HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/30/99 AGENDACITY COUNCIL AGENDA
JUNE 30, 1999
PRE-COUNCIL SESSION: 5:00 - 5:30 P.M.
· General Council Business
CALL TO ORDER: 5:30 P.M.
· Pledge of Allegiance
· Invocation
CONSENT AGENDA
Items listed below have been distributed to Council members in advance for study
and will be enacted by one motion. If separate discussion is desired on an item, it
may be removed from the Consent Agenda and placed on the Regular Agenda at
the request of a Council member.
A. Minutes of Meeting - June 16, 1999
#AB99-115
CLAIMS/CHECK REGISTERS
5. COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS
6. MAYOR'S REPORT
7. LEGISLATIVE REPORT
PUBLIC RECOGNITION -- (Comments Limited to 3 Minutes)
NEW BUSINESS
A. Appointment of Mindy Fohn to the Public Access Citizens
Advisory Committee
Appointment of Michelle Lanham to the Public Access
Citizens Advisory Committee
Interlocal Cooperation Agreement Between Kitsap
Urban County and the City to Form a HOME Consortium
#AB99-116
#AB99-117
#AB99-118
(CONTINUED ON BACK)
10.
11.
ORDINANCES
A. Ordinance No. 4653 (Second Reading) Amending
Chapter 9.48, Pertaining to Fireworks, to bring City
Codes in compliance with State Codes
Ordinance No. 4654 (Second Reading) Revising the Code
of Ethics
Co
Ordinance No. 4655 (Second Reading) Amending Chapter
2.62 -"Hearing Examiner" of the Bremerton Municipal Code
Do
Ordinance No. 4656 (Second Reading) Requiring
Applicants to Pay Cost for any Newspaper Notices
PUBLIC HEARINGS - 6:00 P.M. or Later
A. Year 2000 CDBG/HOME Policy Plan
#AB99-113
#AB99-107
#AB99-108
#AB99-109
#AB99-119
58,
12. ADJOURNMENT OF MEETING
AGENDA BILL
BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL
MINUTES OF MEETING -- JUNE 16, 1999
FOR AGENDA OF: JUNE 30, 1999
ORIGINATING DEPT: C I TY COUNC I L
ORIGINATOR: MIKE SHEPHERD, PRESIDE~
DATE SUBMITTED: JUNE 23, ]999
2. gJ~: (comment on back 3. ~:
if necessary)
ENDORSEMENT
MAYOR
INFORMATION
APPROVED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FOR SUBMITTAL:
4. SU~Y STATEMENT AND REOUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION:
8. RECOM~EENDATION:
o
RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL:
ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL:
EXPIRATION DATE:
REVIEW DATE:
PULLED TABLED
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE:
10. NOTICE OF ACTIQN
APPROVED DISAPPROVED
DATE:
!1. AGENDA BILL NO:
i -
DED
115
TAPES #1623 & #1624 UNAPPROVED DRAFT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
JUNE 16, 1999
The regular 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, June 16, 1999, at 5:30
P.M., with Council President Mike Shepherd presiding. Council members present were Jim Reed,
Carlos Montgomery, Carol Arends, David Fart, Lon Overson, John Law, and Cecil McConnell.
Council Member Wayne Olsen was absent. Also present were City Attorney Glenna Malanca;
Deputy City Clerk Paula Johnston; and Legislative Assistant Lori Smith.
The meeting opened with the Pledge of Allegiance led by Council President Shepherd and
invocation given by Retired Pastor and Missionary Ray Streutker.
President Shepherd made the following announcements:
(1) City Council held a Study Session pdor to the meeting to discuss general Council business,
followed by a 15-minute Study Session from 5:15 - 5:30 P.M. to discuss a "Single-Event Permit
for Field of Blues on Sunday, July 18, 1999";
(2) City Council will meet next week onMonday, June 21, 1999 rather than Wednesday, June 23
due to several Council members attending the AWC Conference in Wenatchee; and
(3) Any "first readings" of ordinances tonight will have their "second readings" at the June 30 City
Council meeting to fulfill the requirement of 7 full days between readings of ordinances.
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Minutes of Meeting - June 2, 1999
B. Minutes of Meeting - June 9, 1999
#AB99-104
#AB99-105
#0025 M/S/C/U (McConnell/Montgomery) Motion 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.
#0047 M/S/C/U (Montgomery/Arends) On June 16, 1999, the Council does approve for payment
those vouchers included and further described as follows: 231559 through 231788 in the amount of
$469,498.10.
COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS
Mr. Montqomery reported on the well-attended Flag Day Ceremony at N.A.D. Park on Monday,
June 14. On Saturday, attended a workshop sponsored by the Department of Natural Resources to
discuss the future growth of Kitsap County, where a majority of attendees expressed their
preference for more people to live in the cities and urban area, and to preserve as much of the
"green" areas as possible. He corrected a quote made to a Sun reporter printed incorrectly in an
article in today's edition.., he said he would like to see improvements to the "Municipal Code" not
"Municipal Court'.
Mrs. Arends commented that Kitsap Transit has done an excellent job directing passenger and
vehicle traffic at the Ferry terminal during the construction. She also attended the Flag Day
Ceremony, which she thoroughly enjoyed.
TAPES #1623 & #1624
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
June 16, 1999
Page 2 of 5
Mr. Overson appreciated the progress made at the Ferry Terminal. He also reminded the public of
the next District #4 meeting to be held Thursday, June 24, 7:00 P.M. at the Mutual Bank building at
5"' & Pacific. The Mayor and Fire Chief Al Duke will be in attendance.
Mr. Law reported on a successful District #3 meeting held last night, and thanked Chief Al Duke for
his outstanding presentation, and also Klaus Golombek, CEO of a local bank, who gave a perspective
from the financial aspect on Y2K issues.
President Shepherd attended a very moving ceremony for the closure of the Naval planning and
estimating l~acility in Manette, which has been in Bremerton l~0r a number of years. He also attended
the Department of Natural Resources workshop with Council member Montgomery, and was very
impressed with the thought most people were giving to their comments about the future of Kitsap
County and the environment.
MAYOR'S REPORT
Mayor Horton wamed the public to be aware of children now that school is out.
LEGISLATIVE REPORT - There was no report this evening.
PUBLIC RECOGNITION
Charlene Burnett, Parks Department, announced a number of programs being offered now that
school is out for the summer, such as the "Playground Express" and the "Sparky" programs. Anyone
who would like further information may call 478-5305. She also encouraged the public to mark their
calendars for the "Field of Blues" jazz event to be held at Pendergast Park on Sunday, July 18, 1999.
Ray Streutker announced that Charleston Baptist Church has found a new location, and will move on
Sunday, July 11, 1999. A celebration is planned, and the public is invited.
Debbie Peavler-Stewart, Administrative Analyst with the Planning Department, announced the third
annual "Finding Your Way Home" event to assist home-buyers at the Kitsap Mall, Center Court, on
Saturday, June 19, 1999. Citizens can call 478-7996 or 478-5375 for additional information.
Ruth Natividad representing "Citizens for Safe Water", asked for an update on the installation of
fluoridation equipment, and water testing. They would like to see the equipment dismantled and sold.
9A - PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH LARSON ANTHROPOLOGICAl
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SERVICES LIMITED, #AB99-106
Jodi Wroblewski, of the Parks & Recreation Department, reported that construction exposed shell
midden deposits at the Evergreen Park Site during construction, on Wednesday, May 12, 1999.
Larson Anthropological Archaeological Services Limited (LAAS) recorded the site on May 17, 1999,
at the request of the Suquamish Tribe, and prepared a Washington Archaeological Site Inventory
Form for the site. LAAS prepared a letter report that described the Evergreen Park Site and
recommended additional site recording and construction monitoring activities.
Roy Runyon referred to an article in the Sun that quoted the City Engineer as stating he would look
at additional enforcement for speeding traffic on the newly paved Burwell Street. Mr. Runyon
questioned where the money would come from since the Mayor and City Engineer recently told him
that there is no money for traffic calming or additional enforcement. He feels that if there is no money
TAPES #1623 & #1624
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
June 16, 1999
Page 3 of 5
for these pressing issues, then how can the City justify the $18,000 amount for this Professional
Services Agreement "studying the dead". Mayor Horton explained the issue revolves around a
discovery of an Indian burial site, which binds the City to comply with Federal Law requirements.
Mrs. Arends commented that this is very meticulous work, where everything is done by hand, which
adds to the cost of these types of projects.
Mr. McCennell voiced his objections at this being a Federal unfunded mandate. He believes that at
least 50% of the costs should be borne by the interested parties of the burial site. Mr. Farr
suggested that in addition to the requirement by Federal Law, there is the spirit of cooperation and
respect for the wishes and burial grounds of our Native American neighbors.
#1125 M/S/C/U (Montgomery/McConnell) Motion to authorize the Mayor to enter into a Professional
Services Agreement with Larson Anthropological Archaeological Services Limited to provide
archeological assessment and clean-up to the Evergreen Park site for the Time and Material, not to
exceed amount of $18, 766.74.
10A- ORDINANCE (FIRST READING_) REVISING CODE OF ETHICS. #AB99-107
Glenna Malanca, City Attorney, reported that an Ordinance repealing and revising the Code of Ethics
for City Officials and employees. This Ordinance has clarified the purpose of having a Code of Ethics
and the expectations and penalties therein. Chapter 2.96 will be repealed in its entirety if the City
Council adopts the attached Ordinance. MS. Malanca pointed out this Code of Ethics goes above and
beyond State Law.
Susan Brown reported on information obtained from Municipal Research Services Center, and still
sees that the primary problem is that it needs to be stated that the Commission on Council Salaries is
not to be interfered with due the obvious financial connection.
Del Knauss urged Council to make any necessary changes to make the document more "user-
friendly". He addressed several other concerns, and asked 1) Were all 16 R.C.W.'s referred to in the
Ordinance, attached to this Ordinance for Council review? 2) Who was the "Hearing Examiner"; 3)
Which Code lists how a public official can be removed; 4) What specifically is a "frivolous complaint";
and 5) What does sua sponte mean?
Ms. Malanca recommended an amendment to the Ordinance to indicate "on the Judge's (Hearing
Examiner's) own motion", rather than the Latin phrase sua sponte. She clarified there is a provision
in the Code which identifies the Bremerton Municipal Court Judge as the current Hearing Examiner.
She further explained the attempt to address the issue on how public officials can be removed in the
ordinance under Chapter 2.96.010 the "Purpose" section. She pointed out that Chapter 42.23 of the
State RCW also applies. Only the electorate can remove public officials.
Mr. McCennell offered several possible amendments to include in the Code of Ethics. It was
decided he would discuss these items further with the City Attorney before second reading of this
ordinance.
Mr. Montgomery took issue with the listing of so many R.C.W.'s, and was concerned that anyone
with a question would need to go though each one. He questioned if there was a way to make the
document more "user friendly" for the public.
TAPES #1623 & #1624
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
June 16, 1999
Page 4 of 5
Mr. Reed referred to the "Violations" section, under Item (2) "Appearance of Fairness" and was
concerned who would define if an individual has "pre-judged the medts" or had "personal bias"?
