Most recently he has been serving as Director of Parks & Recreation for the City of Maple Valley, WA. Mr. Mickelsen received excellent recommendations from his former employers and other individuals contacted during our background check. ATTACHMENTS: Mickelsen resume and Memo to Council outlining the negotiated terms of his employment with the City of Bremerton FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): Position is fully funded per approval of 2004 budget. APPROVALS: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY: "~'._-J/,~~tT:~ ~---- -'-~/-- :2-- :_._ FINANCE DIRECTOR: '~"~,,¥ lc,.. ;~' :~ ~' MAYOR: ~~~'' -- FISCA~BUDGET: "~~~'- [ CONSENT AGENDA ~ OPERATIONS: ,' ~'75 ~:~[,( ~ ..... ~_ ~ COUNC~ PRES~ENT: ~~, ~~ RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to confirm and approve the hiring of Kenneth J. Mickejsen as DirectorofParks & Recreation atRa~eVoP ff~d I~ ~tg a[~ft~.v~ ~ k~et o~ COUNCIL ACTION: [] Approve [] Deny [] Table [] Continue [] No Action 25 Classification Specification TITLE: DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND RECREATION June 2002 GENERAL FUNCTION This is a professional Parks & Recreation executive management classification. Under general direction of the Mayor, the Director of Parks & Recreation performs a variety of management, administrative and professional work in providing and managing parks and various recreational programs and facilities. DISTINGUISHING CHARACTERISTICS Work consists of planning, organizing, directing, supervising and managing community parks and recreation services by applying current professional methods and practices in conformance with applicable statues, regulations and policies. Participates as a member of the Mayor's leadership team in setting and supporting Administrative policy and direction, and communicating administrative policy and direction internally and externally. ESSENTIAL JOB DUTIES Professional Services: Provides information, data and advice supportive to the development of policy and legislation related to the preservation of open space, urban landscaping, parks and recreation facility acquisition, and construction. Manages the maintenance and safe operation of parks, recreation facilities and programs. Directs and implements recreation and community organized sports, recreation and leisure programs of interest to various age groups and assures access to appropriate public facilities and equipment for sports and leisure activities. Department Operations: Directs and implements changes to department services and funding levels, operating policies, standards, procedures and rules. Monitors budget and service contract and compliance control systems. Establishes work methods, selects operating systems, equipment and procedures. Prepares reports on department activity and operations. Program Budgeting: Describes and quantifies program activity, trends and resources; establishes objectives; justifies and presents funding requirements for department programs' short and long range resource allocation levels for personnel, services and supplies, capital equipment and facilities acquisition, maintenance and repair for the department as a whole and for special departmental projects. Department Organization: Establishes the internal organizational structure of the department: assigns duties to positions, arranges for classification of positions, and obtains budget authority for funding positions. Serves as appointing authority for all employees of the department. Supervises and/or directs the supervision, selection, training, evaluation, discipline and discharge of department personnel. General City Management: Responds to inquiries from officials, staff, outside agencies and the public. Participates in policy development considerations such as setting general budget priorities, contract negotiation strategies, capital improvement programs, etc. Participates in the activities of civic, community, and parks and recreation organizations. Performs other assigned work which is consistent with the responsibilities assigned to the classification and necessary to the operations of the department and/or the City. REQUIRED QUALIFICATIONS Knowledge and Abilities olo Principles, practices, methods and technical support functions of park and recreation services; o.*o Current professional standards applicable to open space, parks and recreation services; olo Fundamental intent and basic provisions of municipal, state and federal £mancing mechanisms for open space, parks and recreation services; °:o Techniques used for gathering, evaluating and summarizing parks and recreation department service information in preparing budgets; o:o Management, personnel and ethical practices as they apply to parks and recreation department operations. o~o Apply professional parks and recreation principles to specific service program operations; °.