HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/17/96 AGENDABREMERTON CITY COUNCIL
239 4TH STREET
BREMERTON, WA 98337
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
JANUARY 17~ 1996
CALL TO ORDER - 5:30 P.M.
A. Pledge Of Allegiance
B. Invocation
CONSENT AGEND~
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 - December 20. 1995
#AB96-007
3. CLAIMS/CHECK REGISTERS
4. COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS
5. MAYOR'S REPORT
6. PUBLIC RECOGNITION -- (Comments Limited to 3 Minutes)
NEW BUSINESS
A. Cambrian Sewer Replacement Project - Change
Order #1
#AB96-008
ORDINANCES
A. Ordinance #4540 (Second Reading) Correcting
A Mapping Error On The Comprehensive Plan
Be
Ordinance #4541 (Emergency Reading) #AB96-009 ~q
Authorizing The Issue Of A $1,250,000
Tax Anticipation Note, Accepting The Purchase Offer Of
Seafirst Bank And Declaring An Emergency ~c%i'~ ~J~
(CONTINUED NEXT PAGE)
Ordinance (First Reading) Increasing Penalty
For Unauthorized Use Of Disabled Persons
Parking
#AB96-010 f~
~es~~253~, Re~ardin~ Rec)Dver~'Of F~s #AB96-011
For T~e. R~mov~A Of/Garbag~ On ~he Property At
1340 ~{ay~ard Aven~e ~ ~
B. Resolution #2536, Regarding Recovery of Fees #AB96-012 ~
For The Removal Of Garbage On The Property
Located At 3323 Kitsap Way
1. SUBJECT:
AGENDA BILL
BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL
MINUTES - DECEMBER 20,. 1995
1-17-96
FOR AGEND~ OF:
ORIGINATING DEPT: City Council
ORIGINATOR: 3ohn Law. PresiHpnt
DATE SUBMITTED: %-!1-96
2. ~: (comment on back
if necessary)
3. EXHIBITS:
ENDORSEMENT__ INFORMATION
MAYOR
APPROVED BY couNcIL PReSiDENT FOR SUBMITT~L:
COUNCIL PRESIDENT ~'.-~'~
4. S~Y STATEMENT AND REOUIREMENT FOR'COUNCIL ACTION:
8. R~COMMENDATION:
9. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL:
ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL:
EXPIRATION DATE:
REVIEW DATE:
PULLED TABLED
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE:
10. NOTICE OF ACTION
APPROVED DISAPPROVED
DATE:
AMENDED
11. AGENDA'~ILL NO:
TAPE #1345
UNAPPROVED DRAFT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
DECEMBER 20t 1995
#0017
#0028
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, December 20, 1995, at 5:30 P.M.,
with Council President Sherril Huff-Menees presiding. Council
members present were Bob Winters, A1 Colvin, Morrie Dawkins, Carlos
Montgomery, John Law, David Farr, Richard Neville, and Lon Overson.
City Clerk Kathleen McCluskey was also present
The meeting opened with the Pledge of Allegiance led by Council
President Huff-Menees and Invocation given by Major L. LaVergne
Nickerson of the Salvation Army.
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Minutes - November 15, 1995
#AB95-271
M/S/C/U(Neville/Colvin) 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.
M/S/C/U(Colvin/Dawkins) on December 20, 1995, the Council does
approve for payment those vouchers included and further described
as follows: 193516, 193517, 193535 through 193758 in the amount of
$460,194.06.
COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS
Mr. Winters wished everyone a Happy Holiday and a very Merry
Christmas. He enjoyed the legislative meeting in Silverdale on
Tuesday evening.
Mr. Colvin asked the City Administration to clarify a point that
was made in a recent news article in The Sun that indicated the
City was issuing Building Permits out near the Wastewater Treatment
Plant. It was his understanding those permits are being issued by
Kitsap County. He was pleased to receive a letter from B.O.Davis,
who was a black Commander of the 99th Pursuit Squadron during WWII
and one of Mr. Colvin's idols. Mr. Colvin will be celebrating the
holidays in California and wished everyone a Merry Christmas and
Happy New Year.
TAPE #1345
City Council 'Reg. Mtg. Minutes
December 20, 1995
Page 2 of 23
Mr. Dawkins stated he has been pleased with the number of Christmas
light displays throughout the City.
Mr. Montgommry wished everyone a very Merry Christmas and a safe
holiday.
Mr. Law hoped everyone has a very Merry Christmas.
Mr. Fart wished everyone a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year and
thanked Mr. Law for the "reindeer".
Mr. Neville also thanked Mr. Law for the novelty reindeer and
wished everyone a Merry Christmas and reminded everyone to pick up
their Winter and Spring Activity brochure from the Bremerton Parks
and Recreation Department.
Mr. Overson reported he enjoyed the festivities downtown this past
weekend. He particularly noted the decorated Christmas Tree in
Wycoff Park and he anticipates the Festival of Music event will
become an tradition in Bremerton.
Mrs. Huff-Menees expressed her appreciation to John and Niva Law
for their gift. She also encouraged everyone to drive by
Councilman Montgomery's house to see his "Santa's Reindeer"
display. And, she wished everyone a happy and safe holiday.
MAYOR'S REPORT
Mayor Lynn Horton wished everyone a Merry Christmas and hoped every
had a safe holiday, and if they drink to please not drive.
PUBLIC RECOGNITION
Larry Dickerson, Bremerton resident, referenced a prior Council
meeting where Councilman Carlos Montgomery made a statement
regarding the fact that he only represents registered voters in his
District and that no one else mattered. This statement upset him
greatly and he called Mr. Montgomery personally and asked him to
apologize to his constituents and to the people of the City of
Bremerton, but he refused. He also asked Mr. Montgomery to maybe
clarify what he meant as to compared to what he might of said,
which he responded that he was preparing a statement. As of this
date, Mr. Montgomery has not made a statement addressing his prior
comments. He believes Mr. Montgomery's statement was
unconstitutional and is a violation of his oath of office as a
Council member. He was also disappointed in some of the other
Council members, who were silent following Mr. Montgomery's
comments. He asked that Mr. Montgomery step down as City
Councilman of District #8. It also concerned him that the news
media chose to let this go by without any comment, even after he
contacted the City Editor.
TAPE #1345
City Council 'Reg. Mtg. Minutes
December 20, 1995
Page 3 of 23
Gordy Byrd was pleased to report that through the public's
generosity he was able to collect 110 stuffed animals for the
Kitsap Community Action Head Start Program.
Ruth Reese, new downtown business owner, thanked everyone who
participated in the second annual Festival Of Music.
Emily Mosh&y reported on December 15 John Marcus Duwane Frazier
died in a tragic hand gun accident and his family is devastated by
the loss. Young Marcus was a former Bremerton High School athlete
and earned a College Wrestling Scholarship. A special public
donation fund has been set up, to help the family with funeral
expenses, at Kitsap Community Action Program, 1201 Park Avenue,
Bremerton, WA 98337; or contributions may be delivered to the
Mayor's office. Checks should be made to the Marcus Frazier Fund.
Information may be obtained by calling 478-0364.
7A - CONTBACT AWARD FOR HANFORD AVENUE WATERMAIN REPLACEMENT --
LYDEL CONSTRUCTION INC., ~AB95-272
Bids were opened for the Hanford Avenue Watermain Replacement
Project on December 4, 1995. Seven bids for this project were
received. The iow bidder is Lydel Construction, Inc. in the amount
of $117,276.06, including sales tax. The Engineer's estimate
prepared on completion of design for this project was $123,383.18,
including sales tax. The action before the City Council is
approval of a contract for construction of this project.
Tim Richard, Senior Engineer, stated this project is the
construction of an 8-inch watermain/Hanford Street to Wheaton Way
and Bledsoe. The street has an existing 4-inch watermain and the
Fire Department has requested that it be updated to 8-inch in order
to provide adequate fire flows for this street as well as the
surrounding neighborhood. Lydel Construction Inc., was the low
bidder on the project out of seven bids received. The Engineer's
estimate prepared for this project upon completion of final plans
was $123,383.18. The 1996 budget includes $98,000 for construction
of this project; therefore, there is a $20,000 shortfall. It is
recommended that the additional funding for this project be
allocated out of the Water Capital Fund and that the project from
which these funds will be identified later in the year as the
budget year continues is in the 36-inch watermain project. This
will be the first time the City has contracted with Lydel
Construction Inc.; therefore, a reference check was made with
Kitsap County P.U.D., who had 12 miles of watermain installed by
Lydel as well as the City of Mukilteo, who had also had recently
contracted with Lydel, and both of their responses was very
favorable.
Public comment - none.
#0697
TAPE #1345
City Council'Reg. Mtg. Minutes
December 20, 1995
Page 4 of 23
Mr. Fart asked if the increased flow would be just to the fire main
or will it help the ratepayers in that area with low pressure
problems? Mr. Richard noted they had not received any complaints
from residents in that area about low water pressure; however, it
will help pressures during peak flows.
Mr. Overson acknowledged the appropriate documentation to handle
the transfer of funds to cover the $20,000 shortfall was not
included. He questioned Council giving approval to this item
knowing there are not sufficient funds in the budget and asked if
there be some other vehicle to cover the funding? Mr. Richard
explained a budget adjustment to the Water Capital Fund will be
required to cover the cost. There are sufficient funds available
in the Water Capital Fund, but it was just not designated for this
specific project. Mr. Overson asked the City Clerk what kind of
problem Council would be developing for itself by approving a
contract where the funds are not "technically in the budget"?
Kathleen McCluskey, City Clerk, stated she was not sure why the
Budget Adjustment did not accompany this request; however if they
follow up with the appropriate Budget Adjustment before spending
funds, she saw no problem. Mr. Richard affirmed that was their
intent.
M/S/C/U(Overson/Neville) to approve this contract for $117,276.06
with Lydel Construction, Inc. for construction of the Hanford
Avenue Watermain Replacement Project contingent upon a Budget
Adjustment being processed fairly quickly, and authorize the Mayor
to execute the same subject to City Administrative Policies and
Procedures.
7B - CALLOW AVENUE BASIN CSO REDUCTION PROJECT CHANGE ORDER ~2 WITW
PAPE & SONS CONSTRUCTIONt ~AB95-273
Construction of a 24" water main in First Street from Montgomery to
Hartford is included in the 1995 & 1996 Water Capital Budgets.
Staff requested a proposal from Pape & Sons Construction, Inc. for
constructing the portion of this watermain from Montgomery to mid-
block between Callow and Wycoff. Construction of this portion
under the Callow CSO Contract would allow coordinated surface
restoration at First & Montgomery, reduce impact to the Navy's
First & Montgomery gate, and avoid traffic control conflicts during
1996 construction. The cost provided by Pape & Sons Construction
for this work is $111,275.55. Funds for this change order will be
expended from the Water Capital Budget. It is requested that this
change order not be included in the administrative change order
authority of $100,000 granted to the Mayor for this project by the
City Council on June 14, 1995.
Tim Richard, Senior Engineer, reviewed information in the summary
statement and listed the following three reasons why Pape & Sons
#0829
TAPE #1345
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
December 20, 1995
Page 5 of 23
were asked to provide a cost for the designated work: (1) they had
torn up a portion of First street as a part of the Callow Avenue
CSO Project, which they will need to restore (this project would
tear up that same section again and in order to avoid that
duplication of effort and expenditure of funds it was felt it was
best to install this portion first); (2) the Navy will be locating
a gate to the Shipyard at First and Montgomery and by completing
this work and getting it across Callow Avenue will avoid impacting
construction of the gate entrance; (3) 1996 will be a big
construction year for the City with the construction of the second
phase of Callow Priority I, as well as work on Kitsap Way, and
getting this project across Callow Avenue at this point should
avoid another traffic conflict during the 1996 construction season.
Funds are budgeted in the 1996 Water Capital Fund and the price
quoted by the contractor is consistent with the Engineering
estimate for this work.
Public comment - none.
M/S/C/U(Dawkins/Farr) to approve Change Order #2 to the Callow
Avenue Basin CSO Reduction Project Contract in the amount of
$111,275.55 and authorize the Mayor to execute the same, subject to
city Administrative Policies and Procedures.
Mr. Overson complimented the Public Works group for putting this
together and planning all that work at one time, which will be less
intrusive to traffic later on.
7C - SINCLAIR LANDING ASSOCIATION MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING: CITY
APPROVAL, #AB95-274
The Sinclair Landing Association (SLA) is the non-profit
corporation formed to coordinate the financing, public discussion,
and development of the public facilities necessary for the
public/private re-development program: The parking garage, multi-
modal transportation terminal, possible marina expansion, streets
and other public spaces. The attached Memorandum of Understanding
is proposed for signature by al four participating public agencies
plus Fletcher Wright. The public agencies are: City of Bremerton,
Kitsap Transit, Port of Bremerton and Kitsap County.
The SLA Board of Directors membership listing is attached.
Upon successful completion of the Memorandum of Understanding, the
SLAwill contract with Fletcher Wright and the governmental parties
to develop the project facilities through a series of negotiated
design and construction contracts.
Without the SLA, or a similarly constructed organization, the
waterfront project will not have an organization capable of
TAPE #1345
City Council 'Reg. Mtg. Minutes
December 20, 1995
Page 6 of 23
providing the needed buffer between the public and private sectors.
This buffer organization is essential to allow use of modern
financial technology so that public/private partnerships can occur
effectively. The following objectives are sought in public-private
partnerships:
1)
Coordination of the public elements with the private elements
of the overall development program.
2)
Financing that enjoys lower public interest rates and private-
side flexibility in development and construction.
3)
Collaboration among the four public agencies, the private
development team and the Bremerton community (through the
Board's formal and informal input, reporting and dialogue).
Without the establishment of such a technically appropriate non-
profit organization, the project's private partners will not be
able to fulfill the concept.
Mayor Lynn Horton stated the role of the Sinclair Landing
Association in this process is multi-fold: (1) to work on the
public involvement process, such as was done on the Gorst-Bremerton
Connector project, so that people within the community will feel
comfortable with the project. (2) To work with the Legislature on
things such as passenger-only ferry service, as well as dealing
with the public/private partner aspects at the State level. (The
public/private partner initiative on the 1995 Legislative docket
was a very contentious issue primarily because it talked about toll
roads, etc.). What the City would like to see happen is to
approach the Legislature and get their blessing for this kind of
public/private partnership proposal. (3) To bring all of the
entities together to talk about how each of the various components
fits into the whole project. (4) Efforts to secure financing for
some of the elements of the project. Non-profits entities have tax
advantages over "for profit businesses". She emphasized the
Statement Of Understanding binds the City for its financial
contribution to see that the SLA activities are carried out and it
also binds the City to come to the table to talk with all the other
jurisdictions about this project. This document does not bind the
City in any other financial way, does not bring the City's
waterfront property into this framework nor does it involve any
financial responsibility the City may or may not have with any of
the rest of the project. Council has met with Ben Pollock, the
City's negotiator, and reviewed the letter of intent guidelines
that he will be working on in negotiating the business deal with
Fletcher Wright. That letter of intent will come to Council within
the next few weeks and that will be the business document for the
City's waterfront property and then for its financial
TAPE #1345
City Council .Reg. Mtg. Minutes
December 20, 1995
Page 7 of 23
responsibility that we may or may not have with the rest of the
project as well as outline what the City expects from Fletcher
Wright. Mayor Horton noted the SLA Board is made up of many people
from the community, who have been working a long time on trying to
see downtown development happen. If they don't have a financial
interest invested in this project, they certainly have a time and
emotional investment.
Mary McClure, Executive Director of the SLA, stated she was honored
to work with the SLA Board Of Directors. It is a group of the most
conservative and cautious business people and civil leaders that
she has worked with in Kitsap County. This group not only has
concern to be fiscally conservative, but also deeply commitment to
this project working and to the City of Bremerton redeveloping and
becoming an exciting, wonderful place to live. One of the
important elements built into the Memorandum Of Understanding is a
real example of fiscal conservancy that she described. The Board
is committed, in the Memorandum of Understanding, to come back to
each of the participating agencies within 30 days of its going into
effect with a full budget and work plan for their review and
understanding. They are then committed to come back in 180 days
with at least a draft of Master Agreements, at which point each of
the agencies can look further at the role of the SLA and the
project. There will be quarterly reports to the participating
entities and a deep commitment to responsiveness and responsiblity
to all the public agencies and the business community that is so
dependent on this project working. There are a number of issues
that have been brought up over time, one is the role of passenger-
only ferries, role of the U.S.S. Missouri and the importance of
those elements in the basic feasibility of this plan. Neither of
those elements are absolutely required for this project to move
forward. This project was basically conceived before the
U.S.S.Missouri was a star on the horizon and it is feasible without
the full passenger-only service that is deeply desired to serve
Bremerton. Those will be enhancements and assets, but this project
has the potential to stand on its own and to work. When this
project was first started with the City authorizing Fletcher Wright
to work on development with the City, one of the issues she felt
strongly about was the importance of public sector cooperating and
justifying the trust that the private sector has placed within you.
In examining public/private partnerships in other cities, it is
clear that the place where they most frequently fail is on the
public sector side. She did not want to see that happen on this
project because it is too strong and good a project to fail in that
way. Finally, all of the other jurisdictions that will be partners
in this undertaking and the SLA Board are looking to the City for
leadership. The other jurisdictions are responsive and supportive
with several of them already signed on, but they are waiting for
the city to take action.
TAPE #1345
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
December 20, 1995
Page $ of 23
Mayor Horton noted this Memorandum Of Understanding has been before
Kitsap Transit, which they approved and the Kitsap County
Commissioners, who gave their approval pending the City Council's
ratification of the document. Today she attended the Port Or
Bremerton's board meeting where they discussed the issue and
unanimously supported the concept of the SLA, but because they are
a special taxing jurisdiction and by Washington State Law have
special requirements, so they want to make sure there are legal
grounds for their signing on to this project. The Port will take
up the budgetary issue in January. She agrees with Ms. McClure
that the other entities are looking to the City of Bremerton for
leadership in this issue. If the City does not participate, the
project will not happen and some of the other jurisdictions may
choose to not be parties, but the project will move forward. She
strongly urged Council to approve the proposal.