Ms. Malanca stated the words were taken from the existing code, which goes beyond State Law as
far as "Appearance of Fairness". If an issue was pursued, it would be a subject of a complaint,
however, not a violation of State Law, where standards for an investigation would include an issue of
"evidence" and a "preponderance of the evidence'. President She.~herd further added that one
reason for establishing a "Hearing Examiner" was to have someone who could evaluate the process.
Ms. Malanca stated the reasons for listing the R.C.W.'s "as amended" instead of including the actual
documents, is 1) to remain effective with updated State requirements; and 2) all of the R.C.W.'s are
easily accessible, and her staff is willing to provide them at anyone's request.
#2295 M/S/C (McConnell/Law) Motion for Council to approve Ordinance on first reading.
Vote on motion:
Motion carried.
In favor:
Opposed:
Farr, Arends, McConnell, Law, Overson, Shepherd
Montgomery, Reed
10B - ORDINANCE (FIRST READING) AMENDING CHAPTER 2.62 OF THE BREMERTON
MUNICIPAL CODE. #AB99-108
Glenna Malanca, City Attorney, reported the attached Ordinance amends Chapter 2.62 by allowing
the hearing examiner to have jurisdiction to receive and rule on complaints referred by the City
Auditor, or as otherwise provided, in regards to the Code of Ethics.
There were no comments from the Public.
#2410 M/S/C/U (Farr/Arends) Motion to approve Ordinance on first reading.
10C - ORDINANCE (FIRST READING) REQUIRING APPLICANTS TO PAY FOR COSTS OF ANY
NEWSPAPER NOTICES, #AB99-109
Phil Berry, Planning Department Director, stated the proposed Ordinance would require applicants to
pay for any newspaper notice costs for permit types included under BMC Sections 21.02.840,
21.02.845, 21.02.850, and 21.02.855. Mr. Berry further stated that this is already being done in the
County, and feels this is an equitable way to address this issue without raising overhead costs. Jon
Holan, Planning Manager, referred to the analysis done to support this change, and pointed out the
fees charged by Bremerton are generally lower than fees charged by other communities in the
County. He clarified that his Department would still prepare the Legal Notice, the applicant would just
pay the cost.
There were no comments from the Public.
TAPE #1624
#0182 M/S/C (Montgomery/McConnell) Motion to approve Ordinance on first reading, requiring
applicants and/or appellants to pay for any notice which is required to be published in the newspaper.
Vote on motion: In favor: Law, Farr, Arends, Montgomery, Reed, Shepherd
Opposed: McConnell, Overson
Motion carried.
TAPES #1623 & #1624
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
June 16, 1999
Page 5 of 5
11A-PUBLIC HEARING AND RESOLUTION NO. 2709. REGARDING RECOVERY OF FEES FOR
ABATEMENT OF GARBAGE. DEBRIS, AND UNSAFE STRUCTURE ON THE PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 015 11T" STREET, #AB99-110
Judy Johnson, Building Official, reported that on April 20, 1999, the City removed a failing roof,
furniture, appliances, and other garbage and debris, and fenced the perimeter of a garage structure
located at 616 11th Street after the owners, Lloyd and Betty Hockett, failed to do so as ordered by the
Building Official. The cost of the work, including administrative fees, totaled $3, 159.02. Council
must now decide if the fees are just and reasonable and how they should be collected. Ms. Johnson
presented the chronology of the abatement process for this property. She thanked Janet Lunceford
for the pictures that were presented.
There were no comments from the Pubfic.
Mr. Reed asked staff to include a statement on future abatements brought to Council that would
indicate the owners received notice of the pending abatement.
#0340 M/S/C/U (Montgomery/Farr) Motion to pass Resolution No. 2709 and order that the fees
incurred for the abatement of a failing roof, furniture, appliances, and other debris and garbage and
fencing of the perimeter of the garage located at 615 11th Street be collected as reasonable
abatement costs and become a lien against the property.
With no further business meeting adjourned at 7:15 P.M.
PAULA JOHNSTON, Deputy City Clerk
MIKE SHEPHERD, Council President
City of Bremerton
P J/MS/Is
C: Normal Distribution
File
AGENDA BILL
BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL
1. SUBJECT:
Appointment to the Public Access
Citizens Advisory Committee
FOR AGENDA OF:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ORIGINATOR:
DATE SUBMITTED:
June 30. 1999
Executive
Mavo~ Horto~
J~ne 24, 1999
2. ~: (comment on back
if necessary)
ENDORSEME~ INFORMATION. __
APPROVED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FOR~SUB~!TTAL:
co c ,,
/
4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REOUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION:
There is a vacancy on the Public Access Citizens Advisory Committee
for the position of "City's Representative." It is recommended
Mindy F0hn, Environmental Technician, Bremerton Public Works and
Utilities be appointed to fill the vacancy.
8. RECOMMENDATION:
Motion to confirm the appointment of Mindy Fohn as the City's
representative on the Public Access Citizens Advisory Committee.
9. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL:
ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL:
EXPIRATION DATE:
REVIEW DATE'
PULLED TABLED
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE:
10. NOTICE OF ACTION
APPROVED DISAPPROVED
DATE:
AMENDED
11. AGENDA BILL NO:~
2. CLEARANCE COMMENTS:
5. IMPACT ON NON-PASSAGE:
6. IMPACT ON STAFFING, BUDGETS, FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCES:
7. RESEARCH SOURCES:
AGENDA BILL
BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL
1. SUBJECT:
Appointment to the Public Access
Citizens Advisory Committee
FOR AGENDA OF: June 90. 1999
ORIGINATING DEPT: Executive
ORIGINATOR: Mayor Horton'-
DATE SUBMITTED: June 24. 1999
(comment on back
if necessary)
3. ~:
Application for Appointment
MAYOR ~ ~.ENDORSEMENT_ INFORMA~~
APPROVED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FOR SUBM~ITTAL:
/ .~
4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REOUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION:
There is a vacancy on the Public Access Citizens Advisory Committee.
It is recommended the vacancy be filled by Michelle Lanham who would
be the "commuhity representative"
8. RECOMMENDATION:
Motion to confirm the appointment of Michelle Lanham as the community
representative on the Public Access Citizens Advisory Committee.
9. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL:
ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL:
EXPIRATION DATE:
REVIEW DATE:
PULLED TABLED
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE:
10. NOTICE OF ACTION
APPROVED DISAPPROVED
DATE:
11. AGENDA BILL NO:
AMENDED
2. CLEARANCE COMMENTS:
5. IMPACT ON NON-PASSAGE:
6. IMPACT ON STAFFING, BUDGETS, FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCES:
7. RESEARCH SOURCES:
CITY OF BREMERTON -
APPLICATION FOR CITY BOARDS/COMMISSIONS/COMMITTEE
NOTE:
As an applicant for a City Board, Commission or Committee, your name, address, and
telephone number will be available to the press and public. You will be contacted before
any action is taken on your appointment.
(Please type or print clearly)
HOME ADDRESS: ~-%-~.?_~--~
OCCUPATION: .~ '~'-'~,C..~',c'_,-,a
DATE:
PHONE~
(H)
(W)
EDUCATION' (.~,J.' ~J~_/'-3, 't~,/ ~O ~-'
/
PROFESSIONAL/COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES:
LOCAL REFERENCES (name & phone number):
-, ,- ':-/-"2. -
c.~ F'~._! &" ~' ,' '
I AM INTERESTED IN SERVING ON (please check one or more)'
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
Disability Action Committee ( )
Civil Service Commission(18 yrs. & older) ( )
Urban Forest Committee ( )
Public Access Citizens Advisory Committee ( )
Community Development Block Grant ( )
Advisory Committee ( )
Youth Council ( )
Safe Streets Steering Committee ( )
Citizen's Commission on Council Salaries
Planning Commission (18 yrs. & older)
Parks & Recreation Commission
Ethics Commission
Parking Advisory Board
Solid Waste Management
Bremerton Housing Authority
Board of Appeals, Housing/Building Codes
Mayor's Select Committee on Law
Enforcement
Is this an application for reappointment? ,~ ~
If yes, how many years have you served on this commission/committee?
/ ///
PLEASE RETURN TO: /
Signature
Mayor's Office
239 4th Street
Bremerton, WA
98337
Applications be reviewed periodically to determine continued availability.
information may be put on back.
Additional pertinent
AGENDA BILL
BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL
1. SUBJECT:
Interlocal Cooperation Agreement
Between Kitsap Urban County and the
City to Form a HOME Consortium
FOR AGENDA OF: June 30, 1999
ORIGINATING DEPT.: DECD
ORIGINATOR: Deborah Pearler-Stewart
DATE SUBMITTED: June 14, 1999
2. CLEARANCES: 3. EXHIBITS:
n~,.~ 1997-1999 Interlocal Agreement, Exhibit 1
Director of Economic and Community Developme ,. 2000-2001 Interlocal Agreement, Exhibit 2
Ci~ Attorney
Fiscal and Budget Committee~
n,
ENDORSE1VIE'INFF X INFORMATIONIAPPROVED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FOR SUBMITT)d.:
MAYOR: --~,~ ;~"' -~ / ~''-''-
' ~ COUNCIL PRESIDENT
4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION:
The City of Bremerton entered into an lnterlocal Cooperation Agreement with Kitsap County.~m 1997 to form a
HOME consortium under the National Affordable Housing Act. The Agreement expires on ~fi~_; 31, 1990
The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) provides funds under the HOME program to
expand the supply of safe, sanitary and affordable housing for low income persons. HUT) determines the
amount that may be allocated to States and local government based on a formula that considers the vacancy rate,
condition and age of housing, and number of persons in poverty. Not all localities directly receive funds. Tm
fiscal years in which Congress appropriates 1.5 billion of HOME funds or more, a local government must meet a
threshold of at least $750,000 to receive direct funding. Those that don't meet the threshold may apply for
funding for projects to the State or form consortiums with other entities. By forming a consortium with Kitsap
County, we will increase the probability of receiving a direct HOME allocation. Congress appropriated 1.6
million dollars to the HOME program in 1999. The Kitsap County HOME Consortium received $963,000 in
1999, the City of Bremerton received a set aside of $438,165 of those funds.
The HOME Consortium agreement is structured, as it was during 1997-1999, to set aside 45.5% of the total
Consortium funds to the City with 5% of the funds being available to the County for administration.
8. RECOMMENDATION:
I move we authorize the Mayor to sign the Interlocal Agreement for the HOME program years 2000-2001.
RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL:
ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL:
EXPIRATION DATE:
REVIEW DATE:
PULLED TABLED
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE:
10. NOTICE OF ACTION
APPROVED DISAPPROVED
AMENDED
9C
2. CLEARANCE COMMENTS:
None
5. IMPACT ON NON-PASSAGE:
The City may not receive HOME funds in the future.