*° Interpret and apply the intent and specific provisions of laws and regulatory provisions to particular conditions and determine a course of action; °:° Evaluate, plan and establish a proper sequence of action for multiple functional units and personnel to accomplish goals; o:° Provide verbal and written directives, information and advice to a wide variety of people and officials; °:° Persuasively and ethically communicate ideas and assert a point of view in complex or controversial situations; °:o Exhibit and instill in subordinates a high public service priority in contacts with the public and others encountered in the work; °~° Develop and implement open space, parks, facilities and recreation operating methods which provide a high degree of environmental and human safety. REQUIRED LICENSES AND CERTIFICATIONS A VALID Washington State driver's license is required and must be obtained prior to date of appointment or another date set by the City. 27 MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS Graduation fi.om an accredited college or university with a bachelor's degree preferably in parks and recreation or a closely related field and seven (7) years of full-time paid experience in parks and recreation work; at least two (2) of which involved preparing service program funding justifications, and at least three (3) of which involved supervisory responsibility at the senior management level; or any combination of training, education and experience which provides the required knowledge skills and abilities. Excellent skills in written and verbal communications, interpersonal relationships, problem solving, as well as a customer service orientation and sound computer skills are essential. LEGAL AND REGULATORY CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT Fair Labor Standards Aet: This position qualifies for exemption from the Fair Labor Standards Act minimum wage and overtime provisions under the Act's Administrative and Professional Employees exemptions. Representation: Ihis position is excluded fi.om the non-uniformed bargaining unit pursuant to Washington Public Employment Relations commission Decision No. 1346 - PECB dated the 19t~ day of January, 1982 under the second sentence reading, in relevant pan: "Excluding .... Department Heads, and their Assistants, Supervisors....". Civil Service: The classification, as a Department head, is excluded from the Civil Service pursuant to City Charter Section 33. Appointment and Removal Authority: The position is filled by appointment by the Mayor with cunfirmation by the City Council. Removal is at the will of the Mayor in conformance with procedures established by the City. 28 ! 239 4th S~ree Brm'~mton, WA 98337 umon Ftesources July 9, 2004 Kenneth J. Mickelsen 22723 SE 263rd Court Maple Valley, WA 98038 RE: Letter of Engagernent Dear Ken: It is with great pleasure to confirm your appointment to the position of Director of Parks & Recreation pending formal approval by the City Council. Your position is exempt and included in the Management classifications under BMC 2.50 as follows: Position: Director Department: Parks & Recreation Effective Date: August 2, 2004 Rate of Pay: $ 3729.92 semi-monthly (Step 7, Band 19) ($89,518 annually) Appointment/Removal: Mayor Supervisor: Mayor Benefits: Pursuant to BMC Chapter 2.50 (attached) Vacation: 25 days for 2004 (pro-rated) Moving expenses: Not to exceed a maximum of $1,500.00 with receipt(s) required for reimbursement. You are an "at will" employee and may be terminated by the City without cause at any time with thirty (30) days notice. You may be terminated for cause, without notice, and no severance pay shall be paid. MICKELSE N - Letter of Engagement July 8, 2004 Page 1 of 2 29 This letter shall constitute your terms and conditions of employment with the City and there are no other written or oral agreements that have not been set forth in this letter of engagement or covered by Chapter 2.50 of the Bremerton Municipal Code (copy atta_ched). Please sign below indicating your acceptance of our offer of employment as outlined above for the City of Bremerton. Sincerely, Cary E. Bozeman Mayor cc: Carol Conley, HR Director ACCEPTANCE OF JOB OFFER: I, KENNETH J. MICKELSEN, hereby accept employment with the City of Bremerton as Director of Parks & Recreation, effective August 2, 2004 under the terms and conditions as set forth in this Letter of Engagement. SIGNATURE: DATE: Kenneth J. Mickelsen MICKELSE N - Lener of Engagement July 8, 2004 Page 2 of 2 Kenneth "KEN" Mickelsen The Process: The City received 24 applications for the Parks & Recreation Director. Out of those, 5 applicants were selected to be interviewed by the selection panel consisting of: · Daren Nygren, Council President · Betty Paterson, Central Lions Club President · Tom Cressman, Interim Parks & Recreation Director · Scott Alexander, Golf Pro and Supervisor of Gold Mountain Golf Course The Mayor and I also participated in the interview process. The panel was unanimous in recommending to the Mayor that the position be offered to Ken Mickelsen. The Mayor then met with him separately on July ~$t on O one-to-one b~sis during which he offered the position to Mr. Mickelsen. Backqround Information: Ken brings to Bremerton over 30 years of extensive experience in the public sector as o Parks & Recreation Director. He understands the challenges of operating programs/facilities to be self-sustaining, and is strong believer in developing public/private partnerships and in having the citizens themselves invest their time and energy into the projects to develop the types of programs they believe are important. Education: BA - Social Work @ University of MINNESOTA Work History: Z003-Present - City of Maple Volley, WA as Parks Director; 7c~/z003 City of Ashland, OR Parks & Recreation Director; While serving as Ashland's Porks & Recreation Director, his overall departmental operation included 637 aces of Parks and open space lands, and 10 miles of recreational and nature trails. Facilities within the system included lc~ playground sites, 12 tennis courts, 2 baseball/softball complexes, ! soccer complex, 2 skateboard areas, a swimming pool, golf course, o seasonal ice rink, o dog pork, an environmental resource center, senior center and community center. 