HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/28/98 AGENDABREMERTON CITY COUNCIL
239 4TH STREET
BREMERTON, WA 98337
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
JANUARY 28, 1998
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION: 5:00 - 5:30 P.M.
A. General Council Business
CALL TO ORDER: 5:30 P.M.
A. Pledge Of Allegiance
B. 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 - January 14, 1998 #AB98-010
CLAIMS/CHECK REGISTERS
5. COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS
6. MAYOR'S REPORT
7. PUBLIC RECOGNITION - (Comments Limited to 3 Minutes)
NEW BUSINESS
A. Economic Development Plan Contract
B. Sinclair Landing Master Development Agreement
ORDINANCES
A. Ordinance #.4622 (Second Reading) Authorizing The issue
Of A $1,250,000 Tax Anticipation Note And Accepting The
Purchase Offer of Seafirst Bank
#AB98-011 [/
#AB98-012 ¢;7. ¢,~
(CONTINUED NEXT PAGE)
10.
RESOLUTIONS
A. Resolution #2642, Regarding Recovery Of Fees For The
Removal Of Vegetation On The Listed Properties
PUBLIC HEARING -6:00 PM OR LATER
A. Appeal Of Determination Of Nonsignificance;
Proposal: Amendment To Shoreline Master Program
Appellant: Victor F. Targett II
#AB98-013
#AB98.-014 7,.~
AGENDA BILL
BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL
1. SUBJECT': MINUTES - JANUARY 14, 1998
FOR AGENDA OF:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ORIGINATOR:
DATE SUBMITTED:
JANUARY 28, 1998
City Council
David Farr~ President
1-20-98
2. ~: (comment on back
if necessary)
ENDORS E~F~NT
MAYOR
INFORMATION__
APPROVED B~ COUNCIL
COUNCIL PRESIDENT
FOR~SUBMiTTAL:
4, S~Y STATEMENT AND REOU!REMENT FOR COI~ClL Ac~,ION:
8. RECOMNENDATIQN:
9..RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL:
ENFOR~ OFFICIAL:
.EXPIRATION DATE:
REVIEW DATE:
PUI~ED TABLED
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE:
!0. NOTICE OF ACTION
APPROVED .DISAP.~ROVED
AMENDED
· CLEARANCE COMMENTS:.
NON-PASSAGE:
.STAFFING, BUDGETS, FACILITIES, EOU!PMENT OR OTHVER RESOURCES:
UNAPPROVED DRAFT
TAPE #1518
CITY COUCIL MEETING MINUTES
JANUARY 14, 1998
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, January 14, 1998, at 5:30 P.M., with Vice Council President Carlos
Montgomery presiding. Council members present were Jim Reed, Carol Arends,
Mike Shepherd, Lon Overson, John Law, Cecil McConnell, and Wayne Olsen.
Also present were Assistant City Attorney Glenna Malanca and Deputy City Clerk
Gil Johnson.
The meeting opened with the Pledge of Allegiance led by Vice President
Montgomery and invocation given by Reverend G. T. Johnson, former Missionary
to India.
Vice President Mont~omerv made the following announcements:
1. Council held a Study Session prior to the Council meeting, with Richard
Hayes, Executive Director of Kitsap Transit to discuss:
1) Update on Design Changes of Transit Facility; and 2) Process from this
point forward.
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Minutes of Meeting - December 30, 1997
#AB98-003
#0021 MISlClU(ArendslOverson) Motion to approve the 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.
#0042 MISICIU(McConnelllLaw) On January 14, 1998, the Council does approve
for payment those vouchers included and further described as follows: 215754
through 216011, 216012, 216013 in the total amount of
$631,977.34.
COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS
Mr. Reed reported this afternoon he was contacted by a developer that was
experiencing some type of difficulty with submitting an application with the
Department of Community Development (DCD). Mr. Reed followed up on that
TAPE #1518
City Council Mtg. Minutes
January 14, 1998
Page 2 of 8
concern with Judy Johnson and was informed the difficulty that the developer
was experiencing was solved approximately one hour earlier than his call to Mr.
Reed. He complimented the Department of Community Development and Judy
Johnson for running the DCD in a manner to solve problems and work efficiently
with developers.
Mrs. Arends stated she was sure that most District #7 residents were grateful
that the snow is no longer a problem. She complemented the City on their effort
seeing that the main streets were sanded and cleared of snow.
Mike Shepherd reminded everyone that he would hold his first District #5
Neighborhood Meeting on January 22, 1998, 6:30 P.M., at Memorial Lutheran
Church. Special guests at that meeting will be Mayor Horton, who will report on
the Sinclair Landing Project and Jim Spencer, Director of Parks and Recreation,
who will give an update on Evergreen Park, Haddon Park and Kiwanis Park.
Refreshments will be provided by Bob and Beth Brouillette of the Sheridan Park
Red Apple.
Mr. Law announced the next District #3 Neighborhood Meeting will be held on
January 20, 1998, 7:00 P.M., at the Senior Center. The program for that meeting
will include Tim Richard, Senior Engineer, who will talk about a water reservoir
within the district, the State will give an update on the new Manette Bridge
project, discussion on pending City Council action and Bremerton Police Captain
Joe Hatfield will give an update on Police Department activity. He reported that
due to the City not funding the Naval Museum at the same level as previous
years, the museum may close due to the financial shortfall of $14,000. This
was of grave concern to him considering the museum is run by volunteers,
operates on donations and some income from their gift shop. The loss of this
segment of Naval heritage in Bremerton was disappointing to him personally and
maybe the Navy was correct when it was stated they didn't know if Bremerton
was recognizing all of the Naval heritage that they have in moving the USS
Missouri.
Mr. Montgomery announced he and Kitsap County Commissioner Charlotte
Garido would host a Town Meeting on January 22, 1998, 7:00 P.M., in the City
Council Chambers. The intent of the meeting is for the public to give their input
on transportation issues, i.e. bridge tolls, increased ferry fares, etc. This meeting
will be televised on Cable Access Channel 12.
MAYOR'S REPORT
Mayor Lynn Horton reported Donald Pratt, Director of Community Development
passed away on Monday. On behalf of the City of Bremerton she extended
condolences to his family. The City will go through a selection process to fill the
TAPE #1518
City Council Mtg. Minutes
January 14, 1998
Page 3 of 8
vacancy of Director of Community Development, which she anticipates filling by
late February. She is looking at the possibility of modifying the job description
stressing qualities of experience in the realm of economic development coupled
with Planning.
On behalf of the City, Mayor Horton congratulated President Farr and his bride
on their recent marriage this past weekend.
Mayor Horton alerted the City Council that an item in the most recent AWC
Legislative Bulleting reported the Manufactured Housing Industry plans to submit
a proposal to the State Legislature to pass legislation to allow siting
manufactured homes on any single-family lot. After the bad experience the City
had this past fall over placement of two substandard manufactured homes on a
property in President Farr's district, she did not want the City's Department of
Community Development having to deal with other similar situations. She hoped
it was not the State Legislature's intent to preempt the City from dealing with that
kind of substandard housing. The City's lobbyist and AWC will also be alerted
that depending on how that legislation is presented the City is opposed to being
preempted in local zoning and permitting process.
Police Chief Paul Du Fresne presented Bremerton Police Department Chaplain
Reverend Scoff Huff of St. Luke's United Methodist Church a "Medal of
Distinction" for the services he provided in response to the Kona Village
Apartments fire. Reverend Scott opened his church so that it could be used as
an emergency shelter, a place to receive donations of clothing and household
items, and emergency center for agencies, such as the American Red Cross, to
work with the victims of the fire. Chief Du Fresne explained it was on very rare
occasions that the City gives out either the "Medal of Valor" or "Medal of
Distinction". Reverend Huff stated he was humbled and honored and would
accept the medal on behalf of St. Luke's United Methodist Church, the whole
community and his fellow Chaplains, who all assisted in this effort. He feels the
church became a vessel of the communities' love and concern and relief effort for
all of the residents of Kona Village Apartments.
Mayor Horton acknowledged the presence of former Councilman Al Colvin in the
audience.
PUBLIC RECOGNITION
Mrs. Brown, Bremerton resident, extended her congratulations to Reverend Huff
and shared her experience how St. Luke's United Methodist Church offered free
space for Project Family to hold parenting classes. .She read a letter she
received from Council President Farr inviting her to submit her recommended
changes to the City's Ethics Code, which would be reviewed by the City Council.
TAPE #1518
City Council Mtg. Minutes
January 14, 1998
Page 4 of 8
She asked that anyone wishing to give input on this issue contact her at 377-
2065.
Reverend Cleveland Williams, Ebenezer A.M.E Church, extended condolences
to the family of Don Pratt. He extended congratulations to Council President Farr
on his marriage and to Reverend Scott Huff for his duty above and beyond that
which is expected of him. He reminded everyone of the 4"' Annual Dr. Martin
Luther King, Jr., Celebration Program at the Kitsap Pavilion on January 19, 1998,
10:30 - 1:00 P.M. Sponsors of this event are the Kitsap County Commissioners,
the City of Bremerton and Ebenezer A.M.E. Church. He was pleased to report
that the Cities of Bainbridge Island, Port Orchard, and Poulsbo will also
participate in this event.
Bob Sauter., President Kitsap Veterans' Coalition, reported today the Kitsap
Veterans' Coalition was presented a Certificate of Recognition for their support of
the fund raising efforts to build a VWVII Memorial in Olympia. He emphasized
that recognition means that the City of Bremerton and Kitsap County residents
were #1 in the State for raising funds in support of the VVVVII Memorial. The more
populated areas of King County and Pierce County were the only other entities
that each raised $130.00 more than was raised in Kitsap County. He
commended The SUN, which was the only newspaper that was recognized for
promoting the WVVI Memorial project. He thanked newspaper reporter April
Chandler for the recent newspaper article on WVVII veteran Bud Hawk. He was
Please that The Sun will have similar articles on a weekly basis. It was his hope
that TCI and Falcon Cable TV would get behind this project as well. He
encouraged members of the public to purchase the "Memorial tiles" at a cost of
$75.00 each before the price is increased June 1.
Al Colvin, Bremerton resident, congratulated the new City Council members
noting that they are taking on a tremendous responsibility, which they owe to not
only their own District, but to the entire community. He emphasized the
importance for the City Council and the Mayor to cooperate with one another. He
passed on to Councilman Olsen a $20.00 donation from Susan Brown for the
beautification project at the north end of the Warren Avenue Bridge. He
extended an invitation to the 14th Annual Martin Luther King Scholarship Program
on January 18, 1998, 1:30 P.M., at the Kitsap Golf and Country Club. The guest
speaker will be the first female Prosecuting Attorney of Thurston County, and
Senator Betti Sheldon will be the Master Of Ceremonies.
Del Knauss, Bremerton resident, gave a brief history of the issue behind the
formal complaint filed by Susan Brown that involved two City Council members
and the Chair of the Bremerton Citizens' Commission on Council Salaries. He
attended the meetings of the Commission and personally asked the chair to step
TAPE #1518
City Council Mtg. Minutes
January 14, 1998
Page 5 of 8
down due to the appearance of fairness/conflict of interest; however, no action
was taken. He also expressed his concerns to the Mayor through her Secretary.
Recently, he has become concerned about how those speaking during Public
Recognition are being treated by the Council President and felt that the City
Council should bring some control to the situation. He hoped Council President
Fart would apologize to Mr. and Mrs. Brown. He has learned that the Council
President asked the City Attorney to watch what Mrs. Brown says in case it
would warrant issuing a Restraining Order. Mr. Knauss believes the situation is
getting out-of-hand and requested the Mayor to form a citizens' committee to
review the City's Ethics Code and make recommendations for changes, if
needed, which would then be approved by the City Council. He also requested
Councilman McConnell to make a motion, at some time in the future, to place the
issue of salaries for City Council members and the Mayor to the vote of the
people.
Gordv Byrd thanked Councilman Montgomery for his involvement in the
Missouri on the Mainland Committee. He was sorry to hear about the passing of
Don Pratt. He found it somewhat surprising to su.. At Colvin in the audience just
as a Bremerton resident and not seated with the City Council.
Roy Mclnnis, Bremerton resident, congratulated all of the new City Council
members and alerted them that he has been watchful over the City Council for a
number of years and he will comment on issues. In reference to Del Knauss'
statement about the Council President's actions at the previous Council meeting,
it also touched him and was something he wished to discuss with President Farr.
He was saddened by Mr. Law's earlier comment that there was some kind of
movement to get rid of a Naval Museum in a Navy town. He believes there has
to be a way to keep the museum open and part of the future development.
April Chandler, Reporter for THE SUN, noted a point of correction; the
interviews with veterans will be published monthly, not weekly. She has great
respect for WVVII veterans and she encouraged the public to support the WVVll
Memorial effort so that it can be built. Of the $700,000 to be raised, only
$100,000 has been raised up to this point and construction is scheduled to start
in March. She would hope the memorial would be completed so that the WWII
veterans can be honored while they are still alive. The people in charge of the
Memorial Project give Mr. Sauter a lot of credit for all his energy and effort
towards this endeavor.
8A - AMENDMENT THREE TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
WITH FAILURE ANALYSlS~ INC. #AB98-004
Amendment No. 3 in the amount of $47,312.00 is required based on the Change
Proposal attached to the Proposed Amendment shown above as an Exhibit, and
7
TAPE #1518
City Council Mtg. Minutes
January 14, 1998
Page 6 of 8
will complete Failure Analysis, Inc.'s involvement in Phase II of the Evergreen
Park Remediation Project. The changes include additional support services for
Phase I Park Improvements and additional testing mandated by Department of
Ecology. This Amendment will bdng the total amount of the Professional
Services Agreement to $319,959.00, and extends the Professional Services
Agreement through December 31, 1998.
Gene Sam~31ev, Director of Public Works and Utilities, stated this amendment is
necessary in order to complete the project. Two slides of the affected area were
displayed showing the areas to be used for expanding Evergreen Park, which is
currently being improved under an lAC Grant with the Parks Department. The
Public Works and Utilities Department's responsibility for this particular property
for future expansion is to make the property available and environmental
remediation. The second slide showed the ultimate development of Evergreen
Park, which includes the construction of a new seawall and significant
improvement in the existing park shoreline and that property will be improved to
include the property formally known as the old City depot. He noted 14th Street
has ~been relocated, which provides a primary access into the park as well as
Sheldon Blvd., to the south. The expansion of the property required additional
testing, which was performed by the consultant and the City prepared to the
consultant a report that included additional background information on properties
that were added to the initial scope of the project. In addition, the first item in the
change order is to prepare a closure plan for the remediation effort on the
existing park project, which was required by the Department of Ecology due to its
being a ranked site for environmental purposes on an Ecology list. In order to
close that ranking with an environmental remediation, it is necessary to have a
plan to accomplish that work. Some environmental monitoring was also required
on the shoreline. The City proceeded with the project in anticipation that there
may be sufficient budget to complete this extra work as well as the original scope
of work; however, that has not proven to be the case. Therefore this addition is
justified because of the additional tasks. Mr. Sampley pointed out an error on the
Agenda Bill under Section 6, which should read Amount of contract is
increased by $47,312.00. He noted this amount is included in the 1998 budget.
Public comment - none.
Mr. Shepherd stated this issue has been studied in Council Study Sessions and
questions answered by Mr. Sampley. He complimented the City on the success
of receiving an lAC grant. He views this project as a clear example of the City,
Department of Ecology and the citizens working together to accomplish a goal,
which was the restoration, clean up and reuse of contaminated property. The
$29,000 to complete the closure of the first phase is a reasonable cost for final
sampling and closure plan, and it eliminates a phase of our history of
TAPE #1518
City Council Mtg. Minutes
January 14, 1998
Page 7 of 8
contamination. He asked for clarification of the additional fieldwork and
reporting that will be performed by the contract. Mr. Sampley explained the
original scope of the project was to test and prepare a Remedial Action Plan for
the Brem-Air, Loftus and PSE properties, which are all contiguous too the
existing City property to the north. As the City got into the project, it was found
that there was evidence of contamination, which included the old City depot site.
Additional sampling was required to define the scope of contamination and the
level of remediation required resolving those issues. A few additional samplings
were required on the Brem-Air and Loftus sites, but most significant was the
expanded outside boundaries of the remediation property. Mr. Shepherd stated
then upon completion of the sampling the feasibility study would be developed
identifying remedial action to clean up that phase. Mr. Sampley stated yes, the
additional sampling has been taken and reviewed by the Department of Ecology,
who agreed that sufficient sampling has been conducted. The City is now in the
process preparing the final report.
Jim Reed requested that charts/pictures, such as the slides, be included in the
Agenda Packet information for Council's review prior to the City Council meeting.
Mr. Sampley explained he was not aware that the two slides existed until shortly
before the Council meeting. He agreed that such information should be provided
in the Agenda Packet when available.
#1603 MISICIU (Shepherd/Olsen) Motion to approve Amendment No. 3 to the
Professional Services Agreement with Failure Analysis, Inc., and authorize the
Mayor to sign.
Vice President Montgomery thanked the TV camera crew for their services:
Bob Neal, Shannon Watson, Dave Chivis, Doug Engebretson, and Kelly Kehoe.
With no further business meeting adjourned at 6:28 P.M.
GIL JOHNSON, Deputy City Clerk
CARLOS MONTGOMERY, City Council Vice President
TAPE #1518
City Council Mtg. Minutes
January 14, 1998
Page 8 of 8
City of Bremerton
GJ/CM/me
C: Normal Distribution
FileNault
AGENDA BILL
1. SUBJECT:
Economic Development Plan
Contract
BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL
FOR AGENDA OF: January 2~ 1998
ORIGINATING DEPT.: Neighborhood Development
ORIGINATOR: Deborah Peavler-Stewart
DATE SUBMITTED: January 14, 1998
2. CLEARANCES:
Development Director I, I~t~xa-,,-~
City Attorn~/~(j L7
Seen at Study Session January 5, 1998
3. EXHIBITS: What is CRA
ENDORSEMENT/~INFORMATION
,z
APPROVED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FOR SUBMITTAL:
COUNCIL PRESIDEN~~~
4. SUM1VIARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION:
Information, which was presented at the November 5, 1997 and January 5, 1998, concerning
development of an economic development plan City Council study sessions is attached.
The City is interested in promoting utilization of the Community Reinvestment Act of 1997, which
stresses the responsibility of financial institutions to respond to the needs of the local community, and
other tools to enhance economic development in the City of Bremerton.
Request authorization to contract with George Parker, a consultant with 20 years of experience
working with communities relating to economic development issues, to develop an economic
development plan. Mr. Parker would research the specific financial needs of small businesses, the
resources that are currently available and the gaps between the needs and the resources and
subsequently develop a five-year strategic plan and one year action plan to address the gaps.
8. RECOMMENDATION:
Authorize execution of a $15,000 contract between the City and George Parker. Funds will be
budgeted from housing loan repayments.
RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL:
ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL:
EXPIRATION DATE:
REVIEW DATE:
PULLED TABLED
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE:
10. NOTICE OF ACTION
APPROVED DISAPPROVED
AMENDED
CLEARANCE COMMENTS:
AGENDA BILL NO.:
5. IMPACT ON NON-PASSAGE:
Financial institutions will continue to determine the focus of CRA in the City with little input from the
City. The City will be at a disadvantage in competing for Federal funds for economic development
activities.
6. IMPACT ON STAFFING, BUDGETS, FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCES:
None
7. RESEARCH SOURCES:
WHAT IS CRA
The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977
Basically, Congress stressed responsibility of financial institutions in the United
States to respond to the needs of the local community, particularly minority and low
and moderate income neighborhoods.
ARE FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS RESPONDING TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF CRA BY
ADDRESSING NEEDS WITHIN BREMERTON?
· Financial institutions have developed innovative programs and partnerships to assist
moderate income families become homeowners.
· There are no obvious indications that financial institutions have embraced or explored
the credit needs relating to economic development to the same extent.
WHY SHOULD THE CITY PROMOTE UTILIZING CRA OR OTHER TOOLS TO ENHANCE
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN THE CITY?
· The most obvious reason is to create or retain jobs. (this is particularly important in
light of "welfare reform") Additional reasons are,
· to promote private investment in the community and thus increase tax revenue for
local services;
· to provide stability and growth in the City; and
· to address an objective under the CDBG program ( to expand economic development
opportunities particularly for low and moderate income persons).
WHERE DO WE START?
· Identify needs, resources, and gaps
· Develop strategies and action plans.
HOW WILL DEVELOPING A STRATEGY AND ACTION PLAN ENCOURAGE THE USE OF CR~
AND OTHER FINANCIAL PRODUCTS TO 1NCREASE INVESTMENT IN ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES IN THE CITY?
· A strategy and action plan will focus products and services to the specific needs in the
City
· The City will send a message to financial institutions that it is intent on encouraging
economic development in the City.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF WE DO NOT INITIATE ACTIONS ?
Financial institutions will continue to determine the focus of CRA in the City with little
input.
The City will be at a disadvantage in competing for Federal funds for economic
development activities.
Proposed Consultant to develop CRA/Economic Development Plan:
Parker and Thomas $15,000---20 years experience working with communities related to
economic development issues--including: manager of City of Seattle Economic
Development Loan Fund (6 years); Executive Director of Cascadia Revolving Fund (3
years)--Developed micro-loan fund with Yakima Valley Hispanic CDC--etc...
GEORGE PARKER
7323 18TH AVE NORTHEAST
SEATTLE WA 98115
206 524-6578
EDUCATION:
MASTER OF ARTS, 1970
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY, Economic Development
BACHELOR OF ARTS, 1968
UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA, Economic Development
WORK EXPERIENCE:
PARKER & THOMAS, Inc., President, Seattle, 1991-PRESENT
An economic development contract management firm specializing in (t) creating and managing
community financial Institutions, (2) creating and Implementing entrepreneurial training programs
and (3) assisting organizations In developing and analyzing economic development strategies.
City of Seattle-perform tumkey operation for the City Seattle's Economic Development Loan Fund. Fund
asset level is $20 million. We market the fund; package loan applications (including any technical
assistance necessary); unde~vrite the loans; present to a City committee for approval; document and
close ali loans; and service the portfolio (including workouts if necessary). Also drafted all necessary
policies and procedures for management and program effectiveness.
King County-perform turnkey operation (see above - Seattle) for King County's Economic Development
Program. Fund asset level presently is $1,000,000.
WAME - Yakima Valley Hispanic CDC - created policies and procedures for new micro loan fund and
presently creating strategic plan for long term Fund stabilization.
Seattle Housing Authority-created and currently implementing an economic ownership plan for public
housing residents in a new mixed income community (Holly Park). A community development
corporation was created to perform entrepreneurial training, to manage a micro loan fund, to assist
residents in managing their own businesses, and to teach family money management skills.
Other Contracts -
Small Business Development Center-South Seattle Community College - business marketing course
Intedm - ID CDC - Asian refugee micro loan program development
Seattle Chamber of Commerce - Urban Enterprise Center - minority equity fund feasibility study
SBA (Western Washington District) - designated as intermediary for Minority Pre-Qualification
Program.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CASCADIA REVOLVING FUND, Seattle 1987-1991
A community development loan fund that pools investments in order to make loans to community based
organizations and women and/or minodty owned businesses. Being the original director, all corporate
systems had to be created in addition to the duties of financial management; strategic planning; loan
analysis; portfolio management; and capitalization. Major accomplishments were the Fund's portfolio
eclipsing one million dollars (45 loans) with a cumulative loss rate of only .13 of 1%. Served on the
Board of Directors of the National Association of Community Development Loan Funds (3 years).
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, PUGET SOUND ASSOCIATION OF COOPERATING TRIBES, Suquamish,
Washington, 1984-1988 - PACT is a professional economic consortium for three Indian Tribes in the
Central Puget Sound region. The director was responsible for all administration as well as performance
of project assignments. Project included but were not limited to economic analysis, project
management, development of business and market plans, portfolio management, commercial real
estate development, strategic planning, and organizational development. Major accomplishments
include: Suquamish Retail and Rest Stop Complex, Suquamish Bingo Enterprise and Port Gamble
School Distdct Finance Project.
CONSULTANT PRACTICE, Minneapolis and Seattle 1977-84
DEVELOPMENT OF BUSINESS, MARKETING, AND MANAGEMENT PLANS
Carolyn Downs Family Medical Center - Performed a thorough analysis of all corporate systems including
administrative, medical, financial, real estate, personnel, and marketing to create a two year plan for the
corporation. Trained the new Director on implementation of the new plan.
South Minneapolis Community Federal Credit Union - Participated in developing a five year business plan
and specifically researched, developed, and marketed new services for credit union membership.
Assets of the credit union increased from $300,000 to $1,000,000.
North Hennepin Community College - Designed, marketed, and operated a financial and employment
program for older adults. Financial program dealt with planning for disability and/or death. Employment
program started three businesses totally managed and staffed by older adults.
Salani Human Development Project - Performed economic feasibility study on establishing a bakery and
health clinic in Salani, Western Samoa. Business plan included financial, manpower, and market
analysis; loan package preparation, physical design, and administrative systems.
TRAINING AND ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Worked with the following Board of Directors to determine future directions of their organizations. Areas
considered were services rendered, market analysis, staffing patterns, financing, and facility
development.
Whole Health Opportunities,
Seward Neighborhood Clinic,
Group Health Coop of Northern Wisconsin,
Fremont Community Health Services,
OTHER CONTRACTS
Colorado University, Denver Center;
Community Action Program of Evansville;
Denver Model Cities; Syracuse Univ. Research Corporation.
Westside Health Center,
North End Health Center,
Country Doctor,
Community Health, Inc.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, HELPING HAND HEALTH CENTER, St. Paul, 1975-1977
Helping Hand is a non-profit medical and dental clinic operated by a Board of Directors comprised of twelve
patient/consumers. Within the structure, I was responsible for the total operation of the clinic and the
corporate services. This included all program development and management, long term resource
development, administrative systems development and management, and an educational function for the
community Board of Directors. Major accomplishments were increased patient load from 3,000 to 9,000;
developed new corporate structure independent from parent organization; and increased self-sufficiency
ratio from 5% to 50%.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, DENVER VOLUNTEER SERVICE UNIT, Denver, 1972-1974
Created Fanshen Community, a group home for teenage girls aged 13 to 17. Contracted with the County
and the Court system for total parental supervision for the girls, as well as educational, vocational,
recreational, and personal counseling.
SPECIAL ASSISTANT, STATE OF MICHIGAN, EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR, Lansing,
1969-1971
Coordinated and gave technical assistance to twenty five youth development programs in Michigan.
Created and directed the State Youth Council to advise the Governor as to the needs of the Youth.
Wrote the "1970 Michigan Manpower Report," and "Educational Equality in Michigan-A Twenty Year
Study."
PART I:
TASK "A".
5.
TASK "B".
I1.
OUTLINE OF SPECIFIC ACTIONS THAT WILL BE TAKEN
(Revl~ed 10/1197)
IDENTIFY GAPS IN FINANCIAL PRODUCTS AND SERVICES NEEDED
BY SMALL BUSINESSES IN BREMERTON
Evaluate the extent of commercial credit and other financial products
currently available to businesses in Bremerton List banks that serve 8remerton
Meet with commercial credit officers for those banks
Meet with non-bank lenders
- Meet with EDC of Kitsap County
Meet with the SBDC that serves Bremerton
Determine financial products and services businesses need
for (a) existing businesses and
for (b) new businesses
Meet with EDC of Kitsap County
Meet with the SBDC serving Bremerton
Meet with a few Bremerton businesses
Meet with the banks
Compare to general research opinions
- Determine financial products and services needed
List other non-financial services needed
Identify gaps in products and services offered and needed
List products offered by (a) banks
(b) other financial institutior~s
(c) public sector
(d) other
- Identify gaps by comparing f¢ 1 and # 2
Prepare draft report on findings
Discuss findings with city staff for comments and revisions
STATE WHAT "CRA" CAN AND CANNOT DO FOR SMALL
BUSINESSES IN BREMERTON
Research the law and its amendments
Discuss with each bank how they have complied or plan to comply within the
City of Bremerton
Prepare draft findings
Discuss findings with City staff for comments and revisions
(7
TASK "C",
4,
5.
PART Ih
TASK
1.
2.
3.
4.
TASK
1.
CAN "CRA" BF_ A TOOL FOR ASSISTING SMALL BUSINESS
SUSTAINABILITY IN BREMERTON?
Prepare report based on findings in Task "A" and Task "B"
Discuss findings with City staff for comments and revisions
Deliver report to Mayor and Council seven days before oral presentation
Prepare visual aids for oral presentation to Mayor and Council
presentation to Mayor and Council :,:- ',~-' --~- ...
DEVELOP LONG TERM STRATEGY(lES)
Based on the presentation results, develop "Definitions of Success"
Revisit study padicipants from Part I
Prepare draft strategies
Meet with City staff for comments and revisions
DEVELOP FIRST YEAR ACTION PLAN
Based on strategies chosen, determine what financial products and services
can be cost effective given available funding
Prepare first year action plan with timeline.~ and benchmarks for monitoring
Meet with City staff for comments and revisions
TASK "F",
1,
2.
3.
4.
FINAL PRESENTATION TO MAYOR
Prepare report detailing long ~;erm strategies and first year action plan
Deliver report seven days before oral presentation to Mayor and Council
Prepare visual aids for presentation
Presentation to Mayor and Council '--:-: ~-*~
LOAN PRODUCTION SUMMARY
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIVISION
BUSINESS LOANS
Attached is a summary of loan production for year ending 12-31-97. In addition, tables are
provided with comparative production numbers for 1996 and 1997. A brief description of the five
loan programs is attached as Exhibit A.
GAF SBA 7(a) Entertainment $233,000 Building Jobs
~cquisition --
GAF Facade Entertainment $25,000 Facade NA
improvements
BRLF Gas/Deli $160,000 Equipment Jobs
BRLF Lodging $150,000 Working capital Jobs
BRLF Food $250,000 Equipment Jobs
Title IX Medical $150,000 Building Services to Low-
acquisition Moderate Income
BRLF Retail $25,000 Working capital Jobs
BRLF Food $75,000 Equipment Jobs
GAF 'FacadeL Food $25,000 Facade NA
improvements
GAF sBA 7(a) Manu£acturing $200,000 Building NA
acquisition
I
GAF SBA 7(a) Food/Retail $150,000 Building NA
acquisition
GAF SBA 7(a) Auto repair $1'30,000 Debt restructure NA
#12 $1,573,000
EDSmdySessionMemo.doc
Monday, January 05, 1998
LOAN PRODUCTION SUMMARY
PAGE TWO
1997 Year to Date Loan Production.: Includes CDRLF, BRLF, Tide IX, Facade and SBA/GAF
Tacoma loans. (# in 000's).
1997 Production:
1996 production:
EDStudySessionMemo.doc
Monday, January 05,1998
EXHIBIT A:
Grow America Fund, SBA 7(a) Loan Program (GAF SBA 7(a): Through a contract
agreement between the City of Tacoma and Grow America Fund (a subsidiary of the Nadonal
Development Council), loans are reviewed and recommended for approval under the SBA's primary
business loan program, SBA 7(a). Under 7(a), the SBA guarantees loans to small businesses that
cannot obtain financing on reasonable terms through other channels. This program generally is used
to meet the varied short and long-term needs of small businesses. Lenders, not the SBA, approve
and service the loans and request SBA guaranties. The guaranties reduce the risks to the lenders,
expanding their ability to make small business loans.