6. IMPACT ON STAFFING. BUDGETS. FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCES:
7. RESEARCH SOURCES:
INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT
BETWEEN KITSAP URBAN COUNTY AND TItE CITY OF BREMERTON
TO FORM A HOME CONSORTIUM UNDER TIlE NATIONAL AFFORDABLE HOUSING
ACT
PROGRAM YEARS 2000-2001
This agreement is entered into between the City of Bremerton, (hereinafter the "City"), a Washington
Municipal Corporation, and Kitsap Urban County (hereinafter the "County"), which includes Kitsap
County, and the cities of Bainbridge Island, Port Orchard and Poulsbo, all Washington Municipal
Corporations, pursuant to the Interlocal Cooperation Act, chapter 39.34 RCW. It will become effective
upon adoption by the parties and will continue until terminated as provided herein.
I. RECITALS
A. WHEREAS, the Congress of the United States of America has enacted the National Affordable
Housing Act, HOME Investments in Affordable Housing Program, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 12721 (hereinafter
the AAc~) as implemented by the U S Department of Housing and Urban Development (hereinafter
_AHUD=) in 24 CFR Part 92, allowing units of general local government to enter into mutual
cooperation agreements to form a consortium for the purpose of obtaining funding as a participating
jurisdiction under the HOME Investment Parmership Program (AHOME Prograrn_~): and
B. WHEREAS, the purpose of the HOME program per 24 CFR, Section 92.1 is to strengthen public-
private partnerships through the allocation of funds among eligible state and local governments and to
expand the supply of decent, safe, sanitary, and affordable housing for low and very low income
Americans.
C. WHEREAS, it is found that these objectives are pertinent to the concerns and needs of the
COUNTY and of the CITY; and
D. WHEREAS, eligibility for HOME Investment Partnership funds is based upon criteria similar to the
criteria for eligibility, for Urban County designation for CDBG funds: and
E. WHEREAS, Kitsap County and the Cities of Bainbridge Island, Port Orchard and Poulsbo have
requested AUrban County-_- status under the CDBG Program and the City of Bremerton qualifies as a
separate entitlement under the CDBG program; and
F. WHEREAS, Kitsap County and the Cities of Bainbridge Island, Port Orchard and Poulsbo have
entered into a separate Interlocal Agreement forming a consortium under the Home Program; and
G. WHEREAS, COUNTY shall administer the HOME program as well as the Urban County
CDBG program and the CITY will administer its own CDBG program. Both of these
programs will be included in the County Consortiums Consolidated Plan; and
1
H. WHEREAS, the COUNTY agrees to delegate to the Kitsap Regional Coordinating
Council (hereinafter referred to as "KRCC") decision making authority regarding the
Consolidated Plan, as the KRCC was established to have regional oversight, representation
and authority on certain issues affecting all of Kitsap County; and
I. WHEREAS, the signatory political subdivisions to this agreement have determined that
obtaining funding under the HOME Program will increase their ability to provide affordable
housing for their low and moderate income residents, and
J. WHEREAS, the Department of Housing and Urban Development has specified the
minimum provisions which must be included within any intergovernmental agreement for
the cooperating governmental bodies to qualify for Urban County eligibility.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises made herein and the mutual
benefits received hereunder, the parties agree as follows:
H. DEFINITIONS
A. "Member" means a unit of local government which is a signatory to this agreement and
therefore of the consortium for the purpose of carrying out eligible activities under 24 CFR
Part 92.
B. "Representative member" means the unit of local government designated hereafter as the
one member to act in a representative capacity for all members for the purpose of this
agreement ("lead entity"). The Representative Member will assume overall responsibility, for
ensuring that the consortium's HOME Program is carried out in compliance with the
requirements of 24 CFR Part 91 and 92, the housing objectives of the CITY and COUNTY
as adopted in the Consolidated Plan, and will assume responsibility for the requirements
concerning the Consolidated Plan.
III. ACTIVITIES
A. The signatory parties agree to cooperate in undertaking, or assist in undertaking, housing
assistance activities for the HOME Investment Parmership Program in compliance with the
Consolidated Plan.
B. The signatory parties agree to jointly pursue and identify match requirements.
C. The signatory parties agree to take affirmative action to further fair housing in their
jurisdictions. Such actions may include planning, education and outreach, and enforcement
components.
2
IV. ADMINISTRATION
A. COUNTY will be designated as the Representative Member and agrees to carry out such
overall responsibilities with the cooperation of the CITY in accordance with 24 CFR 92.101
as set forth herein
B. COUNTY will administer both the Urban County's Community Development Block
Grant Program and HOME Investment Partnership Program. The CITY will administer its
Community Development Block Grant Program separately;
C. COUNTY, as the Representative Member, shall manage the entire HOME allocation on
behalf of the consortium, as set forth herein.
D. COUNTY agrees to carry out eligible activities in accordance with and to generally
follow the requirements of 24 CFR Part 92.
E. CITY is responsible for submitting in a timely manner to the Representative Member all
information necessary for participation in the consortium as defined in 24 CFR Part 92. This
includes all information necessary for the Consolidated Plan, the HOME program description
and certifications (24 CFR 92.150), and performance reports. The Consolidated Plan Annual
Performance Report, HOME Annual Performance Report, and the Annual Consolidated Plan
information shall be provided to the COUNTY by the dates specified by the COUNTY.
F. KRCC shall have decision making authority over areas specific to the Urban County's CDBG
Program as well as its portion of the HOME allocation. The COUNTY, as administrative agency for the
HOME Program and the Urban County's CDBG Program, will be responsible for providing staff
support to KRCC in relation to these programs. The CITY shall have decision making authoritw' over
areas specific to its CDBG entitlement as well as its portion of the HOME allocation.
G. The COUNTY is responsible for submitting the Consolidated Plan to the Department of Housing
and Urban Development. Development of the Consolidated Plan will require the participation of
citizens and organizations as well as input from the CITY. The CITY will provide specific information
concerning its housing and non-housing activities as well as its action plan relating to HOME and
CDBG activities to the COLrNTY to be included in the Consolidated Plan.
H. The COUNTY agrees to adopt and implement the HOME projects as approved by the KRCC and
the CITY provided such projects are consistent with the HOME Program requirements as set forth in
the applicable Code of Federal Regulations.
I. Funds received by the Kitsap County HOME Consortium will be allocated between the COUNTY
and the CITY based on a proration of the 1999 HOME allocation, or on the actual federal allocation for
that year, if it is available. (For example, if the CITY's 1999 allocation is $437,202 and the COUNTY's
1999 allocation is, $525,798 the proration would be CITY 45.4% of total and COUNTY 54.6% of total
unless the actual federal allocation for that year were available).
3
1. CITY agrees to reimburse COU2qTY up ro 5% of CITY's allocation.
described above, for administrative costs retated to administenng its
portion of the HOME Program.
2. CITY will retain and control program income generated from its HOME proration ro
utilize for HOME projects.
V. TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT
This agreement shall remain in full force and effect from the date of execution and approval bv HLT) for
the period necessary to carry out all acti,Aties that will be funded for two federal fiscal years: 2000 and
2001. The consortium members are required to rematn in the consortium and cannot terminate or
w/thdraw during the entire period. The program year start date for the Urban County. and the Civ,.' of
Bremerton CDBG programs as well as the HOME consortium HOME program is January 1, 2000,
concluding December 31,2001.
DATED this dav of
CITY OF BREMERTON
. 1996.
KITSAP COUNTY BOARD OF
CO~LMISSIONERS
Lynn Horton, Mayor
Charlotte Garrido. Chairman
Approves As To Form:
Glenna Malanca, City Attorney
ATTEST:
Kathy McClusky, City Clerk
Tim Botkin. Commissioner
Chris Endresen. Commissioner
ATTEST:
Hollv Anderson, Clerk Kitsap County
6499
4
INTERLOC.~ COOPERATION AGREF~M~ENT
BETWEF. aN KITSAP URBA2~ COU2VrY .&Nfl) Tmr. CITY OF BREM2ERTON
TO FORaM A HOME CONSORTIUM UNDER ~ NATIONAL .AFFORDABLE ltOUSENG
ACT
PROGI:L&M YEARS ~2000-200!
~eement is entered into be~een ~e Ci~ of Breme~o~ (herem~er ~e "Ci~"), a W=~on
M~cip~ Co,or=on, ~d ~ts~ Urb~ Co=~ (herem~er ~e "Co=~"), wMch include& ~ts~
Co=W, ~d ~e cities ofB~bfid~e ~l=& Po~ Orchid ~d Po~sbo, ~1 W=~on M~cipM
Co~oraao~, p~su=t to ~e Mterloc~ C~perafion A~, chapter 39.34 RCW. It ~11 become effective
upon adopaon by ~e p~es ~d 1It con~ue ~ te~ated = prodded hereto.
I. RE CIT.-LLS
A. WH2EREAS, the Con~ess of the Umted States of A.menca has enacted the Nanonal .&ffordabie
Housing Act, HOME Investments in Aff<>rdabte Housing Pro,am. 42 U.S.C Sec. 12721 (hereinafter
the "Act") as pr-omuiga-t~ implemented bv the U S Depattment of Housing and Urban Deveiopment
(hereinafter "HUD") in 24 CFR Part 92, allowing un/ts of general local government to enter into
mutual cooperanon a~oreements to form a consomum for the purpose of obtaining funding as a
pamcipaUng jtmschcfion under the HOME Investment Partnership Progam ("HOME Progarn'_'): and
B. WI-{E~AS, the purpose of the Federal HONiE program per 2_j CFR__ Section 92.1 is to+
stren_o'then public-orivate oarmershios throuvvJn the allocation of funds amona eiimbie state and [<>cai
zovemments and ro
expand the supply of decent, safe. samtarv., and affordable h<>using._.-
...... : ....... , for low ~d veo, low income .~eric~sj ~d
k .... ;~" and
Debbie peavler-Stewart- InteMol .horn
Page 2
¢) tc prcm, ctc *~c dcvc]cFmsnt cf p.".rm, em.~;ps ;mc,--.g 'mc f~dcr-J ~'c;'m
C. WHE~AS, it is found that these objectives are pertinent to the concerns and needs of the
Debbie Peavler-Stewart - Intedol .horn Page 3
COUqNT'Y and of the CITY; and
D. WHEREAS, eli~bility for HOME Investment Parmership funds is based upon criteria similar
the criteria for eligibility for Urban County designation for CDBG funds: and
E. WHEREAS. Kitsap County and the Cities of Bainbridge Island. Port Orchard and Poulsbo have
requested "Urban County" status under the CDBG Program and the City of Bremerton qualifies as a
separate entitlement under the CDBG program: and
F. WHEREAS. Kitsap County and the Cities of Bainbridge Island, Port Orchard and Poulsbo have
entered into a separate Intertocal Agreement forming a consornum under the Home Pro,am: and
t2__G. WHEREAS, COUNTY shall administer the HOME program as well as the Urban County CDBG
program and the CITY will administer its own CDBG program. Both of these programs will be
included in the County Consortiums Consolidated Plan; and
GH. WHEREAS, the COUNTY agrees to delegate to the Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council
(hereinafter referred to as "KRCC") decision making authon .ty regarding the Consolidated Plan, as the
KRCC was established to have re~onal oversight, representation and authority on certam issues
affecting all of Kitsap County; and
t4!_. WHEREAS. the signatory political subdivisions to this %oreement have determined that obtaining
funding under the HOM]E Pro,am will increase their ability to provide affordable housing for their tow
and moderate income residents, and
tJ_= WH2EREAS, the Depamnent of Housing and Urban Development has specified the minimum
pro'dsions which must be included within any intergovernmental agreement for the cooperating
governmental bodies to qualify for Urban County eligibili .t%
NOW. THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises made herein and the mutual benefits
received hereunder, the parties a~ee as follows:
I1. DEFhNITIONS
A. "Member" means a unit of local government which is a signato~ to this a~eement and therefore or'
the consornum for the purpose of carrying out eligible activities under 24 CFR Part 92.