Matt Ryan, Kitsap County Commissioner, quoted a line from
Shakespeare "that there is time and affairs of men when the tide is
running that you take it or you're forever in the shallows", and he
believes this is one of those times. He sees this as a wonderful
opportunity with the private sector joining in and he encouraged
Council to give this serious consideration. He is also concerned
that in the presentation made for obtaining the U.S.S. Missouri,
they did very strongly show the waterfront development project and
if it did not move forward it could hurt that effort. Kitsap
County recognizes a healthy and prosperous Bremerton is good for
Kitsap County and the Commissioners encourage the City to act upon
this Memorandum Of Understanding.
Del Knauss, Bremerton resident, posed the question if Council
desired to change the Memorandum of Understanding, could they
legally make those changes since the City Attorney was not present
at this meeting? And, is this a legally binding document?
President Huff-Menees explained the City Attorney provided Council
with a memo of several pages addressing the Memorandum Of
Understanding and concerns raised during a Council Study Session.
Council also has available the legal Council that prepared the
document and he is available to answer questions. Mr. Knauss asked
if the wording in the document could be changed once it is approved
by Council? President Huff-Menees stated yes, it is a working
document. Mr. Knauss stated for clarification that Council would
be signing the agreement and then go back and make changes after it
has been in front of the public. President Huff-Menees explained
changes could be made if Council identifies what it is they want
addressed. Mr. Knauss asked when would the public find out if
changes are made? Also, he could find no mention of "public
involvement" in the subject document. He has heard or read several
times that redevelopment of the downtown area is contingent on foot
ferry service. He quoted from the document: "commitment of
TAPE #1345
City Council .Reg. Mtg. Minutes
December 20, 1995
Page 9 of 23
construction will not be continqent on increased ferry service".
A few months back it was told in presentations that $75,000 would
be going to the Roosevelt Field Fund; however, he did not see that
stated in the document. He is hearing that part of the plan is
the possibility of a new City Hall located on the waterfront. He
pointed out that proposal has never been presented to the public,
but he guessed that was something that could be written into the
document later.
Bob Gunter, Attorney with Preston, Gates and Ellis and legal
Counsel to SLA, stated in terms of how the document can be
adjusted, every agency has its own practice of what the attorneys
have talked about doing and that is the bodies basically approving
the agreement substantially in the form of the draft document.
When all the agencies have acted, they will then put together one
final clean draft that includes everything. He believed everyone
was very close on all the legal issues in terms of putting that
together and then that document will be signed by all the parties.
The types of changes they have been working on currently have been
referenced by the Port of Bremerton and Ian Sievers, the City's
attorney, and have been relatively minor modifications. An issue
was raised about public involvement, and there is reference to
pubic involvement in Paragraph 4 of the Memorandum Of
Understanding. One of the task of SLA is to "include
representatives of all contractinq parties and such other members
of the community as the board deems appropriate to serve in an
advisory capacity. SLA shall also serve, if feasible, in a
financing and manaqement role and shall facilitate public overview
and input to the pro~ect development.,, So, that is contemplated to
be one of the major roles of the organization, that of course
depends on what the government agencies desire the SLA to do, but
right now they are very much involved in putting that type of
program together. Another feature that has been added recently at
the request of one of the government parties, is to make sure the
SLA comes back after 30 days when they have a better chance to talk
of these issues with Fletcher Wright and provide a more detailed
scope and budget for the information of the contracted parties.
Earl Smith, Economic Development Council, stated he served on
Flagship, Leland Group Study, Tonkin Hoyne Study and he worked with
Fletcher Wright. He believes that right now the right people and
the right place are the key elements to make downtown
revitalization work. He finds Randy McGreal a pleasure to work
with and to hear him discuss the investors that he has to leverage
capital, what his company is willing to do, what he has been able
to do with occupancy rates in buildings in order to get a secondary
mortgage, is really a plus. Having funds available now for
operations is a plus as is having Karen Schmidt and Brad Owens from
Kitsap County in the right place in the State Legislature as well
TAPE #1345
City Council'Reg. Mtg. Minutes
December 20, 1995
Page 10 of 23
as Tom Huff on the Appropriations Committee, and Alice Tawresey
in the Transportation Commission. Those individuals can help and
what Sinclair Landing allows is the ability to speak with them with
one voice and if that consolidated effort is lost, he believes the
opportunity will be lost. The public/private partnership will
share the risk and some of the liability. He offered the EDC's
help, if needed.
Cecil McConne11, Almira Drive, stated he could not discuss the pros
and cons of the project because he was not that knowledgeable about
the project and he was not sure anyone else in Bremerton knows what
will finally be in place on the waterfront. He referenced the fifth
WHEREAS (pg. i of the Memorandum Of Understanding), and pointed
out: "the parties are committed to cooperating and to negotiating
such agreements and providing such properties, services and
assistance...". It concerned him that the word "and" makes it a
hardcore commitment on the City's part to turn over those
properties, which is further backed up by Section 14 when it refers
to: "Venue and Process - In the event any party deems it necessary
to institute legal action or proceedings to enforce any right or
obligation under this Agreement, the parties hereto agree that any
such action shall be initiated in the Superior Court of the State
of Washington situated in Kitsap County." To him the words "right"
and "obligation" means there is a binding contract. The entire
document in itself is so ambiguous that it could be tossed out. He
wanted to know the source of funding for Bremerton's contribution
of $50,000 He asked if the positions on the SLA Board were
permanent positions and would the City's representation be changed
in the event they lose their public office position to someone
else, or would they remain on the board? He referenced Paragraph
6 and pointed out Fletcher Wright can terminate any time they wish,
but if Bremerton decides it does not have the money to proceed,
they must get a majority of the government parties to agree that
they don't have to participate in the project. He is not opposing
the project persay, but rather the wording of this document that
leaves too many questions unanswered. He referenced Section 7, and
lent his support to its passage only, which would authorize the
City's contribution of $50,000. He recommended that the document
be cleaned up so that a layman could understand what it was
actually saying.
Beverly Woods, Executive Director Bremerton Area Chamber Of
Commerce and member of the SLA Board of Directors, stated over
three years ago a group of community and business people got
together to start working on a vision for Bremerton. She believed
it was the first time in the history of Bremerton that
representatives from City Administration, Parks and Recreation
Department, City Council, Department Of Community Development, Port
Of Bremerton, ECD, Bremerton Main Street Association, Chamber Of
TAPE #1345
City Council ~Reg. Mtg. Minutes
December 20, 1995
Page 11 of 23
Commerce, downtown business owners, managers of downtown businesses
and citizens at large sat down together and sought a vision for
Bremerton. From that point on to today, steps and processes
brought forth that vision of a revitalized waterfront area that
extends way into the downtown core with a marketplace atmosphere,
businesses, housing, a bustling area, an expanded marina full
boats, to the south the Missouri, ~ast passenger ferries arriving
at the terminal bringing both commuters and tourist from Seattle to
help spend money in Bremerton. She still envisions that picture
and the Chamber started out putting in a small amount of money, as
did other groups, and matching grant funds were obtained that
enabled the forward movement to this point. The next step is
critical in putting together the public/private partnership that
will take this project to a successful end. Her prior experience
before coming to Bremerton offered her the opportunity to work on
two projects that involved public/private partnerships. There were
not as many agencies involved in those projects, which made it a
little easier, but they had a vision and a community group like the
SLA that was made up of a diverse group of people from their area
that were concerned and they developed a revitalization project for
their downtown through a public/private partnership. Through that
effort, they developed a 16,000 open air amphitheater that with
private monies also helped build a l$-hole golf course, walking
paths, a wetlands area and a sailing pond. Their investments were
returned many times fold. She had the pleasure of visiting that
community a couple of weeks ago and enjoyed actually seeing in real
life the vision they had in those early years of planning and that
is her hope for Bremerton.
Roy McInnls, Maple Street, asked what will make this project any
different from other proposals? Can the citizens of Bremerton be
guaranteed there won't be a lot of waste of funds? When the
project is finalized will the citizens of Bremerton have a vote or
is it something that will just go through? How many of the SLA
Board are actually City citizens?
Charlle Brown, East Bremerton resident, stated he also attended the
Port of Bremerton meeting held today. He views this document as a
contract and once the City signs it they will be obligated to
proceed. He asked if all the government agencies are happy with
this proposal, why is Paragraph 14 included whereby if there is a
dispute it will be settled in Superior Court? What this means is
that if the Port Of Bremerton decides it is too expensive to invest
in this project, the other jurisdictions can take the Port to
Court. He is not an attorney, but his interpretation leads him to
believe Kitsap County gives up some of their rights. He questioned
the meaning of "SLA may receive, hold, approve transfer of
facilities"? And, as a taxpayer how does this benefit him, i.e.,
will it lower his property taxes, sewer charges, etc.? He urged
TAPE #1345
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
December 20, 1995
Page 12 of 23
Council to not get rushed into signing something. The Port of
Bremerton has an 8 million dollar lawsuit against them for
something they did 10 years ago.
Joe Mentor, Bremerton property owner, related a recent conversation
he had with some people who evidently know what is going on with
~h~ SLA proj~¢~ and h~ wa~ ~hocked by what he heard. That
discussion included the information that a large parking garage
would be built and he asked who or how will that garage be funded?
The response he received was that the vehicles parked on City
streets will be forced to use the parking garage. Then he asked
what will be put on top of the parking garage? The response he
received was a 30,000 sq. ft. City Hall facility, which in his
opinion could cost $50,000 per month, if it was rented. The
discussion also addressed the development of a 80-room hotel and he
asked how were they going to get a lease signed on a hotel. The
response was there wouldn't be a lease, but rather a management
contract so it sounds like there is a lease. He asked what else
would be included and the response was three restaurants, which he
then asked how will those be financed? The response to that
question was they would put them together like the restaurant at
the Port of Bremerton. He believes what is being talked about here
is not something the City wants to move ahead with so quickly. He
did not believe, under State law, that the Port of Bremerton has
the authority to put a $50,000 grant into this project. He also
believes there are better ways for the City to use their $50,000
than to get another planning study at a cost of $300,000. When he
looks at the City of Bremerton he sees that the downtown is dead
and all the revenue that came from previous facilities are no
longer in Bremerton and are now in Silverdale. He was also
concerned about where the revenue will come to support the City and
is alarmed that the East Bremerton business corridor along Wheaton
Way will lose its economic viability as well. He also believes
that Bremerton/Kitsap County will not be successful in their bid to
get the Missouri. What the City needs most in the downtown area is
people and housing. It also concerned him that the Director of SLA
will receive a salary greater than what the Mayor of Bremerton
receives. He did not want to see Bremerton become a second class
suburb of Silverdale...100 buildings are being built in the County
for every one that is built in the City. The City has to do
something to re-establish itself as a center of commerce in the
County.
Russ Johnson, former member of the City Council and a SLA Director,
congratulated the City Council for staying on course with the
upgrading of utilities, completion of necessary studies and after
a number of starts figuring out collectively nothing would happen
on the waterfront unless there was significant private sector
investment in Bremerton. He believes the City was magnificently
TAPE #1345
City Council ~Reg. Mtg. Minutes
December 20, 1995
Page 13 of 23
successful in their response to the RFP whether or not Fletcher
Wright was the winning team. He wasn't sure how he missed hearing
about the idea of a new City Hall being built on the waterfront,
but at all the meetings he has attended that had never been
mentioned. One thing that has not come out to the public is this
is really a private sector development with the exception of the
proposed parking garage and transit facility. Such development
would mean $70-80 million dollars of private sector capital coming
into Bremerton and what they build, whether or not it is a
condominium or Safeway Store, is frankly up to the private sector
as long as it complies with the Comprehensive Planning and zoning.
By getting into the Board Rooms where the big dollars are, we are
in the fast lane and the City is on the cutting edge of how things
will be done and there won't be any precedent for a lot of things
that have to be done. Many of the issues that come up will have to
be dealt with by legal counsel and luckily SLA and the Fletcher
Wright group bring some of the finest legal and financial minds at
the City's disposal. Many of the developments in Kitsap County
are competitive within the County. The way this project is playing
out, for once we are talking about King County money coming into
Kitsap County via Bremerton and he believes that was why there is
such wide "County" support. He is also a member of the Bremerton
Parks and Recreation Commission, although he was not speaking for
the board nor does he at SLA meetings, he always keeps his eye on
those things and clearly all the plans he has seen at the minimum
provide continued income for the Roosevelt Field Fund and provide
pass through park facilities (sidewalks, grass, park benches,
etc.), which is an extension of the boardwalk. When he mentions to
Fletcher Wright people that he cares about those things, as does
Bremerton, they are very open to that in their design. As far as
all the details of the Memorandum Of Agreement, in watching the
Board members what they really want to do is get a commitment and
get going. The SLA Board is still in its forming stage; however,
there are two drivers moving their schedules: (1) the State
Legislative sessions, which starts in January; (2) private sector
marketing plan that will coalesce to provide the condominiums,
stores, restaurants, etc. When that comes to pass, that is when
the public sector must be prepared to support them.
Phil Best, Kitsap County Commissioner, stated he wanted to lend his
support to this project. He was proud to be selected as a member
of the SLA Board of Directors and in the 25 years he has been
involved in working in Kitsap County and as an attorney in
Bremerton and having met with Mr. Bremer about that long ago and
help create Bremerton tomorrow as a viable entity hoping to get
things together and get Bremerton working as a unit, this is the
first time he has seen everything coalesce into what he thinks can
pull it off and make something doable. He was surprised with the
comment about Bremerton building a City Hall as part of the project
TAPE #1345
City Council 'Reg. Mtg. Minutes
December 20, 1995
Page 14 of 23
since he was thinking it would be a good place for the County
Courthouse. We, as a County are really supporting this to be a
viable enterprise and Bremerton be revitalized, but as a County
they expect the City to also stand up and be a leader on this
project. The governmental entities are in it together with the
private sector and he believes together it can be made to work.
The County will help out in any way it can, but they want to make
sure it is a partnership.
Bonnie McDade, SLA Board member and Director of Diversification for
the EDC, suggested that if in fact we do not succeed with a project
that is going to be a real showcase and catalyst for a diversified
economic base in Kitsap County and primarily Bremerton, we might as
well write off much of our diversification efforts because we will
never get there from here. She finds it interesting that a number
of people accusing the City Council of not doing anything about
economic development are still encouraging Council to not do
anything. Therefore, she suggested Council take that courageous
step and proceed with the project. The SLA has been put together
to make that public/private partnership work, keeping the cohesive,
cooperative effort that is absolutely necessary to make
diversification work in Bremerton and Kitsap County. She too
believes the time is right, the people involved are right, the
project is right and she encouraged Council to put the $50,000
where the investment is the greatest, and she does consider it an
investment in all of our future.
John Thomas, Bremerton resident, stated he was not totally
intelligent on this project. A comment was made earlier that the
SLA Board of Directors is a diverse group of people, but he did not
know everyone, but those he does know look like they are the
political correct people. He did not see any "blue collar" worker
on the SLA Board. It was stated the EDC and Chamber Of Commerce
spent their money to see this project move forward. In his
opinion, they didn't spend their money, rather it was taxpayers
money through the City, County, State or Federal Government.
Looking at the SLA minutes, he noted Council President Huff-Menees
acted as President of the SLA Board, at least for one meeting, and
to him that borders on a conflict of interest situation.
Dick Hayes, Director of Kitsap Transit and Transit representative
on the SLA Board, stated this kind of synergy with a group of
governmental agencies materially greatly expands the ability of all
of them to succeed. This significantly increases the Transit
System's chances of funding the kind of ferry and bus terminal that
everyone has wanted for a decade or so. Certainly, with the kind
of commitment and resources that Fletcher Wright brings, this is
Bremerton's grand chance, in a decade, to pull off revitalization.
Earlier speakers commented that this is another study and Fletcher
TAPE #1345
City Council ~Reg. Mtg. Minutes
December 20, 1995
Page 15 of 23
Wright is essentially another consultant. In his opinion that is
almost a ludicrous injustice - Fletcher Wright is a major multi-
national corporation with the resources to take on this kind of
project and they have examples of such projects in the United
States and other countries. His involvement since the development
of the RFP for solicitation, he believes this is the chance of the
decade that gets the public facilities that are needed, gets the
private sector helping to get those less expensively than otherwise
would be possible, and gets the private sector in a position to do
a marvelous collection of things for downtown on the private side
of the ledger that will being that downtown back.
Mayor Lynn Horton stated she would provide answers to questioned
raised as follows:
(1) Comment was made that ferry service was a critical component of
this project - if she made the statement that the passenger-only
ferry had to be in place before this project could occur, she
should probably backtrack and explain what they found when they
looked at the feasibility of a hotel on the City's piece of
waterfront property. That analysis said that passenger-only ferry
service was needed in order to attract a hotel. This project can
occur without passenger-only service, although that service will be
an important part of the development and would help the entire
development. Additionally, passenger-only service is a critical
component for the City of Bremerton outside of this development.
Bremerton is looking at hosting an additional 20,000 people and
probably a large component of those will be living in the downtown
core (from Smith Cove down to the waterfront), and passenger-only
service will be a necessary element to service the greater
community as well as this project.
