The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About07/24/96 AGENDABREMERTON CITY COUNCIL 239 4TH STREET BREMERTON, WA 98337 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA JULY 24~ 1996 CALL TO ORDER - 5:30 P.M. A. Pledge Of Allegiance B. Invocation CONSENT AGENDA Items listed below have been distributed to Council members in advance for study and will be enacted by one motion. If separate discussion is desired on an item, it may be removed from the Consent Agenda and placed on the Regular Agenda at the request of a Council member. .~' A. Minutes - July 10, 1996 #AB96-154 3. CLAIMS/CHECK REGISTERS 4. COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS 5. MAYOR'S REPORT 6. PUBLIC RECOGNITION -- (Comments Limited to 3 Minutes) 7 o NEW BUSINESS A. Bid Award - Reservoir 8 And 21 Rehabilitation Bo Quasi-Judicial Hearings C. Department Of Natural Resources (DNR) Community Forestry Grant ~~s ou nd-Co~- ~ccess~I~i-e v i si o n 8. RESOLUTIONS A. Revision To Council Rules And Procedures For Contract Resolution #2551 Amending Employment App~.~cation Process Fee #AB96-155 2~ #AB96-148 ~ #AB96-156 ~ #~6-15797 #AB96-158 73 (CONTINUED NEXT PAGE) 10. ORDINi~NCES A. Ordinance (First Reading) Amending B.M.C. Chapters 2.76.100, 2.76.200, 2.76.300, 2.76.600 For Procurement Of Materials, Equipment, and Services PUBLIC HEARING - 6:00 PM OR LATER A. Preliminary Plat - 6 Lot Subdivision, Applicant: Jerry Verger/Charles Parr; Location: Adjacent To And Northwest Of McClain Avenue and Sheridan Road (628 Sheridan Road); And Approval Of Resolution #2552 AGENDA BILL BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL 1. SUBJECT: MI~U3TES - JULY i0, 1996 FOR AGEND~ OF: 7-24-96 ORIGINATING DEPT: City Council ORIGINATOR: John E. Law, President DATE SUBMITTED: 7-19-96 2. ~_A~CES: (co~I~ent on back if necessary) 3. EXHIBITS: ENDORSEMENT__ INFORMATION__ APPROVED BY coUNclL.~DEU~F~UBMITTAL: coUNciL P .SIOENT 4. ~Y STATEMENT A~ND REOUIREMENT FOR'COUNCIL ACTION: 8. RECOM2~ENDATION: RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: EXPII~ATION DATE: REVIEW DATE: PULLED TABLED COUNCIL DIRECTIVE: 10. NOTICE OF ACTION APPROVED__ DISAPPROVED __ AMENDED __ DATE: TAPE # 1391 UNAPPROVED DRAFT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JULY 10t 1996 #0018 #0031 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, July 10, 1996, at 5:30 P.M., with Council President John Law presiding. Council members present were Bob Winters, A1 Colvin, Cecil McConnell, Carlos Montgomery, Sherril Huff-Menees, David Farr, Richard Neville, and Lon Overson. Also present were City Attorney Ian Sievers and City Clerk Kathleen McCluskey. The meeting opened with the Pledge of Allegiance led by Council President Law and Invocation given by Reverend Grant Christensen of First Covenant Church. President Law announced Council held a Study Session to discuss the City's "Employment Application Fees" just prior to the Council meeting. CONSENT AGENDA A. Minutes - June 16, 1996, #AB96-144 M/S/C(Overson/McConnell) to approve Consent Agenda as presented. Vote on motion: In Favor: Montgomery, Huff-Menees, Farr, Neville, Overson, McConnell, Colvin, Law Abstain Winters Motion carried. 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/Farr) on July 10, 1996, the Council does approve for payment those vouchers included and further described as follows: 199443 through 199572 in the amount of $201,224.82. COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS Mr. Colvin reported during the Bremerton Central Lions Club luncheon meeting today two issues of concern were raised, one having to do with Lions Field, which he will refer to the Mayor; and the other had to do with parking in the Sinclair Landing project. He suggested that a brochure be printed listing the questions and concerns about parking for that project. TAPE #1391 City Council Reg. July 10, 1996 Page 2 of 19 Mtg. Minutes Mr. McConnell encouraged residents of the City to take advantage of the opportunity to see the "Fire Department on parade" on July 16, 7:00 P.M., at the Senior Center and learn about fire safety. Mr. Fart expressed concern that some residents with unkept yards, ie. tall grasses/weeds, present a fire hazard during the dry hot weather. He encouraged property owners to take action to reduce the possibility of such a fire hazard and suggested the possible use of Community Service groups to assist the elderly, who may be physically unable to maintain their yards. Mr. Winters reported he attended the Cable Communications Committee meeting on Monday evening. It appears the usefulness of this committee is coming to an end with the formation of the County Cable access group and individuals participating on that committee over the past years need to be publicly thanked. In the very near future, he will come forward with a more defining "thank you" to the people involved with the cable access committee. He made a suggestion to the Cable Communications Committee that there may be opportunities in the future for this community to benefit in regards to telecommunications technology and the wireless age that is taking place. He learned of such opportunity through AWC at their Annual Conference in June. Mr. Law reminded everyone that District #3 will host the "Fire Department On Parade" on July 16, 7:00 P.M., at the Senior Center. He sees this event as an opportunity for children, parents and grandparents to gain important information on fire safety and become acquainted with firemen. Free pop and popcorn will be given out at that event. MAYOR'S REPORT Mayor Lynn Horton reported this afternoon she hosted a contingency from Puget Sound Naval Shipyard that included Admiral Center and Captains from the various ships, i.e. USS Rainier, USS Lincoln, and USS Nimitz, to talk about the Sinclair Landing proposal in order to ensure that it is the kind of proposal that they and people under them can fully support. It was also an opportunity to expand and bring more people on board the project and help to fine tune it so it becomes a successful project in our community. In response to a concern raised by Councilman McConnell that residents were still being disturbed by parking lot sweeper noise, she wanted the public know that the city is taking action to address the problem. She explained the lack of response to a citizen's call about this issue was due to a shortage of patrol officers and those on duty having