B. "Representative member" means the unit of local government desi~ated hereafter as the one
member to act in a representative capacity for all members for the purpose of this agreement ("lead
entity"). The Representative Member will assume overall responsibility for ensuring that the
consortium's HON[E Program is carried out in compliance with the requirements of 24 CFR Part 9
and 92, the housing objectives of'the CITY and COUNTY as adopted in the Consolidated Plan, and
will assume responsibility for the requirements concerning the Consolidated Plan.
~O
Debbie Peavter-stewart - Interlol .hor- Page 4
A. The signatory pan/es agree to cooperate in undertaking, or assist in undertaking, housing assistance
activities for the HOME Investment Partnership Program in compliance w/th the Consolidated Plan.
B. The signatory parties agree to jointly pursue and identify match requirements.
C. The si~atory part/es agree to take affirmative action to further fair housing in their jurisdictions.
Such actions may include planning, education and outreach, and enforcement components.
IV. ADMINISTRATION
A. COLrNTY will be designated as the Representative Member and agrees to carry out such overall
responsibilities with the cooperation of the CITY in accordance with 24 CFR 92.101 as set forth herein
B. COUNTY will administer both the Urban County's Commumty Development Block Grant
Program and HO1ME Investment Partnership Program. The CITY will administer its CommUmr~,
Development Block Grant Program separately;
C. COU~q-W, as the Representative Member, shall manage the entire HOME allocanon on behalf of
the consortium, as set forth herein.
D. COU~ITY a~ees to carry, out eli~ble activities in accordance with and to generally follow the
requirements of 24 CFR Part 92.
E. CITY is responsible for submitting in a timely manner to the Representative Member all
information necessary for participation in the consortium as defined in 24 CFR Part 92. This includes
all information necessary for the Consolidated Plan, the HOME program description and certifications
(24 CFR 92.150), and performance repons. The Consolidated Plan :~mual Performance Report,
HOME .annual Performance Report. and the Annual Consolidated Plan information shall be provided
to the COUNTY by the dates specified bv the COUNTY.
F. KRCC shall have decision making authority over areas specific to the Urban County's CDBG
Program as well as its portion of the HOME allocation. The COUNTY, as administrative agency for
the HO~ME Program and the Urban County's CDBG Program, will be responsible for providing staff
support to KRCC in relation to these programs. The CITY shall have decision making authority over
areas specific to its CDBG entitlement as well as its portion of the HOME allocation.
G The COUNTY is responsible for submitting the Consolidated Plan to the Department of Housing
and Urban Development. Development of the dcc'ament Consolidated Plan will require the
participation of citizens and organizations as well as input from the CITY. The CITY will provide
specific information concerning its housing and non-housing activities as well as its action plan relating
to HOME and CDBG activities to the COUNTY to be included in the Consolidated Plan.
Debbie Peavler-Stewart - Interlol .hop- Page 5
H. The COUNTY a~ees to adopt and implement the HOME projects as approved by the KRCC and
the CITY provided such projects are consistem with the HOME Prograrn requirements as set forth m
the applicable Code of Federal Regulations.
I. Funds received by the Kitsap County. HOME Consomum will be allocated between the COU]N'iW
and the CITY based on a proration of the 4-9-96 1999 HOME allocauon, or on the actual federal
allocation for that year, if it is available. (For example, if the CITY's ~L~,,o~ 1999 allocanon is ...,.. ,,vvv~ n~a
5437.202 and the COUNTY's ~na~ 1999 allocation is e.~-~ ~nn
........ ,~,,,,, $525,798 the proraUon would be
CITY 45.4% of total and COLrNTY 54.6% of total unless the actual federal allocation for that year
were available).
1. CITY agrees to reimburse COUNTY up to 5% of CITY's
allocation, described above, for administrative costs related~to
administering its pomon of the HOME Pro,am.
2. CITY will retain and control program income generated from its HOME proration
to utilize for HOME projects.
V. TER2~IS OF THIS AGREEMENT
This a~eement shall remain in full force and effect from the date of execution and approval by lILT)
for the period necessary to carry, out all activities that will be funded ~cm t~e. for ~ec two federal
fiscal.vears: ~.~.. ,,(~°'r -~,~ ~o~ ~....~oo 2000 and 2001 . The consort/urn members are required to remam in the
consornum and cannot terminate or withdraw during the entire period. The program year start date for
the Urban CounLy and the Ci.ty ofBremerton CDBG programs as well as the HOMT consornum
HOME program is January. 1,499g 2000, concluding December 31, 4-909 2001.
DATED this day of
CITY OF BREMERTON
L. vnn Horton, Mayor
,1996.
ATTEST:
Kathy McClusky, City Clerk
Approves As To Form:
Glenna Malanca, City Attorney
Debbie Pe~v~:Stewart - Intedol .horn Page 6
KITSAP COUNTY BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS
Charlotte Garrido. Chairman
Tim Botkin, Commissioner
Chris Endresen, Commissioner
ATTEST:
Hollv Anderson, Clerk Kitsap County
h: cdbg. contract imerloc, hom
1. SUBJECT: 0rdinance
An Ordinance amending
Chapter 9.48 of the B.M.C.
NO.
AGENDA BILL
BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL
4653 (Second Reading) FOR AGENDA OF:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ORIGINATOR:
DATE SUBMITTED:
Fire
Al Duke
8/8/99
2. CLEARANCES: Comment of back if necessary)
Budget & Finance
Operations Commi~~~~
City A~orney
3. EXHIBITS:
B.M.C. Chapter 9.48
4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION-
Chapter 9.48 of the Bremerton Municipal Code pertains to fireworks within the City of Bremerton. This
proposal is to bring the BMC in compliance with State RCW's and WAC's. The major changes to the
ordinance is identifying which fireworks are allowed to be discharged, fireworks stands shall have an adult
18 years of age or older in attendance at all times, and no selling of fireworks to any person under 16
years old with photo identification.
8. RECOMMENDATION:
m~,~ ..... o ..... ,,..;i - " ~ · il
That the Bremerton City Council pass Ordinance # ~+653
u,, ,'ho, ,~odh,~.--
on second reading.
9. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Fire Chief
ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: Fire Chief
EXPIRATION DATE:
REVIEW DATE:
PULLED TABLED
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE:
'10. NOTICE OF ACTION
APPROVED
DISAPPROVED
11.
AMENDED
2. CLEARANCE COMMENTS:
,5. IMPACT ON NON-PASSAGE:
State Law and the BMC as written will remain in effect.
6. IMPACT ON STAFFING~ BUDGETS~ FACILITIES~ EQUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCES:
None
7. RESEARCH SOURCES:
WAC 212.17
Ordinance
AN ORDINANCE amending Chapter 9.48 of the Bremerton Municipal Code.
THE CITY OF BREMERTON DOES HEREBY ORDAIN:
Section 1. Amendment. Section 9.48.030 is hereby amended to read as follows:
9.48.030 STANDS - CONFORMANCE TO REGULATIONS REQUIRED.
(a) Al! ccf~ end s=.",= Only "common fireworks" authorized by WAC 212.17, except toy
caps ~, shall be sold only from temporary stands which conform to the
written rules and regulations of the fire chief of the City.
(b) Each fireworks stand shall have and adult (18 years of age or older) in
attendance at all times. No person under the age of 16 years old shall be
allowed inside the stand.
(c) A sign stating "NO SALE OF FIREWORKS TO ANY PERSON UNDER THE AGE
OF ~6 YEAR OLD, PHOTO ID REQUIRED".
(d) All permittee shall conform to the minimum standards and conditions set forth
in the Rules and Regulations for Retail Fireworks Stands by the Fire Chief
Section 2. Amendment. Section 9.48.050 is hereby amended to read as follows:
9.48.050 HOURS AND DAYS OF USE SALE AND DISCHARGE.
(a) No person shall use or explode any fireworks within the City except from
11:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. on July 4th of any year or as part of a public display
authorized pursuant to the laws of the State of Washington. Only "common
fireworks" authorized by WAC 212.17 are to be discharged during that time
period.
(b) Sales of fireworks shall be prohibited except from twelve o'clock noon on
June 28th to 11:00 p.m. July 4th, in any calendar year. Nothing in this provision
shall make it illegal to have public displays of fireworks when approved by the
Bremerton Fire Department in accordance with the Bremerton Municipal Code.
(c) It is unlawful for any person to discharge or use fireworks in a reckless
manner which creates a substantial risk of death or serious physical injury to
another person or damage to property of another.
(d) The possession of any class or kind of fireworks in violation of the
provisions of this Chapter is prohibited.
Section 3. Amendment. Section 9.48.080 is hereby amended to read as follows:
9.48.080 ENFORCING OFFICER DESIGNATED.
The fire chief of the City or his duly authorized representative is designated as the
enforcing officer of this chapter. ""-~ ~-'- "~"-" ~' .... *~' .... *~'"'i't,' * ...... ~'~ ant,' .... ;*
Section 4. New Section. Section 9.48.080 is hereby added to read as follows:
9.48.090 PERMIT REVOCATION OR SUSPENSION - AUTHORITY
The Fire Chief may at any time suspend or revoke any permit issued under this
provision of this Chapter, if the permittee has:
Violated any of the provisions of this Chapter, or any of his servants, agents
or employees have done so;
Made any false statement or misrepresentation of fact in connection with
obtaining the permit;
Failed to obtain or has had any license required by the State of Washington to
engage in any act prohibited by RCW Chapter 70. 77, or this Chapter, to be
done without a license, suspended or revoked;
Has had any insurance coverage required by this Chapter cancelled, revoked,
or lapsed.
Section 5. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective ten (10) days
from passage and publication.
APPROVED by the City Council of the City of Bremerton this __
1999
day of~
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Bremerton this day of ,1999
MICHAEL SHEPPARD, Council President
APPROVED this
day of ,1999.
LYNN S. HORTON, Mayor
ATTEST:
KATHY McCLUSKEY, City Clerk
1. SUBJECT:
Ordinance No.
Code of Ethics
AGENDA BILL
BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL
FOR AGENDA OF: June-lC, 1999
ORIGINATING DEPT: Legal
ORIGINATOR: Glenna Malanca,
City Attorney
DATE SUBMITTED: June 10, 1999
2. .CL~.a_RANCES: (Comment on back if necessary)
~!en~'a-"Malanca, City Attorney
Council Study Sessions
Approved
Fiscal & Budget Chairman
Approved
Operations Committee Chairman
ENDORSEMENT~ INFORMATION []
3. EXHIBITS:
APPROVED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FOR SUBMIT~T~AL:
4. SUMMAR~ STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION:
An Ordinance repealing and revising the Code of Ethics for Ciny officials and
employees. This ordinance has clarified the purpose of having a Code of Ethics
and the expectations and penalties therein. Chapter 2.96 will be repealed in its
entirety if the City Council adopts the attached O~dlna
8. RECOMMENDATION:
Record Motion:
_ ~. _ ...... = ui~ ~ z=~=~i~, Pass Ordinance No.
reading.
9. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL:
ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL:
EXPIRATION DATE:
REVIEW DATE:
,~ _., 0~, 2r'd'
10. NOTICE OF ACTION
PULLED [] TABLED [] APPROVED [] DISAPPROVED [] AMENDED [] DATE:
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE .'
11. AGENDA BILL NO.: ~~7
( OVER
5. IMPACT OF NON-PASSAGE:
6. IMPACT ON STAFFING, BUDGETS, FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT OR OT~R RESOURCES:
None.
7. RESEARCH SOURCES:
ETHICS.AB - 3/9/99
ORDINANCE NO. -T --' i
AN ORDINANCE revising the code of ethics for City officials and employees;
and repealing and replacing Chapter 2.96 of the Bremerton Municipal Code.
THE CITY OF BREMERTON DOES HEREBY ORDAIN:
CODE OF ETHICS
SECTION 1. Repeal, New Chapter. Chapter 2.96 of the Bremerton Municipal Code
is hereby repealed in its entirety and a new chapter adopted to read as follows:
2.96.010 PURPOSE. The proper operation of democratic govemment requires
public confidence in the integrity of its officials. As a cornerstone to open and responsive
government, this Ethics Code sets standards for city officials, officers and employees. It serves
as a restatement of state codes and standards in addition to Chapter 42.23 RCW, in areas of
municipal operations where public trust is served by clear definition of expected behavior.
2.96.020 DEFINITIONS.
(1) Immediate Family - Husband, wife, father, mother, brother, sister, son, daughter;
like relatives by marriage such as stepson, stepdaughter; father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-
in-law, sister-in-law, son-in-law or daughter-in-law.
(2) Public Officer or Employee - Any person, officer or employee holding a full-time
regular position by election, appointment or employment in the service of the City, whether paid
or unpaid, includes members of any board, committee or commission.
(3) Quasi-judicial Proceedings - Those actions that determine the legal rights, duties
or privileges of a specific party in a headng or contested proceeding. They do not include
legislative actions of area-wide significance or which affect the public generally.
(4) RCW 42.52.010 is hereby adopted. Any reference to the State, it's agencies,
employees, agents, and similar references shall be understood to refer to the City of Bremerton,
its departments, employees, agents, and similar references. Reference to "statute" shall mean
statute or ordinance. Additionally, Subsections (1) through (3) of this Section shall control over
conflicting provisions in RCW 42.52.010.
2,96.030 VIOLATIONS.
(1) The following Sections of the Revised Code of Washington, and any
amendments thereto, are hereby adopted by reference. This Ethics Code and Chapter 42.23
RCW shall control over any conflicting provisions adopted under this Section. Any reference to
State, or similar references, shall be interpreted to refer to the City of Bremerton:
RCW 42.52.020
RCW 42.52.030(1)&(3)
ROW 42.52.040
RCW 42.52.050
RCW 42.52.060
RCW 42.52.070
RCW 42.52.080
RCW 42.52.090
RCW 42.52.100(1 )
RCW 42.52.110(1)
Activities incompatible with public service
Financial interests in transactions
Assisting in transactions
Confidential information Improperly concealed
records
Testimony of state officials and state employees
Special Privileges
Employment after public service
Limited assistance by former state officers
and employees
Conditions on appearance before state agencies
Compensation for official duties or nonperformance
RCW 42.52.130
RCW 42.52.140
RCW 42.52.150
RCW 42.52,160(1) & (2)
RCW 42.52.170
Honoraria
G~ts
Limitation on gifts
Use of persons, money, or property for private gain
Giving, paying, loaning, ect., anything of economic
Value
(2) Appearance of faimess: No public officer or employee with decision-making
authority shall participate in or influence any pending quasi-judicial proceeding whom: (a) Has a financial interest in the matter;
(b) Has pre-judged the merits before hearing; or
(c) Has a personal bias for or against any party affected by the action.
Provided, however, an officer may participate under the exceptions provided under Chapter
42.36 RCW. Any contacts with an opponent or proponent by a decision-making official
regarding a pending quasi-judicial proceeding is prohibited unless disclosure is made on the
record pursuant to RCW 42.36.060.
2.96.040 ADDITIONAL VIOLATIONS. The following conduct shall be deemed
additional violations of this chapter:
(1) To knowingly file a false charge or complaint of a violation of this ethics code,
(2) To induce or coerce or attempt to induce or coerce anyone into violating a
provision of this ethics code,
(3) To knowingly commit or allow any breach of confidentiality contrary to this ethics
code.
(4) To retaliate or engage in reprisals against any person making a complaint of
violations of this ethics code.
2.96.050 ENFORCEMENT.
A. Any person who has knowledge of a violation of this Code of Ethics
committed by any person may make a signed written report of the same to the City Clerk. The
report must set forth specific facts detailing the alleged violation, including the date and place of
violation; names and telephone numbers of all persons having knowledge of the alleged
conduct; the sections and subsections of this code alleged to have been violated; and the
specific conduct at issue. The report must be signed under penalty of perjury under the laws of
this state and include the name, address and telephone number of the person submitting the
report. The fact that a report has been received, the contents of the report, and the identity of
the person making the report shall remain confidential to the extent allowed by law, including
public disclosure laws of the State of Washington. The Mayor, after receipt of a copy of the
report, shall, within five (5) days, refer the same to the City Auditor for an initial threshold
determination of whether reasonable cause exists to believe that a violation of the Code of
Ethics has occurred.
B. Upon receipt of a report, the City Auditor, without benefit of subpoenas or
sworn testimony, shall, within thirty (30) days of receipt by City, make such preliminary
investigation as he or she deems appropriate to determine whether reasonable cause exists to
believe that a violation of the Code of Ethics has occurred, if the City Auditor believes that the
allegations may constitute a cdminal matter, he or she shall refer the report to the proper
authorities for consideration of cdminal prosecution. If the City Auditor determines that
reasonable cause exists to believe that a violation of this Code of Ethics has occurred, the City
Auditor shall present the matter to the Headng Examiner in a public headng. The City Auditor
shall be represented by the City Attorney, or the City Attomey's designee, to pursue any
remedies provided by this Chapter.
C. If the City Auditor should determine reasonable cause does not exist, he
or she shall communicate his or her decision in writing to the person who made the initial report
within tern (10) days of making the determination. The City Auditor may make a determination
that the complaint is frivolous and without medt pursuant to Section 2.96.060. See Section
2.96.080 for notice requirements.
D. Within thirty (30) days of rendering a determination of reasonable cause,
the City Auditor shall notify, in wdting, the person who made the report and the person
complained against, of the public headng which will be held to determine if a violation has
occurred. Notice shall be provided at least thirty (30) days prior to the date set for the hearing.
The person complained against shall have the dght to file a wdtten answer to the charge and to
appear at the hearing with or without legal counsel, submit testimony, be fully heard, and to
examine and cross-examine witnesses. See Section 2.96.080 for notice requirements.
E. Hearings conducted by the Headng Examiner shall be informal, meaning
that the Hearing Examiner shall not be bound by the strict rules of evidence prevailing in courts
of law or equity. The Hearing Examiner may call witnesses on his or her own motion and
compel the production of books, records, papers, or other evidence needed by the parties. To
that end, the Hearing Examiner shall issue subpoenas and subpoenas duces tecum on his or
her own or at the request of the City Auditor or the person complained against. All testimony
shall be under oath administered by the Headng Examiner. The Headng Examiner may adjourn
the hearing from time to time in order to allow for the orderly presentation of evidence. The
Hearing Examiner shall prepare an official record of the hearing, including all testimony, which
shall be recorded by mechanical device, and exhibits; provided that the Headng Examiner shall
not be required to transcribe such records unless presented with a request accompanied by
payment of the cost of transcription.
F. Within thirty (30) days after the conclusion of the headng the Hearing
Examiner shall, based upon a preponderance of the evidence, make and fully record in his
permanent records, findings of fact, conclusions of law, determination of a recommended
disposition, and his or her order. A copy of the findings, conclusions, recommended disposition,
and order shall be forwarded by certified mail, or personal service, to the person who made the
initial report and to the person complained against at addresses as given by both persons to the
Hearing Examiner. An additional copy of the findings, conclusions, recommendations, and
order shall be forwarded to the City Auditor, the City Attorney, and the person(s) responsible for
acting on the recommendations.
G. Any person found, by final written order of the Hearing Examiner, to be in
violation of this Code of Ethics may seek review of the Headng Examiner's order and any other
decision based upon that order in the following manner:
(1) Civil penalty: If the Hearing Examiner orders the person to pay a
civil penalty, the person may appeal in the form of a trial de novo in the Bremerton Municipal
Court, which shall hear the case according to the Civil Rules for Courts of Limited Jurisdiction
(CRLJ) and applicable local rules of the Bremerton Municipal Court. This appeal shall be taken
by filing in the Bremerton Municipal Court a notice of appeal within fourteen (14) days of the
date of the Headng Examiner's order. Proof of actual and timely receipt by the Bremerton
Municipal Court is on the person filing the appeal. The person filing the appeal shall also, within
the same fourteen (14) days, personally serve a copy of the notice of appeal on the Hearing
Examiner, the City Auditor, and the City Attorney, and file an acknowledgment or affidavit of
service in the Bremerton Municipal Court.
(2) Cease and Desist. If the Hearing Examiner orders a person to
cease and desist violating this chapter, the person may seek a wdt of review from the Supedor
Court pursuant to RCW 7.16, within fourteen (14) days of the date of the Hearing Examiner's
order.
(3) Public Disclosure. If the Headng Examiner orders a person to file
any documents or papers required by this chapter, the person may seek a writ of review from
the Supedor Court pursuant to RCW 7.16, within fourteen (14) days of the date of the Headng
Examiner's order.
(4) Discipline. If the Hearing Examiner recommends either discipline,
for any City official or employee; or removal from employment for a City employee, excluding
elected officials, and the discipline or removal actually occurs, the City employee or official may
seek whatever remedies exist at law or in equity, including applicable labor agreements and
Civil Service Rules.
(5) Debarment. If the Hearing Examiner recommends that the person
be excluded from bidding on public contracts and the exclusion actually occurs, the person may
seek whatever remedies exist at law or in equity.
(6) Termination of Contract. If the Hearing Examiner recommends
that the person's contract with the City be terminated and the contract is actually terminated, the
person may seek whatever remedies exist at law or in equity.
2.96.060 FRIVOLOUS COMPLAINTS.
1. The Headng Examiner may, at the request of a party, or on his or her motion,
make a finding that a complaint brought pursuant to this Ethics Code is frivolous and without
merit.
2. If the City Auditor or the Hearing Examiner makes a finding that a complaint has
been brought which is frivolous and without merit, the person making such a complaint shall be
liable to the City for the cost of the City Auditor's investigation and the Hearing Examiner's
hearing, If applicable. If the complainant is a City employee, he or she may additionally be
subject to disciplinary action.