74-7f~ City of Watertown, S.DAK os Director Parks, Recreation & Forestry; 71-74 City of Brookings, S DAK as Recreation Director 31 CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL 5 SUBJECT: Setting the Salary Level for the Committee Meeting Date: June 30, 2004 Finance Officer position COUNCIL MEETING Date: July 21, 2004 Department: Financial Services Presenter: Michael R. Wilson Phone: 473-5590 SUMMARY: Cathy Johnson has been appointed to the position of Finance Officer within the Department of Financial Services effecive July 1, 2004. Cathy's current salary as Deputy City Treasurer is Band 14, Rate 8 ($5,973/month). Since Cathy has more than 25 years of financial and accounting experience with the City of Bremerton and will assume the added responsibiities of this new Finance Officer position, it is recommended that her salary be adjusted to Band 16, Rate 6 ($6,276/month) ATTACHMENTS: Letter of Appointment FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): The fiscal impact will be an additional $1,818 in personnel cost in the Finance division budget. At this time, no additional budget appropriation is anticipated. APPROVALS: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR: CITY A't-I'ORNEY: FINANCE DIRECTOR: MAYOR: FISCAL/BUDGET: /f~'~"~7"~. '~ ~//,e ~_s - CONSENT AGENDA [] OPERATIONS: COUNCIL PRESIDENT: RECOMMENDED MOTION. I move to approve semng the salary of Cathy Johnson as the Finance Officer for the City of BremeCton at Band 16, Rate 6, effective July 1, 2004. COUNCIL ACTION: [] Approve [] Deny [] Table [] Continue [] No Action Department of Financial Services 239 Fourth Street, Bremerton, WA 98337 Telephone: 360-478-5290 Fax: 360-478-5200 mwilson@ci, bremerton, 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 Department 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 Council (minimum 5%) to be effective on the date of your promotion. Finance Operations will 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. Sincerely, Michael R. Wilson cc: Carol S. Conley, Human Resources Director Personnel File 33 DATE SUBMITTED: July 6, 2004 BILL # ~.; q, - l ~ .~ AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON 6 A CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Public Hearing on Ordinance Committee Meeting Date: July 14, 2004 Amending BMC 9A.48.030 relating to COUNCIL MEETING Date: July 21 and 28, 2004 Criminal Impersonation Department: City Attorney's Office Presenter: Brett C. Vinson Phone: 473-2345 SUMMARY: Due to changes in the Revised Code of Washington, the current provisions of BMC 9A.48.030 do not correctly reference the appropriate RCW citation regarding criminal impersonation. The proposed ordinance corrects the citation relating to criminal impersonation in the second degree. ATTACHMENTS: Proposed Ordinance FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): None APPROVALS: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY: MAYOR: FISCAL/BUDGET: OPERATIONS: i i j ~ J i' ' ~ l COUNCIL PRESIDENT: RECOMMENDED MOTION: I. I move to approve the proposed ordinance on first reading. 2. I move to pass Ordinance No. on second reading. COUNCIL ACTION: [] Approve [] Deny [] Table [] Continue [] No Action ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Brcmerton, Washington, amending Bremerton Municipal Code 9A.48.030 by deleting the reference to RCW 9A.60.040 and adding RCW 9A.60.045. WHEREAS, by Laws of 2003, Chapter 53, Section 78 deleted criminal impersonation in the second degree from RCW 9A.60.040; and WHEREAS, by Laws of 2003, Chapter 53, Section 79 criminal impersonation in the second degree was renumbemd to RCW 9A.60.045; and WHEREAS, Bremerton Municipal Code 9A.48.030 references 9A.60.040 which is now criminal impersonation in the first degree, a class C felony by Laws of 2003, Chapter 53, Section 78; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to update the provisions of BMC 9A.48.030 in order to correct the citation reference for criminal impersonation in the second degree to RCW 9A.60.045 in accordance with the Laws of 2003, Chapter 53, Section 79; NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTIONL Section 9A.48.030 of the Bremerton Municipal Code entitled "CRIMINAL IMPERSONATION" is hereby amended to read as follows: RCW 9A:6OAM.0 9A.60.045 is adopted by reference as currently enacted and as hereinafter amended from time to time, and shall be given the same force and effect as if set forth herein in full. SECTION2. Severabilitv. If any one or more sections, subsections, or sentences of this ordinance are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this ordinance and the same shall remain in full fome and effect. SECTION 3. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force ten (10) days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided by law. APPROVED by the City Council the day of ,2004 PASSED by the City Council the day of ,2004 DAREN NYGREN, Council President 1 Criminal Impersonation BMC 9A.4&030 Approved this day of ,2004 CARY BOZEMAN, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: PAULA JOHNSTON, City Clerk ROGER A. LUBOVICH, City Attorney PUBLISHED the day of ,2004 EFFECTIVE the day of ,2004 ORDINANCE NO. R:\LEGAL\Ordinances~Police\criminal impersonation.doc 2 Criminal Impersonation BMC 9A. 4& 030 36 Page 2 of 3 WA LEGIS 11 (2004) Page 1 2004 Wash. Legis. Serv, Ch, 11 (S.B. 6177) (WEST) WASHINGTON 2004 LEGISLATIVE SERVICE 58th Legislature, 2004 Regular Session Copr. © West Group 2004, All rights reserved. Additions are indicated by Text; deletions by ~'~.