TAPE #1346
(2) The Roosevelt Field Replacement Fund - at this point we don't
know what the "business deal" will be with Fletcher Wright, so we
don't know how much money or what kind of project the City will be
entering into with them. Council has reviewed the letter of intent
goals and now Mr. Pollock is working on negotiating those goals
with Fletcher Wright and he will come back to Council early January
to discuss some of his recommendations for the kind of business
deal the City wants to strike with Fletcher Wright. Therefore,
when the City puts its piece of property up as part of this
project, there will be a revenue stream or source of revenue that
will go into the Roosevelt Field Replacement Fund.
(3) The City's financial contribution to the SLA - In 1995 the
City applied for a County Block Grant for this project and the City
was awarded $82,000, which is the money the City will be using for
this purpose. Some of that funding must go into the construction
side, but some came be funneled into looking at environmental
analysis and other things that comply with the grant.
TAPE #1346
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
December 20, 1995
Page 16 of 23
(4) Positions on the SLA Board Of Directors - a question was raised
relating to elected officials being seated on the board - the role
on the SLA Board does not go with the job of Mayor or City
President or Kitsap County Commissioner, they go with the person.
If she is not in her position as Mayor a couple years from now, she
will step down from the SLA Executive Board, but may ask to stay on
as an Advisory Counsel. She assumed other elected officials
involved would do the same, but that is up to them. A question was
raised at the Port of Bremerton meeting - since this is a Bremerton
development why isn't the City leading the charge instead of the
SLA? She believes it boils down to something fairly simple, i.e.,
the City of Bremerton's function includes Police on the streets,
making sure fire fighter services are available, a good water
system is in place, City parks are maintained, etc.. The City's
job is so vast and varied that it would be difficult to provide the
staffing and concentrated effort to see that this project happens.
The sole focus of the SLA is to see that this development happens
and that it works with rest of the downtown so that the downtown is
redeveloped.
(5) People have allude to the subject document as a "study" -
several years ago when she was City Council President, she met with
Vice President Of Development for Corner Stone and at that time she
asked him if Bremerton was ready for redevelopment. His response
was the first thing you need to do is figure out what your strategy
is for the downtown. If you don't have that strategy no developer
will come in because they don't think you know what you want. The
process used to develop this project followed that advice. First
of all, the Leland Analysis was conducted to develop a strategy for
the downtown, what did we want and where did we want certain
development entities to come. The analysis showed that the City's
piece of property wasn't the most ideal for a hotel site, so
therefore they looked at the greater area to see where a hotel
would fit if one was desired, as well as other desired
components,i.e., housing, retail, etc.. From that point, Tonykin
Hoyne was engaged to look at the site in preparation for putting
out a Request For Proposals - what did we want to see specifically
on our site, what kind of public amenities did we want, what kind
of components did we want included in our site, etc., so all of
these things have been leading up to the Requests For Proposals and
ultimately setting the stage for an entity like Fletcher Wright to
come into the community and do what the private sector does and
that is development.
(6) A question was raised about rights being given up by
jurisdictions as per the Memorandum Of Understanding - again, the
letter of intent will be the business deal with Fletcher Wright and
provide the parameters for what the City is giving, what is
expected of Fletcher Wright and at that point, if the City chooses,
TAPE #1346
City Council 'Reg. Mtg. Minutes
December 20, 1995
Page 17 of 23
giving authority to the SLA, which will be articulated in that
document.
(7) Question - what makes this project different than others
considered? She believes there are a lot of things that make this
project different,i.e, we have done our homework this time having
gone through the visioning session to determine what is desired in
the downtown; for the first time all the players needed are "at the
table"; we have a favorable economic picture with lower interest
rates; and a quality development team. She emphasized the
tremendous talent the various members of SLAbring to this project
and what they propose in their development makes sense for the City
of Bremerton. It also makes sense in terms of tourism and if you
couple that with the Missouri, contrary to Mr. Mentor's opinion,
she believes this area has just as good a chance to get the
Missouri as any other community. At this point, it is up to
Congressman Dicks to wheel the political behind the scenes
maneuvering that she believes will ultimately permanently homeport
the Missouri in Bremerton. People in Bremerton and Kitsap County
want a reason to come to Bremerton. There isn't a community like
Bremerton in Kitsap County and she believes the City is evolving
into an entertainment center for the County, certainly we are a
business center for the County even though the retail core may be
in Silverdale. She stressed we are not reinventing something on
the hopes that someone from out-of-the area will come and visit
Bremerton, but there are also elements for the people of Bremerton
to enjoy 365 days a year and not just from May through September.
(7) Question - are there any guarantees that money won't be wasted?
There are no guarantees in life, but we do have a lot of people
with very good expertise working on this project. She has already
talked with Dan Miller, the City's project Manager, and he will be
working with John Koch, City Internal Auditor, to monitor
expenditure of funds. The private sector of the project will
secure private financing and it is up to them to convince a banking
establishment that their project is financially feasible, that they
have tenants secured and leases in place.
(8) Question - will the citizens have a vote on this project? The
majority of this project is a private sector development and as
such that portions will not be held for citizens vote and she did
not imagine, at this point in time, that anything the City is
involved in will involve a citizens vote.
S(9) Question - how many citizens on the SLA Board are residents of
Bremerton? Mayor Horton estimates that one half or more are
Bremerton residents.
Mayor Horton asked Mary McClure to speak to the public involvement
TAPE #1346
City Council~Reg. Mtg. Minutes
December 20, 1995
Page 18 of 23
issue that Mr. Knauss felt was left out of the document; and she
asked Mr. Gunter to address Mr. McConnell's concerns relating to
the Memorandum Of Understanding.
Mary Mcclure stated two thirds of the SLA Board members are
Bremerton citizens and all of them are either City citizens,
downtown property owners, business owners or key executives in
major downtown businesses. In relationship to the public
involvement they are envisioning and planning an extensive process
that has two directions: (1) information out so they have an
informed dialogue with the community; (2) ways to encourage and
allow people to give input. In terms of information out, they
anticipate a series of brochures as well as working with the media,
both print and broadcast, to make the elements of the project
clear. In terms of the opportunities for getting input back, one
of the issues they are currently struggling with is how to do this
in a cost efficient manner. They are looking at asking each of the
Council members to host their district meetings with information
and create that as an opportunity for Council members and the SLA
Board to talk directly with their constituents about the project.
It is there hope to do that at least twice over the next several
months in each area. They are also hoping to set up a
questionnaire that can be handed out in many different forums where
SLA Board members will meet with neighborhood groups, civic
associations, organizations all over the City and County, and talk
about the project and its progress. At that time, they will not
only entertain questions, but also leave the questionnaire with
those attending so they can fill it out. As they move further into
the project and have clear understandings of the kinds of tenants
and the nature of the project, they will begin to look at more
specific ways to hold open houses and forums. In relationship to
each of the public elements, the parking garage, multi-model
terminal and marine expansion, she was sure they would be designing
specific ways to present information on specific pieces of the
project to the community and get their feedback.
Bob Gunter stated the document is characterized as a Memorandum Of
Understanding, but it is a contract. Initially, they started with
the title of Memorandum Of Agreement and as the attorneys and
various parties looked at it they determined that Memorandum Of
Understanding is a more accurate title for this entry level
commitment. There are some fixed parts to the document, such as
payment of the money and the participating parties have all agreed.
The less clear part is the commitment to negotiate and proceed in
good faith. He stressed the "ands" in the document do make a
difference, but the WHEREAS goes on to say that "...as may be
permitted under existinq charters and laws;".. He emphasized
probably the most important thing for Council to remember is that
under the SCOPE of the Agreement paragraph 2 it states: "Continqent
TAPE #1346
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
December 20, 1995
Page 19 of 23
on the negotiations of future aqreements, the completion of various
feasibility studies and successful Project financinq ...... " He
pointed out there are several additional steps that have to be in
place before dirt is turned and parties are committed to do
anything in particular. A question was raised about SLA's ability
to receive, hold and approve transfer of facilities and
properties...again, that sentence goes on to read: "consistent with
applicable laws and pursuant to the terms of future aqreements
amonq the parties." The commitment here is to commit money,
resources and the good faith of the City to put a deal together
that pencils out. If it doesn't, then there is no further
commitment, but if it does the public and this Council will have
the ability to look at a much more detailed agreement that will
spell out what will be done and how it will be done with the City's
property. This agreement has a sentence that applies specifically
to Bremerton under Section 6: "The above notwithstandinq, the City
in its sole discretion may commence or later terminate separat~
neqotiations to convey its proDerty identified in Exhibit A for its
use in the Pro~ect." He stressed the fact that this agreement is
more clear for the City than any of the other governmental entities
in that they reserve their discretion and control over that
negotiating process. Paragraph 11 was the Attorney's attempt to
make it clear that no one is giving up anything as stated: "The
approval of this Aqreement or any actions taken pursuant thereto by
any governmental party is not intended nor should be construed to
affect the status of said qovernment Darty as an independent
municiDal entity or to limit or expand the powers and
responsibilities of any qovernmental party as Drovided by law."
They attempted to put constraints over what the scope of the
commitment is to pay money and to cooperate, but if it looks
feasible then this body will look at much more detailed agreements
in the future.
Mayor Horton stated Council has asked her to address an earlier
comment that the City is negotiating to lease 30,000 sq. ft., of
space in Sinclair Landing for a waterfront City Hall. She has had
no discussions about leasing 30,000 sq. ft. City Hall.
President Huff-Menees announced during the brief recess of the
Council meeting, a call came in from a constituent with respect to
the fact that the discussion was closed to Council and then there
were some speakers after that point; and that the public did not
then have the opportunity to respond to those speakers, she
emphasized Council is within its right to do that; however, if
there is anyone who would like to comment on the responses of the
last speakers they may make comment at this time. Since no one
wished to speak, she again closed the public discussion.
Mr. Colvin stated he appreciates citizens asking questions. He
#0702
TAPE #1346
City Council-Reg. Mtg. Minutes
December 20, 1995
Page 20 of 23
asked if he understood correctly that at this time the City was
only obligating itself for $50,000? It concerned him that the
City's Attorney was not present at this meeting. Mayor
explained if Council approves the Memorandum Of Understanding, the
City is agreeing to make a $50,000 contribution to the SLA, and the
source of those funds will be a Block Grant allocation. And, it
will commit the City to work cooperatively with the other entities
involved in the agreement to work on moving this project forward.
The City has no other liability in this process, we are not putting
up our land or committing other funds.
Mr. Overson noted Council received a lot of criticism and comments
and he feels all the questions have been answered. The purpose of
the subject agreement is basically to provide a cooperative
approach to continuing implementation of the sinclair Landing
project. The scope of the agreement is contingent upon the
negotiation of future agreements, so this is but a mini step in the
process. He felt this step was relatively easy and anticipated
future steps may get contentious. He is prepared to move forward
on the project based on his past experience and the fact that in
all of his years in this area, this is the best proposal he has
ever seen. He emphasized that is not saying we might not get
another one within the next 20 years if we wait, but there is no
guarantee that will happen. Until he is presented a better
proposal by either the critics or anyone else, he would support
this project. We have a group that will keep a watch on the City
to insure that the citizens' interests are preserved. He
acknowledqed the City is only one of 15 members owning property in
the downtown and the City's portion is significant, but a
relatively small portion. By comparison if you compare what the
County and other governmental agencies have put into roads,
infrastructure, fire hall, stoplights, etc., into Silverdale, this
City is going to have to invest in downtown.
M/S/C(Overson/Dawkins) to authorize the Mayor to sign the attached
Memorandum of Understanding, on behalf of the City of Bremerton.
Mr. Law pointed out no one commenting on this evening said they did
not want the project. The proposal from Fletcher Wright looks very
good and the best he has seen in many years. What we are looking
at for this proposal is to fund the feasibility study. He has had
a good 30-hours of phone calls from the public and they are not
saying they don't want the downtown developed nor are they saying
Fletcher Wright is not the right developer, their concern is the
documentation that Council is asked to approve at this time. He
keeps hearing it is a working document and that changes will be
made. He preferred Council passing an alternative that would
approve we will fund the $50,000, we are dedicated and committed to
the project, but see the results of the feasibility study. The
TAPE #1346
City Council 'Reg. Mtg. Minutes
December 20, 1995
Page 21 of 23
feasibility study could end up saying the best thing for this
program is to have the City issue the Bonds directly. He believes
the community is dedicated to having the downtown waterfront
developed, and the only concern is the path between the developer
and city government. Therefore, if we say we will fund it as
stated in Section 7 and give the attorneys an opportunity to come
back to Council after the feasibility study, the City will have
contributed $50,000 to the SLA so they could do their lobbying and
other items as identified. But, the City would be waiting for the
results of the feasibility study to give the right "path" to
follow. Therefore, he will vote no on this proposal with the hope
that another motion will follow to fund the program as he
suggested, but to not sign the Memorandum Of Understanding. His
greatest concern about the MOU was the approval of more than one
government agency for the City of Bremerton to be able to make a
change or to withdraw from the project. If that was not a valid
point and a part of the document, he questioned why sign it?
Mr. Fart stated acting on this issue brought him the most
satisfaction as a City Council member and he has also lived in
Bremerton a long time and seen study after study with none
succeeding. He is excited to think that he will be part of the
group that facilitates getting this project off the ground. He
strongly urged Council to provide a unanimous show of support and
not pick it apart at the last minutes. He believes the point
presented by the Kitsap County Commissioners made sense to
him...this is Bremerton's waterfront and Bremerton needs to take
the lead. One concern raised by a citizens was "what can this
project do for me" and he felt that was a valid point. In his
opinion, this project will do a lot for all the citizens of
Bremerton and the entire area. He firmly believes that a city's
downtown is its source of pride, and pride in the City is something
that Bremerton could use a little help and it benefits everyone.
Bremerton is the last waterfront community in the region with a
basically undeveloped waterfront. Mr. Thomas commented earlier
that there wasn't any "blue collar" workers on the SLA Board of
Directors. In response to that comment, he pointed out Beverly
Kincaid, Secretary/Treasurer of Kitsap County Central Labor Council
represents 30 Unions and three Labor Councils. He is not a
subscriber to the conspiracy theory that a group of people would
come together to deliberately try to do something to drag Bremerton
down even further and he recognizes nearly all of the SLA Board Of
Directors by name. He emphasized none of the SLA Board members are
getting paid and most of them are very busy people and from what
he understands, they are committed to donate a large amount of time
to help Bremerton get this project going. Again, he urged
unanimous support of this proposal as presented.
Mr. Dawkins stated between serving on the Parks and Recreation
TAPE #1346
City Council 'Reg. Mtg. Minutes
December 20, 1995
Page 22 of 23
Commission and being an elected official for the City for almost 25
years, it seems like it has taken a long time to get to this point
where discussions can be held in a positive light. He added his
voice of support to finally move ahead and develop the waterfront.
President Huff-Menees invited anyone in the audience to attend the
SLA's Board meetings, which are open to the public. She will make
sure a schedule of those meetings are posted in the City Council
Office so that perhaps some of the issues that were raised during
this hearing in terms of the make up of the Board and the work of
the Board can be directly addressed. She would take exception to
any comments made with respect to the make up of the SLA Board and
we are tremendously fortunate to have those individuals. If time
is taken to attend a Board meeting, one will find that there are no
issues ducked, the tough questions are asked and thoroughly
discussed until adequate solutions are reached and there is
agreement. She also disagreed with the comment that the MOU is an
inferior document - it is an excellent document. It is all in the
eyes of the beholder and someone could say it is ambiguous and
unanswered questions, but she finds it to be one of the most
specific documents of this type that she has ever seen and because
the law firm that is Counsel for SLA are leaders in the State in
public/private partnership issues. There has been a tremendous
amount of effort put into the details of this document and
selection of the people involved. She disagreed in part with some
of Mr. Law's statements, although she appreciated all of the
questions asked during the hearing and the answers provided, but
again, she encouraged the public to attend the SLA Board meetings
to become better informed.
Mr. Neville commented in response to the earlier comment that no
"blue collar" workers were represented on the SLA Board, he
believes Bremerton's best interest is being looked after and he
truly feels there is no bluer collar than his. He also believes
the homework has been done on this proposal and having spent all of
his life in this community he has seen various studies conducted,
including the "tent" idea, but this project is one that has gotten
all the players at the table at one time and going in one direction
- that is for the footprint of the development of downtown
Bremerton. From this footprint, we can branch out and implement
other plans and studies that have taken place in the City, such as
the Campus Evergreen Plan and the development of the City out into
the west hills area. The entire development of the City of
Bremerton starts with this one footprint and we do have all the
players coming to the table and that is exactly what the MOU is
doing with one voice speaking in one way for the development of
downtown Bremerton. As for the protection of the City, it is
specifically written in the MOU: "the City in its sole discretion
may commence or later terminate separate neqotiations to convey its
TApE #1346
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
December 20, 1995
Page 23 of 23
property identified in Exhibit A." The City is the only one that
has that exclusive right protecting the City's property and
everyone else is willing to put up their property in conjunction
with everyone else. He is happy and pleased that the MOU is a
working agreement where a step forward can be made into the future.
He wholeheartedly supports this proposal.
Mr. Montgomery related he moved into the City in 1990 and at that
time he made a statement that within five years he believed the
City of Bremerton would be turning around. What resulted was five
years later he had the opportunity to hear Fletcher Wright make a
presentation on this proposal. The group of people making that
presentation where the most empowering that he had ever seen, which
greatly impressed him. A few days ago, he attended another meeting
where he was informed the MOU was riddled with holes, but after
spending approximately seven hours studying the document, he has
determined that was not so. He urged Council to move forward on
this proposal and if the City does not go in that direction, you
might as well say "last person out shut off the light".
Mr. Colvin stated he did not pretend to know or understand
everything he has read, but he does have confidence in the stellar
group of people involved in the SLA. He will vote for this
proposal because of the confidence he has in that group. He
emphasized it is the citizens right to be concerned and to differ
with the Council, if they feel Council is doing something wrong.
Vote on Motion:
In Favor:
Montgomery, Dawkins, Colvin, Overson,
Neville, Farr, Huff-Menees
Opposed:
Winters, Law
Motion carried
With no further business meeting adjourned at 7:52 P.M..
KATHLEEN L. McCLUSKEY, City Clerk
SHERRIL HUFF-MENEES, Council President
City of Bremerton
KLM/SH-M/me
cc: Normal Distribution
File/Vault
AGENDA BiLL
BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL
1. SUBJECT:
CAMBRIAN SEWER REPLACEMENT
PROJECT - CHANGE ORDER #1
2. C~ (Cormment on back
if necessary)
Di~ec~z~/~f Public--ks & Utilities
16
City r '
CounCil Fiscal & Budget Committee
ENDORSEMENT ,~] INF~O~TION [ ]
M YoR
FOR AGENDA OF: January 17, 1996
ORIGINATING DEPT.: Public Works & Ut~_ls
Witt, City Enq~~
OKIGINATOR:
R.
DATE SUBMITTED: January 8, 1996
3. EXHIBITS:
1. Change Order #1
PO~ Works Operatm~ ~nage~m
~%PPRO%rED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FOR SUBMITTA3~:
COUNCIL PRESIDENT ~
4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION:
Change Order #1 for the Cambrian Sewer Replacement Project consists of four items.
Item 1, 2, and 3 are for work proposed in Cambrian from 15th Street scunh tc mid-
block between 13th & 15th Streets. Item 1 is for replacing a deteriorated 4"
watermain with a 8" watermain at a cost of S36,064.25. Item 2 is for ccmpie~e stLeer
reconstruction at a cost of $10,219.77. Item 3 is for construction of s
drainage in accordance with the Callow Avenue Basin CSO Reduction Plan an a cost
$10,535.70. Item 4 is to increase the original contracts "Bank Run G~a~e!", "6"
Side Sewer", "6" Cleanout", and "Crushed Surfacing Top Course" iD 5he amount of
$30,860.00. The total amount of this change order is $87,679.72.
5. RECOMMENDATION:
The City Council approve Change Order #1 for Cambrian Avenue Sewer Replacement
Project in the amount of $87,679.72 and authorize the Mayor to execute the same.
9. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Director Pub Wks & Util
ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: Director Pub Wks & Util
EXPIRATION DATE:
REVIEW DATE:
PULLED [ ] TABLED [ ]
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE:
10.
APPROVED []
NOTICE OF ACTION
DISAPPROVED [ ] AMENDED
(OVER)
2. CLEARANCE COMMENTS:
3. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION - Continuation
5. IMPACT ON NON-PASSAGE:
The deteriorated water line will not be replaced at this time requiring future
repairs. Street reconstruction will not occur resulting in a shortened pavement
life. Storm drainage will be ihstalled in a later phase of the Callow Avenue Bas~--.
CSO Reduction projects.
IMPACT ON STAFFING, BUDGETS, FACILITIES~ EQUIPMENT AND OTHER RESOURCES:
StaffinG: Additional 80 hours of staff time will be required for construction
inspection and management.
Budget:
An expenditure from the Wastewater Capital Fund of $30,860.00, the
Water Capital Fund of $36,064.25, the Stormwater Capital Fund of
$10,535.70, and the Street Maintenance Fund of $10,219.77.
Facilities/Equipment: No impact.
7. RESEARCH SOURCES:
PUBLIC WORKS AND UTILITIES
3027 Olympus Drive · Bremerton, WA 98310-4799 · (360) 478-5318 · FAX (360) 47~3-5018
CltANGE ORDER # 1
15th and CAMBRIAN AVENUE SEWER REPLACEMENT
DESCRIPTION OF WORK
This change order includes the following:
1) Removing the existing 4" cast iron water main, from the North side of the
intersection of 15th and Cambrian and continuing South to midblock between 15th and
13th, replacing it with 8" ductile iron pipe. This work will add the following bid items with
the respective prices to the Contract.
ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT PRICE PRICE
2 TRAFFIC CONTROL LS $2,100.00 $2;100.00
5 TRENCH BACKFILL TON 400 $10.00 $4,000.00
14 ACP CL B FOR SY 75 $10.19 $764.25
TRENCH
16 CSTC CY 50 $18.50 $925.00
19 TIE BACK BLOCKING EACH 4 $1,693.75 $6,775.00
20 8" CL 52 DI PIPE LF 450 $25.00 $11,250.00
21 8" GATE VALVE EACH 2 $700.00 $1,400.00
22 8" CROSS AND BENDS EACH 5 $750.00 $3,750.00
23 8" REDUCERS EACH 5 $250.00 $1,250.00
24 SERVICES EACH 11 $350.00 $3,850.00
TOTAL ADDITIONAL
COST TO CONTRACT
$36,064.25
2) The existing pavemem South of the intersection of 15th street, prior to construction,
was in poor condition. During construction it was found that the road surface was a series
of thin overlays and bituminous surface treatments with no crushed rock base. When the
utility work concludes the Contractor shall grind the remaining asphalt, place crushed
surfacing top course to a depth of 0.5', grade the rock base, and place a three inch lilt of
asphalt pavement. The following current Contract items would be increased.
- ,I- Celebrating 50 Years of Freedom
ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT PRICE PRICE
2 TRAFFIC CONTROL LS $960.00 $966,00
16 CSTC CY 175 $18.50 $~23-7.50
25 ACP CL B 3" OVERLAY SY 950 $9.12 $8~o~04-:e0
26 ASPHALT GRINDING SY 950 $2.80 $2-;669.-99-
27 GRADING/PREP SY 950 $1.90 $1,865:0~
TOTAL $17
Quantities xvhich will be reduced due to the grinding/paving procedure
ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT PRICE PRICE
14 ACP CL B FOR SY -227 $10.19 $(2,313.13)
TRENCH
15 ACP CL B OVERLAY SY -856 $5.60 $(4,793:60)
TOTAL $(7,106-_73)
TOTAL ADDITIONAL
COST TO CONTRACT
$10,219.77
3) The Contractor shall install a storm sewer system. This work entails replacing the
existing catch basins 150 feet South of the intersection of 15th Street and installing 8" _PVC
between the two, installing approximately 120 LF of 12 HDPE pipe from the catch ba.~mon
the East side of the street to a MH to be installed +/- 15 Northeast of MH #1 of:Xhis ' -_---
Contract. Another 15' of HDPE shall also be installed between this new storm~/IJrt and
MH #1. The following Contract items will be added or increased.
ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT PRICE PRICE
2 TRAFFIC CONTROL LS $400.00 $400.00
4 TRENCH SAFETY 12" LF 150 $4.54 $681.00
5 BANK RUN GRAVEL TON 85 $10.00 $850.00
16 CSTC CY 20 $18.50 $370.00
28 TYPE 1 MH (FLAT TOP) EACH 1 $1,924.20 $1,924.20
29 TYPE 21 CATCH BASIN EACH 2 $900.00 $1,800.~30
30 12" HDPE LF 150 $20.95 $3,14-2.50
31 8" PVC STORM LF 50 $15.36 $768~00
32 CONNECT TO MH EACH 1 $600.00 $600.00
ADDITIONAL COST TO
CONTRACT
$10,535.70
4) The following item overruns occurred during the construction according to the
original Contract. Overruns were caused by additional laterals and cleanouts being installed
as well as poor existing material which could not be utilized for backf-fll.
ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT PRICE PRICE
5 BANK RUN GRAVEL TON 2453 $10.00 $24,53_0.00
10 6" PVC SIDE SEWER LF 125 $32.00 $4,000.00
11 6" CLEANOUT EACH 4 $305.00 $1,220.00
16 CSTC CY 60 $18.50 $1,11-9:00
TOTAL ADDITIONAL
COST TO CONTRACT
$30,.860.00
INCREASED COST TO CONTRACT $87679.72
IMPACTS TO CONTRACT:
1) The total cost of this Change Order is $87679.72.
2) The COntract time of completion shall be increased 11 days.
This document shall become an amendment to the Contract and all provisions shall apply
hereto.
Olsen's Land Development, Inc.
By:
Title:
Approved for the City of Bremerton
By: Date:
Project Manager
By: Date:
' City Engineer
Authorized for City of Bremerton this
By:.
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
day of ,1995.
AGENDA BILL
BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL
1. SUBJECT: d)/~a//~/~'O~ f~ ~/5/-/~ FOR AGENDA OF: January 10, 1996
~UBLIC HEARING: To consider a ComprehensiveORiGiNATiNG DEPT: DCD/Planning
Plan Map correction to add an "Industrial ORIGINATOR:
Park" designation to lands in the DATE SUBMITTED: D_.e. cember 29, 199
vicinity of Penderqast Park in W. Bremerton~ ~n~ ..... , .....
2. CLEARANCES: (Use bac~sary) 3. EXHIBITS:
( //~/./ ® Staff Report
City At t or ney ~.~_.2~_ ~ · Resolution
Dept. of Comm. Der: ~~· Planning Commission Minutes
Operations Committee: ~V~ [ ~~
4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION:
A 1990 Rezone for 236 acres of Pope Resources property included a combination of
zones to be integrated into a Planned Unit Development (PUD). Ten percent of the
area was to be "Industrial Park". The exact location would be determined later as
the master plan was developed. The City's new Comprehensive Plan did not show the
industrial designation. That oversight caused an inconsistency between the Plan and
Zoning Maps. The proposed correction will designate approximately 25 acres "Industri~
Park (IP)" as originally intended.
8. RECOMMENDATION:
The Bremerton Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on this matter and
recommends City Council approval.
NDTION: TO APPROVE ORDINANCE ~/j~z/~? ON 9. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Donald n. Pratt
$ ~ ~ READING 03RRFLTING A ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: N/A
M~PPING ~ ON THE EXPIRATION DATE: N/A
~SIVE PLAN. REVIEW DATE' N/A
10. NOTICE OF ACTION:
PULLED,__ TABLED__
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE:
APPROVED.__
DISAPPROVED
DATE:
AMENDED
11. AGENDA BILL NO:
8A
2. CLEARANCE COMMENTS:
5. IMPACT ON NON-PASSAGE:
This is a "correction of error" proposal to make the Comprehensive Plan and
Zoning Maps consistent with each other. Non-passage will continue the
inconsistency problem and may weaken the effect of the zoning on the Pope property.
Pope Resources is developing a master plan for this property and needs the City's
assurrance that the Plan and Zoning both include the industrial component.
6. IMPACT ON STAFFING. BUDGETS, FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCES:
No anticipated impacts in these areas.
7. RESEARCH SOURCES:
N/A
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL
CORRECTING A MAPPING ERROR ON THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
WHEREAS, the City of Bremerton adopted a revised Comprehensive Plan on April 5,
1995, in compliance with the Growth Management Act of 1990; and
WHEREAS, a minor mapping error was discovered in an area of West Bremerton south
of Pendergast Regional Park, which overlooked a Plan and Zoning designation approved in 1990
for an "industrial park" site; and
WHEREAS, this mapping error has resulted in an inconsistency between the City's
Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Maps; and
WHEREAS, the Bremerton Planning Commission reviewed a staff proposal to correct
this error and, following a public hearing on July 18, 1995, recommended that the Comprehensive
Plan Map be corrected to designate the subject site "IP, Industrial Park"; and
WltEREAS, the Bremerton City Council conducted a public hearing on January 10,
1996, to accept additional public testimony and to consider the recommendation of the Planning
Commission; now therefore
THE CITY OF BREMERTON DOES HEREBY ORDAIN that the West Bremerton
Land Use Plan map, contained in the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan, be amended
to add the "IP, Industrial Park" site, as delineated in attached Exhibit "A".
APPROVED by the City Council of the City of Bremerton this
,1996.
day of
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Bremerton this
, 1996.
day of
'JOHN E. LAW
City Council President
APPROVED this
day of
,1996.
LYNN S. HORTON, Mayor
ATTEST:
KATHLEEN McCLUSKEY
City Clerk
Published:
Effective:
BREMERTON PLANNING COMMISSION
DRAFT MI~ES
JULY 18. 1995
REGULAR MEETING
MEMBERS PRESENT:
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Commissioners Olsen, Boyd,
Robinson, Hancock, and Dingfield
Jackson, Goetze (Note: Goetze
later and noted in the minutes)
Stone,
arrived
Vice-Chairman Olsen called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m.
The roll was called and a quorum was present.
Please note:
Complete notes destroyed due to equipment failure.
Verbatim tapes available at the City of Bremerton's
Community Development office located at 286 4th
Street.
Chairman Goetze arrived at 6:17 p.m. and Commissioner Olsen turned
the Chair over to him.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. LES FOWLER, Denial of Short Plat to create three lots.
City Staff, Shane Jensen gave the staff report.
Written and oral testimony was presented by the applicant,
adjoining property owners and City staff.
A motion was made by Commissioner Robinson to uphold the
Director's denial of the short plat. Seconded by Commissioner
Olsen.
Unanimous vote in support of the motion.
2. WEST HILLS/POPERESOURCES: Comprehensive Plan Correction
City Staff, Ron Hough, gave the staff report.
Oral testimony was presented by David Cunningham, Pope
Resources.
Draft #1
August 7, 1995
.35
P.C. Minutes
July 18, 1995
Commissioner Stone made a motion to recommend City Council
approval of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. The motion was
seconded by Commissioner Olsen.
Unanimous vote in support of the motion.
FPH MANAGEMENT CONSTRUCTION, INC.:
Amendment and Rezone
Comprehensive Plan
Shane Jensen, City Staff, gave the staff report.
Oral and written testimony was presented bythe applicant and
adjoining neighbors.
Commissioner Stone made a motion to recommend City Council
approval of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, and also to
recommend a rezoning of the subject property from "GB" to
"MF". The motion was seconded by Commissioner Hancock.
Unanimous vote in support of the motion.
APPEAL of WILLIAM SESKO for a Cease and Desist Order
issued May 16, 1995.
Shane Jensen, City Staff, introduced the issue.
Oral and written testimony was presented by the appellant.
Commissioner Stone made a motion to uphold the City's Cease
and Desist Order on the Sesko property. The motion was
seconded by Commissioner Hancock.
Unanimous vote in support of the motion.
Chairman Goetze continued the meeting at 11:15 p.m. The meeting
will be reconvened at August 1, 1995, at 4:00 p.m. at City Council
Chambers.
August 1, 1995 - Continuation of July 18, 1995 regular meeting:
Vice-Chairman Olsen opened the meeting at 4:06 p.m..
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Commissioners Boyd,
Hancock and Jackson.
Stone, Robinson,
Draft #1
August 7, 1995
Exhibit "A"
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Area to be designated "IP":
The W ~,5 &the SW 1/4 of Section 21, Township 24 North, Range 1 East, W.M.
The N ½ &the NW 1/4 together with that portion &the NW 1/4 of the NE 1/4 lying
west of Third Street and situated in Section 28, Township 24 North, Range I East, W.M.
The N 3/4 of the SE 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of the NE 1/4; the NE 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of the NE
1/4; the W ½ of the NE 1/4 of Section 29, Township 24 North, Range I East, W.M.
LOCATION MAP
~sap
Lake
MDR
West
C-P
OS PW.
C-G:'
p~=
t. DR
, IP
Wemer Rd.
LDR ~
37
Pope Resources
A Unlited Partnership
19245 Tenth Avenue Northeast
P.O. Box 1780
Poulsbo, Washington 98370-0239
(360) 697-6626
(360) 697-1156 FAX
January' 10, 1996
Honorable City Council
Bremerton City Hall
239 Fourth Street
Bremerton WA 98310
Re: Comprehensive Plan Gorrection - West Hills
Dear Council Members:
In 1991, Pope Resources assisted the City in gaining control of all land uses
within its Bremerton watershed in order to assure long-term domestic water
quality. In exchange for property we owned in the watershed, we acquired a tract
of City-owned land west of Loxie Egans interchange adjoining the new Pendergast
Park. Since that trade, the subject parcel has been designated and zoned for a
combination of residential and industr~l uses. For several years, we have worked
with City staff to install, at our expense, corresponding infrastructure and to
attract prospective users for the site.
However, during deliberations on your new GMA Comprehensive Plan in the
Spring of 1995, the longstanding land use designations were, we believe,
inadvertently modified. We respectfully request that you concur with the Planning
Commission and correct the City's Comprehensive Plan after finding such action
to be consistent with the goals and requirements of the Growth Management Act
and regulations.
David Cunningham
Vice President, Land Use
ph
C:
Donald Pratt, Director of Community Development
Ron Hough, Planning Manager
- AGENDA BILL
BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL
ORDINANCE NO.
AUTHORIZING THE ISSUE OF A $1,250,000 TAX ANTICIPATION
NOTE, ACCEPTING THE PURCHASE OFFER OF SEAFIRST BANY~
AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY
FOR AGENDA OF: Jan. 17, 1996
ORIGINATING DEPT: Treasurer
ORIGINATOR: R. Hanna
DATE SUBMITTED: Jan. 4, 1996
2. CLEARANCES: Comment of back if necessary)
Dir. Admin. Ser~~~..~~
City Attorne~
Council Fiscal & Budge~.~.~ -
3. EXHIBITS:
Proposed Ordinance
Cash Flow Projection
Note Purchase Offer (at Council meeting)
ENDORSEMENTS .~' INFORMATION APPROVED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FOR SUBMITTA
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. Emergency passage of this ordinance is needed
in order that the City and Seafirst can minimize their market risk in executing the note sale and thereby provide the lowest
cost financing possible.
8. RECOMMENDATION:
MOTION TO PASS ON AN EMERGENCY BASIS ORDINANCE NO. ~7/~-~//.
9. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Treasurer
ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: Mayor
EXPIRATION DATE: Jan. 31, 1997
REVIEW DATE: N/A
PULLED
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE:
TABLED
10. NOTICE OFACTION
APPROVED
DISAPPROVED AMENDED
11. AGENDA BILL NO: ~ - 0 0
2. 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.
CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO. ~
AN ORDINANCE of the City of Bremerton, Washington,
authorizing the issuance 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 Seattle-First
National Bank of Seattle, Washington; and, because of its
urgency, providing that this ordinance shall take effect
immediately.
Passed January 17, 1996
This document was prepared by:
Foster Pepper & Shefelman
1111 Third Avenue, Suite 3400
Seattle, Washington 98101
(206) 447-4400
CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City of Bremerton, Washington,
authorizing the issuance 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 Seattle-First
National Bank of Seattle, Washington; and, because of its
urgency, providing that this ordinance shall take effect
immediately.
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 1996 will not be
sufficient to meet necessary City expenses as they are incurred in
1996, 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 assessed valuation of the
taxable property of the City as ascertained by the last preceding
assessment for City purposes for the year 1995 for tax collection
in the year 1996 is $1,239,563,247 and the City as of December 31,
1995, had $10,083,210 of outstanding general indebtedness evidenced
by limited tax general obligation bonds and notes and tax
anticipation notes 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 $1,880,000 within the limit of up to 2-1/2% of the value of the
0219407.01
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 $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, 1996 (the "Note Fund").
Pending the collection of sales, excise and general ad valorem
property taxes levied for collection in 1996 and other revenues
anticipated to be received in 1996, the City shall issue and sell
its tax anticipation notes to be designated Tax Anticipation Notes,
1996 (the "Notes"), in the principal amount of $1,250,000. The
Notes shall be dated February 1, 1996; shall mature on January 31,
1997; shall be in the denomination of $50,000 or any integral
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 Washington
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
--2--
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 shall be general obligations of
the City.
The Notes shall not be subject to redemption prior to their
maturity date.
Section 3. Reqistration 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 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.
Section 4. Payment of Notes. Both principal of and interest
on the Bonds 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 Bond
Registrar at the option of the owners.
Section 5. Pledoe of Taxes. The Notes shall be paid solely
from the Note Fund. The City irrevocably pledges to budget and
0219407.01
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 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 signed 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, 1996,
described in the Note Ordinance.
0219407.01
-4-
WASHINGTON STATE FISCAL AGENCY
Bond 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.
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
021~7.01
-5-
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.
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.
Section 10. Permitted Financing of Cumulative Cash Flow
Deficit. Based upon the reasonably expected amounts of sales,
excise and general ad valorem property taxes and other revenues to
be collected in 1996 (including investment proceeds of the Notes)
~19407.01
~6~
and that are expected to be available to make General Fund
expenditures in 1996 (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 1996 and that is to be financed
with proceeds of the Notes.
Section 11. Preservation of Tax ExemDtion 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 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 Arbitraqe Rebate
Exception and Desiqnation of NOtes as "Qualified Tax-Exempt
Obligations." The City finds and declares that (a) it is a duly
organized and existing governmental unit of the State of Washington
(b) no Note which is part of this
and has general taxing power;
~1~.01
-7-
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.
Section 13. Undertakinq to Provide Continuing 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
0219407.01
-8-
undertaking (the "Undertaking") for the benefit of holders of the
Notes:
(a) Undertakinq 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 ("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; (ix) defeasances; (x) release,
substitution, or sale of property securing repayment of
the Notes; and (xi) rating changes.
(b) Amendment of Undertakinq. 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 $ID
or the MSRB, under the circumstances and in the manner
permitted by the rule.
The City will give notice to each NRMSIR 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 Undertakinq. 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
confirmed 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
0219407.01
-9-
notice of such termination to each NRMSIR or the MSRB and
the SID.
(e) Remedy for Failure to Comply with Undertakinq.
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 ResDonsible to
Administer Undertakinq. 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. Seattle-
First National Bank of Seattle, Washington, has presented a
purchase contract (the "Note Purchase Contract") to the City
0219407.01
-10-
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
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 8, 1996 (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
0219407.01
to offering price, interest rate, selling compensation, delivery
date and other terms of the Notes dependent on such matters.
Section 16. Effective Date - Urgency. The City is in urgent
need of obtaining funds to offset the City's deficit cash flow and
has been advised that a favorable market exists at this time for
the sale of the Notes resulting in a lower interest rate on the
Notes and a savings to the City. Therefore, the City Council finds
that sufficient urgency exists to require that this ordinance take
effect immediately upon its passage and publication.
PASSED UNANIMOUSLY by the City Council of the City of
Bremerton, Washington, this 17th day of January, 1996.
APPROVED this
JCMNE. LAW
Council President
day of January, 1996.
ATTEST:
LYNN HORTON, Mayor
KATHLEEN McCLUSKEY, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
George M. Mack, Bond Counsel
Publication Date:
Ordinance Number:
0219407.01
-12-
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
17th day of January, 1996, as that ordinance appears on the Minute
Book of the City.
DATED this day of January, 1996.
Kathleen L. McCluskey
City Clerk
021~407.01
CITY OF BREMERTON
1996 GENERAL FUND CASH FLOW PROdECTION
2000
1500
1000
500
-5OO
-1000
-1500
DEC JAN
Thousands
FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP
I+~,~ c^s.I
OCT NOV DEC
CITY OF BREMERTON
1996 GENERAL FUND CASH FLOW PROJECTION
9mlmm Tax
SMee Tax - Cdminal Justlc~
B&OTax
Utalty Tax ~.
- T~
P.I.L.O.T. -
- W~
F~~~
T~ ~
T~ Av~
P~od 13 Expe.dllun~
T.~ ~ N~
Term Expendllunm
33,920 21,740 64,483 18~,834 7TX)A79 1,,464,964 29,005 15,777 40,327 149,075 624,033 1,(~5,322 4,437,452
386,292 361,200 322,145 306,327 312,336 348,688 338,332 331,150 389,729 547,371 370,150 363,636 4,177,548
311,290 145,902 13,656 238,901 158,382 6,141 2'72,091 150,440 6,406 297,357 132,585 38,591 .1,600,000
123,0~1 119,612 120,968 109,974 110,(X)2 64,655 65,471 ·74,301 78,973 ?'2,397 64,647 69,308 1,155,000
36,792 37,120 29,022 29,8(13 23,902 15,g05 11,472 8,975 9,071 8,82'8 12,73}' 29,221
78,185 73,071 56,427 72,550 4,00 38,664 81,029 54,121 61,495 76,16,5 73,071 72,566 780,000
0 0 O 0 0 30,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 30,000
45,235 5,162 5,323 44,458 ' 1,663 4,578 38,718 7,063 6,568 43,770 5,447 5,955 215,500
56,946 90,853 ?0,648 67,374 73,344 67,508 72,689 71,~21 ~,232 70.954 63,ee7 ~,734 e50.500
13,646 13,754 14,041 22,058 29,247 36,650 2(l,290 22,998 18,333 19,62'9 15,171 19,006 250,000
31,238 37,752 31,549 3~,4{i~ 30,216 35,020 27,988 38,066 29,005 37,188 29,546 37,9,37 4(X).O00
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65,000 0 0 O O 65,000
29,638 0 0 31,978 0 0 29,493 0 0 20,(~04) 0 0 114,000
0 0 50,411 0 0 52,347 0 0 51,634 0 0 52,30(l 207,000
0 0 0 0 3e.297 (2,287) 0 0 0 0 0 0 34,000
366,102 206,966 217,677 379,506 304,388 29~,496 3,48,916 387,653 254,754 309,839 307,684 253,138 3.784337
1,529,505 1,171,~34 1,045,524 1.540,63~ 1,604,463 2,534,978 1,383,245 1,292,558 1,050,905 1,,485,9~9 1,761,837 2,166,073 18,829,337
3,290,565 1,450,214 678,817 659,335 1,130,153 1,899,5,44 1,735,474 1,208`275 618,333 634,907 765,471 1.,463,130 15,524,238
316,990 316,900
1,250o000 1`250,000
239,377 239,377 478,754
1,434.034 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1.5~0.381 1.65~.645 1.4g0.305 1.631.353 1.468.414 t.453.150 18..543.563
3,001,324 1,,811,921 1,550,119 1,423,508 1,7~5,588 1,547,3t5 1,78g,758 1,656,846 1,480,305 1,631,353 1,488,414 1,483,130 20,589,33'7
278.560 (361.70~) (8~1,301) (764.3311 (~3~,433) '~.r)2.229 (5,4,,~64) (446.572} (650.972) (99~.36~} (702.943) 0
C.~123FILESgAONTHLY~EVTAN~.W~4 11/03/95 04.t)0 PM
~-,~_L]MINAR Y OFFICIAL STATEMENT DATED JANb,~_.~ ~ 8, 1996
NEW ISSUE RATING: Not Applied For
NEGOTIATED
In the opinion of Bond Counsel, assuming compliance t~y the City with applica~e requirements o! the internal Revenue Code of 1986, as arner~ed, including
arbitrage, interest on the Notes is excluded from gross income of registered owners for federal income ~x puq~es un~er exisl~g iade~l law and is not an
item of tax preference for purposes of the a~ernative minimum tax applicable to individuals. However, while interest on the Notes also is not an item of tax
preference for purposes of the alternative rninb~urn ~ax applicable to corpota~fons, interest on the Notes received I~y corpotatfons is iaken into account in the
computation of adjusted current earnings for purposes of the alternative minimum tax applicable to corporaEons, interest on the Notes received by certain
corporations may be subject to an environmental tax, interest on the Notes received by certain $ co~oralfof;s may be subject to tax and interest on the Notes
received by foreign cotporatfons with United States branches may be subject to · foreign branch p~ofits tax. Receipt of interest on the Notes may have other
federal tax conE~uences for cor~in taxpayers. See 'TAX EXEMPTION' end 'CERTAIN OTHER FEDERAL TAX CONSEQUENCES' herein.
CITY OF BREMERTON
KITSAP COUNTY,WASHINGTON
$1,250,000*
TAX ANTICIPATION NOTES, 1996
DATED: February 1, 1996 DUE: January 31, 1997
The Notes will be issued in fully registered form in the denomination of $50,000 or integral mulltiples thereof.
Principal of and interest on the Notes will be paid by the Fiscal Agent of the State of Washington (the "Paying
Agent"), currently First Interstate Bank of Washington, N.A., Seattle, Washington and The Bank of New York,
New York, New York, upon presentation and surrender of the Notes at maturity.
Due Amount
January 31, 1997 $1,250,000'
Rate Price
The Notes will not be subject to redemption prior to their stated maturity.
The Notes are direct and general obligations of the City. For as long as any of the Notes are outstanding, the
City irrevocably pledges to levy taxes annually available to it without a vote of the electorate residing therein
on all of the taxable property within the City in an amount sufficient, together with other money legally
available and to be used therefor, to pay when due the principal of and interest on the Notes, and the full faith,
credit and resources of the City are pledged irrevocably for the annual levy and collection of those taxes and
the prompt payment of the principal of and the interest on the Notes. See "SECURI'I'Y" herein.
The City has designated the Notes as ~qualified tax-exempt obligations" for banks, thrift institutions and other
financial institutions. The Notes are not private activity bonds. See ~FEDERAL INCOME TAX EXEMPTION"
herein.
The approving legal opinion of Foster Pepper & ehefelman, Bond Counsel, Seattle, Washington, will be
delivered with the Notes. The closing of the Notes is expected to occur on February 1, 1996. The Notes in
definitive form will be ready for delivery at the facilities of The Depository Trust Company in New York, New
York, on or around ,1996.
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 essential to making an informed
investment decision.
Preliminary; subject to change.
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
Preliminary 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
Preliminary 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 Preliminary 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 Preliminary Official Statement and nothing contained in this Preliminary Official Statement
is or shall be relied upon as a promise or representation by the Underwriter. The delivery of this
Preliminary Official Statement does not imply that the information contained herein is correct as
of any time subsequent to the date of the Preliminary 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 Preliminary 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 Preliminary Official
Statement.
Securities Act of 1933
The Notes have not been registered under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, in reliance
upon specific exemptions contained in such act. The registration or qualification of the Notes in
accordance with applicable provisions of securities laws of the state in which the Notes have
been registered or qualified and the exception from registration or qualification in other states
cannot be regarded as a recommendation thereof. Neither these states nor any of their agencies
have passed upon the merits of the Notes nor the accuracy or completeness of this Preliminary
Official Statement. Any representation to the contrary may be a criminal offense.
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 otherwise 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)(1) but is subject to revision, amendment
and completion in a final Official Statement that will be available within seven (7) days of the
sale date of the Notes.
ii
CITY OF BREMERTON
KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Lynn Horton
MAYOR
TERM
EXPIRES
DECEMBER31
1997'
Sherril Huff-Menees
A1 Colvin
Cecil McConnell
David Farr
John Law
Richard Neville
Lon Overson
Robert Winters
Carlos Montgomery
CITY COUNCIL
r~'--t~--C- 1997
Member 1997
Member 1999
Member.:£ 1999
~~S~ 1997
Member ~ 1997
Member 1999
Member 1997
Member 1999
APPOINTED OFFICIALS
Richard Hanna
Kathleen McCluskey
John Koch
Ian Sievers
Treasurer
Administrative Services
Director/City Clerk
Auditor
Attorney
BOND COUNSEL
Foster Pepper & Shefelman
Seattle, Washington
UNDERWRITER
Seattle-First National Bank
Capital Markets Division
Seattle, Washington
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Pa_=e
Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 1
Description of the Notes ....................................................................................................... 1
Authorization ........................................................................................................................ 1
Security ................................................................................................................................. 2
Purpose .................................................................................................................................. 2
Note Fund .............................................................................................................................. 2
Failure to Redeem the Notes ................................................................................................. 2
Debt Payment Record ........................................................................................................... 2
Future Financing ................................................................................................................... 2
Assessed Valuation Determination ....................................................................................... 2
Tax Collection Procedure ...................................................................................................... 3
Authorization of Debt ........................................................................................................... 3
General Obligation Indebtedness .......................................................................................... 3
Limits on Amount of General Obligation Indebtedness ....................................................... 4
Authorization of Short-Term Debt ........................................................................................ 4
Taxing Powers and Limitations ............................................................................................ 5
Auditing of City Finances ..................................................................................................... 5
Net Direct Debt and Estimated Net Overlapping General Obligation Debt ......................... 6
Bonded Debt Ratios of the City ............................................................................................ 6
Statutory Debt Limit Calculation .......................................................................................... 7
Tax Collection Record of the City ....................................................................................... 8
Property Tax Rates ............................................................................................................... 8
Comparative Statement of General Fund Revenues and Expenditures ............................... 9
General Fund Revenues and Expenditures 1995 and 1996 Budget ..................................... 10
City Profile ............................................................................................................................ 11
Schedule of General Obligation Bond Debt Service for the City ......................................... 12
General and Economic information ...................................................................................... 13
Preservation of Tax Exemption .............................................................................................. 18
Federal Income Tax Exemption ............................................................................................ 18
Certain Other Federal Tax Consequences ............................................................................. 19
Absence of Material Litigation ............................................................................................. 19
Initiative 601 ......................................................................................................................... 19
CUSIP Numbers .................................................................................................................... 20
Approval of Bond Counsel ................................................................................................... 20
Continuing Disclosure .................... , ...................................................................................... 21
Underwriting ................................................................................................................... : .....21
Concluding Statement ........................................................................................................... 22
iv
PRELIMINARY OFFICIAL STATEMENT
CITY OF BREMERTON
Kitsap County, Washington
$1,250,000
TAX ANTICIPATION NOTES, 1996
INTRODUGTION
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, 1996 (the "Notes"). This Preliminary Official Statement provides information concerning
the City and the Notes.
DESCRIPTION OF THE NOTES
Principal Amount, Dates, Interest Rates, and Maturities
The Notes will be issued in the principal amount of $1,250,000 and will be dated and bear
interest from February 1, 1996 until their stated maturity. The Notes will mature on January 31,
1997, 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.
Registrar, Paying Agent and Transfer Agent
Principal of and interest on the Notes is payable in lawful money of the United States of
America, by the Fiscal Agent of the State of Washington, the ("Registrar" and "Paying Agent"
and the Transfer Agent") upon presentation and surrender of the Notes, at maturity, at either of
the principal offices of the Fiscal Agent in Seattle, Washington or New York, New York,
currently First Interstate Bank of Washington, N.A., and The Bank of New York.
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 17, 1996.
1
SECURITY
For as long as any ~of the Notes are outstanding, the City irrevocably pledges to levy taxes
annually available to it without a vote of the electorate residing therein on all of the taxable
property within the City in an amount sufficient, together with other money legally available and
to be used therefor, to pay when due the principal of and interest on the Notes, and the full faith,
credit and resources of the City are pledged irrevocably for the annual levy and collection of
those taxes and the prompt payment of the principal of and the 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 general ad valorem property
taxes and other money due the City's General Fund in 1996, 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, 1996 (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 has no other general obligation financing plans for 1996.
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
2
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.
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 umt 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 fu'st $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 (including bonds). 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"). 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
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 issue
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: (la) 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 "IA×lNG 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.
4
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 inthe 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 one percent 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's maximum regular levy rate for 1996 is $3.3573, of which it is currently
levying $3.3299 per thousand dollars of taxable assessed valuation.
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 three
dollars and sixty cents 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 one-hundred and six percent
(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).
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.
NET DIRECT DEBT AND ESTIMATED NET OVERLAPPING
GENERAL OBLIGATION DEBT
(As of November 30, 1995) !
Direct Debt:
Voted General Obligation Bonds Outstanding ......................
Non-Voted Bonds Outstanding ..............................................
Non-Voted Notes Outstanding (this issue) ............................
Bank Line of Credit Outstanding ...........................................
Less: Debt Service Fund Balance ...........................................
Net Direct Debt .........................................................................
$ 1,880,000
8,825,000
1,250,000
8,210
(278,127)
$
Estimated Net Overlapping Debt
Net G.O. Debt Percent of
Outstandin_= Overla_o
Kitsap County ................................. $ 36,167,402 11.23%
Port of Bremerton ............................ 8,300,000 26.09
Bremerton Sch. Dist. No. loo-C ...... 15,365,574 72.88
Central Kitsap Sch. Dist. No. 401 .... 12,295,000 1.17
South Kitsap $ch. Dist. No. 402 ...... 3,425,000 0.05
South Kitsap Park & Rec. District ... 11,260,000 0.10
Library District ................................ 5,250,000 11.99
Amount of
OvedaD
$4,061321
2,165 629
11,197 700
143 472
1 8OO
11 101
629,733
Estimated Net Overlapping Debt: .......................................... $
Net Direct plus Estimated Net Overlapping Debt: ......................................... $
BONDED DEBT RATIOS OF THE CITY
11,685,083
18.210,756
29,895,839
Preliminary Assessed Valuation for collection Year 19962 ......................... $ 1,223,940,521
Estimated City Population (1995)3 ............................................................... 39,610
Assessed Valuation Per Capita .................................................................... $ 30,900
Net Direct Debt to Assessed Valuation .......................................................... 0.95 %
Net Direct and Estimated Overlapping Debt to Assessed Valuation ........... 2.44%
Net Direct Debt Per Capita .......................................................................... $ 295
Net Direct and Estimated Overlapping Debt Per Capita .............................. $ 755
1 Adjusted to reflect the issuance of the Notes.
2 Preliminary assessed valuation for tax collection year 1996 is stated as the full assessed value of all taxable real and personal
property in the City.
3 Source: Washington State Office of Financial Management.
6
STATUTORY DEBT LIMIT CALCULATION
(As of November 30, 1995)1
Preliminary Taxable Assessed Valuation for Collection year 1996 2 ....................
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) ....................
II. 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 .........................
$1,223,940,521
$ 18,359,108
(8,825,000)
0,250,000)
(8,21o)
278,127
$ 8,554,025
$ 30,598,513
(1,880,000)
(8,825,ooo)
(1,250,000)
(8,210)
278,127
$ 18,913,430
$ 30,598,513
0
$ 30,598,513
$ 30,598,513
0
$ 30,598,513
1 Adjusted to reflect the issuance of the Notes.
2 Total taxable assessed valuation for tax collection year 1996.
7
TAX COLLECTION RECORD OF THE CITY I
Taxable Collected Collected as of
Collection Assessed Tax Year of Lew_ November 30, 1995
Year Valuation 2 Levv Amount Percent Amount Percent
1995 $1,203,299,197 $ 4,476,487 NA3 NA3 NA3 HA3
1994 1,169,824,600 4,144,873 $3,973,2754 95.86%4 $ 3,5902,1534 98.21%4
1993 1,072,545,656 4,292,888 4,110,011 95.74 4,249,959 99.00
1992 949,107,196 3,544,019 3,397,651 95.87 3,530,197 99.6 !
1991 855,620,809 3,2 ! 7,059 3,071,970 95.49 3,213,715 99.90
1990 835,838,678 3,140,792 2,991,290 95.24 3,137,619 99.90
NOTE:
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 1. The second half of the tax
due is payable on or before October 31, becoming delinquent November 1.
Levy
Year
1995
1994
1993
1992
1991
1990
PROPERTY TAX RATES 3
(Rates In Dollars per $1,000 of Assessed Valuation)
City School Emergency
General City City State Kitsap Port of District No. Medical Regional
Fond Bonds Special School County_ Bremertqn 100C PUD Services Library_ Total
$3.2470 $.2308 $ 0 $3.5508 $ ].2249 $.4079 $2.1387 $.0940 $.2500 $.4595 $11.6036
3.0635 .2393 0 3.4297 1.1731 .3897 5.0440 .0865 .2490 .4447 14.1210
3.0871 .2543 .4339 3.3978 1.2383 .3955 5.2311 .0904 .2500 .4283 14.8067
3.2614 .2325 -3.3849 1.2673 .4184 5.3694 .0926 .2447 .4375 14.7087
3.3325 .1806 3.6430 1.4163 .4467 4.4455 .1041 .2500 .4926 14.3113
3.3250 .1831 3.8331 1.3790 .4500 3.8663 .1060 .2500 .5000 13.8925
I Source: Kitsap County Treasurer
2 Assessed valuation is stated as the assessed valuation of all taxable real and personal property in the City. Preliminary
assessed valuation for collection year 1996 is $1,223,940,521.
3 Not available; to be collected.
4 Taxes levied and collected as of November 30, 1995.
8
COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF GENERAL FUND
REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES 1
(Fiscal Year Ending December 31)
1994 1993 1992 1991 1990
Revenues:
Taxes $ 14,137,828 $ 13,340,322 $ 12,254,300 $ 11,019,779 $ 10,971,059
Licenses & Permits 390,454 362,968 367,369 314,209 243,129
Intergovernmental 728,407 778,927 1,199,015 1,196,304 920,806
Charges for Services 1,394,815 1,502,067 1,265,887 1,200,704 1,142,412
Fines & Forfeits 593,093 556,447 579,071 495,204 495,397
Miscellaneous 240.672 26 I. 198 295.810 342.866 307.288
Total Revenues $ 17,485,269 $ 16,801,929 $ 15,961,452 $ 14,569,066 $ 14,080,091
Expenditures:
General Government $ 4,843,656 $ 5,039,485 $ 4,702,330 $ 4,452,251 $ 4,050,690
Security of Persons & Prop. 8,219,945 7,850,957 7,326,703 6,742,632 5,877,186
Physical Environment 587,931 698,080 655,845 675,231 577,282
Transportation 840,530 879,838 805,809 788,332 758,977
Economic Environment 514,320 448,824 352,504 397,279 269,687
Mental & Physical Health 250,493 249,239 236,594 221,670 177,157
Culture & Recreation 1,426,763 1,323,285 1,178,131 1,183,371 1,031,688
Redemption of General LT Debt 24,672 30,735 28,393
Debt Service 44,593 18,414 125,479 187,110 195,886
Capital Outlay 385.414 277.113 228.162 945.504 611.872
Total Expenditures
Other Financing Sources/(Uses):
Operating Transfers In
Operating Transfers Out
General Fixed Assets Disposal
Proceeds & General L.T. Debt
Total Other Financing Sources (Uses)
$ 17,138,317 $ 16,815,970 $ 15,639,950 $ 15,593,380 $ 13,550,425
$ 6,000 $ 6,000 $ 6,000 $ 107,500 $ 6,000
(398,376) (236,725) (334,764) (249,1 44) (249,1 44)
59,640 0 1,893 0 0
0 0 0 730,000 0
$ (323,736) $ (230,725) $ 326,871 $ 588,356 $ (243,144)
Fund Balance, January 1
Current Yr. Excess/(Deficit)
Prior Year's Corrections
Residual Equity Transfer
Other Equity Charge
TOTAL ENDING
FUND BALANCE
$ (44,548) $ 206,399 $ 217,464 $ 572,130 $ 338,956
0 0 0 78,717 0
9717 (6108) (1,545) (53,349)
1,084.983 (73) (4,149) 2.575 0
$ 1,064,368 $ (44,548) $ 206,401 $ 217,464 $ 572,129
Source:
Office.
City of Bremerton Annual Financial Reports. All years have been audited by the Washington State Auditor's
9
GENERAL FUND REVENUES AND
EXPENDITURES 1995 AND 1996 BUDGET 1
(Fiscal Year Ending December 31 )
Revenues
Taxes ...................................................................................... $
License and Permits ...............................................................
Intergovernmental ..................................................................
Charges for Services ...............................................................
Fines and Forfeits ...................................................................
Miscellaneous .........................................................................
Total Revenues ....................................................................... $
Working Capital ..................................................................
Total Resources: ................................................................ $
Current Expenditures:
General Government ..............................................................
City C~uncil ........................................................................... $
Executive ................................................................................
Administrative Services .........................................................
City Clerk ........................................................................
Treasurer .........................................................................
Information Services .......................................................
Po]ice & Fire Pension .....................................................
Transportation .................................................................
Intergovernmental Service ..............................................
Misc. Non-Departmental ................................................
Legal Department ...................................................................
Human Resources ...................................................................
Community Development ......................................................
Community Development ...............................................
Building ...........................................................................
City Auditor ...........................................................................
Civil Service ...........................................................................
Public Safety
Municipal Court .....................................................................
Police Department ............... .' ..................................................
Fire Department .....................................................................
Public Works
General Facilities ...................................................................
Engineering ............................................................................
Leisure Services
General Parks .........................................................................
- Recreation ...............................................................................
Senior Center ..........................................................................
Pool .........................................................................................
Cemetery Services ..................................................................
Athletics .................................................................................
Tax Anticipation Note Debt Service ......................................
Total Current Expenditures ............................................ $
19962
15,070,200
330,135
614,600
1,992,927
523,400
2.890.699
20,421,961
427.500
21,849,461
135,465
196,065
2,186,1073
3
3
3
1,228,069
967,350
116,351
1,317,895
447,358
210,582
665,806
3
79,141
3
3
5,536,247
3,365,561
540,464
451,903
1,024,459
185,439
144,844
240,865
66,136
243,354
2.500.000
21,849,461
1995
14,159,160
321,050
544,890
1,866,638
607,239
2.839.820
20,338,737
541~000
20,879,737
130,218
181,569
354,536
726,897
296,036
1,216,067
910,481
231,956
1,380,954
397,521
152,651
438,323
348,633
71,704
12,936
644,847
5,012,032
3,194,581
705,393
472,587
847,689
180,425
180,990
232,559
58,152
0
2,500,000
20,879,737
I Source: City of Bremerton.
2 Preliminary.
3 Certain categories in Preliminary 1996 Budget are combined under Administrative Services.
10
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 at 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 fn'e 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 fh'st 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 Degree in Finance from University of Puget
Sound in 1983. Mr. Hanna is a member of the Washington 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
Teamster Local 589 130
Patrolman's Association 53
Police Management Association 5
International Association of 44
Fire Fighters Local 437
Membership
Contract Period Expiration Date
3 yr. 12/31/97
2 yr. 12/31/96
3 yr. 12/31/96
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.
11
'7/
SCHEDULE OF GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND DEBT SERVICE FOR THE CITY1
(As of December 31, 1995)
Outstanding
Voted General Obligation Bonds
Non-Voted
General Obligation Bonds
Total
Year Principal Interest Principal Interest All Bonds
1996 $ 170,000 $ 115,502 $ 145,000 $ 532,624 $ 963,126
1997 165,000 105,560 345,000 525,718 1,141,278
1998 195,000 94,655 360,000 508,317 1,157,972
1999 205,000 82,369 380,000 489,330 1,156,699
2000 155,000 71,115 405,000 468,793 1,099,908
2001 175,000 60,551 680,000 445,850 1,361,401
2002 180,000 49,013 720,000 406,057 1,355,070
2003 200,000 36,468 760,000 363,213 1,359,681
2004 135,000 25,261 810,000 317,252 1,287,513
2005 145,000 15,739 855,000 267,563 1,283,302
2006 155,000 5,386 910,000 213,872 1,284,258
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
2013 0 0 0 0 0
Total $ 1,880,000 $ 661,619 $ 8,825,000 $ 4,971,846 $ 16,338,465
1 Does not include the Notes or Line of Credit outstanding.
12
GENERAL AND ECONOMIC INFORMATION
The City
The City of Bremerton, voted the Number One city to live in the United States in 1990 in Money
magazine's survey of its readers (September 1990), 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 had an estimated 1995 population of
39,610. Kitsap County, covering 393 square miles of land, has the following other incorporated
areas: Bainbridge Island (population 17,910), Port Orchard (population 6,240) and Poulsbo
(population 5,765).
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 over
10,008 civilian employees, 8,954 military personnel, and 225 contractors, 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. This work is expected to
last beyond 1996. The Naval Supply Center is another local military facility in the City, with
about 200 employees.
Located a few miles north of the City of Bremerton is the Naval Submarine Base at Bangor. The
Base serves as a home base for Trident submarines and provides employment to 3,111 civilians.
Additionally, 5,632 military and 1,665 contracted personnel are employed at the Base. As the
only operational base of its kind, it is considered one of the most important ones in the country
by the Department of Defense.
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 3,500 civilian, 300 military and
1,400 contracted personnel.
Base closures in other geographic regions outside of Washington are expected to have a positive
impact on growth in the City and Kitsap County. Five naval commands are scheduled to move
to Bangor from out-of-state. The most significant of these is the Ocean Systems Engineering
Command which is anticipated to bring 700 employees to the County. 520 housing units at
Bangor and 170 housing units in Bremerton's Jackson Park have received funding (combined
total of both projects is $65.6 million) and are being built to house additional military personnel
being assigned to bases in the area. The Navy currently has a waiting list of approximately 1,900
families for military housing.
Current PSNS Projects. The aircraft cartier USS Nimitz, lead ship in the world's largest class
of aircraft carriers, and its escort ships are temporarily homeported in Bremerton. The USS
Nimitz is just completing a complex overhaul. Current Navy plans have the USS Nimitz leaving
the Puget Sound Area in 1997 when it becomes due for a refueling overhaul. The nuclear
cruisers USS Arkansas and USS California and three combat support ships, USS Camden, USS
Sacramento and the newly commissioned USS Rainier are also homeported at the shipyard.
The USS Abraham Lincoln and USS Carl Vinson, both Nimitz class aircraft carriers, each with
crews of over 3,000 personnel (net of air wing personnel), are currently being overhauled at the
shipyard and are expected to be re-homeported either in Everett or Bremerton at the completion
of that overhaul since their current home ports are being closed. The USS Abraham Lincoln
recently arrived at Bremerton and the USS Carl Vinson is expected to arrive in late 1996 for
overhaul.
13
While there have been approximately 700 layoffs of temporary on-call workers at the base over
the past year, many of these temporary on-call workers are expected to be rehired during the first
quarter of 1996 as a result of the arrival of the USS Abraham Lincoln and other projects.
In 1991, the Navy completed a $1.8 million renovation of a downtown office building for use as
shipyard administrative services. Currently the Navy is undertaking a $20 million capital project
on 17 acres west of downtown to be used primarily for Navy administration.
Other Major Employers
The Port of Bremerton 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
fu'ms which employ a total of approximately 500 people. The Port is beginning development of a
90-acre high tech business park nearby. Several companies are planning expansions near or
adjacent to the Bremerton National Airport, including an aircraft parts recycling company, and
an electro-mechanical products manufacturer that needs 50,000 to 70,000 square feet of building
space and 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.
As part of the redevelopment of the City of Bremerton waterfront, the City of Bremerton Parks
Department recently completed an inner-harbor park project featuring the decommissioned
destroyer USS Turner Joy, which is being used as a floating museum. The park also includes a
46,000 square-foot boardwalk, harbor tour boat and ticket office. An adjacent floating pier that is
used as a fishing pier, a 70-slip marina and breakwater was built by the Port of Bremerton and
the Washington State Department of Fisheries in 1993.
Health care needs are met by several facilities in the Bremerton area including the Naval
Hospital - Bremerton with 370 employees and Harrison Memorial Hospital in Bremerton with
1,350 employees. A number of nursing homes and retirement complexes are also located in
Bremerton. In late 1993, Harrison Memorial completed a $20.5 million expansion 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.
Olympic College is a two-year public community college located in Bremerton, with an
enrollment of approximately 4,310 (full-time equivalents). 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:
· Kitsap County and the Port of Bremerton recently announced plans to provide up to $6
million in funding toward acquiring the USS Missouri, the World War II battleship known
as the site of the Japanese surrender. To further support this proposal, the Washington State
Governor has requested $3 million contribution from the Washington State Legislature.
The proposal is to permanently moor the USS Missouri in Bremerton, its homeport since its
deactivation. The U.S. Navy is considering bids from communities in several states. If the
effort to retain the Missouri in Bremerton is successful, operation of the ship as a historical
attraction is expected to increase tourist visitation to and spending in Bremerton and the
Puget Sound area.
14
· A master plan for the development of Bremerton's downtown waterfront, known as Sinclair
Landing, is being developed. A combination of public and private uses is foreseen for this
project, including: a transit center, new ferry terminal, expansion of the waterfront park,
expansion of-the marina, a new terminal for passenger-0nly ferries, parking, retail use,
restaurants, offices, an 80-room inn, a six-plex cinema and multi-family housing, all
connected with pedestrian corridors. A not-for-profit corporation would be the owner of the
public portion of the project. Once the plan is finalized, the project is expected to take three
years to complete at a cost of $74 million. At this time it is not known if or when this
project will be completed.
· The Washington State Department of Transportation ("DOT") provides ferry services
between Seattle and Bremerton. Bremerton became the headquarters for all ferries with
routes south of Seattle in 1994. DOT is designing a new $21.3 million ferry terminal for
Bremerton, for construction after the year 2000.
· Wal-Mart recently announced plans to build two new stores in Kitsap County: one in East
Bremerton and one in Port Orchard.
· A Safeway superstore opened in Bremerton about a year ago and another one is now being
built near the new Wal-Mart site in East Bremerton.
· The Bremerton Black Entrepreneurs Association is reviving the Roxy Theatre in downtown
Bremerton for use as a concert hall and for other live entertainment.
Following are economic indicators of the City and the County.