2.96.070 CIVIL PENALTY AND ADDITIONAL REMEDIES. Violators shall pay a
civil penalty of up to Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00) or three (3) times the economic value of
anything received in violation of this chapter, whichever is greater. Any monetary penalty
assessed civilly shall be placed in the City's general fund. The Heating Examiner will also have
the authority to issue orders specified in BMC 2.96.050(G).
2.96.080 NOTICE REQUIREMENTS. Any written notice, notice of appeal, or other
document required to be served under the terms of this Ethics Code may be personally served
pursuant to Supedor Court Rules for service of process; or may be mailed by first class mail
three working days prior to the last day for service. This section applies unless specific
provision is made for service in another manner. Proof of proper service is the burden of the
serving party.
2.96.090 DISTRIBUTION OF CODE OF ETHICS. The City Clerk shall cause a
copy of this Code of Ethics to be distributed to every public officer and employee of the City
within thirty (30) days after enactment of this code. Each public officer and employee elected,
appointed or engaged thereafter shall acknowledge receipt of a copy before entering service.
//
II
APPROVED by the City Council on the first reading this
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Bremerton this __
day of
day of
,1999.
,1999.
MIKE SHEPHERD
Council President
APPROVED this ~ day of ,1999.
ATTEST:
LYNN S. HORTON
Mayor
KATHLEEN McCLUSKEY, City Clerk
AGENDA BILL
BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL
1. SUBJECT: No. 4 ~ ~
Ordinance Amending Chapter 2.62
of the Bremerton Municipal Code
~.,~econd Read i ng~")
FOR AGENDA OF: JUNE 30, 1999
ORIGINATING DEPT: Legal
ORIGINATOR: Glenna Ma!anca,
City Attorney
DATE SUBMITTED:
2. CLEARANCES: (Comment on back if necessary)
CItY ATTORNEY
3. EXHIBITS:
Ordinance No.
Council Study Sessions
Approved
COUNCIL COMMITTEES
ENDORSEMENT ~ INFORMATION []
APPROVED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FOR SUBMITTAL:
4. SUMMARX STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION:
The attached Ordinance amends Chapter 2.62 by allowing the hearing examiner to
have jurisdiction to receive and rule on complaints referred by the City Audinor,
or as otherwise provided, in regards to the Code of Ethics.
8. RECOMb~.NDATION:
Record Motion:
.... ~ -~ ~n ,,~r ....... ~ - - ~ ' ~ ' '
Pass Ordinance No. ~S on 2~d reading.
9. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL:
ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL:
EXPIRATION DATE:
REVIEW DATE:
10. NOTICE OF ACTION
PULLED [] TABLED [] APPROVED [] DISAPPROVED [] AMENDED [] DATE:
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE:
11. AGENDA BILL NO.:
(OVER}
5. IMPACT OF NON-PASSAGE:
6. IMPACT ON STAFFING, BUDGETS, FACILITIES, EQUIP~.NT OR OTW~.R RESOURCES:
None.
7. RESEARCH SOURCES:
ORDINANCE ~; ~'5'
AN ORDINANCE amending Chapter 2.62 of the Bremerton Municipal Code.
THE CITY OF BREMERTON DOES HEREBY ORDAIN:
Section 1. Amendment. Section 2.62.045 of the Bremerton Municipal Code shall be
amended to read as follows:
2.62.045 HEARING EXAMINER - PROCEDURE - APPEAL.
The headng examiner shall have jurisdiction to receive and rule on appeals by aggrieved
appellants of administrative decisions after a written complaint has been denied by the Department
Director or designee. Appeals to the office of the headng examiner from any final administrative
decision covered by the provisions of this chapter shall be made within seven (7) working days from
the date of appellant's notification of the decision. Date of mailing shall be considered date of
notification. Appeals shall include the appellant's name, address and telephone number, the written
decision being appealed and the municipal code section establishing the appeal. Appeals shall be
accompanied by a Fifty Dollar ($50.00) filing fee, which shall be refunded if the appellant
substantially prevails. The Municipal Court dudge shall adopt rules for scheduling and conduct of
administrative hearings.
Enforcement of the administrative decision being appealed to the examiner shall be stayed
during the pendency of an appeal which has been properly and timely filed provided there is not
imminent threat to the public's safety and welfare.
The hearing examiner's decision shall be final and conclusive unless the appellant or the City
files for a Wdt of Certiorari in Kitsap County Superior Court within thirty (30) days. Procedures of this
section, including filing fee, and appeal of the examiner's decision shall apply unless different
procedures are specified in the ordinance establishing the administrative appeal.
The examiner shall have jurisdiction to hear and rule on complaints referred under the
City's Code of Ethics, Title 2, and to receive and rule on appeals of administrative decisions
specified in the following Titles of the Bremerton Municipal Code.
1. Business Licenses and Regulations, Title 5
2. Health and Sanitation, Title 6
3. Animals and Fowl, Title 7
4. Peace, Safety and Morals, Title 9
5. Traffic, Title 10
6. Municipal Utilities, Title 15
Section 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect ten (10) days from passage and
publication.
APPROVED by the City Council of the City of Bremerton this __ day of
, 1999.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Bremerton this
day of ,1999.
MIKE SHEPHERD, Council President
APPROVED this __ day of , 1999.
ATTEST:
KATHLEEN McCLUSKEY, City Clerk
LYNN HORTON, Mayor
ORDINANCE #
ACTION: Ordinance to require an
applicant to pay for the cost of
any newspaper notices
APPLICANT: City of Bremerton DECD
AGENDA BILL
BREMERTON COUNCIL
FOR AGENDA OF: Tune 1C,1~99
DEPT. OF ORIGIN: DECD - Planning
ORIGINATOR: Jon Ho!an
DATE SUBMITTED: June 10, 1999
LOCATION: 286 Fourth St., Bremerton, WA 98337
2. CLEARANCES: (Comment on back if necessary)
DECD Director :
City Clerk:
City Attorney:
Fiscal and Budget~~~~~
Ope r at ions Co~i t
ENDORSEMENT ~ INFORMATION
v.
3. EXHIBITS:
Ordinance No. '~ ~ '~
Staff Report &
Attachment s
APPROVED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FOR S~ITTAL:
4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION:
Purposed ordinance would require applicants to pay for any newspaper notice
costs for permit types included under BMC Sections 21.02.840, 21.02.845,
21.02.850 and 21.02.855.
5. RECOMMENDATION:
Motion to pass Ordinance No. 4656 on second reading.
o
RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Jon Holan
ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL:
EXPIRATION DATE:
REVIEW DATE:
7. NOTICE OF ACTION
PULLED TABLED
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE:
APPROVED
DISAPPROVED
DATE:
o
CLEARANCE COMMENTS:
See attached staff report.
10.
IMPACT OF NON-PASSAGE:
Non-passage of the bill would result in further impacts on DECD
budget.
11.
IMPACT ON STAFFING, BUDGETS, FACILITIES~ EQUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCES:
See comments above.
12. RESEARCH SOURCES:
o iN cE NO. '5 4:
AN ORDINANCE requiring the applicant for certain permits to pay the for newspaper notices
and amending Chapter 21.02.
WHEREAS, the permit fees collected by any application does not cover the cost of
processing a permit; and
WHEREAS, the cost of legal notices are subject to furore increases which are difficult to
anticipate and incorporate into application fees.
NOW, Ti:I-EREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of Bremerton does
hereby ordain:
Section 1. New Section. New Section 21.02.857 is hereby added to read as follows:
21.02.857 Cost of Newspaper Notices.
(a) Applicants and/or appellants for permits and approvals specified under Bremerton
Municipal Code Sections 21.02.840, 21.02.845, 21.02.850 and 21.02.855 shall pay the cost for any
notice which is required to be published in the newspaper. The City shall prepare said notices for
publication.
(b) No further review of any permit or approval shall commence until the costs required by
paragraph (a) are paid.
Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective ten (10) days from passage and publication.
APPROVED by the City Council of the City of Bremerton this
of ,1999.
da.v
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Bremerton this
1999.
day of
APPROVED this
day of
MIKE SHEPHERD, Council President
· 1999.
ATTEST:
LYNN HORTON, Mayor
KATHLEEN McCLUSKEY, City Clerk
41
Date: June 16, 1999
To: City Council
From: Jon Holan, Planning Manager
Subject: Applicants Paying Cost of Newspaper Notices
Staffis proposing the attached resolution that applicants pay for any newspaper notices required for
the processing of all permits and actions included under Bremerton Municipal Code (BMC) Sections
21.02.840 - Type I Administrative Decisions, 21.02.845 - Type II Admininstrative Decisions with
Notice, 21.02.850 - Type III City Council Decisions and 21.02.855 - Type IV Legislative Decisions
(see Attachment 1).
Background and Analysis
Background: The notices required for each type of permit is identified in Attachment 2. The BMC
requires newspaper publication for each type of notice identified in the attachment. Thus, the
minimum and maximum number of newspaper notices required for each permit type are as follows:
Permit Type
Type I Applications
Type II Applications
Minimum Number of
Notices Requiring
Newspaper Ads
1. Notice of Appeal
1. Notice of Application
2. Notice of Decision/
Appeal
Maximum Number of
Notices Requiring
Newspaper Ads
1. Notice of Appeal
2. Notice of Final Decision
(if appealed)
1 & 2 Two Notices of
Application for
Shoreline Substantial
Development permit
3. SEPA Determination
4. Notice of Decision/
Appeal
5. Notice of Final Decision
(if appealed)
42.
Type III Applications
Type IV Applications
1. Notice of Application
2. Notice of Pre-decision
Public Hearing
3. Notice of Final Decision
l&2
Two Notices of
Application for
Shoreline Conditional
Use Permit or
Shoreline Variance
1. Notice of
Application/SEPA
2. Notice of Public Hearing
3. Notice of Final Decision
3. SEPA Determination
4. Notice of Pre-decision
Public Hearing
5. Notice of Decision for
Shoreline Conditional Use
Permit or Variance
6. Notice of Final Decision
(if appealed)
Same as minimum.
In reviewing the number of notices, three points should be kept in mind. First, with the exception of
public hearing notices, state law does not require any newspaper publication of the notices. Second,
the City's Shoreline Master Program require two newspaper notices for the Notice of Application.
Third, some notices such as Notice of Application and SEPA Notice, and Notice of Action and
Notice of Appeal can be consolidated into one notice. This is the general practice of the Department.
As a result, the maximum number of notices is an absolute maximum which can be reduced.
The cost of newspaper notices are averaging a little under $40 per ad. Thus, the cost to the
Department per application could range from about $40 for a sign or building permit to about $240
for an appealed shoreline conditional use permit or variance requiting a SEPA determination.
Analysis: There are some concerns that the City taxpayers pay for stafftime and that any additional
cost should be absorbed by general tax revenue the City receives. Another perspective is that permit
applications are processed only for particular parties and that these parties should pay for the cost of
processing their applications. It is staff's understanding that the City has taken a middle ground
approach as a manner of policy to subsidize a portion of the cost to process permits to encourage
economic development and provide other benefits. Thus, the policy issue before the City Council is
to what extent an applicant should bear the cost of processing permits.