{-. Changes in tables are made but not highlighted, Vetoed provisions within tabular material are not displayed, CHAPTER 11 S.B. No. 6177 CRIMES AND OFFENSES--IMPERSONATION--PENALTIES AN ACT Relating to criminal impersonation; amending RCW 9A.60.040 and 9A.60,045; prescribing penalties; and providing an effective date, BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON: Sec. 1. RCW 9A.60.040 and 2003 c 53 s 78 are each amended to read as follows: << WA ST 9A.60.040 >> (1) A person is guilty of criminal impersonation in the first degree if the person: (a) Assumes a false identity and does an act in his or her assumed character with intent to defraud another or for any other unlawful purpose; or (b) Pretends to be a representative of some person or organization or a public servant and does an act in his or her pretended capacity wi~h intent to defraud another or for any other unlawful purpose. (2) Criminal impersonation in the first degree is a ~:c,3; .~-,',;&;n-,~c,n:~r class C felony. Sec. 2. RCW 9A,60.045 and 2003 c 53 s 79 are each amended to read as follows: << WA ST 9A.60.045 >> (1) A person is guilty of criminal impersonation in the second degree if the person: Copr. © West 2004 No Claim to Orig. U.S, Govt. Works 9 37 httv://vrint.westlaw.conffdeliverv.html, dest=atl>&dataid=B0055800000009220003940977BB8512... 7/15/2004 Page 3 of 3 WA LEGIS 11 (2004) Page 2 2004 Wash. Legis. Serv. Ch. 11 (S.B. 6177) (WEST) (a) Claims to be a law enforcement officer or creates an impression that he or she is a law enforcement officer; and (b) Under circumstances not amounting to criminal impersonation in the first degree, does an act with intent to convey the impression that he or she is acting in an official capacity and a reasonable person would believe the person is a law enforcement officer. (2) Criminal impersonation in the second degree is a gross misdemeanor. << Note: WA ST 9A.60.040 >> NEW SECTION. Sec. 3. This act takes effect July 1, 2004. Approved March l 1, 2004. Effective July 1, 2004. WA LEGIS 11 (2004) END OF DOCUMENT Copt. © West 2004 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works httl~://vrint.westlaw.com/deliver¥.html ?dest=atp&dat a?c~=B0055800000009220003940977BB 8512... 7/15/2004 DATE SUBMITTED: 6/21/04 BILL # AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON ~ ~ CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Public hearing and ordinance Committee Meeting Date: 6/30/03 regarding zoning text amendments to BMC COUNCIL MEETING Date: ~7,'7/03~ 7/,~! d~ 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 15th, 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 small permit fee. APPROVALS: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY: FiNANCE DIRECTOR: MAYOR: ' ~ ~ ,/ / '~'-'~'°~'~ 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 39 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Bremerton, Washington, amending Section 21.02.230 and Section 17.04.040 of the Bremen'ton Municipal Code relating to fence height regulations; and amending Rate Table C of Chapter 3.01 of the Bremerton Municipal Code to provide for permit fees for fences. 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 17.04.040 of the Bremerton Municipal Code relating to building permits under the International Building Code to require building permits for certain fences; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to establish fees for fence building permits; NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHiNGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. 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) feet; except an open mesh cyclone type fence may not exceed a height of 4~48 inches. iii. On comer lots with a specified front yard setback on each street fi'ontage, the Director can determine that the street frontage of the residence's principal orientation is a "primary frontage" and ma,/pen'nit a six (6) foot maximum height fence in the yard on the other (secondary) frontage only if all of the following conditions are met: a. The higher fence will not block any existing front yard views from an adjoining residence with its principal orientation to that same street; b. The higher fence will not be closer to the residence's front property line on the street of principal orientation than the closest part of the front facade of the residence~ c. The higher fence will not encroach into the front yard of the primary frontage where the maximum height limit in (a)(1)(ii) takes precedence. (2) Commercial Zones. i. Maximum height shall be eight (8) feet. 1 Fence Height Regulations 40 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 fight- of-way, or to a residential zone. (b) A Type II Special Use Permit may be requested granted for lodgh~- fences or walls up to eight (8) feet high alcng ~m?z~j' lines in a side or rear yard ~at are resin:ed mn~ i:'2ende~ fez er&mnced secmS~y, ~'cater reside, rial privacy or o~cr re~cr.: ~hat ;;'il! bc cf beheSt to al! ~2fected ~ only if all of the following criteria are met: (1) The fence or wall is necessary to provide privacy and secnhty between a residential and a non-residential use; and (2) The design of the fence will present a "finished" appearance on its outside face. (c) Fences and walls shall not block or hinder the sight distance of traffic. Exact location 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 Bremerton. (e) Barbed wire or similar wire protective devices are permitted only in industrial zones above a height of six (6) feet provided that adjoining a residential zone, devices may be allowed by ~a Type ff Special Use Permit - ...:,~.: .... ~:~;~; ......... ;.