Grow America Fund - Tacoma Facade & Interior Improvement Program (GAF Facade):
This program was developed to meet the needs of Tacoma businesses located in older
neighborhood business districts for facade improvements and interior repair and improvements.
Each GAF Tacoma loan may be mixed or matched with other eligible forms of financing, including
loans from local banks and loans from the City, business owners and federal or state funds.
Preference will be given to projects that have at least 50% p~v. ate financing.--The loans are intended
to augment, not supplant, money from the commercial financing community or other financing
sources. They are intended to support and stimulate building renovation and investment by the
private sector.
Business Revolving Loan Fund (BRLF): The purpose of the Business Revolving
Loan Fund is to eliminate blight, improve the availability of products and services to loxver-income
neighborhoods, or to create employment opportunities for low income persons in Tacoma's
commercial and industrial districts. Eligible businesses must be located in the City of Tacoma, or on
City-owned real estate outside the City l/mits, with priority given to businesses located in the Central
Business District (CBD), loxv income neighborhood/commercial districts and the Port/Industrial
area. The maximum loan available is $250,000 or not more than 50% of a project, not to exceed
$250,000.
Title IX Revolving Loan Fund (Title IX): The Title IX Revolving Loan Fund is a
source of low-interest loans that can supplement private f'mancing of new or rehabilitated buildings
in the Tide IX project area, which contributes revitalization of the area and creates new employhaent
opportunities. The loan fund was created by the Ci~ of Tacoma, using grants from the Federal
Economic Development Administration (EDA) and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD). Eligible businesses must be located in the City of Tacoma, within the
designated project area. The use of funds must create new employment opportunities. Funds may
be used for rehabilitation of existing buildings, new construction, property acquisition and
improvements, including related soft costs. The maximum loan available is $250,000, or not more
than 33% of a project, not to exceed $250,000.
Community. Development Revolving Loan Fund (CDRLF): The purpose of the
Community Development Revolving Loan Fund is to create employment for lower-income persons,
improve the availability of products and services to lower-income neighborhoods, or to remove
slums or blight by assisting business enterprises that cannot obtain private financing because of
social or economic barriers. Eligible businesses must be located in the City of Tacoma. The use of
funds are for long-term £~xed asset or short to medium term working capital needs. The maximum
loan available is $25,000, or not more than 40% of a project, not to exceed $25,000.
EDStudySessionMemo.doc
Monday, Janmuy [}5, 1998
AGENDA BILL
1. SUBJECT:
Sinclair Landing Master
Development Agreement
BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL
FOR AGENDA OF: January 28, 1998
ORIGINATING DEPT: Legal
ORIGINATOR: G Malanca, City Atty.
DATE SUBMITTED: January 23, 1996
2. (~E~NCES: ,.~omment on back if necessary)
GLE~N~~CA, Interim City Attorney
3. EXHIBITS:
Proposed Agreement
ENDORSEMENT ~ INFORMATION [ ]
APPROVED BY COUNCILi~RESI~DE~OR~~ SUBMITTAL
COUNCIL PRESIDENT _
4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION:
Pursuant to a Memorandum of Understanding executed in February of 1997, and
amended in April of 1997, the City has negotiated the initial structuring of the
development, construction and the City's participation in the integrated
redevelopment of portions of the Central waterfront of downtown Bremerton. The
project is commonly known as the Sinclair landing project and is based upon the
combined efforts of the Commercial Group, LLC, as Master Developer; the City of
Bremerton, Kitsap Transit, Sinclair Landing Association, Port of Bremerton and the
County. There will be public and private features including major retail stores,
restaurants, hotel, public parking garage, and waterfront park.
A major component of the Master Development Agreement is the construction of the
2400 stall parking garage and other public amenities. Construction of these
acllltles will be accomplished by the Master Developer, and will become the
property of the City of Bremerton upon completion. The purchase price to be paid
by the City of Bremerton is based upon a formula involving the net parking
revenues and increase in taxes generated within the project over a 25 year period.
The structuring of the purchase is subject to the approval of Bond Counsel, who
is in the process of reviewing the purchase provisions.
8. RECOMMENDATION:
Motion to authorize the Mayor to sign the Master Development Agreement.
9. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL:
ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL:
EXPIRATION DATE:
REVIEW DATE:
10. N_QTICE~
PULLED [] TABLED [] APPROVED [] DISAPPROVED [] AMENDED []
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE:
11. AGENDA BILL NO.:
2. CLEARANCE COMMENTS:
5. IMPACT OF NON-PASSAGE:
The Sinclair Landing Project could not proceed without the participation of the
City.
6. IMPACT ON STAFFING, BUDGETS, FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT OR QTHER RESOURCES:
Minimal tracking and review by Legal and the Treasurer. The ultimate financial
impact upon the City is expected to be positive.
7. RESEARCH SOURCES:
.qlncl~ir. AR- Ac~ndm,~ -
SINCLAIR LANDING
MI~STER DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
01/26/98
This Sinclair Landing Master Development Agreement (the "Agreement") is made as of
this __ day of February, 1998, by and between the City of Bremerton ("City"); the Kitsap
Transit Public Transportation Benefit Area ("Kitsap Transit"); the Port of Bremerton ("Port");
Kitsap County ("County"); The Commercial Group, LLC, a Washington limited liability company
("Master Developer"); and Sinclair Landing Association, a Washington non-profit corporation
("SLA").
RECITALS
A. Pursuant to a Memorandum of Understanding executed in February of 1996 and
amended in April of 1997, the Master Developer, SLA, the City, Kitsap Transit, the Port, Kitsap
County and Howard S. Wright Construction Co. have been working together to seek an
innovative and integrated redevelopment of portions of the central waterfront of the City of
Bremerton. The project, commonly known as Sinclair Landing, is anticipated to include a number
of public and private features, including but not limited to office, a major retail center, restaurants,
hotel, residential units and similar private uses, theater, museums and maritime attractions, a
public waterfront park and promenade, plaza and access corridors to the central waterfront, public
parking garages, marina improvements and similar mixed use public and private project features.
The Sinclair Landing project will be developed pursuant to the Preliminary PUD permit issued by
the City of Bremerton to SLA. Upon completion, Sinclair Landing is intended to be an integrated
public/private development which revitalizes the central waterfront area, generates tax revenues,
and provides a gateway to the Olympic Peninsula.
B. As an essential element of the overall central waterfront redevelopment pro,am
and Sinclair Landing project, SLA, the Master Developer, Kitsap Transit and the other public and
private participants have proposed the development of an inter-modal transportation center to
include transit, passenger-only and car ferry service, commuter retail facilities and similar features
(the "Bremerton Transportation Center" or "BTC"). The Bremerton Transportation Center is
intended to be developed as the first phase of the Sinclair Landing project, and may include
common features and elements. The Bremerton Transportation Center will include a commuter
retail building to provide commuter services and products as part of the development.
C. The Federal Transit Administration and State of Washington Department of
Transportation have authorized grants for the Bremerton Transportation Center as part of the
Sinclair Landing joint development project recognizing that the associated urban economic
development will enhance the effectiveness and coordination of Kitsap Transit and Washington
State Ferry services.
D. SLA was created and established by the public and private partners to assist and
facilitate redevelopment on the central waterfront area through the Sinclair Landing project and is
dependent on such partners for funding.
1 01/26/98
E. Through a series of cooperative and constructive meetings among the Master
Developer, SLA and the other public and private participants, the parties have agreed in principal
to the framework and fundamental terms for joint development of the public and private
components of the Sinclair Landing project, including the Bremerton Transportation Center as
outlined in the BTC Inter-Agency Coordination Memorandum of Understanding attached hereto
as Exhibit A.
F. This Master Development Agreement assumes and is dependent on a series of
additional contracts and agreements between and among the parties and the other Sinclair
Landing project governrnental partners and Howard S. Wright Construction Co. ("Collateral
Agreements") to detail and implement the roles and responsibilities described and committed to
herein. The Collateral Agreements shall include a separate Sinclair Landing Implementation
Agreement between the Master Developer and the City, a Sinclair Landing Marina Development
Agreement between the Master Developer and the Port, and a Sinclair Landing Purchase and Sale
Agreement between the Master Developer and Kitsap Transit including the Commuter Retail
Building pad and air rights as well as various easements. The Master Developer and the City
expect that their collateral agreement will address insurance, indemnity and attorneys fees issues
and that they will execute this collateral agreement before March 15, 1998. Th.is Agreement
anticipates that the entire Sinclair Landing project will be developed in phases, (with the
Bremerton Transportation Center as the initial phase), pursuant to a cooperative relationship to
plan, finance, construct, and operate the various project components for the benefit of the citizens
of Kitsap County. This Agreement also assumes that the completed Sinclair Landing project will
be of sufficient diversity and magnitude to provide tax revenues to finance the public investments
and to meet the City's revitalization objectives for the Bremerton waterfront.
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties a~ee as follows:
I. General Project Components. There are three interdependent components of the overall
project: the Bremerton Transportation Center, the private commercial components ("Commercial
Features") and public improvements ("Public Features") for the Sinclair Landing project. The
Bremerton Transportation Center includes an expanded auto and passenger ferry terminal
facilities, and improved transit terminal, and a building pad for a new Commuter Retail Buildin~
The Public Features may include Garage Facilities, Public Amenities and Public Attractions, as
mutually defined by the Master Developer and the City. The Commercial Features include
privately owned and operated components developed by the Master Developer. The Sinclair
Landing project may also include marina improvements ("Marina Expansions") as hereinafter
defined. The project's boundaries are shown on Exhibit B.
A. Sinclair Landing Commercial Features. The Sinclair Landing project is expected
to include the following Commercial Features:
1. Based upon prevailing market conditions, the Commercial Features of the
project will include between 300,000 to approximately 900,000 square feet of privately owned
office, retail, restaurant, hotel, theater, and similar commercial developments to be developed by
the Master Developer. The general character, components, scope and appearance of the
2 01/26/98
Commercial Features shall be consistent with the Preliminary Planned Unit Development ("PUD")
permit for the project issued to SLA by the City in March 1997. The Commercial Features may
be developed in one or more phases reflecting economic conditions as provided herein and in
Collateral Agreements, provided that the initial phase will include at least 300,000 square feet of
commercial development. The Commercial Features shall be designed to include a public plaza,
pedestrian corridors and view corridors to the waterfront area.
2. The Commercial Features may also include components desired by the
community such as daycare facilities, health clubs, arts cooperatives and similar service enterprises
if they prove financially feasible.
3. The project will include residential units to be financed and constructed by
the Master Developer in accordance with the PUD permit.
B. Sinclair Landing; Public Features. The Sinclair Landing project is expected to
include the following Public Features:
1. If sufficient public/private funding is secured, the project will include
museums and other tourist attractions intended to attract between 350,000 to 1,000,000 visitors
annually to Bremerton (the "Public Attractions"). The Public Attractions are expected to include
museums and historic vessels for public viewing. The public agencies, SLA and the Master
Developer acknowledge that third party funding (for example, public and private grants) for the
Public Attractions have not yet been obtained, and that the public agencies, SLA and the Master
Developer will continue to cooperate in good faith to seek funding for the Public Attractions.
The parties acknowledge that the success of developing and funding the Public Attractions is a
critical element if the project is to proceed as a major retail center, and the parties agree to
continue joint cooperative efforts towards this end as may be consistent with their respective legal
authorities. If the parties are successful in securing sufficient financing for the Public Attractions,
such Public Attractions will be incorporated by the Master Developer into the overall project
design and development. In the event that Public Attractions are not secured for the Sinclair
Landing project, the Master Developer will pursue a development program compatible with the
Sinclair Landing PUD.
2. The project will include certain public features as agreed upon by the
parties as provided herein (the "Public Amenities"). The Public Amenities can include public
plazas, a public esplanade and public park along the waterfront from the BTC and along the full
len~h of the project, public access, pedestrian tunnels, pedestrian overpasses public fountains,
and similar public features The City, Kitsap Transit and the Master Developer, in consultation
with the County, the Port and SLA, will jointly determine the package of Public Amenities for the
Project. The Public Amenities will be financed and constructed by the Master Developer as
provided herein.
3. In cooperation with the City, the Master Developer will finance and
construct one or more public parking garages to provide parking for the Commercial Features, the
Public Attractions, the Public Amenities, and the BTC (the "Garage Facilities"). The Garage
3 01/26/98
Facilities are expected to be underground in most locations and below, adjacent to or integrated
within the Commercial Features and the Public Attractions.
provided herein.
The City shall purchase the Public Amenities and Garage Facilities as
C. Bremerton Transportation Center. The BTC is expected to include the following
project components described in Exhibit C:
1. A new ferry terminal for automobile and passenger-only ferry services,
including ticket booths and a staging area, }hat, at full project size, will accommodate
approximately 200 cars.
2. A new passenger-only ferry dock facility, including covered gangway, and
related improvements.
3. A transit center exclusively for Kitsap Transit bus and other public
transportation services regulated as to usage and charges by Kitsap Transit.
4. A Commuter Retail Building with retail and office space built above a
portion of the BTC to serve the BTC and the larger Sinclair Landing project. Development of the
BTC will include constructing the foundation structure support, utilities connections and pad for
an approximately 14,000 square foot Commuter Retail Building of at least two stories. The
building upon and above the pad will be developed by the Master Developer.
5. Traffic, pedestrian and roadway improvements for access to and circulation
around the BTC adequate for its planned Phases A and B.
6. Appropriate structural and functional access points between the BTC and
the anticipated Commercial and Public Attractions and Public Amenities to provide a coordinated
and integrated overall project.
7. Auto passenger loading/unloading facilities located within 300 yards of
the BTC terminal building, capable of accommodating up to twenty-four (24) vehicles at one
time, which facilities are integrated with the commercial development (the "Kiss and Ride Area").
D. Marina Expansions. The Port, in consultation with the Ma~ster Developer, will
develop a plan for the public expansion, or lease and operation, of its marina facilities on the
Bremerton waterfront. The Master Developer intends to develop a regional destination marina as
integral component of the Sinclair Landing project. This marina is intended to provide the
infrastructure to allow development of a major maritime attraction complex to support the tourist
volumes necessary for the redevelopment of downtown. The Master Developer will develop the
plan for its marina facility in consultation with the Port.
4 01/2 619 8
II. Development Concepts. The Sinclair Landing project will be developed in compliance
with the Sinclair Landing PUD and will be designed to preserve and enhance Bremerton's art deco
architectural style.
A. Development Program Proposal. The Master Developer will submit a detailed
written report to SLA and its public partners within 90 days of mutual execution of this
Agreement, together with a recommendation from the Master Developer as to their proposed
Development Program including the Commercial Features and Public Features of the Sinclair
Landing project. The report will include project pro formas and financial assumptions for the
Commercial Features, a recommended list of Public Features with preliminary cost estimates and
revenue projections, and identify any phasing of the Commercial Features. It will also include:
schematic design for the overall project with specification of any elements that may require
amendment of the PUD; design concepts for the Commuter Retail Building; and preliminary
design of the Public Features including sizing, location, staging, and technolog3,.
B. Development Program Review. After conferring with its governrnental partners
and reviewing such additional analysis as may be reasonably requested from the Master
Developer, SLA's Board shall, within 30 days of receiving the Master Developer's
recommendation and report, provide comments and recommendations on the recommended
Development Program. The Master Developer may revise its recommendation, based upon SLA's
review and the concerns of its governmental partners, and resubmit the Development Program for
SLA Board reviexv within a mutually agreeable time period. The SLA Board's actions shall be
advisory to the City's and Kitsap Transit's consideration of the recommended Development
Program. The City and Kitsap Transit shall, within 60 days of receiving the Master Developer's
recommendation and report, approve or reject the recommended Development Pro_m-am. During
this period preceding the City's and Kitsap Transit's action on the recommended Development
Program, the Master Developer may modify the Development Program to address concerns and
issues raised during the Program's review. The Master Developer's recommendation and the
City's approval may be conditional upon future tenant and financing commitments, detailed
construction estimates, and/or arrangements for sufficient Public Attractions. The parties
acknowledge that the final approval rights with respect to the Sinclair Landing project and its
features, design, and components, is vested in the City as the agency with jurisdiction to issue
building and other essential permits for the project and that SLA's actions and recommendations
shall not limit the City's discretion to issue, deny or condition City permits for the project. SLA
will cooperate with the Master Developer in the finalization of the PUD by the City with the
assumption that the Master Developer will give good faith consideration to SLA's comments and
recommendations.
Concurrent with its approval of the recommended Development Program, the City
will, in the manner more fully described in Section VII.D.3 hereof, provide to the Master
Developer a Letter of Credit commitment for the agreed-on Public Features with identified
contingencies.
5 01/26/98
III. Development Rights and Cooperative Efforts.
A. Recognition of Right.~. In consideration of the Master Developer both committing
to and satisfying its requirements under this Agreement, the City and Kitsap Transit recognize the
Master Developer as having the exclusive rights to serve as developer of the public and private
components of the Sinclair Landing project, including the Commuter Retail Building but not the
overall Bremerton Transportation Center.
B. Consideration of Zoning, Planning, Permitting and Infrastructure Initiatives.
Subject to City Council approval and such restrictions and limitations as may be imposed by
applicable law, the City agrees to support the deyelopment of the Sinclair Landing project in the
following manner:
1. The City will give good faith consideration to requests by the Master
Developer for the utilization of zoning and planning processes to encourage concentrated,
controlled development in the downtown core in the proximity of the Sinclair Landing project for
uses such as destination/manufacturer outlet developments.
2. The City will improve downtown transportation movement by coordinating
stoplights and signals on Burwell, Sixth and Eleventh Streets and by installing special directional
signage to the Sinclair Landing project when completed.
3. The City will give good faith consideration to establishment of a Design
Review District within the Central Business District of the City to ensure development compatible
with the existing architectural heritage of the area and the planned Sinclair Landing project
development.
4. Master Developer will grant permanent access easements through the
exterior plazas of the development within the agreed upon access corridors for the benefit of ferry
and bus passengers for access to or egress from public transportation facilities and to reach or use
the public waterfront park and promenade, plazas, streets, and central waterfront, in exchange for
appropriate public agency participation in the development, construction and/or purchase of the
access features, including the payment described in Section VI.B hereof.
5. The Master Developer will accommodate all requests from the public
entities for necessary utility easements at no cost to the requesting agency; provided, however,
that the design and location of such necessary utility easements shall be, to the extent feasible,
such so as to minimize interference with the Commercial Features and cost to the Master
Developer.
IV. Desi_zn of Projegt..
A. Sinclair Landing. The Master Developer, in consultation with the SLA and as
described in Section II above, shall be responsible for the design of the Sinclair Landing project
and all of the related features thereof. Final project regulatory authorization rests with the City as
6 01/26/98
the permitting jurisdiction. Design review by SLA shall not constitute approval by any
governmental agency with jurisdiction over the project (even if such governmental agency is a
participant in SLA), and the Master Developer shall be responsible for obtaining all required
governmental permits and approvals for the Sinclair Landing project as provided in Section V
below.
B. Bremerton Transportation Center. Kitsap Transit, in cooperation with SLA, shall
be responsible for securing the design of the BTC and all related features thereof pursuant to a
design/build project delivery agreement with Howard S. Wright Construction Co. and/or its
design team. The design shall include the design of all necessary onsite and off-site utilities
connections, structural foundation, and pad features of the commuter retail building, but not the
commuter retail building itself. The Master Developer shall be responsible for the design of the
remainder of the Commuter Retail Building wkich design shall be coordinated and compatible
with the design and construction of the BTC. Kitsap Transit will provide a final pad site plan no
later than February 28, 1998. The design and features of the Commuter Retail Building shall be
subject to approval by Kitsap Transit, in consultation with SLA, which approval shall not be
unreasonably withheld, and to final permitting authorization by the City.
The Master Developer, the City, Kitsap Transit and the SLA agree to cooperate
and consult with each other in the design activities for the Sinclair Landing project and the BTC
and to coordinate the various project features.
V. Permitting and Approvals.
A. Sinclair Landing. The Master Developer shall be responsible for making
application for, seeking and obtaining all required governmental permits and approvals for the
development of the Commercial Features of the Sinclair Landing project and, if required, for the
Public Features. The Master Developer shall be the primary liaison with the City and other
governmental agencies with jurisdiction to obtain all such permits and approvals.
B. Bremerton Transportation Center. IGtsap Transit, in cooperation with SLA, shall
be responsible for making application for, seeking and obtaining all required local land use
approvals for the development of the BTC. Kitsap Transit, in cooperation with SLA, shall be the
primary liaison with the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard and State governmental agencies with
jurisdiction to obtain all such permits and approvals for the BTC. SLA and Kitsap Transit will
look to Howard S. Wright Construction Co. and or its design team to secure building and other
permits necessary for construction of the BTC. The Master Developer will secure the building
permits necessary for the Commuter Retail Building.
C. PUD. SLA hereby assigns and the City hereby consents to co-applicant status in
the PUD: (a) for the Master Developer for all of the Sinclair Landing project and for the
Commuter Retail Building portion of the BTC; and (b) to Kitsap Transit for the remainder of the
BTC. For and in consideration of such assignment of the PUD, the Master Developer shall pay
SLA Sixty Thousand Dollars ($60,000) within 10 business days following the execution of this
7 01/26/98
Agreement by all parties hereto. Kitsap Transit, in consultation with SLA, shall be responsible for
managing the PUD process with respect to the BTC and the Master Developer shall be
responsible, in consultation with SLA, for managing the PUD process with respect to other
components of the Sinclair Landing project. As soon as practical with respect to the progress of
the BTC, SLA will terminate its role as PUD co-applicant with Kitsap Transit and the Master
Developer. In the event this Agreement is voluntarily terminated by the Master Developer prior
to the date the parties and the Master Developer execute the Sinclair Landing Implementation
Agreement described in the recitals, or if the Master Developer fails to obtain the letter
commitment of equity financing as contemplated by this Agreement, Kitsap Transit shall have the
right, a_tier consultation with the Master Developer, to terminate the status of the Master
Developer with respect to the PUD and other project related permits and the Master Developer
shall assign or re-assign its interest in the PUD and such permits to Kitsap Transit and shall
transfer all design, construction and other documents related to the Project. The Master
Developer shall cooperate in good faith in such procedures as may be necessary to accomplish
such steps. In that event, Kitsap Transit will consult with the City and its other public partners
concerning alternative approaches to continuing the Sinclair Landing Project and the
redevelopment of downtown Bremerton. In such event, the Master Developer shall repay Kitsap
Transit an amount equal to One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000) less the value of the
Master Developer's interest in the PUD and such permits and the value of all design, construction
and other documents transferred to Kitsap Transit. The parties agree that the value of the Master
Developer's interest in the PUD shall not be less than Sixty Thousand Dollars ($60,000). If the
value of the Master Developer's interest in the PUD and such permits and the value of all design,
construction and other documents transferred to Kitsap Transit equals or exceeds One Hundred
Thousand Dollars ($100,000) the Master Developer shall be relieved of its repayment obligation
and in such event Kitsap Transit shall not be required to pay the Master Developer any excess
value.
VI. Land Acquisition.
A. Sinclair Landing. The Master Developer shall be responsible for the acquisition of
all of the private property rights required in connection with the development of the Sinclair
Landing project. The City shall be responsible for the acquisition of all the public property rights
required in connection with the development of the Sinclair Landing project. City owned
property within the Sinclair Landing project shall be made available for the project on such terms
and conditions as are mutually satisfactory to the Master Developer and the City, consistent with
applicable law. Within thirty (30)days of mutually executing this Agreement, the Master
Developer will submit to the City a written plan for land acquisition necessary for the Public
Features.
B. Bremerton Transportation Center. Kitsap Transit shall be responsible for the
acquisition of all property fights required in connection with the BTC, including the transfer of
necessary rights-of-way and property rights from the City as described on Exhibit D attached
hereto. Kitsap Transit will purchase approximately 4950 square feet of property now in use as a
City parking lot as shown on Exhibit D based on the fair market value or the capitalized value of
the annual net income stream in 1997 of fourteen stalls. Kitsap Transit may contract with the
8 01/26/98
Master Developer to provide services in connection with land acquisition and tenant relocation
matters for the BTC. Kitsap Transit also will purchase from the Master Developer a permanent
Kiss and Ride easement adjacent to the BTC and Commuter Retail Building and permanent
public access and open space easements through the exterior plaza of the completed Sinclair
Landing Project encompassing an area of approximately 37,000 square feet. The public access
easements will generally establish a pedestrian connection between the intersection of Burwell
Street and Washington Street with the BTC and between the intersection of Pacific Street and
Washington Street and the passenger only ferry landing. The easements shall be designed to
accommodate efficient access to and from the BTC and shall be adequate for anticipated ferry
traffic and for the users of the Kiss and Ride Area. The location and description of such
easements shall be determined by the final design of the Sinclair Landing Project as finally
approved in the manner set forth in this Agreement. The general character and purposes of these
easement will be more fully described in the Kitsap Transit and Master Developer Real Estate
Purchase and Sale Agreement and the location and description of such easements, as determined
as provided herein, shall be incorporated into such Agreement.. The easements will provide that
the Master Developer shall be responsible for maintenance and security of the easement areas for
the duration of the easements. Kitsap Transit agrees to pay the Master Developer an amount
equal to the fair market value of such easements at the time of conveyance (the "Transit
Easements Purchase Price") as determined by a real estate appraiser who is a Member of the
Appraisal Institute and who is acceptable to the Master Developer and Kitsap Transit. In no
event shall the Transit Easements Purchase Price exceed Six Hundred Thousand Dollars
($600,000). Kitsap Transit shall make such payments as follows: Kitsap Transit will pay the
Master Developer seventeen percent (17%) of the Transit Easements Purchase Price (but not
more than One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000)) within five business days of the execution
of this Agreement; thirty five percent (35%) of the Transit Easements Purchase Price (but not
more than Two Hundred Ten Thousand Dollars ($210,000)) at later of(l) the time it conveys the
Commuter Retail Building Pad to the Master Developer or (II) the time Kitsap Transit and the
Master Developer execute their Collateral Agreement and the Master Developer has obtained the
letter commitment for equity financing more fully described in Section VIII.C hereof and forty
eight percent (48%) of the Transit Easements Purchase Price (but not more than Two Hundred
Ninety Thousand Dollars ($290,000)) upon commencement of construction of the Sinclair
Landing Project. The parties reasonably believe that the value of these easements, including the
Master Developer's responsibility for maintenance and security thereof, substantially exceeds Six
Hundred Thousand Dollars ($600,000). Its is because of this anticipated substantial discount that
Kitsap Transit has agreed to make a partial payment of the Transit Easements Purchase Price
prior to the conveyance of the easements. The Master Developer shall convey such easements to
Kitsap Transit at the time Kitsap Transit conveys the Commuter Retail Building Pad to the Master
Developer, subject to reserved fights to use the easement areas for construction and development
purposes until the project is complete. The granting of the easements shall be a necessary
condition of final PUD approval.. The Master Developer shall cooperate with Kitsap Transit in
seeking reimbursement for such payments from the other parties to this Agreement. In the event
this Agreement is terminated prior to the Master Developer's conveyance of the easements as
provided herein, the Master Developer shall repay to Kitsap Transit, within five business days of
such termination, an amount equal to the portion of the Transit Easements Purchase Price that
Kitsap Transit has paid to that time.
9 01/26/98
C. General. The public property rights required for the Sinclair Landing project
development will include street right of ways and other property owned by the City as described
on Exhibit D attached hereto. At the conclusion of the development of the commercial and public
improvements for the Sinclair Landing project, it is expected that the Garage Facilities and Public
Amenities Gout not necessarily the Public Attractions) will be publicly owned. The City, Kitsap
Transit, SLA and the Master Developer w/ll cooperate in good faith to seek opportunities for
exchanges of land and property rights to assist in the acquisition of property for the public and
private features of the BTC and Sinclair Landing projects, initially including the Enetai,
Woolworth, and Bremer Buildings and potentially other properties as the design for Phase C of
the BTC is developed.
VII. Construction and Construction Financing.
A. Sinclair Landing. The Master Developer shall be responsible for the construction
and construction financing of all aspects of the Sinclair Landing project, including the Public
Features, but excluding the Bremerton Transportation Center and the Public Attractions, unless
mutually agreed otherwise in a Collateral Agreement. All construction shall be performed in
accordance with applicable international, federal, state and local laws, codes, rules and
regulations.
The City, Kitsap Transit, the Port, the County and SLA agree to cooperate in
good faith with the Master Developer in the Master Developer's efforts to secure financing for the
Sinclair Landing project and to accommodate commercially reasonable requests from project
lenders regarding project documentation and development.
B. Bremerton Transportation Center. Kitsap Transit, in cooperation with SLA, shall
be responsible for the construction of the BTC (other than the Commuter Retail Building, which
shall be financed, constructed and owned by the Master Developer). Kitsap Transit, in
cooperation with SLA, shall also be responsible for securing financing to pay for the costs of
construction of the BTC. All construction shall be performed in accordance with applicable
international, federal, state and local laws, codes, rules and regulations.
1. As part of the BTC project, Kitsap Transit, the City and SLA shall use their
best efforts to secure long term service commitments from the Washington State Department of
Transportation, Marine Division, for two fast ferries to provide daily service between Seattle and
Bremerton. Such service is expected to begin with one new ferry in April, 1998 and to add
another new ferry one year later.
2. SLA and Kitsap Transit shall ensure that the design and operation of the
BTC includes: (i)public restrooms to meet the needs of customers and passengers within the
BTC (ii)adequate access for vehicles providing services to the commuter retail building; and
(iii) adequate access for tour buses to load and Unload on the BTC transit deck or ramps (but not
parking for tour buses after tour passengers have unloaded) [;,,~ * .... *, .... *~; ...... ~
10 01126/98
~-~,~.~_,.,., ......... ~,,..*'~ *',,,~,, o ...... ,~,~' ,.,,,,~"^'~ ,,.,,..~ ~ and o.vv '~ .aa ?.m.. Kitsap Transit shall have the sole right to establish
operating standards and requirements for the BTC.
3. The Kiss and Ride Area will be located with.in an easement conveyed to
Kitsap Transit pursuant to the terms of Section IV.B hereof and shall be constructed and financed
by Kitsap Transit. Within the Kiss and Ride Area, Kitsap Transit's service needs shall have
priority over all other uses. The Master Developer, however, shall reimburse Kitsap Transit an
appropriate portion of the cost of construction of the Kiss and Ride Area. The Master Developer
and Kitsap Transit shall determine the appropriate allocation of costs and the manner by which the
Master Developer shall reimburse such costs in the Real Estate Purchase and Sale Agreement to
be entered into by such parties as a Collateral Agreement hereto.