Aside from the policy issue, there are cost issues to the City that the proposed ordinance would
address. For 1998, the Department spent $6,065.20 for 164 newspaper notices for legal ads
compared with a budget of $4,185, an average of $36.98 per ad. The Department newspaper notice
expenditures exceeded the budget by $1,880.20 or about 45% over budget. Thus, the cost of the
legal notices has resulted in budget impacts for the Department.
2
Further, the relatively low cost of permit fees do not address the cost of the ads. Fees for selected
permits are as follows:
Special Use Permit
Administrative
Public Hearing
$229
$486 plus $24 for each 20,000 square feet of
building area
Variance
SEPA Checklist
Shoreline Substantial Development Permit
Short Plats
Preliminary Plats
$307
$126
$607
$96 per lot ($192 to $384)
$706 plus $124 per lot
Attachment 3 attempts to generally estimate the cost to process various permits to compare with the
above fees. It estimates Community and Economic Development stafftime cost to process the above
permits. It is based on current hourly costs for the City and processing time estimates made for
various permits fi.om a prior year. It does not include stafftime costs fi.om other departments, staff
time for preapplication conferences or "incidental" costs such as notice publication, mailing,
photocoping, administrative support services, etc. These estimates indicate that staff time costs
currently exceed the cost of Special Use permits, SEPA review, and Variances. Based on this general
analysis, other permit fees including Pre 'hminary Plats and Shoreline Substantial Development permits
either exceed the cost or would likely exceed the cost. Short Plats are marginal in the fee versus cost
because it would depent on the number of lots. Since the preponderence of planning review of the
above activities are related to Special Use permits and SEPA review, much of the cost for notice
publications is not absorbed by the permit fee.
As previously mentioned, the permit fee structure reflects the City's policy to maintain
competitiveness with other jurisdictions and be an incentive for economic development. Attachment
4 compares the Bremerton land use fees to selected other communities including the four jurisdictions
within Kitsap County, Olympia, Gig Harbor and Tacoma. With the exception of Port Orchard,
Bremerton's permit fees generally are below that of other communities surveyed. While these
communities include noticing cost with the fees, the additional amount would cover the cost of the
fees.
One option is for the City to raise permit fees to incorporate the cost of the legal ad. This option
would require extensive analysis by staff to review actual City costs by all affected departments in
order to include all costs. Further, such fee increases should be conducted during the budget review
process, which would defer the DePartment's current fiscal problem.
Staff is not certain that this approach would address the fiscal issue. The fees go into the general fund
and the Department may still experience a budget constraint due to the City's tight budget and
citywide needs. Further, such fees would not reflect any future rate changes by the City's official
newspaper. The proposed ordinance would directly pass on the actual cost to the applicant while
relieving the Department's budget constraint.
Alternatives
The City Council has the following options with respect to this issue:
1. Adopt the ordinance as proposed;
2. Direct staffto amend the City's fees for land use permits;
3. Deny approval of the ordinance.
Recommendation
Due to impacts on the budget and relatively low land use permit fees, staff recommends that the City
Council adopt the Ordinance to require applicants of permits under BMC Sections 21.02.840,
21.02.845, 21.02.850 and 21.02.855 to pay for any newspaper notice costs.
4
Attachment 1
shall sustain the decision of the Director is',
followi.ng a public hearing, it determines ttmt one
or both of the following conditions apply.
i. That the nature of the use is
such ttmt it can be altered or terminated so that
the property, can be used in conformance with the
uses perm/ned in the zone in which it is located;
or
ii. That the nonconforming use
is detrimental to the public health or safe~', or is
a public nuisance.
(Ord. 4325 53 (in part), 1991; Ord. 4172, 1988).
21.0~.840 TYPE I ADblINISTRATIVE
DECISIONS
(a) Actions: The following permits and
approvals involve dir~'t application of adopted
codes and standards with many of the d~isions
made mediately at the customer counter. The
decisions are admini~uafive and public notim is
not requ/.red..~n asterisk (*) denotes permits and
approvals ttmt are excluded from the 120--day
processing mud notification reqmrements of ti-tis
section.
(1) Building and sign permits.*
(2) Home oc,zu.r~ation.*
(5) Land uses perm/rt~
OLtLri g. ht.
OuLI'5 g.~h- t.
approved PUD.
permits.
(4) Structures ~rm/tted
(5) Boundary. line adjustment.*
(6) .Minor amendment to
(7) Nfinor amendments to other
(8) Temporary emergent,'
wetland or s-cream perm.its.*
(9) SEPA exempt:*
-- Clem. ring less O. xn 2 acres.
- Grading less than 100
(10) 1.2ndscape plan.
(11) Site Plan Review.
(12) R~reational vehicle
90-day permit.*
Co) Final decision: The Director's
d~--~ision shall be final when issued for purposes
of appeal.
(c) Appeal: Type I decisions may be
appealed to the Planning Commission ~Sthin
fotm~n (14) caienckar days from the date of the
decision. The Commission will conduct an open
r~ord appeal hearing. (S~ Fi=mxre 840.)
(Ord. 4567, .4_mendec[, 9/19/96)
21.02.845 TYPE ll ADMINISTR_4~TIVE
DECISIONS ~
NOTICE.
(a) Actions: The following pe,-xniks and
approvals require limited public notice.
Pre-d~/sion comments arc encouraged and he
Direct~or may approve, approve with conditions,
or deny the request.
(1) Short Subd/vision (shorz
plat)
(2) SE?A Determination.
(3) Wetland or stream
assessment.
(4) Wetland or stream
development penm. it.
(5) 'v'asSance.
(6) Adminis-'a'ative S.~al Use
P:,,--mit.
(7) Zoning Ore. S.m~ai
Exception.
(8) Design Rewiew. (exempt
~om ~20 day processing requirement)
(9) Plan or Code Interp~mtion.
(!0) :'vtinor alteration ~f
approved plat.
CO) Decision romar: TS~e d~.sion si~2i
be in a v,~rten format ttmt clearly indicates the
findings of hc:, evaluation of approval ~-n-iteria.
conclusions, the dec/sion, any conditiorks of
approval, and any maps, desi=m~s, site plans, or
other m!ated g-rapkic materials.
(c) Final Decision: The Di.r~or's
d~ision (or SEPA Official's d~ision in ~e case
of a SE?A-reiat~ action) is final when iswaed,
for purposes of appeal.
(d) Appeal: Type ri decisions may be
appealed to the City. Council within fourt~n (14)
calendar days fi-om the date of dec/sion. The City
Council v-ill conduct an open record appeal
hearing.
(Ord. 4567, Amended, 9/19/96)
21.02.850 TYPE I11 CITY COI~.'~'CI2L
DECISIONS.
(a) Actions: The following actions may
21-57
be approved, approved with conditions, denied, or
remanded by the City Council following an open
record pre-decision public hearing, unless noted
otherwise. Public notice is required for Type
actions. Recommendations will be provided by
the Planning Commission following a public
m~ting. Staff may conduct additional
neighborho<x:l me, tings when required or when
otherwise warranted by the Director for public
information or dam gathering purposes. A.n
asterisk (*) denotes actions that are exempt from
the 120-day permit processing requirement.
(1) Pml/m/nary Subtfivision
Plat.
subdivision.
right-of-way. *
public property.
~?UD).
(2) Final Subdivision Plat.
(3) Vacation of existing
(4) Vacation of street
(5) Surplus or sale of other
(6) Plan_ned Unit Development
(7) M~jor amendment to a
previously approved Type ~ decision.
(8) Binding SiTe Plan.
(9) Non-admin/strafive Special
Use Permit.
( i 0) Rezone for spec'2 c
proper'des or small area.
(11) Development Agreement.
(b) Decision Format: Type III decisions
si're.ti be made by resolution, ordinance, or other
form appropriate to that partic~ar dec/sion and
suitable for recording.
(c) Final Decision: Type ~ decisions
are made by the City. Council and are final when
issued for pm-'~ses of appeal.
(d) Appeal: Type I5I decisions may be
appealed to Superior Court within the foun~n
(14) day appeal period, or on the effective date of
the ordinance, whichever is longer.
(Ord. 4567, Amended, 9/19/96)
21.02.855 TYPE IV LEGISLATIVE
DECISIONS.
(a) Actions: The City. Council may
approve, modi~j, or deny the following le~slative
decisions following an open pm-dec/sion public
hearing. These decisions are exempt from the
120-day processing and single open r~ord
heanng n.des and most vdll be considered by the
Planning Comm/ssion in open public hearing
pr/or to ,making its recommendation to the City.
Council. ?ublic notice is required. (1) .4mnexation.
(2) Urban Renewal Plan.
(3) District, community.',
neighborhc~d~ or other special area plan.
(4) Comprehensive Plan
Amendment.
(5) Development reg-uiation
adoption or amendment.
(6) Zoning Map Amendment
(other than single lot or small area rezone, s).
(b) Decision Format: Type IV decisions
shall be made by ordinance.
(c) Final Decision: Type IV d~is/ons
are made by the City. Council following its open
record public hearing and are final when issue&
for purp~, sos of appeal.
(d) Appeal: Type iV d~-isions may be
appeal~ to Superior Court within the fourt~n
(14) day ap.r~nl period, or on the efta----five date of
the ordinance, wh/chever is longer.
(Ord. 4567, A.mendecL 9/19/96)
21.02.860 SH 0 RELEh~E DECISIONS.
(a) Actions: The following are subj,:
to the mcu.irement_s of Bremenon's Shore~2ne
Master Fq',o=m'am but shall be decided with. in 120
days. R~ornmendafions and hearings s,h~dl be
conduct, ed as descn-A'bed in the "permk
Proc_~ssing" robie that follows.
(!)
Development Permit
(2)
perrmt
(~)
(4)
(5)
Amendments
Co) Decision
pre,r~ared form or
Shoreline Subs'atmti~
Shoreline Condifionai Use
Shoreline Variance
Shoreline Perrmt Revision_s
Shoreline M~er Program
Format: Completion of a
statement of finding,
conclusions and the decision of the approving
body.. Adoption of and amendments to doe
Shoreline ,Master Program shall be wade by
ordinance.
(c) Final Decisions:
2!-58
(1) Substantial Development
Permits and amendments to e.,dsting perraits are
decided adm/mstmtively, in the sa.me manner as
other Type i'I permits.
(2) Conditional Use Permits
and Variances are d~ided by the Planning
Commission and may be approved, rejected, or
modified by the Departraent of Ecology. A
neighborhood m~ting or study session is
optior~J.
(3) .MI Shoreline Permit
decisions muxt be submitted simultaneously to the
applicant, the Department of Ecology (DOE), and
to the attorney, general. DOE may approve or
disapprove the permit.
(4) Shoreline Master Program
.Amendments are decided by the City Council
and may be approved, rejected, or modified by the
Department of Ecology.
(d) Appeals: An ap.r~al of a local
shoreline permit decision may be filed w/th the
Civ' Council first, w/th a second appeal to the
Shorelines H~r/ngs Board (Sh53), or may be filed
d. ire~--dy w/th the SH2B.