CITY OF BREMERTON AND
KITSAP COUNTY POPULATION
Kitsap Number of
City of Other County Resident Armed
Bremerton Incor_oorated Unincorr~orated Total Forces Personnel2
1995 39,610 29,915 151,075 220,600 11,916
1994 35,920 28,625 148,655 213,200 9,716
1993 36,380 28,160 145,460 210,000 11,817
1992 38,990 27,405 139,205 205,600 15,631
1991 37,040 26,639 3 132,821 196,500 12,310
1990 38,142 12,913 138,676 189,731 15,050
TAXABLE RETAIL SALES 4
Year Kitsap County City of Bremerton
19955 $ 836,412,792 $ 216,800,994
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
1990 1,329,900,045 384,724,867
1989 1,138,364,190 349,852,541
1 Source: Washington State Office of Financial Management and U.S. Census.
2 Estimated.
3 The large increase is due to the annexation of the unincorporated areas of Bainbridge Island to the new City of Bainbridge
Island.
4 Source: Washington State Department of Revenue
5 First two quarters only.
15
MAJOR TAXPAYERS IN THE CITY OF BREMERTON!
Taxpayer
Puget Sound Power and Light
US WEST Inc.
HMI, Inc.
Michael Connolley
Viewcrest Villages Limited Partnership
Charles & Joan Haselwood
Overlake Management Company
Merit Company
Homing Thiery Partnership
Bremerton Cascade Associates
Business Assessed Valuation
Electric Utility $ 22,603,320
Telecommunications 16,370,144
Developer 9,817,460
Olympic College Business Svcs 8,022,400
Apartments 7,800,000
Retail 7,010,000
Retail 6,000,000
Retail 5,865,000
Apartments 5,765,000
Apartments 5,400,000
SEATI'LE-BREMERTON FERRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS 2
Year Number of Vehicle~ Number of Passengers
1994 719,125 1,456,706
1993 676,031 1,399,354
1992 667,251 1393,650
1991 659,827 1339,648
1990 638,689 1,484,629
Year
KITSAP COUNTY WASHINGTON STATE AND USA
LABOR FORCE AND AVERAGE ANNUAL UNEMPLOYMENT3, 4
Kitsao County_
Resid6nt Civilian
Labor Force Average Annual
Unemployment
Unemolovment as a Percent of Labor
Force
United
Total Kitsap County Washington (%) States
Employment (%) (%)
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
69100
70 900
72 900
76 400
79 900
84 600
85 800
88 900
90 100
89 500
4,1~ ~,000 5.9 8.1 7.2
4,4~ ~,600 6.2 8.2 7.0
4,4~ 68,5~ 6.0 7.6 6.2
4,1~ 72,1~ 5.4 6.2 5.5
4,3~ 75,600 5.4 4.9 5.3
3,400 81,2~ 4.1 6.3 5.5
4,2~ 81,600 4.9 7.5 6.7
5,4~ 83,5~ 6.1 7.5 7.4
6,000 84,1~ 6.7 7.5 6.8
5,400 84,1~ 6.0 6.4 6.1
1 Source: Kitsap County Assessor's Office.
2 Source: Washington State department of Transportation, Marine Division
3 Includes nonagricultural wage and salary, self-employed, unpaid family workers, domestics, agricultural workers, labor
disputants.
4 Source: Washington State Department of Employment Security
16
KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON STATE AND USA
INCOME ESTIMATES !
Total County Per Caoita In¢Qme
Personal Income Kitsap
Year ($000) County Washington
1993 $ 4,019,000 $ 18,676 $ 21,774
1992 3,902,000 18,607 21,333
1991 3,601,000 17,971 20,168
1990 3,323,997 17,318 19,268
1989 2,966,841 16,129 18,085
USA
20,800
20,137
19,201
18,677
17,690
1 Source: U.S. Department of Commerce and Washington State Office of Financial Management.
17
PRESERVATION OF TAX EXEMPTION
The City has covenanted, by 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 bond issuer whose arbitrage certifications may not be relied upon.
FEDERAL INCOME TAX EXEMPTION
Exclusion from Gross Income
In the opinion of Bond Counsel, assuming compliance by the City with applicable requirements
of 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.
Corporate Alternative ~U~mum 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 percent 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 percent of the amount by which the
corporation's alternative minimum taxable income exceeds $150,000, is then subject to a 20
percent minimum tax.
Corporate Environmental Tax
Section 59A of the Code imposes for tax years beginning on or before January 1, 1996, an
environmental tax of 0.12 percent ($1.20 per $1,000) on the amount of a corporation's alternative
minimum taxable income (increased for certain book income and adjusted current earnings,
including any tax-exempt interest) that exceeds $2,000,000.
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 percent 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.
18
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, are issued by a governmental unit that, together
with all entities subordinate to it, docs not reasonably anticipate issuing more than $10,000,000
of tax-exempt obligations (other than private activity bonds 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 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.
INITIATIVE 601
Initiative No. 601 ("Initiative 601"), a statewide initiative, was approved by a majority of voters
at the November 2, 1993, state general election.
Initiative 601 imposes a state expenditure limit under which, with certain exceptions described
below, the state may not expend state money from the state general fund in excess of a state
expenditure limit. The state expenditure limit for any fiscal year is equal to total state
expenditures from the state general fund for the previous fiscal year (exclusive of expenditures of
19
federal funds) increased by a percentage rate equal to a fiscal growth factor. The fiscal growth
factor is defined as the average of the sum of the United States inflation changes and state
population changes for each of the three prior fiscal years. For purposes of computing the state
expenditure limit, the 1990 fiscal year is treated as the base year for total state expenditures from
the state general fund. If the cost of any state program or function is shifted from the state
general fund on or after January 1, 1993, to another source of funding, or if moneys are
transferred from the state general fund to another fund or account, the state expenditure limit is
required to be reduced to reflect that shift. The budget submitted by the Governor to the
legislature may not propose, and the State Treasurer my not make, any expenditures in excess of
the state expenditure limit.
The state expenditure limit may be exceeded upon the enactment of legislation approved by a
two-thirds vote of each house of the legislature declaring an emergency for up to 24 months for
natural disasters that require immediate governmental action to alleviate human suffering and
provide humanitarian assistance. Additional taxes required for such an emergency may be
imposed only if funds in the education construction fund of the state have been exhausted, and
must expire 30 days following the next general election unless the voters approve an extension of
those taxes at that election.
The state expenditure limit also may be exceeded for other purposes by legislative appropriations
that are approved by a two-thirds vote of each house of the legislature and by a majority of voters
at the next general election, but only for the fiscal period for which the appropriation is made.
Any action or combination of actions by the legislature that raises state revenue or requires
revenue-neutral tax shifts may be taken only if approved by a two-thirds vote of each house of
the legislature, and then only if the resulting state expenditures in any fiscal year, including the
new revenue, will not exceed the state expenditure limit. If the legislative action will result in
expenditures in excess of the state expenditure limit, that legislative action will not take effect
until approved by a majority of voters at a November general election.
The legislature may not impose on any political subdivision of the state responsibility for new
programs or increased levels of service under existing programs unless the subdivision is fully
reimbursed by specific state appropriation for the costs of the new program or increases in
service levels.
While the provisions of Initiative 601 do not apply to local government units in the state, it is
possible that future actions of the state legislature and the Governor taken in response to the
limitations imposed by Initiative 601 could adversely affect local government finances.
However, the City cannot predict either the probability or the potential impact of any such
actions.
CUSIP NUMBERS
CUSIP identification numbers will be printed on the Notes. However, neither the failure to print
such numbers on any Note nor any error with respect thereto shall constitute cause for a failure
or refusal by the purchaser of the Notes to accept delivery and pay for the Notes in accordance
with the terms of any agreement to purchase. Expenses related to the printing and assignment of
CUSIP numbers on the Notes shall be paid for by the City.
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, bond counsel. A copy of the opinion
of bond counsel will be delivered with the Notes. Bond 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.
20
CONTINUING DISCLOSURE
Basic Undertaking to Provide Annual Financial Information and Notice of Material Events
To meet the requirements of the United States Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC")
Rule 15c2-12 (b) (5) (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
designated 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 NRMSIR 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 bonds for any reason, as confirmed 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.
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 of 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.
21
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. 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 consumed 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 documents 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.
22
AGENDA BILL --
BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL
1. SUBJECT:
An Ordinance incressin§ Penalty
for Unauthorized use of Disabled
Persons Parking
FOR AGENDA OF: /- / 7- ~
ORIGINATOR: Ian R. Sieve=~_~j~,~
City Attorney ~
DATE SUBMITTED: December 12, 1995
2. ~LE~RANCES: (Comment on back if necessary)
CHIeF. OF POLICE
ADMINIST TIVE SERVICES D RECTOR
/~OUNCI L COMmITTeE
EXHIBITS:
Proposed Ordinance
Ch. 384, Laws of 1995
ENDORSEMENT ~ INF~TION [] APPROVED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FOR SUBMITTAL:
4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION:
The proposed ordinance increases penalty for the parking infraction of parking in
a disabled person space from $50 to $175 as required by 1995 state law amendments.
8. RECOMMENDATION:
Motion to approve on first reading Ordinance No.
Motion to approve on second reading Ordinance No.
9. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL:
ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL:
EXPIRATION DATE:
REVIEW DATE:
10. NOTICE OF ACTION
PULLED [] TABLED [] APPROVED [] DISAPPROVED [] AMENDED [] DATE:
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE:
11. AGENDA BILL NO.:
-oio
(OVER)
2 · CLEARANCE COMMENTS:
5. IMPACT OF NON-PASSAGE:
Continued fines and time limit regulations.
6. IMPACT ON STAFFING~ BUDGETS, FACILITIES~ EQUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCES:
7. RESE/~.RCH SOURCES:
PARKING3.AB - Agendas - 1/3/96
ORDINANCE
AN ORDINANCE amending the parking code to increase penalties for disabled parking
violations; and amending BMC Title 10.
THE CITY OF BREMERTON DOES HEREBY ORDAIN:
Section 1. Amendment. Section 10.11.030 of the Bremerton Municipal Code is hereby
amended to read as follows:
10.11.030 PENALTIES. Unless specifically set forth elsewhere in this title, the
penalties for each parking violation of the provisions o this chapter and Chapter 10.04, defined
as an infraction, shall be:
(h) Physically Disabled (public and private): $59.09 $175.00
Section 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective ten (10) days from
passage and publication·
APPROVED by the City Council of the City of Bremerton this~
day of
,1996.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Bremerton this
day of
1996.
JOHN E. LAW, Council President
APPROVED this
day of
,1996.
LYNN HORTON, Mayor
PARKING3.11t3 - Ordinance Did: 2 - 1/3196
ATTEST:
KATHLEEN McCLUSKEY, City Clerk
PARK1NG3.1RS - Ordinance Disk 2 - 1/3/96
2
REGULAR SE~'~t I~5~AWS _ Ch. 384, § 1
y dock, designed for pleasure c~.~l The legislature recognizes that the emphasis of state developmental disability services is
~ee, or contract purchaser of singlq~ ,hifting from institutional-based care to community services in an effort to increase, the
not exceed two thousand five hur~;:~l~ ~rsonal and social independence and fulfillment of persons with developmental disabilities,
~onsistent with state policy as expressed in RCW 71A. 10.015. It is the intent of the
anals, waterways, drains, legislature that financial savings achieved from program reductions and efficiencies within the
developmental disabilities program shall be redirected within the program to provide public
J or developed as a part of an
'stem waters, including return
lands;
state owned lands, when such m~~
;e of the surface of the water;
likes, ditches, drains, or other facil~/
eveloped, or utilized primarily as ~.~
~ed to chapter 90.58 RCW to read ~/
he delineation of wetlands under ~
7 manual in use on January 1, 1995;,
!nited States environmental
protection~
~ protection agency adopt changes ~
' those changes and may adopt rul~
~1 to chapter 36.70A RCW to read
Mo.pted pursuant to this chapter shall .~
y the department pursuant to section~.~]
I to chapter 36.70A RCW to read as
~ed Substitute House Bill No. 1724),
,r city to adopt regulations applicable
~sistent with the provisions of chapter
Y SERVICES--
:RVICES
a new section to chapter 7lA.10 RCW.
~HE STATE OF WASHINGTON:
o chapter 71AA0 RCW to read as
~Gons by.sti~mout
or pr/rate community-based services for eligible persons who would otherwise be unidentified
or unserved.
Approved May 16, 1995.
Effective July 23, 1995, 90 days after date of adjournmenL
MOTOR VEHICLES--PHYSICALLY DISABLED
PERSONS--PARKING PLACES
CHAPTER 384
S.B. No. 5873
AN ACT Relating to rai~ing the fine for parking in places reaerved for physically disabled persons;
amending RCW 46.16~]81 and 46.08.150; and prescribing penalties.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:
Sec. 1. RCW 46.16.381 and 1994 c 194 s 6 are each amended 'to read as follows:
(1) The director shall grant special parking privileges to any person who has a disability
that limits or impairs the ability to walk and meets one of the following criteria, as
determined by a licensed physician:
(a) Cannot walk two hundred feet without stopping to rest;
(b) Is severely limited in ability to walk due to arthritic, neurological,' or orthopedic
condition;
(c) Is so severely disabled, that the person cannot walk without the use of or assistance
from a brace, cane, another person, prosthetic device, wheelchair, or other assistive device;
(d) Uses portable oxygen; -,-
(e) Is restricted by lung dise~e 'to such an extent that 'forced ,~piratory resPiratory
volume, when measured by SpirometrY is less than one'liter, pe'r.:secdiid or the. .a~r~ oxygen
tension is less'than sixty mm/hg on room air at rest;" ' · ':' ";. ~:
(9 Impairment by cardiovaSCular disease or cardiac condition 'to the extent, that the
person's functional limitations, are classified as class III or IV under standards 'accepted by
the American Heart Association; or
(g) Has a disability resulting from an acute sensitivity to automobile emissions which limits
or impairs the ability to walk. The personal physician of the applicant Shall document that
the disability is comparable in severity to the others listed in .t~is. subsection.
(2) Persons who qualify for special parking privilege,s are entitled to receive from the
department of licensing a removable windshield placard bearing the international symbol of
access. The department shall design the placard to be displayed when the vehicle is parked
by suspending it from the rearview mirror, or in the absence of a rearview mirror the card
may be displayed on the dashboard of any vehicle used to transport the disabled person.
Instead of regular motor vehicle license plates, disabled persons are entitled to receive special
license plates bearing the international symbol of access for one vehicle registered in the
disabled person's name. Disabled persons who are not issued the special license plates are
entitled to receive a second special placard. Persons who have been issued the parldng
privileges and who are using a vehicle or are riding in a vehicle displaying the special license '
plates or placard may park in places reserved for mobility disabled persons. The director
AddiOons.are ind!cated by underline; deletions, bY .sta~kemit..' 1315
Ch. 384, § 1 REGULAR SESSION
shall adopt rules providing for the issuance of special placards and license plates to public
transportation authorities, nursing homes licensed under chapter 18.51 RCW, boarding homes
licensed under chapter 18.20 RCW, senior citizen centers, private nonprofit agencies as
defined in chapter 24.03 RCW, and vehicles registered with the department as cabulances
that regularly transport disabled persons who have been determined eligible for special
parking privileges provided under this section. The director may issue special license plates
for a vehicle registered in the name of the public transportation authority, nursing home,
boarding homes, senior citizen center, private nonprofit agency, or cabulance service if the
vehicle is primarily used to transport persons with disabilities described in this section.
Public transportation authorities, nursing homes, boarding homes, senior citizen centers,
private nonprofit agencies, and cabulance services are responsible for insuring that the special
placards and license plates are not used improperly and are responsible for all fines and
penalties for improper use.
(3) Whenever the disabled person transfers or assigns his or her interest in the vehicle, the
special license plates shall be removed from the motor vehicle. If another vehicle is acquired
by the disabled person and the vehicle owner qualifies for a special plate, the plate shall be
attached to the vehicle, and the director shall be immediately notified of the tyansfer of the
plate. If another vehicle is not acquired by the disabled person, the removed plate shall be
immediately surrendered to the director.
(4) The special license plate shall be renewed in the same manner and at the time required
for the renewal of regular motor vehicle license plates under this chapter. No special license
plate may be issued to a person who is temporarily disabled. A person who has a condition
expected to improve within six months may be issued a temporary placard for a period not to
exceed six months. The director may issue a second temporary placard during that period if
requested by the person who is temporarily disabled. If the condition exists after six months
a new temporary placard shall be issued upon receipt of a new certification from the disabled
person's physician.. The parking placard of a disabled person shall be renewed, when
required by the director, by satisfactory proof of the right to continued use of the privileges.
(5) Additional fees shall not be charged for the issuance of the special placards. No
additional fee may be charged for the issuance of the special license plates except the regular
motor vehicle registration fee and any other fees and taxes required to be paid upon
registration of a motor vehicle.
(6) Any unauthorized use of the special placard or the special license plate is a misdemean-
or.
(7) It is a +_~-~fic parking infraction, with a monetary penalty of -~-ffy one hundred seventy-
five dollars for any person to park a vehicle in a parking place provided on private property
wit---bout charge or on public property reserved for physically disabled persons without a
special license plate or placard. If a person is charged with a violation, the person shall not
be determined to have committed an infraction if the person produces in court or before the
court appearance the special license plate or placard required under this section. A local
jurisdiction providing on-street parking places reserved for physically disabled persons may
impose by ordinance time restrictions on the use of these parking places.
(8) The p~'.'cn cf ~- penalty imposed under subsection (7) of this section that is re+"-2;ncd by
~ ~^~ j,,,4o~;,+;^, ,,.a... ~r-w' ~ 4c ~,~n, ~ nn ~r~ '~ ~o n~n '~ ~ n4n or ~ ~n 9~n shall be used
by that local jurisdiction exclusively for law enforcement. The court may also impose an
additional penalty sufficient to reinqburse the local jurisdiction for any costs it may have
incurred in removal and storage of the improperly parked vehicle.
(9) It is a misdemeanor for any person to willfully obtain a special license plate or placard
in a manner other than that established under this section.
Sec. 2. RCW 46.08.150 and 1961 c 12 s 46.08.150 are each amended to read as follows:
The director of general administration shall have power to devise and promulgate rules and
regulations for the control of vehicular and pedestrian traffic and the parking of motor
vehicles on the state capitol grounds. However~ the monetary penalty for. parking a motor
vehicle without a valid special license plate or placard in a parking place reserved fo~
physically disabled persons shall be the same as provided in RCW 46.16.381. Such rules and
1316 ~Idilions are indicated by und.rlin.; d.lellons by ~
1995 LAWS
regulations shall be promulgated by
state capitol and shall be given su
Approved May 16, 1995.
Effective July 23, 1995, 90 days after
CRIMES--PERS~
AN ACT Relating to persistent prise
adding a new section to chapter 9
BE IT ENACTED BY THE L£
NEW SECTION. Sec. 1. A new
(1) An inmate of a state correc~i(
committed on or after August 1, 1~
the inmate knowingly commits a set
B felony, after losing all potential e
(2) "Serious infraction" means mL
by department of corrections rules
(3) "State correctional institution'
(4) The crime of persis.tent prison
RCW 9A.20.021. The sentence ira!
sentence being served at the time t
Sec. 2. RCW 9.94A.320 and 199:
each reenacted and amended to rea
CRIMES INCLUDED
XV Aggravated Murder
XIV Murder 1 (RCW
Homicide by abuse
XIII Murder 2 (RCW 9A
XII Assault 1 (RCW 9A.
Assault of a Child I
XI Rape 1 (RCW 9A.44
Rape of a Child 1 (!
X
Kidnapping 1 (RC~A
Rape 2 (RCW 9A.4~;
Rape of a Child 2 (~
Child Molestation 1
Damaging building.
(RCW 70.74280(1
Over 18 and deliw
someone under 1:
Additions are ir
REGULAR SE~
)lacards and license plates to
chapter 18.51 RCW, boarding
ters, private nonprofit agencies m
with the department as cabulanc~
een determined eligible for speci~
~ctor may issue special license plat~
sportation authority, nursing home
agency, or cabulance service ff tk
isabilities described in this section
ding homes, senior citizen centers,
'.ponsible for insuring that the special'
id are responsible for all fines an,
his or her interest in the vehicle, the
,hicle. If another vehicle is acquired.
bra special plate, the plate shall be
liately notified of the transfer of the
t person, the removed plate shall be
me manner and at the time required
~der this chapter. No special license
~led. A person who has a condition
emporary placard for a period not to
~porary placard during that period if
the condition exists after six months
a new certification from the disabled
id person shall be renewed, when
~t to continued use of the privileges.
aance of the special placards. No'~
cial license plates except the regular
d taxes required to be paid upon
special license plate is a misdemean-
enalty ,¢ ~,
..... ~ one hundred seventy-
' place provided on private property
ysically disabled persons without a,
~ith a violation, the perSon shall not
son produces in court or before the
~quired under this section. A local.
for physically disabled persons may~
;e parking places.
(7) of this section t~
, ~ Go Mn ^~ Qr oa ~a shnll be used
~t. The court may also impose an
sdiction for any costs it may have
.~d vehicle.
dna special license plate or placard
on.
.~ each amended to read as follows:~
· to devise and promulgate rules and
traffic and the parking of motor
netary penalty for parking a motor
t in a parking place reserved for
in RCW 46.16.381. Such rules and
etions by
~995 .ws Ch. 385, § 2
regulations shall be promulgated by publication in one issue of a newspaper published at thc
state capitol and shall be given such further publicity as the director may deem proper.
Approved May 16, 1995.
Effective July 23, 1995, 90 days after date of adjournment.
CRIMES--PERSISTENT PRISON MISBEHAVIOR
CHAPTER 385
S.S.B. No. 5905
AN ACT Relating to persistent prison misbehavior;, reenacting and amending RCW 9.94A.320;
adding a new section to chapter 9.94 RCW; and prescribing penalties.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:
NEW SECTION. Sec. 1. A new section is added to chapter 9.94 RCW to read as follows:
(1) An inmate of a state correctional institution who is serving a sentence for an offense
committed on or after August 1, 1995, commits the crime of persistent prison misbehavior if
the inmate knowingly commits a serious infraction, that does not constitute a class A or class
B felony, after losing all potential earned early release time credit.
(2) "Serious infraction" means misconduct that has been designated as a serious infraction
by department of corrections rules adopted under RCW 72.09.130.
(3) "State correctional institution" has the same meaning as in RCW 9.94.049.
(4) The crime of persistent prison misbehavior is a class C felony punishable as provided in
RCW 9A.20.021. The sentence imposed for this crime must be served consecutive to any
sentence being served at the time the crime is committed.
Sec. 2. RCW 9.94A.320 and 1994 sp. s. c 7 s 510, 1994 c 275 s 20, and 1994 c 53 s 2 are
each reenacted and amended to read as follows:
TABLE 2
CRIMES INCLUDED WITHIN EACH SERIOUSNESS LEVEL
· XV · Aggravated. Murder 1 (RCW 10,95.020)
XIV . Murder 1 (RCW 9A.32.030) '
Homicide by abuse (RCW 9/L32.055)
XIII Murder 2 (RCW 9A.32.050)
XII Assault 1 (RCW 9A.36.011)
'Assault of a Child 1 (RCW 9A.36.120)
XI Rape 1 (RCW 9A.44.040)
Rape of a Child 1 (RCW 9A.44.073)
X Kidnapping 1 (RCW 9A.40.020)
Rape 2 (RCW 9A.44.050)
Rape of a Child 2 (RCW 9A.44.076)
Child Molestation 1 (RCW 9A~44.083)
Damaging building, etc., by explosion with threat to human being
(RCW 70.74280(1))
Over 18 and deliver heroin or narcotic from schedule I or II to
someone under 18 (RCW 69.50.406)
Additions are indicated by underline; deletions by stdkaout
1317
AGENDA BILL
BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL
1. SUBJECT: Public Hearing
Resolution #~0;5'$S , regarding recovery of fees for the
removal of garbage on the property located at 1340
Hayward Avenue.
FORAGENDA OF: January 17, 1996
ORIGINATING DEPT: Building Dept.
ORIGINATOR: Janet Lunceford
DATE SUBMITTED:
2. CLEARANCES: (Comment on back if 3.
necessary)
City Clerk: ~
CityAttor~j~~~ -A
City Treasurer.~ ~
EXHIBITS:
1. Resolution
2. Clerk Report
ENDORSEMENT ~"iNFOI~MATION__ APPROVED BY COUNCIL P~ID.E~N~MITTAL:
4. SUM~Y STATEMENT ~D ~QUI~MENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION:
On 11/29/95, ~e Ci~s forced to remove ~b~e ~d debris ~om ~e prope~ lo,ted at 1340
Ha~rd Avenue, a~er ~e o~er, Danid C. Stenson, ~ed to ob~ a Noti~ and Order to Remove Re~se
~N 72 Ho~s. The abatement ~d ~s ~g~ $319.80 for ~e work
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that Council, by resolution # ~ S- 3~-q , order that the fees incurred for the
abatement of the garbage and debris at 1340 Hayward Avenue, be collected as reasonable abatement costs, and
become a personal obligation against the owner of the property, Daniel C. Stenson, which if not collected within
30 days will become a lien against the property.
9. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Scott Erickson
ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: Scott Erickson
EXPIRATION DATE: N/A
REVIEW DATE: N/A
PULLED TABLED
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE:
10. NOTICE OF ACTION
APPROVED DISAPPROVED
6/0
AMENDED
DATE:
1. AGENDA BILL NO.:
2. CLEARANCE COMMENTS:
o
IMPACT OF NON-PASSAGE:
The City would forfeit the costs of this abatement.
o
IMPACT ON STAFFING, BUDGETS, FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCES:
The City's revolving abatement fund would suffer the deficit of not collecting these funds.
o
RESEARCH SOURCES:
N/A
RESOLUTION #
A RESOLUTION reviewing charges for the abatement of garbage and debris on
the property at 1340 Hayward Avenue and determining means of collection.
WHERFa~, the City of Bremerton incurred costs for the removal of garbage and debris at 1340 Hayward
Avenue, Bremerton; and
WHERF_~S, the Bremerton Municipal Code allows the City to recoup these costs by personal obligation
against the property owner, which if not collected within 30 days will become a lien against the property; and
WHEREAS, the City Council is charged with determining whether the fees are just and has considered the
report of charges 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:
That the City of Bremerton confirms the Building Official's report of charges as correct and just charges for
garbage and debris removal from 1340 Hayward Avenue, Bremerton and directs the City Attorney to collect the
charges as a personal obligation against the owner, Daniel C. Stenson, which if not collected within 30 days shall
become a lien against the property.
PASSED, by the City Council of the City of Bremerton this
1996.
day of
JOHN LAW
Council President
CITY OF BREMERTON * 239 4th Street * Bremerton, WA 98337
Memorandum
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
CC:
January 2, 1996
Kathleen McCluskey, Dir. of Admin. Svcs.
Janet Lunceford, Building Department.~
Garbage abatement fees, 1340 Hayward
Avenue
Don Pratt, Scott Erickson
On November 29, 1995, the Street Department removed garbage and debris from the
property located at 1340 Hayward Avenue, after the owner, Daniel Stensort, failed to obey
the Order to Remove Refuse within 72 Hours posted on the property on November 21,
1995. The fees incurred are as follows:
Street Dept. Fees $264.40
Administrative Fees $ 55.40
Total Fees $319.80
I have scheduled a public hearing for January 17th and will submit an agenda bill for your
approval.
Celebrating 50 Years of Freedom
.d .Dec PAGE
Date
6, 1995 2:03 pm - City of Bremerton - Streets --
Billing Details
Street Department Summary of Services for : November 1995
W.O. : Description Regular
Overt[me
11/17/95 SD950284 REMOVE FENCE SE CORNER LOXIE/ARSENAL
COLEN COREY
HADLEY KENTNER
'94 JD410 BACKHOE
'90 INT. 5 YARD DUMP TRUCK
11/20/95 SD950284 REMOVE FENCE SE CORNER LOXIE/ARSENL
COLEN COREY
'90 INT. 5 YARD DUMP TRUCK
DUMP FEES FOR 1995
4.0 hr
3.0 hr
4.0 HR
3.0 HR
2.0 hr
2.0 HR
10.0 YD
11/21/98 SD950284 HAUL DEBRIS FROM REMOVAL OF FENCE SE CORNER LOXIE/ARSENAL
JAY-PEE BAGE 2.0 hr
'90 INT. 10 YARD DUMP TRUCK 3.0 HR
DUMP FEES FOR 1998 10.0 YD
11/27/95 SD950288 ABATEMENT AT 833-10TH STREET/CLEAN YARD/DEBRIS
STEVE BOWMAN ?.0 hr
COLEN COREY 2.0 hr
HADLEY KENTNER 7.0 hr
RILEY THOMPSON 1.0 hr
'§1GMC S-15 4X4 EXT. CAB P/U 1.0 HR
'94 JD410 BACKHOE 3.0 HR
'90 INT. 5 YARD DUMP TRUCK ?.0 HR
'92 GMC I-TON P/U 2.0 HR
DUMP FEES FOR 1995 15.0 YD
11/28/95 SD950286 ABATEMENT AT 1915-10TH STREET/CLEAN UP GARBAGE
BILL EDWARDS 3.0 hr
'93 GMC 1-TON DUMP 3.0 HR
HADLEY KENTNER 4.0 hr
'94 JD410 BACKHOE 2.0 HR
'90 INT. 10 YARD DUMP TRUCK 4.0 HR
RILEY THOMPSON i.0 hr
'91 GMC S-15 4X4 EXT. CAB P/U 1.0 HR
DUMP FEES FOR 1995 10.0 YD
11/28/95 SD950291 ABATEMENT AT 1340 HAYWARD AVE. HAUL OFF DEBRIS
BILL EDWARDS 3,0 hr
'90 DODGE 1-TON (DIESEL) 3.0 HR
_11/28/95 SD950290 ABATEMENT AT 3323 KITSAP WAY (BANNER CAR WASH) CLEAN UP DEBRIS
BILL EDWARDS
'90 DODGE 1-TON (DIESEL)
11/29/95 SD950291 ABATEMENT AT 1340 HAYWARD AVE. REMOVE DEBRIS
BILL EDWARDS
'93 GMC 1-TON DUMP
RILEY THOMPSON
'91GMC S-15 4×4 EXT. CAB P/U
DUMP FEES FOR 1995
3.0 hr
3.0 HR
2.0 hr
2.0 HR
1.0 hr ....
1.0 HR
'7.0 YD
BLAB
Costs
104.00
?8.00
128.00
39.00
52.00
26.00
82.00
52.00
78.00
82.00
182 O0
52 O0
182 00
26 O0
6 O0
96 00
91 00
i8 00
123 O0
78.00
27.00
104.00
64.00
104.00
26.00
6.00
82.00
78.00
_ 27.00
78.00
_27,00
52.00
18.00
26.00
6.00
57.40
$2,357.40
1. SUBJECT: Public Hearing
Resolution # ~$~ ~ , regarding recovery of fees for the
removal of garbage on the property located at 3323 Kitsap
Way.
AGENDA BILL
BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL
FORAGENDA OF: January 17, 1996
ORIGINATING DEPT: Building Dept.
ORIGINATOR: Janet Ltmceford
DATE SUBMITTED:
2. CLEARANCES: .(Comment on back if 3. EXHIBITS:
necessary)
1. Resolution #
City Clerk: ~ ~ 2. Clerk Report
City Attorn~
City Treasure;
ENDORSEMENT 5('iNFDRMATiON APPROVED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FOR SUBMITTAL:
MAYOR~ -~, 7,/.-,/',-- -- COUNCIL
PRESIDENT
4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION:
On 11/28/95, the City was forced to remove garbage and debris from the property located at 3323 Kitsap
Way, after the owners, Lloyd and Paula Anderson, failed to obey a Notice and Order to Remove Refuse within
72 Hours. The abatement fund was charged $160.40 for the work.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that Council, by resolution #~ ff'.RL, , order that the fees incurred for the
abatement of the garbage and debris at 3323 Kitsap Way, be collected as reasonable abatement costs, and become
a personal obligation against the owners of the property, Lloyd and Paula Anderson, which ff not collected
within 30 days will become a lien against the property.
9. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Scott Erickson
ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: Scott Erickson
EXPIRATION DATE: N/A
REVIEW DATE: .N/A
PULLED TABLED
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE:
10. NOTICE OF ACTION
APPROVED ~ DISAPPROVED
AMENDED
DATE:
1. AGENDA BILL NO.:
q -Ol L
2. CLEARANCE COMMENTS:
o
IMPACT OF NON-PASSAGE:
The City would forfeit the costs of this abatement.
IMPACT ON STAFFING, BUDGETS. FACILITIES. EQUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCES:
The City's revolving abatement fund would suffer the deficit of not collecting these funds.
RESEARCH SOURCES:
N/A
RESOLUTION #
A RESOLUTION reviewing charges for the abatement of garbage and debris on
the property at 3323 Kitsap Way and determining means of collection.
WHEREAS, the City of Bremerton incurred costs for the removal of garbage and debris at 3323 Kitsap
Way, Bremerton; and
WHERFa~, the Bremerton Municipal Code allows the City to recoup these costs by personal judgment
against the property owner, which if not collected within 30 days will become a lien against the property; and
WHEREAS, the City Council is charged with determining whether the fees are just and has considered the
report of charges 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:
That the City of Bremerton confirms the Building Official's report of charges as correct and just charges for
garbage and debris removal from 3323 Kitsap Way, Bremerton and directs the City Attorney to collect the charges
as a personal obligation against the owners, Lloyd and Paula Anderson, which if not collected within 30 days shall
become a lien against the property.
PASSED, by the City Council of the City of Bremerton this
1996.
day of
JOHN LAW
Council President
CITY OF BREMERTON · 239 4th Street · Bremerton, WA 98337
Memorandum
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
CC:
January 2, 1996
Kathleen McCluskey, Dir. of Admin. Svcs.
Janet Lunceford, Building Department..-~
Garbage abatement fees, 3323 Kitsap Way
Don Pratt, Scott Erickson
On November 28, 1995, the Street Department removed garbage and debris from the
property located at 3323 Kitsap Way, after the owners, Lloyd G. and Paula Anderson,
failed to obey the Order to Remove Refuse within 72 Hours posted on the property on
November 21, 1995. The fees incurred are as follows:
Street Dept. Fees $105.00
Administrative Fees $ 55.40
Total Fees $160.40
I have scheduled a public hearing for January 17th and will submit an agenda bill for your
approval.
· Celebrating 50 Years of Freedom
~ate
6, 1995 4:16 pm
Customer Description
!
Uity of Bremerton - Streets
Work Order History
Regular
Overtime
PAGE ~ 1
Costs
Work Order g :SD950290
Title :BLAB 3323 KITSAP WAY (BANNER CAR WASH)
Status :S
Customer :BLAB
Work Type :AO
Foreman :225
Lead Employee:233
Priority :
Date Targeted:
Date Entered :11/29/95
Date Assigned:Il/29/95
Date Started :11/28/95
Date Finished:!l/28/95
Labor Hours Est: 0
Materials Est : $0
Equipment Est : $0
Location :N4014280
11/28/95 BLAB
BLAB
ABATEMENT AT 3323 KITSAP WAY (BANNER CAR WASH) CLEAN UP DEBRIS
BILL EDWARDS 3.0 hr
'90 DODGE 1-TON (DIESEL) 3.0 HR
78.00
27.00
SUMMARY FOR W.O. ~ SD950290
Labor $78.00
Benefits $0.00
Equipment $27.00
Materials $0.00
Sales Tax $0.00
Total $105.00
3.0 hfs .0 hfs $105.00
Use Tax $0.00