C. Commuter Retail Building.
1. Following the construction of below ground structural improvements and
the pad and utilities for the Bremerton Transportation Center as outlined on Exhibit C, the Master
Developer agrees to:
(i) purchase the fee simple interest in the pad and the air rights within
the perimeter of the pad including a 2 foot allowance for overhang from Kitsap Transit necessary
to construct the Commuter Ketail Building, upon receipt of a building permit from the City, for
$12 per square foot, as confirmed to be the fair market value of such property interests by letter
opinion of value given by a real estate appraiser who is a Member of the Appraisal Institute and is
acceptable to both the Master Developer and Kitsap Transit and delivered within thirty (30) days
of mutually executing this Agreement; and
(ii) permit, finance and, within nine (9) months after conveyance of the
pad, commence construction of the Commuter Retail Building.
2. The Commuter Retail Building will include commercial features supported
by market conditions and compatible with commuter needs. The Master Developer shall have the
sole right to establish the operating standards and requirements of the Commuter Retail Building.
The Collateral Agreement between Kitsap Transit and the Master Developer may contain a list of
the kinds of tenant businesses that will be prohibited in the Commuter Retail Building. The
building shall be developed on the concrete pad constructed by SLA and Kitsap Transit as part of
the BTC project, as defined in Exhibit C and shall be sized to maximize the pad dimensions
consistent with the final design and envelope of the BTC. The building shall be at least two
stories with approximately 14,000 square feet of usable space, and shall accommodate the
installation of canopies over the adjacent transit/ferry loading areas.
3. SLA and Kitsap Transit agree to have the Commuter Retail Building pad
site (with utilities and structural support capable of supporting a three story building) ready for
the Master Developer to commence construction on the Commuter Retail Building no later than
September 15, 1998.
11 01/26/98
4. If the Commuter Retail Building is developed to three or more stories,
Kitsap Transit shall have the first right of refusal, after existing tenants in the Sinclair Landing
Project buildings, to lease or acquire office space in the floors above the second floor.
D. Public Features. The Master Developer, pursuant to the Sinclair Landing
Implementation Agreement with the City, will develop Public Features (including the Garage
Facilities and Public Amenities) to serve the Sinclair Landing project.
1. The Master Developer will design, secure final design approval from the
City and finance and construct the Garage Facilities and the Public Amenities.
2. The City shall have the right to approve the design of the Public Features
to be constructed by the Master Developer which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld.
3. The City shall purchase the Garage Facilities and Public Amenities upon
completion thereof. The purchase price shall be (A) (i) the actual net parking revenues of the
Garage Facilities for the first 25 years of operation plus (ii) 60% of the actual annual increased
City tax revenues generated by the Sinclair Landing project within the project zone for the first 25
years in which the Garage Facilities are in operation plus (B) the City's actual share of sales taxes
from construction of the Sinclair Landing project less (C) the estimated net parking revenues lost
by the City from City-owned property used for the Sinclair Landing project during construction of
the Garage Facilities. T~_C~ty ,:,4!! pro-,Sclc t,~,c Ma~te~' D~veloper with ~t Let/er of Cre~~z-o
t~ojected, purchase price as part of the Sinclair Landing Implementat~be. tween
the CR3~and~ Master Developer. The City shall also p~ opinion of nationally
recognized bond ~ a form acceptable to the Mas~eloper, that such Letter of Credit
h~z.ed b_y~d is fu_l, ly.~-d'6'/ceable in accordance with its terms. If the
~f r.e,,d(t, sufficient to fund the Garage
F~~I have the o. ption of negotiating a
r~~ic Amenities-'g'-oc4~erminating this Agreement as
~- ~P~y the purchase~ the Master Developer
i he City and
t be
me.,~., red (including the boundaries of the project zone) and the manner by which the '
l~y the purchase price.
The measurement of increased City tax revenues shall be based upon sales taxes, business
and occupation taxes, and property taxes which are collected by or distributable to the City with
respect to the Sinclair Landing Project. The base year for calculation of increased taxes shall be
1997.
If the City property is conveyed to the Master Developer in connection with the
construction of the Public Features, the City will also be entitled to a credit against the purchase
price of the Public Features equal to the appraised fair market value of the City's property at the
earlier of the time of conveyance or the time the Master Developer takes possession of the
property..
12 01/26/98
4. The Master Developer shall provide the City with a proposed parking
garage operation and maintenance program for the Garage Facilities for the City's review and
approval, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. The program shall be approved
prior to the start of construction of the Garage Facilities. The approved program shall form the
basis for a parking management agreement to be negotiated and executed by the City and the
Master Developer which will apply both to the Master Developer and the City with respect to all
future operations of the Garage Facilities.
5. The City and the Master Developer shall negotiate and execute an option
agreement granting the Master Developer the right to acquire the City property required for the
Public Features, including current public rights of way, as shown on Exhibit F attached hereto.
The Master Developer shall be entitled to purchase said property in exchange for: (1) its
commitment to finance the design and construction of the Public Features and to reimburse the
City for lost parking revenues as provided in Subsection D.3. above; and (2) by paying the fair
market value of such property, or providing the City with a credit for such amount against the
purchase price for the Public Amenities and the Garage Facilities.
6. To enable the City to attain its objective of assuring the sound fiscal
program necessary for the implementation of a balance of residential and commercial uses within
the City, the Master Developer agrees to use its best efforts to balance City revenue flows and
costs associated with the project. The Master Developer also recognizes that the extent of the
City's resources available to support the project include only the additional tax revenues directly
generated by the project, the amount of net revenues earned from the completed Garage Facilities
and the City's share of sales taxes collected from construction of the project.
VIII. Project Milestones and Financing Analysis.
A. Cooperative Planning. The parties acknowledge that the success of the overall
Sinclair Landing project will require substantial cooperation between the public and private
participants, but that the success of the project depends primarily on the economic feasibility of
the project as a whole and the constituent Commercial Features and Public Features. To this end,
the parties agree to proceed with reasonable diligence and on a cooperative basis to analyze the
economics of the Sinclair Landing project and its constituent features. The Master Developer and
the SLA shall cooperatively consult with each other to review in detail economic forecasts for the
Sinclair Landing project as may be reasonably necessary to keep each other and the other parties
hereto informed.
C. Schedule. To facilitate the economic analysis of the project while proceeding with
project planning and design, the parties have agreed to the general project milestones specified on
Exhibit G attached hereto. All parties to this Agreement will use their best efforts to perform
their responsibilities under this Agreement so as to maintain ihe schedule. In addition, the Master
Developer shall negotiate and obtain a letter commitment for equity financing for the Commercial
Features within one-hundred and eighty (180) days of the date of final execution of this agreement
13 01/26/@8
(the "Equity Letter Date.") The City shall extend the Equity Letter Date by an additional ninety
(90) days if the Master Developer has made substantial progress in obtaining such letter
commitment. The parties hereto shall take all reasonable actions and exercise their best efforts to
assist the Master Developer in obtaining this letter commitment. Once the Master Developer has
obtained the letter commitment for equity financing as contemplated in this paragraph, it shall
maintain such letter (or a substantially similar commitment) until the project is completed.
D. BTC Development Priority. The commitments and undertakings of the Master
Developer, the City, Kitsap Transit, the County and SLA under this Agreement are based on the
assumption that the BTC will be developed prior to the Commercial Features of the Sinclair
Landing project. In the event the BTC is abandoned by Kitsap Transit, the commitments of the
parties under this Agreement shall terminate except that all funding to SLA previously provided
by the Master Developer (except for its initial contribution of $50,000) will be reimbursed to the
Master Developer by Kitsap Transit.
E. Failures of Performance, Defaults and Remedies
1. The failure of a party to perform an obligation imposed on that party under
this Agreement, except as otherwise excused in subparagraph E.3 below, shall not be deemed a
default on the part of such party unless the following conditions are met:
(i) a non-defaulting party whose interests are substantially and
detrimentally affected has served a written notice of default or demand for performance on the
defaulting party specifying the nature of the alleged default and the actions required to cure the
alleged default; and
(ii) the defaulting party has not cured or diligently commenced the
curing of the default within a reasonable time following receipt of the notice.
For purposes of this Subparagraph E. 1., a reasonable time shall be:
(i)
ten (10) business days in the case of a failure to pay a sum of
money;
(ii)
or execute a document;
fifteen (15) business days in the case ora failure to give an approval
(iii) thirty (30) business days in the case of obligations that can be
performed within such time, and
(iv) such time as is reasonably appropriate under the circumstances in
the case of obligations that cannot be performed within thirty (30) business days, provided that
the defaulting party has commenced to cure said default as early as reasonably possible within
such 30-business-day period and shall diligently prosecute such cure to completion.
14 01/26/98
except as otherwise
available:
If the failure is to timely perform or complete a Milestone on ExIfibit H,
excused in subparagraph E.3. below, the following remedies shall be
(i) If the failure occurs prior to the completion of ~Milestone H: any
party shall have the option to terminate their participation in this Agreement, with no obligation to
compensate any other party for damages.
(ii) If the failure occurs after the completion of Milestone H: any party
shall have the option to pursue claims against the filing party for breach of contract and
compensation for actual damages incurred as a result of such failure.
3. Subject to Subparagraph E.4. below, no party shall be considered in default
of its obligations under this Agreement, including but not limited to, the support or performance
of permitting, review or coordination activities, the development of plans and specifications,
securing of funding commitments or commencement and completion of construction of
improvements or facilities due to causes beyond a party's reasonable control and without its
negligence, including but not restricted to, any delays or suspensions of construction compelled by
court order, acts of God, acts of the public enemy, reasonably unforeseeable acts of a unit of
local, state or federal government, reasonably unforeseeable acts or omissions by other parties,
fires, floods, strikes, embargoes, delays in essential utility serv/ces and unusually severe weather
or delays of contractors of subcontractors due to such causes. The time for the performance of
the obligation shall be extended for the period of the enforced delay if a party shall request
promptly an extension of time in writing from the other parties but, in any event within ten
(10) days after the requesting party becomes aware, or reasonably should have been aware, of the
cause of any such delay. Failure of the Master Developer to obtain sufficient funding for the
Commercial Features after exercising its best efforts, shall be considered a cause beyond Master
Developer's reasonable control, only if the Master Developer had been exercising diligent efforts
to obtain such funding, and continues such efforts so that necessary funding is secured.
4. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Paragraph E, if Master
Developer fails for any reason, whether or not within the control of Master Developer or
otherwise excused, to obtain the letter commitment of equity financing as contemplated by this
Agreement within three months from the Equity Letter Date all of Master Developer's rights to
the PUD and project permits maybe terminated, revoked, or canceled by mutual agreement of the
other parties hereto, and such rights shall be transferred to SLA as provided in paragraph V.C.
IX. Further Cooperation, Master Developer Services.
The parties agree to cooperate in good faith to proceed with development of the Sinclair
Landing project and the BTC in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. It is acknowledged
that continued public and private involvement and cooperation is essential for the success of both
projects.
15 01/26/98
In connection w/th these cooperative efforts, and to facilitate the integration of the Sinclair
Landing project and the BTC, Kitsap Transit may retain the services of the Master Developer to
assist with certain aspects of the BTC including land acquisition and tenant relocation, permitting
and shared project design and coordination.
X. SLA 1998 Responsibilities and Funding
The parties acknowledge that success of the project requires clear understanding among
the parties of their roles and responsibilities. The parties agree that, with regard to project
activities involving the SLA, those parties shown on the table attached hereto as Exhibit H will
participate and/or perform a lead role in the tasks set forth on such table.
The parties acknowledge that the initial contributions from the public and private partners
to fund the activities of SLA will not be sufficient to meet the financial needs of SLA until SLA's
role in the project is complete with respect to the BTC, commercial development, Public Features,
and marina expansion. The project partners each agree to provide $1,000 per month for the
twelve (12) months following the final execution of this Agreement to fund the activities of SLA.
The extent to which any of the parties hereto provided additional funding to the SLA after these
twelve months may be the subject of future agreements among the parties. The parties
acknowledge, however, that they do not expect such future funding to exceed $500 per month
from each party.. In the event oftkis agreement being terminated by either party due to failure to
meet project milestones as set forth in Exhibit G, compensation and damages will be due only as
set forth in Section VIII-E above.
XI. Notice and Approval.
Whenever written notice is required to be given under this Agreement, it shall be given to
the following respective addresses:
The Commercial Group, L.L.C.
P. O. Box 10145
Bainbridge Island, WA 98110
Attention:
Kitsap Transit
234 So. Wycoff
Bremerton, WA 98312
Attention:
City of Bremerton
239 Fourth St.
Bremerton, WA 98337
Attention:
Kitsap County
614 Division Street
Port Orchard, WA 98366
Attention:
16 01/26/98
Port of Bremerton
8850 S.W. State Hwy. 3
Port Orchard, WA 98366
Attention:
Sinclair Landing Association
P.O. Box 29
Bremerton, WA 98337
Attention:
or to such other respective addresses as either party may hereafter designate in writing. Notice
sent by mail shall be deemed to have been given three (3) calendar days after proper mailing, and
the postmark affixed by the United States Post Office shall be conclusive evidence of the date of
mailing. Approvals, where required by this Agreement, shall be effective in the same manner.
XII. Severability.
If any term or provision of this Agreement, or the application thereof to any person or
circumstance, shall to any extent be invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this Agreement, or
the application of such term or provision to persons or circumstances other than those as to which
it held invalid or unenforceable, shall not be affected thereby and shall continue in full force and
effect
XIlI. Legal Relations.
No liability shall attach to any of the parties by reason of entering into this Agreement
except as expressly provided herein. No party has assumed any financial obligation by entering
into this Agreement except as specifically identified herein.
XIV. Governing Law.
This Agreement shall be deemed to be made in the County of Kitsap, State of Washington,
and the legal rights and obligations of the parties shall be determined in accordance with the laws
of the State of Washin~on. All legal actions in connection with this Agreement shall be brought
in the County of Kitsap, State of Washin~on.
XV. Assignment.
The Master Developer will have the right to assign all or a portion of these Development
Rights to a qualified partner, developer, or investor acceptable to the City and to Kitsap Transit,
as their interest may appear, and such approvals shall not be unreasonably withheld. The parties
recognize that the Master Developer may need to re-organize, introduce new investors and satisfy
financial requirements as the project proceeds. Subject to this para=m-aph, lenders to the Master
Developer who foreclose or obtain ownership through deeds in lieu shall assume the obligations
of this Agreement. Lenders of record which assume the Master Developer's interests and
obligations hereunder shall be provided notice of default and the same opportunity to cure as the
Master Developer.
17 01/26/98
XVI. Entire Agreement/Amendments.
This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties relative to the subject
matter herein. There are no terms, obligations, covenants or conditions other than those
contained or referenced herein. No modification or amendment of this Agreement shall be valid
and effective unless evidenced by an agreement in writing.
XVII. No Third Party Benefits~
Nothing in this Agreement shall be deemed to create anv te~al relationship with persons or
entities not a party to this Agreement, and no such person or entity shall have a cause of action or
claim for damages because of provisions in or reliance upon this Agreement.
XVIII. Amendments.
This Agreement may be amended or terminated by mutual consent of the parties to the Agreement
or by their successors in interest.
DATED as of the day and year first above written.
CITY OF BREMERTON
THE COMMERCIAL GROUP, L.L.C.
By By
Its
KITSAP TRANSIT
Its
SINCLAIR LANDING ASSOCIATION
By By
Its
PORT OF BREMERTON
Its
KITSAP COUNTY
By By
Its Its
18 01 ~26~98
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
Exhibits
BTC Inter-Agency Coordination Memorandum of Understanding
Project Boundary, with PUD Site Plan and Narrative
BTC Site Plan
City Property Map
View Corridor, ACCESS, Open Space and Kiss-and-Ride Area Easements
Sinclair Landing Right-of-Way
Project Milestones
1998 Tasks of SLA
19 01/26/98
AGENDA BILL
BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL
1, SUBJECT: ORDINANCE NO.
AUTHORIZING THE ISSUE OF A $1,250,000 TAX
ANTICIPATION NOTE AND
ACCEPTING THE PURCHASE OFFER OF SEAFIRST BANK
FOR AGENDA OF: Jan. 21,1998
ORIGINATING DEPT: Treasurer
ORIGINATOR: R. Hai~'~
DATE SUBMITTED: Jan.13, 1998
2. CLEARANCES C~ment of back if necessary)
Dir. admin. Seryices~X,~_.~,_~
City Attorne~//~/~
Council Fiscal L°B ~d~.~~--~~~~'~
ENDORSEMENTS X INFORMATION
3. EXHIBITS:
Proposed Ordinance
Preliminary Official Statement
Cash Flow Projection
Note Purchase Offer (at Council meeting)
APPROVED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FOR SUBMIT
PRESIDEN''''~/~-~ {"-~- // ~-
COUNCIL ~/~b-.~£ -~ ~._.~/
4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION:
As indicated in the exhibits attached, the City's General Fund will run a cash deficit for several months during the year
unless some form of cash flow financing is provided. Analysis indicates that a Tax Anticipation Note is the most
advantageous method of providing the necessary cash flow financing.
RECOMMENDATION;
MOTION TO PASS ON SECOND READING ORDINANCE NO. ~ ~ ~
9. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Treasurer
ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: Mayor
EXPIRATION DATE:Jan. 31, 1999
REVIEW DATE: N/A
PULLED
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE:
TABLED
10. NOTICE OFACTION
APPROVED
DISAPPROVED
11. AGENDA BILL NO:
AMENDED
;~, CLEARANCE COMMENTS:
5, IMPACT ON NON-PASSAGE:
The City's General Fund will operate for much of the year with a negative cash balance which is contrary to state law.
6. IMPACT ON STAFFING. BUDGETS. FACILITIES. EQUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCES:
Budgeted.
RESEARCH SOURCES:
Cash Flow Projections.
Bond Counsel.
Negotiations with underwriting bank.
Thc City will provide the Master [)c,,clopcr with a guarantee that thc rc,,cnues providcd liar
payment as scl l'orth above, will bc paid and at such t~mcs as agreed to between thc parties, l'hc
City's financial obligation is suhiect to city's Bond Counsel verification ot' the City's authoritx
to guarantee these funds.
BancAmerica
ROBERTSON STEPHENS
Jane Towery
Vice President
Capital Markets Division
Honorable Mayor and City Council
City of Bremerton
239 4th Street
Bremerton, Washington 98337
Ladies and Gentleman:
January28,1998
BancAmerica Robertson Stephens, (the "Underwriter") is pleased to present an offer to purchase
from the City of Bremerton (the "City") all of its $1,250,000 principal amount of Tax
Anticipation Notes (the "Notes"), which will be dated February 1, 1998. Principal of the Notes
shall be payable on January 31, 1999, the maturity date of the Notes, at the rate shown
immediately below:
January 31 Amount Rate Price
1999 $1,250,000 3.80% 100
We will pay you $1,245,625.00 (which is net of the Underwriter's spread of $4,375), plus
accrued interest, for $1,250,000 par value of Notes. Our offer is subject to the following
conditions:
1. The City has the full legal right, power and authority to enter into and perform its
obligations under this note purchase contract and under the ordinance authorizing the
issuance of the Notes, to pass the Note Ordinance and to sell and deliver the Notes to the
Underwriter.
2. The approving legal opinion of Foster Pepper & Shefelman PLLC will be delivered with
the Notes.
3. The Notes will be delivered through the facilities of The Depository Trust Company in
New York, New York on February 12, 1998, or any other date mutually agreed upon by
the City, the Underwriter and bond counsel. The City may, as required, close the purchase
of the Notes with temporary notes.
4. The City will be responsible for all of the note issuance expenses (other than those for
which the Underwriter agrees to be responsible), including, but not limited to: bond
counsel, note printing, and fiscal agency fees.
5. Interest on outstanding principal of the Notes will be paid at maturity.
6. Interest shall accrue on the basis of a 360-day year comprised of twelve 30-day months.
7. The Notes will be issued in fully registered book-entry form as to both principal and
interest in the denomination of $50,000 each or any integral multiple thereof. The Notes,
will be registered in the name of Cede & Co., as registered owner and nominee of The
Depository Trust Company, New York, New York ("DTC"), which will act as securities
depository for the Notes.
8. Optional Redemption: The Notes are not subject to early redemption.
BancAmerica Robertson Stephens/800 Fifth Avenue, Floor 34/Post Office Box 34662/Seattle, Washington 98124
Telephone (206) 358-8991 /Telefax (206) 358-8818
City of Bremerton
January 28, 1998
Page 2
9. The Underwriter will prepare, on behalf of the City, the preliminary and final Official
Statements describing the Notes. The City shall cooperate with the Underwriter in all
aspects of the preparation of the Official Statements. The preliminary Official Statement,
as of its date, shall be in a form "deemed final" by the City for purposes of SEC Rule
15c2-12 but will be subject to revision, amendment, and completion in a final Official
Statement which will be available within seven business (7) days of the note purchase
contract s!gning date.
10. The City agrees to cooperate with the Underwriter to permit the Underwriter to deliver or
cause to be delivered, within seven business days after any final agreement to purchase,
offer, or sell the securities and in sufficient time to accompany any confirmation that
requests payment from any customer of the Underwriter, copies of a final Official
Statement in sufficient quantity to comply with paragraph (b) (4) of the Securities and
Exchange Commission Rule 15c2-12 and the rules of the Municipal Securities
Rulemaking Board.
11. The Underwriter agrees to deliver three copies each of the final Official Statement to all
nationally recognized municipal securities information repositories on the business day on
which the final Official Statement is available and, in any event, no later than seven
business days after the date hereof. The City agrees to provide continuing disclosure
pursuant to the Securities and Exchange Commission's Rule 15C 2-12, as amended, which
is included as an undertaking in the Note Ordinance.
12. The City shall deliver to the Underwriter, at the time of delivery of the Notes, a certificate,
substantially to the effect that from the date of the City's acceptance of this note purchase
contract to the delivery date of the Notes: (a) the Official Statements contain no untrue
statement of a material fact nor state any material fact necessary to make the statements
therein, in light of the circumstances under which the statements were made, not
misleading in any material respect; (b) to the best of the City's knowledge, the City has
not incurred any material liability, nor has there been any material adverse change in the
operations or financial condition of the City, nor in the general economy of the City,
except as described in the Official Statements.
13. If, prior to the closing date of the Notes by the Underwriter, the interest receivable on the
Notes becomes taxable, either directly or indirectly except as described in the preliminary
Official Statement, by the terms of any federal income tax law, the Underwriter may, at its
option, be relieved of the obligation to purchase the Notes.
14. Immaterial changes to the preliminary Official Statement and the final Official Statement
as of their dates will not provide a basis for removal of this offer.
15. This offer is submitted for acceptance by the City on January 28, 1998, at a meeting of the
City Council of the City duly held.
16. Details of this offer may be altered by mutual consent of the Underwriter and the City to
accommodate the needs of the City.
Respectfully submitted,
BancAmerica ROBERTSON STEPHENS
Accepted this 28th day of January, 1998.
City of Bremerton, Washington
By:
CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO. .4/~.2 ~.-
AN ORDINANCE of the City of Bremerton, Washington, authorizing the
issuance of $1,250,000 principal mount of tax anticipation notes for the purpose
of paying City expenses pending the receipt of general City taxes; creating a note
redemption fund; providing for the sale of those notes to BancAmerica
ROBERTSON STEPHENS of Seattle, Washington.
Approved:
Passed:
January __, 1998
January __, 1998
This document was prepared by:
Foster Pepper & Shefelman PLLC
1111 Third Avenue, Suite 3400
Seattle, Washington 98101
(206) 4474400
CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City of Bremerton, Washington, authorizing the
issuance of $1,250,000 principal amount of tax anticipation notes for the purpose
of paying City expenses pending the receipt of general City taxes; creating a note
redemption fund; providing for the sale of those notes to BancAmerica
ROBERTSON STEPHENS of Seattle, Washington.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Bremerton, Washington (the "City"), finds
that the periodic collections of sales, excise and general ad valorem taxes and other revenues in
1998 will not be sufficient to meet necessary City expenses as they are incurred in 1998, and
that it is in the best interest of the City to contract short-term debt pursuant to chapter 39.50
RCW to pay those expenses pending receipt of taxes and other revenue collected by the City;
NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY OF BREMERTON DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1. Debt Capacity_.. The preliminary assessed valuation of the taxable property
of the City as ascertained by the last preceding assessment for City purposes for the year 1997
for tax collection in the year 1998 is ~ [$1,356.380.817,] and the City as of rrxT
. ~ L"- '~ "-" '~ """-~'~-~ -..' '-.'J J
['December 11, 1997, had Xt-$~ [$9,899,710] of outstanding general indebtedness evidenced by
limited tax general obligation bonds and notes ~!',1 tax anticipation notes [and
lense/purchase contracts] incurred within the limit of up to 1-1/2% of the value of the taxable
property within the City permitted for general municipal purposes without a vote of the qualified
voters therein, and unlimited tax general obligation bonds in the principal amount of
[$1,545,000] within the limit of up to 2-1/2% of the value of the taxable property within the
City for general capital purposes issued pursuant to a vote of the qualified voters of the City,
and the amount of indebtedness for which the notes are herein authorized to be issued is
03~80,3.0~
$1,250,000. The general indebtedness to be incurred shall be within the limit of up to 1-1/2%
of the value of the taxable property within the City permitted for general municipal purposes
without a vote of the qualified voters therein.
Section 2. Note Fund; Authorization and Description of Notes. There is created in the
office of the City Treasurer a special fund called the Tax Anticipation Note Fund, 1998 (the
"Note Fund"). Pending the collection of sales, excise and general ad valorem property taxes
levied for collection in 1998 and other revenues anticipated to be received in 1998, the City shall
issue and sell its tax anticipation notes to be designated Tax Anticipation Notes, 1998 (the
"Notes"), in the principal mount of $1,250,000. The Notes shall be dated February 1, 1998;
shall mature on January 31, 1999; shall be in the denomination of $50,000 or any inte~al
multiple thereof; shall be numbered separately in the manner and with any additional designation
as the Note Registrar (collectively, the fiscal agencies of the State of Washin~on located in
Seattle, Washington, and New York, New York) deems necessary for purposes of identification;
and shall bear interest at the rate of % per annum (computed on the basis of a 360-day year
of twelve 30-day months), payable at maturity. If any Note is not redeemed when properly
presented at its maturity, then interest shall continue to accrue at the same rate from and after
maturity until that Note, with interest, is paid in full or until sufficient money for such payment
in full is on deposit in the Note Fund and the Note has been called for redemption. The City
Council declares and finds that the fixing of the above interest rate is in the best interests of the
City. The Notes shaI1 be general obligations of the City.
The Notes shall not be subject to redemption prior to thek maturity date.
Section 3. Registration and Transfer of Notes. The Notes shall be issued only in
registered form as to both principal and interest and shall be recorded on books or records
maintained by the Note Registrar (the 'Note Register"). The Note Register shall contain the
0318073.02
-2-
name and mailing address of the owner of each Note and the principal amount and number of
each of the Notes held by each owner.
Notes surrendered to the Note Registrar may be exchanged for Notes in any authorized
denomination of an equal aggregate principal amount. Notes may be transferred only if
endorsed in the manner provided thereon and surrendered to the Note Registrar. Any exchange
or transfer shall be without cost to the owner or transferee. The Note Registrar shall not be
obligated to exchange or transfer any Note during the 15 days preceding the maturity date.
[The Notes initially shall be registered in the name of CEDE & CO., as the. nomin~
of The Deposito~ Trust Company, New York, New York ("DTC")... The Notes so
registered shall be held in fully immobilized form by DTC a.s depqsitory in acc0rd.ance with
the provisions of a Blanket Issuer Letter of Repre.sen.tations dated November 19, 1997.
between the City and DTC (the "Letter of Representations"). Neither the City.nor the Note
Registrar shall have any responsibilitw or obligation to DTC participants or the persons for
whom they act as nominees with respect to the Notes regarding accuracy of. any records
maintained bv DTC or DTC participa, nt,s of any amount in respect of principal of or
interest on the Notes, or any notice which is permitted or required to be given to registered
owners hereunder (except such notice as is required to be gixen by the Note ReCstrar to
DTC)_
For so long as any Notes are held in fully immobilized form, DTC or its successor
depository shall be deemed to be the registered owner, for all purp, oses here,under and all
references to registered owners, noteowners, noteho!ders or the like. shall mean DTC or its
nominees and shall not mean the owners of any beneficial inte.rests in the Notes. Registered
ownership of such Notes, or any portions thereof, may not thereafter be transferred except:
(i) to any successor of DTC or its nominee, i.f that successor shall be .qualified.under any
0318073 . 02 ~7~
-3-
applicable laws to provide the serviCes proposed to be provided by it; (ii) to any substitute
depository appointed bv the City or such substitute dep. ositor~'s successor; or (iii) to any
person if the Notes are no longer held in immobilized form.
Upon the resignation of DTC or its successor (or any.~substi..tut,e depository or
successor) from its functions as depository, or a determination by .the City that it no longer
wishes to continue the system of book entry transfers thrgugh DTC or its successor (Or .any
substitute depository or its successor), the City. may appoint a substitute depository: Any
such substitute depository shall be qualified under any applicable laws. to provide the
services proposed to be provided bv it.
If (i) DTC or its successor (or substitute depository or its successor) resigns from its
functions as depository., and no substitute., depository .can be obtained, or (ii). the City
determines that the Notes are to be in certificate, d form, the. ownership of Notes may .be
transferred to any person as provided here.!.n and the Notes nO longer shall be held in fully
immobilized f0rm:l
Section 4. Payment of Notes. Both principal of and interest on the ~'~-~
~ ...... j l~otes_____]
shall be payable in lawful money of the United States of America upon presentation and
surrender of the Notes by the registered owners at either of the principal offices of the
[-Note] Registrar at the option of the owners. [Notwithstanding the,. foregoing, a.s long as the
Notes are registered in the name of DTC or its nominee, payment of principal of and
interest on the Notes shall be made in the manner set forth in the Letter of
Representations.1
Section 5. Pledge of Taxes. The Notes shall be paid solely from the Note Fund. The
City irrevocably pledges to budget and levy taxes within the constitutional and statutory tax
limitations provided by law without a vote of the electors of the City on all of the taxable
0318073,02
-4-
property in the City in an amount sufficient, together with other money legally available and to
be used therefor, to pay the principal of and interest on the Notes at maturity. The City further
irrevocably pledges to set aside and deposit into the Note Fund from such taxes and other money
on or before the maturity date of the Notes an amount sufficient to pay, both principal and
interest, and redeem the Notes on their maturity date.
The full faith, credit and resources of the City are pledged irrevocably for the payment
of the principal of and interest on the Notes.
Section 6. Form and Execution of Notes. The Notes shall be printed, typed or
multicopied on good bond paper in a form consistent with the provisions of this ordinance and
state law, shall be si~ned by the manual or facsimile signature of the City Treasurer, and shall
have the seal of the City or a facsimile reproduction thereof impressed or printed thereon.
Only Notes bearing a Certificate of Authentication in the following form, manually signed
by the Note Registrar, shall be valid or obligatory for any purpose or entitled to the benefits of
this ordinance:
CERTIFICATE OF AUTHENTICATION
This Note is one of the fully registered City of Bremerton, Washington,
Tax Anticipation Notes, 1998, described in the Note Ordinance.
WASHINGTON STATE FISCAL AGENCY
{43ond~ [Note] Registrar
By
Authorized Signer
The authorized signing of a Certificate of Authentication shall be conclusive evidence that the
Notes so authenticated have been duly executed, authenticated and delivered and are entitled to
the benefits of this ordinance.
0318073.02
If any officer whose facsimile signature appears on the Notes ceases to be an officer of
the City authorized to sign notes before the Notes bearing his or her facsimile signature are
delivered or issued by the City, those Notes nevertheless may be issued and delivered and, when
issued and delivered, shall be as binding on the City as though that person had continued to be
an officer of the City authorized to sign notes. Any Note also may be signed on behalf of the
City by any person who, on the actual date of signing of the Note, is an officer of the City
authorized to sign bonds, although he or she did not hold the required office on the date of
issuance of the Notes.
Section 7. Note Registrar. The Note Registrar shall keep, or cause to be kept, at its
principal corporate trust office, sufficient books for the registration and transfer of the Notes,
which shall be open to inspection by the City at all times. The Note Registrar is authorized, on
behalf of the City, to authenticate and deliver Notes transferred or exchanged in accordance with
the provisions of the Notes and this ordinance, to serve as the City's paying agent for the Notes
and to carry out all of the Note Registrar's powers and duties under this ordinance and City
Ordinance No. 3862 establishing a system of registration for the City's bonds and obligations.
The Note Registrar shall be responsible for its representations contained in the Note
Registrar's Certificate of Authentication on the Notes. The Note Registrar may become the
owner of Notes with the same rights it would have if it were not the Note Registrar and, to the
extent permitted by law, may act as depository for and permit any of its officers or directors to
act as members of, or in any other capacity with respect to, any committee formed to protect
the rights of Note owners.
Section 8. Notes Negotiable. The Notes shall be negotiable instruments to the extent
provided by RCW 62A.8-102 and 62A.8-105.
0318073.02
-6-
Section 9. Use of Proceeds. The principal proceeds received from the sale of the Notes
shall be deposited in the General Fund of the City and used solely for the purpose of paying the
cash flow deficits in the City's General Fund resulting from budgeted expenditures, and any
interest received from the deposit or investment of such proceeds shall be applied and used
solely for such purposes or for deposit in the Note Fund. Any proceeds resulting from
authorized temporary investments of money on deposit in the Note Fund or such investment
proceeds of any of the taxes hereafter levied for payment of the Notes and placed in the Note
Fund shall be used for the sole purpose of retiring the Notes or paying the interest thereon.
Accrued interest on the Notes received from the sale and delivery of the Notes shall be paid into
the Note Fund.
.Section 10. Permitted Financin~ of Cumulative Cash Flow Deficit. Based upon the
reasonably expected mounts of sales, excise and general ad valorem property taxes and other
revenues to be collected in 1998 (including investment proceeds of the Notes) and that are
expected to be available to make General Fund expenditures in 1998 (computed by treating a
reasonable working capital reserve in an amount not exceeding 5 % of the total General Fund
expenditures in the prior fiscal year as not being available to make those expenditures), the City
Council finds that the principal amount of the Notes does not exceed the maximum anticipated
"cumulative cash flow deficit" (as defined by Section 148 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986,
as amended (the "Code"), and applicable Treasury. Regulations thereunder) expected to occur
in the City's General Fund during 1998 and that is to be financed with proceeds of the Notes.
Section 11. Preservation of Tax Exemption of Interest on Notes. The City covenants
that it will take all actions necessary to prevent interest on the Notes from being included in
gross income for federal income tax purposes, and it will neither take any action nor make or
permit any use of proceeds of the Notes or other funds of the City treated as proceeds of the
-7o
Notes at any time during the term of the Notes which will cause interest on the Notes to be
included in gross income for federal income tax purposes. The City certifies that it has not been
notified of any listing or proposed listing by the Internal Revenue Service to the effect that it is
a bond issuer whose arbitrage certifications may not be relied upon.
-~-Section 12. Small Governmental Issuer Arbitra~e Rebate Exception and Designation
of Notes as "Qualified Tax-Exempt Obli.~ations." The City finds and declares that (a) it is a
duly organized and existing governmental unit of the State of Washington and has general taxing
power; Co) no Note which is part of this issue of Notes is a "private activity bond" within the
meaning of Section 141 of the Code; (c) at least 95% of the net proceeds of the Notes will be
used for local governmental activities of the City (or of a governmental unit the jurisdiction of
which is entirely within the jurisdiction of the City); (d) the aggregate face amount of all
tax-exempt obligations (other than private activity bonds and other obligations not required to
be included in such calculation) issued by the City and all entities subordinate to the City
(including any entity which the City controls, which derives its authority to issue tax-exempt
obligations from the City or which issues tax-exempt obligations on behalf of the City) during
the calendar year in which the Notes are issued is not reasonably expected to exceed $5,000,000;
and (e) the amount of tax-exempt obligations, including the Notes, designated by the City as
"qualified tax-exempt obligations" for the purposes of Section 265(b)(3) of the Code during the
calendar year in which the Notes are issued does not exceed $10,000,000. The City therefore
certifies that the Notes are eligible for the arbitrage rebate exemption under Section 148(f)(4)(D)
of the Code and designates the Notes as "qualified tax-exempt obligations" for the purposes of
Section 265(b)(3) of the Code.~
0318073.02
Section 13. Undertaking to Provide Continuin~ Disclosure. To meet the requirements
of paragraph (b)(5) of United States Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") Rule 15c2-12
(the "Rule"), to the extent applicable to an issue of municipal securities with a stated maturity
of 18 months or less under paragraph (d)(3) of the Rule, as applicable to a participating
underwriter for the Notes, the City makes the following written undertaking (the "Undertaking")
for the benefit of holders of the Notes:
(a) Undertakin~ to Provide Notice of Material Events. The City
undertakes to provide or cause to be provided, either directly or through a
designated agent, to each nationally recognized municipal securities information
repository designated by the SEC in accordance with the Rule ("NRMSIR") or
the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board CMSRB"), and to a state information
depository, if any, established in the state of Washington (the "SID"), timely
notice of the occurrence of any of the following events with respect to the Notes,
if material: (i) principal and interest payment delinquencies; (ii) non-payment
related defaults; (iii) unscheduled draws on debt service reserves reflecting
f'mancial difficulties; (iv) unscheduled draws on credit enhancements reflecting
financial difficulties; (v) substitution of credit or liquidity providers, or their
failure to perform; (vi) adverse tax opinions or events affecting the tax-exempt
status of the Notes; (vii) modifications to rights of holders of the Notes; (viii)
Note calls; (ix) defeasances; (x) release, substitution, or sale of property securing
repayment of the Notes; and (xi) rating changes.
(b) Amendment of Undertaking. The Undertaking is subject to
amendment after the primary offering of the Notes without the consent of any
holder of any Note, or of any broker, dealer, municipal securities dealer,
participating underwriter, rating agency, NRNISIR, the SID or the MSRB, under
the circumstances and in the manner permitted by the rule.
The City will give notice to each NP, MSIR or the MSRB, and the SID, of
the substance (or provide a copy) of any amendment to the Undertaking and a
brief statement of the reasons for the amendment.
(c) Beneficiaries. The Undertaking evidenced by this Section 13 shall
inure to the benefit of the City and any holder of Notes, and shall not inure to the
benefit of or create any rights in any other person.
(d) Termination of Undertaking. The City's obligations under this
Undertaking shall terminate upon the legal defeasance of all of the Notes. In
addition, the City's obligations under this Undertaking shall terminate if those
provisions of the Rule which require the City to comply with this Undertaking
become legally inapplicable in respect of the Notes for any reason, as confmned
0318073.02
-9-
by an opinion of nationally recognized bond counsel or other counsel familiar
with federal securities laws delivered to the City, and the City provides timely
notice of such termination to each NRMSIR or the MSRB and the SID.
(e) Remedy for Failure to Comply with Undertaking. As soon as
practicable after the City learns of any failure to comply with the Undertaking,
the City will proceed with due diligence to cause such noncompliance to be
corrected. No failure by the City or other obligated person to comply with the
Undertaking shall constitute a default in respect of the Notes. The sole remedy
of any holder of a Note shall be to take such actions as that holder deems
necessary, including seeking an order of specific performance from an appropriate
court, to compel the City or other obligated person to comply with the
Undertaking.
(f) Designation of Official Responsible to Administer Undertaking.
The Treasurer of the City or his or her designee (or such other officer of the City
who may in the future perform the duties of the City Treasurer) is authorized and
directed in his or her discretion to take such further actions as may be necessary,
appropriate or convenient to carry out the Undertaking of the City in respect of
the Notes set forth in this Section 13 and in accordance with the Rule, including,
without limitation, the following actions:
(i) Determining whether any event specified in Section 13(a) has
occurred, assessing its materiality with respect to the Notes, and, if
material, preparing and disseminating notice of its occurrence;
(ii) Determining whether any person other than the City is an
"obligated person" within the meaning of the Rule with respect to the
Notes, and obtaining from such person an undertaking to provide any
notice of material events for that person in accordance with the Rule;
(iii) Selecting, engaging and compensating designated agents and
consultants, including but not limited to financial advisors and legal
counsel, to assist and advise the City in carrying out the Undertaking; and
(iv) Effecting any necessary amendment of the Undertaking.
Section 14. Approval of Note Purchase Contract. BancAmerica ROBERTSON
STEPHENS of Seattle, Washington, has presented a purchase contract (the "Note Purchase
Contract") to the City offering to purchase the Notes under the terms and conditions provided
in the Note Purchase Contract, which written Note Purchase Contract is on file with the City
Clerk and is incorporated herein by this reference. The City Council finds that entering into the
0318073.02
Note Purchase Contract is in the City's best interest and therefore accepts the offer contained
therein and authorizes its execution by City officials.
The Notes will be prepared at City expense and will be delivered to the purchaser in
accordance with the Note Purchase Contract, with the approving legal opinion of Foster Pepper
& Shefelman, municipal bond counsel of Seattle, Washington. Bond counsel shall not be
required to review and shall express no opinion concerning the completeness or accuracy of any
official statement, offering circular or other sales or disclosure material issued or used in
connectiOn with the Notes, and bond counsel's opinion shall so state.
The proper City officials are authorized and directed to do everything necessary for the
prompt delivery of the Notes to the purchaser and for the proper application and use of the
proceeds of the sale thereof.
Section 15. Preliminary Official Statement Deemed Final. The City Council has
been provided with copies of a preliminary official statement dated January __, 1998 (the
"Preliminary Official Statement"), prepared in connection with the sale of the Notes. For the
sole purpose of the purchaser's compliance with SEC Rule 15c2-12(b)(1), the City "deems final"
that Preliminary Official Statement as of its date, except for the omission of information as to
offering price, interest rate, selling compensation, delivery date and other terms of the Notes
dependent on such matters.
Section 16. Effective Date.
passage and publication.
APPROVED by the City Council of the City of Bremerton, Washington, this.
January, 1998.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Bremerton, Washington, this
January, 1998.
0318073.02
Tiffs ordinance shall take effect ten (10) days after its
day of
day of
APPROVED this
DAVID FARR, Council President
__ day of January, 1998.
ATTEST:
LYNN HORTON, Mayor
KATHLEEN McCLUSKEY, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
George M. Mack, Bond Counsel
Publication Date:
Ordinance Number:
0318073.02
I, KATHLEEN L. McCLUSKEY, City Clerk of the City of Bremerton, Washington,
certify that the attached copy of Ordinance No. is a true and correct copy of the original
ordinance passed on the __ day of January, 1998, as that ordinance appears on the Minute
Book of the City.
DATED this
__ day of January, 1998.
Kathleen L. McCluskey
City Clerk
0318073.02
BOOK-ENTRY ONLY
NEW ISSUE
NEGOTIATED
PRELIMINARY OFFICIAL STATEMENT DA TED JANUARY ~, 1998
RATING: Not Applied For
In the opinion of Bond Counsel. assuming compliance by the City Wlth applicable requirements of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, including
aKoitrage requirements, interest on the Notes is excluded from gross income of registered owners for federal income tax purposes under existing federal law
and is not an item of tax preference for purposes of the alternative minimum tax applicable to individuals. However, while interest on the Notes also is not an
item of tax prelerence for purposes of the alternative minimum tax applicable to corporations, interest on the Notes received by corporations is taken into
account in the computation of adjusted current earnings for purposes of the alternative minimum tax applicable to corporations, interest on the Notes received
by certain S corporations may be subject to tax and interest on the Notes received by foreign corporations with United States branches may De subject to a
foreign branch profits tax. Receipt of interest on the Notes may have other federal tax consequences for certain taxpayers. See the captions 'TAX
EXEMPTION" and "CERTAIN OTHER FEDERAL TAX CONSEQUENCES' herein.
CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON
$1,250,000
X ANTICIPATION NOTES, 1998
DATED: February 1, 1998
DUE: January 31, 1999
The City's Tax Anticipation Notes, 1998 (the "Notes"), are issued in fully registered form, and will be fully registered in the
name of Cede & Co., as note owner and nominee for The Depository Trust Company ("DTC"), New York, New York. DTC
will act as securities depository for the Notes, The Notes will be initially issued in book-entry form only in the value of
$50,000 or any integral multiple thereof within a single maturity. Purchasers will not receive certificates representing their
interest in the Notes purchased. The Notes bear interest payable at maturity. The principal of and interest on the Notes
are payable by either fiscal agency of the State of Washington, currently The Bank of New York, New York, New York and
Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, Seattle, Washington (the "Fiscal Agent"). For so long as the Notes remain in a
"book-entry only" transfer system, the Fiscal Agent will make such payments only to DTC, which will in turn remit such
principal and interest to the DTC participants for subsequent disbursement to Beneficial Owners of the Notes as described
herein under the caption "Book-Entry Only System."
Due Amount Rate Price
January 31,1999 $1,250,000 %
The Notes will not be subject to redemption prior to their stated maturity.
The Notes are direct and general obligations of the City. The City irrevocably pledges to budget and levy taxes within the
constitutional and statutory limitations provided by law without a vote of the electors of the City on ali of the taxable
property in the City in an amount sufficient, together with other money legally available and to be used therefor, to pay the
principal of and interest on the Notes at maturity. The City further irrevocably pledges to set aside and deposit in to the
Note Fund from such taxes and other money on or before the maturity date of the Notes an amount sufficient to pay, both
principal and interest, and redeem the Notes on their maturity date.
The full faith, credit and resources of the City are pledged irrevocably for the payment of the principal of and interest on the
Notes. See "SECURITY" herein.
The City has designated the Notes as "qualified tax-exempt obligations" for banks, thrift institutions and other financial
institutions. See "CERTAIN OTHER FEOERAL TAX CONSEQUENCES" herein.
The approving legal opinion of Foster Pepper & Shefe{man PLLC, Bond Counse{, Seattle, Washington, will be delivered
with the Notes. The Notes in definitive book-entry form will be ready for delivery at the facilities of DTC in New York, New
York, on or around February ~, 1998.
This cover page contains certain information for quick reference only. It is not a summary of this issue. Investors must read
the entire Official Statement to obtain information to making an informed investment decision.
essential
BancAmerica
ROBERTSON STEPHENS
Representations
Neither the City nor the Underwriter has authorized any dealer, broker, salesperson or other
persons to give any information or make any representations other than those made in this
Official Statement, and, if given or made, such other information or representations must not be
relied upon as having been authorized by the City or the Underwriter. This Official Statement
does not constitute an offer to sell, nor shall there be any sale of the Notes by any person in any
jurisdiction in which it is unlawful for such person to make such a sale.
The information contained in this Official Statement has been obtained from City Officials and
other sources believed to be reliable. Neither a representation, warranty nor guarantee is made by
the Underwriter as to the accuracy or completeness of any information in this Official Statement
and nothing contained in this Official Statement is or shall be relied upon as a promise or
representation by the Underwriter. The delivery of this Official Statement does not imply that the
information contained herein is correct as of any time subsequent to the date of the Official
Statement as shown on the cover page.
Disclosure Statement
The City will deliver to the Underwriter at the time of delivery of the Notes a signed statement
substantially to the effect that this Official Statement, as of its date and as of the date of the
Notes, neither contains any untrue statement of a material fact nor omits to state any material fact
necessary to make the statements therein, in light of the circumstances under which they were
made, not misleading in any material respect and that there has not been any material adverse
change in the normal operations or financial condition of the City nor, to the best of the City's
knowledge, in the general economy of the City since the date of the Official Statement.
Secondary Market
It has been the practice of the Underwriter to maintain a secondary market in municipal securities
which it sells. The Underwriter intends to engage in secondary market trading of the Notes,
subject to applicable securities laws. The Underwriter, however, is neither obligated to engage in
secondary trading nor to repurchase any of the Notes at the request of the registered owners
thereof and no assurance can be given that a secondary market for the Notes will be available.
In connection with the offering of the Notes, the Underwriter may over-allot or effect
transactions that stabilize or maintain the market price of the Notes at a level above that which
might other}vise prevail in the open market. Such stabilizing, if commenced, may be discontinued
at any time.
This Preliminary Official Statement, as of its date, is in a form that is expected to be "deemed
final" by the City for purposes of SEC Rule 15c2-12(b)(i) but is subject to revision, amendment
and completion in a final Official Statement that will be available within seven (7) business days
of the sale date of the Notes.
CITY OF BREMERTON
KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Lynn Horton
David Farr
John Law
.,.~$he~iTH u ff-Me ne es
Cecil McConnell
Carlos Montgomery
_.....p~hard Neville
Lon Overson
~.~R-ob~'rt Winters
MAYOR
CITY COUNCIL
Chairperson
Member
Member
Member
Member
Member
Member
Member
Member
Term Expires
December 31
1999
.._L997 -
1999
1999
....--1-997
1999
Richard Hanna
Kathleen McCluskey
APPOINTED OFFICIALS
Treasurer
Administrative Services
Director/City Clerk
Attorney
NOTE COUNSEL
Foster Pepper & Shefelman PLLC
Seattle, Washington
UNDERWRITER
BancAmerica ROBERTSON STEPHENS
Seattle, Washington
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Introduction ........................................................................................................................... !
Description of the Notes ....................................................................................................... 1
Authorization ........................................................................................................................ 3
security .................................................................................................................................. 3
Purpose .................................................................................................................................. 4
Note Fund .............................................................................................................................. 4
Failure to Redeem the Notes ................................................................................................. 4
Debt Payment Record ........................................................................................................... 4
Future Financing ................................................................................................................... 4
Assessed Valuation Determination ....................................................................................... 4
Tax Collection Procedure ...................................................................................................... 5
Authorization of Debt ........................................................................................................... 5
General Obligation Indebtedness .......................................................................................... 5
Limits on Amount of General Obligation Indebtedness ....................................................... 6
Authorization of Short-Term Debt ........................................................................................ 6
Taxing Powers and Limitations ............................................................................................ 7
Auditing of City Finances ..................................................................................................... 7
Authorized Investments ........................................................................................................ 7
Net Direct Debt and Estimated Net Overlapping General Obligation Debt ......................... 9
Noted Debt Ratios of the City ............................................................................................... 9
Statutory Debt Limit Calculation .......................................................................................... l0
Ad Valorem Tax Collection Record of the City .................................................................. 1 t
Ad Valorem Property Tax Ratesl ......................................................................................... 11
Comparative Statement of General Fund .............................................................................. 12
Contingency Reserve fund .................................................................................................... 12
Year-End Balances ................................................................................................................ 12
General Fund Budget ............................................................................................................ 13
City Profile ............................................................................................................................ 14
Schedule of General Obligation Note Debt Service for the City .......................................... 15
General and Economic information ...................................................................................... 16
Kitsap County Population .................................................................................................... 19
Taxable Retail Sales ............................................................................................................. 19
City Of Bremerton Major Taxpayers .................................................................................... 19
Seattle-Bremerton Ferry Traffic Statistics ........................................................................... 20
Kitsap County And Washington State .................................................................................. 20
Kitsap County And Washington State .................................................................................. 20
Preservation of Tax Exemptior~ ............................................................................................. 20
Conflicts of Interest ............................................................................................................... 21
Tax Exemption ...................................................................................................................... 21
Certain Other Federal Tax Consequences ............................................................................. 22
Absence of Material Litigation ............................................................................................. 22
Approval of Bond Counsel ................................................................................................... 23
Continuing Disclosure ........................................................................................................... 23
Underwriting ......................................................................................................................... 24
Concluding Statement ........................................................................................................... 24
Form of Legal Opinion ....................................................................................... Appendix A
PRELIMINARY OFFICIAL STATEMENT
CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON
$1,250,000
TAX ANTICIPATION NOTES, 1998
INTRODUCTION
The City of Bremerton, Washington (the "City"), a municipal corporation duly organized and
existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Washington, furnishes this Official
Statement in connection with the offering of $1,250,000 principal amount of Tax Anticipation
Notes, 1998 (the "Notes"). This Official Statement provides information concerning the City and
the Notes.
DESCRIPTION OF THE NOTES
Principal Amount, Date, Interest Rate, and Maturity
The Notes will be issued in the principal amount of $1,250,000 and will be dated and bear
interest from February 1, 1998 until their stated maturity. The Notes will mature on January 3 I,
1999, and will bear interest, payable at maturity, at the rate of % per annum. Interest on the
Notes will be computed on the basis of a 360-day year of twelve 30-day months.
Optional Redemption
The City has not reserved the right to redeem the Notes prior to maturity.
Form and Denomination
The Notes will be issued in fully registered form as to both principal and interest in the
denomination of $50,000 or any integral multiple thereof within a single maturity. The Notes,
when issued, will be registered in the name of Cede & Co., as registered owner and nominee of
The Depository Trust Company, New York, New York ("DTC").
DTC will act as securities depository for the Notes. Individual purchases may be made in book-
entry form only. Purchasers will not receive certificates representing their interest in the Notes
purchased. So long as Cede & Co. is the registered owner of the Notes, as nominee of DTC,
references herein to the registered owners or Note owners will mean Cede & Co. and will not
mean the "Beneficial Owners" of the Notes. In this Official Statement, the term "Beneficial
Owner" will mean the person for which a DTC participant acquires an interest in the Notes.
So long as Cede & Co. is the registered owner of the Notes, principal of and interest on the Notes
are payable by wire transfer by the Paying Agent of the City to DTC, which, in turn, is obligated
to remit such principal and interest to the DTC participants for subsequent disbursement to
Beneficial Owners of the Notes, as further described under the caption "Book-Entry Only
System."
Book-Entry Only System
The following information has been provided by DTC. Beneficial Owners should confirm the
following with DTC or the Participants.
1
DTC will act as initial securities depository for the Notes. The Notes will be issued as fully
registered Notes, and will be registered in the name of Cede & Co. (DTC's partnership nominee).
One fully-registered Note certificate will be issued for each maturity of the Notes, in the
aggregate principal amount of such maturity, and will be deposited with DTC.
DTC is a limited-purpose trust company organized under the New York Banking Law, a
"banking organization" within the meaning of the New York Banking Law, a member of the
Federal Reserve System, a "clearing corporation" within the meaning of the New York Uniform
Commercial Code and a "clearing agency" registered pursuant to the provisions of Section 17A
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. DTC holds securities that its participants
(the "Participants") deposit with DTC. DTC also facilitates the settlement among Participants of
securities transactions, such as transfers and pledges, in deposited securities through electronic
computerized book-entry changes in accounts of the Participants, thereby eliminating the need of
physical movement of securities certificates. Direct Participants include securities brokers and
dealers, banks, trust companies, clearing corporations and certain other organizations. DTC is
owned by a number of its Direct Participants and by the New York Stock Exchange, Inc., the
American Stock Exchange, Inc. and the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. Access
to the DTC system is also available to others such as banks, brokers, dealers and trust companies
that clear through or maintain a custodial relationship with a Direct Participant, either directly or
indirectly ("Indirect Participants"). The rules applicable to DTC and its Participants are on file
with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Purchases of the Notes under the DTC system, in denominations of $50,000 or any integral
multiple thereof, must be made by or through Direct Participants, which will receive a credit for
the Notes on DTC's records. The ownership interest of each actual purchaser of each Note
("Beneficial Owner") is in turn to be recorded on the Direct and Indirect Participants' records.
Beneficial Owners will not receive written confirmation from DTC of their purchase, but
Beneficial Owners are expected to receive written confirmations providing details of the
transaction, as well as periodic statements of their holdings, from the Direct or Indirect
Participants through which the Beneficial Owner entered into the transaction. Transfers of
ownership interests in the Notes are to be accomplished by entries made on the books of
Participants acting on behalf of Beneficial Owners. Beneficial Owners will not receive
certificates representing their ownership interests in the Notes, except in the event that use of the
book-entry system for the Notes is discontinued.
To facilitate subsequent transfers, all Notes deposited by Participants with DTC are registered in
the name of DTC's partnership nominee, Cede & Co. The deposit of Notes with DTC and their
registration in the name of Cede & Co. effect no change in beneficial ownership. DTC has no
knowledge of the actual Beneficial Owners of the Notes. DTC's records reflect only the identity
of the Direct Participants to whose accounts such Notes are credited, which may or may not be
the Beneficial Owners. The Participants will remain responsible for keeping account of their
holdings on behalf of their customers.
Conveyance of notices and other communications by DTC to Direct Participants, by Direct
Participants to Indirect Participants, and by Direct Participants and Indirect Participants to
Beneficial Owners will be governed by arrangements among them, subject to any statutory or
regulatory requirements as may be in effect from time to time.
Redemption notices will be sent to Cede & Co. If less than all of the Notes are being redeemed,
DTC's practice is to determine by lot the amount of the interest of each Direct Participant in
Notes to be redeemed.
Neither DTC nor Cede & Co. will consent or vote with respect to Notes. Under its usual
procedures, DTC mails an Omnibus Proxy to the City as soon as possible after the record date.
The Omnibus Proxy assigns Cede & Co.'s consenting or voting rights to those Direct
Participants to whose accounts the Notes are credited on the record date (identified in a listing
attached to the Omnibus Proxy).
2
Principal and interest payments on the Notes will be made to DTC. DTC's practice is to credit
Direct Participants' accounts on payable date in accordance with their respective holdings shown
on DTC's records unless DTC has reason to believe that it will not receive payment on the
payable date. Payments by Participants to Beneficial Owners will be governed by standing
instructions and customary practices, as is the case with securities held for the accounts of
customers in bearer form or registered in "street name," and will be the responsibility of such
Participant and not of DTC, the Fiscal Agent, or the City, subject to any statutory or regulator2,'
requirements as may be in effect from time to time. Payment of principal and interest to DTC is
the responsibility of the City or Fiscal Agent. Disbursement of such payments to Direct
Participants will be the responsibility of DTC, and disbursement of such payments to the
Beneficial Owners will be the responsibility of Direct and Indirect Participants.
DTC may discontinue providing its services as securities depository with respect to the Notes at
any time by giving reasonable notice to the City or the Fiscal Agent. Under such circumstances
and in the event that a successor securities depository is not obtained, Note certificates are
required to be printed and delivered.
The City may decide to discontinue use of book-entry transfers through DTC (or a successor
securities depository). In that event, Note certificates will be printed and delivered.
The information in this section concerning DTC and DTC's book-entry system has been obtained
from sources the City believes to be reliable, but the City takes no responsibility for the accuracy
thereof.
Procedure in the Event of Revisions of Book-Entry Transfer System
If the City is unable to retain a qualified successor to DTC or the City has determined that it is in
the best interest of the City not to continue the book-entry system of transfer or that interests of
the Beneficial Owners of the Notes might be adversely affected if the book-entry system of
transfer is continued, the City will execute, authenticate and deliver at no cost to the Beneficial
Owners of the Notes or their nominees, Notes in fully registered form, in the denomination of
$5,000 or any integral multiple thereof. Thereafter, the principal of the Notes will be payable
upon due presentment and surrender thereof at the principal office of the Note Registrar; interest
on the Notes will be payable by check or draft mailed or by wire transfer (wire transfer will be
made only if so requested in writing and if the registered owner owns at least S 1,000,000 par
value of the Notes), to the persons in whose names such Notes are registered, at the address
appearing upon the registration books on the 15th day of the month next preceding an interest
payment date, and the Notes will be transferable as provided in the Note Ordinance.
AUTHORIZATION
The Notes are issued in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution and applicable
statutes of the State of Washington, pursuant to Ordinance No. ~ (the "Ordinance") of the
City Council, adopted on January __, 1998.
SECURITY
The City irrevocably pledges to budget and levy taxes within the constitutional and statutory
limitations provided by law without a vote of the electors of the City on all of the taxable
property in the City in an amount sufficient, together with other money legally available and to
be used therefor, to pay the principal of and interest on the Notes at maturity. The City further
irrevocably pledges to set aside and deposit in to the Note Fund from such taxes and other money
on or before the maturity date of the Notes an amount sufficient to pay, both principal and
interest, and redeem the Notes on their maturity date.
3
The full faith, credit and resources of the City are pledged irrevocably for the payment of the
principal of and interest on the Notes.
PURPOSE
The proceeds of the Notes will be used to provide cash flow management of the City's General
Fund revenues and expenditures, in anticipation of the collection of sales excise and general ad
valorem property taxes and other money due the City's General Fund in 1998, and paying the
costs of issuance and sale of the Notes, all as approved by the City Council.
NOTE FUND
The City has created and established in the office of the City Treasurer a special fund to be
known and designated as the Tax Anticipation Note Fund, 1998 (the "Note Fund") for the sole
purpose of payment of the principal of and interest on the Notes. Accrued interest, if any,
received from the sale of the Notes shall be deposited in the Note Fund. The City covenants to
deposit in the Note Fund on or before maturity amounts sufficient, together with other monies
otherwise available therein, to pay the principal of and interest due on the Notes.
FAILURE TO REDEEM THE NOTES
If any Note is not redeemed when properly presented at its maturity, the City is obligated to pay
interest on that Note at the same rate provided in the Note from and after its maturity until that
Note, both principal and interest, is paid in full or until sufficient money for its payment in full is
on deposit in the Note Fund.
DEBT PAYMENT RECORD
The City has always promptly met principal and interest payments on outstanding obligations
when due. Additionally, no refunding Bonds have been issued for the purpose of preventing an
impending default.
FUTURE FINANCING
The City is considering the possibility of refinancing approximately $2 to $2.5 million of its
1994 Limited Tax General Obligation Bonds for development of the Gold Mountain Golf Course
with revenue Notes sometime in 1998.
ASSESSED VALUATION DETERMINATION
In the State of Washington, the County Assessor (the "Assessor") determines the value of all real
and personal property throughout the County (including the City) which is subject to ad valorem
taxation. The Assessor's duties and methods of determining value are prescribed and controlled
by statute and by detailed regulations promulgated by the Department of Revenue of the State of
Washington. For tax purposes the assessed value of property is set at 100% of its actual value.
Property in Kitsap County is revalued annually based on market sales and receives an on-site
appraisal every six years. The property is listed by the Assessor on a tax roll at its current
assessed value and the tax roll is filed in the Assessor's office.
-47
4
The Assessor's determinations are subject to revision by the County Board of Equalization and,
for certain property, subject to further revision by the State Board of Equalization. After all
administrative procedures are completed, the taxing unit receives the Assessor's final certificate
of assessed value of property within the taxing unit.
TAX COLLECTION PROCEDURE
Property taxes are levied in specific amounts, and the rate for all taxes levied for all taxing cities
in the County (including the City) are determined, calculated and fixed by the Assessor based
upon the assessed valuation of the property within the various taxing cities. The Assessor extends
the taxes to be levied within each taxing City upon a tax roll which contains the total amount of
taxes to be so levied and collected and assigns a tax account number to each tax lot. The tax roll
is delivered to the Kitsap County Treasurer by January 15 of each year, and an abstract of the tax
roll, showing the total amount of taxes collectible in each of the taxing cities for the year, is
delivered to the Board of County Commissioners at the same time. All taxes are due and payable
on the 30th of April of each year, but if the amount due from a taxpayer exceeds .thirty dollars
($30.00), one-half may be paid then and the balance no later than October 31 of each year.
The method of giving notice of payment of taxes due, accounting for the money collected, the
division of the taxes among the various taxing cities, giving notice of delinquency, and collection
procedure are all covered by detailed statutes. The lien for ad valorem property taxes which have
been levied prior to the filing of federal tax liens is prior to such federal tax liens.
In other respects, and subject to the possible "Homestead Exemption," the lien for delinquent
property taxes is prior to all other liens or encumbrances of any kind on real or personal property
subject to taxation. By law (Chapter 6.13 RCW) the taxing unit may commence foreclosure of a
tax lien on real property after three (3) years have passed since the first delinquency. Washington
State's courts have not decided whether the Homestead Exemption may give the occupying home
owner a right in the forced sale of the family residence for delinquent general property taxes to
retain the first $30,000 of proceeds of the sale. (See Algona vs. Sharp, 30 Wn. App. 837, 638
P.2d 627 (1982), holding the homestead right superior to liens for local improvement district
assessments).
AUTHORIZATION OF DEBT
The power of the City to contract debt of any kind is controlled and limited by state law. All debt
must be set forth in accordance with detailed budget procedures and paid for out of identifiable
receipts and revenues. The budget must be balanced for each fiscal year. It is unlawful for an
officer or employee of the City to incur liabilities in excess of budgetary appropriations.
GENERAL OBLIGATION INDEBTEDNESS
Under the Constitution and statutes of the State, the City may incur two types of general
obligation indebtedness. The two types are primarily differentiated by the limits on the real and
personal property taxes which may be collected for the payment thereof.
Limited tax general obligation indebtedness is payable from taxes upon all the taxable property
in the City which may be imposed by the City within the limitations prescribed by State statute
without a vote of the people (sometimes referred to as "non-voted debt" or "non-voted bonds" or
"councilmanic bonds or notes"). The statutory limits on the levy of such taxes are described in
the section herein entitled "LIMITS ON AMOUNT OF GENERAL OBLIGATION INDEBTEDNESS."
Unlimited tax general obligation indebtedness is payable from taxes without limitation as to rate
or amount, imposed upon all taxable property in the City. Unlimited tax indebtedness may be
5
incurred only after approval by 60% of the City Voters at an election in which the total vote cast
exceeds 40% of the votes cast at the last preceding general election of the City or State. Such
unlimited tax indebtedness is sometimes referred to as "voted debt," "voted bonds" or "unlimited
tax bonds."
Bonds issued to refund outstanding general obligation indebtedness of either type may be issued
without voter approval.
LIMITS ON AMOUNT OF GENERAL OBLIGATION INDEBTEDNESS
State statutes limit the total principal amount of all City general obligation indebtedness incurred
for "general" purposes, both limited tax and unlimited tax, to 2.5% of the actual value of taxable
property within the City. Within this 2.5% limitation, non-voted indebtedness is further limited
to 1.5% of the value of such taxable property.
The City is additionally authorized to incur general obligation indebtedness for the following
"special" purposes, with voter approval, in the total principal amount of up to the following
percentages of the actual value of taxable property within the City: water, artificial light and
sewers: 2.5%; open space and park facilities: 2.5%. The combination of unlimited tax and limited
tax general obligation debt for all purposes cannot exceed 7.5% of the City's assessed valuation.
The State statutory limits on City general obligation indebtedness described in this section are
more restrictive than those contained in the State Constitution. Both the Constitutional and
statutory debt limits may be exceeded if necessary to meet obligations made mandatory by State
law or, if necessary, to maintain the corporate existence of the City.
In computing total general obligation indebtedness, the following "assets" may be deducted
against the principal amount of indebtedness outstanding: (a) money and investments on deposit
in general obligation bond retirement funds: (b) taxes (both current and delinquent) levied for the
payment of general obligation indebtedness; and (c) delinquent (but not current) taxes due the
general fund.
In addition to limits on the total principal amount of general obligation indebtedness described in
this section, the Constitution and statutes of the State impose other limitations on the City's levy
of taxes upon real and personal property (See section herein entitled "TAXING POWERS AND
LIMITATIONS".)
AUTHORIZATION OF SHORT-TERM DEBT
As a result of 1982 legislation, any Washington municipal corporation may borrow money and
issue short-term obligations, the proceeds of which may be used for any lawful purpose. Short-
term obligations may be issued in anticipation of the receipt Of revenues, taxes, or grants or the
sale of (1) general obligation bonds if the bonds may be issued without the consent of the voters
or if previously ratified by the voters; (2) revenue bonds if the bonds have been authorized by
ordinance or resolution; or (3) local improvement district bonds if the bonds have been
authorized by ordinance or resolution. These short-term obligations shall be repaid out of money
derived from the source or sources in anticipation of which they were issued or from any money
legally available for this purpose.
Additionally, the City may incur short-term indebtedness in the following ways: first, in an
emergency, the Council members may put a plan into effect and authorize indebtedness outside
the current budget. All expenditures for emergency purpose shall be paid by warrants form any
available money in the fund properly chargeable with such expenditures. If there is insufficient
money on hand in the fund, the warrants become registered interest-bearing warrants. In adopting
the budget, for any fiscal year, the Council members shall appropriate funds to retire any
outstanding registered warrants issued since the adoption of the last preceding budget. Second,
the City may, without a vote of the electors, purchase property on a conditional sales contract if
the total contract amount, together with the other non-voted general obligation indebtedness of
the City, does not exceed 3/4 of 1% of the value of taxable property in the City; any item so
purchased must be budgeted for payment in accordance with the terms of the contract.
TAXING POWERS AND LIMITATIONS
Pursuant to Chapter 84.52.043 RCW, cities may levy, without a vote of the residents residing
therein, a maximum of $3.375 per thousand for general city purposes (the "regular levy"). Cities
with full-time firemen may levy an additional $.225 per thousand to fund the city's Fireman's
Pension Fund (Chapter 41.16.060 RCW), thus creating a maximum annual levy rate of $3.60 per
thousand. The City is currently levying $3.325 per thousand dollars of taxable assessed valuation
for its regular levy.
According to RCW 27.12.390, any city or town annexed to a rural library district, island library
district, or inter-county rural library district, such as the City, shall be entitled to levy up to $3.60
per thousand dollars of assessed valuation less any regular levy made by such library district in
the incorporated area, notwithstanding any other provision of law.
A city's regular property taxes are subject to the provisions of a state statute limiting the growth
of annual property taxes (Chapter 84.55.010 RCW). The limitation provides that the regular
property taxes payable in the following year shall not exceed 106% of the amount of the single
highest regular levy amount lawfully levied by the municipal entity in the three immediately
preceding calendar years plus an additional amount due to the incremental assessed valuation
increase in the municipal entity caused by new construction and property improvements. The
regular property taxes levied by a city may be increased above the 106% limitation upon the
affirmative vote of a majority of the voters residing in the municipal entity at an election held for
such purposes (Chapter 84.55.050 RCW).
On November 4, 1997, voters approved a state-wide referendum, which limits a municipality's
tax levy to an amount of 100% of the highest property tax levy of the three most recent years
multiplied by a limit factor. The limit factor is defined in the Property Tax Act as (i) the lesser of
106% or 100% plus inflation, or (ii) 106% or less, if approved by a majority plus one vote of the
governing body of the municipality upon a finding of substantial need. This limit is being
imposed beginning with collection year 1998.
AUDITING OF CITY FINANCES
The State Auditor is required to examine the affairs of cities at least once every two years. The
examination must include, among other things, the financial condition and resources of the City,
whether the laws and constitution of the State are being complied with, and the methods and
accuracy of the accounts and reports of the City. Reports of the Auditor's examinations are
required to be filed in the office of the State Auditor and in the auditing department of the City.
AUTHORIZED INVESTMENTS
Chapter 39.59 RCW limits the investment of public funds to the following authorized
investments: bonds of the State and any local government in the State, which bonds are rated at
the time of investment in one of the three highest credit ratings by a nationally recognized rating
agency; general obligation bonds of other states and subdivisions thereof so long as those bonds
are rated in one of the three highest categories; registered warrants of a local government within
the same county as the entity making the investment; and any investment authorized by law for
the treasurer of the State or any local government exclusive of certificates of deposit of banks or
bank branches not located in the State. Under chapter 43.84 RCW, the State Treasurer may invest
7
in non-negotiable certificates of deposit in designated qualified public depositories; in
obligations of the U.S. government, its agencies and wholly owned corporations; in bankers'
acceptances; in commercial paper; in repurchase agreements; in the obligations of the federal
home loan bank, federal national mortgage association and other government corporations
subject to statutory provisions. Utility revenue bonds and warrants of any city and bonds or
warrants of a local improvement district are also eligible investments (RCW 35.39.030).
Any municipal corporation, including the City, may authorize the investment of funds not
required for immediate expenditure by the County Treasurer. Such funds of the City, including
debt service funds, may be invested by the County Treasurer. The County Treasurer may, upon
the request of one or more units of local government that invest their money with the County,
combine those monies for the purposes of investment (RCW 36.29.022). The office of the
County Treasurer receives up to five percent of the earnings on such investments, subject to a
maximum of fifty dollars on each transaction, as its investment service fee. The County
Treasurer may reimburse its office for any expenses incurred in the establishment and
maintenance of such a County investment pool (RCW 36.29.024).
Local Government Investment Pool
The State Treasurer's Office administers the Washington State Local Government Investment
Pool (the "LGIP"), a $1.25 billion fund that invests money on behalf of more than 350 cities,
counties and special taxing districts. In its management of LGIP, the State Treasury adheres, at
all times, to the principles appropriate for the prudent investment of public funds. These are, in
priority order, (i) the safety of principal; (ii) the assurance of sufficient liquidity to meet cash
flow demands; and (iii) to attain the highest possible yield within the constraints of the first two
goals. Historically, the LGIP has had sufficient liquidity to meet all cash flow demands.
The LGIP, authorized by chapter 43.250 RCW, is a voluntary pool that provides its participants
the opportunity to benefit from the economies of scale inherent in pooling. It is also intended to
offer participants increased safety of principal and the ability to achieve a higher investment
yield than would otherwise be available to them. The LGIP is a conservatively managed, highly
liquid money market fund. The pool is restricted to investments with maturities of one year or
less, and the average investment life typically is less than 90 days. Permissible investments
include U.S. government and agency securities, bankers' acceptances, high quality commercial
paper, repurchase and reverse repurchase agreements, and certificates of deposit issued by
qualified Washington State depositories.
Authorized Investments for Bond Proceeds
In addition to the eligible investments discussed above, bond proceeds only may also be invested
in mutual funds with portfolios consisting of U.S. government and guaranteed agency securities
with average maturities of less than four years; municipal securities rated in one of the four
highest categories; and money market funds consisting of the same, so long as municipal
securities held in the fund(s) are in one of the two highest rating categories. Bond proceeds may
also be invested in shares of money market funds with portfolios of securities otherwise
authorized by law for investment by local governments (RCW 39.59.030).
The City's Investments
The investments of the City, except those of the Community Development Block Grant Fund, are
managed in a pooled format. Interest earnings are distributed monthly to the individual funds
based on their respective balances at the beginning of the month. These pooled investments are
classified on the balance sheet as cash and equivalents. As required by state statue, all
investments and deposits of the City's funds are obligations of the U.S. Government, U.S.
agency issues, deposits with the State Treasurer's Investment Pool, prime bankers' acceptances,
deposits with Washington State banks and savings and loan institutions or repurchase agreements
with authorized securities as collateral.
NET DIRECT DEBT AND ESTIMATED NET OVERLAPPING
GENERAL OBLIGATION DEBT
(As of December 31, 1997)
Direct Debt:
Voted General Obligation Bonds Outstanding ......................
Non-Voted Bonds Outstanding ..............................................
Non-Voted General Obligation Tax Anticipation Notes
(this issue) .........................................................................
Bank Line of Credit Outstanding ...........................................
Less: Debt Service Fund Balance ...........................................
Net Direct Debt .........................................................................
1,250,000
8,210
Estimated Net Overlapping Debt:
Net G.O. Debt Percent of Amount of
Outstandin~l Overla_o Qverlal¢
Kitsap County
Port of Bremerton
Bremerton Sch. Dist. No. 100-C
Central Kitsap Sch. Dist. No. 401
South Kitsap Sch. Dist. No. 402
$ 4.11% $
25.66
73.96
1.12
.05
Estimated Net Overlapping Debt: .......................................... $
Net Direct Plus Estimated Net Overlapping Debt: ......................................... $
NOTEED DEBT RATIOS OF THE CITY
Preliminary Assessed Valuation for collection Year 19982 .......................... $ 1,345,904,065
Estimated City Population (1997)3 ............................................................... 39,510
Assessed Valuation Per Capita .................................................................... $ 34,065
Net Direct Debt to Assessed Valuation .......................................................... %
Net Direct and Estimated Overlapping Debt to Assessed Valuation ........... %
Net Direct Debt Per Capita .......................................................................... $
Net Direct and Estimated Overlapping Debt Per Capita .............................. $
1 Adjusted to reflect the issuance of the Notes.
2 Preliminary assessed valuation for tax collection year 1998 is stated as the full assessed value of all taxable real and persona[
property in the City.
3 Source: Washington State Office of Financial Management (August 1997).
9
STATUTORY DEBT LIMIT CALCULATION
(As of December 31, 1997)!
Preliminary Taxable 1997 Assessed Valuation for Collection Year 1998 .............
I, General Purposes
a. Non-Voted Indebtedness (1.5% of Valuation)
Limit .....................................................................................................
Less: Non-Voted Bonds Outstanding ...............................................
Less: Non-Voted Notes Outstanding (the Notes) .............................
Less: Bank Line of Credit Outstanding .............................................
Plus: Cash and Investments in Debt Service Funds ..........................
Remaining Capacity for General Purposes (Nonvoted) ..............
b. Voted Indebtedness (2.5% of Valuation)
Limit ........... : .........................................................................................
Less: Voted Bonds Outstanding ........................................................
Less: Non-Voted Bonds Outstanding ...............................................
Less: Non-Voted Notes Outstanding (the Notes) .............................
Less: Bank Line of Credit Outstanding .............................................
Plus: Cash and Investments in Debt Service Funds ..........................
Remaining Capacity for General Purposes (Voted) ....................
Il. Utility Purposes (2.5% of Valuation)
Limit .....................................................................................................
Outstanding ..........................................................................................
Remaining Capacity for Utility Purposes ...................................
III. Parks and Open Space Purposes (2.5% of Valuation)
Limit .....................................................................................................
Outstanding ..........................................................................................
Remaining Capacity for Parks and Open Space Purposes ..........
$1,345,904,065
$ 20,188,561
(1,25o,ooo)
(8,210)
$
$ 33,647,6O2
"'"".C8,$ 5t ,-;91'8)--~---
(1,250,000)
(8,210)
$ 33,647,602
0
$ 33,647,602
$ 33,647,6O2
0
$ 33,647,602
Adjusted to reflect the issuance of the Notes.
10
Collection
Year
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
1993
1992
NOTE:
AD VALOREM TAX COLLECTION RECORD OF THE CITY
Taxable ~'~y eCaOr, loeb= ~..eedv y
Assessed Tax
Valuation2 Levy J Amount percent
1,345,904,0653 N/A4~ N/A4 N/A4
1,299,548,001 L[,~c~'{~ ~ (,(~)
1,223,940,521 $ 4,681,638 $4,478,455 95.66%
1,203,299,197 4,476,487 4,247,668 94.88%
1,169,824,600 4,144,873 3,973,275 95.86
1,072,545,656 4,292,888 4,110,011 95.74
Collected as of
December 31, 1997
Amount Percent
N/A4 N/A4
949,107,196 3,544,019 3,397,651 95.87
Taxes are due and payable on April 30, of each year. At least one half of the tax amount due must be paid
on or before April 30, or else the total amount becomes delinquent on May I. The second half of the tax
due is payable on or before October 31, becoming delinquent November 1.
AD VALOREM PROPERTY TAX RATES~
(Rates In Dollars per $1,000 of Assessed Valuation)
City School Emergency
Levy General City City State Kitsap Port of Dist. No. Medical Regional
Year Fuod Note~ Soecial School Coun,tyBremerton 100C PUD Services Library Total
1997 $3.3469 $.2153 $ 0 $3.6467 $1.6641 $.4338 $5.1331 $.0998 $.2500 $.9781 $15.7678
1996 3.3573 .2255 0 3.4848 1.6347 .4287 5.1551 .0939 .2500 .4677 15.0977
1995 3.2470 .2308 0 3.5508 1.2249 .4079 2.1387 .0940 .2500 .4595 11.6036
1994 3.0635 .2393 0 3.4297 1.1731 .3897 5.0440 .0865 .2490 .4447 14.1210
1993 3.0871 .2543 .4339 3.3978 1.2383 .3955 5.2311 .0904 .2500 .4283 14.8067
l Source: Kitsap County Treasurer
2 Assessed valuation is stated as the assessed valuation of all taxable real and personal property in the City.
3 Preliminary, subject to change
4 Not available; to be collected
COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF GENERAL FUND
REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES ]
(FISCAL YEAR ENDING DECEMBER 31)
Revenues: Taxes
Licenses & Permits
Intergovernmental
Charges for Services
Fines & Forfeits
Miscellaneous
Total Revenues
1996 1995 1994 1993 1992
$15,498.917 $14,501,567 $14,137,828 $13,340,322 $12,254,300
312,203 298,989 390,454 362,968 367,369
742,432 847,272 728,407 778,927 1,199,015
1,864,848 1,783,646 1,394,815 1,502.067 1,265,887
433,775 483,964 593,093 556,447 579,071
342.700 248.74) 240.672 261.198 295.810
19,194,875 $18,164,181 $17,485,269 $16,801,929 $15,961,452
Expenditures:
General Government $5,313,516 $5,009,311 $4,843.656 $5,039,485 $4,702,330
Security of Persons & Prop, 9,313,570 8,614,262 8,219,945 7,850,957 7,326,703
Physical Environment 942,764 848,346 587.931 698,08i0 655,845
Transportation 959,327 850,639 840.530 879,838 805,809
Economic Environment 276,689 454,250 514,320 448,824 352,504
Mental & Physical Health 30,818 264,239 250,493 249,239 236,594
Culture & Recreation 1,867.204 1,566,669 1,426,763 1,323,285 1,178,131
Redemption of Gen. L.T. 0 0 24,672 30,735 28,393
Debt
Debt Service 85,540 59,860 44,593 18,414 125.479
Capital Outlay 404.888 486.005 385.414 277,113 228.162
Total Expenditures $19,194,316 $18,153,581 $17,138,317 $16,815,970 $15,639,950
Other Financing Sources
(Uses)
Operating Transfers In
Operating Transfers Out
General Fixed Assets
Disposal
Proceeds & General
L.T. Debt
$196,671 $6,000 $6,000 $6,000 $6,000
(357,180) (307,836) (398,376) (236,725) (334,764)
36,671 2,886 59,640 0 ,893
237.700
Total Other Financing
Sources (Uses) $113,916 $(298,950) $(323,736) $(230,725)
$326,871
Fund Balance, January 1 $709,671 $1,064,368 $(44,548) $206,399 $217,464
Prior Year's Corrections 0 0 0 0 0
Residual Equity Transfers 6,435 (65,128) 9,717 (6,108) (1.545)
Other Equity Changes 30.554 (1.219'} 1.084.983 (7)) {4,149)
'TOTAL ENDING FUND $860,576 $709.671 $1,064,368 $(44.548) $206.401
BALANCE
CONTINGENCY RESERVE FUND
YEAR-END BALANCES~,2
Ending Fund Balance
1996 1995 1994 1993 1992
$673,110 $709,040 $704,922 $387,205 $360,523
Source: City of Bremerton Annual Financial Reports. All years have been audited by the Washington State Auditor's Office.
Money in this fund in excess of $650.000 is transferred to the General Fund to finance capital purchases.
12
GENERAL FUND BUDGET
FOR 1997 AND 1998t
(Fiscal Year Ending December 31)
REVENUES
Beginning Fund Balance .......................... : ............................. $
Taxes ......................................................................................
Licenses and Permits ..............................................................
Intergovernmental Revenue ...................................................
Charges for Services ...............................................................
Fines and Forfeitures ..............................................................
Miscellaneous and Other ........................................................
Total Revenue ............................................................................ $
1997
458,500
15,778,000
342,625
666,098
1,634,794
430,361
2,964,095
22,274,473
EXPENDITURES
General Government
City Council ........................................................................... $
Executive ................................................................................
Administrative Services2 .......................................................
Police & Fire Pension .....................................................
Intergovernmental Service ..............................................
Misc. Non-Departmental ................................................
Legal Department ...................................................................
Human Resources ...................................................................
Community Development ......................................................
City Auditor ...........................................................................
Public Safety
Police Department ..................................................................
Fire Department .....................................................................
Public Works
General Facilities ...................................................................
Engineering ............................................................................
Transportation ........................................................................
Leisure Services
General Parks .........................................................................
Recreation ...............................................................................
Senior Center ..........................................................................
Pool .........................................................................................
Cemetery Services ..................................................................
Athletics .................................................................................
Tax Anticipation Note Debt Service ......................................
Total Current Expenditures ................................................... $
146,675
204,162
1,915,763
1,315,057
110,986
1,349,771
460,133
222,867
700,189
84,983
5,793,222
3,571,381
454,908
466,986
977,105
1,026,162
198,462
154,625
264,694
69,938
286,404
2.5O0.009
22,274,473
Source: City of Bremerton.
City Clerk, Treasurer and Information Services are combined under Administrative Services.
13
1998
CITY PROFILE
The City was incorporated in 1901 and operates as Home Rule Charter City with a Mayor
Council form of government. The Council is comprised of nine members, elected by district by
the citizens of the City, each serving a four-year term. The Council Members are part-time
elected officials who exercise the legislative powers of the City and determine matters of policy.
The Mayor, a full-time elected official, is the chief executive officer of the City. The Officers
and department directors are appointed by the mayor with Council approval.
The City provides a full range of municipal services including fire and police protection, parks
and recreation facilities/activities, streets, planning, zoning and general administrative services.
The City operates water, sewer and stormwater utility systems. Currently, there are 322 full-time
employees of the City.
Key Personnel
Lynn Horton, Mayor: Ms. Horton began her first term as Mayor of the City in 1994. Before her
election as mayor, she served for six years on the Bremerton City Council. She is the past Chair
and current Board Member of the Kitsap Regional Planning Council, and a board member of
Kitsap Transit, Kitsap County Cen-Com and the Bremerton-Kitsap County Health Department.
Ms. Horton is a graduate of the University of Washington and has been a resident of the City
since 1974.
Richard Hanna, City Treasurer: Mr. Hanna has been the Treasurer of the City of Bremerton
since 1986. Before joining the City, he was Treasurer of the City of Centralia, Washington. Mr.
Hanna received his Bachelor's Degree in Accounting from Western Washington University in
1974 and a Masters of Business Administration Deeree in Finance from University of Puget
Sound in 1983. Mr. Hanna is a member of the W~ashington Finance Officers Association,
Washington Municipal Treasurers Association and Puget Sound Finance Officers Association.
Labor Relations
The City has entered into written agreements with each of the bargaining groups set forth below;
agreements contain provisions on such matters as vacations, sick leave, medical and dental
insurance, salaries, working conditions and grievance procedures.
Employees of the City represented by bargaining units are as follows:
Union Membership
Teamsters Local 589 130
Patrolman's Association 53
Police Management Association 5
International Association of 44
Fire Fighters Local 437
Contract Period Expiration Date
~_._.__.-.--.-.-----
~7 ~\
3 yr. J
2 yr. 12/31/961
3 yr. 12/31/99
3 yr. 12/31/98
In accordance with State requirements, the City conducts full negotiations with all bargaining
units. The City's management considers its relations with employees to be satisfactory.
I Under negotiation
,5'7
SCHEDULE OF GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND DEBT SERVICE FOR THE CiTY1
(As of December 31, 1997)
Outstanding
Voted General Obligation Bonds
Non-Voted
General Obligation Bonds
Total
Year Principal Interest Principal Interest All Bonds
1998 . $ 230,000 $ 53,871 $ 428,769 $ 518,715 $1,231,355
1999 220,000 58,561 452,391 496,105 1,227,057
2000 170,000 48,352 480,758 471,815 1,170,925
2001 185,000 40,805 680,000 445,850 1,351,655
2002 190,000 32,648 720,000 406,057 1,348,705
2003 205,000 23,906 760,000 363,213 1,352,119
2004 135,000 16,308 810,000 317,252 1,278,560
2005 140,000 10,085 855,000 267,563 1,272,648
2006 150,000 3,450 910,00t3 213,872 1,277,322
2007 0 0 965,000 155,663 1,120,663
2008 0 0 275,000 92,475 367,475
2009 0 0 290,000 75,370 365,370
2010 0 0 315,000 57,195 372,195
2011 0 0 335,000 37,017 372,017
2012 0 0 275.000 15.537 290,,537
Total $1,625,000 $ 424,014 $ 8,551,918 $ 3,933,699 $14,534,631
I Does not include the Notes.
GENERAL AND ECONOMIC INFORMATION
The City of Bremerton, is located on Puget Sound, approximately 15 miles west of Seattle and
35 miles north of Tacoma. The largest city in Kitsap County (the "County"), Bremerton was
incorporated in 1901 and has an estimated 1997 population of 39,510. Kitsap County, covering
393 square miles of land, also includes the following other incorporated areas: Bainbridge Island
(1997 population 18,920), Port Orchard (1997 population 6,965) and Poulsbo (1997 population
6,175).
Military Presence
The economy of the City is closely tied to the United States Navy. The Puget Sound Naval
Shipyard in Bremerton ("PSNS") is the largest Naval shipyard on the Pacific Coast and is the
only West Coast shipyard capable of working on nuclear ships. With 9,002 civilian employees,
10,219 military personnel, and 12,500 military family members, the shipyard is also the only
facility capable of decommissioning and recycling nuclear submarines which are being
disassembled in accordance with Strategic Arms Limitations Treaties. The shipyard is the largest
naval employer in the State. The economic impact of PSNS locally is $700 million per year.
The Naval Supply Center is another local military facili~ in the City, with about 200 employees.
The addition of two admirals to PSNS in 1997 reflects the Navy's commitment to the area.
Puget Sound is now the third largest Navy fleet concentration in the U.S.
Located a few miles north of the City of Bremerton is the Naval Submarine Base at Bangor.
Bangor serves as a home base for Trident Missile submarines, the USS Parche fast attack
submarine and various support commands. The base provides employment to 5,000 civilians,
and 5,500 military personnel. Another 10,000 military family members are connected to the
base. As the only operational base of its kind on the Pacific Coast, Bangor is considered to be
very important to the country by the Department of Defense. Annual local economic impact of
Bangor is $230 million are local residents.
Another military installation located near the City is the Naval Undersea Warfare Engineering
Station at Keyport. The station tests and maintains torpedoes, provides maintenance support for
fire control equipment and mines, and provides other engineering-related services for undersea
warfare. The Undersea Warfare Station employs approximately 1,950 civilian,'150 military and
200 military family members are local residents.
Recent base closures in other geographic regions outside of Washington have had a positive
impact on growth in the City and Kitsap County. PSNS is the new home of the Carrier Group
Three staff with 70 additional personnel and the USS Bridge AOE (10) with an additional 650
personnel.
U.S. Navy Projects in Kitsap County
Recent historical and projected spending for Navy construction and related facilities support
work in Kitsap County provided by the U.S. Navy Engineering Field. Activity Northwest office
as follows:
Kitsap County
Fiscal Year Amount (millions)
1995 $ 20O.7
1996 192.3
1997 142.3
1998 127.8
1999 115.8
2000 109.3
Among the larger planned Navy Construction projects over the next five years in Kitsap County
are the following:
Fiscal Project Location Estimated Value Range
Year ($Million)
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
Utility Monitor and Control System
Child Development Center
W/S Housing Revitalization Keyport
W/S Housing OlallaIJP
Security Upgrade (SWFPAC)
Naval Hospital Addition
Motor Transfer FACMODS
U&SI (SWFPAC)
RB Magazine Modifications (SWFPAC)
Servmart
QAO Facility
Dredging Piers 3B&3D
Kitchens/Baths, Phase V (Housing)
W/S Revitalization
Community Support Facility
Oily Wastewater Collection
Hazardous Waste Storage
Pier Delta Expansion
Ammunition Wharf (SWFPAC)
Shore Power (TRF)
Waterfront Shops (TRF)
Waterfront Service Supply Bldg.
W/S Revitalization FY75 Phase II
Keyport 0-1
PSNS 1-5
Bangor 1-5
PSNS 5-10
Bangor 1-5
Bremerton 10+
Bangor 0-1
Bangor 1-5
Bangor 1-5
FISC 1-5
PSNS 5-10
PSNS 5-10
Bangor 5-10
Jackson Park 5-10
PSNS 1-5
PSNS 5-10
PSNS 5-10
PSNS 10+
Bangor 0-1
Bangor 1-5
Bangor i-5
PSNS 1-5
Jackson Park 5-10
Other Major Employers
The Port of Bremerton (the "Port") operates the Bremerton National Airport and the 560-acre
Olympic View Industrial Park, both located approximately 10 miles southwest of the City. The
park includes 22 firms which employ a total of approximately 500 people. The Port has recently
been designated a foreign trade zone, which is expected to enhance international trade locally.
Several companies are undergoing expansion near or adjacent to the Bremerton National Airport,
including an aircraft parts recycling company, and an electro-mechanical products manufacturer,
which would employ up to 65 people within five years.
Bremerton National Airport is the largest airport in the County, with a 6,200-foot runway and
full instrumentation and lighting systems. The airport can handle all general aviation aircraft and
most transport and military planes. Charter passenger and air freight services are available to
SeaTac Airport, the major international airport in the Puget Sound area. The airport is currently
undergoing improvements.
Health care needs are met by several facilities in the Bremerton area including the Naval
Hospital - Bremerton with 380 civilian, 750 military and 2,500 military family members.
Harrison Memorial Hospital in Bremerton has 1,300 employees.' In late 1993, Harrison
Memorial completed a $20.5 million expansion project which doubled the number of operating
rooms; expanded the laboratory and administration areas; and provided additional space for
patient education and an outpatient mental health clinic. A number of nursing homes and
retirement complexes are also located in Bremerton.
Olympic College is a two-year public community college located in Bremerton, with an
enrollment of approximately 4,310 (full-time equivalents) and 600 employees. The college
offers associate of arts degrees in four fields, as well as adult education and non-credit courses,
and began a four-year degree program (called "2-Plus-2") in 1994. The 2-Plus-2 degree program
is associated with the University of Washington, Tacoma branch. The Olympic College campus
will be expanding in the years ahead due to a private donation of 20 acres of land for that
purpose near Poulsbo.
New Developments
Among the projects recently completed or proposed for development in Bremerton are the
following:
· Development of the first phase of a Planned Unit Development, Sinclair Landing, will soon
begin on the downtown waterfront. A combination of public and private uses make up this
38-acre project, including: a transit center, new ferry terminal, expansion of the waterfront
park, expansion of the marina, a new terminal for passenger-only ferry service, parking,
retail use, restaurants, offices, an 80-room inn, a six-plex cinema and multi-family housing,
all connected with pedestrian corridors. The majority of the project is expected to take
three years to complete and will include private investment of over $150 million. The
transportation center will constitute the first element of the project to be constructed. A
new ferry terminal, new dock for two new passenger-only ferries and adjacent transit center
will be constructed with funding from Kitsap Transit Authority and the Washington State
Department of Transportation ("DOT"). Construction is expected to begin by the end of
1997,
· The Port of Bremerton is developing a 128-acre light industrial business complex known as
West Puget Tech Park. The first phase of the project includes the construction of a 30,000
square-foot incubator building on 2.45 acres with infrastructure. Potential employment is
85 to 100 people for this phase. The remainder of the park is intended to be developed over
a 10-year period, on a demand basis.
· A Downtown Revitalization Task Force has been formed in Bremerton as a volunteer
group of downtown business and government representatives and interested citizens. Its
purpose is to improve the appearance of and bring new business and art concerns to the
area. Projects to date include flower barrels, relocation of the Kitsap Historical Museum to
downtown Bremerton, an adopt-a-block program, local concerts and festivals.
· Pope Resources, a timber and land management company based in Poulsbo, and its
subsidiary, Olympic Resource Management, have recently obtained land within the City
that is planned for development as a 61-acre business park and 209 acres for 450 new
homes. Known as West Hills, the Project is expected to be submitted to the City for permit
review soon.
· The Kitsap County Economic Development Council (EDC) has begun a five-year program
to recruit 2,001 new primary jobs in Kitsap County, in a major effort to diversity the local
economy. It is expected that at least 2,400 new secondary jobs will result from this
campaign, and will generate more than $80 million a year to the local economy. Known as
"Business Connection 2001", this campaign is being patterned after other successful
programs undertaken in communities throughout the state. The EDC's program began in
1997 with solicitation of funds needed to attract new businesses.
· Other new developments in the City include the S3 million renovation of the historic
Admiral Theater, a new art gallery, computer game store and restaurant, all in the
downtown area.
· The Doctors Clinic, a regional health care provider, recently relocated its headquarters and
70 of its employees from various sites to an existing downtown office building.
· A permit application has been received by the City for the development of a 34-unit
Alzheimer's care facility on a 2.4-acre site.
· The City is conducting a site plan review of the proposed Auto Center Industrial Park. The
project includes clearing and grading of roadways and building pads for development of a
16.4 acre industrial park.
Following are economic indicators of the City and the County.
KITSAP COUNTY POPULATION
City of Other Kitsap County
Year Bremerton Incorporated Unincorporated
38,600
38.496
39.610
35920
36.380
38.990
37040
38.142
1997
1996
1995
1994
1993
1992
1991
1990
Kitsap
County
Total
32,060 158,740 229,400
31,210 155,120 224,700
29,915 151,075 220,600
28,625 148,655 213,200
28,160 145,460 210,000
27,405 139,205 205,600
26,639 2 132,821 196,500
12,913 138,676 189,731
TAXABLE RETAIL SA~ES 3
Year Kitsap County City of Breme~on
1996 $1,836,198,934 $ 477,467,218
1995 1,768,304,057 451,277,414
1994 1,774,185,000 461,026,409
1993 1,658,975,823 422,329,475
1992 1,551,862,692 409,553,371
1991 1,438,615,382 390,094,567
CITY OF BREMERTON MAJOR TAXPAYERS4
Taxpayer
Business
Assessed Valuation for
1998 Collection Year
Puget Sound Energy
US West Inc.
HMI, Inc.
Michael Connolley
Viewcrest Villages Limited Partnership
Merit Company
FirLane Terrace Convention Center
East Towne Center
Cascade Natural Gas
Bremerton Cascade Associates
Electric Utility $
Telecommunications
Developer
Olympic College Business Svcs.
Apartments
Retail
Convention Center
Community Center
Gas Utility
Apartments
21,832,996
18,316,212
11,039,360
8,036,000
7,828,000
6,729,000
6,504,000
6,231,000
5,918,012
5,775,000
Source: Washington State Office of Financial Management and U.S. Census.
The large increase is due to the annexation of the unincorporated areas of Bainbridge island to the new City of Bainbridge Island.
Source: Washington State Department ot Revenue.
Source: Kitsap County Assessor's Office.
19 ~.~ J
SEATTLE-BREMERTON FERRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS 1
Year Number of Vehicles Number of Passengers
1996 731,926 1,863,596
1995 751,266 1,820,433
1994 719,125 1,719,414
1993 676,031 1,694,234
1992 667,251 1,856,310
1991 659,827 1,806,744
Year
1996
1995
1994
1993
1992
1991
KITSAP COUNTY AND WASHINGTON STATE
LABOR FORCE AND AVERAGE ANNUAL UNEMPLOYMENT2,3
Resident Civilian Average Annual Total
Labor Force Unemployment Employment Kitsap County (%) Washington (%)
93,500 6,300 87,200 6.7 6.5
89,600 6,000 83,600 6.7 6.4
88,600 5,300 83,300 6.0 6.4
89,600 6,100 83,500 6.8 7.6
88,500 5,300 83,200 6.0 7.6
85,200 4,200 81,000 4.9 6.4
KITSAP COUNTY AND WASHINGTON STATE
INCOME ESTIMATES4
Kitsap County Per Capita Income
Year Personal Income ($000) Kitsap County Washington
1995 $ 4,529,000 $ 20,004 $ 23,709
1994 4,293,000 19,802 22,715
1993 4,108,000 19,272 22,010
1992 3,902,000 18,607 21,333
1991 3,601,000 17,971 20,168
PRESERVATION OF TAX EXEMPTION
The City has covenanted, in the Ordinance, to take all actions necessary to prevent interest on the
Notes from being included in gross income for federal income tax purpose, and it will neither
take any action nor make or permit any use of proceeds of the Notes or other funds of the City
treated as proceeds of the Notes at any time during the term of the Notes which will cause
interest on the Notes to be included in gross income for federal income tax purposes. The City
certifies that it has not been notified of any listing or proposed listing by the Internal Revenue
Service to the effect that it is a Note issuer whose arbitrage certifications may not be relied upon.
Source: Washington State Department of Transportation, Marine Division. Passengers total includes the passenger-only ferries and
vehicle ferries.
Includes nonagricultural wage and salary, self-employed, unpaid family workers, domestics, agricultural workers, labor disputants.
Source: Washington State Department of Employment Security.
Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis.
20
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
Some or all of the fees of the Underwriter and Bond Counsel are contingent upon the issuance
and sale of the Notes Furthermore, Bond Counsel from time to time serves as counsel to the
Underwriter with respect to issuers other than the City and transactions other than the issuance of
the Notes. None of the council members or other officers of the City have interests in the
issuance of the Bonds that are prohibited by applicable law.
TAX EXEMPTION
Exclusion from Gross Income
In the opinion of Bond Counsel, assuming compliance by the City with applicable requirements
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code"), including arbitrage
requirements under Section 148 of the Code, interest on the Notes is excluded from gross income
of registered owners for federal income tax purposes under existing federal law and is not an
item of tax preference for purposes of the alternative minimum tax applicable to individuals.
Continuing Requirements
The City is required to comply with certain requirements of the Code after the date of issuance of
the Notes in order to maintain the exclusion of the interest on the Notes from gross income for
federal income tax purposes, including, without limitation, requirements concerning the qualified
use of Note proceeds and the facilities financed or refinanced with Note proceeds, limitations on
investing gross proceeds of the Notes in higher yielding investments in certain circumstances and
the requirement to calculate and rebate to the United States certain investment earnings on gross
proceeds of the Notes in the event that all Note proceeds have not been spent within certain
periods prescribed by the Code. The City has covenanted in the Ordinance to comply with those
requirements, but if the City fails to comply with those requirements, interest on the Notes could
become taxable retroactive to the date of issuance of the Notes. Bond Counsel has not undertaken
and does not undertake to monitor the City's compliance with such requirements.
Corporate Alternative Minimum Tax
While interest on the Notes also is not an item of tax preference for purposes of the alternative
minimum tax applicable to corporations, under Section 55 of the Code, tax-exempt interest,
including interest on the Notes, received by corporations is taken into account in the computation
of adjusted current earnings for purposes of the alternative minimum tax applicable to
corporations (as defined for federal income tax purposes). Under the Code, alternative minimum
taxable income of a corporation will be increased by 75% of the excess of the corporation's
adjusted current earnings (including any tax-exempt interest) over the corporation's alternative
minimum taxable income determined without regard to such increase. A corporation's alternative
minimum taxable income, so computed, that is in excess of an exemption of $40,000, which
exemption will be reduced (but not below zero) by 25% of the amount by which the
corporation's alternative minimum taxable income exceeds $150,000, is then subject to a 20%
minimum tax.
For taxable years beginning after December 31, 1997, the corporate alternative minimum tax is
repealed for a small business corporation that had average gross receipts of less than $5 million
for the 3-year period beginning after December 31, 1994, and such a small business corporation
will continue to be exempt from the corporate alternative minimum tax so long as its average
gross receipts do not exceed $7.5 million.
Tax on Certain Passive Investment Income of S Corporations
Under Section 1375 of the Code, certain excess net passive investment income, including interest
on the Notes, received by an S corporation (a corporation treated as a partnership for most
federal tax purposes) that has Subchapter C earnings and profits at the close of the taxable year
may be subject to federal income taxation at the highest rate applicable to corporations if more
than 25% of the gross receipts of such S corporation is passive investment income.
Foreign Branch Profits Tax
Interest on the Notes may be subject to the foreign branch profits tax imposed by Section 884 of
the Code when the Notes are owned by, and effectively connected with a trade or business of, a
United States branch of a foreign corporation.
CERTAIN OTHER FEDERAL TAX CONSEQUENCES
Notes are "Qualified Tax-Exempt Obligations" for Financial Institutions
Section 265 of the Code provides that 100 percent of any interest expense incurred by banks and
other financial institutions for interest allocable to tax-exempt obligations acquired after
August 7, 1986, will be disallowed as a tax deduction. However, if the tax-exempt obligations
are obligations other than private activity bonds or notes, are issued by a governmental unit that,
together with all entities subordinate to it, does not reasonably anticipate issuing more than
$10,000,000 of tax-exempt obligations (other than private activity bonds or notes and other
obligations not required to be included in such calculation) in the current calendar year, and are
designated by the governmental unit as "qualified tax-exempt obligations," only 20 percent of
any interest expense deduction allocable to those obligations will be disallowed.
The City is a governmental unit that, together with all subordinate entities, reasonably anticipates
issuing less than $10,000,000 of tax-exempt obligations (other than private activity bonds or
notes and other obligations not required to be included in such calculation) during the current
calendar year, and has designated the Notes as "qualified tax-exempt obligations" for purposes of
the 80 percent financial institution interest expense deduction. Therefore, only 20 percent of the
interest expense deduction of a financial institution allocable to the Notes will be disallowed for
federal income tax purposes.
Reduction of Loss Reserve Deductions for Property & Casualty Insurance Companies
Under Section 832 of the Code, interest on the Notes received by property and casualty insurance
companies will reduce tax deductions for loss reserves otherwise available to such companies by
an amount equal to 15 percent of tax-exempt interest received during the taxable year.
Effect on Certain Social Security and Retirement Benefits
Section 86 of the Code requires recipients of certain Social Security and certain Railroad
Retirement benefits to take receipt or accruals of interest on the Notes into account in
determining gross income.
Other Possible Federal Tax Consequences
Receipt of interest on the Notes may have other federal tax consequences as to which prospective
purchasers of the Notes may wish to consult their own tax advisors.
ABSENCE OF MATERIAL LITIGATION
There is no litigation of any kind now pending or, to the knowledge of the City, threatened to
restrain or enjoin the issuance or delivery of the Notes or in any manner questioning the
proceedings and authority under which the Notes are issued or affecting the ability of the City to
pay the principal of or the interest on the Notes.
22
APPROVAL OF BOND COUNSEL
Legal matters incident to the authorization, issuance and sale of Notes by the City are subject to
the approving legal opinion of Foster Pepper & Shefelman PLLC, Note counsel. A copy of the
opinion of Note counsel will be delivered with the Notes. Note counsel has reviewed this
document only to confirm that the portions of it describing the Notes and the City's authority to
issue them conform to the Notes and the applicable laws under which they are issued.
CONTINUING DISCLOSURE
Undertaking to Provide Notice of Specified Material Events
To meet the requirements of paragraph (b)(5) of the United States Securities and Exchange
Commission ("SEC") Rule 15c2-12 (the "Rule"), to the extent applicable to an issue of
municipal securities with a stated maturity of 18 months or less under paragraph (d) (3) of the
Rule, as applicable to a participating underwriter for the Notes, the City will undertake (the
"Undertaking") for the benefit of holders of the Notes to provide or cause to be provided, either
directly or through a d~signated agent, to each nationally recognized municipal securities
information repository designated by the SEC in accordance with the Rule ("NRMSIR") or to the
Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board ("MSRB") and to a state information depository., if any,
established in the State of Washington (the "SID"), timely notice of the occurrence of any of the
following events with respect to the Notes, if material: (i) principal and interest payment
delinquencies; (ii) non-payment related defaults; (iii) unscheduled draws on debt service reserves
reflecting financial difficulties; (iv) unscheduled draws on credit enhancements reflecting
financial difficulties; (v) substitution of credit or liquidity providers, or their failure to perform;
(vi) adverse tax opinions or events affecting the tax-exempt status of the Notes; (vii)
modifications to rights of holders of the Notes; (viii) Note calls (other than scheduled mandatory
redemption of Term Notes); (ix) defeasances; (x) release, substitution, or sale of property
securing repayment of the Notes; and (xi) rating changes.
Amendment of Undertaking
The Undertaking is subject to amendment after the primary offering of the Notes without the
consent of any holder of any Note, or of any broker, dealer, municipal securities dealer,
participating underwriter, rating agency, NRMSIR, the SID or the MSRB, under the
circumstances and in the manner permitted by the Rule.
The City will give notice to each NtLMSIR or the MSRB and the SID, of the substance (or
provide a copy) of any amendment to the Undertaking and a brief statement of the reasons for the
amendment. If the amendment changes the type of annual financial information to be provided,
the notice also will include a narrative explanation of the effect of that change in the type of
information to be provided.
Termination of Undertaking.
The City's obligations under the Undertaking shall terminate upon the legal defeasance of all of
the Notes. In addition, the City's obligations under the Undertaking shall terminate if those
provisions of the Rule which require the City to comply with the Undertaking become legally
inapplicable in respect of the Notes for any reason, as confirmed by an opinion of nationally
recognized Note counsel or other counsel familiar with federal securities laws delivered to the
City, and the City provides timely notice of such termination to each NRMSIR or the MSRB and
the SID.
Remedy for Failure to Comply with Undertaking.
If the City or any other obligated person fails to comply with the Undertaking, the City will
proceed with due diligence to cause such noncompliance to be corrected as soon as practicable
after the City learns of that failure. No failure by the City or other obligated person to comply
with the Undertaking will constitute a default in respect of the Notes. The sole remedy of any
holder of a Note will be to take such actions as that holder deems necessary, including seeking an
order of specific performance from an appropriate court, to compel the City or other obligated
person to comply with the Undertaking.
Prior Compliance with Continuing Disclosure Undertakings.
The City is in compliance with prior written undertakings under the Rule with respect to its
obligations.
UNDERWRITING
The Underwriter has agreed, subject to certain conditions, to purchase all of the Notes, if any are
purchased, at a price of ~% of the par value of the Notes, plus accrued interest from the dated
date to the settlement date. The Notes will be reoffered at an average price of % of the par
value of the Notes, resulting in a underwriting spread of %. After the initial public offering,
the public offering prices may be varied from time to time.
CONCLUDING STATEMENT
All estimates, assumptions, statistical information and other statements contained herein, while
taken from sources considered reliable, are not guaranteed by the City or the Underwriter. So far
as any statement herein includes matters of opinion, or estimates of future expenses and income,
whether or not expressly so stated, they are intended merely as such and not as representations of
fact.
The information contained herein should not be construed as representing all conditions affecting
the City or the Notes. Additional information may be obtained directly from the City or the
Underwriter.
The foregoing statements relating to the Ordinance and other docurffents are in all respects
subject to and qualified in their entirety by provisions of such documents.
This Official Statement, starting with the cover page and all subsequent pages, including the
appendices, comprise the entire Official Statement, which has been approved by the City. The
City has represented to the Underwriter that the portions of this Official Statement directly
pertaining to the City neither contain any misrepresentation of material fact nor omit any material
fact necessary to understand the financial, economic or legal nature of the City or any
information presented herein.
¥?
APPENDIX A
FORM OF LEGAL OPINION
CITY OF BREMERTON
1998 CASH FLOW PROJECTION
Thousands
2000
1500
500
0
-500 ..........
-1000 '"" ."
-1500
DEC JAN
FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP
I+CASH I
OCT NOV DEC
AGENDA BILL
BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL
1. SUBJECT: Resolution #~ ~ 6/2 , regarding
recovery of fees for the removal of vegetation on the
listed properties.
FOR AGENDA OF: JAN. 28, 1998
ORIGINATING DEPT.: Building Dept.
ORIGINATOR: Judy Johnson ~
DATE SUBMITTED:
2. CLEARANCES: (Comment on back if 3.
necessary)
~'-Clerk: ~'~ .~~
City Attorney:~~
ENDORSEMENT ~ INFORMATION
EXHIBITS:
1. Resolution # ~ ~7_._
2. Property Identification List
3. Photos
__ APPROVED BY COUNCIL PRE]~E_NT ~Q~R ~BMITTAL:
COUNCIL PRESIDENT _~ ~/ ' ~
4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION.
Ordinance g4584 declares that it is unlawful and a nuisance to ailow, continue or maintain grass and weeds
exceeding twelve (12) inches in height, shrubs, brush, vines or trees which constitute a fire hazard or provide a harborage for
rats, rodents or horticultural pests, or noxious and poisonous plants. The listed properties are currently in ~iolation of the
ordinance and pursuant to Section 9.14 of the Bremerton Municipal Code, Council is asked to approve the removal of the
nuisance vegetation on the property and collection of the costs incurred by personal judgment against the owner and a lien
against the property.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that Council, by Resolution # o~ ~ 9/.~, order that the nuisance vegetation on
the properties identified by the attached listing be removed by the City with fees incurred collected as
reasonable abatement costs, which shall become a personal judgment against the owner and a lien against
the property.
9. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Judy Johnson
ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: Judy Johnson
EXPIRATION DATE: N/A
REVIEW DATE: N/A
PULLED TABLED
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE:
APPROVED
10. NOTICE OF ACTION
~ DISAPPROVED ~ AMENDED
DATE:
11. AGENDA BILL NO.:
7/
2. CLEARANCE COMMENTS:
5. IMPACT OF NON-PASSAGE:
Ordinance #4584 would not be enforced and nuisance vegetation would continue to thrive in the
City of Bremerton.
6. IMPACT ON STAFFING~ BUDGETS~ FACILITIES~ EQUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCES:
e
RESEARCH SOURCES:
N/A
m so Jxios # d
A RESOLUTION approving nuisance vegetation abatement on the listed
properties and determining means of collection of costs incurred for its
removal.
WHEREAS, the City of Bremerton passed ordinance//4584 in February of 1997, which declares certain
vegetation a public nuisance, a fire hazard and a menace to public health, safety and welfare and requiring its
abatement; and
WHEREAS, Section 9.14 of the Bremerton Municipal Code allows the City to remove nuisance
vegetation and recoup the costs by personal judgment against the property owner and as a lien against the
property; and
WHEREAS, the City Council is charged with determining whether the vegetation is a nuisance and
whether it shall be removed and has considered the report filed by the Building Official and any protests or
objection filed; now therefore,
BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Bremerton:
1. That the vegetation shown to exist on the listed properties is a nuisance.
2. That the City of Bremerton will exercise its right to remove said nuisance vegetation and recapture
abatement fees by pursuing a personal judgment against the property owner and filing a lien against the
property.
19
PASSED, by the City Council of the City of Bremerton this
day of
DAVID FARR
Council President
WEED ABATEMENT LISTING
JANUARY 28, 1998
401 S. YANTIC AVENUE
JASON PUSTEK
P.O. BOX 4716
BREMERTON, WA
98312
1337 DORA AVENUE
ALLAN CUNNINGHAM
415 ROBINWOOD DR NE
BAINBRIDGE ISLAND, WA
98110
733 S. SUMMIT AVENUE
DARLENE JOHNSTON
733 S. SUMMIT AVENUE
BREMERTON, WA 98312
218 S. SUMMIT AVENUE
MARY ANN RENFRO
239 "G" AVENUE
CORONADO, CA 92118
1521 N. CALLOW AVENUE
WILLIAM AND JANICE MACKEM
1521 N. CALLOW AVENUE
BREMERTON, WA 98312
1710 ANDERSON STREET
ARTHUR S. ANDERSON
1712 OHIO AVENUE
BREMERTON, WA 98337-1645
AGENDA BILL
BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING - APPEAL OF DNS
Proposal: Amendment to Shoreline Master Program
Appellant: Victor F. Targett II
DCD File #: APL97-0018 [SEP97-0033]
FOR AGENDA OF:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ORIGINATOR:
DATE SUBMI'I-I'ED:
January 28,1998
Community Dev. V~,~
Kay Wilson, Sr. Planne~
January 22,1998
CLEARANCES: (Comment on back if necessary)
D~rector of Com~,-~)~v.~,_
City Zttomey~: ./Y~-",~
Fiscal/Budge[r--O,om~:- N/A/ '~" - _
Operations Comm:
ENDORSEMENT~ INFORMATION []
3. EXHIBITS:
A - Staff Report
B - Request for Review Application
C - Determination of Non-Significance
D - Environmental Checklist
E - City Coundl Minutes Dec. 30, 1997
F - Ordinance #4619
APPROVED BY COUNCIL~_~RESlDE~T FOR SUBMITTAL:
COUNCIL PRESIDENT ~ ~
SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION:
A Request for Review of Decision of Director was filed on December 29, 1997 appealing a Determination of
Nonsignificance (DNS) for a proposal to amend the Bremerton Shoreline Master Program (SMP) to prohibit
piers and docks on the channel between Oyster Bay and Ostrich Bay. The City Council passed Ord. #-4619
Amending Shoreline Master Program Docks/Piers in Oyster Bay Channel on December 30, 1997. The
subject appeal must be resolved before the SMP amendment can be sent to the State Department of
Ecology for final approval.
An SEPA Determination (DNS) is a Type II Administrative Decision, and is appealable to the City Council.
The Council must conduct an open record appeal headng before making its derision. The Coundl may
agree with the decision or direct that a Determination of Significance (DS) or a Mitigated Determination of
Nonsignificance (MDNS) be issued. (A DS initiates the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement
(BS).)
RECOMMENDATION:
Motion: To affirm the Director's SEPA DNS decision.
RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL:
ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL:
EXPIRATION DATE:
REVIEVV DATE:
Director of Community Development
Director of Community Development
n/a
n/a
PULLED [ ] TABLED [ ]
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE:
10. NOTICE OFACTION
APPROVED [ ] DISAPPROVED []
AMENDED []
75-
BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL (CONT.)
2. CLEARANCE COMMENTS:
IMPACT OF NON-PASSAGE:
A reversal SEPA derision by the City Council would delay final approval of the proposed SMP amendment.
The Department would proceed to issue either a MDNS or a DS. In the case of a DS, the Department would
then need to develop and issue an Environmental Impact Statement (ELS). After issuance of a final ElS, the
proposed Shoreline Master Program amendment would be referred back to the Planning Commission for a
new recommendation, and the Council would hold a new public headng on the Planning Commission's
recommendation.
o
IMPACT ON STAFFING~ BUDGETS~ FACILITIES~ EQUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCES:
If the Director's decision is upheld, minimal staff resources would be required to forward the proposed SMP
amendment to DOE for final action. If an ElS is required, significant staff and/or financial resources would
need to be directed toward production and processing of the ElS.
RESEARCH SOURCES:
Bremerton Municipal Code
State Environmental Policy Act Rules
File #SEP97-0033 - City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Plan Amendment (Docks/Piers)
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF BREMERTON
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT
PREPARED BY: KayW. Wilson, Seclior Planner
PHONE: 360-478-5275 / FAX: 360-478-5278
I. SUMMARY
A. Application:
B. Applicant:
Location of Proposal:
D. Attachments:
Appeal of SEPA determination of nonsignificance (DNS)
for proposed amendments to the Shoreline Master
Program (SMP) prohibiting docks and piers in the Oyster
Bay channel.
Victor F. Targett II
2102 Madrona Pt. Dr., Bremerton, WA 98312
Oyster Bay Channel - the channel between Ostrich Bay
and Oyster Bay - between Madrona Point and the madne
Ddve peninsula.
A. WAC 197-11-734,-736 - DNS, DS
il. FINDINGS OF FACT
A. Proposal:
The applicant is appealing the derision of the Director of Community Development
to issue a SEPA determination of nonsignificance (DNS) for proposed amendments
to the Shoreline Master Program (SMP) that would prohibit docks and piers in the
Oyster Bay channel. The applicant requests that the City Coundl reverse the
decision and issue a determination of significance (DS) requiring issuance of an
Environmental Impact Statement (ELS).
1
Do
Background:
The City Coundl passed Ord. ~,619 approving the proposed SMP amendments on
December 30, 1997. The proposed amendments are currently on hold pending
results of the subject appeal. If Council affirms the DNS decision, the proposal will
be forwarded to the State Department of Ecology (DOE) for final approval or denial.
If the Coundl reverses the DNS decision, the approval of the proposed amendment
will become moot, and an ElS will need to be developed and issued before the
Coundl can reconsider the proposal at a new public headng.
SEPA Review:
2.
3.
4.
Environmental Checklist Submitted: October 30, 1997
DNS Issued: December 11, 1997
End of 14 Day Comment Period: December 25, 1997 (Holiday)
Effective End of DS Comment Period: December 26, 1997
Comments Received: The subject appeal was received during the
comment period. It was considered as comment during that time. No other
comments were received.
DNS Reconsidered & Finalized: December 29, 1997
Appeal of DNS Filed: The subject appeal was accepted for filing on
December 29, 1997 (after the end of the comment period).
Bremerton Municipal Code:
21.02.845 - Type II Administrative Decisions with Notice: A SEPA
Determination is a Type II decision, appealable to the City Council within
fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of decision. The City Council
conducts an open record appeal hearing.
21.02.885 (a) - Appeal Decisions: The decision on an appeal shall be to
affirm, reverse or remand.
21.02.895 - Notice of Application and Public Hearing
a. Published: January 12, 1998.
b. Mailed to Parties of Record: January 12, 1998
c. Posting: N/A - Not required for legislative hearings.
III. CRITERIA FOR ACTION
The appellant shall bear the burden of proving the administrative decision was not
supported by substantial evidence. [BMC 21.02.935
The appellant raises the following appeal issues (shown in italics). Issues are summarized
for brevity. (Please refer to Agenda Bill Exhibit B for complete text.) An analysis follows
each issue (shown in bold type). (Page numbers refer to Environmental Checklist pages.)
6.
6.A.
The Director has insufficiently addressed all environmental impacts of this proposal
~n the environmental checklist].
This statement lacks specific examples that can be addressed.
The Checklist does not sufficiently address the diminished use of the environment to
waterfront owners. Examples: recreational use of water, access from pier or dock;
land use rights; reduced land values; neighborhood desirabili~ reduction.
Pg. 22 tt5 states, "The proposal would prohibit or limit the development of
docks and piers in the area."
The marine habitat will be diminished, since piers and docks can create habitat for
fish, wildlife and marine organisms.
Pp. 9-11//4-5 describe existing plants and animals. The habitats of existing
plants and animals will not be displaced by prohibiting new piers or docks.
Existing piers and docks will be "grandfathered" and will not be affected.
Not all potentially affected homeowners were notified of the proposaL
The proposed action is a legislative (not quasi-judicial) action. Notification of all
property owners within a planning area is optional. Notice was published in the
City's official newspaper of general circulation and mailed to all parties of
record as required. [BMC 21.02.895 (b) - (d)]
The Director has failed to supply technical data or factual information justi~'ng the
proposed SMP amendment.
The function of the environmental checklist is to disclose adverse
environmental impacts and mitigating measures, not to justify a proposed
action.
The Checklist contains several incorrect statements:
Pg. 4, #11: (1) The Mayor, not the City Council, proposed the moratorium on
applications for piers and docks within the Oyster Bay Channel.
(1) Whether the Mayor or the Council proposed the moratorium can be
determined by reviewing the files, but is not pertinent to the analysis of
environmental impacts.
(2) As of the date of this appeal the Council has not voted on the Planning
Commission recommendation.
(2) The Council may not take action on the proposal until the SEPA review is
complete.
Pg. 10, #5 - Animals, #B, C: The area is heavily developed by residences,
bulkheads, buoys, floats, etc./t defies reason to claim this a critical area.
The Checklist states that any impacts to threatened or endangered species or
migration routes would be subject to mitigation under the City's Critical Lands
Ordinance. This is true regardless of whether the proposal is approved.
Pg. 12, #8 - Land and Shoreline use, #A: The answer does not inform that the
current SMP allows for moderate to limited development of residential piers and
docks.
Item/~ states that the current use of the site and adjacent properties is
"residential". Information on uses allowed by current regulations is not
applicable here.
Pg. 13, #8 Land and Shoreline use, #C: The existence of two piers and numerous
buoys and floats in the channel is omitted.
This is a good comment. This omission should have been corrected before
issuing the DNS. However, the omission is not cause for requiring an ElS.
Pg. 13, #8 - Land and Shoreline use, #H: The answer is incorrect. The only
shorelines of statewide significance is in the area located on the east side of the
Washington Narrows.
"Shorelines of statewide significance" include "those areas of Puget Sound...
lying seaward from the line of extreme Iow tide. Some docks and piers might
extend into this area.
Pg. 14, #8 - Land and Shoreline use, #1: The shoreline rights under the current SMP
of approximately 61 homes will be completely removed.
Question 8.1. asks how many people would reside or work in the completed
project. The proposal is a "non-project" action, not a "project". Further,
whether or not docks and piers are allowed is not likely to affect the number of
persons who might reside or work in the area.
Pg. 14, Sec. 8 - Land and Shoreline use, #J: The proposed amendment could
displace waterfront homeowners who intended to develop piers or docks.
Question 8.J. asks how many people the project would displace. Since there is
no "project", no people would be displaced. Further, whether or not to move to
another area where docks and piers are allowed is an individual choice, not
"displacement".
Pg. 14, #8 - Land and Shoreline use, #L: City codes do not allow the Directorto
remove land use rights by arbitrary means. The Director has failed to Provide factual
or technical reasons for this proposed amendment.
4
6. L
Question 8.L. addresses proposed measures to ensure the proposal is
compatible with existing/projected land uses and plans. The Director's
authority and supporting documentation are not relevant to the issues in "L".
Pg. 15, #10 - Aesthetics, #A: City codes encourage joint-use piers and docks, and
do not discourage construction of piers and docks due to aesthetic impacts.
Question 10.A. asks the tallest height and exterior building materials of any
proposed structures. The proposal is a non-project action, and does not
propose any structures - if the proposal is approved, it will prohibit
construction of certain structures (piers and docks). Whether or not City codes
address aesthetic impacts of piers and docks is not applicable to item "A".
Pg. 15, #10 - Aesthetics, #C: City codes do not disallow limited waterward
construction doe to possible aesthetic impacts.
True. However, #10.C. asks what measures are proposed to reduce or control
aesthetic impacts. The proposal is a non-project action that does not propose
any construction. Since it would prohibit construction of docks and piers,
there will be no aesthetic dock/pier impacts to control.
Pg. 16, #12 - Recreation, #A, B, C: Due to the omission of facts and information
alone, an ElS should be issued.
If the Checklist is determined to be incomplete it can be remanded to the
Director for revision. An ElS should only be issued if it is clear that the
proposal to eliminate docks and piers in the channel is likely to have a
significant adverse environmental impact.
(A) The channel includes numerous water dependent recreational uses e.g. fishing,
swimming, etc..
The answer to item 12.A. could be expanded to include informal recreational
opportunities as suggested.
(B) The proposal would restrict a waterfront home owner from building a joint-use
recreational pier or dock to enjoy recreational opportunities.
Question 12.B. asks whether the proposal would displace any existing
recreational uses. The proposal to prohibit new docks and piers will not
displace any existing ones, which will be grandfathered.
(C) The proposal reduces home owners' waterfront development by 100%. The
proposal is arbitrary - it has not been substantiated by factual or technical
information.
6oM.
6oN.
6°0.
6. P.
Question 12.C. asks proposed measures to control impacts on recreation.
Since the proposal is a non-project action that proposes no new construction,
there are no impacts to control.
Pg. 20, #0.1.: The answer implies that if someone were to build a pier or dock they
will then buy another boat. Most already own and use some type of watercraft. The
answer misrepresents the actual waterfront uses.
The above concern appears to be a misinterpretation of the answer, which
states that discharges etc. would increase if new docks are permitted, but
would be lessened if docks/piers are not developed.
Pg. 20, #0.2.: Piers and docks provide enhanced ma#ne environment for many
marine organisms.
This is true. However, the proposal will not adversely affect existing plants,
animals, fish or marine life.
Pg. 21, #4: The omission of an answerto this question is proof that this area is
considered NOT environmentally sensitive.
The lack of an answer is likely an oversight. The Checklist could be remanded
to the Director to be answered. However, it can be assumed that the proposal
would not use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or other protected
areas, since the proposal will result in no additional docks or piers in the
channel.
Pg. 22, #5.(1): This answer is false. It implies it would prohibit or limit piers and
docks in the area, but in reality it would prohibit piers and docks COMPLETELY.
Piers and docks are currently allowed underthe SMP. There is no technical or
material fact to justify the amendment.
The answer that the proposal would prohibit or limit docks and piers in the
area is true. It refers to the description of the proposal as "whether or not, and
if so, how to permit docks and piers in the channel..." on page 2.
Pg. 22, #5(2): The answer implies the amendment would reduce shoreline impact.
The Director has failed to proved that development of the shoreline under current
SMP regulations would create a negative impact to the shoreline, thus needing a
reduction of impact.
The answer accurately states that the prohibition of docks and piers would
reduce impacts as compared to existing regulations, under which docks and
piers may be permitted. It is reasonable to conclude that the absence of any
new docks and piers would be a lesser impact than the possible construction
of new docks and piers.
Pg. 22, #7: State, federa/ and /ocai govemments have providedprotection of #ghts
for land owne/~ and waterfront land owners. Due to the lack of disclosure of
complete environmental impact such as (list included). This amendment proposes to
remove several State, federal, and Iocal protections for/and rights withou~
justification. The arbitrary nature of this proposal does not provide substantial
reasons for such a drastic amendment.
Question 7. asks whether the proposal may conflict with local, state or federal
laws or requirements for protection of the environment. The above concems
are worthy of consideration, but do not address protection of the environment.
I find it curious that the Director would fill out this Checklist and then issue a
Determination of any kind on his own information provided. There is a striking
conflict of interest going on here. Not to mention the questionable legality of it.
The BMC assigns the duty of SEPA Responsible Official to the Director of
Community Development. SEPA requires the lead agency to process the
Environmental Checklist. In this case, as with all proposals initiated by the
Department of Community Development, the applicant and the SEPA Official
are the same.
IV. CONCLUSIONS
The Environmental Checklist adequately discloses the probable significant
environmental impacts, as required by SEPA.
The Checklist documents that the proposal is not likely to have a significant adverse
environmental impact, and therefore an ElS is not required.
The issuance of a Determination of Nonsignificance for the proposal is justified by
the information in the Checklist.
The applicant has failed to prove that the administrative decision was not supported
by substantial evidence.
V. RECOMMENDATION
The Department of Community Development recommends that the City Council
AFFIRM the Director's decision to issue a SEPA DNS for the subject proposal.
Options:
If the Council finds that the Checklist is incomplete, the Council may choose to
REMAND the DNS back to the Department for completion.
7
If the Council finds that the proposal is likely to have a significant adverse
environmental impact, and therefore an ElS is required, the Council may choose to
REVERSE the Director's decision.
VI. MODEL MOTION
To AFFIRM the Director's decision to issue a SEPA Determination of
Nonsignificance for the proposal to amend the Shoreline Master Program to
prohibit docks and piers in the Oyster Bay Channel.
APt.-SMP.DNS
8
' ' '-"ATTACHMENT 1
Part Eight--197-11-'/:12
agencies from bifurcating appeal proceedings and allow-
ing different agency officials to hear different aspects of
the appeal. (197-I 1-680).
WAC 197-11-724 Consulted agency. 'Consulted
agency' means any agency with jurisdiction or expertise
that is requested by the lead agency to provide informa-
tion during the SEPA process.
WAC 197-11-726 Cost-benefit analysis. 'Cost-
benefit analysis" means a quantified comparison of costs
and benefits generally expressed in monetary or numeri-
cal terms. It is not synonymous with the weighing or
balancing of environmental and other impacts or bene-
fits of a proposal.
rules and refer basically to physical environmental qual-
ity.
WAC 197-11-742 Environmental checklist. 'Envi-
ronmental checklist' means the form in 197-11-960.
Rules for its use are in 197-11-315.
WAC 197-11-744 Environmental document. 'Envi-
ronmental document' means any written public docu-
ment prepared under this chapter. Under SEPA, the
terms environmental analysis, environmental study, en-
vironmental report, and environmental assessment do not
have specialized meanings and do not refer to particular
environmental documents (unlike various other state or
federal environmental impact procedures).
WAC 197-11-728 County/city. 'County/city'
means a county, city, or town. In this chapter, duties and
powers are assigned to a county, city, or town as a unit.
The delegation of responsibilities among the various de-
partments of a county, city, or town is left to the legis-
lative or charter authority of the individual counties,
cities, or towns.
WAC 197-I1-730 Decisionmaker. "Decisionmaker"
means the agency official or officials who make the
agency's decision on a proposal. The decisionmaker and
responsible official are not necessarily synonymous, de-
pending on the agency and its SEPA procedures (197-
11-906 and 197-11-910).
WAC 197-11-732 Department. 'Department'
means the Washington state department of ecology.
WAC 197-11-746 Environmental review. 'Environ-
mental review' means the consideration of environmen-
tal factors as required hy SEPA. The 'environmental
review process' is the procedure used by agencies and
others under SEPA for giving appropriate consideration
to the environment in agency decisionmaking.
WAC 197-11-748 Environmentally sensitive area.
'Environmentally sensitive area' means an area desig-
nated and mapped by a county/city under 197-11-908.
Certain categorical exemptions do not apply within en-
vironmentally sensitive areas ( 197-11-305, 197-11-908,
and Part Nine of these rules).
WAC 197-11-750 Expanded scoping. 'Expanded
scoping' is an optional process that may be used by
agencies to go beyond minimum scoping requirements.
WAC 197-11-734 Determination of nonsignificance
(DNS). 'Determination of nonsignificance' (DNS)
means the written decision by the responsible official of
the lead agency that a proposal is not likely to have a
significant adverse environmental impact, and therefore
an EIS is not required (197-11-310 and 197-11-340).
The DNS form is in 197-11-970.
WAC 197-11-736 Determination of significance
(DS). 'Determination of significance' (DS) means the
written decision by the responsible official of the lead
agency that a proposal is likely to have a significant ad-
verse environmental impact, and therefore an EIS is re-
quired (197-11-310 and 197-11-360). The DS form is
in 197-11-980 and must be used substantially in that
form.
WAC 197-11-738 EIS. 'EIS' means environmental
impact statement. The term 'detailed statement' in
RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c) refers to a final ElS. The term
'EIS' as used in these rules refers to draft, final, or
supplemental EISs (197-11-405),
WAC 197-11-740 Environment. 'Environment'
means, and is limited to, those elements listed in 197-
11-444, as required by l~CW 43.21C.110(1)(f). Envi-
ronment and environmental quality refer to the state of
the environment and are synonymous as used in these
WAC 197-11-752 Impacts. 'Impacts' are the ef-
fects or consequences of actions. Environmental impacts
are effects upon the elements of the environment listed
in 197-11-444.
WAC 197-11-754 Incorporation by reference. 'In-
corporation by reference' means the inclusion of all or
part of any existing document in an agency's environ-
mental documentation by reference (197-11-600 and
197-11-635).
WAC 197-11-756 Lands covered by water. "Lands
covered by water" means lands underlying thc water ar-
eas of the state below the ordinary high water mark, in-
cluding salt waters, tidal waters, estuarine waters,
natural water courses, lakes, ponds, artificially im-
pounded waters, marshes, and swamps. Certain categor-
ical exemptions do not apply to lands covered by water,
as specified in Part Nine.
WAC 197-11-758 Lead agency.-"Lead agency'
means the agency with the main responsibility for com-
plying with SEPA's procedural requirements (197-11-
050 and 197-I 1-922). The procedures for determining
lead agencies are in Part Ten of these rules. 'Lead
agency' may be read as 'responsible official' (197-11-
788 and 197-I 1-910) unless the context clearly requires
otherwise. Depending on the agency and the type of
{Cll. 197-11 WAC--p 241
EXHIBIT B
.. ::: 2 3 lgg7
BREMERTON
BU" "'~'~ '"'"- ~m-~_!_r'.~;-
286 Fourth Street.
(360)478-5275
PEI MIT CENTER ,_
Bremerton WA 98337 k.t~.t~4C~Olx~
Fax: (360)478-5278 ~U~,.:.) Nb ~;~.~RDdENT
Request for Review of Decision of Director,
Planning Commission or to Appeal a Cease & Desist Order
Request Party.:
Reference: Zoni_~ng Code Section 21.02. 935 & 21.02. 945
(Your nme) ~
(Your mailing address)
(Telephone Number)
Decision Being Appealed: I~'~P
Please provide a concise statement of the specific finding(s) or conclusion(s) to be re,4eweck together
with material facts claimed to support your contentions. Use additional paper if necessarv.
Please provide a brief statement of the relief soug_ht and the reasons why the decision/action should be
reverse& modified or remanded. Use additional pages if necessary'.
?' 5?5.
/ Appellant's Signature .
Fee: Review to Cits' Council - ~ ~5'~-
Review to Planning Comn~ission - $44.00 (Only applicable to a Cease & Desist Order Appeal)
Reviews will be scheduled to be heard before the Bremerton City Council as soon as possible, allowSng
for adequate preparation and notice. You will receive written notification of the Council hearing date
mailed to your address given above. The Citw' Council decision is the final legislative decision.
Created on I 1/14~97 3:51 PM C:Wly DocumentsLRequest for Review of Decision of Director. doc
December 19, 1997
To:
Bremerton City Council
Dept. of Comm. Development
City of Bremerton
From:
Victor F. Targett II
2102 Madrona Point Ddve
Bremerton, WA 98312
1997
BREMERTON L.~,~------
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
RE: APPEAL OF SEPA THRESHOLD DECISION, DNS (SEP970033) DATED
DEC '11, 1997.
RELIEF SOUGHT: DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE, REQUIRING AN
ENVIRONMENT IMPACT STATEMENT.
THIS APPEAL CONSISTS OF A TOTAL OF 5 PAGES, NUMBERED 1-5.
APPEAL ISSUES:
1)
We believe the Director of Community Development has insufficiently
addressed all environmental impacts of this proposal. (Proposal being,
the banishment of all piers and docks within the Oyster Bay Channel).
2)
The SEPA Checklist filled out by the Director only addresses the impact to
the marine and wildlife environment. It does not sufficiently address the
diminished use of the environment, to waterfront owners. Some examples
of uses being removed are as follows:
a. Recreational use of water, by access from a pier or dock.
b. Waterfront owners' land use dghts.
c. Waterfront owners land values reduced.
d. Neighborhood desirability reduction.
3)
The marine habitat will also be diminished, due to the fact that piers and
docks can create a favorable habitat for fish and wildlife to use. Also
encouraging growth for marine organisms.
4)
'There are approximately 61 home owners affected by this proposal. The
director has failed to notify a majority of them of the proposed alteration of
their waterfront and land use rights. Many home owners in the area have
no knowledge of this proposal. Due to its extreme nature, notification to
all home owners is called for.
5)
The Director has failed to supply a technical data or factual information
that would justify such an amendment to the SMP. The SMP to date
allows limited and reasonable development of the shorelines within this
6)
community. There is no record of failure with the existing SMP
regulations. Thus no need for such an amendment.
In the SEPA Checklist, there are several incorrect statements.
Ref. Checklist Pg.4, No. 11:
The Mayor not the City Council, proposed a nine month
moratorium on applications for piers and docks within the Oyster
Bay Cannel. With this, a request to the Bremerton ) Planning
Commission to review the issue and submit a recommendation
to the City Council. As of the date of this appeal the City
Council has not voted on their recommendation.
NOTE: There is no technical or factual proof being supplied by the
Planning Commission to justify this type of amendment to the SMP. The
decision to propose this amendment has been completely arbitrary.
Lacking any studies, research, or qualified entities involvement to make
such a recommendation.
Ref: Checklist Pg. 10 Sec.5, Animals, B,C: This area is heavily
developed by single family residences, bulkheads, and other upland
structures. There are approximately 61 homes in this area, many of
which are on 50' wide lots. The beaches are heavily used for
recreation. The waterways are heavily used for recreation. The
waterways are heavily traveled in the summer, and occasionally in the
fall and winter. There are numerous mooring buoys and swimming
floats within the madne area. It defies reason for anyone to claim this
a critical area BMC 21-22. It is one of the most heavily developed
waterfront areas in Bremerton.
Ref: Checklist Pg.12, Sec 8, Land and Shoreline use, Letter A: The
answer by the Director neglects to inform that the current SMP allows
for moderate to limited development of residential recreational private
or joint-use piers and docks.
Do
Ref. Checklist, Pg.13, Sec.8 Land and Shorelines use, Letter C: The
Director fails to inform you that there are already two piers on the West
Side of the Channel (one 38', one approximately 20'). The Director
also neglects to talk of the numerous mooring buoys and swim floats
that line both sides of the channel. (some swim floats as big as 15' X
25').
6) SEPA Checklist issu~e's cont ....
Eo
Ref. Checklist, pg.13, Sec.8, Land and Shorelines use, Letter H: This
answer is incorrect. The ONLY shorelines of State wide significance is
In the area located on the East Side of the Washington Narrows.
Reference??
Ref. Checklist, Page.14, Sec. 8, Land and Shoreline use, Letter I:
Approximately 61 homes are affected by this proposed amendment.
Their shoreline dghts under the current SMP will be completely
removed.
Ref. Checklist, Pg.14, Sec.8, Land and Shoreline use, Letter J: This
proposed amendment could possible displace several waterfront
homeowners who bought their waterfront with the intention of using it,
or developing it in accordance with the current SMP regulations that
have been in effect since 1977 (20 Years.)
Ref. Checklist, Pg.14, Sec.8, Land and Shorelines use, Letter L: In
reviewing BMC 21.02 and BMC 21.04 - SMP, ! find no place in either
code that allows the Director to remove land use dghts by arbitrary
means. The Director has failed to provide any factual, or technical
reasons for this proposed amendment.
Ref. Checklist, Pg. 15, Sec. 10, Aesthetics, Letter A: After reviewing
BMC 21.02 and 21.04 - SMP. It indicates that joint-use of piers and
docks are encouraged to reduce the amount of docks in a given area.
No where is it found to discourage construction of piers and docks due
to its favorable or unfavorable aesthetic impact.
Ref. Checklist, Pg.15, Sec. 10, Aesthetics, Letter C: BMC 21.02 and
21.04-SMP. It is clear that the limited water ward construction is not
disallowed due to its possible impact (aesthetic.)
Ref. Checklist, Pg.16, Sec. 12, Recreation, Letters A,B,C: By the
Directors omission of facts and information alone, the DNS should be
set aside and an ElS should be issued. This body of water commonly
known as "The Channel" is a premier recreational area within The City.
Protected and somewhat warmer marine environment encourages
numerous recreational uses Example; fishing, swimming, inner tubing,
knee boarding, kayaking, rowing, power boating, sail boating, large
vessel cruising, diving, sunbathing, beach combing, snorkeling, and
many other water dependent recreational uses. Under letter B it would
restrict the waterfront home owner from building a joint-use
recreational pier or dock to enjoy all the recreational opportunities
available to him (see above). Under Letter C the proposal measure
reduces the home owners waterfront development by 100%. And the
6)
SEPA Checklist isst~es cont ....
OJ
proposed measure has never been substantiated by factual or
technical information. It is completely arbitrary in nature,
Ref. Pg. 20, No. D, Part 1. The answer provided by the Director
implies that if someone were to build a pier or dock in the area, they
will then in turn buy another boat. Most of the home owners in the
vicinity already own some type of personal watercraft or boat, and use
them. Currently, in some cases year round. The answer by the
Director completely misrepresents the actual waterfront uses. If this
type of thinking is applied to all dock or pier applications in the City,
then "NO" docks should be allowed anywhere.
Ref. Pg.20, No. D, Part 2. In many cases piers and docks provide
enhanced marine environment for small fre, hatchlings, mussels, tube
worms, barnacles, sea grasses of all types and many more marine
organisms. These in turn provide food and shelter for the larger
marine animals.
Ref. Supplemental Sheet Pg.21, No. 4. The omission of an answer to
this question is proof that this area is considered NOT environmentally
sensitive.
Ref. Supplemental Sheet, Pg.22, No. 5, Part 1. This answer is false. It
implies it would prohibit or limit construction of piers and docks in the
area. But in reality, it would prohibit piers and docks COMPLETELY.
Private or join-use recreational piers and docks are currently allowed
under the SMP. Again the Director has provided no technical or
material fact to justify the amendment to the SMP.
Ref. Supplemental Sheet, Pg.22, No. 5, Part 2. The Director implies
the amendment to the SMP would reduce shoreline impact. The
Director has failed to prove that development of the shoreline under
current SMP regulations would create a negative impact to the
shoreline, thus needing a reduction of impact.
Ref. Supplemental Sheet Pg.22, No. 7. It is clear that the State,
Federal and Local governments has provided protection of rights for
land owners and land owners of waterfront. Due to the lack of
disclosure of complete environmental impact such as; the reduction of
recreational opportunities, the reduction of land values, and land use
rights. Including the reduction of desirability of these neighborhoods,
we feel there are several State, Federal, and local protections for our
land dghts that this amendment proposes to remove without
justification. The arbitrary nature of this proposal, in and of itself, does
not provide substantial reasons for such a drastic amendment.
4
I find it cudous that the Director of Community Development would fill out this
SEPA Checklist and then turn around and issue a Determination of any kind on
his own information provided. There is a stdking conflict of interest going on
here. Not to mention the questionable legality of it.
CONCLUSION:
The failure of the Director to comprehend the encompassing effects of this
SEPA, leads me to define environment for him, "That which environs, the
surrounding conditions, influences, or forces, which influence or modify, the
aggregate of all the external conditions and influences affecting the life and
development of an organism." Ref. Webster's New International. Based on the
lack or omission of information from the Director for this SEPA, ! feel this
Determination of Non-significance should be removed and a Determination of
Non-Significance be issued. Thus requid.ng an Environmental lmpact'Statement.
·
Submitted .by Victo~ r F. Targett II
Date: ,,',~.-~..~.~'..c~i~/,-c.~./' ' // ~/" / ~'7'
I find it curious that the Director of Community Development would fill out this
SEPA Checklist and then turn around and issue a Determination of any kind on
his own information provided. There is a stdkin£ conflict of interest going on
here, Not to mention the questionable legality of it.
CONCLUSION:
The failure of the Director to comprehend the encompassing effects of this
SEPA, leads me to define environment for him, "That which environs, the
surrounding conditions, influences, or forces, which influence or modify, the
aggregate of alt the external conditions and influences affecting the life and
development of an organism." Ref. Webster's New International. Based on the
lack or omission of information from the Director for this SEPA, I feel this
/~. Determination Of Non-significance should be removed and a Determination of
~'¢/i,~lliti~Significance be issued. Thus requiri.ng an Environmental tmpa~ Statement.
~u ~.u: ,~ DEPARTMENT
EXHIBIT C
City of Bremerton
Department of Community Development
DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE
Description of proposal:
Amend the Bremerton Shoreline Master Program to prohibit piers and docks in the
channel between Oyster Bay and Ostrich Bay.
Proponent: City of Bremerton Department of Community Development
Location of proposal, including street address, if any:
Oyster Bay channel, between Madrona Point and the Marine Drive Peninsula
Bremerton, WA
Lead Agency: City of Bremerton Department of Community Development
Threshold Determination:
The City of Bremerton has determined that this proposal does not have a probable
significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS)
is not required under RCW 43.21 C.030 (2)(c). This decision was made aider review of a
completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the City. This
information is available to the public on request.
Comment Period:
This DNS is issued under WAC 197-11-340(2); the City will not act on this proposal for
at least 14 days fi-om the date below. Comments must be subrmtted by December.].5, .._~
1997
Responsible Official:
Position/Title:
Phone:
Address:
Donald L. Pratt, Director of Community Development
Community Development Department
(360) 478-5275
286 Fourth St., Bremerton, WA 98337
Date: December 11, 1997 Sig-nature:
Appeals: You may appeal this determination
to: Bremerton City Council
at: Bremerton Department of Community Development
no later than: December 25, 1997
by: Filing an Application for Appeal of SEPA Threshold Decision
You should be prepared to make specific factual objections.
Contact the Bremerton Department of Community Development to read or ask about the procedures for SEPA
appeals, or refer to the adopted Bremerton Municipal Code Chapter 21 for SE. PA appeal procedures.
EXHIBIT D
City. of Bremerton
Permit Center
ENVIRONM-ENTAL CHECKLIST
SEP,4 RULES
PURPOSE OF CHECKLIST:
The State Environmental ?oiicv Act (SEPA), Chapter 43.2 [C R. CW, requires all governmental
agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before mak/ng decisions. A.n environmental
impact statement (ELS) must be prepared for ail proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the
quati~' of the environment. The purpose of t..kis checklist is to provide information to help you and the
agency identi~' impacts from your proposal and to help the agen%' decide whether an EIS is required. It is
also used to reduce or avoid particular impacts of a proposal.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR A. PPLIC4zVI'S:
This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about ?'our proposal.
Goverm'nental agencies use tiffs checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal
are si~ifican[ requiring preparation of an ElS. A. nswer the questions briefly, with the most precise
information known g/ring the best description you.
You must answer each questions accurateN and carefully, to the best of your l, mowledge, tn most
cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own obs~,~wations or project plans without thc
ned to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer or if a question does not apply to your proposal,
v'rite "do not kmow" or "does not apply." However. olease bear in mind that complete answers to ~e
questions now ~vill avoid delays later.
Some questions ask about govm-nmeatal regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark
designations. Answer these questions ii' you can. If you need assistance, the governmental agencies can
assist you.
Some questions relate to measures proposed to lessen environmental impacts. For many
environmental impacts, such as storm water, landscaping, and parking, Cit'?.' ordinances are currently in effect
requiring specific actions. For these quest/oas, check the box labeled "Subject to Mitigating Ordinances and
iden!ify the ord/nance you will follow."
For decisions relating to comprehensive plan and zoning amendments for wkich a specific project has
not yet b~n proposed, check the box'labeled "Non-project checklist; detai[ to be developed later."
The Permit Center has several resources which may provide assistance to you. We have the
following publications and data:
.. Vicimty maps
. Topographic maps
Shoreline Habitat map
Geologic map
Plot maps
Aerial photos sho~wing sewer/water mains and connection points.
Ciw. of Bremerton
Permit Center
The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a
period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help
describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The City. may ask you to explain your
answers or provide additional information reasonably related to deterrmning if there may be
significant adverse impact.
USE OF CHECKLIST FOR A NON-CONSTRUCTION PROPOSAL:
Complete this checklist for non-construction proposals, even though questions may be answered
"does not apply." In addition, complete the SLrPPLEN[ENTA[_ SHEET FOR NON-
CONSTRUCTION ACTIONS (Part D).
For non-construction actions, the references in the chec -k/ist to the words "project", "applicant"
and "property or site" should be read as "proposal", "proposer," and "affected geo~aphic area."
respectively.
A. BACKGROUk'ND
1. Name of proposed project, if applicable:
Revision of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program; specifically regarding whether
or not, and if so, how to permit docks and piers in the channel between Ostrich
Bay and Oyster Bay. Alternate proposals attached.
2. Name of applicant:
City of Bremerton
3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person:
239 4th Street
Bremerton, WA 98337
Department of Comtunity Development
Contact: Donald Pratt, 478-5282
4. D~e chec~ist prepared:
October 21, 1997
Agency requesting checklist:
City of Bremerton
Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable):
The City hopes to submit revisions of the Bremerton Shoreline Master Program
to the Washington State Department of Ecology before the end of November 1998.
Oo you have any plans for future additions, expansion or further activity related to or
connected with this proposal? If yes, explain.
No
List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or x~511 be
prepared, directly related to this proposal.
None
Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other
proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain.
None
10.
List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known
Washington State Department of Ecology must review, approve and adopt anv
proposed changes into the Washington Administrative Code.
11.
Give a brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the
size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you
to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on
this page.
The City Council has asked that changes for the development of dccks in the
body of water between Ostrich Bay and Oyster Bay be reviewed. This proposal
accomplishes their review.
12.
Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the
precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section,
township, and range, ifknov~'n. Ifa proposal would occur over a range of area, provide
the range or boundaries of the site(s). Pro,,5& a legal description, site plan, vicinity map,
and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required
by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with an,,,'
permit applications related to this checklist.
1) See attached vicinity and site maps.
2) The site is the channel between Ostrich Bay and Oyster Bayin the southernmost
portion of Dyes Inlet in Kitsap County, Washington.
ENWTRONMENTAL ELEMENTS
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLIC.KN'T
COMMENTS: FOR DCD USE ONLY
EARTH
A. General description of'the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep
slopes, mountainous, other
Shorelinesr moderate to steed bluffs.
What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)?
Greater than 15% slope on shoreline bluffs.
What general types of soils are found on the sire (for example, clay,
sand, gra','el, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of
a=m-icultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland.
Mix,ire of clay, silt, =~and and gravel. May contain
layers of sand, gravel, and large boulders.
Are there surface indications or histo~ of'unstable soils in the
immediate vicinity? Ifso, describe.
No.
Describe the purpose, type and approximate quantities of any filling
or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill.
No construction proposed.
Subject to mitigating ordinances: EMC 17.04 City
Building Code.
COMMENTS: FOR DCD [.;SE ONLY
Could erosion occur as a result of cleating, construction, or use? If
so, generally describe.
No construction proposed.
Subject to mitiqatinq ordinances: BMC 17.04 City
Building Code/~MC 15.04 Storn~ater Ordinance.
G. About what percent of'the site will be covered with impervious
surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings?)
Subject to mitigating ordinance: BMC 15.04 Stormwater
Control, and BMC 21.02 Zoning
No consruction proposed.
H. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to
the earth, if any:
[] Subject to mitigating ordinance
No constz-dction proposed
A. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal
(i.e., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during
construction and when the project is completed? If'any, generally
describe and give approximate quantities if known.
~ No construction proposed.
Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect
your proposal? If so, generally describe.
NO.
c /o0
COM.\LENTS: FOR DCD L'SE ONLY
C. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to
air, iffy:
~ Subject to mitiqatinc re~lations of t_he ~aqet Sound
Air Quality Authority.
No construction proposed.
3. WATER
SL~KFACE:
Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity 0f the
site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes,
ponds, wetlands)? ffyes, describe type and provide names. If
appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into.
Yes. The site is the channel between Oyster Bay and
Ostrich Bay at the southern end of Dyes Inlet in
KitsaD County.
2. Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200
feet) the described water? If yes, please describe and attach available
plans.
~ No construction proposed.
Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed
in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indhza~.~e area of
the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material.
No construction proposed.
Subject to mitigating ordinance: BMC 21.04 - Shorelines
Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions?
Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if
known.
No
Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain?
location on the site plan.
COMMEN'TS: FOR DCD USE ONLY
If so, note
Yes - the site includes tidal lands
6. Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to
surface waters? If so, describe the .type of waste and anticipated
voIurne of discharge.
~ No construction proposed.
GROUND
1. Will ~ound water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to
~ound water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate
quantities if known.
~ No construction proposed.
Describe waste material that will be discharged imo the ground from
septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage;
industrial, containing the following chemicals...; a~m-icultural; etc.).
Describe the general seize of the system, the number of such systems,
the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of
animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve.
No construction proposed.
Subject to mitiqatinq ordinances: Bremerton Kitsap
Health Department Requlation/~4C 15.03 Wastewater
Ordinance.
COM~LE.'xFf'S: FOR DCD [.'SE ONLY
WATER RU~'OFF (INCLUDING STORMWATER):
1. Describe the source of runoff(including stormwater) and method of
collection and disposal, if any (including quantities, if known). Where
will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If'so,
describe.
~ No construction proposed.
2. Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so,
generally describe.
~ No construction .proposed.
3. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, gound, and runoff
water impacts, if an.,,':
a: No construction propos~:t.
4. PLANTS
A. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site:
X
X
X
X
deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other
evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, or'her
shrubs
~rass
pasture
crop or grain
wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bulrush, skunk cabbage,
other
other types of vegetation
/03
COMMENTS: FOR DCD USE ONLY
What Idnd and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered?
No construction proposed.
C. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site.
u Eagles, osprey
D. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to
preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any:
X] Non-pro j ect
A~"~TMAL S
A. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the
site or are known to be on or near the site:
Birds~
~lammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: otter
Fish:ba~ troutr~e~ellfish,o/ -~oth~r:
B. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the
site.
~2 Subject to mitigating ordinance: BMC 21.22 Critical
Lands
C. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain.
Subject to mitigating ordinance: BMC 21.22 -
Lands
Critical
Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any:
No construction proposed.
COM.X. LENTS: FOR DCD USE ONLV
ENERGY AxND NATUP,.A.L RESOUT,.CES
A. What kinds ofener~m7 (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar)
will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe
whether it will be used for hearing, manufacturing, etc.
X2[ No const~ction proposed.
B. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by
adjacent properties? tf so, generally describe.
~X No construction proposed.
What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans
of' this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control
energ7 impacts, if any.
No construction proposed.
ENVIRONmeNTAL HE ',KLTH
A. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to
toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste,
that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe.
~k No construction proposed.
11
COMMENTS: FOg. DCD L'S£ ONLY
1. Describe special emergency services that might be required.
No construction proposed.
Proposed measures to reduce or control em,'ironmental health
hazards, if any:
No construction proposed.
NOISE
1. What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your
project (for example: traffic, equipment operation, other)?
None
What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated
with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example:
traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise
would come from the site.
No construction proposed.
3. Proposed measures to reduce or controt noise impacts, if any?
[] No construction proposed.
LAND AND SHORELIN-E USE
A. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties?
Residential
COMMENTS: FOR DCD USE ONLY
Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe.
No
C. Descdbe any structures on the site.
Yes
D. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what?
No
What is the current zoning classification of the site?
SF-1, ST-2, SF-3
x,Xghat is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site?
Low density residential
If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program
designation of the site?
Residential
Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally
sensitive" area? If so, specify.
Yes - Shorelines of statewide significance
/07
COMMENTS: FOR DCD USE ONLY
I. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the
completed project.'?
xJ[ No consr_ruct±on proposed.
J. Approximately how many people would the completed project
displace?
XX No construction proposed
K. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any?
None.
L. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible ~vith existing
and projected land uses and plans, if any:
~ Subject to miticFating ordinances: KC 21.02 - Zoning
Code/BMC 21.04 - Shoreline Master Program
9. HOUSING
A. Approximately how many unks would be provided, if any'? Indicate
whether high, middle, or low-income housing.
~X No construction proposed
B. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated. Indicate
whether high, middle, or low-income housing.
~X No construction proposed
COM.MENTS: FOR DCD USE ONLY
Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any:
None
10.
A.ESTHETICS
A. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including
antennas; what is the principal ex-terior building material(s) proposed?
~ No construction proposed
Subject to mitigating ordinance: BMC 21.02 - Zoning
Code/BMC 21.04 - Shoreline Master Program
B. Whatviewsintheimmediate vicimty would be altered orobstructed?
X% No construction proposed
C. Proposed measuresto reduce orcontrolaestheticimpacts, ifany:
X% Subject to mitigating ordinances: BMC 21.02 - Zoning
Code/~qC 21.04 - Shoreline Master Program
1].
LIGHT .&ND GLARE
A. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce'? What time of
day would it mainly occur?
X/ No construction proposed.
Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or
interfere with view?
No construction proposed.
COMMENTS: FOR DCD USE ONLY
C. What e.,dsting off-site sources ofli~t or glare may affect your
proposal?
None
D. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if
any:
k~ Subject to mitigating ordinance: BMC 21.02 -
Zoning Code.
12.
RECREATION
A. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the
immediate vicinity?
Several road ends terminating on the shoreline are
in the vicinity.
B. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses?
If so, describe.
No
C. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation,
including recreation opportunities to be provided bv the project or
applicant, it' any:
IX No construction proposed.
13.
COMMENTS: FOR DCD USE ONL\'
F~STORIC .&ND CULTURAL PRESERVATION
A. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national,
state, or local preservation registers known to be on or ne.ct to the
site7 If so, generally describe.
No
Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic,
archaeolog'ical, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or
next to the site.
None
C. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any:
~ No constr~lction proposed.
14.
TRANSPORTATION
A. Identify public streets and highv,'ays ser~Sng the site, and describe
prol~os~d access to the existing street system. Shown on site plans, if'
any.
See site plan
Is site currently servSced by public transit? If not, what is the
approximate distance to the nearest transit stop?
No.
1 mile - Kitsap Way
17 // /
COMMENTS: FOR DCD USE ONLY
How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How
manv would the project eliminate'?
No construction proposed.
Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements
to e>dsting roads or streets, not including driveways'? If so, generally
describe (indicate whether public or private).
No construction proposed.
Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of') water, rail,
or air transportation? If so, generally describe.
Water
F. How ma.nv vehicular trips per day would be generated by the
completed pr~ect? if known, indicate when peak volumes would
occur.
~ No construction proposed
Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if
any:
No project.
15.
PUBLIC SERVICES
Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for
example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools,
other)? If so, generally describe.
No
COMMEN"[$: FOR DCD USE ONLY
Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public
ser~'ices, i£ any.
16.
UTILITIES
..... . /.-"-/<~ ~/~--------~
A. Ckc, ge~uht~es currently avaijable at the~dec, zrici~,m~:mal~as
/water/remse' ser~ce, t~epnon¢~ta~ ~ept~c system, orner.
17.
SIGNATU~LE
The above answers are true and complete to the best of' my knowledge.
understand that the City is relying on them to make its decision.
Date Submitted:
COMMEN-r$: FOR DCD USE ONLY
SUPPLENhENTAL SHEET FOR NON-CONSTRUCTION
ACTIONS
(Do not use this sheet for construction actions)
Because these questions are ve~ general, it may be helpful to read
them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment.
When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal
or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would
affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the
proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general
terms.
How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water;
emissions to air, production, storage, or release of to.xic or
hazardous substances; or production of noise?
Develo~nent of docks/piers would incrementally increase
discharges to %~ater, emissions to air, release of toxic
substances and production of noise due to incrased
vessel use of the docks/piers in the channel. Lack of development of
docks/piers would lessen these impacts.
Proposed measuresto avoid orreducesuchincreases are:
Subject to mitigating ordinances currently adopted
by the CiD' of Bremerton.
2. How wouldthe proposalbelikelyto affect plants, animals, fish or
marineli~?
Lack of develo~nent of docks/piers would decrease
impacts on habitate.
2O
COMMENTS: FOR DCD USE ONLY
Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish or
marine life are:
~: Subject to mitigating ordinance currently adopted bv the City of
Bremerton.
How would the proposal be likely to deplete energ3/or natural
resources7
Not aDplicable
Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural
resources are:
Subject to mitigating ordinance currently adopted by the City of
Bremerton.
How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally
sensitive areas or areas designated (or eli~ble or under study) for
governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and
scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or
cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands?
Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce
impacts are:
Subject to mitigating local ordinances and state regulations
currently adopted.
COMMENTS: FOR DCD USE ONLY
How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use,
including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses
incompatible with existing plans?
Subject to mitigating local ordinances and state regulations.
The proposal would prohibit or limit the development
of docks and piers in the area
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts
are:
Subject to mitigating local ordinance and state regulations.
The proposal considers changes in the Master Program
which would reduce shoreline impacts.
How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on
transportation or public services and utilities?
The proposal would not increase demand on transportation
or public services and utilities.
Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are:
Not applicable
Identify., if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local,
state or federal laws or requirements for the protection of'the
environment.
None
B" "-'P~IEIITON PLAN,N'I:NG COM[V. IlS~c N
RESOLUTION NO. -
A RESOLUTION REGARDING AMENDING THE BREMERTON SHORELINE
MASTER PROGRAI~'I REGARDING 'FI:IE PROIIIB1TION OF DOCKS AND PIERS
IN TIIE CtlANNEL BETWEEN OSTRICII BAY AND OYSTER BAY
WIIEREAS, thc Bremcrton City COuncil passed Resolution No. 2621 on August 6, 1997,
creating a development moratorium on docks and piers widlin Oyster Bay channct ['or a period of
nine months and,
WHEREAS, tile Bremerton Planning Commission, as directed, conducted a public meeting on
September 16, 1997, during which it received oral and written comments pertaining to the areas
subject to the moratorium; and, -'
WIlEREAS, tile Brcmcrton Planning Commission makes the Following
"l'he channel is a physically ami navigationally unique bpdy of water because of
is physical constraints and its locatiorl between two regionally slgnifiEant
destinatiot~ bodies of water.
The channel is aesthetically unique due to is proximity of residence adjacent to
and acro~;s £rom each other and due to the lack of overwatcr development
which has occurred to date in the channel;
NOW TIIEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT tile charred between Oyster Bay and Ostrich
Bay warrants its own Shoreline Master Program enviromnent designation and tha~ this
enviromu*nt shall prohibit develop~nent of piers and docks;
· AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Bremerton Plam6ng Commission does request
that technical details be draft, ed For such Shoreline Master Program amendments by City staff and
that this resolution with such proposed amendments be Forwarded to the City COUncil for' Further
action.
LARI1,Y STONE, Chairman
DONALD L. PRATT, Executive Secretary
Date
RESOLUTION NO. ,,2/~'
A'Resbfuti0n Setting a Mora'toriurd on' The
Development of Docks and Piers Within the
Channel between Ostrich Bay and Oyster Bay
WHEREAS the Shoreline Mana=cementActoI197L requires the 8remerton
City Council to adopt a Bremerton Shoreline M-~.ster Program which the
State reviews and adopts as part of the Washington Administrative Code;
and,
WHEREAS the Bremerton City Council Iinds that the current grer'nerton
Shoreline Master Program does not adequately address the [ollowing
issues in the Oyster Bay Channel:
A. The level of potential navigational hazards created by docks and
piers requiring substantial shoreline development permits in the Channe
between Ostrich Bay and Oyster Bay;
8. The aesthetic quatity of large docks and piers in theChannei
between Ostrich Bay and Oyster Bay;
C. The environmentai and public trust issues (public waters and
underlying lands are a pubiic resource owned by and available to al!
citizens equally for ' -';
nav~g:~,on, fishing, recreation and similar uses)
related to docks and piers which rest directly on the beach at Iow water;
and,
WHEREAS the Council understands that the City of 8remerton public use
olshoreline may suffer irreparable damage if development is not
prohibited while regulations are changed: and,
WHEREAS the Bremerton City Council believes that a study period is
necessary process the chan=_<~' locally (estima,_d at 2.5 months for
developmental work, public notice, Planning Commission hearing and
City Council hearing;: and.
WHEREAS the State Depa~men~ of Ecology is allowed 5 months to review
and implement changes to the Administrative Code amending the
Bremerton Shoreline Haster Program; and,
W'~IEREAS such delays may result in permits being filed under current
regulations which may seriously impose navigational and environmental
hazards; undesired situations involving the public trust ot the shoreline
and well as cause a loss ol irretrievable aesthetic quality;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL
1. that a development moratorium prohibiting;the issuance of
substantial shoreline development permits for all Docks and Piers within
the confines of Oyster Bay Channel as defined on Exhibit A is hereby
adopted;
2. that this moratorium shall take effect immediately and should
terminate 9 months from the date of this moratorium or until ap
amendment to the Bremerton Shoreline Master Program can be approved
by the State Department of Ecology, whichever shall occur first..
Daf?
II
FIGURE 3-1 SHORELINE ENVIRONMENT DESIGNATIONS MAi3 (MAp, 2-OF 6)
Rocky Point o 1203 2~o 36oo
ROCXY ..~
POINT 0 ,.
PHIS'NEY
BAY
ANDERSON
i !
cove I I I-
R
City of Bremerton
OYSTER
BAY
R!
SflOKELIKE
ENVIRONMENT DESIGNATIONS
Map 2 o[ II,
Conservancy CS
Residential R
-- Com~ercia! C
Tracyton Beach TB
High Btuff ~
SMP ENVIRONMENT DESIGNATIONS & REQUIREMENTS 3 - 13
TAPE #1514 -'~
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
December 30, lg97
Page 8 of 15
EXHIBIT E
10A- ORDINANCE ff~.4618 (SECOND
WASTEWATER RATES, #AB97-271
Public comment - none.
READING) SE'fi'lNG
WATER AND
#1789 MISICIU (Montgomery/Colvin) to pass Ordinance ¢4.618, on second
reading, setting Utility rates.
'IOB - ORDINANCE #4619 ('SECOND READING) AMENDING SHORELINE
MASTER PROGRAM DOCKS/PIERS IN OYSTER BAY CHANNEL~ #AB97-27~
lan Sievers., City Attorney, pointed out some minor corrections: (1) language
under Section 3 was corrected to reflect the language that was used in the
example draft, which was suggested dudng first reading of the ordinance. (2)
Change to Section 4 - adding a sentence to take into account at least one SEPA
appeal that has been filed on the threshold DNS and staying the transmittal of
the final ordinance to the Department of Ecology for its consideration until that
appeal process is resolved.
The following individuals spoke in favor of the proposed ordinance: Susan
Holland, So. Marine Drive resident; Kathleen Wriaht, Poulsbo resident;
Bernard Holland, So. Marine Drive resident; Kathy. Gallaqher, Madrona Point
Drive resident; Patrick Munns. Bremerton resident; Rick Verhelst., Oyster Bay
resident.
The following comments were made in support of the ordinance: (1) piers or
docks would present safety and navigational hazard as well as a violation of
public trust. I (2) Views will be destroyed; (3) property values will be adversely
affected and make stretches of waterfront less desirable and harder to sell; (4) It
was appropriate that this issue comes before the currently seated Council
considering the fact several will be leaving at the end of the year. (5) Council's
role is to balance the public good with private rights and to balance the private
rights of individuals with the private rights of others. (6) Property rights mean
different things to different people and the rights of those who live on the channel
to enjoy their property unencumbered by view of a dock are equally as important
as property rights of those who may wish to build a dock. (7) To construct on or
over public property is a privilege not a right. (8) The proposed ordinance is not
about property rights, rather changing an environmental designation that is need
to prevent inappropriate construction within a narrow constricted area. (9)
Watedront property owners have a responsibility to the public safety and good
and docks lining the channel would not further this end. (10) The channel is not
the right location for docks and piers. (11) Crippling water skiing accidents on
Oyster Bay have involved structures around the bay and in the channel.
Jim Reed, Madrona Point resident, requested that he be given 15 minutes to
speak for those in opposition to the proposed ordinance. President Fan' asked
TAPE #1514
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
December 30, 1997
Page 9 of 15
those in the audience, who were opposed to the proposed amendments, if they
wished to have Mr. Reed speak for them and their position. Mr. Reed was
granted the 15-minute time allotment. Mr. Reed stated the question that cries
out mostly to him is why an amendment to the Shoreline Master Plan (SMP)?
The existing document, under Section 11, clearly states that piers and floating
docks shall be prohibited where navigation may be impaired significantly at
entrances to bays, channels and covers. Of the 61 plus homes on the channel,
possibly 16 homes at those entrances would be restricted from building such
structures. The difference between 4-8 homes is where the boats travel in
reference to the property. Section 11 - LOCATION states: 'Piers and Docks
shall project the minimum distance necessary to service the vessel and shall not
create a hazard to navigation.' He does not support banning all docks in the
channel because some docks may propose a hazard to navigation, which has
never been proven by the City. He pointed out no one has conducted a study to
prove where boats travel, how they travel and what would be considered a
hazard to navigation. The Army Corps of Engineers have studied two locations
and have yet to release their findings because the permits are tied up in appeals.
In regard to comments about public trust violation, as per conversation with the
Shorelines Hearings Board, there have never been a perfected legal suit against
the State for violating the public trust by granting a recreational dock. Reference
has been made to the case of Wilber vs. Gallagher where there was a violation of
public trust, which took place in Lake Chelan where an area at the end of the
lake was filled in with dirt. He emphasized a 4-foot wide dock would not be a
violation of the public trust and the State has the right to grant the approval as
does the City end Department of Ecology and Army Corps of Engineers. If you
apply that violation to public trust to a simple recreational dock, you must apply it
to the City's watedront boardwalk, the marina and the 200 marine slips in Port
Orchard and new ferry terminal. He referenced a remark made by Councilman
Neville about how the docks would be allowed to go to 5 feet deep at minus 2
tide and pointed out how inaccurate the City has provided information to the
Council members. Mean Iow water is approximately half tide. Mr. Reed went
into detail about tide calculations and the affect it would have within the subiect
area. He also pointed out the SMA encourages joint use docks over single use
and his proposed dock was for four houses, which in affect would significantly
reduce the number of potential docks. He acknowledged there is a speed
problem created by boats using the channel even though a speed limit already
exists in Kitsap County. He questioned why take away his property rights
because the City refuses to even post the speed limit. He suggested speed
limits be posted and installing a no-wake buoy at each end of the channel
thereby reducing 99% of the speed problem. In regard to the reference to the
Noah map, they are aerial photos and there never has been a site inspection or
physically measured the channel. He emphasized if the amendments are
approved they must meet the intent of the SMA of 1971. The subject area is not
a critical area, but it is one of the most heavily developed piece of waterfront that
includes sewage pump stations every quarter mile that consistently spill sewage
TAPE #1514
Oity Ooundl Reg. Mtg. Minutes
December 30, 1997
Page 10 of 15
into the bay, bulkheads everywhere and the east side is lined with septic tanks,
shell fish cannot be eaten. Mr. Reed read various passages out of the 1971 SMA
that addressed procedures. In conclusion, he did not believe that the Council
was given all the information regarding hydrology, geography, topography,
ecology, economics and other pertinent data as it relates to this issue.
Bob Winters, Bremerton resident, stated he was speaking neither in favor or
opposing the proposed amendments, but rather the position he took on the issue
when he was seated as a City council member. As Councilman of District ¢¢9, he
was asked by the Kitsap Lake Neighborhood Association constituency to vote no
on the dock moratorium because the Kitsap Lake property owners purchased
$200,000+ homes to have the right to apply and go through the process to build
docks/piers. His decision at that time, not only listening to his constituents, but
understanding the fact that all citizens in the City have property rights to do what
they want to apply with the City under the SMA and they have equal dght to be
denied. Both sides understand one issue. .. you have the dght to apply, the
document is in place, and there are no docks in the channel at this point and
apparently the document works.
TAPE #1515 ( A portion of this tape was defective.)
Mr. Montqome~ stated he read the Shoreline Management Act of 1971 and
quoted from Section 90.58.020 - Legislative Findings State Enunciated, Use
Preference. He emphasized we are suppose to take care of the shorelines and
manage them according to State Law. Nowhere has it been shown that either
side has a scientific fact that it will or not affect ecology, the environment, or
navigation. The moratorium deals primarily with three issues of navigational
hazards, aesthetic value, and environmental impacts. The discussion of
navigational hazards must be recognized as the channel water surface declines
by about 40% with tidal changes. The aesthetic issue, as stated by the
proponents is in the eye of the beholder. It is difficult to see how one or several
docks would promote enhanced public interest. In the absence of specific
science regarding the environmental affects of docks in the channel, it is a
fantasy to believe that their introduction in the channel would in any way
minimize adverse environmental impact rather than represent the introduction of
undetermined adverse impact. He stressed Council must determine the best use
of the shoreline and how it will be protected.
#0299 M/S/C (Montgomery/Overson) Motion to pass Ordinance #4619, on
second reading, amending the City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program
adopted by Ordinance ff-4365, to restrict docks and piers in the channel between
Oyster Bay and Ostrich Bay.
Mr. McConnell questioned when the tide is in does that water become the
property of the owner of the tideland or is it public property? lan Sievers, City
TAPE #1515
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
December 30, 1997
Page 11 of 15
Attorney, stated it was probably inappropriate to use the term "property' in a total
sense of all property rights either belong to the public or private upland owner.
Property is seen in modern days as a bundle of property dghts. What the public
has is a set of property right uses that ebb and flow with the water both
recreational and navigational uses and the public's right goes with the water.
Mr. McConnell referenced Mr. Reed's comment that sewage was spilling into
Oyster Bay, he believed it was common knowledge that tidal movement has a
tendency to "cleanse" and area. It appears to him that pilings driven into the
bottom of the channel would restrict that cleansing process and possibly cause a
more adverse condition than currently exists. There are many instances where
the public's right will override the rights of a private individual. He referenced a
letter from the Suquamish Tribe, Fisheries Department, that says the Oyster Bay
channel is within the usual and custom fishing area of the Suquamish Tribe and
they support the Planning Commission's resolution to prohibit piers and docks
because it would be an adverse impact on resources. Further, the Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife studied the area and discovered marine life that
needs to be protected. They are also concerned above adverse impacts on
other species of fish that would conflict with the installation of piers. He wished
that a compromise could be reached, however, the only compromise he could
envision was installing boat rails that would allow property owners to launch
boats directly into the bay.
President Fart thanked the individuals on both sides of this issue for the
professional manner they displayed when speaking cn this issue. He was
hopeful that the professionalism they displayed during this discussion will
carryover into their neighborhoods. He will continue to vote no on this issue and
he was fairly sure there would be a good potential that the decision may be
overturned later in the process. Mr. McConnell talked about compromise and he
too feels there is some ability to compromise without prohibiting things.
Mr. Overson stated Council decision to approve the amendments would not
prohibit everything, only those things that are inappropriate as presented by the
majority of the citizens living on that channel. There are still opportunities for
people to enjoy the channel and use it from a recreational standpoint with or
without boats.
Mr. Law asked for the status on the appeal period that closed on December 26,
1997. Mr. Sievers stated the DNS that was issued with a 14-day comment
period was not withdrawn or amended in any way so it became final on
December 26, and the Council is free to take action on this non-project item. The
one appeal that was discussed about specific appeal to that DNS would be heard
about January 21, 1998, because a notice period is needed on the appeal itself.
Mr. Law asked if that appeal was by a proponent or opponent? Mr. Sievers
stated he assumed an opponent of the DNS thinks there should be more
complete discussion and possibly an ElS produced on this non-project action.
TAPE #1515
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
December 30, 1997
Page 12 of 15
Mr. Law questioned the person hearing that appeal? Mr. Sievers stated it would
come before Council possibly on January 21.
Mr. Neville stated he did not understand how President Farr could not see that a
compromise was when you look at the total impact on the entire City if not the
entire County. Kitsap County is second only to San Juan County for shorelines
in the State and nowhere has it been shown that there is another unique situation
as this that enters from one bay into another through a narrow channel. As a
youth and adult he has utilized the area for water skiing and believes that docks
in that channel would be and will always be a deterrent to the public good now
and well into the future.
Mrs. Huff-Menees stated this is an instance where not everyone will be happy
with the decision made by the City Council. Last week, following Council's vote
on first reading of the ordinance, a constituent told those voting in favor that they
should be ashamed of themselves. She is not ashamed of that vote. Council
reviewed volumes of information, dozens of letters, read State law and City
ordinances, etc., having to do with this issue and then listened to constituents on
both sides of the issue. Her sons enjoy water skiing on Oyster Bay, she has
personally observed boats racing in and out of Oyster Bay, and she too wished
there was more speed enforcement actions taking place. She believes the issue
is a matter of safety and protecting the public in a very broad sense. She will
continue to vote in favor of the ordinance.
Vote on Motion: In Favor:
Opposed:
Motion carried.
Montgomery, Huff-Menees, Neville, Overson, Law,
McConnell,
David Farr
11A - ORDINANCE (FIRST READING) VACATING UNOPENED STREETS IN
PLAT OF PORT ORCHARD AND PLAT OF CHARLESTON BY OPERATION
OF LAW, #AB97-279
The ordinance vacates by operation of law of a portion of the alley abutting
Lafayette north of Porter to allow property maintenance by the abutting owner.
This alley was included in a 1994 survey of unopened rights-of-way subject to
vacation by operation of law. All other right-of-way fragments in the vicinity
subject to vacation by operation of law are proposed for vacation by this
ordinance to encourage private maintenance and development, return properly to
the tax roles, and save administrative processing of repeated requests in the
future. These vacations are outside the acquisition area for the SE 304
Transportation Improvement Project.
TAPE #1516
EXHIBIT F
so. '4 (o/5'
A.N ORDh-NANCE mending the City Bremerton Shorel/ne Master Program, adopted by
Ordinance 4365, to restrict docks and piers in the channel between Oyster Bay and Ostrich
Bay.
WHEREAS, the Bremerton Planning Commission conducted a punic hearing on September
16, 1997 to consider mending regulation of docks and piers with/n the Oyster bay entrance channel
as directed in Bremerton Resolution No. 2621; and
WHEREAS, the Bremerton Planning Comm/ssion has forwarded its resolution recommending
that the Oyster Bay entrance channel have a special Environmental Designation that would prohibit
piers and docks given the unique topog-rapkical characteristics oftkis channel; and
WIq'~RE~, the Bremerton City Council, alter tak/ng public testimony on the recommended
changes to the Shoreline Master Plan pursuant to SM1~ Chapter 7 G, adopts the findings and
recommendation of the Planning Commission amending the channel. Enviromnent Designation as an
area of un/que and hazardous characteristics and physical limitations incompatible with intense
development; and prokibiting construction of docks and piers in the channel; now, therefore,
TRE CITY OF BRE~EERTON DOES WEREBY ORDAIN':
Section 1. Amendment. The Bremerton Shoreline Master Plan, Table 3-1 Shoreline
Use/Activity Matrix, is mended to include a footnote to the Piers and Docks Shoreline Use/Activity
for the Residential Environmental Designation to read as follows:
Piers and docks are prohibited in the entrance channel to Oyster Bay as
depicted in Figure 3-5;
all as set forth is Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
Section 2. Amendment. The Bremerton Shoreline Master Plan Chapter 3F is mended to
include a new subsection to read as follows: Oyster Bay Channel
Piers and docks shall be prohibited in the channel between Oyster Bay and
Ostrich Bay as depicted in Figure 3-5.
Figure 3-5 attached hereto as Ex?tiNt "B" shall be added to SM2:' Chapter 3F.
Section 3. Amendment. SM~P SHORELINE USE POLICEES AaND REGULATIONS,
WATER ACCESS AND MOORAGE, REGULATIONS, I0 is amended to read as follows:
D(DCK~.OR.D - Disk 2 - t~4.'97
Piers and Docks
10. Prohibited: Piers and floating docks shall be prohibited where navigation may be
impaired significantly at entrances to bays, channels, or coves. NO piers Or floating docks
will be permitted in the channel between 0~trich and Oyster Bays,
Section 5. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect upon final approval by the State
Department of Ecologs' in accordance Mth RCW 90.58.120.
APPROVED by the City Council of the City of Bremerton this
day of
,1997.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Bremerton th. is · 1997.
day of
DAVID D. FARR, Council President
APPROVED this __ day of
.,1997.
ATTEST:
LYNN HORTON, Mavor
KATHLEEN McCLUSKEY, City Clerk
Dept. of Ecology Approval,
Effective Date:
EK3CKS.OR.D - Disk 2 - lWaO7
2
L IBIT NOo" "
TABLE 3-1 SHORELINE USE/ACTIVITY MATRIX (Page 2 of 3)
ENVIRONMENT DESIGNATION
CN RS CM ID DU DM KL KVV TB
SHORELINE USE/ACTIVITY
ROADS, RAILWAYS AND
BRIDGE5 CU CUI P P P P CU GU CU
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL X X X X X X X X X
UTILITIES CU P I P P P P CU CU CU
WATER ACCESS AND
MOORAGE:
- Boat Launch Ramps CU CU P P P P CU X CU
-Madne Railways CU GU I GU P P P CU X CU
- Piers & Docks CU pA Jl p p P P CU CU CU
- Recreational Fioats CU P P J P NA P CU NA P
SHORE MODIFICATION
BREAKWATERS, JETTIES,
ROCK WEIRS, GROINS CU CU CU CU NA CU X NA X
BULKHEADS, SEAWALLS CU P t P P P P CU X CU
- Landward of OHWM GU P P P P NA NA X NA
- Waterward of OHWM X CU3 CU3 CU3 NA CU3 CU3 X X
REVETMENTS CU P I P P P P CU CU CU
P = PERMITTED · X= PROHIBITED · A=ASAPPLICABLE · NA= NOT APPLICABLE
CUP = PERMITTED SUBJECT TO OBTAINING SHORELINE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP)
SMP ENVIRONMENT DESIGNATIONS & REQUIREMENTS 3 - 2
TABLE 3-1 SHORELINE USE/ACTIVITY MATRIX (Page 3 of 3)
KEY I REQUIREMENT
p Use/Activity is permitted in the Environment, subject to regulatory controls in appropriate
Use/Activity section.
CU Use/Activity is permitted in the Environment, subject to obtaining a Shorelines Conditional
Use Permit (CUP).
X Use/Activity is prohibited in the EnvironmenL
A As applicable.
NA Use/Activity is not applicable to the Environment.
I See Commercial Development Policies and'Regulations for list of specific commercial uses
permitted (Chapter 4).
2 Permitted for "public" purposes only.
3 Permitted for water-dependent and public uses only.
4 Permitted for water-dependent and water-related uses only.
5 Permitted for water-dependent uses only.
6 Does not include residential uses in marinas.
7 See Environment-Specific Regulations (Chapter 3).
8 See General Requirements (Chapter 4).
_9 Piers and docks are orchibited in the entrance channel to Oyster Bay as deoicted in Fiqure 3-5.
SMP ENVIRONMENT DESIGNATIONS & REQUIREMENTS
3-3
~°~
0 (~
uJ
n'
Fg
Oyster Bay Channel
Piers and docks are prohibited in the entrance channel to Oyster Bay as
depicted in Fiqure 3-5.
Development Standards
The matdx and illustrations which follow outline Master Program development
standards for various Environment and Natural-System designations. These figures
are intended to supplement the Use/Activity requirements in subsequent chapters.
Table 3-2 Site Development Standards
The Site Development Standards matrix (Table 3-2) summarizes development
standards for structures located within each environment designation. The
intent of these requirements is to provide limited view protection for nearby
public and pdvate areas and to help protect the shoreline environment. (See
also: View Protection requirements, Chapter 4.)
Figure 3-3 View Corridor Examples
Figure 3-3 shows a "bird's eye" view of the Figure 3-3 View Corridor requirements as
applied to lots that are 40 - 90 feet wide.
Figure 3-4 View Corridor/Height Requirements
Figure 3-4 gives a cross-section example of the Figure 3-3 View Corridor and
Height requirements as applied to lots varying from 40 to 90 feet in width. (The
maximum heights correspond with Bremerton Zoning Ordinance height limits for
structures in the SF-1, SF-2 and SF-3 zones.)
SMP ENVIRONMENT DESIGNATIONS & REQUIREMENTS
3-6