to respond to higher priority calls. She will be meeting with the owner of the parking lot TAPE #1391 City Council Reg. Mtg. July 10, 1996 Page 3 of 19 Minutes sweeping service next week and hopes that an agreement can be reached to alter the method of his operation in some capacity or continue to be cited by the City. If the sweeper is run two consecutive nights in a row in a manner that is unacceptable, the City can arrest the operator. However, generally the operation schedule is a couple of times per week. She also talked with Councilman McConnell about the possibility of having the neighbors sign an affidavit and issuing a citation based on that affidavit. Another concern within the city is speeding vehicles and she hopes to use some Block Grant funding for some traffic calming devices to address that problem. Mayor Horton introduced Charlene Burnett, Parks Department, Robert Burn and Craig Hobson of windemere Realty. About two weeks ago the city was the recipient of a community service project that involved approximately 100 members of Windemere Realty painting the interior of the Sheridan Park Recreation building. She expressed a special "thank you" to everyone involved with that project. Mayor Horton presented a Community Service Award to Windemere Realty in recognition of their contribution to the City. Bob Burn, Manager of the Windemere Realty office located in Bremerton, accepted the award and gave a brief rundown of the coordination of the project by various individuals within their organization. Charlene Burnett expressed how ultra organized this project was handled and the fact that the work was completed the Friday prior to the kick off of the Department's summer programs. President Law referenced the parking lot sweeper noise issue and questioned if he understood correctly that if such noise is created two days in a row, a citation can be issued? Mayor ~orton stated that was her understanding; however, their schedule is such they do not sweep two days in a row. President Law asked if the City's ordinance could be changed to reflect twice within a week? Ian sievers, City Attorney, stated it is a matter of local ordinance and the second offense within 24 hours escalates the penalty. PUBLIC RECOGNITION A1 Mercer, Hollis Street, stated he took exception to Mayor Horton's comment that the parking lot sweeper does not operate nightly, they do sweep nightly at approximately the same time, which can be verified on the printout provided to Councilman McConnell. Per the City Engineer's report, the equipment used by the parking lot sweeper is in direct violation of the City's Noise Ordinance, but it appears the City has turned a deaf ear and blind eye to enforcement of that ordinance. He understands that a Police officer may not always be available to respond immediately to a call such as this. He is thankful that some action has begun and thanked Councilman McConnell for pursuing this issue with the City TAPE #1391 City Council Reg. July 10, 1996 Page 4 of 19 Mtg. Minutes administration. Ch&rlie Brown reported he was one of the individuals awakened early Monday morning, which prompted him to call 911 to report the excessive noise from the parking lot sweeper. The Police did respond to his call, although he was not aware of it at that time. A Police officer called him Monday evening and explained the actions taken in response to Mr. Brown's call. He referenced a newspaper article (The Sun-June 28, 1996) stating that Councilman Huff-Menees made a comment, which could possibly be a miss quoted statement, "that the private developer (of the Sinclair Landing Project) would be given the right of eminent domain to buy the properties if need be". Mr. Brown's understanding is only the City of Bremerton and Port Of Bremerton can take such action for this project, i.e. city Council approval plus a public hearing. Mrs. Huff-Menees acknowledged Mr. Brown was correct in that it was a miss quote and she understood the process of eminent domain the same as Mr. Brown. C&rol Atkinson, Bremerton Main Street Association, invited everyone to the Concert On The Dock on July 12, 8:00- 10:00 P.M., featuring Jr. Cadillac. This concert is sponsored by Westhills Honda, Heartland Toyota and Haselwood Expo. Gord¥ Byrd commented on the quick response of Bremerton paramedics when called to assist his father after he fell off a ladder and was injured. He reminded everyone about the free Concerts in the Park at Evergreen Park on Tuesday evenings. Shannon Kraetsch announced Harrison Hospital is sponsoring "Whale Of Run" July 27, starting at the Silverdale waterfront park. Volunteers are needed for this event and additional information can be obtained by calling 377-3911 and request the Foundation Office. President Law announced Agenda Item 7C had been taken off the Agenda. 7A - McKENNA FALLS INTAKE/UNION RIVER PROJECTS DESIGN - APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH R. W. BECK, ~AB96-145 Amendment No. 2 to the Professional Services Agreement has been negotiated with R. W. Beck, inc., and includes additional design effort and construction services for the West Branch Modifications and McKenna Falls Intake Facility. The additional design effort cost is $8,316. The estimated cost for construction services is $29,894. The total amount of Amendment No. 2 to the Professional Services Agreement is $38,210. TAPE #1391 City Council Reg. July 10, 1996 Page 5 of 19 Mtg. Minutes Tom Knucke¥, Civil Engineer II, stated the additional design element encompasses three tasks: (1) putting together the contract specs and drawings for the gate procurement package. The gate procurement was required separate from the design contract. A long lead time is involved for fabrication of the gates. (2) increasing the scope of work for the West Branch facility. The original scope identified 10 design sheets for the project; however, an additional design sheet was included under Amendment #1 of the contract, but the design actual took 17 sheets. During Amendment #1, the consultant identified that they would require additional sheets, but felt, at that time, they would be able to complete the design within the current budget; however, they were unable to meet that assumption. (3) Inclusion of a retaining wall at the McKenna Falls facility. That wall was put into the design after the original design was completed in order to allow a more safe area for parking