(1) Decisions on Subsm.nrial
Development Perrrfits, Varianc.~ and ConditionaJ
b'se Pen'n/ts may be ap~r~aled to the Ci~' Comn~i
w/u~;.in fourt~n (14) days of the date of the
d~ision, a.nd considered in an o.tx:n r~ord appeal
h ~e. vwing, or
(2) Those d~isions li~ed iv.
(d)(1) a~ve or City. Council decisions on ap.rm!s
of -.earlier d~-'/sions, may be ap.r~aled to the
Shom!ines Hearings Board by filing a Petition for
Rwdew wit. Nh twenp'-one (2t) days of the date cf
2ne Deparanent of Ecology's r~,-iew a.nd
d~ision.
(3) The d~"~-'ision of the
Department of EcotoD' pertaimng to the adoption
of, or amendment to, the Shoreline Mas;er
~ogram may be appealed to the Cenr_ml Puget
Sound Growth Marmgement Hearings Board per
RCW 36.70A.250 th.rough 320.
(4) Appeals to the City CotmcH
si'm/l be d~----ided w/th.in thirty, days of the fit/ng
date. Appeals to the Shorekine Hearings Board
w/ll be decided w/tl'fin 180 days.
(Ord. 4567, Amended, 9/19/96)
21.02.865
P L~NNE D ACTIONS.
(a) A Pla.-med Action does not require a
kh.reshcid determination nor the preparation of aaa
en,drortmental impact statement under State
En'dronmental Policy Act (SEPAL Howe'er, an
envirommentxl checldist may be requested as part
of the initial application to help disclose, review
and mitigate environmental impacts through the
Site Plan Review process.
(b) To qualify as a "Planned Action", a
projec:~, ac, ion must:
(I) Be a clearly designated or
propo ~sed action within a plan, ordinance or
resolution that was adopted by the City., and be
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan;
(2) Have had any si?fificant
impacts adequately addressed in an
en,dronmental impact statement prepared in
conjunction with the City's Comprehensive Plan
or related neigh~rhood, subarea, urban renewal,
or other special area plan;
(3) Be a subsequent or
implementing proje~ for proposals conta/ned in
the Comprehensive Plan or related plans;
(4) Be located w/th.in the Cie'
i/mits or Urban Growth Area; and
(5) Not be an essential public
fa~iir:', ~ define2, in RCW 36.70A.200.
(:) ?lann~4 aox_ions may be i/.rmted, to
ce,w-a~n ,-51pes of development to
ge~o~apkicai areas of ',.he CIO', ancL/or to a t/me
~riod iden~'ied in the EtS, plan, ordinance or
r~'~oolution that designated the planned ac'don.
(d) Project r~iew of a planned act_ion
shall not add.re.ss its appropriateness nor question
the basis of its proposal in a comprehensive plan
or other adopt~ dc~nn'nent. ?r,~ r~4ew shall
be ~ to identify <-'pecffic projec: design n-id
conditions relating to the character of
development, such as the de-m/Is of sire plans,
related public fac/l/ties and se~'/ces, payment of
impact or other f~s, or other measures uhat may
be needed to mitigate probable adverse
environmental impacts.
(Ord. 4.567, A_mended, 9/19/96)
21.02.870
(a)
procedure:
GENERAL PRO CESS1LN G
PROCEDURES.
Determination of proper
(1) The Dir~tor or his/her
21-59
Attachment 2
NOTICE REQUIREMENTS
Determination Notice of
DECISIONS of Notice of Pre-decision Notice of Notice of Notice of
Compl,etcncss Application Public llearing Decision Appeal Final Decision
Type I Decisons No None ' No No Yes If appealed
Type II Decisions
appeals to Council
:~ Short Subdivision Yes Yes No Yes Yes If appealed
:~ Variance Yes Yes No Yes Yes If appealed
~ Admin. SUP Yes Yes No Yes Yes If appealed
:~ Z.O. Spec. Exception Yes Yes No Yes Yes If appealed
> Minor Plat Amend. Yes Yes No Yes Yes If appealed
~ SEPA Determination Yes No No Some cases Yes If appealed
~ Env. Area Determin. No No No Yes Yes If appealed
~ Design Review Yes Yes No Yes Yes If appealed
~ Interpretation No No No Yes Yes If appealed
Type III Decisions
appeals to court
~ Prelim. Subdiv. Plat Yes Yes Yes No No Yes
:~ Final Subdiv. Plat Yes Yes Yes No No Yes
~ Vacation of Subdiv. Yes Yes Yes No No Yes
~ Planned Unit Dev. Yes Yes Yes No No Yes
~ PUD Major Amend. Yes Yes Yes No No Yes
:x.,.- Binding Site Plan Yes Yes Yes No No Yes
:x.,- Non-admin. SUP Yes Yes Yes No No Yes
> Rezone Yes Yes Yes No No Yes
:r..- Develop. Agreement Yes No Yes No No Yes
Determination Notice of
ACTIONS of Notice of Pnblic Notice of Notice of Notice of
Completeness Application Hearing Decision Appeal Final Decision
Type IV Decisions
appeals to court
>- Annexation No Yes Yes No No Yes
~ Urban Renewal Plan No Yes Yes No No Yes
~ Dist./Neigh. Plan No Yes Yes No No Yes
~ Comp. Plan Amend. No Yes Yes No No Yes
>.- Dev. Reg. Adopt. No Yes Yes No No Yes
~ Dev. Reg. Amend. No Yes Yes No No Yes
Shoreline Decisions
>- Sub. Dev. Permit Yes Yes No Yes Yes If appealed
:~ Con& Use Permit Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes If appealed
~ Variance Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes If appealed
~ Perm;_'t Revision Yes Yes No Yes Yes If appealed
:~ Mastex Program Yes Yes Yes Yes No" YES
Am.endment
* Appeals of Master Program decisions ale i~eard by thc
Central Puget Sound (irowtlt Management l learings Board.
Attachment 3
~3
Estimated Staff Costs for Selected Permits
BDS II Office Assistant Planning Manager
Permit Type Cost @ Cost @ Cost @ Permit Net
Time $26.66 per hour Time $19.87 per hour Time $35.59 per hour Total Fees Difference
'Special Use Permit
Public Hearing 20.0 $533.20 0.5 $9.94 5.0 $177.95 $ 721.09 $ 486.00 $ (235.09)
Administrative 10.0 $266.60 0.0 $0.00 1.5 $53.39 $ 319.99 $ 229.00 $ (90.99)
Short Plats 9.0 $239.94 0.0 $0.00 1.0 $35.59 $ 275.53 $ 288.00 $ 12.47
Preliminary Plats 30.0 $799.80 0.5 $9.94 5.0 $177.95 $ 987.69 $1,326.00 $ 338.32
SEPA Checklist Review 7.5 $199.95 0.0 $0.00 0.5 $17.80 $ 217.75 $ 126.00 $ (91.75)
Shoreline Substantial Dev. Permit 18.0 $479.88 1.0 $19.87 1.0 $35.59 $ 535.34 $ 607.00 $ 71.66
Variance 18.0 $479.88 !.0 $19.87 5.0~ $177.95 $ 677.70 $ 307.00 $(370.70)
Attachment 4
Comparison of Land Use Fees with Selected Jurisdictions
Preliminary Short Conditional SEPA Shoreline
Community Plats Plats Use Checklist Sub. Dev. Variance
Bremerton $706+$124/1ot $96/1ot $229 adm. $126 $607 $307
$486+$24/20,000 sq. fl.
Kitsap County $1000 $400 $1000 $150 $500/1000 $150
Poulsbo $2000 + $25/1ot $500 $500 $150 $600 + $60/du $400
Port Orchard* $300 + $30/1ot $100 + $15/1ot $250 $75 $150 $100
Bainbridge Island*i $2000+$100/lot $875+$100/!ot $1000 $150 $500 $250
Olympia $1500+ $350/lot + $500+ $500 $1500+ $500+
$25/1ot+ $25/1ot+ $500 for HE $1500 for HE $500 for HE
$2/linear frontage ft. $2/linear frontage ft.
Gi~: Harbor* $550+$25/1ot $200+$25/1ot $450 $150 $350/$10,000 $450
Tacoma $2500 to $2600+ $800 to $1600 $3000** $300 to $1500 $500 for SF $500 for SF
$75/1ot over 10 lots , $4000 to $7000 $1500
*As of 1/1/98; Source: "AWC 1998 Tax & User Fee Survey, Part II Land Use Fees"
MEMORANDUM
To: John Holan
From: Knu{e Ki.fe
Re: BMC 21.02 amendments
Date: 16 June 1999
I have a concern over the amendment that is on the Council agenda this evening. The
proposal appears to amend the zoning code but does not specify its status as an amendment,
contrary to Charter {} 15(2). While the proposal does not state it is amending anything,
nonamendment would create any number of anomalies. For example 21.02.895 sets notice
schedules under {}{}840, 845, 850, and 855, which must be adhered to in order to comply with
both {}895 and {}890. Most of these schedules are triggered by acceptance of completed
applications. Most of these schedules are triggered by acceptance of completed applications.
There is presently no "payment of publication costs" element in a completed application. If the
requirements for a completed application are not amended, we shall be obligated to accept an
application as complete even if the publication costs are not included, and therefore be ourselves
obligated to begin the notice procedure even though our costs have not been covered, contrary to
the proposal. I therefore advise that the proposal be revised to include pertinent amendments.
AGENDA BILL
BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL
1. SUBJECT:
2000 CDBG/HOME Policy Plan
FOR AGENDA OF: June 30, 1999
ORIGINATING DEPT.: DECD
ORIGINATOR: Deborah Peavler-Stewan
DATE SUBMITTED: June 15, 1999
2. CLEARANCES:
Director of Economic and Community Development
3. EXHIBITS:
2000 Plan
(Copy of the Plan is available for
review m the Citv Council Office)
Fiscal and Budget Committee (Heard at Study Session 6/2/99)
Operations (Heard at Study Session 6/2/99)
ENDORSEMENT X. INFORMATION
/
MAYOR:'.~-'~7-,'~
.aPPROVED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FOR SUBMITTP3_:
COUNCIL PRESIDENT ~~ ~/'~_.cz.~.~,efL.~
4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION:
Attached is the dra~ 2000 CDBG/HOME Policy Plan which was initially presented to the Council dunng a study
session on June 2, 1999. Recommended changes were incorporated into the document.
The Plan identifies the CDBG roles and regulations, as well as the Ci~'s allocation process.
A letter announcing availability of the plan was sent to all persons and organizations who have indicated an
interest in the CDBG and HOME programs. A copy of the Plan was sent to those requesting it. A public meeting
to discuss the Plan is scheduled June 16, 1999..
8. RECOMMENDATION:
Move for approval of the draf~ 2000 CDBG/HOME Policy Plan as presented.
RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL:
ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL:
EXPIRATION DATE:
REVIEW DATE:
PULLED TABLED
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE:
10. NOTICE OF ACTION
APPROVED DISAPPROVED
AMENDED
tla
AGENDA BILL NO {~ q -- 119
2. CLEARANCE COMMENTS:
5. IMPACT ON NON-PASSAGE:
Unable to begin the 2000 CDBG/HOME allocation process
6. IMPACT ON STAFFING. BUDGETS. FACILITIES. EQUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCES:
None, already budgeted
7. RESEARCH SOURCES: