HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/10/04 AGENDA FILE
239 4th Street · Bremerton, WA 98337 ,, Phone (360) 478-5280 · Fax (360) 478-5251
***AMENDED***
CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
MARCH 10, 2004
1. PRE-COUNCIL STUDY SESSION: 5:00 - 5:30 P.M. in Council Conference Room
A. General Council Business
2. CALL TO ORDER: 5:30 P.M. in Council Chambers
A. Pledge of Allegiance
B. Invocation
3. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Minutes of Meeting - February 25, 2004 (#AB04-032)
B. Interlocal Agreement with KITSAP COUNTY for Reimbursement of Work, Purchase of
Materials, and Rental Equipment (#AB04-033)
C. Addendum No. I to NAVAL MUSEUM Agreement (#AB04-034)
Modification of Job Description for Director of Public Works & Utilities (#AB04-035) This
item was moved from the "CONSENT AGENDA" and heard under "NEW BUS/NESS"...
BUSINESS
~ ~'~SOUND CONSTRUCTION & EQUIPMENT for Demolition of Buildings at 811 Park
~Avenue [DARI-FRESH Building] and three small houses at 817 10th Street (#AB04-036) ~ 2. . ~, ~ ~ ............................................ ; ......
· ,~.. ..... ,:;'",,~ -.-.,~, ,~*"*;"" ,.~.";" ~, (#Ag0~, 037) Item was postponed until 3/17/04 ...
7. PUBLIC HEARINGS - ORDINANCES & RESOLUTIONS
A. Public Hearing to allow for Public Comment on Countywide Planning Policies - There
will be no Council action on this item tonight... (#AB04-038)
8. PUBLIC RECOGNITION - Comments limited to 3-minutes
9. COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS
10. EXECUTIVE SESSION -A 15-minute Executive Session will be held in the Council
Conference Room to discuss "PENDING LITIGATION" per RCW Chapter 42.30.110 (1) (i).
11. ADJOURNMENT OF CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS MEETING
E-mail: citycouncil@ci.bremerton.wa.us · Web: www. ci.bremerton.wa.us
DATE SUBMITTED: February 27, 2004- BILL # Dr/-
AGENDA BILL
CITY OF BREMERTON 3 ~
CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: Minutes of Meeting - Committee Meeting Date: N/A
February 25, 2004 COUNCIL MEETING Date: March 10, 2004
Department: City Council
Presenter: Daren Nygren,
Council President
Phone: (360) 473-5280
SUMMARY: Attached are the minutes for the Council Meeting held February 25, 2004.
ATTACHMENTS: Minutes for February 25, 2004
FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): 0
APPROVALS:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY:
FINANCE DIRECTOR:
MAYOR:
FISCAL/BUDGET: CONSENT AGENDA []
OPERATIONS:
COUNCIL PRESIDENT: ~l~d~'~-'c'- ,t' (-~t'~f ~'
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to pass the Consent Agenda as presented.
COUNCIL ACTION: [] Approve [] Deny [] Table i [] Continue [] No Action
TAPE #1939
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
Wednesday, February 25, 2004
The weekly meeting of the City Council of the City of Bremerton was called to order in the City
Council Chambers, 239 4th Street, Bremerton, Washington, Wednesday, February 25, 2004, at
5:30 P.M., with Council President Daren Nygren presiding. Council members present were Mike
Short, Will Maupin, Carol Arends, Dianne Robinson, Mike Shepherd, Wendy Priest, Cecil
McConnell, and Brad Gehring. Also present were City Attorney Roger Lubovich; Interim City Clerk
Paula Johnston; and Legislative Assistant Lori Smith.
The meeting opened with the Pledge of Allegiance led by Council Member Cecil McConnel!,
followed by the invocation provided by Ethyl Mae Nelson, Associate in Ministry at Our Saviour's
Lutheran Church.
President Ny.qren made the following announcements:
1. The Pre-Council session was held in the Council Conference Room from 5:00 to 5:30 PM; and
2. Item 6A under NEW BUSINESS was pulled from the agenda tonight for further discussion by the
Council at the next Committee meeting to be held Tuesday, March 2, beginning at 5:30 P.M. in
the Council Conference Room.
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Minutes of Meeting - February 18, 2004 (#AB04-030)
#0025 MlSlClU (Priest/McConnell) Move to approve Consent Agenda as presented.
CLAIMS & CHECK REGISTERS
Vouchers audited and certified by the auditing officer as required by RCW 42.24.080, and those
expense reimbursement claims certified as required by RCW 42.24.090 have been recorded on a
listing that had been made available to the Council.
#0055 M/S/C/U (McConnell/Short) On February 25, 2004, the Council approved payment of Check
numbers 288309 through 288513; P8052; P8058; EFT-8046; EFT-8047; EFT-8053; EFT-8056;
and EFT-8057 in the amount of $1,221,740.00 on the Master Check Register.
MAYOR'S REPORT
· Expressed his disappointment that the Budget Adjustment for the Communications &
Marketing Contract was pulled off the agenda tonight; and
· Discussed a meeting he attended in Olympia along with several other major-city Mayors to
lobby for additional transportation money.
(-#ABO4-03~ This item was pulled from the agenda tonight.
7A - PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDINANCE NO. 4889 [SECOND READING] AMENDING AND
RECODIFYING CHAPTERS 2.02 AND 2.04 OF THE BREMERTON MUNICIPAL CODE (#AB04-
028): The first reading of the ordinance was heard on February 18, 2004.
There were no comments from the public.
#0335 MISlCIU (Arends/Short) Move to pass Ordinance No. 4889 on second reading.
TAPE #1939
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
February 25, 2004
Page 2 of 3
PUBLIC RECOGNITION
Regarding the action to pull the Communications and Marketing Contract with GRAF-HOKE, INC...
Helen Miller read a statement into the record to express her concerns with the proposal to spend
additional money for communications and marketing, and indicated that if additional funding were
available, it should be invested in the Police Department.
Ed Rollman also read a statement into the record to disapprove of the contract, and was
concerned that the selected firm had violated the terms of the Professional Services Agreement by
participating in political campaigns.
Kristina Youn.qer encouraged the City to spend the $50,000 to add another Police Officer.
Tim Johnston expressed his concerns regarding federal legislation that he previously discussed
with Congressman Norm Dicks' office.
Don Bolman believed the Mayor should "tighten" his belt, and agreed that if extra money were
available, the money should be spent to add a Police Officer or Firefighter.
H. Emily Mosha¥ provided her comments in support of this contract for marketing and expressed
her frustration with the Council for pulling the item from the agenda.
Holly James, President of the Manette Business Association, was especially pleased to see the
development of a means to effectively inform citizens and merchants as to what is going on inside
Bremerton, and therefore urged the Council to continue this funding.
John Thomas questioned why the boundaries for the downtown streetlights standards were not
extended further out; and implied the Council President was not applying the rules fairly for
speakers who make "derogatory" comments - believing some are stopped, while others are not.
COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS
Brad Gehrin.q thanked the Bremerton Police Department for providing a motorcycle and police car
escort for the funeral procession for Staff Sergeant Christopher Bunda, who was laid to rest last
Friday.
Wend¥ Priest thanked the members of the public who came to the District 4 & 5 Neighborhood
meeting last Thursday; and discussed the well-attended Evergreen Neighborhood Association
meeting held on Sunday, indicating there were some great pictures on the City's web site.
Mike Shepherd encouraged members of the community to make an effort to attend an upcoming
School Board meeting to learn what changes are taking place with Bremerton schools; was
pleased with the turnout at the Evergreen Neighborhood Association meeting; had a recent
opportunity to discuss rider-ship issues with representatives of Washington State Ferries; and
lastly, he expressed his disappointment that the Mayor and his supporters have chosen this
vehicle, as well as the newspapers, to "belittle" the characterization of the Council because of their
request for additional information before arriving at a decision about such an important issue.
Dianne Robinson thanked all the citizens who attended the District 6, 7, 8, & 9 Community
meeting; and thanked Officer Karen Pierson and Lt. Tim Lopez for their presentations, and Chief
Forbes for his support. Additionally, she asked for help and support in cleaning up the area of
Bloomington & 19th Street in her neighborhood where there is a most distressful sight of trash,
broken furniture, and garbage.
TAPE #1939
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
February 25, 2004
Page 3 of 3
Carol Arends also expressed her thanks to the citizens who attended the District 6, 7, 8, & 9
Community meeting, and hoped to see everyone back when the next meeting is scheduled in a
few months. She also thanked the members of the Police Department for their very interesting
presentation.
Will Maupin reported that he was invited to speak at a meeting of the Engineer's Organization to
discuss the City of Bremerton's form of government and downtown traffic issues - including the
tunnel project. Lastly, he was pleased to see all the young people involved in the Bremerton
Police Department's Explorers Program for those interested in a career in law enforcement.
Mike Short expressed his thanks to all those who attended the District 6, 7, 8, & 9 Community
meeting, and was also extremely impressed with the young people currently involved in the
Explorers Program; and discussed the topics presented by Community Resource Officer Karen
Pierson.
Daren Nygren conveyed his condolences to the Perry family at the recent passing of William
Perry. He recognized Mr. Perry as a friend and neighbor in the Manette community and a
supporter of Bremerton.
With no further business, the meeting of the City Council was adjourned at 6:16 P.M.
Prepared and Submitted by:
LORI SMITH
Legislative Assistant
Attest:
PAULA JOHNSTON, Interim City Clerk
DAREN NYGREN, City Council President
City of Bremerton
DNIP JIIslcge
DATE SUBMITTED: 03-02-04 BILL #
AGENDA BILL
CITY OF BREMERTON 3
CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: Interlocal Agreement with Committee Meeting Date: 03-02-04
Kitsap Count for Reimbursement of Work, COUNCIL MEETING Date: 03-10-04
Purchase of Materials and Rental of Department: P~. ~-rks Ops-Street ~,93(?{ ?
Equipment. Presenter: Bob Tulp
Phone: 360-473-5753
SUMMARY: The proposed interlocal agreement is for the City of Bmmerton to cooperate with
Kitsap County for reimbursable work performed, the purchase of materials, and rental of equipment.
ATTACHMENTS: Interlocal Agreement KC70-04
FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): Will reduce costs of operations and purchase of
products if purchased separately, especially asphalt.
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR: ~ .- .~
CITYATTORNEY: ~~/~ / ~.._ ~-
F1NANCE DIRECTOR: / '.~.~ ,,~
MAYOR:
OPERATIONS: ',~~' AGENDA ~
COUNCIL PRESIDENT: _~----'~O~*~-~ ~
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to approve Interlocal Agreement KC70-04 between Kitsap
County and the City of Bremerton and authorize the Mayor to finalize and execute the agreement in
substantially the same form as presented.
COUNCIL ACTION: [] Approve [] Deny [] Table [] Continue [] No Action
KC 70-04
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN KITSAP COUNTY AND
CITY OF BREMERTON FOR REIMBURSMENT OF WORK PERFORMED,
PURCHASE OF MATERIALS AND/OR RENT OF EQUIPMENT
This Interlocal Agreement is made and entered into pursuant to the provisions of
Chapter 39.34 RCW by and between the County of Kitsap (hereinafter County) and the City of
Bremerton (hereinafter City).
I. RECITALS
WHEREAS, County and City have Public Works Departments which employ persons
who specialize in certain types of Public Works projects, and also own certain types of
specialized equipment; and
WHEREAS, County and City may from time to time find it advantageous or desirable to
have certain work performed by the other's Public Works Department or its contractor, to
purchase materials from and/or to obtain the use of equipment from the other's Public Works
Department for specific projects; and
WHEREAS, County and City will benefit from cooperation in Public Works projects in
this manner; and
WHEREAS, Chapter 39.34 RCW provides that local jurisdictions may enter into
cooperative agreements for their mutual benefit; and
WHEREAS, Chapter 39.33.010 RCW provides that local jurisdictions may enter into
cooperative agreements to sell, transfer, exchange, lease or otherwise dispose of any property,
real or personal, or property rights, including but not limited to the title to real property, to the
state or any municipality or any political subdivision thereof, or the federal government, on such
terms and conditions as may be mutually agreed upon by the proper authorities of the state
and/or the subdivisions concemed;
NOW THEREFORE, County and City, through their respective legislative bodies, do
hereby agree as follows:
1. Purpose of Agreement. The purpose of this agreement is to provide for
cooperation between County and City in public works projects by allowing either entity to
request that certain work be performed by the other entity's Public Works Department or its
contractors, that either entity be allowed to purchase materials from the other entity, and/or that
either entity be allowed to rent certain pieces of equipment owned by the other entity.
2. Administration of Agreement. This agreement will be administered by the
Kitsap County Department of Public Works and the City of Bremerton Public Works Department.
3. Duration of Agreement. This agreement shall take effect upon execution of the
agreement by both County and City and shall remain in effect for five (5) years from date of
execution by County, unless otherwise terminated pursuant to Section 4 of this agreement.
4. Termination of Agreement. Either County or City may terminate this
agreement by giving thirty (30) days written notice to the other party.
5. Request by City or County. Whenever City or County desires to obtain work,
materials or to rent equipment by and/or from the other entity's public works department
pursuant to this agreement, the requesting entity shall make a request for said work, materials
or equipment in writing upon the approved form, a copy of which is attached to this agreement
as Exhibit "A."
6. Approval of Request, Upon receipt of a written request as provided for in
Section 5 of this agreement, the Director of Public Works for the entity receiving the request
shall determine whether the request can be accommodated and shall inform the requesting
entity of this determination as soon as possible.
7. Fulfillment of Request. if the request is approved by the Director of Public
Works for the entity receiving the request, as set forth in this agreement, the Entity receiving the
request will perform the work requested, provide the materials requested or provide the
equipment requested.
8. Employees. City employees assigned to County public works projects pursuant
to this agreement remain employees of the City at all times and shall perform the work
requested under sole supervision of the City. City employees shall use only City approved
equipment and materials in performance of public works projects pursuant to this agreement.
County employees assigned to City public works projects pursuant to this agreement,
remain employees of the County at all times and shall perform the work requested under sole
supervision of the County. County employees shall use only County approved equipment and
materials in performance of public works projects pursuant to this agreement.
9. Equipment. Equipment to be provided pursuant to this agreement shall be
inspected by County and City prior to use of equipment by requesting entity. The requesting
entity shall bear responsibility for insuring that its operators are properly trained in the use of
said equipment. If the entity receiving the request sends both equipment and the personnel to
operate the equipment, then the entity receiving the request shall bear responsibility for insuring
that its operators are properly trained in the use of said equipment.
City shall compensate County for any and all losses and/or damages occurring while
County equipment is in the possession of the City, unless such losses and/or damages are
caused by a latent defect in the equipment provided, or are otherwise caused by the negligence
of the County.
County shall compensate City for any and all losses and/or damages occurring while
City equipment is in the possession of the County, unless such losses and/or damages are
caused by a latent defect in the equipment provided, or are otherwise caused by the negligence
of the City.
10. Financial Responsibility. The requesting entity shall be solely responsible for
all costs of its projects, and administration of all grant funds, if any, related to its project.
11. Reimbursement. City shall reimburse County for all costs of direct and indirect
labor (including fringe benefits), administration, equipment rental, engineering, materials and
supplies for the Public Works performed pursuant to this agreement. City shall reimburse
County for use of equipment at the rate determined by the County's Director of Public Works or
'7
his designee. County shall submit a statement to City after performance or delivery and within
thirty (30) days City shall remit thereon.
County shall reimburse City for all costs of direct and indirect labor (including
fringe benefits), administration, equipment rental, engineering, materials and supplies
for the Public Works performed pursuant to this agreement. County shall reimburse
City for use of equipment at the rate determined by the City's Director of Public Works
or his designee. City shall submit a statement to County after performance or delivery
and within thirty (30) days County shall remit thereon.
12. Hold Harmless. City shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless at City's
sole expense, County, its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees and
agents, from and against any and all claims, actions, demands, losses, damages,
liabilities and costs, including, but not limited to, attorney's fees and litigation costs,
arising out of the City's negligent performance of this agreement, except that City shall
not be liable for injury or damages caused by the negligence or willful misconduct of
County, its elected or appointed officials, officers, employees or agents.
County shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless at County's sole expense,
City, its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees and agents, from and
against any and all claims, actions, demands, losses, damages, liabilities and costs,
including, but not limited to, attorney's fees and litigation costs, arising out of the
County's negligent performance of this agreement, except that County shall not be
liable for injury or damages caused by the negligence or willful misconduct of City, its
elected or appointed officials, officers, employees or agertts.
13. Insurance. Either party may require, as a condition of performance of
Public Works and/or provision of equipment that requesting party obtain public liability
insurance, naming entity receiving the request as certificate holder. If required,
requesting party may withdraw its request.
14. Compliance with State Law. Each entity shall be solely responsible to
ensure that it has followed all applicable State laws and its local ordinances when taking
action pursuant to this agreement.
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT KC 70-04
DATED this day of ,2004.
CITY OF BREMERTON BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Cary Bozeman, Mayor PATTY LENT, Chair
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
CHRIS ENDRESEN, Commissioner
Roger A. Lubovich, City Attorney
JAN ANGEL, Commissioner
ATTEST ATTEST:
Paula Johnston Opal Robertson
City Clerk Clerk of the Board
EXHIBIT "A"
REQUEST AND AGREEMENT
FOR REIMBURSABLE WORK
The undersigned hereby requests that the following described work and/or services be
performed by:
[] Kitsap County Public Works
[] City of Bremerton
Description of Work or Services Requested:
Estimate Attached: Yes [] No []
Projected Completion Date:
Total Estimated Cost: $
The undersigned certifies that sufficient budgeted funds are available to cover the cost
of the requested work er services, and that payment will be made according to Section
11. (Reimbursement) of Interlocal Agreement KC 70-04.
Requesting Agency:
Address:
Phone:
Fax:
Requested by: Date:
Signature Title
Recommend Approval: Date:
Signature Title
Approved by:
Board of Commissioners
City of Bremerton Kitsap County, Washington
Mayor Chair of the Board
Date: Attest:
Clerk of the Board
DATE SUBMITTED: 2/18/04 BILL # ~'~-' ~*
AGENDA BILL
CITY OF BREMERTON 3 C
CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: Addendum #1 to Naval Museum Committee Meeting Date: 2/24/04
Agreement COUNCIL MEETING Date: 3/10/04
Department: Admin/Finance
Presenter: Paula Johnston
Phone: 473-5323
SUMMARY: The City has contracted for many years with the Naval Memorial Museum of the
Pacific (NMMP) to manage and operate the Bremerton Naval Museum (Museum) and display
artifacts the US Navy has on loan to the City of Bremerton. In June 2002 the Museum was moved to
the Amy Bumett Gallery location on Pacific Ave. At that time we entered into a new two year
agreement with NMMP for operating the Museum that included the provision that the City would pay
the cost of water, sewer, power, and gas. It was the City's intent to pay for local telephone service
and garbage, as well, and actually has been paying these bills. But, these utilities were inadvertently
left out of the agreement. Addendum #1 cures this defect and both parties agree that the City will
continue to pay for local telephone service and garbage throughout the remainder of the term.
ATTACHMENTS: Addendum #1 and Naval Museum Agreement
FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): Budgeted in FY2004.
DEPARTMENTAPPROVALS: DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY: ~_~
MAYOR:
FISCAL/BUDGET:
OPE~TIONS: ) ~ CONSENT AGENDA
~COMMENDED MOTION:
I move to approve Addendum ~ 1 of the Naval Museum Agreement and author~e the Mayor to
execute the addendum in substantially the same form as presented.
COUNCIL ACTION: [--] Aunrove ['-[ Denv ~] Table { { [~ Continue [-] No Action
ADDENDUM #1
CITY OF BREMERTON
NAVAL MUSEUM AGREEMENT
I. Recitals
A. The City of Bremerton ("City") and the Naval Memorial Museum of the Pacific
("NMMP") are parties to an agreement entitled City of Bremerton Naval Museum
Agreement ("Agreement") executed by NMMP on June 14, 2002 and executed by the
City on June 28, 2002. The Agreement is attached hereto and incorporated by reference
herein.
B. The parties have been performing obligations under the Agreement since its execution.
C. When the parties executed the agreement they intended that the City would pay certain
utilities for operation of the Museum as identified in Section II, Paragraph 3 of the
Agreement.
D. Section II, Paragraph 3 of the Agreement did not address payment of telephone or
garbage utilities. At the time of the execution of the Agreement the parties intended the
City would pay telephone and garbage utilities for the Museum in an amount not to
exceed seventy dollars ($70.00) monthly.
E. The City has paid the telephone and garbage bills for the Museum during the term of the
agreement.
F. It is the panics' intent now that the City should continue to pay for local telephone and
garbage service not to exceed seventy dollars ($70.00) monthly.
G. The parties wish to memorialize their agreement in this addendum.
Therefore, the parties agree to amend the Agreement, adding the following language to
reflect the agreement of the parties as follows:
II. Agreement
A. The City shall pay for local telephone service and garbage service associated with the
operation of the Museum in an amount not to exceed seventy dollars ($70.00) monthly.
B. All prior payments for telephone service and garbage paid by the City since June 2002 are
hereby ratified.
C.. This addendum does not modify any existing term of the agreement. The terms o£the
Agreement shall continue in full force and effect.
//
Addendum # I - NMMP
Page I of 2 i~.~
NAVAL MEMORIAL MUSEUM OF THE PACIFIC
By:
Date
CITY OF BREMERTON
By:
Date CARY BOZEMAN, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ROGER LUBOVICH
City Attorney
RECEIVED FOR FILING:
PAULA JOHNSTON
Interim City Clerk
Addendum # 1 - NMMP
Page 2 of 2
CITY OF BREMERTON
NAVAL MUSEUM AGREEMENT
COMES NOW the CITY OF BREMERTON, a Washington municipal corporation,
(hereinafter called "City") and the NAVAL MEMORIAL MUSEUM OF THE PACIFIC, a
Washington non-profit corporation, (hereinafter called "NMMP') dba BREMERTON NAVAL
MUSEUM, who recite and agree as follows:
L RECITALS
A. The NAVAL MEMORIAL MUSEUM OF THE PACIFIC has, with the cooperation of
the City of Bremerton, maintained the BREMERTON NAVAL MUSEUM for many years.
B. The City has the possessory interest in certain models of naval ships and other items
related to the United States Navy through an agreement with the United States Navy.
C. The relationship between the CITY OF BREMERTON and the BREMERTON NAVAL
MUSEUM has changed whereby the Museum is taking a more active role in fundraising and
supporting its own activities.
D. Both the BREMERTON NAVAL MUSEUM and the CITY OF BREMERTON desire
the maintenance and continued operation of a naval museum in the City of Bremerton;
NOW, THEREFORE, for and inconsideration of the mutual benefit to be derived herefrom,
the adequacy of which is acknowledged by each party's authorized agent affixing his or her
signature hereto, the parties now agree and contract as follows:
II. AGREEMENTS
1. Possesso~ Interest in Items. The possessory interest of the City in the items listed on
Schedule A and any other artifacts not listed but located at the Bremerton Naval Museum shah
remain in full force and effect, subject to its agreement with the United States Navy and this
Agreement. The NMMP shall do nothing to impair the City's agreement with the United States
Navy.
2. Possession. So long as this Agreement remains in effect and the City is entitled to its
possessory interest through its agreement with the United States Navy, the NMMP shall be
entitled to display the museum artifacts. Provided, however, the NMMP may, at any time return
any or all o£said items to the City in as good condition and repair as when the same were given
to the NMMP. NMMP shall not assign, sell, transfer or otherwise convey, nor shall it loan to
any person, the said items without the City's prior written approval.
3. Operation of the Museum. The City shall pay for water, sewer, gas and electricity as
provided in the lease agreement between the NMMP and Amy Burnett dated April c~, 2002.
NAV~L MUSEL~I AGREEMENT-Page I [ 4
NMMP shall be responsible for rent as further provided in the lease between Burnett and NMMP
dated April c[ ,2002. It shall be NMMP's responsibility to operate the museum at its sole
cost and expense including, but not limited to, staffing and personnel requirements. NMMP will
provide for an Assignment of Funds to cover the payment of rent for the full term of this
agreement. The form of the assignment to be approved by the City Attorney. NMMP shall
maintain regular hours and days of operation which shall be upon mutual agreement with the
City.
4. Insurance and Hold Harmless. The City shall maintain property insurance covering the
museum artifacts. Prior to and during the performance of the work covered by this Agreement,
NMMP shall provide the Risk Manager for the City with evidence that it has obtained and
maintains in full force and effect during the term of this Agreement comprehensive general
liability insurance coverage of at least $500,000 per occurrence and standard form property
insurance on all other contents of the museum excluding the artifacts. The City shall be named
as additional insured. The Risk Manager shall be provided thirty (30) days written notice of any
cancellation of said insurance.
NMMP agrees to defend, indemnify and save harmless the City, its appointed and elected
officers and employees, from and against any and all liability, loss, costs, damage and expense,
including costs and attorney fees in defense thereof because of actions, claims or lawsuits for
damages resulting from personal or bodily injury, including death at any time resulting
therefrom, sustained or alleged to have been sustained by any person or persons and on account
of damage to property, arising or alleged to have risen directly or indirectly out of or in
consequence of or the performance of this Agreement, whether such injuries to persons or
damage to property is due to the negligence of NMMP, its subcontractors, agents, volunteers,
successors or assigns. This provision shall be inapplicable to the extent City is judicially found
solely negligent for such damage or injury.
5. Reports and Information. NMMP, at such times and in such forms as the City may
require, shall furnish the City such reasonable periodic reports and documents as it may request
pertaining to the work or services undertaken pursuant to this Agreement, the costs and
obligations incurred or to be incurred in the connection therewith, and any other matters covered
by this Agreement. NMMP will maintain accounting records in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles and practices to substantiate all invoiced amounts. Revenue and
expenditure reports and verification of bank accounts shall be required quarterly.
6. Joint Committee. NMMP and the City agree that they will create a joint liaison
committee to plan the future of the Naval Museum and in particular, to make arrangements
regarding its ultimate relocation from its current site.
7. Termination. Upon NMMP's closing of the museum to the public, except in the normal
course of its operation of the museum, or violation of any terms of this Agreement this
Agreement shall be immediately terminated and all items subject to this Agreement shall be
returned to the City.
NAV,~L MUSEUM AGREEMENT- Page
8. Binding Effects. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the
parties hereto and their respective successors and assigns.
9. Notices. Notices shall be given as follows:
City Clerk Naval Memorial Museum of the Pacific
239 Fourth Street 402 Pacific Avenue
Bremerton, WA 98337 Bremerton, WA 98337
10. Tenn. This Agreement is for a term of three (3) years fi.om January 1, 2002 and will
expire on December 31, 2004 unless extended by mutual written agreement of the parties.
NAVAL MEMORIAL MUSEUM OF THE PACIFIC
CITY OF BREMERTON
Cary Bozeman, Mayor
DEPARTMENTAL APPROVAL:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ROGER LUBOVICH
City Attorney
NAVAL MUSE[~I AGREEMENT - Page 3
DATE SUBMITTED: March 1, 2004 BILL #
AGENDA BILL
CITY OF BREMERTON 3
CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: Modification of Job Description Committee Meeting Date: March 2, 2004
for Director of Public Works and Utilities COUNCIL MEETING Date: March 10, 2004
Department: City Attorney's Office
Presenter: Roger A. Lubovich
Gene Sampley
Phone: 2345
5315
SUMMARY: Staff is proposing an amendment to the job description for the Director of Public
Works and Utilities relating to eligibility requirements. BMC 2.05.020 requires City Council
approval of the job description prior to Council confirmation of a department director's appointment.
This job description is being submitted prior to appointment because of the suggested changes.
ATTACHMENTS: Proposed Job Description
FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): None
APPROVALS:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR:
,
C1TY ATTORNEY:
E ANCE D RECTOR:
MAYOR: ~.~ ~.~ ~/ ....
FmCAmV ET:
OPERATIONS: ~ [. ~ '~k-~ [ ......
COUNC~ PRESIDENT:
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
I move to approve the proposed job description for the Director or Public Works and Utilities
COUNCIL ACTION: ~]Approve [] Deny [] Table 1'7 [] Continue [-] No Action
DIRECTOR, PUBLIC WORKS AND UTILITIES
Job Classification
ESSENTIAL FUNCTION
Under general policy direction of the Mayor, serves as department head responsible for providing and
managing engineering public works and utility services in conformance with applicable statutes,
regulations and administrative policies.
DISTINGUISHING CHARACTERISTICS
This is a professional public works and utilities executive management classification. Work consists of
planning, organizing, directing, supervising and controlling all streets, public works, improvements,
highways, roads and bridges belonging to the City or dedicated to public use, and the municipal water
system, and any other utilities owned or acquired by the City.
ESSENTIAL DUTIES
Em~ineerim, and Pro. iect Management: Provides information, data and advice needed to develop and
implement public works and utility management strategies and capital improvement plans. Directs the
engineering and construction of public works and utility infrastructure improvements; City-wide capital
projects; review and approval of street and utility design plans for private developers. Assures the
maintenance of all City records on permits, maps, blueprints, overlays and sketches pertinent to programs
and projects.
Transportation~ Operations and Maintenance: Directs the planning, design, installation and
construction of signs and street lights, signs and markings, pavement maintenance and electronic
equipment maintenance and repair. Directs the planning, design, construction, maintenance and
operations of the City's fleet, properties, facilities, streets, water, wastewater and stormwater programs.
Department Operations: Directs and implements changes to department services and funding levels,
operating policies, standards, procedures and rules. Monitors budget and service contract compliance
control systems. Establishes work methods, selects operating systems, equipment and procedures.
Prepares reports on department activity and operations.
Prol~ram Budl~etinl~: Describes and quanitifies program activity, trends and resources; establishes goals
and objectives; justifies and presents funding requirements for 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 capital improvement 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.
Director, Public Works and Utilities
Page I of 4
DIRECTOR, PUBLIC WORKS AND UTILITIES
Job Classification
General City Management: Responds to inquiries from officials, staff, outside agencies and the public.
Participates in policy development of budget priorities, contract negotiation strategies, capital
improvement programs, etc. Participates in the activities of civic, community and public works
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 City.
REQUIRED QUALIFICATIONS
Knowledge of:
· Principles, practices, methods and technical support functions of public works improvements
design, constmction, inspection and projects management;
· Current professional standards applicable to public works and utility services;
· Fundamental intent and basic provisions of municipal, state and federal financing mechanisms for
public works and municipal utility projects and operations;
· Techniques used for gathering, evaluating and summarizing municipal public works and utility
department service and cost information in preparing budgets and rate structures;
· Management, personnel and ethical practices as they apply to municipal public works and utility o
operations.
Essential Abilities:
Able to:
I · Apply professional civil engineering and management principles and practices to specific public
works and municipal utility program operations;
· Interpret and apply the intent and specific provisions of municipal code, policies laws and
regulatory provisions to- particular conditions as they relate to departmental functions and
determine a course of action;
· Evaluate, plan and establish a proper sequence of action for multiple functional units and
personnel to accomplish goals;
· 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;
· Operate or learn to operate modem office microcomputer and telecommunications equipment and
systems;
· Exhibit and instill in subordinates a high public service priority in contacts with the public and
others encountered in the work;
· Apply the principles of equal employment opportunity, affirmative action and the Americans with
Disabilities Act principles in managing personnel and service functions;
· Implement public works and municipal utility systems and operations which protect the
environment and the public health and safety.
Director, Public Works and Utilities
Page 2 of 4
DIRECTOR, PUBLIC WORKS AND UTILITIES
Job Classification
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.
Professional Ci',51 Engineer's License is preferredmquimd e ..... c xxT~o~.: ...... o t- = ,; ............. ;~
Qualifying Training and Experience
Combined training and experience which demonstrates that a person has obtained the required knowledge
and is able to perform the work required (with reasonable accommodation, if necessary). In the public
works profession, combined training and experience which would qualify for competing in a selection
process is: Graduation from an accredited college or university with a bachelor's degree~ preferably in
ci;'~! engineering or a closely related field~ and ten (10) years of full-time paid experience in public works,
at least four (4) of which involved public works infrastructure construction project planning and
management, and at least three (3) with supervisory responsibility.
LEGAL AND REGULATORY CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT
OCCUPATIONAL GROUP: Executive Management. In addition to the essential function of
administrative head of an office or department, a person in executive management actively participates in:
1) evaluating the costs and effects of all existing operations and services; 2) devising strategies, advising,
supporting and coordinating the activity of elected officials considering issues which involve conflicting
or competing internal and external needs and resources; and 3) implementing City-wide service and
operational changes.
FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT: The position qualifies for exemption from the Fair Labor
Standards Act minimum wage and overtime provisions under the Act's Executive and Administrative
Employees exemptions.
REPRESENTATION: The position is excluded from the non-uniformed bargaining unit pursuant to
Washington Public Employment Relations Commission Decision No. 1346 - PECB dated the 19th day of
January 1982 under the second sentence reading, in relevant part: "Excluding...Departments Heads, and
their Assistants, Supervisors...".
CIVIL SERVICE: The classification is excluded from the Civil Service pursuant to the Bremerton City
Charter: Article IX Civil Service Section 39. Classification of Service: "(1) Them shall be excepted from
the operation of this article the following: Mayor, City Council Members, City Attomey, Municipal
Judge, Department Heads, all non-salaried members of appointive boards and commissions; and any other
employee exempted from the operation of this Article by the Commission." These specifications were
posted and exempted from Civil Service effective 3/31/93.
Director, Public Works and Utilities
Page 3 of 4
DIRECTOR, PUBLIC WORKS AND UTILITIES
Job Classification
APPOINTMENT AND REMOVAL AUTHORITY: The position is filled by Mayoral appointment
pursuant to the Bremerton City Charter Article III Section 8 which states in relevant part: "The Mayor
shall be the administrator of the City...and shall make all appointments of administrative heads with
confirmation by the City Council." Removal is at the will of the Mayor.
SPECIFICATION APPROVALS:
Personnel Director:
Date:
Mayor:
Date:
City Council by: , President, City Council
Council Agenda Date:
Director, Public Works and Utilities
Page 4 of 4
DATE SUBMITTED: 02/24/04 BILL
AGENDA BELL
CITY OF BREMERTON 6A
CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: Contract for Demolition of Committee Meeting Date: March 02, 2004
Buildings at: 811 Park Ave [Dari Fresh Bldg] COUNCIL MEETING Date: March 10, 2004
and 817 l0th St [three small houses] Department: Economic
Development
Presenter: Gary Sexton
Phone: 360.473.5282
SUMMARY: Request for approval of the Demolition Contract for the Dari-fresh Buildings and three
small houses at the site of the new fire station. The low bidder is Sound Construction & Equipment,
Port Orchard, WA, in the sum of $107,933 plus sales tax. The work includes abatement.
ATTACHMENTS: Demolition Bid Proposal from Sound Construction & Equipment, Inc, with
abatement, and Contract for Building Demolition.
FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): Cost, including tax is $117,215.24 is within
currently budgeted estimate.
APPROVALS:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR:
__c---- ~; ' ',~: '
CITY ATTORNEY:
FINANCE DIRECTOR: .
~ '~v' ~'-'''~' '~ .~-.,t~.W.~ ,....~~ CONSENT AGENDA []
OPERATIONS:
COUNCIL PRESIDENT: -
RECOMMENDED MOTION: I move to approve the Contract for Building Demolition with Sound
Construction & Equipment, in the amount orS117,215.24, and authorize the Mayor to execute the
contract in substantially the same form as presented.
COUNCIL ACTION: [] Approve [] Deny [] Table [] Continue [] No Action
NON-COLLUSION AFFIDAVIT
State of Washin~on)
)
County of Kitsap)
The undersigned, being duly sworn, deposes and says that the person, firm, association, co-
parmership or corporation herein named, has not, either directly or indirectly, entered into any
agreement, participated in any collusion, or otherwise taken any action in restraint of free competitive
bidding in the preparation and submission of a proposal to the City of Bremerton for consideration
in the award ora Contract on the improvement described as follows:
BUII.DING DEMOLITION
,,~0~1~ CO~UCTION & EQUIP.., ~
P.O. Box 728
Pon Ow. hard, WA 98366
Signed and sworn to before me this
dayof ..2o04
Notary Public
Building Demolition
BIDDER'S SUBcoNTRACTOR cONTACq7 REPORT
Please list below all minority and other Subconrractor's contacted to bid on Subcontract work on this
project. Indicate with an asterisk (*) those firms that are at least fifty-one percent (51%) or more minority
owned. (This listing does not in any way obligate you to Contract with any firm on this listing.)
Name RC.i~ ..~"dC, Name ~'~/g"
^ddress_ _.o' D"r-' ^ddress S-60g
Telephone Number ,~ aO,7~---O'~0a41' Telephone Numbe~gV)~
Type of Work Bid On ~/~7~£W/~"~t'~''' Type of Work Bid On _/~/~
Results ~_~_~7 .0LO 12 ~¢l£t,/tt:2 _ Results /A/g)
Name
Name
Address Address __
City/State City/State _
Telephone Number Telephone Number
Type of Work Bid On Type of Work Bid On _
Results Results
Name
Name
Address Address
City/State _ City/State _
Telephone Number Telephone Number
Type of Work Bid On Type of Work Bid On
Results Results
City of BREMERTON- 1-6 (>?(
Building Demolition
BIDDER'S pROPOSED SUBCONTRACTOR'S
The following list identifies firms whose Subcontract will exceed ten percent (10%) of the submitted
bid price and items of work which the firms will be subcontracted to complete. If work will not be
subcontracted, the bidder must list itself. This must be completed and submitted with the bid.
CONTRACTOR CONTRACTOR
FIRM NAME NUMBER AMOUNT
- oOuz~v C~zV,~T UCIION & F, QUIP~
P.O. Box 728
2. Port Orc~4_~' ,~
3.
5.
6.
8.
9.
Contractor /
By: [~uthorized Official) ~ (Date)
Building Demolition
cERTIFICATION OF NONSEGREGATED FACILITIES
The bidder certifies that he does not maintain or provide for his employees any segregated facilities at
any of his establishments, and that he does not permit his employees to perform their services at any
location, under his control, where segregated facilities are maintained. The bidder certifies further
that he will not maintain or provide for his employees any segregated facilities at any of 'his
establisl:anents, and that he will not permit his employees to perform their services at any location,
under his control, where segregated facilities are maintained. The bidder agrees that a breach of this
certification will be a violation of the Equal Opportunity Clause in any Contract resulting from
acceptance of this bid. As used in this certification, the term "segregated facilities" means any waiting
rooms, work areas, restrooms and washrooms, restamants and other eam, g areas, time clocks, locker
rooms and other storage or dressing areas, parking lots, drinking fountains, recreation or
entertainment areas, transportation, and housing facilities provided for employees which are
segregated by explicit directive or are in fact segregated on the basis of race, color, religion, or national
that (except where he has
identical cerrificati°n from proposed Subcontractor's for specific me pertods) he will obtain
origin, because of habit, local custom, or otherwise. The bidder agrees
obtained , '
identical certifications from proposed Subcontractor s prior to the award of Subcontracts exceeding
$10,000.00 which are not exempt from the provisions of the Equal Opportunity Clause, and that he
will retain such certification in hi~ files.
Note: The penalW for malting false statements in offers is prescribed in 18 U.S.C. S1001.
This oqo_ day of_ -- _, Z0 ..
(Name of Bidder)
Tide:
Official Address:
(Street or P.O. Box)
(City, State, Zip)
*Must be included without alteration
Building Demolition
CERTIFICATION OF EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY REPORT
Certification with regard to the performance of previous Contracts or Subcontracts subject to the
Equal Opportunity Clause and the filing of required reports.
The bidder(s) /~_,/~p~oposed Subcontractor(s)_. , hereby certifies that she/he has____~/has
not _, participated in a previous Contract or Subcontract subject to the Equal Opportunity
Clause, as required by Executive Order 10925, 11114, or 11246, and that she/he has__~/has
not_ , filed with the Joint Reporting Committee, the Director of the Office of Federal Contract
Compliance, a federal government contracting or administering agency, or the former President's
Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity, all reports due under the applicable filing
requirements.
Company
Tide
Date
City of BREMERTON.
Building Demolition
1-9
CONTRACTOR'S REGISTRATION
Address: /~.0. ~?a/~ 7~
Employer's Identification Number (employer Social Security Number) (not your personal Social
Security Number): ~ / -/S'.~ 20 ,/~
EmploymentSecufityDepamnentNumber: ~'~ /~2- ~-~
Washington Industrial Insurance Number: ~"~/'/ldO- PI
Washington State Excise Tax Registration Number:
Washington State Contractors Registration Number/Expiration Date:
City of Bremerton Business License Number: ~,7~. ~d~'
City of BREMERTON-
Building Demolition
BIX) PROPOSAL
BUILDING DEMOLITION
BUILDING ABATEMENT
(Page 1 of 3)
TO THE CITY CLERK
BREMERTON, WA
6- dayof h-gtt ,20
The undersigned hereby certify/certifies that we/he/she has/have personally examined the
Drawings, and Contract Documents entitled BUILDING DEMOLITION. The undersigned has
also examined the site and the existing conditions and limitations affecting the work. The
undersigned understands that the city may' in irs best interest award building abatement services
separately. The undersigned, in response, to the INVITATION FOR BIDS and
INSTRUCTIONS TO BIDDER'S proposes to perform all work and furnish all labor, materials
equipment and other items required for and to complete the work called for by the above named
documents - for the following price:
A. Demolition Lump Sum Bid (excluding sales tax)
For ali work described on the Contract Documents for the BUILDING DEMOLITION.
Complete all work required including furnishing all labor, equipment, and materials for
building demolition for the Lump Sum Cost of', but NOT including Washington State
Sales Tax.
Demolition Total Lump Sum Cost: $__
.2o0 '
B. Abatement Alternative Lump Sum Bid (excluding sales tax)
Abatement Total Lump Sum Cost: $ /~ ~/'~o
C. TotalLump Sum Bid A and B.. $_ Jl~9~ff_~_~L~ __
/Total Lump Sum Bid "C~f above Written in Wo~ds ("/
Estimate of Washington State Sales Tax (2~-g~£) on Total Lump Sum Cost "C" Bid:
City of BREMEFq TON-
Building Demolition 1 - 11~'"~D
BID PROPOSAL
(Page 2 of 3)
A. Overhead and Profit
The undersigned agrees that the above named lump sum bid includes all Contractors'
overhead and profit as well as all other incidental cost of completing the specified Building
Demolition.
B. Time of Completion and Liquidated Damages
The work of this contract shall be commenced on a date to be specified in the Notice to
Proceed, and shall be completed and acceptable by the City thirty (30) calendar
days from the date of Notice to Proceed. For each calendar day after the date fixed for
completion, the Contractor shall pay to the City an amount in accordance with Section
1438.9 of the 2002 Standard Specifications for each calendar day said work remains
incomplete after expiration of the Specified time as liquidated damages./dj/ite}T.£/~r,~ ~ ~
C. Bid Withdrawal
This bid may be withdrawn by the Contractor either personally, or by written request,
at any time prior to the scheduled time for the opening of bids, or any
City authorized postponement thereof.
D. Owner's Right To Reject Bids
Bidder agrees that the owner reserves the right to reject any or all bids and the right to
waive any informalities in the bidding.
E. Determination of Low Bidder
The low bid shall be determined based on the Demolition Lump Sum. The City may select
the alternative abatement Lump Sum Bid as an addition to the contract. The amount of
the work to be paid for shall be based on the "percent complete" of the Contract Price.
The award of the Contract, if made by the City, will be made if it is to the City's best
interest to accept such bid.
F. Schedule of Values
If awarded the contract, the Bidder shall furnish the Owner a Schedule of Values that
make-up the Total Lump Sum Bid amount at the Pre-Construction Meeting.
G. Project Schedule
The form of the Project Schedule may be selected by the Contractor but the Schedule
shall meet the minimum requirements of a bar chart diagram. If the Project Schedule does
nor reflect the specified work or the Contract Time, it wit[ be returned to the Contractor
for modifications.
City of BREMERTON-
Building Demolition I - 12 "M
BID PROPOSAL SIGNATURE SHEET
(Page 3 of 3)
Bidder Date
Authorized Official / Phone
Address
City and State
Note: (1) If the bidder is a co-partnership, so state, giving firm name under which business
is transacted.
(2) If the bidder is a corporation this proposal must be executed by its duty
authorized official.
0) If no bid is submitted, kindly mark '2qo BID" and return to:
City of Bremerton
City Clerk
239 4m Street
Bremerton, Washington 98337
City of BREMERTON-
Building Demolition I - 13 ~ ~
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF ADDENDA
The bidder hereby acknowledges receipt of addenda by initialing after each addendum received, as
applicable.
Addendum No. 1
Addendum No. 2
Addendum No. 3
Addendum No. 4
Ci~/ of BREMEFeTON-
Building Demolition ~-14 ~.~ .~
CERTIFICATION REGARDING DEBARMENT AND SUSPENSION
1 ~t/zL '4_/q~J~_ff~/-~- certify that neither .~ltffgl ~/_~?.__~:(Company) nor its
"principals" [as defined at 49 CFR, Part 29.105(p)] are presendy debarred, suspended, proposed for
debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation in this transaction by
any Federal department or agency.
By submitting this certification, the Contractor agrees that, should the proposed covered
transaction be entered into, it shall not knowingly enter into any lower tier covered transaction
with a person who is debarred, suspended, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from
participation in the covered transaction, unless authorized in writing by the City of Bremerton.
The Contractor further agrees by submitting this certification that it will include this certification,
without material modification, in all lower tier covered transactions and in all solicitations for
lower tier covered transactions.
If the Contractor is unable to certify to the statements in this certification, such Contractor shall
attach an explanation to this bid/proposal.
THE CONTRACTOR CERTIHES OR AFFIRMS THE TRUTI-IFULNESS AND ACCURACY
OF THE CONTENTS OF THE STATEMENTS SUBMITTED ON OR WITH THIS
CERTIFICATION AND UNDERSTANDS THAT THE PROVISIONS OF 31 U.S.G. #3801 ET
SEQ. ARE APPLICABLE THERETO.
Company Name ,..[61f.~'g9 ~o,~a'¢r./£ff_~,/~,__~;;~x/_O ....
Date Signed /~- g2 ?/_
Ci~/ of ~REMERTON-
Building Demolition 1 - 15 ~.~ q
BID BOND FORM
~mount of $ ,,%"-,~,'~ which amount is not less than five perr~nt of tht t~tal bid.
BID BOND
Know all men by these presents:
that we, Sound Constructio~l, and Eaui_nment, lnc. . aS principal,
and The Obi. C.,uait.v lns,,ra.~e Cnm..*.y _ as surety, are held and firmly bound
unto the City of Bmmerton~ Washington as obligee in the ~ sum of
F}ve_p_~.r.g&nt(5~%.Lg_fBid dollars, for the payment of which the principal and the ~rety bind
themselves, their heks, ex~cutor~, admlni,r~ators, successors and aSsi~s~ jointly and s~vcrally, by
thcsc pr~sants,
The condition of this obligation is sash that if the oblig~ shall m.lc~ any award to th~ lx4a'mipal for
the Demo ,Dari-Fr~sh Building & Three Small Houses .... 8gcoIding to fac t~ms of tl~ proposal or bid
by the principal thereof, and the principal studl duly .msk~ n.d ~ntm' ~o a contract with the obligee
in accordance with the terms of said proposal or bid and award and .hal! give bond for thc faithful
performance, tier*of; with surety or suretla~ approved by the obtigee, or if the principal shall~ in
cas, of failure so to do, pay and forfdt to the oblig~e the penal amount ofth~ d~posit specified in
the call for bids, thru this obligation .ha~l be null and void; otheawrise it ~hal! be and rea~ai~ in full
force and effect and the sm'ely shs!l forthwith pay and forf:it to the obligee, as a penalty and
liquidated damages, tI~ amount of this bond.
81gned>s_~e.aled and dated this 5th day of February
Soun r ctio ,quipm'e ' ~'~c. . ,2004
2:--5
/~th-~ty Stacy Cutbi~rth - Attorney-In-Fact
,2001
Received r~tura of deposit irt.the sum of $
CERTIFIED COPY OF POWER OF ATTORNEY
THE OHIO CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY
WEST AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY
No. 37-200
COUNTY OF BUTLER
Ohio CasuaPy Insuraace Company; adopted April 24, 1980-West ~nenean B~surance Company):
the same farce m~d effect as thmtgh m~matl7 affixed."
CONTRACT
BUILDING DEMOLITION
(Page 1 of 4)
This agreement made and entered into in triplicate, this 1 lth day of March, 2004, by and
between the City of Bremerton, hereinafter called "the City", and Sound Construction & Equip.,
Inc., hereinafter called "the Contractor".
Contractor:
Witnesseth:
That in consideration of the terms and conditions contained herein and attached and made a
part of this agreement, the parties hereto covenant and agree as follows:
I. The Contractor shall perform all work and furnish all labor, tools, materials and
equipment for the BUILDING DEMOLITION in the amount of $117,215.24,
including Washington State Sales Tax.
All parties agree that the State of Washington shall be and is hereby, named as an
expressed third-party beneficiary of this Contract, with full rights as such.
All work to be in accordance with and as described in the attached Plans, General
Provisions, Specifications, and the 2002 Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge and
Municipal Construction (English), which are by this reference incorporated herein
and made a part hereof, and shall perform any alterations in or additions to the work
provided under this Contract and every part thereof.
Contractor shall begin the work within ten (10) calendar days after the date that
written NOTICE TO PROCEED is issued to the Contractor. The Contractor shall
complete the work no later than thirty (30) calendar days after the date that NOTICE
TO PROCEED is issued.
If said work is not completed within the time specified, the Contractor agrees to pay
to the City an amount in accordance with Section 1-08.9 of the 2002 Standard
Specifications for each calendar day said work remains incomplete after expiration of
the specified times as liquidated damages.
The Contractor shall provide and bear the expense of all equipment, tools, material
and labor of any sort whatsoever that may be required for the transfer of materials and
for construction and completing the work provided for in this Contract and every part
thereof, except such as are mentioned in the specifications to be furnished by the City.
City of BREMERTON-
Bui/din~l Demolition 1 - 16
CONTRACT
(Page 2 of 4)
I1. The City hereby promises and agrees with the Contractor to employ and does employ
the Contractor to provide the materials and to do and cause to be done the above
described work to complete and finish the same according to the attached plans and
specifications and the terms and conditions herein contained and hereby contracts to
pay for the same according to the attached specifications and the approved bid as
attached hereto incorporated by reference, at the time and in the manner and upon
the conditions provided for in this Contract.
III. The Contractor for himself, and for his heirs, executors, administrators, successors,
and assigns, does hereby agree to fulfill the performance of all covenants herein
contained upon the part of the Contractor.
IV. It is further provided that no liability shall attach to the City of Bremerton by reason
of entering into this Contract, except as expressly provided herein.
V. INDEMNIFICATION
Contractor shall defend, indemnify and hold the City, its officers, officials,
employees, agents, volunteers and assigns 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 contract, except for injuries
and damages caused by the sole negligence of the City.
The City's inspection or acceptance of any of Contractor's work when completed
shall not be grounds to avoid any of these covenants of indemnification. Should a
court of competent jurisdiction determine that this contract 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 Contractor and the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents
and volunteers, the Contractor's liability hereunder shall be only to the extent of
the Contractor's negligence.
IT IS FURTHER SPECIFICALLY AND EXPRESSLY UNDERSTOOD THAT
THE INDEMNIFICATION PROVIDED HEREIN CONSTITUTES THE
CONTRACTOR'S WAIVER OF IMMUNITY UNDER INDUSTRIAL
INSURANCE, TITLE 51 RCW, SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS
INDEMNIFICATION. THE PARTIES FURTHER ACKNOWLEDGE THAT
THEY HAVE MUTUALLY NEGOTIATED THIS WAIVER.
The provisions of this section shall survive the expiration or termination of this
contract.
City of Bremerton - 1- 17
Bu#ding Demolition ~) 3
CONTRACT
(Page 3 of 4)
VI. INSURANCE
The Contractor shall procure and maintain, during the term of construction and
throughout the specified term of maintenance, insurance of the types and in the
amounts described below against claims for injuries to persons or damage to
property that may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work
hereunder by the Contractor, its agents, representatives, employees, sub-consultants
and/or subcontractors.
Before beginning work on the project described in this contract, the Contractor
shall provide a Certificate of Insurance evidencing:
1. Automobile Liability insurance with limits no less than $1,000,000 combined
single limit per accident for bodily injury and property damage; and
2. Commercial General Liability insurance written on an occurrence basis with
limits no less than $1,000,000 combined single limit per occurrence and
general aggregate for personal injury, bodily injury and property damage.
Coverage shall include but not be limited to: blanket contractual;
products/completed operations/broad form property damage; explosion,
collapse and underground (XCU); and employer's liability.
3. Excess Liability insurance with limits not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence
and aggregate.
The insurance must refer to the project name, project location and contain a brief
description of the project. Any payment of deductible or self insured retention
shall be the sole responsibility of the Contractor.
The City, its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers shall be named as
an additional insured on the insurance policy, as respects work performed by or on
behalf of the Contractor and a copy of the endorsement naming the City as
additional insured shall be attached to the Certificate of Insurance.
The Contractor's 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 Contractor's insurance shall be primary insurance as respects the City, and the
City shall be given thirty (30) calendar days prior written notice by certified mail,
return receipt requested, of any cancellation, suspension or material change in
coverage.
The City also reserves its unqualified right to require, at any time and for any
reason, proof of coverage in the form of a duplicate of the insurance policy with all
endorsements as evidence of coverage.
City of Breme~ton - ~ - 18
Bu#dingDernolition 3~
CONTRACT
(Page 4 of 4)
Proof of coverage shall be provided to the City in the form of a Certificate of
Insurance and shall include additional insured endorsements as evidence of
coverage. The City also reserves its unqualified right to require, at any time and for
any reason, proof of coverage in the form of a duplicate of the insurance policy
with all endorsements as evidence of coverage. Approval of required insurance is a
condition precedent to the execution of this contract.
In witness whereof the parties hereto have caused this agreement to be executed the
day and year first herein above written.
CITY OF BREMERTON CONTRACTOR
Mayor Sound Construction & Equip., Inc.
P.O. Box 728
Port Orchard, WA 98366
By:
Title:
Date:
City Clerk
APPROVED:
City Attorney
City of Bremerton - 1- 19
Building Demolition , ~
0
DATE SUBMITTED: 02/24/04 BILL
AGENDA BILL
CITY OF BREMERTON
CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: Purchasing Agreement for Committee Meeting Date: May 2, 2004
Furniture for City Hall in the Government COUNCIL MEETING Date: May 10, 2004
Center, Kitsap Cotmty Conference Center, Department: Economic
the new Police/Court facility and the new Development
Fire Station 1. Presenter: Gary Sexton
Phone: 360.473.5282
SUMMARY: Request for approval of the agreement between the City of Bremerton and Business
Interiors Northwest, hiring BINW to provide furniture layout design services, furniture purchase,
delivery and installation. The agreement adopts the City of Tacoma purchasing agreement with
furniture purchasing ranging from 50% to 72% off list, and cost plus 25% for ancillary furniture.
BMC 2.76.600 allows for an exception to the bidding requirements when the City adopts another
jurisdiction's bid contract.
ATTACHMENTS: City of Bremerton and Business Interiors Not,est Purchasing Agreement; City
of Tacoma and Buiness Interiors Northwest Purchasing Agreement.
FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): The design, furniture purchase, delivery and
installations are set aside allances for each project.
APPROVALS:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY:
FINANCE DIRECTOR:
MAYOR:
OPERATIONS:
COUNCIL PRESIDENT:
RECOMMENDED MOTION: I move to approve the Agreement with Business Interiors Northwest
for design, furniture purchase, delivegand installation in the Kitsap Conference Center, City Hall in
theGovemmentCenter, the new Police/£ourt facil ity, and the new Fir~ ~3tatlon 1, and
authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement in substantially the same form as
presented.
COUNCIL ACTION: [] Approve [] Deny [] Table [] Continue [] No Action
PURCHASING AGREEMENT
This purchasing agreement is entered into this .... day of .................. 2004, between
the City of Bremerton (as "Lead Agency") and Business Interiors Northwest ("Design Team".)
1. The City of Bremerton, a Washington State Charter City, is authorized and shall
receive the price, rights, terms, and benefits of the agreement between the City of
Tacoma and Business Interiors Northwest in effect from January 1, 2003 through
December 31~t 2007. A copy thereof is attached as Attachment A and incorporated
herein. This agreement is contingent upon the City awarding all new furniture
purchases for the City Hall in the Government Center, the Kitsap Conference Center,
the new Police/Court Facility and the new Fire Department to the Design Team.
2. The City of Bremerton shall receive Tier 2 discounting on the City of Tacoma contract
for all purchases starting at $0 for all tiered discounts listed on Schedule A.
3. Business Interiors Northwest shall provide furniture and system design services for the
City of Bremetton spaces and public space on the Fifth and Sixth Floor of the new
Government Center for a sum of Four Thousand One Hundred Fifty Dollars. Lump
sum fees for furniture design work on the new City of Bremerton Fire Station and the
Police / Court Building will be mutually agreed upon hereafter.
4. Business Interiors Northwest shall provide delivery, and installation of furniture of all
new furniture for the City of Bremerton per the plans for the 5th and 6th floor of the
Government Center for the lump sum of $9,000 less 5% of the sale price of all
ancillary furniture purchases by the City. This lump sum shall apply excepting only
that additional delivery and installation fees at the rate of $40.00 per hour may be
applied in the event the City of Bremerton purchases extraordinary quantities of
furniture for the designed space, and other site conditions that prevent and or delay
delivery and installation, with said extraordinary spaces and purchases agreed upon in
advance.
5. Purchases by the City of Bremerton of ancillary furniture shall be cost plus 25% per the
City of Tacoma contract and will include delivery and installation up to 5% of the total
ancillary purchases.
6. Storage charges shall be at no charge for the first 30 days after receipt of product.
Business Interiors Northwest will be responsible for managing the shipping schedule to
ensure that no products would be stored for more than 30 days (with the exception of
delayed construction or a natural disaster.)
PAGE 1 of 2
PURCHASING AGREEMENT
7. Out of Scope services will be presented in the form of a change order with mutually
agreed upon costs prior to work being performed.
8. Venue n the event of litigation referenced on paragraph II. 1 of the Tacoma contract,
shall be Kitsap County Superior Court.
LEAD AGENCY DESIGN TEAM
CITY OF BREMERTON BUSINESS INTERIORS NORTHWEST
Cary Bozeman Rich Lach
MAYOR CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PAGE 2 of 2
3628 South 3Sth Street
Tacoma, Washington 98409-3192
TACOMA POWER
TACOMA PUBLIC UTILITIES
January16, 2004
City of Bremerton
Mr. Gary Sexton
Director, Economic Development
232 Washington
Bremerton, WA 98337
Dear Mr. Sexton:
This letter is to authorize the City of Bremerton, as a political subdivision within the State of
Washington, the use of the pricing discounts contained in the Purchasing Agreement between
the City of Tacoma and Business Interiors Northwest that is in effect from January 1, 2003
through December 31, 2007. This contract was awarded by the Public Utility Board based on
the fact that the original contract was the result of a competitive selection process and the
favorable discounts in the new contract were unchanged from the original contract. Enclosed is
an internal memo further explaining the recommendation for the contract award, which was
approved by the Board on June 26, 2002. Also enclosed is a copy of the Purchasing
Agreement.
Please call me at 253/502-8226 if you have any questions.
Very truly yours,
Rick Herrmann
Assistant Generation Manager
Generation
RH:FIm Bremerton Shared Agrrnt.doc
Enclosures
C: Don King, BINW
U9723 #2
Rick Herrmann
DATE: June 11, 2002 TACOIflA POWER
TO: Mark Crisson, Director of Utilities ~/~"~ .~~
FROM: Steven J. Klein, Power Superintendent
SUBJECT: Contract with Business Interiors Northwest
RECOMMENDATION: Tacoma Power requests the Public Utility Board's approval to waive
formal bidding and award a contract to Business Interiors Northwest, Tacoma, Washington, for
the supply of Herman Miller panel system furniture and associated products from January 1
2003, through December 31, 2007, for an est mated amOunt of $750,000, plus applicable sales
tax.
BACKGROUND: The Public Utility Board adopted Resolution U-9031 on December 14, 1994,
awarding a contract to Business Interiors Northwest (BINW) for the supply and installation of
Herman Miller panel system furniture and associated products and services. The contract was
the result of a competitive selection process to determine the new City-wide standard for panel
system furniture. The contract total is now at $2,150,000, which has been used to fund a
number of major remodeling projects and new installations over the years, including remodeling
of most of the Administration Building and fumishing the Southwest Annex for Click! staff. The
current contract will expire December 31, 2002. ·
Herman Miller panel system furniture has become the City's standard for such furniture. The
system is easy to install and reconfigure, has good capabilities for distribution of power and
communications, and is very durable. Standardization has allowed a quick response to
requests for workstation additions or reconfigurations, since an inventory of spare parts can be
maintained.
The proposed new 5-year contract is for supply of furniture only, since most new system
furniture projects are now designed and installed with in-house staff. The contract provides the
same discounts as were in the original competitively bid contract for all products included in the
original contract. The basic discount is 69.2 percent from list price for the most ordered Herman
Miller panel system components. There is a discount rate of 72.09 percent for single purchases
amounting to over $125,595. These are very favorable discounts and our review of other
contracts has confirmed that they are the best available. The cities of Lakewood, Gig Harbor,
and Des Moines and Lakehaven Utility District have requested the use of our contract for
Herman Miller purchases from Business Interiors Northwest. The Herman Miller discounts on
their national contract are only available to governmental agencies and range from 65 percent to
68 percent, compared to the 69.2 percent to 72.09 percent in our current contract.
Business Interiors Northwest is a Tacoma firm and the only Herman Miller Certified Network
dealer in Washington state, which assures consistent quality and performance of products and
services. BINW offers a variety of support services for the Herman Miller product including
workstation design, installation, warehousing, repair/maintenance including factory authorized
warranty repair, and refurbishing. '
1
Mark Crisson, DirectorofUtilities
· June 11,2002
Page 2
This new contract is recommended without re-bidding because Business Interiors Northwest
and Herman Miller were originally selected through a competitive process and they are
essentially sole source for the City standard for panel system furniture. This is basically a
requirements contract without firm quantities to bid. Since the original discount rates were
negotiated with Herman Miller involvement and discount rates typically increase as volume of
purchase increases, we could not be expected to improve the discount rate established during
the original competitive process in 1994; our anticipated new furniture requirements are
significantly less than they were when the orig!nal contract was bid, with no major remodels
proposed in the 2003/2004 budget. However, we do anticipate some new furniture purchases
for reconfigurations and potential remodels occurring during the proposed 5-year contract
period.
Our experiences with the Business Interiors Northwest and Herman Miller products have been
very favorable.
BUDGET AUTHORIZATION: Funds are being proposed in the 2003/2004 proposed Tacoma
Power budget and future purchases are dependent on availability of budgeted funds.
We request your approval to submit this matter to the Public Utility Board for its consideration.
Crsson '
~X~,~,rector of Utilities
Purchasing Agreement
between
City of Tacoma
3628 South 35th Street
Tacoma, WA 98409-3192
and
Business Interiors Northwest
710 Pacific Avenue
Tacoma, WA 98402
I E~ectlve Date
' Expiration Date
Gontract Number
Table of Contents
Purchasing A.clreement for Products
between
City of Tacoma
and
Business Interiors Northwest
1. Scope of Agreement
2. Pricing
3. Order Procedures
4. Order Changes and Cancellation
5. Storage and Postponement
6. Packaging and Shipment
7. Invoicing and Payment
8. Returns
9. Warranty
10. Disputes
11. Sole Venue
12. Federal, State, and Municipal Regulations
13. Indemnification
14. Miscellaneous
Schedule A - Discounts
Attachment A - Herman Miller Warranty
City of Tacoma
and
Business Interiors Northwest
Purchasing Agreement for Products
This Agreement ("Agreement") expresses the terms and conditions for the supply of
office furniture products ("Products") between Business Interiors Northwest ("Seller"),
710 Pacific Avenue, Tacoma, Washington, and the City of Tacoma ("Buyer"). This
Agreement is in effect for a five (5) year timeframe, commencing on January 1, 2003 and
concluding December 31, 2007.
In consideration of the mutual promises and upon the conditions contained within this
Agreement, the parties agree:
1. Scope of Agreement
1.1. The terms of this Agreement apply to purchases of Products for which Seller is
an authorized dealer. This includes, but is not limited to, Products manufactured
by Herman Miller, Inc. ("Herman Miller") and it's subsidiaries, including but not
limited to Meridian Incorporated ("Meridian"). Seller is a Certified dealer for
Herman Miller.
1.2. The terms of this Agreement are offered to all departments, utilities, and
divisions of Buyer. Upon mutual written consent, the terms of this Agreement
may be offered to other political subdivisions within the State of Washington.
1.3. The terms of this Agreement apply only to purchases for delivery within the
State of Washington counties of Pierce, Lewis, King, Kitsap, Mason, and
Snohomish. Terms and discounts for purchases for delivery outside of these
counties may be specified in separate schedules or by Addendum.
1.4~ No services are offered in this Agreement.
1.5. Products purchased under this Agreement are for Buyer's own use and are not
intended for resale.
2. Pricing
2.1. Prices for Products manufactured by Herman Miller and Meridian are
determined by applying the appropriate discounts to the manufacturers
published list prices in effect at the time Seller receives Buyer's completed
purchase order. Discounts are listed in Schedule A.
2.2. Products not listed in Schedule A, and Products not manufactured by Herman
Miller or its subsidiaries will be sold to Buyer at Seller's cost plus 25%.
2.3. If Buyer's requested shipping date is more than six months from the date that
Buyer's order is received, Buyer's orders may be re-priced using the list prices in
effect at time of shipment.
2.4. Seller agrees to give Buyer 30 days' prior written notice of any increase ~n
published list prices for Products described in Schedule A.
3. Order Procedures
3.1. Seller will provide a written quotation for all Products being purchased by Buyer.
An approved copy of Seller's written quotation, and a completed purchase order
both signed by an employee of Buyer are required prior to Seller placing orders
with manufacturer(s). Buyers purchase orders should be made out to: Business
Interiors Northwest, 710 Pacific Avenue, Tacoma, WA 98402
3.2. Seller will acknowledge all purchase orders and will confirm scheduled delivery
date.
3.3. If Buyer orders Products that incorporate Buyer's own fabric or other materials
supplied by Buyer, those orders are subject to procedures and conditions
regarding those products that are stated in manufacturer's published price
catalogues. A copy of such procedures and/or conditions will be provided to
Buyer upon request.
3.4. Buyer may request expedited shipment on its purchase order. Expedited
shipment will be subject to manufacturer's lead time programs in effect at time of
order. Manufacturing lead times may vary. Average lead times are 10 working
days for expedited lead time programs, and 4-6 weeks for standard. Lead times
are calculated from the date the manufacturer receives a completed purchase
order from Seller.
4. Order Changes and Cancellation
4.1. Buyer may make a written request at any time to change an order or to cancel
part or all of an order.
4.2. Orders for Products placed on manufacturer's expedited shipment programs are
entered for immediate shipment or production and no changes or cancellations
to those orders may be made.
4.3. Any and all changes or cancellations will be subject to manufacturer(s) policies
and conditions in effect at time of order. Seller will advise Buyer within 96 hours
of receiving written request for change/cancellation as to amount of charges, if
any, resulting from manufacturer's policies and conditions.
5. Storage and Postponement
5.1. if Buyer is not ready to receive Products on the scheduled delivery date, Seller
will store Products for up to 30 days at no additional cost to Buyer subject to
order size and space available in Seller's warehouse. After 30 days a storage
charge of $.94 per square foot will be paid by Buyer. If order size or space
available in Seller's warehouse causes third party storage to be required, Buyer
is responsible for storage preparation charges, handling charges, and any other
expenses relating to the storage of Products that are incurred by Seller.
5.2. Products may be received either at Seller's warehouse facility or Buyer's job
site. If Products are received at Seller's warehouse, charges for delivery to
Buyer's job site are listed in Schedule A.
6. Packaging and Shipment
6.1. Manufacturers use a variety of packaging methods for shipment of Products,
including but not limited to cartons, blankets, bulk, and poly-bagging. If Buyer
requests special packaging or shipping methods, it is responsible for any extra
costs that result.
6.2. Manufacturer's shipping terms and conditions in effect at time of order will apply
to all orders. Many manufacturers, including Herman Miller and Meridian,
prepay freight within the continental United States. Additional freight charges
that may apply resulting from manufacturers shipping terms and conditions will
be included in Seller's quotation for Products.
6.3. Claims for transportation damage will be the responsibility of the Seller and
damaged Products will be repaired or replaced to the satisfaction of Buyer. For
shipments direct to Buyer's location and where Buyer receives the Products,
Buyer is responsible for transportation damage claims.
7. Invoicing and Payment
7.1. Orders are invoiced at time of receipt of Products at Seller's warehouse, or
Buyer's job site if shipped direct from manufacturer.
7.2. Payment is due 10 days from invoice date for all orders. Buyer may withhold
10% of net cost of Products for orders shipped to Seller's warehouse pending
satisfactory delivery to Buyer's job site.
7.3. Buyer agrees to pay a finance charge of 1.0% per month on all delinquent
accounts.
8. Returns
8.1. Products may be returned only with Seller's prior written approval.
9. Warranties
9.1. Manufacturer's warranty in effect at time of delivery will apply to all Products.
Herman Miller and Meridian have a 12 year warranty, including labor, and it is
described in Attachment A.
9.2. Buyer may establish that a warranty claim is within the warranty period by
producing the invoice for Products or other reasonably satisfactory evidence.
10. Disputes
10.1. In the event of a dispute, including collection matters, between the parties
hereto, the substantially prevailing part in litigation shall be entitled to
reasonable attorney fees, costs and expenses.
11. Sole Venue
11.1. Parties agree and stipulate that in the event any litigation should occur
concerning or arising out of this Agreement, the sole venue of any legal action
shall be the Pierce County Court of the State of Washington and interpretation of
the terms of the Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of
Washington.
12. Federal, State and Municipal Regulations
12.1. All federal, state, municipal and/er local regulations shall be satisfied in
the performance of all portions of this Agreement. Seller shall be solely
responsible for all violations of the law from any cause in connection with
product sold under this Agreement.
13. Indemnification
13.1. Seller agrees to indemnify and hold Buyer, its elected officials, officers,
employees, agents, and volunteers harmless from any and all claims, demands,
losses, actions and liabilities (including costs and all attorney fees) to or by any
and all persons or entities, including, without limitation, their respective agents,
licensees, or representatives, arising from, resulting from, or connected with this
Agreement to the extent caused by the negligent acts, errors or omissions of the
Seller, its partners, shareholders, agents, employees, or by the Seller's breach
of this Agreement.
14. Miscellaneous
14.1. Either party may terminate this Agreement, without cause, with 90 days
prior written notice to the other party. Any purchase order placed before the
termination date is governed by this Agreement either until the order is cancelled
or until delivery of Products has been completed and payment from Buyer has
been received.
14.2. The parties obligations that are intended by their nature to continue
beyond the term of the Agreement survive the termination or expiration of the
Agreement.
14.3. This Agreement may be modified or extended only by written amendment
that is signed by authorized representatives of both parties.
14.4. This Agreement is binding on the parties and their respective successors
and assignees. Neither party may assign this Agreement, nor any portion of this
Agreement, without the written consent of the other party and that consent must
not be unreasonably withheld.
IN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF AGREEMENT, the parties have had this Agreement
signed by their duly authorized officers:
City of Tacoma Business Interiors Northwest
Dire~Jto~'of Utilities Chief Execu cer
APPRJDV~D
upe~endentz/l'acoma Power
Approved as to form & ,legality:
/~ssistan~ Cit~,'Attorney
~1~/'AP P r°ve~/'~ i ~"availa bility ~,/¢,.,~ ~°f funds:
Issue Date Issue Number
Schedule A
Product Discounts
Systems Seating Filing, Storage, List $ Tier Discount off list
Freestanding
Action Office 1, AO2, A Series Pedestals, $0 to $450,000 69.2%
Prospects, G Series Pedestals Over $450,000 72.09%
Ethospace,
Accessories,
Energy Distribution,
Lighting, Textiles
Expedited Lead Time 65%
Aeron, Ambi, Resolve $0 & Over 50%
Reaction, Aside,
Avian, Caper
Expedited Lead Time $0 & Over 48%
Equa, Ergon, $0 & Over 52%
Limerick
Expedited Lead Time $0 & Over 50%
Ardo $0 & Over 67.5%
Expedited Lead Time Not available
Q Systems Herman Miller Tables $0 & Over 65%
Expedited Lead Time $0 & Over 62.5%
Passage, Meridian $0 & Over 50.5%
Pedestals, Meridian
Lateral Files, Radian
Expedited Lead Time $0 & Over 48%
Herman Miller Lateral $0 & Over 48.2%
Files, G Series Files
Expedited Lead Time $0 & Over 48.2%
Proper Chairs Kiva Collection $0 to $450,000 45%
Over $450,000 46%
Expedited Lead Time $0 & Over 42%
*Any Herman Miller Cost Plus 25%
Products not listed
above and all non-
Herman Miller
Products
Delivery Charges
Delivery of Products Normal Hours 8A to 5P, M-F $40 per hour
Overtime Hours $52.80 per hour
DATE SUBMITTED: February 20, 2004 BILL
AGENDA BILL
CITY OF BREMERTON
CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: Public Hearing and 2004 Committee Meeting Date: March 2 & 9, 2004
Proposed Amendments to Countywide COUNCIL MEETING Date: March 10 & 17, 2004
Planning Policies as proposed by Kitsap
Regional Coordinating Council Department: Comm. Development
Presenter: Chris Hugo
Phone: 473-5243
SUMMARY: The Kitsap Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs) are a regional framework prepared
by local governments to coordinate jurisdictional growth planning as directed by the State Growth
Management Act. The CPPs were originally adopted and ratified by all Kitsap County local
governments in 1992. In 2000, a major update of the CPPs were commenced by the Kitsap Regional
Coordinating Council. Amendments were adopted by the Board of Kitsap County Commissioners and
ratified by the Council in 2001 and December, 2003. The proposed 2004 amendments address some
of the most important matters related to urban growth including policies on transfer of govemance,
association of urban growth areas with cities, and the balance between urban and rural growth. These
are the final proposed amendments to close the update process that started in 2000.
ATTACHMENTS: Kitsap Countywide Planning Policies with proposed 2004 amendments;
comment sheet for input to KRCC; revised KRCC schedule for Package 2 CPP Revisions.
FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): The proposed amendments to Countywide
Planning policies have no short-term fiscal impacts on city operations but offer long-term prospects
for fiscal improvement
APPROVALS:
DEPARTMENT DIRE CT OR:
CITY ATTORNEY:
FINANCE DIRECTOR:
MAYOR:
FISCAL/BUDGET: "~-'~ "x .~. CONSENT
OPERATIONS:
COUNCIL PRESIDENT:
RECOMMENDED MOTION: 1) 3/10/04 - Public Heari* ng with no action
2) 3/17/04 - Move to direct the staff to forward the Council's comments on the proposed 2004
Countywide Planning Policy amendments to the KRCC Policy Board for consideration.
COUNCIL ACTION: [] Approve [] Deny [] Table [] Continue [] No Action
55'
KITSAP COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Chris Endresen DISTRICT 1
Jan Angel
DISTRICT 2
Patty Lent
DISTRICT3 February 13, 2004
Commissioner Patty Lent has requested a copy of the following document be mailed to
you.
Malcolm Fleming
County Administrator
If you have any questions, you can call her assistant, Deborah Heller at 337-7146.
Thank you
WWW.kitsapgov.com
OERTIFICATION Consistenc Re ort
[or
KITSAP COUNTY'S COUNTYWIDE PLANNING POLICIES2003
i!~ACKGROUND
A major emphasis of the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) is the need to
coordinate local, regional, and state planning efforts. Within the central Puget Sound region,
local governments, countywide planning groups, and the Puget Sound Regional Council have
worked together to develop a process for reviewing local countywide, regional and
transportation agency policies and plans for compatibility and consistency. This process also
provides an opportunity to coordinate and share information related to local and regional
planning.
This report focuses on amendments and additions to Kitsap County's Counts~ide Planning
Policies adopted in 2003. These new provisions are incorporated into several, elements of the
countywide policies: (1) Centers of Growth, (2) Rural Land Uses and Development Patterns, (3)
Contiguous and Orderly Development, (4) Transportation, (5) Affordable Housing, (6)
Coordination with Tribal Governments, (7) Coordination with the Federal Govermment Including
Navy, and (8) Roles and Responsibilities. The section on "Centers of Growth" includes the
designation of two new regional centers in Kitsap County: (1) the Silverdale '~u~ban core" as a
regional growth center, and (2) the South Kitsap Industrial Area as a regional
manufacturing/industrial center.2
The Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council adopted the 2003 amendments to~tla~ Countywide
Planning Policies on through a series of actions between July and October 2003. Subsequently,
the Kitsap County Board of Commissioners adopted the amendments on Nove~nber 29, 2003
with a few minor revisions (Ordinance # 312-2003). The revised amendments were then
circulated to the four municipalities and two federally-recognized tribes in ~ County for
ratification. Each of these communities acted to ratify the policy amendments in December
2003.3
~ 13m certification requirement in the Growth Management Act is described in Chapter 47,80, Revised Code of Waslfing~on
(RCW). The Regional Council' s lnterIocal Agreement, Section VII.A, also provides direction for the revie~n ol~loeal
comprehensive plans and countywide policies (Resolution A-91-01, amended March 1993). The Council's E~e~afiv¢ Board
adopted a process for Policy and Plan Review in April 1994 and amended the process in January 1996 and S~mber 2003.
~ Both of these centers would be recognized by the Regional Council as regional centers under a i~ovision adopted
by the Council's Executive Board on June 26, 2003. That provision states that areas that had beer~l~oposed for
centers designation prior to June 30, 2003 and were formally amended into countywide planning l~o~cies by
December 31, 2003 would be accepted as regional centers by the Regional Council.
3 On January 12, 2004 the newly seated City Council for Port Orchard took action to rescind its city's previous
ratification of the 2003 Countywide Planning Policies. On January 26, 2004 the City Council~reeomidered and
modified its action to only ratify the amendments to Element B of the Policies, the section which~addmsses "Centers
of Growth" an the designations of Silverdale and South Kitsap Industrial Areas as Regionag Certain. Kitsap County
?INDING OF (i~ONSISTENCY
The 2003 Kitsap County Countywide Planning Policies have been reviewed with
the Multicounty Planning Policies in VISION 2020 and the transportation
provisions in Destination 2030 and have been determined to be consistent.
]_~)ISCUSSION
Kitsap County last amended its countywide planning policies in August 2001. This work fully
revised the policies, which were then certified by the Regional Council in September 2001. The
2003 amendments build on the work completed in 2001. Among the major actions Kitsap
County has taken with these amendments is the establishment of the Silverdale "urban core" as a
regional growth center and the South Kitsap Industrial Area as a regional
maunfacturing/industrial center.
The following is a section-by-section overview highlighting the key changes made to the
Kitsap County Countywide Planning Policies in 2003.
CENT£RS OF GROWTH (Element B)
The amended policies present a hierarchy of centers based on the typology outlined in
VISION 2020.4 Bremerton is recognized as a "metropolitan center," given its function as an
anchor for a high-density mix of business, residential, public, cultural and recreational uses.
Silverdale's "urban core" is identified as an "urban center" and as such the county commits to
developing the area to support a wide range of commercial, housing and culture activities in a
mamaer that supports transit, walking and bicycling (Policy B-l-a). As a regional
manufacturing/industrial center, South Kitsap Industrial Area has been established as a site for
future manufacturing and related uses (Policy B-l-b). (See attached map, Kitsap County
(Regional Centers: 2003).)
Additional amendments to this section of the countywide planning policies expand the
concept of "transportation hubs" to include ferry terminals, as well as existing and future transit
stations. This section also now lays out a set of criteria for the Kitsap Regional Coordinating
Council to follow in making decisions related to the distribution of countywide transportation
funding. These criteria include:
· Current or programmed transportation resources (including roads, transit, bicycle,
pedestrian)
· Balance of employment opportunities
· Proximity and connectivity among jobs, housing and retail services
l~oseeuting Attorney's Office has made a determination that ratification of the 2003 amendments became effective
with the December 30, 2003 action of the Bremerton City Council - the fourth and final city to act on the
amendments.
4 See 1995 VISION2020 Update, Appendix 1, page 85.
2
· Types and density of residential uses
· Inclusion of affordable housing
· Provision of community gathering space, parks and cultural opportunities (Policy B-3)
RURAL LAND USES AND DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS (Element C)
Clarifies that level-of-service standards for transit service in rural communities are established
by Kitsap Transit. (Policy C-2-a)
CONTIGUO US AND ORDERLY DEVELOPMENT (Element E)
Adds a reference to the Revenue Sharing Interlocal Agreement Kitsap County and its
municipalities established in [month year]. (Policy E-3-a)
TRANSPORTATION (Element G)
Expands references to bicycle and pedestrian facilities to include safe neighborhood walking
and biking routes to schools. (See policies G-2-b-iii, and G-2-c-x.)
AFFORDABLE HOUSING (Element H)
Expands policy on conducting an inventory of existing housing stock to include the
consideration of navy personnel housing. (Policy H-2-a)
COORDINATION OF PLANNING (Element I)
This entire section has been eliminated, based on a determination by the Kitsap Regional
Coordinating Council that it is redundant with Element M, "Roles and Responsibilities."
COORDINATION WITH TRIBAL PLANNING (Element K) and COORDINATION WITH THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT INCLUDING NAVY (Element L)
The 2001 version of Kitsap County's Countywide Planning Policies had these two elements
combined into a single section. In addition to separating tribal issues into a separate element, the
2003 amendments clarify provisions for developing agreements between tribal governments and
Kitsap County and its municipalities to coordinate comprehensive planning. (See policies K-1
through K-6.) Several new policies have been added to promote coordination between local
jurisdictions and the navy, including provisions that address potential development
encroachment on military readiness activities. (See policies L-5-a through L-5-c)
ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES (Element M)
The language in this section has been revised at several points to clarify the expectations for
the Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council, member agencies and special districts in carrying out
growth management planning activities.
3
( ONS1STENCY WITH ULT1COUTY i LANNING OL1C1ES
VISION 2020, the region's adopted regional growth, economic and transportation strategy,
provides an integrated framework for transportation and land use planning within the central
Puget Sound area. The strategy also includes the multicounty planning policies for the four-
county region, as required by the Washington State Growth Management Act.5 These policies
are arranged in eight topic areas: (1) urban growth areas, (2) contiguous and orderly
development, (3) regional capital facilities, (4) housing, (5) rural areas, (6) open space, resource
protection and critical areas, (7) economics, and (8) transportation. The multicounty policies
were last updated in 1995.
Kitsap County's 2003 amendments add clarity and detail to the existing countywide planning
policies - which were determined in 2001 to be consistent with VISION 2020 and the
multicounty policies. The provisions in the centers element of Kitsap's policies to designate
Silxte/'dale and South Kitsap Industrial Areas as regional centers meet regional expectations and
planning objectives. The Puget Sound Regional Council commits to working with Kitsap
County and its municipalities to ensure that these newly designated centers develop in a manner
that meets local and regional growth management goals.
Kit, ap County's Revenue Sharing Agreement represents a major advancement in addressing
interjurisdictional infrastructure and financing issues. The county and its municipalities are to be
commended on their work in developing this agreement. Kitsap County jurisdictions have also
done excellent work to establish good working relationships with tribal governments and the
federal governments.
~ ONSISTENCY WITH ~ ~ESTINATION 2030
Destination 2030, the 2001 update of the Metropolitan Transportation Plan, calls for the
development of a region-wide, multi-modal transportation system that links urban centers with
high capacity transit. Four key policy areas are emphasized in reviewing countywide planning
policies and Destination 2030 for consistency: (1) optimizing and managing the use of existing
facilities and services, (2) managing travel demand - to address traffic congestion and
environmental objectives, (3) coordinating transportation and land use planning - to support
transit and pedestrian-oriented land use patterns, and (4) expanding transportation capacity to
offer greater mobility options. An additional issue related to transportation planning in the
central Puget Sound region and addressed in the Destination 2030 is conformity with federal and
state air quality requirements.
Kitsap County's 2003 amendments offer a solid framework for decision-making on
transportation investments at the countywide level and could serve as a model for the other
counties in the central Puget Sound region. The amendments to the transportation element of the
countywide planning policies to emphasize safe neighborhood pedestrian and bicycle routes to
schools are also noteworthy.
Chapter 36.70A.210, Revised Code of Washington.
4
( ,'ONCLUSION
The 2003 amendments to Kitsap County's Countywide Planning Policies strengthen the
conformity of these policies with VISION 2020 and the region's Multicounty Planning Policies.
At the same time, the provisions in Kitsap's 2003 countywide policy amendments demonstrate
consistency with Destination 2030, the region's adopted transportation plan.
The Puget Sound Regional Council encourages Kitsap County and its municipalities to
clarify its ratification procedures for its countywide planning policies, including the
establishment of deadlines for local action and provisions to guide situations in which unanimous
consent is not achieved. Adding detail and clarity to the adoption process for the policies should
streamline future collaborative work among the county and its municipalities and enable
subregional concerns to be resolved at a more localized level.
X:IFGS~PLANREV~ppr PLAN REVIEW REFORTSIKitsap CPPs 2003.doc
5
Kitsap County '
(Regional Centers: 2003)
Bremer~on
South Kitsap Industrial Area
Revisions to the Kitsap Countywide Planning Policies
January 23, 2004
Attached are the full Countywide Planning Policies
adopted by Kitsap County Ordinance #258-01, August 20, 2001
and Ordinance 312-2113, December 15, 2003.
Revisions and sections that have been adopted by the KRCC Policy Board
but not yet adopted by the County and ratified by Councils are shown in blue:
Additions = underlined & italics
Deletions = str4keOmm~
Revisions under discussion by the KRCC Policy Board are underlined and in red:
Additions = underlined & italics
Deletions = ~
Please note:
If this document is printed in black and white,
the adopted revisions (blue) will not be underlined.
The revisions under discussion will be underlined.
February 3, 2004
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION Page 3
POLICY ELEMENTS
A. Countywide Growth Pattern .............................................................................. 5
B. Urban Growth..Amas 7
C. Centers of Growth 14
D. Rural Land Uses and Development Patterns 16
E. Policies for Countywide Strategies for'Open"Space.Preservat.ion; . Resource Protection
And Critical Areas 18
F. Contiguous and Orderly Development 20
G. Siting Public Capital Facilities ora Countywide or State-Wide Nature 21
H. Transportation 23
I. Affordable Housing 29
J. Policies for Countywide E~iJii~smi'~'D~¥~lopm~l~t 32
K. An Analysis of. the. Fi.seat Lmpaet 34
L. Coordination with Tribal Governments 35
M. Coordination with Federal Government inctudin'g'Navy 36
N. Roles & Responsibilities 37
APPENDIX
A. Revenue Sharing Interlocal Agreement (adopted December, 200l) 35
B. Urban Growth Area Management Agreements 45
C. Population Distribution 46
2 February 3, 2004
INTRODUCTION
The Growth Management Act (GMA) is founded on the principle that it is in the best interest of the citizens of the State
to foster coordination and cooperation among units of local and state government. Cities and counties must engage in a
collaborative planning process under the requirements of the Act. Specifically, the Act states that, "THE LEGISLATURE
FINDS THAT UNCOORDINATED AND UNPLANNED GROWTH... POSE A THREAT TO THE ENVIRONMENT, SUSTAINABLE ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT, AND THE HEAL TH, SAFETY, AND HIGH QUALITY OF LIFE ENJOYED BY RESIDENTS OF THE STATE. ]TIS IN THE
PUBLIC INTEREST THAT CITIZENS, COMMUNITIES, LOCAL GOVERNMENT6; AND THE PRIVATE SECTOR COOPERATE AND COORDINATE
WITH ONE ANOTHER IN COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLANNING."
The Growth Management Act (GMA) requires that each county planning under RCW 36.70A.040 must adopt a
Countywide Planning Policy to be used as a framework for the development of county and city comprehensive plans.
This countywide policy is required to be developed in cooperation with Cities located within the county. ~
................. ~ ............... ~ .................................................................. t. ........n lun,,d
...... ~- .......... [ ............... ~, ........................ Pt' ................... 1o ........................... al odlctl0t~s
,~,..,.., ................ .~..,:..,. ... +~... v;+ ...... o~..: ..... ~ m .... :... r,. ...... :, . ~r',..~ m.,.; ..... , r,. ...... u* The 1992 Kitsup
Counwwide Planning Policy and subsequent revh'ions in 200land 2003 were developed b;' a commiltee al'planners
representin~ Kitsap Count?.,, the Cit;' of Oremerton, the City of Port Orchard, the City of Poulsbo, the Cilv of Bainbridp. e
L~land, the Port Gamble S"Klallam Tribe, the Suquamtkh 7kibe, the ,%~vF, and Kitsap 7kansit. At each point, Ihe Kitsa~
Regional Coordinatin~ Council conducted a public he~ng ~d prepped a reco~endation for adoption by the ~tsap
County Bo~d of Co~issioners, raoficatum by (.~l~es and endorsement by Tmbal (. ouncds, o....,..~..~..,.,: ...~.:~.. bv -.~.;~a:'.';a'..,..al"
~.;.n; ...... ,k~.o;,; .....~ ........ ~ ..... ~ ........ ~ 7hep frev ddi ~i th ghtl KRC('fo '
.... o iew an scus, on tau ~e . rum ~s
......... ~ ................................... m ..... roces,~
intended to fizwer consensus whenever possible. CounO, and Cit~' Comprehensive Plans must be consistent with the
adopled Counl;¢vide Planning PolicF.
]. Jhe Kilsap Co mlM,[ ~de l lannmg Poh~i should be d} nctm~c and regularly momtored [bt rpphcabdtlv and
e[[bctivene,ss.
a. The adopled CounIDvide Planning PolicFshould be reviewed through the KRC(; process al leasl every five Fears.
Proposed revLsions ,shall be revien,ed /br impacls according to lfle S'lole Environmenlal Proleclion ~4cl (S~PzD
and,shall be cons~slent ~tth the State Growth Mom(gement Acl (G3~4).
h. 7he ("otlnlV Or a ('ilk mav pt opose a policy amendment Ia the ~ ount[~vide P[annin,g PolicF
2. Pr~ed amendmenls sh~uld be considered on a re~u[~r basis and volin~ is sub[ecl ~ ~he K~.L~p Regi~nal
(.~ ordinolmg ( ouncd bF-laws.
o. Kitsap ( 'ountF shall lake action to cons'ider and adopt amendmenls or revisions to the Countywide Planning
Policy [bllowing recommendation [bom the KRCC Policy Board 7~e adopted CPP ~*'il[ become eff&'tive upon
3 Februa~ 3, 2004
ratification bl, three or more cilies red~rexentinx a ma/oritF' of(combined) ciI~' population in K2lxap (jounty.
[Iowever, the KRCC will s'trive /hr ratification b~, all Cities and emkmvement bv Tribal Councils.
b. I/ a City o~ )Fibal Council does not take action within 60 days o['the Board of County Comm'.ssioners odoplion
o fits xubject ordinance, that City or 7kibe will be considered as rati~,ing or endorsing the adopted revisions to
the Count3avide Plannin,~ Policy.
The G~ established "~o~ m~ag~ent heatings bo~ds" to which the state, a county, a city or a person with
st~ding may request a review of whether a City or Co~ty ~ comprehensive pl~, development
re~tation, or Co~t~xde Plying Pohcy
p,.,,, ....... ~ .......... ~ .......... .,,' ~ r..,,..,, ............. ,,,~" Planning Po!ic~ ........... ........ ~,s in compli~ce with ~e Act. ~['~, ,,~-~,,,,~,c'"~ State
gove~ent involvement in ~e local pla~ing process will result if Cities ~d the Cowry do not acNeve consensus,
Reco,~nizin,t thai local solutions lo local issues' may be more sensitive to local conditions. ~talo
............... ~ .......................... ~ .............. ~ ..................... u ....... ~ ............. ~tsap oun , e
Cities ~d ~ other local juhs~ctions
...... ~ agree to strive towed the principle that ~1 loc~ piing differences
should be negotiated and settled locally, Appeals or requests for review shall should be refe~ed to the Central Puget
Sound Gro~h Management Heatings Bo~d only when the local resolution process h~ been exhausted.
4 February 3, 2004
Element A. Countywide Growth Pattern: New Section
I. Kitsap Conntv Vision Elements:
This* vision [bt the fi~lure af Kitsap County seeks to maintain and enhance the qualil¥ of life that makes our Count~, u
.sT~ecial place to live and work. We envision a [~ture in which ()ur natural svs'tems are protected; the waler qualitv in
our lakes, streams and Puget Sound is enhanced; the village character of some of our smaller towns is preserved; the
historical nalure of our communities is respected in order to preserve our heritage [br fiaure generations: cz
diversified ecanomic base supports gaod /obs, contributes to health1, down(awns in our cilies and a#brdable housing
choices: and the rural areas of our county are maintained
This vision of the/iaure which is shw'ed bT' citizens and elected officials' - includes the [bllowing elements.
a. Livable urban communities and neighborhoods; centers ~r empl~y~ment~ civic activities~ housing:
i. Attractive. well designed and livable urban communities, supported b3, efficient and high quality services and
facilities, and praviding a range Of housing choices.
ii. Healthy cities that are the region's centers [hr employment, affordable housing choices, and civic and cultural
activities.
b. l~ital diversified ecanomF: A vital diver~rified econornF that provides living wa~e /ohs /'or residents', supported ~?
adequate land [bra range of emplo~,ment uses and that encourages accomplishment of local economic
development goals.
c. Efficient multi-modal transportation system: Creation of an efficient multi-modal transportation .~Fstem
including roads and highways, [brries. and opportunities [br non-motorized travel - thai provides efficient access
and mobility [br county residents and supports our land use pattern.
Natural sFstems protectian:
i. Proteetion and enhancement oDhe natural enviromnent, including wetlands, streams, wild/lib habitat, water
qualit~ and natural resource activities.
ii. Creation ora s~,stem of open space, parks and greenbelts that provide opportunities [br recreation and that
give structure and separation to urban areas.
e. Rural character au(side of Urban Growth Areas: Maintenance o/'the traditional character, appearance, fimctions
and lift, styles of Kitsap County's rural communities and areas
Responsive Gavernment: An efficient and respansive government that works with cilizens, governmental entities
and 7)qbes to meet callective need~ fairlF; and that supports eob(cation, environmental protection and human
services.
A kef strale~rv lo accomplish this vision is the inlenlion lo encourage fitlure urban growth in areas wilhin
incorporated cities and in unincorporated areas that are already' characterized b F urban growth wilh existing and
planned serviees and fbcililies. These actions will work to enhance our natural environment and maintain rura[
character, and are geared lo reduce taxpal;er costs by/bcusing the expenditure Of public/grids, encouraging
concenlrated developmenl where appropriate= and increasing our choices for housinR and [obs.
5 February 3, 2004
'7(3
Z Roles o['Cities and Urban Growth AreasfUrban Communities
a. The primar~, role o/'Kitsap's urban communities is to attract growth, through new development~ re-developnten!
and in-till. (See Appendix C [br current and pro/ected population distribzttion.)
b. Each of Kitsap 's urban communities shall foster its' unique vision a,~ a high quality; place to live and work.
c. In Kitsap, urban communities are closely, linked to water and natural amenities and provide open space lin/ex to
the natztra[ environment.
3. Roles of Count~'
Keep rexional vision in mind when making local decisions
b. Ste~.vardship o['unincorporated urban areas and promote transition to cities
c. Maintain/enhanee natural sg~'tems ami rural character
~Sariet}, o/'hm,er density, rural communities, densities, and uses.
4. To implement this vision, new growth shall be distributed within a range o['65-85% to identified Urban Growth
A rea&
Balancing historical patterns o/'growth with a pre/brred vision of the [itture and legal requirements is an on-
going chaNenge Tradeo[]Jv must be made to balance the costs with the gains: #exibilit~, is necessary to a&tpt to
changing conditions. These policies are intended to reflect the lon~-term goals of the people living and working
here.
5. To achieve these goal& KRCC member jurisdictions should:
a. Make decisions together when needed.
b. Coordinate and cooperate on land use, polir[v and capital planning.
c. Establish and keep updated a Land Cctpacitp ~tna[¢~is Program.
d. Develop a program/hr the Transfer o/'Development Rixhts to preserve lands' u'ith important public bene/its.
e. Maintain/~vreserve distinct urban identities with greea breaks or other natural features.
.fi Promote tiering anrb'or phasing o['in/baxtruclztre development within Urban Growth Areas.
Develop and implement land use policies, regulations and incentives to promote the efficient uxe of urban
are(is.
6 February 3, 2004
Element A B. Urban Growth Areas
The basic premise for designating Urban Growth Areas is to encourage the location of urban density residential,
commercial and industrial developments in areas where services can be most economically provided. The benefits of
directing growth to designated urban areas include:
* Higher density residential development within walking distance of jobs, transit, schools and parks.
* Limiting urban expansion into rural and forested areas.
* Promotion of in-fill or redevelopment of existing urban areas.
* Preservation of open space, critical areas and lands designated for resource protection.
* Accommodation of employment growth in a concentrated pattern.
* More economical provision and maintenance of streets, sewer/water lines and other public facilities.
* Promotion of attractive residential neighborhoods and commercial districts which provide a sense of
community.
* A harmonious relationship with regional planning as articulated by Vision 2020 and Destinatian 2030
adopted by the Puget Sound Regional Council as the growth and transportation strategy for central Puget
Sound.
1. The Growth Management Act was amended in 1997 requiring Kitsap County and the Cities to monitor
countywide development activities in five-year intervals in order to test the population growth assumptions
incorporated in the Urban Growth Area capacity analyses. This Buildable Land Supply Analysis compares
growth and development assumptions, targets, and objectives with actual growth and development, including
residential, commercial, and industrial capacity. If inconsistencies are found, the County and Cities must then
identify reasonable measures, other than adjusting Urban Growth Areas, that will be taken in order to comply
with the GMA. The following countywide planning policies relate to this regional program to monitor the
buildable land supply for future growth as forecasted by the State and allocated distributed by through the
Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council process:
a. The County and the Cities shall '~""'~:'~ - - D,,,,: .... ~ u,.;~,~,,~,~,~ ~ .... ~,, , · ..,
........... ~namtam a ..~.~ ............................. Land (.apacttv ~4nal~6~s
Program a:;...~..~.~.~"'"~ ~.~,~, ..~D r, nt.. ~... , ~. ~.-.~-~ 'm * q ~ c ,~.,.~.~ 0..~,_~,~.... __lo monitor land supply and Irendv [br residenlial.
comraercial, and imhtslria[ lands to determine the success of implementation of their respective
comprehensive plans. ?'his Program is intended to fulfill lhe Slate requirement [bra Buildable Lands'
]~t'ogt'am.
b. The County and the Cities shall participate in the m.:~,.~,,,,~.~ r ..... ~, - ,. , ' ·
.................... Land (,apat~ty Analys~s using a consistent
methodology for review and evaluation.
c. The County and the Cities shall develop strategies from ~":~-~"~'~" ~ ....~" .' , ' '
.................... Land (.apact(v Analysis to :nc:'ease
~ effkqentlv uxe lhe available capacity of residential, commercial and industrial uses within Urban Growth
Areas reducing the need to expand the urban growth boundaries.
d. The County and Cities shall establish procedures for resolving inconsistencies in collection and analysis of
P,'ai!~a~!e ....... Land (.apactO data. In the event a resolution cannot be achieved, the Kitsap Regional
Coordinating Council shall be a forum to review and if possible resolve any disputes between parties.
......................................... ~ ....... t Act.
7 Februa~3, 2004
2. Process and criteria for establishing, expanding, and adjusting Urban Growth Areas in Kitsap County:
a. Urban growth shall be encouraged within Urban Growth Areas and not permitted outside oJ'an adopted
Urban Growth Area except under specific circumstances, as fully contained communities and master planned
resorts as authorized by the Growth Management Act:
b. Unincorporated Urban Growth Areas should be associated with an existing or fi~ture city.
c. All Urban Growth Areas shall be reflected in County and respective City comprehensive plans.
Sufficient area must be included in the Urban Growth Areas to accommodate the adopted 20-year population
distribution.
e. A jurisdiction may define growth tiers within its Urban Growth Area, to focus investment where growth is
desired. Utility development and/or expansion may be phased to support efficient and cost-effective growth
and to prioritize investments.
The County, City, or interested citizens may initiate an amendment to an existing Urban Growth Area through
the comprehensive plan amendment process as authorized by the Growth Management Act.
g. Any jurisdiction seeking to expand its Urban Growth Area shall achieve densities consistent with lhe Growth
Management Act, as interpreted by the Growth Management Hearings Board, and the City's adopted
Comprehensive Plan and any inter-local agreement between the City and the County.
h. ~f an ad~pted ~r pr~p~sed 20-year pr~jected p~pulati~n distributi~n may require expansi~n qf its Urban
Growth Area, a jurisdiction shall conduct planning and analysi~; addressing the following conditions:
i. Update and confirm the capacity analysis fi~r land within the existing Urban Growth Area for residential,
commercial, and/or indue'trial lands. This may be based upon the Buildable Lands analysis. To maximize
consistency across jurisdictions, each jurisdiction shall use consistent methodology in calculating
capacity.
ii. Review the planning and zoning regulations and any incentive programs in place to determine expected
densities consistent with the Growth Management Act, as interpreted by the Growth Management
Hearings Board, and the jurisdiction's adopted Comprehensive Plan.
iii. Conduct an analysis of all development approved within the overall Urban Growth Area since the last
Urban Growth Area expansion that demonstrates densities are consistent with the Growth Management
Act, as interpreted by the Growth Management Hearings Board, and the jurisdiction's adopted
Comprehensive Plan.
iv. Data collection and analysis for the capacity analysis should be done cooperatively. The County will be
responsible for data describing the unincorporated portion of the Urban Growth Area, and the City for the
incorporated portion.
i. Expansion of Urban Growth Areas shall reflect the Growth Management Act (RCW 36. 70A. 11 O) which directs
growth first to areas ah'eady characterized by urban growth that have adequate existing public~/bcility and
service capabilities to serve development; second to areas ab'eady characterized by urban growth that will be
served adequately by a combination of both existing public facilities and services and any additional needed
public facilities and services that are provided; and third to areas that are adjacent to incorporated cities or
8 February 3, 2004
established Urban Growth Areas once the available land meeting the first or second priority has been
designated. Areas which have existing public facilities or where public facilities can be reasonably extended
and are not currently at urban densities should be considered first within this category.
j. The jurisdiction shall prepare a further comparison of potential areas for expansion, including:
i. A plan for infrastructure and services that demonstrates how a fidl range of urban-level services would be
provided within potential expansion areas:
Fire Storm Water Solid Waste
Police Potable Water Park & Recreation Facilities
Transportation Sewer Schools
Telecommunications, including Broadband
All service providers including special districts and adjacent jurisdictions should be included in planning
ii. Although specific standards and eriteria are not implied, other.[~ctors shall be addressed in evaluating
areas for Urban Growth Area expansion, including but not limited to: environmental constraints:
economic development; preservation of cultural, historical, and designated resource lands.
k. The City and County shall conduct early and continuous public involvement when establishing expanding or
adjusting Urban Growth Areas, and shall do so jointly when appropriate.
3. Coordinated Growth Management in Urban Growth Areas:
a. Adopted City' and County comprehensive plans shall reflect the intent that all land within unincorporated
Urban Growth Areas will either annex to a city or incorporate within the 20-year planning horizon, subject to
the state annexation procedures.
b. Existing s~ate ~aw frustrates Cities~ and C~unties~ ability t~ plan f~r and implement the ~rderly transiti~n ~f
urban areas into City jurisdiction through annexation. All jurisdictions should promote changes to state law
that would remedy this inconsistency between the Growth Management A ct and annexation statutes.
c. To maximize the efffcient use of urban lands, subdivisions in the Urban Growth Areas should occur at urban
densities.
d. As described in the Growth Management Act, cities are the primary provider of municipal services and
facilities in their Urban Growth Areas, responsible .for demonstrating within their Comprehensive Plans the
capacity to provide all urban services within their associated Urban Growth Area(s). This may be
accomplished through a collaborative process with Kitsap County and/or other service providers.
e. To facilitate and encourage annexation and/or incorporation of urban areas over the 20 year planning period,
the County and each City should work together to promote coordination and consistency in land uses, zoning,
and development regulations. This shouM be accomplished through:
i. Urban Growth Area Management Agreements (UGAMA 's) that address the issues described in this
policy. (See Appendix B for fi~rther detail on contents of UGAMA 's.)
ii. Joint planning fi)r specific areas to address land uses, in~bastructure needs, level of service standards us
identified in these politic& and other issues as needed. Special districts sholdd be included in the
9 February 3, 2004
-74
planning process as appropriate. The results qf the joint planning shouM be r~flected in County and
City comprehensive plans.
iii. Modifications to County development regulations to reflect city standards and to regulate development
in a manner that promotes the likelihood of annexation.
iv. Coordination in the review of permit applications aa' appropriate.
v. Specific proposals for annexation as developed or considered by the ci~. Residents of unincorporated
areas should be consulted and actively involved in the annexation process affecting them. All sen, ice
providers including apecial districts and adjacent jurisdictions should be included in annexation and/or
incorporation planning.
f For Urban Growth Areas not associated with a spec~c ci~:
i. The Coun~ should plan with the local eommunities ~'o:;:~:::nitv cc::::~ql to address land uses,
infrastructure needs, level of service standord~ as ident~ed in these policies, and other issues as needed.
The results should be reflected in the County comprehensive plan.
ii. The Coun~ should continue to provide a level of urban facilities and services generally equivalent to
those of cities on an interim basis fi)r those Urban Growlh Areas that eventually will incorporate, and on
an on-going basis as appropriate.
.............. dtstrtbutton of .......... 20
4. The following Count~ide Planning Policies relate to the price::
year population increments, as forecasted by the WA Office of Financial Management:
The Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council shall adzpt coordinate the process for a!!~cafing distributing the
forecasted population for the pehod 2002 2022 2005 - 2025 and fo~ard, ~, consistent with
the requirements of the Growth Management Act ~-~ ,m,,~,,:,,,
a. Each jurisdiction with a designated Urban Growth Area shall develop an estimate and'~r range of the
additional population that it could accommodate and service during the 20 year planning horizon, consistent
with its vision for future communi~ character. The estimate shall consider the need fi)r increasing population
densi~ within the Urban Growth Areas to promote efficient service delivery, avoid sprawl, and preserve
~ ..... ~ commumty character.
b. The population estimates and/or ranges shall be provided to the Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council, wilh a
statement of need concerning adjusted Urban Growth Area boundaries.
c. The Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council shall compile the jurisdictions 'population estimates, including the
estimate of additional population capaci~ for areas outside the Urban Growth Areas, and determine whether
adjustments to the overall distribution are required in order Writ within the OFM projecled range.
d The Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council, after conducting a public hearing, shall recommend the estimate
and'vr ranges of 20 year population distribution to Kitsap CounT.fi)r adoption as an amendment to the
Count~vide Planning PalleT.
Feb~a~ 3, 2004
e. Kitsap County should give substantial weight to the KRCC recommendation in adopting the 20-year
population distribution.
.~' Followiny~ adoption o['the estimates ancg/or ranges, each jurisdiction s'hould np&~te its comprehensive plan. so
as to arrive at a final population target consistent with the eslimate an~,~r within the ori,~inal range.
g. ,4{ter each jurisdiction has completed its comprehensive plan update, the final adopted target should be
compiled and reviewed through the Kitsap Regional Coordinatfi~g Coz ncil process' and the revised population
distribution incorporated into the Countk3wc& Planmng Pohcy. ~1 final distribution to ~,rban Growth ~,lreas
verse, s non-Urban Growth Areas within the range specified above should then be calculated
5. P~llp Contained Communities and Master Planned Resorts
Under the Growth Management ActFRC~' 350), fully contained communities (FC(~') ma}' be considered
v ........... prowded that a potion of the twenty-year population forecast is rese~ed for and subsequently
di ib d lh FC('.1-; .......... a~: .... r+~,: ..... : .... ~ ...... ~ ..... ~,~: ......... r-~n
' , .................................... 7he G,tg~ reqzttres that ~ (Cs provide/m' a mix o[uses that
provide [obs. housing, and public facilities and services to support a long-lerm residential population.
7he GM.4 (RCI, V 360) also allows the consideration q/)2ropos'ed master planned resorts (MPRs) outside
Growth :~reas /br shorter-term residential uses. Master planned resorls are described as sel/'-contained, [klly
inlexrated planned developmenls in areas with si,~nificant natz~tra[ amenities.
,~ Maxter Plan review process and decision criteria/hr [idly contained commnnities and master planned re.sorts
should be incorporated in the County s r omprehensive plan. must re/lecl the standar& and requirements in the
GMA, and in addilion must address the [bl[o*~'inx.2
a. .~k, cessarv public fhcilities, including but not limited to parks, schools, and p~blic sa/kt}; [~tcilities shonld be
provided within ar alon,~ with the development, consistent with adopted capital [~cilitv and level o/'service
standartts'.
b. Impacts lO pnblic in[i'astructure. ~earb;, communities, adjacent rural areas, environmeatal reso~trces, and
des~nated resource lands should first be avoider~ second minimized and third mitigated
c. Such developments should only be located adjacent to, or in reasonabJy close proximit}, to. a ma[or
transportation corridor.
d P~ o~ isions {bt re~ ie~,[ of such developments through the KR( C process, in addition to other procedural
requirements.
RCW 82.02.050.
11 Februa~ 3, 2004
12 February 3, 2004
13 February 3, 2004
Element B C: CENTERS OF GROWTH
Centers are intended to be compact and centralized working, shopping and/or activity areas linked to other Centers by
transit. Centers and their boundaries shall be locally determined by the County and the Cities where a community-wide
focal point can be provided, significant population and/or employment growth can be located, and the increased use of
transit, walking and bicycling can be supported. Designated Centers define the pattem of future residential and
commercial/industrial growth in Kitsap County. In decisions relating to population growth and resource allocation
supporting growth, Centers have a high priority.
1. The Puget Sound Regional Council has defined several types of Regional Centers within Urban Growth
Areas in the four-county planning region, with planning guidelines (Vision 2020, Appendix 1). In Kitsap
County, the following centers are applicable:
a. Regional Centers of Growth:
i. Metropolitan Center: Bremerton including the Bremerton Naval complex. "Metropolitan Centers function
as anchors within the region for a high density mix of business, residential, public, cultural and
recreational uses, and day and night activity. They are characterized by their historic role as the central
business districts of the major cities within the central Puget Sound region, providing services for and
easily accessible to a population well beyond their city limits. Metro Centers may also serve national or
international roles." (Vision 2020)
ii. Urban Center: Silverdale Urban Core. In Kitsap County, Urban Centers are areas with the comprehensive
planning to support a wide range of commercial, housing, and cultural choices. All areas of the Urban
Center are serviced by transit throughout the day and much of the area is within walking or bicycling
distance. Significant at in-fill opportunities exist with the highest residential, commercial, and employment
densities expected.
b. Regional Manufacturing/Industrial Centers: South Kitsap Industrial Area. "Regional Manufacturing/Industrial
Centers are major, existing regional employment areas of intensive, concentrated manufacturing and industrial
land uses which cannot be easily mixed at higher densities with other uses. To preserve land at these centers
for manufacturing, industry and related uses, large retail uses or non-related offices are discouraged.
Provision of adequate public facilities and services, including good access to the region's transportation
system, is very important to the success of manufacturing/industrial centers." (Vision 2020)
2. The following are other types of centers within Kitsap County:
a. Town or City Centers are usually the existing downtown core of a city or Urban Growth Area. There is an
abundant mix of shopping, service, employment, and cultural opportunities. Multifamily housing may be
intermixed and single family housing may be within walking or bicycling distance. Infill should include
mixed use and higher densities surrounding the Town Center.
b. Mixed Use Centers are a generic category that can be described in terms of neighborhoods or districts. The
designation represents a commitment to planning for Center development, with a planned mix of housing,
commercial, and employment opportunities. Most shopping and commercial uses are within a short walking
or bicycling distance of housing. There is a higher proportion of multi-family housing at relatively high
densities. Navy facilities could be considered for this designation.
c. Activity and Employment Centers are areas of concentrated employment and are a magnet for significant
numbers of people usually during daytime hours because of business and/or manufacturing activities. They
may be located outside of Urban Growth Areas, consistent with the Growth Management Act. Industrial and
14 February 3, 2004
77
business parks and Navy employment centers are in this category. Within Urban Growth Areas, the
opportunity to include a proportional residential element should be determined on a case-by-case basis,
considering the unique geography and economics of the area.
d. Transportation Hubs are locations of regional inter-modal connection that may be located outside o f Urban
Growth Areas. Examples are ferry terminals, the Bremerton National Airport, or certain transit stations.
3. For purposes of distributing countywide transportation funding, a process and criteria should be developed
and coordinated through the Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council. The following should be included:
Current or programmed transportation resources (including roads, transit,
bicycle, pedestrian)
Balance of employment opportunities with residential
Proximity and connectivity among jobs, housing, retail services
Types and density of residential uses
Inclusion of affordable housing
Provision of community gathering space, parks, and cultural opportunities
February 3, 2004
Element C D. RURAL LAND USES AND DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS
Rural areas of Kitsap County are characterized as having a variety of parcel sizes, with a diversity o£1and use
activities. These areas also contain significant amounts of complex natural systems. It is a high priority to preserve
and enhance the rural character of these areas. Counties are responsible for designating and regulating rural areas
through the comprehensive planning process. However, rural preservation is a regional issue and it is important to
coordinate these planning objectives with the Cities.
1. The following policies relate to preserving rural character and enhancing the natural environment.
a. Preserve the character o£identified rural areas by protecting and enhancing the natural environment, open
space and recreational opportunities, and scenic and historic areas; supporting small-scale farming and forestry
uses; and permitting low-density residential living and cluster development maintained by rural levels o£
service. Support Rural Conununities as locations for a mix of housing types, rural levels of service, cultural
activities, and employment that serves the needs of rural areas.
b. This policy is not intended to preclude the future designation of Urban Growth Areas.
2. The following policies relate to preserving rural land use and development patterns:
a. Rural Communities are already-existing residential and commercial areas of more intensive rural
development designated in the Kitsap County Comprehensive Plan under RCW 36.70A.070.5.ln-fill is
expected. Rural Communities should be serviced by transportation providers and other services consistent
with the Levels of Service adopted by Kitsap County for roads and by Kitsap Transit for transit upon their
designation as an area of more intensive rural development.
b. Transportation Itubs may be located within existing areas of more intensive development. Walking,
bicycling, and transit are the major forms of travel. Transportation Hubs are locations of regional intermodal
connection Examples are ferry terminals and transit stations ~vith convenience services.
c. The County shall develop criteria consistent with the Growth Management Act for designating future
industrial and commercial development outside of Urban Growth Areas that protect rural character while
encouraging vehicle trip reduction. The criteria should allow for industrial resource-based land use and
recreation and for convenience commercial that is scaled to serve the daily needs ofruraI residents.
3. The following policies relate to establishing and maintaining rural levels of service:
a. Rural level-of-service standards shall address sewage disposal, water, transportation and other appropriate
services. The standards shall be developed based upon levels of service typically delivered in rural areas
consistent with RCW 36.70A.030 (16).
b. For purpose of trip reduction, develop a range of alternative modes of transportation consistent with rural
levels of service to connect Rural Communities with urban Centers.
c. When sewers need to be extended to solve isolated health, environmental, and sanitation problems, they shall
be designed for limited access so as not to increase the development potential of the surrounding rural area.
4. The following policies relate to conserving small-scale natural resource use in rural areas:
a. Rural land use designations in the County's Comprehensive Plan should support rural uses such as farming,
forestry, mining, recreation, and other rural activities, and permit a variety of low-density residential uses which
16 February 3, 2004
preserve rural character, and can be sustained by rural service levels.
b. The County's Comprehensive Plan policies shall promote clustering residential development and other techniques
to protect and enhance significant open spaces, natural resources, and critical areas for more efficient use of the
land. Clustering should not increase residential housing units in the overall area designated as rural, consistent
with designated rural densities. Development clusters shall be designed, scaled and sited in a manner consistent
with rural character and the provision of rural levels of service.
c. The County's Comprehensive Plan policies shall support Rural Communities as locations of employment, a mix
of housing types, and cultural activities for rural areas that primarily function as locations for service needs such
as grocery stores, shopping, and community services, and small-scale cottage industries for the surrounding rural
area.
17 February 3, 2004
Eiementt}E. POLICIES FOR COUNTYWIDE STRATEGIES FOR OPEN SPACE PRESERVATION,
RESOURCE PROTECTION, AND CRITICAL AREAS.
Open space is defined as land area consisting of natural systems, resource lands and critical areas that include
building limitations for future development. These critical areas include wetlands, wildlife conservation areas, steep
slopes, frequently flooded areas and areas with a critical recharging affect. These open space lands also include
aesthetic functions such as view sheds of the water or ridgelines. Many of these natural systems are inter-connected
and cross multi-jurisdictional boundaries within the County. The strategy is to conserve these areas and connect them
to create a regional open space network to protect critical areas, conserve natural resources, and preserve lands and
resources of countywide and local significance
1. The following policies relate to creating a regional network of open space:
a. The County and the Cities shall implement the Kitsap County Open Space Plan and the Kitsap County
Consolidated Greenway Plan which identify a countywide green space strategy that incorporates planning
efforts of the County, Cities, state agencies, non-profit interest groups and land trusts in the County.
b. The County and the Cities shall preserve and enhance, through inter-jurisdictional planning, significant
networks and linkages of open space, regional parks and public/private recreation areas, wildlife habitats,
critical areas resource lands, water bodies and trails.
c. The County and the Cities shall frame and separate urban areas by creating and preserving a permanent
network of urban and rural open space, including parks, recreation areas, critical areas and resource lands.
2. The following policies relate to conserving and enhancing the County's natural resources, critical areas and
environmental amenities while planning for and accommodating sustainable growth:
a. The County's and the Cities' Comprehensive Plans shall each address regional air and water quality protection.
b. The County and the Cities shall protect critical areas (wetlands, aquifer recharge areas, fish and wildlife
habitat conservation areas, frequently flooded areas, steep slopes, and geologically hazardous areas) and other
environmental amenities such as view corridors, canopy cover, and ridgelines.
c. The County and the Cities shall establish and implement best management practices to protect the long-term
integrity of the natural environment, adjacent land use, and the productivity of resource lands.
d. The County and the Cities shall establish procedures to preserve significant historic, visual and cultural
resources including views, landmarks, archaeological sites, and areas of special locational character.
e. The County and the Cities shall encourage the use of environmentally sensitive development practices to
minimize the impacts of growth on the County's natural resource systems.
f. The County and the Cities shall work together to identify, protect, and restore networks of natural habitat areas
and functions that cross-jurisdictional boundaries.
g. The County and Cities shall protect and enhance ecosystems that support Washington State's Priority Habitat
and Species as identified by the Washington Department offish and Wildlife.
18 Februa~3, 2004
h: All jurisdictions shall maintain or enhance water quality through control of runoff and use of best management
practices to protect aquatic resources.
3. The following policies relate to listed species recovery under the Endangered Species Act (ESA):
a. The County and the Cities shall preserve, protect, and where possible restore the functions of natural habitat to
support ESA-listed species, through the adoption of comprehensive plan policies, critical area ordinances,
shoreline master programs and other development regulations that seek to protect, maintain or restore aquatic
ecosystems associated habitats and aquifer through the use of management zones, development regulations,
incentives for voluntary efforts ofpr/vate landowners and developers, land use classifications or designations,
habitat acquisition programs or habitat restoration projects.
b. The County and the Cities shall provide incentive-based non-regulatory protection efforts such as acquisition
of priority habitats through fee-simple and conservation easements from willing sellers.
c. The County and the Cities shall jointly establish and implement monitoring and evaluation program to
determine the effectiveness of restoration, enhancement, and recovery strategies for salmonids including ESA-
listed species. Each jurisdiction shall apply an adaptive management strategy to determine how well the
objectives of listed species recovery and critical habitat preservation/restoration are being achieved.
4. The following polices relate to coordination of watershed and land use planning:
a. The County and the Cities shall participate in a planning program that determines changes in stream hydrology
and water quality under different land use scenarios at full build-out of designated land use classifications.
b. The County and the Cities shall coordinate land use planning using watersheds or natural drainage basins to
implement strategies for restoration of aquatic habitat and to reduce impacts to other natural systems.
c. Kitsap County shall coordinate and maintain a regional database of best available science for the purpose of
modifying Critical Areas Ordinances, if funding is available.
d. Upon adoption of a state classification system, the Cities and the County shall establish a single system for
stream typing.
19 Februaw3, 2004
Element E ._F. CONTIGUOUS AND ORDERLY DEVELOPMENT
Upon designation of Urban Growth Areas, the County and Cities will need to develop consistent implementation
measures to ensure that development occurs in an orderly and contiguous manner. The intent of the following
countywide planning policies is to minimize differences in urban development regulations and standards between the
County and the Cities and to facilitate the economical provision o£urban services to development.
1. The following policies relate to the encouragement of cooperative inter-jurisdictional planning by federal,
tribal, state, local, and special purpose government:
a. Inter-jurisdictional discussion, information exchange, and coordination of proposals shall be initiated as early
and expeditiously as possible by the responsible agencies.
b. Initial inventories and analyses of utilities and public services information are critical to the planning process
and shall be made available as early and expeditiously as possible by the responsible agencies.
c. The Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council may establish or designate on-going technical committee(s)
comprised of representatives from utilities and service providers to investigate long-range regional needs for
various facilities and services, including but not limited to those for transportation, sewer and storm drainage,
availability and delivery of potable water, solid waste, broadband, parks and recreation, and open space.
d. The Countywide Planning Policy will further the implementation of Vision 2020 and Destination 2030 as
adopted by the Puget Sound Regional Council.
2. The following policies relate to inter-regional coordination of land use and transportation planning:
a. The County and the Cities shall participate in the Puget Sound Regional Council and the Peninsula Regional
Transportation Planning Organization.
b. Locally-generated data shall be provided to the Puget Sound Regional Council and the Peninsula Regional
Transportation Planning Organization for use in their coordination of population forecasts, land use, and
transportation.
c. The planning proposals of these regional organizations shall be monitored and adjustments recommended to
ensure that they accurately reflect local needs and plans.
3. The following policies relate to fiscal :l-~par:.t~cg equity,:
a. It is recognized that fiscal disparities exist as a result of growth and changes in municipal boundaries. The
Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council shall monitor the Revenue Sharing Inter-local Agreement among the
County and Cities (shown as Appendix A) and seek additional_ways to address fiscal disparities as they relate
to promoting coordinated development and the implementation of the Growth Management Act.
b. The County and the Cities shall work together to insure that all fees associated with development approval are
based upon the real cost of service and act to encourage development within designated Urban Growth Areas.
c. The Kitsap Regional Coordinating_Council shall sponsor on-going regional discussion on revenue disparity
issues.
20 February 3, 2004
Element E G. SITING PUBLIC CAPITAL FACILITIES OF A COUNTY'~VIDE OR STATE-WIDE NATURE.
The Growth Management Act requires local governments to inventory existing capital facilities owned by public
entities, to identify locations and to determine capacities to meet future demand for growth without decreasing levels
of service. The Washington State Office of Financial Management is responsible for identifying and maintaining a
list of essential state public facilities that are required or likely to be built within the next six years as required by the
Growth Management Act. Counties and cities are also required to coordinate the siting of countywide and statewide
capital facilities to mitigate potential adverse impacts from the location and development of these facilities.
1. The following policies relate to the identification of needed capital facilities:
a. The County and the Cities shall each inventory their existing capital facilities and identify needed facility
expansion and construction and provide that data to the Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council.
b.·r'~l,,,,, l,,,~,~ .... ~ ,~, ~,,~,,L; ............ ~. ,,~.,~'~ ..... ~.~ The Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council shall develop and maintain a list
of public capital facilities needed to serve Kitsap County as a whole, based upon the County and Cities'
Comprehensive Plans, the Countywide Coordinated Water System Plan, and other appropriate system plans.
These include, but are not limited to, solid and hazardous waste handling facilities and disposal sites, water
and wastewater treatment facilities, regional water supply intertie facilities, regional education institutions,
airports, local correctional facilities, in-patient facilities including hospitals and regional park and recreation
facilities, and government buildings that serve Kitsap County as a whole, including those essential public
facilities as defined in RCW 36.70A.200.
2. The following policies relate to establishing a process and review criteria for the siting of facilities that are
of a countywide or statewide nature:
a. When an a diffic~dt-to-site essential public facility o['a count),~l~ide or slalewicle nature as defined in RCW
36.70A.200 is proposed in Kitsap County, the Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council shall appoint a Facility
Analysis and Site Evaluation Advisory Committee composed of citizen members selected by the member
jurisdictions to represent a broad range of interest groups to evaluate proposed public facility siting. At a
minimum this evaluation shall consider:
i. the impacts created by existing facilities:
ii. the potential for reshaping the economy, the environment and community character;
iii.the development of specific siting criteria for the proposed project, giving priority
consideration to siting within Designated Centers;
iv. the identification, analysis and ranking of potential project sites;
v. measures to first minimize and second mitigate potential physical impacts including, but not limited to,
those relating to land use, transportation, utilities, noise, odor and public safety;
vi. measures to first minimize and second mitigate potential fiscal impacts.
b. Certain public capital facilities such as schools and libraries that generate substantial travel demand should be
located first in Designated Centers or, if not feasible to do so, along or near major transportation corridors and
public transportation routes.
21 February 3, 2004
d. Some public capital facilities, such as those for waste handling, may be more appropriately located outside of
Urban Growth Areas due to exceptional bulk or potentially dangerous or objectionable characteristics. Public
facilities located beyond Urban Growth Areas should be self-contained or be served by urban govemmental
services in a manner that will not promote sprawl. Utility and service considerations must be incorporated
into site planning and development.
e. Uses shall adhere to local health district or state agency rules regarding commemial and industrial use of on-
site sewage systems.
f. The multiple use of corridors for major utilities, trails and transportation fights-of-way is encouraged.
g. County and City comprehensive plans and development regulations shall not preclude the siting of essential
public facilities.
h. Public facilities shall not be located in designated resource lands, critical areas, or other areas where the siting
of such facilities would be incompatible.
3. The following policies relate to air transportation facilities in Kitsap County:
a. The Counties and the Cities shall recognize the importance of airports as essential public facilities and the
preservation of access to the air transportation system.
b. The County and the Cities shall ensure the safety of the community and airport users through compatible land
use planning adjacent to airports and coordination of the airport with ground access. Examples would include
not enco~trag, ing or sttpportin~4 hil4her residential densities, schools, or hospitals near airports or airport
approach corridors.
22 February 3, 2004
Element GH~ TRANSPORTATION
The Growth Management Act requires that transportation planning be coordinated among local and state jurisdictions.
The Growth Management Act further requires that transportation planning be coordinated with the land use elements
of local comprehensive plans, Coordination of land use and transportation plans will allow Kitsap County and the
Kitsap Cities to meet three inter-related transportation goals:
o Serve Designated Centers to reduce sprawl, conserve land and make more efficient use of infrastructure,
o Preserve the natural environment, including water and air quality,
o Provide a balanced system for the efficient, safe movement of people, goods and services among Designated
Centers within Kitsap County and the larger Puget Sound region.
The intent of the following policies is to define appropriate methods and strategies to achieve these goals through
inter-regional and intra-regional coordination among transportation and land use planning agencies.
["or the purpose of this Policy, the/bllowin~ tramportation facilities are of Countm,'ide signfflcance:
a. state and federal highwaFs;
b. m~/or arterials:
c. public transit facilities and services;
non-motorized facilities connecting designated centers
e. marine transportation [bcilities ([krries, shil2ping);
airports (passen,~er or fi'eight);
g. rail [bcilities (passenger or freight);
The [bllowing [bcilities and system components shall be included in the multi-modal network:
a. roads, inchsding rna[or hi,~hwavs, arterials and collectors;
b public' transit, including bus, rail, and park & ride lotx:
c. non-motorized facilities;
d. vehicle and passenRer onlk, fitrries;
e. airports,'
parking/acilities that support the mulli-rnodal network
g. facilities related to transportation demand management.
h. intelligent tramI)ortation sl;stems (
1. The following policies relate to strategies to optimize and manage the use of transportation facilities and
services:
a. The County and the Cities shall each emphasize the maintenance and preservation of their existing
transportation network.
b. Through an annual review of the Transportation Element of their Comprehensive Plan, the County and the
Cities shall each identify and prioritize operational and safety ......... de/sc se nc
c. The County and the Cities shall utilize Transportation System Management strategies such as
e ................... , parking restrictions, traffic signal coordtnat~on, transtt queue/umps, ramp meterin.~, and
striping non-motorized transportation facilities.
23 February 3, 2004
d. The County and the Cities should ccnzide~ develop and implement access management regulations that
provide standards for driveway spacing and delineation and encourage the joint use of access points where
practical.
e. The County and the Cities shall actively seek opportunities to share facilities, expertise, and transportation
resources, such as multiple use park & ride/parking lots or shared traffic signal maintenance responsibility.
2. Since 1980, the total number of vehicle miles traveled in the Puget Sound Region has grown twice as fast as
employment and four times as fast as population. While it has been fueled by a number of factors, trying to
meet this escalating demand for vehicle travel would require financial resources far beyond existing
funding sources, with substantial negative environmental impacts. The shift of travel trips from single
occupant (SOV) to high occupant vehicles (ItOV) and from vehicles to non-motorized modes will benefit air
quality and the level of traffic congestion. The following policies relate to reducing the rate of growth in
auto traffic, including the number of vehicle trips, the number of miles traveled, and the length of vehicle
trips taken, for both commute and non-commute trips:
a. The County and the Cities shall provide both infrastructure and policy incentives to increase the use ofnon-
SOV modes of travel.
b. The range of infrastructure incentives to encourage the use of non-SOV modes of travel could include the
following:
i. Provide public transit, including preferential treatments for transit, such as queue by-pass lanes, traffic
signal modifications (Opticom), and safe, prcper!v de:;ignec~ transit stops.
ii. Provide integrated transfer points to facilitate seamless trips between transit and other modes of travel,
particularly at ferry terminals, including park & ride lots, bike stora,~e facilities, carpool/vanpool and
transit advantages/e to ease ~'ingress/egress, and with proximity to actual connection points, and
innovative transit-oriented "' " · · ' development.
iii. Provide non-recreational bicycle and pedestrian facilities, including safe neighborhood walking and biking
routes to school.
iv. During the development of all state, county, and city highway capacity improvement projects, consider the
market for non-SOV travel, and the addition of High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes, park & ride lots,
appropriate infrastructure for both bicycling and walking, crud tc!ec~mmun]c~t:.cng in:imstructm'e.
c. The range of policy incentives to encourage the use ofnon-SOV modes of travel could include the following:
i. Increased emphasis on the Commute Trip Reduction Program already in place (including ridesharing
incentives), with Kitsap Transit designated as the lead agency, including program promotion and
monitoring.
ii. Managed parking demand at ferry terminals, employment, and retail centers to discourage SOV use
through privileged parking for HOV users, fee structure and parking space allocations.
iii. Encouraging telecommuting as a viable work alternative.
iv. Encouraging the shift of work and non-work trips to off-peak travel hours.
v. Congestion pricing.
24 February 3, 2004
vi. Auto-restricted zones.
vii. Promotion of driver awareness through educational efforts.
d. The County and the Cities shall develop standards that address appropriate bicycle and pedestrian facilities for
development of new streets and reconstruction of existing streets in Designated Centers and Rural
Communities.
e. In Designated Centers, the jurisdictions should complete missing vehicular and non-motorized links between
key arterials to accommodate pedestrian and bicycle facilities, without compromising safety standards.
fi The County and the Cities shall develop coordinated bicycle and pedestrian systems or plans, which should be
consistent across jurisdictional boundaries with particular consideration to providing safe routes for children to
walk and to bike to school.
d. In cases of substantial residential or commercial development, Kitsap Transit shall review and comment on
development proposals to facilitate convenient use and operation of appropriate transit services.
3. The following policies relate to the environmental impacts of transportation policies:
a. Transportation improvements shall be located and constructed so as to discourage/minimize adverse impacts
on water quality and other environmental features.
b. The County, the Cities, and Kitsap Transit shall consider programming capital improvements and
transportation facilities that alleviate and mitigate impacts of land use on air quality and energy consumption,
such as: high-occupancy vehicle lanes; public transit; vanpool/carpool facilities; electric and other low
emission vehicles including buses; bicycle and pedestrian facilities that are designed for functional
transportation.
c. The County and the Cities shall ensure environmental protection, water quality, and conformance with ESA
requirements through best management practices throughout the life of the transportation facilities, including:
i. Facility design, and in particular collection and treatment of storm water and surface mn-off,
ii. Avoiding construction during the rainy season.
iii.Regular and routine maintenance of systems.
d. The County, the Cities, and Kitsap Transit shall provide public education about anti-pollution measures, such
as turning offcar engines while waiting at ferry terminals and parking lots ...........
4. Recognizing that the County and the Cities each encompass a range of development and density patterns,
each jurisdiction shall designate its Centers consistent with the criteria set forth in Element B of the
Countywide Planning Policy. The following policies relate to .... ~ ............. planning ~,ntdehnes to
support transit and pedestrian travel appropriate to each type of urban and rural development or re-
development:
a. The County and the Cities shall each fa ...... ~ .... ~L.~.; ...... ,..~.~..~.~ ......
....... t ...... ~ .............. pt cpm e development strategiex for their
that ..... include :;~'~ccific ..........
Designated Centers ,,,;n ...... ~, to encourage~/bcused mixed use development and
mixed type housi~,g lo achieve densities and developmen! palterns Ira/suppor! multi-modal tramporlalion.
25 February 3, 2004
b. In Urban Growth Areas, tomprehem~w, plans should promote ..... ~, .......................... , .... pedestrian and
transit-oriented development that includes~.,.~.'~':'~ *~'~,~ ,.~o:~"~' '~'~" ~ ............ access to alternat~ e lran,srporlation
~d, in the interest of safety and convenience, includes ~atures ~ such as lighting, ~"~ .....
pedestrian b~[&rs, sidewalks, and ease of access e~cements for physically challenged individuals.
c. Rural Communities outside Urban Growth Meas shall acco~odate appropriate pedestfia~icycle
co~ections and tr~sit se~ice ~d hcilities consistent with rural levels of se~ice in order to minimize
vehicle trips.
5. The following policies relate to transportation linkages between designated local and regional Centers:
for ......... automobile, /height, tr~sit, HOV facilities, rail, marine,
a. Regional co~idors shall be desi~ated
bicycle, and pedestrian ~avel between centers as pa~ of the count~ide transpo~ation pl~.
b. The transpo~ation system li~ing Desi~ated Centers within urban areas and Rural Co--unities within the
county shall be transit-oriented and pedestfi~ and bicycle ~endly.
6. The following poheies relate to freight transportation
a. Prefe~ed routes for the movement of freight shall be identified as pm of the count~ide tr~spo~ation plan.
b. The County and the Cities shall work to ensure that compatible land uses ~e applied along desi~ated freight
condors; includi~g, but not limited to. corridors/hr air. rail, road and marine traffic.
c. The County and the Cities shall use appropriate roadway standards for desi~ated freight co~idors.
7. The following policies relate to transportation relationships with the Puget Sound Regional Council and the
Peninsula Regional Transportation Planning Organization:
a. The Count~ide Pla~ing Policy shall fu~her the implementation of Vision 2020 and Destination 2030 as
adopted by the Puget Sound Regional Council.
b. The County and the Cities shall actively pa~icipate in the Puget Sound Regional Council and the Peninsula
Regional Tr~spoaation Plying Organization (RTPO) to assure that transpo~ation pla~ing in the ~o
regions is consistent ~d accurately reflects local needs related to identified regional system components.
c. The Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council shall se~e as the point of coordination to assure Puget Sound
Regional Council and Peninsula RTPO pla~ing programs are consistent and mutually beneficial to
jurisdictions within Kitsap County.
d. The Tr~spo~ation ~provement Proem (T~) for Kitsap Co~ty shall continue to be a p~ of the regional T2
adopted by the Puget Sold Regional Council. ~cal review, cogent ~d reco~endations shall be
coordinated ~ou~ ~e ~tsap Region~ Coord~ating Council.
8. The following policies relate to the identification of needed transportation related facilities and services
within ~tsap Count:
a. The Puget Sound Regional Council and the Peninsula RTPO shall identify regional system components and
related improvements within Kitsap County with the concunence of the Kitsap Regional Coordinating
Council.
26 Februa~ 3, 2004
qt
b. A countywide transportation plan developed by the Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council shall be prepared
pursuant to the Growth Management Act to identify countywide transportation facility and service needs. A
technical committee including transit and local, regional, and state transportation providers shall be used in
this process.
9. The following policies relate to the coordination of intra-eounty transportation planning efforts:
a. The Puget Sound Regional Council reviews Cities' and the County's Comprehensive plans for consistency of
land use and transportation elements.
b. The County and the Cities shall address compatibility between land use and transportation facilities by:
i. Not using new road improvements to justify land use intensification.
ii. Managing access on new transportation facilities outside Urban Growth Areas;
iii.Allowing phased development of improvements including acquiring right of way;
iv. Using comprehensive plans and development regulations to ensure that development does not create
demands exceeding the capacity of the transportation system, such as: density limits in areas outside of
Urban Growth Areas; concurrency management and adequate public facility regulation; integrated multi-
modal and non-motorized networks;
c. The County and the Cities shall work together in a coordinated, iterative process to periodically reassess
whether regional land use and transportation goals can realistically be met. If transportation adequacy and
concurrency cannot be met, the following actions should be considered:
i. Adjust land use and/or level of service (LOS) standards;
ii. Make full use of all feasible local option transportation revenues authorized but not yet implemented; and
iii. Work with Washington State Department of Transportation (including Washington State Ferries), Kitsap
Transit, and the private sector to seek additional State transportation revenues, state and federal grants for
infrastructure improvements, and local options to make system improvements necessary to accommodate
projected population growth.
d. Adjacent jurisdictions in Kitsap County shall develop consistent street classification system and street
standards.
e. Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council may establish a process for evaluating development impacts including
those that may affect neighboring jurisdictions within the county.
f. The Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council shall function to ensure that transportation planning, system
management and improvements at local, regional, and state levels are coordinated, complementary, and
consistent with adopted comprehensive land use plans.
10. The following policies relate to coordinated and consistent level of service (LOS) standards:
a. The County and the Cities should develop comparable level of service standards among the County, Cities and
the State of Washington for identified regional system components.
b. The County and the Cities shall adopt roadway LOS standards. Urban growth management agreements shall
designate level of service standards.
27 Februa~ 3, 2004
c. The County and the Cities shall adopt transit LOS in the form of "Service Standards" adopted by the Kitsap
Transit Board of Commissioners. The standards shall consider both frequency of service and bus capacity.
recogmze the Leve/ of 3ervtce Standard~ fi)r Htghu a~ o[ ,5tatewtde Szgmftcance, including principal arterial
./'et'r~: routes, that have been adopted b~, the }l~ashington State D'an,j)ortation Commission; in their respective
C'omprehensive Plans.
e. For State highways and facilities of regional significance, including the Southworth ferry route, the County
and the Cities shall :~;,,,.i,~ ..... .... , ,~.~*+ .~-~,! "he .,,1,1~,.,,~, lltC I~£'~T,. ~-.~ · tPd'zugh inchtde the Level of'Servtce' ,Standards adopted fbr
these routes h~' the Puget Sound Regional Council and the Peninsula RTPO it~ their respective Comprehensive
Plans.
f. On highwa}'s and streetx which are s~,tb[ect to concttrrem'v requirements, Fghe County and the Cities shall
each identify capacity deficiencies and either address them in terms of identified funding, o~ adjust the LOS
standard on a temporary basis, or place a temporary moratorium on development.
g. On h~ghwa~,s and streeg' which are subject to concurrenc~, reqtdrements, nNew development should not cause
LOS to degrade to a level lower than the adopted standard, consistent with State law.
28 Februaw3, 2004
Element 14/. AFFORDABLE HOUSING
The Growth Management Act requires cities and counties to encourage the availability of housing that is affordable
for all income levels at a variety of housing densities. Local jurisdictions are also encouraged to preserve existing
housing resources in their communities.
1. The following definitions relate to the Countywide Planning Policy:
a. Below Market Rate Housing shall mean housing intended for low-to-middle income households. These
income levels are further defined as follows (WAC 365.195):
i. Extremely low-income shall mean those households that have incomes that are at or below 30% of the
countywide median.
ii. Very Iow-income shall mean those households that have incomes that are within the range of 31 - 50% of
the countywide median.
iii. Low-income shall mean those households that have incomes that are within the range of 51 - 80% of the
countywide median.
iv. Moderate-income shall mean those households that have incomes that are within the range 81-95% of the
countywide median.
v. Middle-income shall mean those households that have incomes that are within the range of 96-120% of
the countywide median.
b. Market Rate Housing shall mean housing intended for households with incomes that are greater than 120%
of the countywide median.
2. The following policies relate to a coordinated process among County, Cities, and housing agencies for
determining and fulfilling housing needs, and the equitable distribution of below market rate housing in
Kitsap County:
a. Thc County and thc Cities should inventory thc existing housing stock consistent with thc Growth
Management Act following each decennial census review, and correlate with current population and economic
conditions, past trends, and ten year population and employment forecasts, to determine short and long range
housing needs, including rental and home ownership. Navy personnel housing policy should also be
considered.
b. Recognizing the percentage share of the existing and forecasted countywide population and the distribution of
existing below market rate housing, the County and thc Cities should develop strategies to equitably disperse
projcctcd countywide below market rate housing needs throughout Kitsap County in the Urban Growth Areas
and, where they are specifically found to be appropriate in consideration of existing development pattems and
densities, in designated Rural Communities.
c. Local housing inventories, projections, and equitable distribution strategies should be compiled and updated
under the coordination of thc Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council to identify countywide conditions and
projected needs.
29 February 3, 2004
d. The County and the Cities should each identify specific policies and implementation strategies in their
Comprehensive Plans and should enact implementing regulations to provide a mix of housing types and costs
to achieve identified goals for both market rate and below market rate housing.
3. Recognizing that the market place makes adequate provision for those in the upper economic brackets,
some combination of appropriately zoned land, regulatory incentives, financial subsidies, and innovative
planning techniques will be necessary to make adequate provisions for the needs of middle and lower
income persons. (WAC 365.195-070.6) The following policies relate to the provision of below market rate
housing:
a. Local comprehensive plan policies and development regulations shall encourage and not exclude below
market rate housing.
b. Below market rate housing strategies should include:
i. preservation, rehabilitation and redevelopment of existing neighborhoods as appropriate, including
programs to rehabilitate substandard housing;
ii. provision for a range of housing types such as multi-family, single family, accessory dwelling units,
cooperative housing, and manufactured housing on individual lots and in manufactured housing parks;
iii. housing design and siting compatible with surrounding neighborhoods;
iv. mechanisms to help people pumhase their own housing, such as low interest loan programs, "self-help"
housing, and consumer education.
c. Each jurisdiction shall promote the development of below market rate housing in a dispersed pattern so as not
to concentrate or geographically isolate low-income housing in a specific area or community.
d. Below market rate housing should be located throughout Kitsap County in a manner to provide easy access to
transportation, employment, and other services. Designated Centers should include below market rate housing.
Rural self- help housing programs should be encouraged either in or outside of designated Rural Communities.
e. Housing policies and programs shall address the provision of diverse housing opportunities to accommodate
the homeless, the elderly, physically or mentally challenged, and other segments of the population that have
special needs.
f. Innovative regulatory strategies shall be developed and implemented to provide incentives for the
development of below market rate housing within Designated Centers. Jurisdictions shall develop strategies
which provide a wide range of opportunities for promoting the production of below market rate housing
through means such as: reducing housing cost by subsidizing utility hook-up fees and rates, impact fees, and
permit processing fees; density incentives; smaller lot sizes; zero lot line designs; inclusionary zoning
techniques, such as requiring below-market rate housing in new residential developments; transfers of
development rights and/or a priority permit review and approval process.
g. Policies and regulations shall encourage the production of below market rate housing. The County and the
Cities shall incorporate a regular review of public health and safety regulations pertaining to housing
implementation strategies to assure that protection of the public health and safety remains the primary purpose
for housing standards.
3o February 3, 2004
h. The County and the Cities shall participate with housing authorities established to facilitate the production of
below market rate housing. The County and the Cities shall also recognize and support other public and
private not-for-profit housing agencies. Supporting housing agencies is encouraged through public land
donations, guarantees, suitable design standards, tax incentives, fee waivers, providing access to funding
sources and support for funding applications, or other provisions as appropriate.
31 February 3, 2004
Element J... POLICIES FOR COUNTYWIDE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.
Growth Management Act requires that general economic development policies be identified in the Countywide
Planning Policy process. Consistent with the goals of the Act, economic development planning must be coordinated
with local comprehensive plans. The intent of thc following policies is to encourage coordinated economic growth
among all jurisdictions in Kitsap County and to add predictability and certainty to the private investment decision.
1. The following policies relate to a general strategy for enhancing economic development and employment:
a. The County and the Cities recognize that a healthy economy that provides opportunities for diverse segments
of the community is important to the quality of life in the county. Economic development should be balanced
with environmental concerns and protect the quality of life.
b. The County and the Cities recognize that the economy in Kitsap County is very dependent on the U.S. Navy
and diversification is necessary. The County and the Cities shall collaborate with ports, tribes, and other
special districts to encourage economic growth and diversification that is consistent with comprehensive plans
and policies for land use, transportation, public transit, regional water supply, capital facilities, urban
governmental services and environmental quality.
c. The Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council may designate the Economic Development Council to prepare
specific strategies for economic growth in concert with local plans and policies.
d. Local governments are encouraged to utilize the Economic Development Council as a resource to provide
advice on economic development needs, the potential for retaining and expanding existing industries,
including the U.S. Dept. of Defense, and attracting new industries, especially those that would improve wage
and salary levels, increase the variety of job opportunities and utilize the resident labor force.
development in Kitsap County. Local governments are encouraged to collaborate with the Economic
Development Council to promote the expansion of telecommunications in Kitsap County and to coordinate
telecommunications policy with regional and federal agencies, including public utility districts, Bonneville
Power Administration, regional transportation planning organizations, and neighboring counties.
f. Efforts of educational institutions to improve and expand vocational and post-secondary education programs
should be supported to assure a highly skilled, technically trained resident work force.
2. The following policies relate to the role of government agencies in assuring coordinated, consistent efforts
to promote economic vitality and equity throughout Kitsap County:
a. The County and the Cities shall promote Urban Growth Areas and existing industrial sites as centers for
employment.
b. The County and the Cities shall encourage the full utilization/development of designated industrial and
commercial areas. The County and the Cities shall promote revitalization within existing developed industrial
and commercial areas to take advantage of the significant investments in existing buildings and infrastructure.
c. The County and the Cities shall cooperate with tribes, ports, other special districts, and all economic
development interests to identify the capital facility needs of designated industrial and commercial sites and
investments to support economic development.
32 February 3, 2004
q?
d. The County and the Cities shall collaborate with tribes, ports, and other special districts to identify innovative
development methods such as public and private partnerships and community development assistance
financing to increase economic vitality.
e. The County and the Cities shall collaborate with the EDC and the Ports to establish a common method to
monitor the supply of designated commercial and industrial sites and to ensure adequate land supply for
the expansion of existing enterprises and the establishment of new economic enterprises. The monitoring
method shall indicate environmental constraints, infrastructure availability and capacity, and shall use the
Kitsap County Geographic Information System and Eu~Icla~!e L~nds Land Capacity, Analysis as a regional
database for this information.
fi The County and the Cities shall establish common infrastructure policy and standards, including
telecommunications infrastructure.
g. The Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council shall coordinate the development of land supply monitoring
methods, common infrastructure policy and standards, and other strategies among the County, the Cities,
Tribes, Ports, and other special districts to encourage economic development in Kitsap County.
h. The County and the Cities shall each establish and monitor a development review process that is timely,
predictable, efficient, fair, and consistent.
i. Where more than one jurisdiction is involved in planning and permitting a business development, the
jurisdictions shall work collaboratively to provide consistent development regulations and permitting.
j. The County and the Cities shall encourage small business enterprises and cottage industries, and allow
appropriate and traditional home occupations as permitted by local regulations.
33 February 3, 2004
q8
Element J K. AN ANALYSIS OF THE FISCAL IMPACT.
Communities must be able to fully evaluate the implications of policies and actions to determine the
impact on physical and public finance resources. The State Environmental Policy Act of 1971 created a process for
analyzing human and physical environmental impacts. Fiscal impacts, however, have not been as universally
identified and considered. This policy element required by the GMA is vague, allowing local governments to
determine the scope of the fiscal impact analysis. The focus of the policies in this section is directed toward the
implementation of the Countywide Planning Policy and actions that may occur as a result of these guidelines.
1. The Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council ........ maF work to develop a process for use by local
governments to facilitate the identification, analysis and disclosure of the fiscal impacts of major
development proposals and governmental actions. The process :ha!! could establish formulae to address
fiscal impacts, including tax revenue and service cost implications, of the following:
a. Proposed changes in municipal boundaries, including annexations, partial disincorporation and incorporation;
b. Proposed changes in an urban growth area boundary;
c. Proposed new fully contained communities;
d. Proposed master planned resorts;
e. Proposed public facilities and services.
f. Other proposals as determined by the local government having lead agency status under the provisions of the
State Environmental Policy Act.
34 Februa~3, 2004
Element. t~ L_. COORDINATION WITH TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS
The Suquamish Tribe, the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe, and other federally recognized Indian tribes have
reservations and/or trust resources within Kitsap County, Washington. These tribes are parties to treaties with the
United States Government through which certain fights and privileges both on and off reservation were articulated
and remain in effect. These tribes have authorities, responsibilities, interests and treaty fights within their respective
reservation boundaries and Usual and Accustomed Areas. Since future growth and land use decisions in Kitsap
County affect all governmental entities, governmental agencies must be well informed and continuously involved in
regional and local planning.
1. Meaningful and substantial opportunities for early and continuous tribal government participation shall be
incorporated into regional and local planning activities.
2. Local jurisdictions should work with the tribes to develop agreements that provide for discussion on
comprehensive planning issues among governments and ensure that the tribes are consulted on issues within their
interest. The parties will jointly determine the appropriate contents of the agreements and a schedule for
completing them.
3. Tribal governments, federal agencies, and county and local governments are encouraged to coordinate plans
among and between governments and agencies to address substantive areas of mutual interest especially where
geographical areas overlay and promote complementary and cooperative efforts.
4. City and County governments are encouraged to include Tribal governments in joint comprehensive planning and
development activities for areas within the Tribes' Usual and Accustomed areas. Activities include but are not
limited to the establishment and revision of urban growth boundaries, distribution of forecasted population;
regional transportation, capital facility, housing and utility plans; and policies that may affect natural and/or
cultural resources.
5. All County, City, and Tribal government agencies shall be included in the normal public notice and comment
procedures of other agencies and kept informed of matters of interest to them.
6. The County, the Cities, and Tribal governmental agencies are encouraged to keep one another informed about
matters of local and regional interest by mutually agreeable means and schedule.
35 February 3, 2004
Element I~ M. COORDINATION WITH FEDERAL GOVERNMENT INCLUDING NAVY
The federal government has unique authorities, responsibilities, interests affecting land use and other activities.
Since the impacts of future growth and development in Kitsap County affect all governmental entities,
governmental agencies must be well informed and continuously involved in regional and local planning.
1. Meaningful and substantial opportunities for early and continuous federal government participation shall be
incorporated into regional and local planning activities.
2. It is recognized that constitutional and statutory provisions may constrain federal government agencies from
entering into local agreements and processes. However, when possible, the County, the Cities, and federal
governments should establish intergovernmental cooperative agreements promoting coordination and
involvement in activities that are of mutual interest.
3. Federal agencies and county and local governments are encouraged to coordinate plans among and between
governments and agencies to make plans as consistent and compatible as possible for properties over which
they have authority or activities they authorize and the adjacent areas affected.
4. Federal government agencies are encouraged to participate in City, County, and joint comprehensive
planning and development activities that may affect them, including the establishment and revision of urban
growth areas encompassing, adjacent to or within federally-owned lands; distribution of forecasted
population; regional transportation, capital facility, housing and utility plans; and policies that may affect
natural and/or cultural resources of interest.
5. The following policies relate to promoting coordination among the Cities, County, and the federal
government including the Navy:
a. All jurisdictions should promote planning that considers the impact of new growth to avoid the potential
for encroachment on military readiness activities as described below when developing zoning ordinances
or designating land uses affecting military facilities. Each jurisdiction and the Navy should coordinate to
identify the types of development and areas of interest to the Navy, method of notice, and opportunities
for comment.
b. "Military readiness activities" mean all of the following:
i. Training, support, and operations that prepare the men and women of the military and Naval
ships and submarines for combat.
ii. Operation, maintenance, and security of any military installation.
iii. Testing of military equipment, vehicles, weapons, and sensors for proper operation or suitability
for combat use.
c. "Impacts" include but are not limited to:
i. Aircra~, boat, and rail traffic.
ii. Incompatible adjacent land uses.
d. Through the Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council, jurisdictions should monitor issues that arise in
implementing these policies, and should identify areas for improved coordination.
6. All County, City, and federal governmental agencies shall be included in the normal public notice and
comment procedures o£ other agencies and kept informed of matters of interest to them.
7. The County, the Cities, and federal governmental agencies are encouraged to keep one another informed of
matters of local and regional interest by mutually agreeable means and schedule.
36 February 3, 2004
Element M N. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
The County, Cities, Tribal governments, and special districts are all involved in planning activities related to their
statutory authority and responsibility. In addition to the responsibilities defined in previous countywide planning policies,
this section further clarifies the planning roles and responsibilities of the KRCC and member agencies.
1. The KITSAP REGIONAL COORDINATING COUNCIL was established by interlocal agreement to
assure coordination, consensus, consistency, and compliance in the implementation of the Growth
Management Act and comprehensive planning by County, city and tribal governments within Kitsap
County. The Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council also provides a voice for all jurisdictions and
opportunity for citizens and stakeholders to provide input to planning policies to be applied countywide.
The interlocal agreement adopted by the County, the Cities and the Tribal governments declared that the
Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council is necessary to maintain a regular intergovernmental
communication network for all local and tribal governments within the county, facilitate compliance with
the coordination and consistency requirements of the Growth Management Act, provide an effective vehicle
to resolve conflict among and/or between jurisdictions with respect to urban growth boundaries or
comprehensive plan consistency, and to build consensus on planning solutions for countywide growth
management issues. The Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council shall:
a. submit agreed-upon recommendations on behalf of member jurisdictions to multi-county regional agencies
and State government on proposed changes to multi-county regional plans, State plans, and laws;
b. provide a forum, as necessary, for achieving coordination in the development of local plans and resolving
planning and plan implementation issues that are common among jurisdictiorks_;
c. promote coordination and consistency among local plans and between local plans and the Countywide
Planning Policy and the Growth Management Act to the extent necessary to achieve regional policies and
objectives. Through the Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council forum, jurisdictions should establish a process
to monitor and review individual comprehensive plans and associated implementation mechanisms to
determine consistency with the Countywide Planning Policy
d. serve as a forum_for resolving disputes locally. The process shall not preclude appeals to the Central Puget
Sound Growth Planning Hearings Board if the local process has been exhausted without resolution of the
dispute
e. promote_coordination of educational programs and the dissemination of planning-related information of
regional interest;
f. coordinate the review, revision and monitoring_of the Countywide Planning Policy;
g. apply for grants and administer contracts relative to regional tasks and plans;
h. conduct the region wide growth management planning consistent with Element A. Countywide Growth
Patterus~
i. initiate and coordinate the development of other regional planning policies and implementation mechanisms
that may improve the effectiveness of the comprehensive planning process.
j. define and implement procedures that assure opportunities for early and continuous public involvement in
policy discussions facilitated by KRCC.
37 February 3, 2004
2. KITSAP COUNTY is the regional government within the county boundaries providing various services
within unincorporated and incorporated areas as required and specified by law and by legal agreements.
Kitsap County shall:
a. be responsible for thc development, adoption and implcmemation of comprehensive plans and development
regulations and the processing of land usc permits for thc unincorporated portions of the county;
b. be responsible for coordinating water quality planning in multi-jurisdictional watersheds and for other
environmental planning activities as agreed to by all affected and interested jurisdictions;
c. be responsible for coordinating thc response on the listing for thc federal Endangered Species Act in multi-
jurisdictional watersheds as agreed by all affected and interested jurisdictions;
d. be responsible for being a regional sewer provider to the unincorporated and incorporated areas of Kitsap
County as needed to improve water quality consistent with levels of service outlined in thc County
Comprehensive Plan; (NOTE: This policy needs further review and clarification of Cottnly responsibility
within (~'i/},' and UGA)
e. maintain a geographic information system to serve as a regional planning data base;
f. execute Urban Growth Area Management Agreements with each city to address joint issues identified in the
Countywide Planning Policy and other matters agreed to be of mutual interest;
g. define and implement procedures that assure opportunities for early and continuous public involvement
throughout short and long range planning projects.
3. CITIES within Kitsap County provide a variety of services primarily to residents within their respective
municipal boundaries. Cities shall:
a. provide urban governmental services as identified in the Growth Management Act (Chapter 36.70A RCW)
and adopted urban growth management agreements;
b. be responsible for the development, adoption and implementation of comprehensive plans and development
regulations and the processing of land use permits within the incorporated portion of the respective city;
c. coordinate with other agencies as appropriate in multi-jurisdictional planning activities;
d. execute a separate Urban Growth Area Management Agreement with Kitsap County to address joint issues
identified in the Countywide Planning Policy and other matters agreed to be of mutual interest;
e. define and implement procedures that assure opportunities for early and continuous public involvement
throughout short and long range planning projects.
4. SPECIAL DISTRICTS are governmental subdivisions of the county that are usually established to provide
a defined scope of services. Special districts shall:
a. be responsible for service provision, capital facility planning and other activities as authorized by law and
legal agreements.
b. coordinate capital planning and implementation strategies with local governments to assure consistency with
comprehensive plan policies;
38 February 3, 2004
c. participate in service provision identification required in each urban growth management agreement;
d. coordinate with other agencies as appropriate in multi-jurisdictional planning activities;
e. provide technical assistance as appropriate to assist local governments in comprehensive plan development,
adoption and implementation;
f. be encouraged to enter into cooperative agreements and consolidate when possible to formalize participation
in local and regional processes;
g. define and implement procedures that assure opportunities for early and continuous public involvement
throughout short and long range planning projects.
h. be responsible for service provision, capital facility planning and other activities as authorized by law and
legal agreements.
i. coordinate capital planning and implementation strategies with local governments to assure consistency with
comprehensive plan policies;
j. participate in service provision identification required in each urban growth management agreement;
k. coordinate with other agencies as appropriate in multi-jurisdictional planning activities;
1. provide technical assistance as appropriate to assist local governments in comprehensive plan development,
adoption and implementation;
m. be encouraged to enter into cooperative agreements and consolidate when possible to formalize participation
in local and regional processes.
n. define and implement procedures that assure opportunities for early and continuous public involvement
throughout short and long range planning projects.
39 February 3, 2004
Appendix A
Interlocal Agreement Between KJtsap County and the City of Bainbridge Island, City of
Bremerton, City of Port Orchard and City of Poulsbo Concerning Revenue Sharing Upon
Annexation and In Conjunction With Major Land Use Decisions Within a City's Urban
Growth Area
(adopted by all parties in November-December, 2001)
This Agreement, made pursuant to Chapter 39.34 RCW, is between KITSAP COUNTY (hereinafter, the County),
a political subdivision of the State of Washington, and the CITY OF BAiNBRIDGE ISLAND, the CITY OF
BREMERTON, the CITY OF PORT ORCHARD, and the CITY OF POULSBO, (hereinafter, the Cities),
municipal subdivisions of the State of Washington.
WHEREAS, through the Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council (hereinafter KRCC), the County and the Cities
have worked together constructively on revenue sharing issues that in the past have been adversarial; and
WHEREAS, the County and Cities sought a balanced set of revenue sharing provisions that would benefit both
the County and the Cities and support the orderly evolution of logical land use patterns and jurisdictional
boundaries; and
WHEREAS, the County and Cities reached accord on a set of Principles of Agreement for Revenue Sharing in
Annexations and in Major Land Use Decisions; and
WHEREAS, the County and Cities desire to implement the Principles of Agreement through an interlocal
agreement;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants, terms and conditions contained herein, the parties
agree as follows:
SECTION 1 ANNEXATIONS
The purpose of this section is to provide a framework for logical and orderly annexations that are consistent
~vith the Growth Management Act, Chapter 36.70A RCW (hereinafter GMA), and to mitigate the fiscal impact to
the County of armexations initiated after the effective date of this agreement.
1.1 The Cities each confirm their willingness to eventually annex all land within their designated
Urban Growth Area (hereinafter UGA) boundaries.
1.2 Each City shall encourage annexation of all lands equally, and will support logical and
coordinated annexations, consistent with the intent of the GMA.
1.3 As part of the KRCC's 2002 Work Program, the County and Cities will continue to address
coordinated development within the UGAs, including infrastructure standards and funding.
1.4 Before the County constructs a major infrastructure improvement within a City's designated
UGA, the County and the City will negotiate and execute an interlocal agreement that specifies the level at which
the City shall reimburse the County for a portion of its investment in the infrastructure improvement if the area
where the improvement is to be located is annexed within a specified period of time.
4o February 3, 2004
I oS
1.5 The County and the Cities anticipate that each specific proposed annexation will require
negotiation of other issues particular to its time, place and geography. The Cities and the County commit to
completing these negotiations and executing an interlocal agreement on such issues in a timely manner.
1.6 As part of this agreement, the County will not oppose annexations within that City's designated
UGA or invite the Boundary Review Board to invoke jurisdiction.
1.7 The Cities agree to share with the County revenue lost to the County and gained by the
annexing City as follows:
A. Revenue sharing payments shall be based on the following three sources of revenue:
1. The County's portion of the local retail sales tax levied under Chapter 82.14 RCW;
2. The ad valorem property tax levied by the County pursuant to RCW 36.82.040 for
establishment and maintenance of county transportation systems; and
3. The admission tax levied by the County pursuant to Chapter 36.38 RCW.
B. For purposes of this Section, "lost revenue" means an amount computed as follows:
The combined total of the County's collections from all three sources within the annexation area
during the calendar year preceding annexation
minus
The combined total of the County's collections from all three sources within the annexation area
during the first full calendar year following annexation.
C. The amount of the payment from the City to the County will be based on a three-year "soft landing" approach
as follows:
1. The Year 1 payment will be equal to 75% of the County's lost revenue;
2. The Year 2 payment will be equal to 50% of the County's lost revenue; and
3. The Year 3 payment will be equal to 25% of the County's lost revenue.
D. The calculation of lost revenue pursuant to subsection B of this Section requires revenue data for one full year
following annexation. Therefore, the County shall initiate a request for payment under this Section by written
notice to the annexing City within two years of the effective date of the annexation.
SECTION 2 MAJOR LAND USE ACTIONS
The purpose of this section is to recognize that retail development near jurisdictional boundaries has an impact
on neighboring jurisdictions and, in particular, on existing businesses and the demand for public services and
facilities. This Section is designed to mitigate these impacts by providing that sales tax revenues from new major
business development within a City's designated UGA, or from the relocation of an existing major business from
a City to a location within the City's designated UGA, will be shared with the affected City.
2.1 For purposes of this Agreement, "major land use" means:
41 February 3, 2004
A. A new development within a City's designated UGA that houses any single retail tenant greater than 40,000
square feet;
B. The expansion of an existing retail business within the City's designated UGA if the expansion is greater than
40,000 square feet;
C. A retail business greater than 25,000 square feet that is relocated from a City to the City's designated UGA; or
D. An automobile, truck, recreational vehicle, manufactured or mobile home, or boat dealership, regardless of the
size of the building permitted, that is newly located within a City's designated UGA, or relocated from a City to
the City's designated UGA.
2.2 The County agrees to share with the affected City revenue lost to the City and gained by the County
due to a major land use, as follows:
A. Revenue sharing payments will be required only for local retail sales tax revenues generated from major land
uses. Because there are limitations, related to confidentiality, on using a figure based on actual sales tax
collections from the new or relocated business, the revenue sharing payment will be based on estimated sales tax
revenues derived by using industry standards, such as the Washington State Department of Revenue or the Urban
Land Institute, for taxable retail sales per square foot for businesses.
B. For purposes of this Section, "lost revenue" means an amount computed as follows:
Total gross enclosed building square footage of the major land use
x
Industry standard annual average retail sales per square foot for category of business that most closely resembles
the major land use
X
Tax rate levied under Chapter 82.14 RCW
for the first full calendar year following the date on which the County issues a certificate of occupancy for the
major land use.
C. The County will make revenue sharing payments for the first full three years after the major land use receives
a certificate of occupancy.
D. The revenue sharing payment from the County to the affected City will be calculated according to the
following formulas:
1. For the relocation of a major retail business from a City to the City's designated UGA:
a. The Year 1 payment will be equal to 75% of the City's lost revenue;
b. The Year 2 payment will be equal to 50% of the City's lost revenue; and
c. The Year 3 payment will be equal to 25% of the City's lost revenue.
2. For new development within a City's designated UGA that houses any single retail tenant greater than
40,000 square feet, the payment amount will be 50% of the City's estimated lost revenue each year for the first
three years.
42 February 3, 2004
F. The calculation of lost revenue pursuant to subsection B of this Section requires revenue data for one full year
following issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Therefore, the affected City shall initiate a request for payment
under this Section by written notice to the County within two years of the date the major land use receives the
County's permission to occupy the building.
SECTION 3 MISCELLANEOUS
3.1 Duration. This Agreement will remain in effect until the terms of the Agreement are fulfilled.
There is no other term agreed to by the parties
3.2 Reevaluation. Any City or the County may request immediate reevaluation of this Agreement
by the KRCC Revenue Sharing Policy Committee. If the reevaluation fails to yield a resolution satisfactory to the
requesting party within six months from the date the request for reevaluation was made, the requesting party may
initiate the process for termination provided in this Agreement.
3.3 Termination. After completion of the Reevaluation process required by this Agreement, a party
may terminate this Agreement by 12 months' written notice to the other parties. Termination does not extinguish
the obligations of the terminating party under this Agreement for annexations initiated, or major land uses for
which an application is filed, prior to the effective date of termination.
3.4 Filing. When fully executed, this Agreement shall be filed with the Kitsap County Auditor.
3.5 Notices. Any notices required by this Agreement shall be delivered, or mailed postage prepaid,
and addressed to:
Kitsap County City of Bainbridge Island City o f Bremerton
Clerk to the Board City Clerk City Clerk
Office of the Kitsap County City of Bainbridge Island City of Bremerton
Board of Commissioners 280 Madison Avenue N. 239 4th Street
614 Division Street Bainbridge Island, WA 98110 Bremerton, WA 98337
Mailstop 4
Port Orchard, WA 98366
City of Port Orchard City of Poulsbo Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council
City Clerk Mayor Executive Director
City of Port Orchard City of Poulsbo Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council
216 Prospect Street 19050 Jensen Wy NE 25406 S. Kingston Road
Port Orchard, WA 98366 P.O. Box 98 Kingston, WA 98346
Poulsbo, WA 98370
3.6 Administration. As this Agreement contemplates no joint or cooperative undertaking, each
party shall administer thc Agreement as to its own responsibilities under the Agreement. The KRCC shall oversee
the revenue sharing process provided for in this Agreement.
3.7 Reporting. The County and the Cities shall report to the KRCC at the start of each calendar
year any payments made or received by the reporting jurisdiction pursuant to this Agreement during the preceding
calendar year.
3.8 Waiver. The failure by the County or any City to enforce any term or condition of this
Agreement shall not be construed to constitute a waiver of any other term or condition, or of any subsequent
breach of any provision, of this Agreement.
43 February 3, 2004
3.9 Entire Agreement. This Agreement includes the entire agreement of the parties with respect
to any matter addressed in this Agreement
3.10 Amendment. This Agreement may be amended only upon the written agreement of the parties
made with the same formalities as those required for its original execution.
3.11. County-wide Planning Policy. To the extent that anything in this Agreement may be found to
be inconsistent with any part of the Kitsap County-wide Planning Policy, the County and City in 2002 will review
the applicable parts of the County-wide Planning Policy and revise them in accordance with this Agreement.
3.12 Review. The County and the Cities shall review this Agreement within the ICRCC in
December of 2003, and every five years thereafter_.
3.13 Effective Date. This Agreement shall take effect retroactively to September 4, 2001, as this
date has been expressly agreed upon by all the parties.
44 February 3, 2004
Appendix B: Urban Growth Area Management Agreements
The intent of the Urban Growth Area Management Agreement is to facilitate attd encourage annexation and/or
btcorporation of urban areas over the 20 year planning period and to ensure compatibility of development within
the unincorporated Urban Growth Area. Each Urban Growth Area Management Agreement shall:
h Describetheg~alsandpr~cedures~fthej~intplanningpr~cessincludingr~lesandresp~nsibilitiesf~rthe
unincorporated Urban Growth Area, with the goal of having identical City and County plans, zoning, and
development regulations. The following provisions should apply to the entire Urban Growth Area associated with
lhe City unless mutually agreed otherwise by the City and County:
i. The City's zoning code, densities, and development, sub-division, environmental,
and construction standards.
ii. The City's Levels of Service.
iii. The Comprehensive Plan qf the City should reflect land use planning fi~r the entire Urban Growth
Area.
£. Identify responsibility and mechanisms for comprehensive plan amendments, zoning changes and development
applications within unincorporated Urban Growth Areas. Significant weight should be given to City preferences.
3. Identify services to be provided in the Urban Growth Area, the responsible service purveyors, and the terms under
which the services shall be provided, including:
Fire Storm Water Solid Waste
Police Potable Water Park & Recreation Facilities
Transportation Sewer Schools
Telecommunications, including Broadband
All service providers, including special districts, and adjacent jurisdictions should be included in Urban Growth
Area planning.
4. Reference the adopted Revenue Sharing Inter-local Agreement (see Appendix A).
5. Describe the City's pre-annexation planning, which may include:
i. Conditioning City service extensions upon actual annexation for properties contiguous' to the City
boundary or to agreements of no protest to future annexation for properties not contiguous.
ii. Offering pre-annexation agreements to property owners interested in annexation and needing assurances
.from the City about services, planning, or other issues'.
Appendix C (work in progress}
45 February 3, 2004
March 10, 2004
Members of the Bremerton City Council
To many of us, who have committed considerable effort, expense and time to the revitalization
of Bremerton, the value of discrectionary funding for marketing efforts via the Mayor's office is
undisputable. You may claim that budgets are tight, and that other entities encompass City
marketing needs within their own plans, hut none may have the ability to react as quickly or
target as directly as has been exemplified by the Mayor's own Department of Communications
over the past year. From personal letters and in-person meetings with future business interests to
special events precisely created to bring about dynamic positive change within the city limits,
advertising works! It must be flexibly and efficiently implemented.
Marketing requires the touch of trained professionals with a results-oriented background. And it
has never been needed more than in this time of great renewal and hope for the City of Bremer-
ton. We strongly urge you to support additional funding for the Mayor's Office to spread the
good word about Br~merton.
Respectfully,
Kyle & Cynthia Cruver
Cafe Destino
1223 McKeuzie Avenue
Bremerton
360-782-0711
L_l ii I cialinquirYAnd__thii
shocking but
_------- comets bounc
nosaurs, the Li
storming of tN
plement, creat~
-------- was publishe,
was announciL
expected its ref
every week
Americans sec
/ what the pape~
If one imagil
readers to ret
every week, ~
~> ~ hend the scal
0 ~ Times(a) w,
~a_~LUD published ir,
~ ent defensb
guage is a c
Two q~
'he dip zn sa/es seems to comczde w~th the themselw
decision to ' ' "
elimznate the sales staff, like in a,
hell were
· · to justit:
questio'
by the'
he discussed the key ingredients of the INl~ sincer,
music of men like Shostakovich, whoseTHE TIME,Y, MO. Hem
works, he said, revealed their tree stat- Wh
ure only after the composers' death. ~ ~5 alw
(Next week, he will conduct three all- w' '
Shostako¼ch concerts at Avery Fisher :
Hall.) And he cited"soul" as a product of
his years as one of the Soviet era's most
outspoken dissidents. "Comfort, celeb- Those members of the New Yo-
rity are no good for the artist," he said."If J-newspaper-reading public w¢
Beethoven were alive today, he wouldn't bleary-eyed at seven every m,
compose a single note, because the peo- go and search for the previo,
pie would give him so many sponsor- ition of the great Paris &'
ships, corporate gifts, and honorary doc- (a group that probabl-
torates." (He himself,, he admitted, had low one figure) got
received fifty honorary degrees.) "If I orange juice the,
had not endured those terrible vears. I in the pages of t'
OF PROPERTY OWNERS
Testimony on
Revisions to the Kitsap Countywide Planning Policies
(January 23, 2004)
Selected Elements
February 14, 2004
The following constitutes the written testimony of the Kitsap Alliance of Property
Owners regarding the proposed revisions to the Kitsap Countywide Planning Policies
dated January 23, 2004. This testimony is applicable to the policies in general or the
specific policy element revisions, as noted.
1. General Policy Documentation
RCW 36.70A is the Growth Management Act (GMA). The Countywide Planning
Policies (CPP) are prepared and published in compliance with the specific requirements
of RCW 36.70A.210. Subparagraph (3) of that section establishes minimum requirements
that must be addressed by the CPP. In order for the public to better understand the
relationship between the CPP and the governing sections o f the GM_A, effective cross
reference of CPP elements to the governing GMA paragraphs is necessary. In addition,
the cross reference pexmits easier maintenance of the CPP in response to revisions to the
GMA by the legislature.
We request and recommend that the Elements, Sections, and paragraphs of the CPP be
cross referenced to the governing GMA sections, as appropriate.
2. CPP Introduction
Paragraph 1 .a. establishes review criteria for the CPP. The criteria identified do not
mention a review cycle periodicity required by GMA, or in response to any change in the
GMA or underlying GMA sections.
We request and recommend that the review criteria be revised to reflect the direct
connection to the GMA.
3. CPP Introduction
a. Paragraph 2.a. states that the KRCC will strive for ratification of CPP revisions
"by all Cities and Tribal Councils. Element L of the CPP, wlxich addresses
participation of the Tribes in the planning process of the county and cities, does
not establish a requirement for Tribal Councils to ratify the CPP or any revisions
thereto. Because the CPP are, by RCW (GMA), required by and binding upon the
"The small landholders are the most precious part of a state." - Thomas Jefferson
Post Office Box 1861, Poulsbo, Washington 98370 · www. kapo.org I
county and cities, but not enforceable on Tribal Councils, it is not clear what
value Tribal ratification lends to the process or to the CPP themselves. It is not
clear what action is required should a Tribal Council fail to ratify or actively
move to reject a revision to the CPP. The action to involve the Tribal Councils in
the ratification process adds nothing to the validity of the policies therein but does
presen! opportunity for significant difficulty for county and city governments,
operating to complete constitutional responsibilities, should a Tribal Council not
ratify a revision.
We request and recommend that the provisions for ratification by Tribal Councils
be deleted.
b. Paragraph 2.b. establishes an automatic ratification condition should a city not
take action to ratify within 60 days of adoption ofa CPP revision by the County.
That action is contrary to the explicit authority of a city and may not be delegated
in this manner..KRCC is not a governmental [urisdi~ti,~n with lel~islatil,,
authority. The KRCC membership does not include the legislative bodies of the
individual cities other than at a representation level. The county does not exercise
authority over the independent cities. If this automatic ratification remains in the
CPP, the CPP in fact creates a City-County form of government with the county
dominant over the cities, for policy matters. The State Constitution, under Article
XI Section 16, reserves the right for formation ora City-County form of
government to the people through the "home rule" process. The people of Kitsap
have not authorized a City-County government. The CPP should not establish any
automatic action for any jurisdiction based on time or any other event except
positive legislative action by that jurisdiction.
We request and recommend that the automatic ratification criteria be deleted and
that the individual cities be allowed such time as they may desire to complete
consideration and ratification of changes to the CPP. We further recommend that,
ifa critical time must be established for ratification, that time be stated, in such a
manner, that a city is obliged to take action within the set time fi.me, or report
reason for delay beyond the set time and anticipated schedule.
c. In the continuing paragraph previously under Coordination and Cooperation
beginning "Kitsap County, the Cities and..." there is the statement reading, in
part, ther Iocal.lur~sdict~ons agree to strive toward the principle that...." Within
the body of the CPP or in the associated organizational structure of KRCC is there
any clear identification of the 'other jurisdictions ? While it is clear that the CPP
will have immediate and direct impact on the planning and operation of School
districts, Fire districts, Port districts, Utility districts, Park and Recreation
districts, the Public Facility district, the regional Library, and any other junior
taxing district, current or future, it is not clear how those jurisdictions participate
in the development and ratification of the CPP. If jurisdictions, created by the
people and operated by elected officials are to be subject to the CPP, those
jurisdictions should be represented in the CPP development process. If those
2
jurisdictions are not to be afforded adequate representation in CPP creation,
demanding their coordination and cooperation is inappropriate.
We request and recommend that either the junior taxing districts be represented in
the CPP development process, including ratification authority or that they be
deleted from implied compliance with the policies.
d. In the continuing paragraph previously under Coordination and Cooperation
beginning "Kitsap County, the Cities and..." there is the statement dealing with
an appeals process and effectively restricting appeal to the Central Puget Sound
Growth Management Hearings Board dependent on exhaustion of the local
resolution process. The GMA in section .280 establishes matters that may be
reviewed by the Hearings Board and does not require any local action precede
such petition to the Board. The effect of this paragraph is to improperly limit the
options and authority of a government jurisdiction and to restrict that jurisdictions
ability to carry out its constitutional duties.
We request and recommend that the sentence be revised to indicate a desirability
of using a local resolution process but not limiting or restricting the options or
authority of any elected jurisdiction.
4. Element A: County Wide Growth Pattern (New Section)
a. Paragraph I Kitsap County Vision Elements provides a lengthy description of a
"vision" of the future of the County. This element is not required by GMA. The
description does not identify the specific origin oftha vision. The vision is
expressed in wide generalities that have no objective metric criteria for assessing
achievement. The statement uses terms that are not defined and are keyed to
current government linguistics. Terms such as "natural systems", "village
character", "historical nature", "preserve our heritngc", "quality of life",
"diversified economic base", "healthy downtowns", and "affordable housing"
while appealing have no specific meaning and are not a satisfactory base upon
which to establish policies that will have direct and significant impact on the
county for many years into the future.
Natural Systems - When the citizen Natural Resources Working Group was
established to deal with the citizen input from the various "Speak Out" meetings,
one of their first findings was that a single definition of Natural Resources did not
exist at the county, state, or federal level. Even the different departments within a
level of jurisdiction could not agree on a common definition of this most basic of
planning elements. If the term is to be used in the CPP, it must be defined to the
satisfaction of all jurisdictions so that the term may be properly applied within the
policies.
Village Character - The GMA and the CPP deal in terms of Urban Growth
Areas (UGA) and rural areas. The concept of village is not included in either. If
an existing "village" is determined to be a center of growth it will be
3
encompassed within a UGA and subjected to ~gh d~,s, ity development and in-
fill. How that is consistent with maintaining a village character is not clear.
Historical Nature and Preserve our Heritage - Before a history can be
preserved it must be documented and identified within an area. Creating history to
suit an intended developmental use is not preservation. Restoring a historical base
that no longer exists, for the sole purpose of directing development, is not
preservation. The specific history to be preserved must be identified if
preservation is to be a key element of the CPP. Questions such as whose history
and who decides what is history or historical and how will preservation be funded
need to be clearly identified.
Quality of Life - Perhaps the most overused phrase of the past decade, this has
multiple meanings dependent on political, economic, social, and religions stature
of those using the term. From a government point of view, based on the authority
granted to government, it means public safety afforded by police and fire
protection, good transportation provided by good streets and highways, Proper
schools to provide educational oppo~tnity, and the opportunity for economic and
personal growth afforded by good land use regulation. The definition can be
further expanded to include adequate public heath with associated water quality
and quantity, and facilities for public recreation. The role of government in
assuring any degree of quality o f life is strictly limited by constitutional authority
and that limit must be properly reflected in the CPP.
Diversified Income Base - This is another over-used, least understood phrase.
An economic base is one that involves the generation of wealth within a given
area or locale. This entails adding value to natural resources and exporting them
from the locale to bring new wealth to the area. Diversity is in the number of
methods or industries involved in creating wealth not the number of employers
en~aged in providing jobs. In an economy that simply recycles limited external
income within the county and must also pay to import most goods, real wealth
creation and economic diversity is not practical. The concept of wealth generation
must be prominent in the CPP.
Healthy Downtowns - In order for this element to have meaning those areas
considered downtown must be clearly defined and then the metric for assessing
the degree of health must be fixed. Because both of those elements will differ
trying to quantify such an objective in the CPP will be counter productive.
Additionally, it is not clear why "healthy downtowns" are more significant than
"healthy rural areas" or "healthy Port Districts." While it is clear that UGA will
directly impact downtown smlcture and composition it is not clear how CPP will
make special allowance for the downtown areas. In addition, it is not clear how
CPP will create the necessary mix of residential and employment use of a
downtown area, other than by restrictive regulation, to create a "healthy"
downtown area.
Affordable Housing - This politically correct replacement for low and moderate
income h. ousing has caused more problems than it has solved. In a county with an
average income of abeut $38,000 and an average house price of about $200,000
the term affordable is meaningless. If the intent of affordable housing is to make
housing affordable to ail residents of the county, the CPP must invoke
methodologies that will expand the opportunity for people to buy or rent homes
where they want to live and, at the same time, ensure that there is a large enough
market base to keep low to moderate homes available on the market. Artificially
restraining the availability of desirable homes, through restrictive land use
regulation, does cause prices to increase and eliminates Iow end homes fi.om the
market place. Making low and moderate income housing available should not be
dependent on a continuous stream of public funding to developers and residents.
If the basis for low and moderate income housing must be public funds, the cost
of that housing to the public must be curtailed.
We request and recommend that the entire paragraph dealing with the vision for
the county be eliminated. If such a vision statement is desired it should be
contained in an annex that is not apart &the CPP that becomes binding on all
parties and requires major effort to revise. It would be preferable to have a
separate annex that includes a positive statement fi.om the county and each city.
Regardless of location of such a vision statement, we request and recommend that
the use of generalized terms be eliminated fi.om the CPP. We further recommend
that if general terms are to be used that they be specifically defined for application
in the CPP.
b. Paragraph 1 Kitsap County Vision Elements provides a lengthy description ora
"vision" of the future of the County. The last sentence contains the phrase "and
the rural areas of our county are maintained." This phrase is subject to malor
misunderstanding. The word maintained has the basic meaning of remaining the
same or in the condition as existing. That in turn is easily interpreted to mean no
allowable development. As is demonstrated later in the CPP, rural growth and
development would be severely limited. Because the rural areas of the county are
the specific areas that have proven most desirable for new homes, such a policy
would be directly counter to the wishes of the citizens.
We req. uest and recommend the elimination of the phrase "rural areas of our county
are maintained" and that the wording "rural nature of our county be fully
appreciated."
c. Paragraph 1 Kitsap County Vision Elements provides a lengthy deseription of a
"vision" of the future of the County. As preamble to a long list of highly
generalized quality descriptions is the phrase 'q~nis vision of the future- which is
shared by citizens and elected offi ' " ·
zcmls -. There ~s no justification for this
statement nor is there any positive identification of when or how this "shared"
vision was defined. It is doubtful that all elected officials share the vision
expressed in this section. It is more doubtful that officials elected in the future,
taking exception to some of the contents of the CPP, would be properly identified
as sharing the vision. If the CPP are going to tell the people of the county and
cities what they think, it would be appropriate to include the specifics of the
manner in which that determination was made either by specific reference or by
adding it as an appendix. Citing a Vision study with very limited citizen
participation does not justify a general statement noting citizen approval of that
vision statement.
We request and recommend that the prearable sentence be rewritten to delete the
phrase "which is shared by citizens and elected officials"
d. Paragraph 1 .d. deals with Natural System protections and identifies elements well
in excess of those addressed in GMA. The provisions of GMA at subsection .050
specifically address agriculture, forest, and mineral lands and DOE defined
critical areas. The DOE areas are those associated with listings under the
Endangered Species Act. The inclusion of all wildlife habitat would include the
entire county land and water area, not the intent of the GMA. While the GMA
deals with open space and recreation, there is no specific reference to parks.
We request and recommend that this section be completely revised to be
incompliance with the specifics of the GMA.
e. Paragraph 1.f. deals with responsive government. The CPP is not the proper place
for any jurisdiction to try to define the authority of the jurisdiction or how the
responsibilities of government will be met. Citizens tend to regard the state
constitution as the proper document for determining jurisdictional responsibility
and authority.
We request and recommend that subparagraph 1 .f. be deleted.
f. Paragraph 1 .e. deals with rural character but describes that character in fully
subjective terms having no applicable metric for assessment of achievement.
Terms like "traditional character" and "lifestyles" are far too broad for policy
determination. The basics of the CPP are to develop any and all centers of growth
for eventual annexation into a city or incorporation. That does not appear to
support a vision of maintaining rural communities.
We request and recommend that the entire section dealing with rural areas be
revised to reflect the actual content of the CPP or that the section be deleted.
g. The paragraph beginning "A key strategy..." identifies a course of actions
regarding growth that will "enhonce our natural environment and maintain rural
character, reduce taxpayer costs, ... and increasing our choices for housing."
How this is to be achieved, reflecting the actual content of the CPP is not clearly
understood.
(1) H. ow effectively concentrating all growth into UGA, to include
significantly higher density for homing enhances our natural
environment is unknown. Higher density housing will require
more common open space that will either remain undeveloped
or will be transformed into public park space, both of which
become a perpetual burden to tax payers without enhancing the
environment. Parks and open space do not enhance
environment. Open space at best preserves a miniscule part of
an environment until it is violated and degraded. Parks
eliminate natural environment for a selected environment.
(2) Concentrating growth into UGA will place the burden for
infrastructure development on the residents (new and existing)
of the UGA. In most cases growth on the periphery of an
existing city or population center requires extension of
infrastructure to service those areas before development can
begin. The existing residents pay the price. When in fill or
redevelopment is involved and infrastructure must be
significantly upgraded or replaced, the existing and new
residents foot the bill. Sewage plants will have to be
significantly oversize to handle furore growth which means
paying a future bill today. How this results in a savings to the
taxpayers is not clear.
(3) Forcing growth into UGA with high density housing and
contrary provision for economic development in the same
UGA reduces housing and employment choices. Homes will
sell not because they are desirable but because they are the
only thing available. New industE¢ will be forced to locate
outside the UGA because o f the non-availability of land and
the cost of development. Instead of employees entering the
cities for work, just the opposite condition will exist, just as it
does today.
We request and recommend that this summary paragraph be revised to
reflect the predictable outcomes of the policies contained in CPP or
eliminated altogether.
h. Paragraph 2. Roles of Cities...
(1) Paragraph 2.a. asserts a primary role for cities is to attract
growth by various mechanisms. Are the cities rewriting their
basic charters and mission statements? Is this growth mandate
a specific responsibility and authority assigned to cities under
the constitution?
(2) Paragraph 2.b requires cities to foster its unique image as a
high quality place to live and work. Why is it necessary for the
CPP to provide specific direction to any city on what a primary
7
responsibility or function of the city should be? How does city
A direct City B to do anything?
(3) Paragraph 2.c has no sense. It appears to be a general statement
that may or may not be true in all cases; there is no clear intent
for the sentence.
We request and recommend that paragraph 2 be deleted in its entirety as
meaningless and unnecessary.
i. Paragraph 3 Roles of the County
(1) Paragraph 3.a. charges the county government to keep a region vision
in mind when making local decisions. What specific section of the
state constitution requires county government to consider the
requirements or effects of other counties in making land use decisions?
The governments ofneighbering counties have no jurisdiction over
matters that are within the borders of Kitsap County. This requirement
to engage in regional thinking is neither required nor beneficial to the
citizens of the county as a ma~ldated element of the CPP.
(2) Paragraph 3.b. charges the county with a responsibility to promote
transition of urban areas to cities. Once again it is not clear what
section of the constitution assigns that authority to county government.
To the contrary, the decision for annexation or incorporation is a
decision reserved to the people with specific limits on government
interference in that process. The stewardship and transition tasks are
not properly assigned to the county.
We request and recommend that this entire paragraph be deleted as
inappropriate, unnecessary and without meaning to the CPP.
i. Paragraph 4 - Growth Distribution. The intent of this paragraph to distribute
growth on a 2/3 to 7/8 distribution to UGA with the remainder to strictly
comrolled rural growth effectively devalues rural and zoned for residential use
and artificially inflates the value of land encompassed by UGA boundaries. By
political action, county and city governments have eliminated any hope for long
term market driven low to moderate income housing in UGA, and have affected a
fiscal taking. This level of distribution and the overall intent of the CPP to
severely limit rural development are not consistent with GMA section 020 which
establishes a planning goal of encouraging growth in urban areas but which does
not so restrict growth in rural areas. Further section .020 requires that property
rights be protected from arbitrary and discriminatory actions. Because the
distribution decision is based on political goals rather than economic necessity or
the desires of the people, it is arbitrary and it does discriminate.
8
We request and recommend that the distribution factors identified in this
paragraph be revised to more closely reflect the will of the people and the realities
of market impact on land pricing.
j. Paragraph 5 -KRCC member jurisdiction actions
It would be more consistent if the document addressed the same constituency by
the same terms all the time. KRCC member jurisdictions are elsewhere referred to
as cities and counties. Is there a difference in these forms of identification? If not
please set a standard and stick to it. As an aside, KRCC is a child of the elected
jurisdictions and should not be used as a collective for those jurisdictions when
assigning actions or responsibilities.
We request and recommend that a single method of identification for participating
jurisdictions be selected and used throughout the document.
k. Paragraph 5.a. states that jurisdictions should "make decisions together when
needed." That action would be contrary to the provisions of Article XI of the
constitution because KRCC is not a City-County form of government under the
provisions of section 16. The membership of KRCC does not include the full
legislative bodies of all cities and thus cannot make decisions that are binding on
those bodies, an authority reserved to each elected jurisdiction.
We request and recommend that this section be deleted.
1. Paragraph 5.d. would require that each jurisdiction establish a program for the
Transfer of Development Rights. First such a requirement cannot be directed to
any jurisdiction. Second such a system will not work unless all jurisdictions adopt
the same rules and provisions and the program is administered uniformly through
all jurisdictions. While there is no question that a property owner may sell or trade
any of the rights associated with real property, how that process will be
administered to protect future buyers and how it will impact tax assessment and
actual land use is not clear. It would appear that this Rights Transfer process
needs to be thoroughly researched and formulated before it becomes a part of the
CPP.
We request and recommend that the Transfer of Development Rights be deleted
from the CPP. We further recommend that the process for such Right Transfer be
developed separately and considered fro inclusion with a future revision.
5. Element B: Urban Growth Areas
9
a. Under the general heading is a statement that directing growth
to designated urban areas derives a benefit of harmonious
relationship with regional planning as articulated by Vision
2020 and Destination 2030, documents adopted by the PSRC.
Those documents are not provided as reference or attachment
to the CPP. It is not clear what role the people of Kitsap
County played in the creation of those documents or what
public exposure and review those documents have had in
Kitsap. Further, the CPP is specifically mandated by GMA and
is intended to implement GMA philosophy and requirements
throughout Kitsap County. The contents of The PSRC
approved documents may or may not be compatible with GMA
requirements and may not represent what is considered best by
the people of the county. Ia essence, the Kitsap County Board
of Directors has taken action to subordinate the government of
the county and the individual cities to the control of PSRC, a
non-elected body with no constitutional jurisdiction or
authority. While regional coordination may be desirable,
government subordination is not appropriate. The only potions
of the CPP that must be compatible with neighboring counties
are those sections which transcend our common borders.
We request and recommend that this sentence be deleted as
inappropriate.
b. Paragraph 1. uses several terms to identify the previously
named Buildable Lands Study (BLS). If the revision is only a
name change the rationale is not clear because oftbe impact
throughout this document and other required land use and
planning documents. If the change is more than a name change,
the revision does not clarify the change or the reason for the
change. The bottom line is that each jurisdiction must compile
a complete record of all properties within the jurisdiction that
are suitable for development and the type of development
allowed. Without that information, there is no logical method
to identify proper population distributions or establishment of
UGA boundaries.
We request and recommend that the term Buildable Lands Study
be retained except in the case that a new purpose is intended. If
Land Capacity Analysis has a different purpose and intent than
BLS please identify the purpose of the Analysis and identify how
BLS requirements will be met.
10
c. Paragraph 1 c. states that jurisdictions will develop strategies to
efficiently use available capacity to reduce the need to expand
UGA boundaries. What provisions are to be included in that
direction to ensure that property is retained at highest and best
use for the owners or that just compensation will be made in
the event of value reduction associated with regulatory action?
We request and recommend that additional information directly
addressing protection of property rights be added to this paragraph.
d. Paragraph 2.a. specifically restricts growth outside of the UGA
boundaries except for two selected cases. That restriction is not
consistent with GMA section .011 and would constitute a
taking if a property owner were refused the right to develop
property in a rural area.
We request and recommend that the restriction on development in
rural areas be made consistent with GMA findings.
e. Paragraph 2.b. indicates that growth should be associated with
a current or future city. The decision to incorporate is reserved
to the people and city planning is not a mandate under GMA.
Development with this caveat forces citizens to a condition that
they might not desire.
We request and recommend that the caveat on growth linked to
future cities be deleted.
f. Paragraph 2. h. requires a jurisdiction to complete certain
planning analysis. The elements of that an~!ysis do not include
analysis of existing infrastructure to support future growth or a
fiscal analysis oftha cost or ability of current residents to pay
for that expansion. The initial cost burden for any UGA
expansion will be borne by the residents of the existing UGA.
We request and recommend that an infrastructure support analysis
be included as well as a fiscal analysis of cost and ability of the
residents to pay.
g. Paragraph 2.j. requires that broadband be included as an
.infrastructure planning element. Notwithstanding the county
investment in this technology, what effort has been put forth to
identify why broadband should be universal throughout the
counties UGA? How will mandating broadband coverage be
justified in 5 years when there is a major technology shift?
11
We request and recommend that broadband be eliminated from a
semi-mandated infrastructure element. Jurisdictions recognizing
the need or value of such technology should be free to plan as they
see fit.
h. Paragraph 2.j.ii. states that although no standards and criteria
are established a range of other subjective elements should be
considered in UGA expansion evaluation. Without standards
and criteria, objective evaluation is not possible. This entire
section is little more than feel-good pap.
We request and recommend that this section be deleted.
i. Paragraph 3.a. essentially dictates that all current UGA will be
part ora city in 20 years. The action to incorporate or annex is
reserved to the people and is not within the purview of any
jurisdiction to interfere with that process. A jurisdiction may
suggest but the people decide. Dictating an outcome is
inappropriate.
We request and recommend that this section be deleted.
j. Paragraph 3.c. essentially mandates that development within a
UGA shall be at very high densities. This is not mandated by
GMA and is not consistent with the finding supporting
development of housing choices within the UGA.
We request and recommend that the urban density mandate be
changed to reflect housing choice in the UGA.
k. Paragraph 3.d. The purpose of this section is not understood.
The GMA directs jurisdictions to include this information in
their respective comprehensive plans. The GMA also directs
counties and cities to cooperate with respect to common
interests and issues. This section appears to be telling the
jurisdictions that the GMA tells them to do something and that
they should do it. The CPP should not be a vehicle for stating
the obvious. This is clearly not a policy statement.
We request and recommend that this section be deleted.
1. Paragraph 3.e continues the explicit effort to force annexation
and/or incorporation of UGA in a 20 year period. Once again
this is not a function of KRCC or any single jurisdiction.
12
We request and recommend that this section be deleted in it
entirety.
m. Paragraph 4.d. KRCC is not a legislative body and has no
authority to perform the duties assigned to a legislative body.
Each jurisdiction is responsible for establishing the population
growth factors that they wish to assume for growth planning
purposes. KRCC does not include the legislative bodies of all
participating jurisdictions and the non participants would be
denied the public input before KRCC to support their decision
making process. This responsibility should be specifically
reserved to the individual jurisdictions, as is appropriate under
constitutional authority.
We request and recommend that this section bo revised to identify
the responsibility for population distribution determination to
remain with the city and or county, as appropriate.
n. Paragraph 5. Fully contained communities (FCC). Under the
provisions of this paragraph, the county could refuse a permit
to develop an FCC simply by not assigning growth population
to a non-UGA section of the county. This action is directly
contrary to paragraph 2a which made FCC one of the
exceptions to no growth outside of UGA. This inconsistency is
supportive of the general philosophy of the CPP to prevent
growth except in UGA but could be considered an
administrative taking of property.
We request and recommend that this section be revised to be
consistent with 2.a. or that it be deleted.
o..The wording dealing with a county Master Plan review process
as not consistent. The sentence reads that the county should
incorporate such a procedure in their comprehensive plan but
that the procedure must contain certain elements. If the
procedure is required by GM_A, say so! If it is not do not
mandate contents.
We request and recommend that this sentence be corrected.
p. The .Master Plan review process paragraph mandates that
provas~on be made for review of proposed developments
through the KRCC process. First, that review function is
normally assigned to the jurisdiction planning commission
which is the correct body for such review. Second, individual
jurisdictions have the responsibility and authority to act
13
independently with regard to development within their
respective jurisdictions. KRCC does not comprise a duly
constituted legislative body for any jurisdiction and may not
act for such a body.
We request and recommend that this section be deleted.
6. Element F: Contiguous and Orderly Development
a. Paragraph 3.a assigns oversight responsibility for execution of inter-local
agreements between jurisdictions and especially those addressing funds or
revenue sharing. Oversight responsibilities are assigned to the legislative bodies
of the individual jurisdictions and must be conducted under the authority of those
bodies. There is no logical reason for KRCC to be involved in the execution of
any Inter-Local Agreement (ILA).
We request and recommend that this requirement for KRCC involvement be deleted.
7. Element G: Siting Capital Facilities .....
a. Paragraph 2 a assigns authority to KRCC to assign a Facility Analysis and
Evaluation Advisory Committee. That responsibility and authority is properly
assigned to the specific jurisdiction in which the facility is to be located. Ifa
multi-jurisdictional committee is requked, it should be the responsibility of the
participating jurisdictions to establish the committee and establish committee
tasking. There is no reason for KRCC to be involved in this process.
We request and recommend that this section be revised to eliminate ICRCC
participation.
b. Paragraph 3.b. requires that airport safety be a planning concern for appropriate
jurisdictions. Of note, the section specifies that development near airports or
airport corridors might be discouraged. Caution needs to be exercised that such
discouraging action or planning might reduce or eliminate highest and best use of
a property and could constitute a taking.
8. Element H: Transportation
Notwithstanding thc interpreted guidance of the GMA, this section needs to be seriously
compared to Article II section 40 of our State Constitution regarding use of highway
funds and the elements of transportation within the state.
14
The paragraph describing transportation facilities is incomplete since it does not
include the following:
Taxi cabs
Home carriages
Private bus/livery companies
Personal water eraftJbeats
Heliports
We request and recommend that the section be revised to include the facilities identified
and any other considered appropriate.
a. Paragraph 4.a. appears to require jurisdictions to prepare strategies and plans that
would force development to be reliant primarily on multi-modal transport. If that
is the case, would it be correct to establish that the jurisdiction is acting to limit
choice through regulation? If plans and strategies are specifically directed to
pedestrian/bike/public transport, how will automobiles be accommodated?
We request and recommend that significant expansion of this section be incorporated
to clearly state the impact of the plans and strategies on both developers and
residents.
9. Element J: Economic Development
Of particular note, the section on Transportation (Element H) is addressed across five and
one half pages of detailed policy and guidance. This element, Economic Development,
the single most critical element for growth in the county, is given a page and a half.
Within this section there is not one substantive statement that defines economic growth
for the jurisdictions as a function of wealth creation. The section does not attempt to
identify or suggest those classes of industry that are best suited to the capabilities and
infi'astructure of the county or which are lest suited. The section does not provide any
meaningful policy guidance on cooperative efforts to encourage or recruit new industry to
the county. Instead the policy targets increased wages and salary levels as indicators of
economic growth.
We request and recommend that this section be completely revised by persons who really
understand the basic concepts of economic growth and who are able to apply those
principles to the specifics of Kitsap County.
10. Element K, Fiscal Impact
15
It is of interest to note that there is some concern that GMA is "vague" and does not
provide explicit direction for the content of this element. It would seem that not much
guidance would be required to instruct jurisdictions that when making planning decisions
awareness of the fiscal impact of those decisions in both the public and private sector are
appropriate. It is not enough to consider the tax revenue impacts of a decision. Each
decision must include an analysis of the immediate and continuing impact to the
taxpayers, the immediate and continuing impact to individual property owners, and the
immediate and continuing impact on wealth generation and economic development. This
is the one element that makes elementary the basic responsibility of all elected officials to
maintain and protect individual rights. Fiscal impact analysis is the best and most readily
available tool to support completion of that responsibility. This element, as written, does
not support the type or level of fiscal analysis required for good p]annlng decisions.
We request and recommend that this section be rewritten in it's entirety to properly
reflect the nature, level and detail of fiscal analysis necessary to support planning
decisions as addressed in CPP.
Appendix A: Interloeal Agreement (ILA) Revenue Sharing
While including this ILA is interesting, previous discussion would indicate that the issues
covered are not within the scope of responsibility appropriate to KRCC. This particular
ILA should be removed. However, the ILA which created KRCC and under which
KRCC functions should be included as an appendix to this document. Because the ILA
establishes the formal relationship between jurisdictions, they also identify the limits of
the relationship and define areas of responsibility that are not appropriate for
consideration by KRCC.
We request and recommend that the ILA that established KRCC be included as an
appendix to the CPP.
RespecOeully submitted
Kitsap Alliance of Property Owners
February 14, 2004
16
OF PROPER?
_KAPO Position Statement
on County-wide Planning Policy
and Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council
Count-wide Planning Policy: July 2003
KAPO holds that the policy statement necessary to implement the GM^ in Kitsap
County should be no longer than three pages. KAPO further holds that the
County-Wide Planning Policy document should stick to policy and stay away from
process.
The GMA, including all filler, references, and disclaimers, is about 60 pages long.
Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council:
KAPO holds that the KRCC, as currently constituted, is not and cannot be a
"forum for discussion" and should be disbanded. If a discussion forum is
determined to be in the best interests of the citizens, a better manner of creating
and conducting the forum needs to be devised.
1. KRCC by membership definition cannot be either a "forum for
discussion" or a body that achieves "consensus" among participating
jurisdictions.
a. KRCC membership includes all three county commissioners. BY
DEFINITION, any "recommendation" of KRCC supported by two
or more Commissioners (a prerequisite for passing to the
jurisdictions) will include agreement by at least two
Commissioners and is therefore a predetermined action when it
is referred to the county. In essence, the Commissioners are
conducting county legislative business at other than a
scheduled meeting of the Commissioners. To argue otherwise is
to parse words and attempt to redefine the concepts of
agreement and consensus.
b. KRCC membership does not include the proper representation
of the city legislative bodies, and by definition precludes the
actual agreement of "two or more cities" to any recommendation
before KRCC. To correct the problem, the entire legislative body
of each city would have be within KRCC membership and a
quorum of those members for each body would have to be
present for an "reco ...... ,
Y ,,,,-=nclatlon' vote. As soon as that
criterion is met, the cities would face the same problem currently
faced by the County.
Continued over
"The small landholders are the most precious part of a state." - Thomas Jefferson
Post Office Box 1861, Poulsbo, Washington 98370 · Office: 360-779-9267 · www, kitsapalliance.org
c. The full range of "other" jurisdictions that are directly impacted
by policies discussed or recommended by KRCC are not at the
table and are relegated to minor or non-existing roles in land
use planning. How school districts, utility districts and fire
districts, all directly impacted by any land use policy decision,
are not actively involved in the process while Tribes and Federal
agencies are included as voting members, is not understood.
Without representation Eom all jurisdictions impacted by
planning policies, the policy decisions cannot be totally well
founded.
d. Because KRCC is supposed to be a discussion and
recommendation forum, its membership should not be elected
officials but should be senior members of jurisdiction planning
staffs, industry representatives, EDC representatives, and
citizen representatives. With that membership composition the
forum could conduct valid discussion to include the concerns
and ideas of the community in general. The broader
membership for the forum would also send the desired clear
message that the answers are not from the courthouse but from
the people.
(Countywide Planning Policy & KRCC)