~,:.~ ....· only if .......... o ..... a ~-J ................ the following criteria are met:: (1) The applicant demonstrates that the protective device cannot be installed outside oft_he specified setback withont significantly diminishing the utility of the industrial property; (2) The protective device will be designed to minimize adverse aesthetic impact to the residential use by installing the device behind the top of a fence or wall or screening the device with landscape; and (3) The apphcant demonstrates that the protective device is necessary to provide additional security alona the residential property line to protect the industrial premises. (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 fi.ont yard up to ninety (90) inches high, provided that (1) No individual structural support for such feattwes shall be more than twelve (12) inches square in section, (2) Any gate shall not obscure more than 20% of visibility to the yard as viewed perpendicular to the gate's installation, and (3) Any entry feature greater than three (3) feet in height shall not be more than 6 (six) feet wide for a walkway entry or more than sixteen (16) feet wide for a driveway entry. SECTION2. 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: 2 Fence Height Regulations 42 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 ~°29m~} high. (c~l_) Board of Appeals. Section 112 of the International Building Code, entitled "Board of Appeals," is amended by substituting Section 112 with the following: See. 112 Board of appeals. The City of Bremerton heatings 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. SECTION3. Rate Table C, Exhibit 1 of Chapter 3.01 of the Bremerton Municipal Code entitled "Table 1-A - Building Permit Fees" is hereby amended to read as set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein. SECTION 4. Severabilitv. If any one or more sections, subsections, or sentences of this Ordinance are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance and the same shall remain in full force and effect. 3 Fence Height Regulations 42 SECTION 5. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force ten (10) days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided by law. APPROVED by the City Council the day of ,2004 PASSED by the City Council the day of ,2004 DAREN NYGREN Council President Approved this day of ,2004 CARY BOZEMAN, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: 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)2.doc 4 Fence Height Regulations 43 E'~IIBIT A COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ZONING CODE TEXT AMENDMENT STAFF REPORT IPROPOSAL: 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): Cityof 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 cooperation in meeting the code provisions 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 Itl 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 'M/ork Exempt from Permit" ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION (SEPA): A Determination of Non-Significance was issued on the original development regulation as a non-proiect 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 Council may approve an amendment if the following questions can be answered, '~'es:" (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. ~/¢~.//'~~ ~l' Dated 8, 2003 Staff report prepared by: Chris R[~go, D'irecto/ - June 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 1 a and 1 b, due to the fact that lead staff was 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 thc 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 turned the meeting over to staff, Mr. Hugo. Planmng Commission Meeting June 17, 2003 Page 1 of 25 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, staff sent 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, cannot 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 offences. Higher fences are appropriate in back yards where there is a desire for privacy. 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. 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 heating 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 offthe 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 staffreviews. 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 heating examiner should make the determination because of the variety of materials and styles Planning Commission Meeting June ! 7, 2003 Page 2 of 25 49 offences. Mr. Hugo thinks it would be very difficult to predefine this. However, the heating 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 term. 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 offon 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 offthe site when it's not occupied. The only thing that is really critical in this section is under (2)(e), which reads: Plarming Commission Meeting June 17, 2003 Page 3 of 25 §0 "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 ora specific project on Pacific Avenue. Mr. Hugo 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 fi.om 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 staiXed 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 rules. 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 Plarming Commission Meeting June 17, 2003 Page 4 of 25 51 would be nice to have that front height be the same for whatever kind of fence 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 Buckingham 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 staff may 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 rules 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 52 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 of fence 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 &ailed 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 11t~ 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 from 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 down 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. Commissioner Nelson asked how we arrived at a $50.00 for the fee. He thought it was a little high. Mr. Hugo 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 53 Commissioner Buckingham asked about the transition. If someone were in the process of constructing a fence (that is conforming to the current code) when this ordinance is adopted, how would they bc affected? Mr. Hugo stated that if they arc conforming, wc would not expect them to come in now and get a permit. This would bc from the date of adoption. From that date forward, anyone who embarks on any activity would have to comply. Anyone in thc process fight now of building a non- compliant fence, just like anyone else - wc go out right now and stop-work them and get them to undo what they have done. Commissioner Kennedy opened thc floor for public testimony. Mr. Loui Mitchell of 2333 l0th Street, Brcmerton. He said that hc was at juvenile court today addressing this very issue. He said that hc is a victim of malicious mischief and has been for several years. Finally, witnessed and apprehended the juvenile. Thc first instance, hc got a quote from Viking Fence of $4,100.00. Hc said that he also has a bulkhead property that was referred to. Hc said that they (Viking Fence) did know thc talcs and regulations and quoted them to him. Mr. Mitchell said that thc reason hc 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 of traffic that comes from Callow Avenue and cuts off to points unknown. He's had three trees broken offat thc base after replacing them a second time. Hc has had flowers and plants pulled out of his front yard property. Hc knows that a 3-4 foot fence is too little to preclude someone interested in doing damage. They did apprehend a person who had a record. It continues and hc said hc didn't know if he would get any compensation for the fence. Fences are expensive. Chain link fences 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 of dogs. When a dog barks, all the lights come on and everyone looks out of 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 comfort and security. He would probably not put in the chain link and briefly described his home. He believes that many people would go for 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 the 42" chain link height is in the code. He has interpreted that to mean that it is okay to have a little bit higher fence 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 54 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. PL03~002~7 - Consideration of an ordinance adding a new section 21.~350 to the Bremerton Municipal Code entitled "Wireless Teleco~acilities." The proposed section would add siting standards ~d4~nm~'mg process requirements for the placement of wireless tel~_e.s in~u_ding antenna arrays on existing stru~ t°w.e~si' .within t~e. City °f Bie,mc~°n. ~~n mined the floor over to Mr. ogerson. Planning Commission Meeting June 17, 2003 Page 8 of 25 55 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 Jnne 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 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 tamed the meeting over to staff, Mr. Hugo. Mr. Itugo 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 from 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 staffreport 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 ~?~¢~~ seems to be more appropriate. 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 of fence material] for adoption to the City Council. Called for a vote: Cockbum: yes; Nelson: yes; Wood: yes and Kennedy; yes. Motion carries. b. Pursuant to State of Washington Growth Management~t, a'~s d, as detailed in the Revised Code of Washington (RCW), Section 36.70A.03~a~e public hearings before the Planning Commission and later, before ~ Council, pro~i_de tm ~xplicit , opportunity for public revie~d'mg potential revisions to the city s comprehensive plan. ~ Commissi~cess of the public .... hearing. She expl~, then there will bean opportunity for p~en.tejti.mony, can be accepted · She then noted for the record, that Commissioner Buckinoham hacl arriv~rl ~~ ssioner Buckingham Planning Commission Meeting July 15, 2003 Page 2 of 7 57 From: Eric Younger To: Darren Nygren, City Council President Note: Responses from DCD in italics As promised, here are my questions from Wednesday's council meeting. As agreed upon, a written response from the appropriate City officials is requested. 1. This item was brought to Council Committees on 6/30103 for presentation at the Council meeting the following week. What is the reason for the one- year delay? Following Council Committees and direction 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 impact? 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 Council prepared to increase the budget to pay for this program? This is a matter of internal time management. DCD will spend less time chasing violations and those savings will offset the residual cost (after fees) of project review and inspection. 3. Does the DCD have any idea how many fence permits would be issued on a yearly basis? There is obviously no statistical history, but 2-3 per month is a ballpark figure. 4. The staff report 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 portions of recent investments; avoid neighbor confrontations over illegal installations; reduce DCD expense of non-compliance actions; inform neighbors and city 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 i_s 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. From: Eric Younger To: Darren Nygren, City Council President As promised, here are my questions from Wednesday's council meeting. As agreed upon, a written response from the appropriate City officials is requested. 1. This item was brought to Council Committees on 6/30/03 for presentation at the Council meeting the following week. What is the reason for the one- year delay? 2. If implemented, what will be the fiscal impact? 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 Council prepared to increase the budget to pay for this program? 3. Does the DCD have any idea how many fence permits would be issued on a yearly basis? 4. The staff report mentions that there are good arguments not to require a fence permit. Please provide the pros and cons. 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? 6. Why isn't the current fence ordinance being enforced? 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? 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? 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? 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 cdteria to apply which I thought was the purpose of implementing the hearing examiner in the first place? 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 bearo the responsibility for securing any applicable permits? 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? 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? 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? 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? City Co~ncii :RE: concerning your vote on fence heights~ From: "Janette Grieb" <jgrieb@rginv.com> To: "City Council" <CityCouncil@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Date: Thu, Jul 22, 2004 9:03 AM Subject: RE: Concerning your vote on fence heights. Thank you. I paid over $5,000 to put up a 6 foot fence over 6 years ago around my yard that I'm still paying off. I had no idea that I couldn't and the fence company didn't tell me I couldn't or that I needed a permit. As I said I don't really have a back yard, just about 6 feet between the back of the house and the alley. It's a very attractive fence and has kept my cats safe from roaming neighborhood dogs that got out of their yards with their 3 and 4 foot fences, including two pit bulls that dented my fence trying to get into my yard one day. I really resent someone ,because they don't like people having 6 foot fences, making rules saying I can't have one or telling me I have to tear down my fence. ..... Original Message ..... From: City Council [mailto:CityCouncil@ci.bremedon.wa.us] Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2004 8:53 AM To: Janette Grieb Subject: RE: Concerning your vote on fence heights. Dear Janette, I have provided your letter to Council Members and Chris Hugo of the Community Development Department. I did want to let you know that ordinances have 2 readings, so the item will be heard again at the next Council Meeting on July 28th. Also, the ordinance that has been reviewed by the Council has undergone numerous changes since it was first discussed a few weeks ago to include public testimony and suggestions. Please feel free to review the fence ordinance on the City's website http://www.ci.bremerton.wa.us after Noon on Friday which is when the meeting packet is posted. If you have any concerns or suggestions, feel free to send those comments to me. Sincerely, Christine Grenier Ellingson Council Assistant >>> "Janette Grieb" <jgrieb@rginv.com> 07/22/04 08:36AM >>> Since I see they passed it without even considering "the people" who don't live in councils little world of "this is the way we want things to be and to hell with the rest of the people", I have to say that this city council is a sham. I certainly hope that the people who the council ignores remembers this come voting time. I know I will and I will work hard to make sure they are out. Maybe the City of Bremerton can get some people elected that will actually listen to and make ordinances that MOST of the PEOPLE want and not what some council members want for their perfect little world. ..... Original Message ..... From: City Councii [mailto:CityCouncil@ci.bremerton.wa.us] Sent: Wednesday, July 21,2004 9:36 AM To: Janette Grieb Subject: Re: Concerning your vote on fence heights. City ight Council - RE: Concerning your vote on fence he s. Page 2 Dear Janette, I have provided your letter to Council Members, the Department of Community Development, and will include your letter as part of the record for the Fence Height Ordinance. Sincerely, Christine Grenier Ellingson Council Assistant >>> "Janette Grieb" <jgrieb@rginv.com> 07/21/04 08:38AM >>> Since I work in Bellevue, I cannot make it to any of your meetings as don't get home until around 7 pm. I strongly disagree with your fence height restrictions for the city of Bremerton. Because of the crazy way these houses were build on very small city lots many houses do not have a backyard to speak of. I don't and several of my neighbors don't. I have most of my yard in the front and some on one side. When you are talking about fences to keep pets in your yard and have no or very little backyard you are severely restricting the property owners use of their yard. Probably about half of the properties in Bremerton, because of the way they were build in the 20's, 30's 40's etc., wouldn't meet current codes re: house placement, garages, yards, fences etc. If you start applying new rules to these properties it makes most of them useless. No 6 foot fence to keep the dog in the yard because all the yard is in front. No replacing the old falling down garage in the exact same spot because it now doesn't meet codes, no replacing the house that burned down because putting the replacement in the same spot puts it too close to the property line etc. Unless you are willing to make exceptions for the crazy way these properties were originally laid out you are hurting a lot of people. Also, remember that so many of the houses in town are owned by lower middle class and blue collar middle class people who may not be able to afford to tear down and redo their properties to suit you. Thank you. Janette Grieb City CoUncil: concerning your VOte On fence heigl~ts. P~ge ! From: "Janette Grieb" <jgrieb@rginv.com> To: <citycouncil@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Date: Wed, Jul 21,2004 8:40 AM Subject: Concerning your vote on fence heights. Since I work in Bellevue, I cannot make it to any of your meetings as I don't get home until around 7 pm. I strongly disagree with your fence height restrictions for the city of Bremerton. Because of the crazy way these houses were build on very small city lots many houses do not have a backyard to speak of. I don't and several of my neighbors don't. I have most of my yard in the front and some on one side. When you are talking about fences to keep pets in your yard and have no or very little backyard you are severely restricting the property owners use of their yard. Probably about half of the properties in Bremerton, because of the way they were build in the 20's, 30's 40% etc., wouldn't meet current codes re: house placement, garages, yards, fences etc. If you start applying new rules to these properties it makes most of them useless. No 6 foot fence to keep the dog in the yard because all the yard is in front. No replacing the old failing down garage in the exact same spot because it now doesn't meet codes, no replacing the house that burned down because putting the replacement in the same spot puts it too close to the property Pine etc. Unless you are willing to make exceptions for the crazy way these properties were originally laid out you are hurting a lot of people. Also, remember that so many of the houses in town are owned by lower middle class and blue collar middle class people who may not be able to afford to tear down and redo their properties to suit you. Thank you. Janette Grieb City Council - fences Page From: "Jona Reynolds" <JReynold@starbucks.com> To: <citycouncil@ci.bremerton.wa,us> Date: Wed, Jul 21,2004 10:35 AM Subject: fences Contractors will not tell you that there is a fence height limitation in the city. They play dumb and when pointed out they say it is foolish. I went through this when Getting an price to get a fence built. A neighbor told me about the city fence regulation and I looked it up on line and found what it said. Tell these contractors That it is not fare for them to take advantage of people Jona Reynolds 206.318.6497 direct 206.318.2480 fax jonareynolds@comcast.net <mailto:jreynold@starbucks.com> C~rro~A-rends - Fwd: fence ordinance From: City Council To: Chris Hugo; Council Members Date: Wed, Jul 21,2004 2:06 PM Subject: Fwd: fence ordinance Another letter to be included in the record tonight. And also, Q-13 News called the Council office, and the call was referred to Chris. Thanks, Lori >>> "lisa sinnitt" <lsinnitt@comcast.net> 07/21/04 12:30PM >>> Councilmembers, I just read about the proposed fence ordinance today in the Sun. Sounds like another unwarranted intrusion into the rights of private property owners. I agree with Eric Younger's arguments concerning this issue. I urge the Council and my council person, Ms. Robinson, to vote against this measure. Thank you, William J. Hurney 2428 Snyder Ave. Bremerton CC: Paula Johnston City b~nci!: Re: Reply t~ ~!ie #c03-341 From: <TheSchnarrs@aol.com> To: <jlunceford@ci.bremerton.wa.us>, <mayor@ci.bremerton.wa.us>, <citycouncil@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Date: Tue, Jul 13, 2004 9:59 PM Subject: Re: Reply to File #C03-341 Since the fence ordinance was discussed at the city council meeting we have cut our fence down to comply with the city standard. In just a few days we have had unwelcome kids running through our yard and no privacy at all in our yard. Forgot what is was like to have everyone stare at us as they approach 15th Street from Rainier Avenue. My kids (7 and 9) haven't had so many derelicts look at them in their swim suits in quite awhile. Tonight we had three dirt bags try to break into our house. No connection with the fence I'm sure. Sorry the city has been burdened with the cost of fence enforcement and sure do appreciate the benefits being shifted to the property owners. Mr. Hugo is right. Anderson Cove residents need to give up there privacy and take on the responsibility of law enforcement. That will certainly help this neighborhood. We're selling our home...hope his vision becomes reality. Bill Schnarr