the vactor truck during route maintenance of the facility. When the vactor truck was moved in to provide route maintenance about a month ago, after the original design was completed, it became evident that what was designed was not the most safe approach, so they revised the design. The bid phase and construction services are the remainder of Amendment #2. The construction services are fairly standard as those provided by other consultants for comparable projects, i.e assisting with the review of the Agenda, submittal reviews, and contract document interpretation, some budget allows for any design changes that become evident during construction. Public comment - none. Mr. Far~ asked Mr. Knuckey to describe what is involved in the West Branch modifications and McKenna Falls Intake Facility. Mr. Knucke¥ explained in the watershed the intake to the water system is located at the McKenna Falls facility, which was reconstructed in 1992. The work to be done at that facility is installing two large slide gates that replace one slide gate to allow sediment to be transported through the basin. Currently, the sediment builds up in the basin and has to be removed manually. In addition, there is an apron area immediately down stream of the head wall that needs to be accessed by maintenance personnel so a stairway is being installed. Also, some unstable riprap will be covered with concrete material to stabilize that area and a retaining wall will be built where some of the riprap provides a parking area for the vactor truck. There will be little grading involved relating to the access of the vactor truck. The West Branch facility is an older facility and the last improvement made to it was 20 years ago. It is functional, but in disrepair and the work will include removing of the facility that is non-functional and replacing it. TAPE #1391 city Council Reg. Mtg. July 10, 1996 Page 6 of 19 Minutes 'Mr. Overson expressed concern that the documentation did not include the content of the original Professional Services Agreement, the cost of that agreement, or any discussion on what the total cost of that agreement would be with the approval of the two amendments. Also, there was no data provided to determine if there is a duplication of services for additional 452 hours of service at a cost of $38,0000. Mr. Knucke¥ explained the original contract was $78,972.00 and Amendment #1, which was approved approximately one month ago, amounted to $12,900, making the current cost $91,923 plus the $38,210.00 for a total of about $130,000.00. Mr. Overson asked if this contractor came in with a "low ball" bid and is now adding amendments to increase the cost of the contract? Mr. Knuoke¥ stated the scope of the project has increased from what was originally anticipated and 99% of that increase is driven by requirements dictated by the Department Of Fish And Wildlife. At the time of the original agreement, they did not anticipate having to include a fish screen, which required some major improvements to the West Branch facility. Another item that increased the scope of work was the bank stabilization immediately upstream of the West Branch facility. They had anticipated stabilizing the slope using some inexpensive materials for riprap for concrete ecology blocks, instead the Department of Fish And Wildlife required the City to maintain habitat through that area and require the use of a more expensive form of bank stabilization. Mr. Overson asked when would the bids be in for the work described? Mr. Knucke¥ pointed out the next Agenda item addresses awarding the bid for construction of the projects. Mr. Overson questioned if Mr. Knuckey was saying the project was to the point of construction or that the consultant would be helping the City with the bid process, prepare bid meetings, etc.? Mr. Knuokey stated the bidding process has been completed and a low bidder has been identified and is being presented to Council for approval as part of this meeting. Mr. Colvin questioned where the contract stood in relation to the budget? Mr. Knucke¥ explained the budget for the project is $400,000.00 and the current anticipated cost of the project through construction, including all the consultants work, the City's work, etc., is $560,000.00. The Capital Improvement Plan has been revised to provide for funding to complete this project through reallocation of budget. Mr. Neville asked if he understood correctly that the original total time limit for constructing this project was 13 weeks? Mr. Knucke¥ stated the construction period has been identified from June 30 through September 30, 1996, which is driven by the TAPE #1391 City Council Reg. Mtg. July 10, 1996 Page 7 of 19 Minutes #1285 hydraulic Permit from the Department Of Fisheries & Wildlife. Mr. Neville questioned if the City missed that "window", would the project be delayed another year? Mr. Knucke¥ stated discussions have been held with the Department of Fisheries about the possibility of giving the City an extension on this project. Approximately three weeks ago received the Hydraulic Permit from the Department of Fisheries for the West Branch facility and the end date indicated was October 30th, so an additional month has been given that the city had not anticipated. Mr. Neville referenced Exhibit A (page 3) Item 2 - Construction Management Services, including project management, and on-site construction observation for a construction contract duration in excess of the assumed 13 weeks, and asked if this now falls into the change order? Mr. Knucke¥ stated that would be additional work; however, the consultant would only be paid for the actual work performed. An amount of time has been identified for the different tasks to be performed. Many of the tasks will have a set cost, but some could generate additional costs. Mr. Neville questioned, based on Mr. Knuckey's ability and knowledge on this project, if the project was on track and if he believed there would not be additional change orders? Mr. Knucke¥ stated at this time he does not anticipate any additional change orders. However, he pointed out the contract with the contractor actually performing the work identifies liquidated damages, i.e. if they ran beyond the contract period the city would be in a position to recoup the costs incurred by the consultant overseeing the project. Mr. Neville questioned if this area experienced a 100 year storm could that drive the project off its time limit? Mr. Knucke¥ stated acts of God have to be considered. M/S/C(Farr/Montgomery) To authorize and direct the Mayor to execute Amendment No. 2 to Professional Services Agreement for McKenna Falls Facility/Engineering Design Upgrade with R. W. Beck, Inc., in the amount of $38,210.00 to provide engineering design services for the Union River Projects. Vote on Motion: Motion carried. In Favor: Abstain: Huff-Menees, Neville, Farr, McConnell, Colvin, Winters, Montgomery, Law Overson 7B - BID AWARD - CONSTRUCTION OF UNION RIVER PROJECTS - STAN PALMER CONSTRUCTIONt ~AB96-146 Bids were opened for the construction of the Union River Projects on June 27, 1996. Three bids for this project were received. The low bid from Stan Palmer Construction was $318,338.29. The engineer's estimate for this project was $284,322. The action before the City Council is approval of a contract for construction TAPE #1391 city Council Reg. Mtg. July 10, 1996 Page 8 of 19 Minutes of the Union River Projects with Stan Palmer Construction Inc.. Tom K~ucke¥, Civil Engineer II, stated the City has worked with Stan Palmer Construction on two separate projects and had a good working relationship on both projects. When references were checked, the City of Bainbridge Island responded that Stan Palmer Construction did an "excellent job" constructing a sewer treatment plant for their city. Stan Palmer hired a person from Pappas construction to act as Project Manager. The City checked three references on that individual and all of them came back as "excellent". Public comment - none. Mr. Overson expressed concern that a contract was not included as part of the Agenda documentation. Randy Witt, City Engineer, stated traditionally construction contracts are not included in the Agenda packet; however they are brought to Council committee meetings. Mr. Overson stated his primary purpose for wanting to review the contract was the scope of work and beginning variates on the contract. Mr. witt stated that information is not generally in the contract and is better described in the "special provisions", and the issue with that documentation is that it gets to be 1-3 inches thick. Mr. Overson asked if work had already started on the project? Mr. Witt stated no, Council action will award the contract. Mr. McConnell noted the low bid was $318,338 and the Engineer's estimate was $284,322, with a different of approximately $34,000. He asked if sales tax made up the difference between those two figures? Mr. Knucke¥ stated no, the estimate has the same items included as the bid. One of the first items the contractor is required to provide is a schedule of values that will breakdown the cost of the various portions of the work. Once that schedule is received, they can identify where the difference in cost occurred. Mr. McConnell asked if R.W. Beck had anything to do with the estimate? Mr. Knuckey stated yes, there is approximately 11-12% difference between the estimate and low bid. He noted there is only a $7-8,000 difference between the low bid and construction estimate, if you include the contingency included by the engineer. Mr. Colvin asked if that cost difference is an acceptable and reasonable difference? Mr. Witt stated naturally they would like to see their estimates closer to the low bid amount. If you go back to the hydro gates that were bid previously, the Engineer's estimate was about $50,000 lower than the bid. His ideal range between the estimate and bid would be 5%. Council will be updated TAPE #1391 City Council Reg. Mtg. July 10, 1996 Page 9 of 19 Minutes #1372 on how well they are doing in estimating projects at the monthly Utility issues Study Session. As was stated, this project is over budget and a Budget Adjustment will be forth coming to Council in a couple of weeks to address that situation. Mr. Overson pointed out frequently Council is given a Scope Of Work for projects, which provides information that helps them to understand what is involved in the cost. Mr. Witt explained when consultant contracts and agreements are brought before Council the entire agreement is provided, which may change along the way; however construction contracts do not change. Mr. Overson pointed out the lack of substantiating documentation to support the various work specified for the two projects. Mr. Witt explained it goes back to the scope of the construction provisions. President Law asked if the contract set 13 weeks as the time of construction? Mr. Knucke¥ stated the contract identifies the end of construction at September 25, 1996. President Law asked if construction goes beyond that date, will monies come from the contract to offset the professional services contract for any additional charges to the City? Mr. Knucke¥ stated the additional charges for consulting are what the liquidating damages are based upon. President Law questioned for clarification if an Amendment 3 to the professional services agreement is required, would it be paid for by the contractor for having extended services? Mr. Witt stated this issue was unlike the wastewater treatment plant where a consultant is doing daily inspections, on this contract the City is doing the daily inspections. The contract with the consultant is for specialized services...an on call contract. M/S/C/U(Neville/Colvin) To approve a contract for $318,338.29 with Stan Palmer Construction Inc., for construction of the Union River Projects and authorize the Mayor to execute the same. 7D - REVISION TO COUNCIL RULES /%ND PROCEDURES FOR QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARINGt ~AB96-148 Ordinance #4550 established interim procedures for land use permits pursuant to ESHB 1724 (RCW 36.70B) including procedures for a closed record hearing or appeal before the City Council where there has been a prior open record administrative hearing on the application or appeal. Current Council rules set a procedure for an open record hearing where new evidence is introduced and must be amended for a closed record hearing based on the record from the prior hearing, argument of parties, and "limited" new information or evidence as allowed by Council rules of procedure. (Ord. 4550 Section 2(2) lO TAPE #1391 city Council Reg. Mtg. July 10, 1996 Page 10 of 19 Minutes Ian sievers, City Attorney, stated the City is operating under an interim ordinance on quasi-judicial hearing process for administrative decisions, which was approved approximately two months ago and was a 90-day ordinance. This discussion does not get into what permanent arrangements will be on handling Administrative hearings. As the Mayor mentioned in the Study Session, the Planning Commission is meeting on this issue and will soon be passing on their recommendation for a permanent ordinance. The proposed rule amends a current Council rule on how to conduct hearings at the Council level. The interim ordinance calls for a closed hearing at Council and the current Council rules set forth an open record hearing, which must be amended to comply with the interim ordinance. In reviewing proposed changes, there are some non-substantive changes on the appearance of fairness statement made by the Council President #4, under Rule 11, as to what the Council President will announce to the hearing audience as to the type of evidence that will be allowed at the closed hearing. It restates the interim ordinance.., that this closed record hearing will only contain material and evidence that has been submitted earlier at the open record hearing, which will be the Planning Commission; and on some sort of record either a tape or transcript. This rule proposes an option that was given to the City by State law to admit limited new evidence and the State Law did not elaborate on what that meant. He reviewed all of the model ordinances and one jurisdiction did set forth three types of additional information that can be admitted at a closed hearing, those are set forth in 5(a). Item #4 announces to the audience what additional information might be in addition to the party's argument. Again, those are optional and Council may choose to strike one or more of those three additional types of limited information. Also, Council can set the length of argument to allow a fair hearing. Another proposed change elaborates a little more than the current rule on what is in Council's motion. He believes Council has been a little lax in the motion making and it is preferred that the motion maker recite the findings that are needed to support the motion or decision of the Council. Council can adopt prior findings to the degree they support their motion, but if additional findings are needed, they should be included in the motion. Under sub-rule 11 of Rule 11 has to do with reconsideration, which has given some difficulty in the past. He recommends that after Council has made their decision on the closed record that there would not be reconsideration. Council does have the option to provide some kind of reconsideration, possibly at the request of one of the participants or parties in the hearing, or maybe upon Council's own motion, which has happened in the past. TAPE #1391 city council Reg. July 10, 1996 Page 11 of 19 Mtg. Minutes Kathleen M¢Cluske¥, City Clerk, read the following letters into the record: Paul Scheyer, 2111 Madrona Point Drive, Bremerton WA 98312 - "Subject: Revision to Council Rules, comments on proposal Rule 11 "(1) I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the proposed Rule 11 change. I recently (1993) was involved in an appeal of the Kitsap County Director of Public Works action to the Board of Commissioners, which was conducted as a closed public hearing meeting based on a written record transmitted by the Director with no additional evidence or argument permitted. This was done under Ordinance 113. The Director was allowed to provide both sides of the dispute. The only thing that made this remotely fair was that I was allowed to provide written rebuttal testimony right up to the decision meeting. The fact that the Commissioners did not make the decision at the initial closed public hearing was also a help to obtain fairness. (2) I would like to make the following comments on the proposed rule 11: a. Separate rules should be drawn for open and closed hearings. b. all testimony should be written for closed public hearings. c. Written testimony should be allowed from any party prior to the initial closed public hearing. d. Any party should be able to rebut anything presented during the initial closed public hearing including anything the staff presents verbally or written. e. A deadline for final written testimony should be established prior to the decision meeting. f. More than one closed public meeting is needed to complete the process." Georqe Miller, P. O. Box 788, Bremerton, WA 98337 - "It has recently been an illuminating experience, examining the records, rules, and regulations associated with one of the City's 'departments'. The records were found to be haphazard at best, in a state of flux, or non existent. The record system exhibits an egregious lack of standardization and control. Copies of one of that 'department's" "bibles" were current, but without an audit trail to the status of previous revisions; and Officials in that 'department' could often NOT adequately quote nor apply their own rules and regulations. And now to run across RULE #11 which, as it presently exists is a perfect political document. It consumes words and paper, says nothing intelligible, and even a trained legal mind could not, in all probability, fully devine its intent and purpose. TAPE #1391 City Council Reg. Mtg. July 10, 1996 Page 12 of 19 Minutes It would cost respect for the city Council if you maintain your determination to vote on that gaggle of babble, in it s present form, at this meetinG. May it be suggested that first you develop a clear picture in your own minds as to what the basic procedure is to be. Then create a Glossary of terms, so that the average citizen can make a beginning of understanding exactly what You mean. At this point it would probably be best if you were to separate your "rule" into two separate sub-rules, one dealing with Open and the other dealing with Closed Hearings. Next, take special pains in the area of "presentation and admissibility of data" to avoid the color of prejudicial treatment and "filtering" by the Information Czar who provides the Council with the basic data. It would be nice, even intelligent, if Council members were expected to make their individual decisions based upon ALL of the information that was available. With that under control, bug, borrow, or bribe someone who can write ENGLISH, and have that person do an approval draft. Run it by a High School Senior (or equivalent) and see if that senior can understand the organization and protocols put forth in the document. Then, you can as a body, Vote on it. But please don't vote something into being that is as obtuse and arcane as the existing version. Give the public a break...give us a document that everyone can understand and respect.". Mr. Overson stated from his experience he believes Mr. Scheyer has an insightive method of reviewing issues and his questions probably need considerable attention because they have substance. He asked Mr. Sievers if he had an opportunity to review those questions and determined if they have been answered or the proposed changes meet the points he brought out? Mr. $ievers responded to the questions raised in Mr. Scheyer's letter: he agrees that a separate rule for open and closed hearings need to be established; however, there will still be a couple of instances where the Council will hold open hearings. He recommended adding a new rule for the closed hearings and retain Rule #11 for the open hearing. Questions: All testimony should be written for closed public hearings; Answer: Council has been given that option in the proposed rule change, but Council is not tied to that option if they want to use some sort of tape; however, Mr. Scheyer recommends a written transcript. Questions: written testimony should be allowed by any party prior to the initial closed public hearing; Answer: the problem with that is testimony of any kind, whether written or oral, needs to be presented during the open hearing, not at any time prior to the closed hearing. This contemplates receiving letters after the TAPE #1391 City Council Reg. Mtg. July 10, 1996 Page 13 of 19 Minutes close of the Planning Commission hearing, which would not be due process for those involved in the hearing since they would not have an opportunity to respond and rebut. Question: any party should be able to rebut anything presented during the initial closed/public hearing, including anything staff presents verbally or written; Answer: the staff will be more limited in their presentation to Council. You will notice a change in this rule that says they are simply to summarize the record at Planning Commission and do not jump into a new presentation before Council. There will be a change to rebut in the form of argument at the closed hearing. Question: a deadline for final written testimony should be established prior to the decision meeting; Answer: there is a deadline, it is the conclusion of the open record hearing. We don't expect any letters to be taken under consideration by the Council that come in after the closure of that open hearing. Question: more than one closed meeting is needed to complete the process; Answer: Council has the ability to continue a closed hearing, if more time to deliberate is needed. Mr. Overson emphasized the biggest concern is to have a separate rule for open and closed hearings and both of the letters read into the record expressed that need. Mr. sievers agreed with Mr. Overson and recommended that Rule 11 remain as the open hearing rule and a new Rule 12 be added covering the closed hearing. Mr. M¢Connell questioned what the appeal will be based on, the entire hearing or a specific portion? Mr. Sievers stated it would depend on the form of the appeal and he would have to review the various underlying appeals in the City's Code. When the permanent ordinance is developed Council may wish to be more specific as to the content of the appeal, identification of issues and maybe some process for narrowing the record down to those issues, which may be difficult. Mr. MoConnell questioned if the Planning Commissions' recommendations to Council will be closed or open hearings? Mr. Sievers stated there has been a lot of discussion on that issue; however, he did not know what that recommendation will be. Mr. M¢connell asked if specific items are identified for appeal, can Council rule on something within that hearing that was not part of the appeal and excluded from the appeal in error or will Council be restricted to ruling specifically on the item(s) being appealed? Mr. sievers stated he believed Council will be restricted to the appeal item(s). Mr. Parr stated he was leaning towards doing a little more work on this issue and encouraging more public comment. He appreciated receiving both of the litters, which were read into the record. A couple of the points identified in those letters reinforced his belief that when public comment is limited in some form to one open TAPE #1391 city Council Reg. Mtg. July 10, 1996 Page 14 of 19 Minutes meeting and proceed from there, that the record Council bases the testimony, at the closed hearing, can't be left up to chance. He did not believe requesting each of the Council members to view a video tape for 3-4 hours of a Planning Commission meeting is appropriate or would serve the purpose. He leans toward the only factual way to leave an auditable trail and that is to have a professionally prepared transcript. He realizes that process would come at a cost, but in his opinion it would be required. This process has to afford fairness to the appellant and Council needs to take all the steps necessary to allow the appellant to have a reasonable chance to present their case, but at the same time it has to afford a degree of fairness to the folks who made the original action in that the appeals process. If that process is abused and left with too many loopholes, it turns into delays that prohibit construction and can be exceptionally costly in the form of delays. He did not feel some of the suggestions by the letter writers can be accommodated since they leave it too open and at point there has to be a closure to the process. Mr. Montqomer¥ stated he feels the Legislature made a great mistake in passing this law. He asked for clarification of the meaning of Paragraph 2(4) - if a hearing is a closed record hearing, or appeal; or should the "or" be changed to "o_~n"? Mr. Sievers agreed the "or" should be changed to "on" and the only time there would be a closed hearing would be on an appeal. To make it more clear he recommended deleting the words "hearinq, or". Mr. Montqomer¥ referenced the last line of sub-paragraph 4: "Speakers are asked to request admission of new evidence under 5(b) at the beginning of their argument". He asked what is considered new evidence? Mr. Sievers stated Mr. Montgomery needed to read that in the context of the rest of sub-paragraph 4...the Council President announces that limited new evidence described in 5(b) may be allowed" and then he will simply add if you do have some of that new information please state your request for admission at the beginning of their presentation. Mr. Montqomery asked who will determine what is new evidence? Mr. Sievers stated it could be left up to the Council President as a ruling on procedure, or Council vote. Mr. Montqomer¥ stated to him a closed hearing means that it would be closed to any further public comments and that no new evidence should be heard. He referenced sub-paragraph 5(3) - "New evidence discovered after the open record hearing...", and noted he finds it very difficult to figure out what could be newly discovered if the person had done their homework when they applied for the permit and during the open hearing. He did not believe the City Council President should ever have the burden of ruling on whether or not someone has new evidence. He highly recommended to Council that all appeals come directly to the City Council to be heard before the elected officials, not the Planning Commission, who are TAPE #1391 City Council Reg. July 10, 1996 Page 15 of 19 Mtg. Minutes #2954 appointed officials. Mr. sievers stated in the interim ordinance the Council is allowed to form its own decision based upon the testimony presented at the Planning Commission level. Council may view the weight of the testimony differently after reading the record. Council is given that flexibility based on the closed record hearing. Mr. Montgomery stated he understood if someone appeals something they must have a reason for that appeal, not just that they do not like the decision. Mr. $ievers quoted from Ordinance 4550..."The Council may modify or reverse the decision of the Planning Commission based on its findings and conclusions that approval criteria for the particular project permit have or have not been met." Mr. Montqomer¥ stated he did not understand was how an appeal could get before Council if the appellant did no know what he was appealing. Mr. Overson asked if that was part of Rule 12 discussion? He emphasized a person has a legal right to appeal a decision. Mr. colvin stated he agreed with Mr. Montgomery that this issue need further review and he believes the City Attorney was also somewhat unclear as to how it affects the City. Mr. Sievers stated the problem with this rule is that there are a lot of options for Council's consideration. Public comment - none. Mr. Overson stated he did not support the idea of postponing action on this item since it is not a new issue nor does he find it that difficult. He believed the only question unanswered is whether Council uses a direct transcript or an audio or video tape. It was his opinion that a direct transcript was the best method for providing the information necessary for a closed hearing. He asked any Council member, who sees the needs for a change to the rule, to give specifics to staff rather than a general statement "rewrite it because we don't like it". M/S/C(Montgomery/Winters) to hold up this item for further discussion at Council Study Sessions. President Law stated his biggest concern on this issue is the possibility of having to incur a cost of approximately $126.00 per hour for a typed transcript to be used in an appeal. He was not sure who would be responsible for that cost. Mr. Montqomer¥ questioned who provides the transcript in lawsuits? Mr. Sievers stated if there is an appeal of a Council decision to Superior Court the appellant assumes the cost of a transcript. Mr. Law asked what if the person making the appeal says they can't afford that cost would the City have to cover the cost? Mr. Sievers stated that would be up to the Council and they could dictating the TAPE #1391 city Council Reg. Mtg. July 10, 1996 Page 16 of 19 Minutes appellant will cover the cost of the appeal as well as a filing fee. An average cost of a transcript could be included in the filing fee as a set amount, otherwise the City will be responsible for the cost because the current filing fee will not cover it. President Law stated then this is something that has to be resolved and made part of the rule. Mr. Sieves stated it is a budget issue, but that came with the State law, its not really a part of the procedure before Council. Mr. Overson stated Mr. Law's point is correct in that it needs to be determined before Council hears their first appeal under the new law because we want to apply it universally. Mr. Sievers stated Council will not have all of the options for their first appeal, such as a video tape because an appeal has been filed where there was only an audio tape, which gives the option of either an audio tape or a transcript. Mrs. Huff-Menees stated she supports Mr. Montgomery's motion and President Law statement, at the very least Council needs to understand the entire document or the implications of it and she did not feel they had that understanding. She was not comfortable voting on something until there is a better understanding of the issue. Vote on motion: Motion carried. In Favor: Opposed: Neville, McConnell, Colvin, Winters, Montgomery, Huff-Menees, Farr, Law Overson 7E - MUTUAL AID AGREEMENT - DUI TASK FORCEr ~AB96-149 Kitsap District Curt has ruled that this long standing must be approved by each Governmental Unit each year remain valid. agreement for it to Police Chief Paul Du Fresne stated he would standby for any questions. Ian sievers, City Attorney, stated the only thing he had to add was the fact of being mid-term in the agreement and that there is authority under the Police Officers' Mutual Aid Statute, but the agreement does recite an Interlocal Agreement under a different statute and that does require approval by Council and filing. Public comment - none. TAPE #1392 Mr. Neville asked if all references to DWI in the Mutual Aid TAPE #1392 city Council Reg. July 10, 1996 Page 17 of 19 Mtg. Minutes #0064 Agreement should be changed to DUI? Chief Du Fresne stated he was not sure that needed to be done, but he would look into it. Mr. Neville posed the question: "doesn't one have to do with alcohol and the other alcohol and drugs? Chief Du Fresne stated Mr. Neville was correct. The statute under which the actual enforcement is carried out is probably independent of this agreement. Mr. Sievers stated he believed the "I" was the important element, it includes drug and alcohol in both cases. Mr. Montgomery asked if there was a reason why this agreement had to be approved annually? Chief Du Fresne stated he would explore the possibility of approving the contract for a longer period of time, i.e. 5 years, etc. M/S/C/U(Montgomery/Farr) Approval to enter into the agreement for 1996/1997. 8A - RESOLUTION ~2550 ADOPTING CITY OF BREMERTON EMERGENCY OPERATION PLAN~ ~AB96-150 Pursuant to Chapter 38.52 RCW, this plan is intended as a comprehensive framework for City side disaster mitigation, preparedness, response and recovery. It details authority, functions and responsibilities to establish a mutually cooperative plan of action between local, state and federal governments and public and private organizations. A1 Duke, Assistant Fire Chief, stated this plan has been developed over the past 18 months and it was used for a mock disaster drill as well as more recent wind storm. All of the Department Directors and Department Heads have thoroughly reviewed the plan. Elizabeth Buell questioned the nature of the plan? President Law explained that in the event of a disaster the plan will provide the guidelines for City personnel assisting the public. The plan is available for the public's review in the public libraries and City Hall. Mr. Montgomery commended the Fire Department staff for their effort in putting the plan together. Mr. Winters raised a point about the role of the Mayor Protem as identified in the City Charter and the fact the subject plan does not show that same line of responsibility. He referenced Page 14 of the Plan, Section IX - CONTINUITY OF GOVERNMENT...to insure the orderly continuity of leadership in any emergency situation, the following line of succession is established: Mayor, Council President, Council Vice President"; and page 36 - Section III RESPONSIBILITIES (B) it states "The Mayor of Bremerton or the TAPE #1392 City Council Reg. Mtg. July 10, 1996 Page 18 of 19 Minutes #0439 Council President is responsible for directing all emergency operations and programs throughout Bremerton and preserving City records." Then, he referenced Section V ORGANIZATIONAL CHART which shows Mayor, Council President, and Council Vice President; and on the following page, which seems identical, a section reads: "The Mayor of Bremerton or Mayor Pro-Tem is responsible for directing all emergency operations and programs throughout Bremerton and preserving city records." Stated for a need-to-know basis as acting Mayor Protem, he thinks in an emergency situation he needed this clarified. Mayor Lynn Horton explained she was the second Council President, who chose not to serve as Mayor Protem. Historically, the Council President was designated Mayor Protem. When the position was split there was no recognition or thought that the Mayor Protem was the succession in the Charter. If in fact Council feels that the Charter must be followed in that regard, she would recommend that Council review those positions. In the past, the Mayor Protem position has been simply a figure head in ceremonial position, it has not had the responsibilities that the Council President has experienced. As far as succession of responsibility in power, she feels the Council President is the most knowledgeable person on Council at that given time. Based on reality, it is recommended that succession go to Council President, then Council Vice President. If Council feels there is a problem, they should take a re-vote, having the Council President being elected as the Mayor Pro Tem. If you want an officer to fill in ceremonially, then she recommends going in that direction. Mr. Overson asked again why page 106 is in the document? Mayor Horton stated she believes it is a "typo". Mr. Colvin stated he agrees with the Mayor, however, if the Mayor Pro-Tem is a ceremonial person, the Charter should state that. Mayor Horton expects that is a matter Council will debate. She felt the Council President should be the successor to the Mayor based on the reality that the Council President is the most knowledgeable in City business. Mr. McConnell clarified "most knowledgeable" in terms of City affairs only. Mr. Winters questioned why the revision of April 157 Mayor Horton stated she assumed it followed a staff discussion about what was actually happening at this point as far as the continuity, so it was revised. M/S/C(Montgomery/Overson) to pass Resolution #2550 adopting the City of Bremerton Emergency Operation Plan, with the exception of page 36, with revised date of April 4, 1996. TAPE #1392 city council Reg. July 10, 1996 Page 19 of 19 Mtg. Minutes vote on motion: In Favor: McConnell, colvin, Huff-Menees, Farr, Law Opposed: winters Montgomery, Neville, Overson, Motion carried. Mr. Neville encouraged citizens to contact the K-Prep program and learn what.this is all about, to be prepared in case of .an e~ergency disaster. ~ clarified that the document being discussed tonight is an ,,internal" emergency management manual. K- Prep is the program to help citizens be prepared. Mr. MoConnell stated this is a detailed specifications of what the city Administration and employee'S function would be during an emergency, such as preserving city documents, etc. president Law thanked the TV crew for their services: James Noble, Martin Stows, Nadine Price, and Bruce Hall. With no further business meeting adjourned at 7:20 P.M. KATHLEEN L. McCLUSKEY, city Clerk JOHN E. LAW, Council President city of Bremerton KLM/JL/me cc: Normal Distribution File/Vault AGENDA BILL BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL 1. ~ RESERVOIR 8 AND 21 REHABILITATION - BID AWARD 2~ ~/(Comment on back necessary) ~' Publi~ks & Utilities C i t V~ T'r ~--~Su ~e~ Coun~sc~yget Commit tee Council Operations Committee FOR AGENDA OF: ORIGINATING DEPT: ORIGINATOR: DATE SUBMITTED: 3. ~ July 24, 1996 Public Works & Utils R. W itt, City En~N~ June 26, 1996 ' k 1. Bid Tabulation ENDORSEMENT ~ INFORMATION [] APPROVED BY CO~CILP~L~i~DENT FOR S~MITTAL: CO~CIL PRESIDE~/'//C-'~---'c-~-~-~////j 4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REOUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION: Bids were opened for the Reservoirs 8 and 21 Rehabilitation Project on June 17 1996. Three bids for this project were received. The low bid from R.D.S. Construction, Inc. was $72,912.37. The engineer's estimate for this project was $110,000. The action before the City Council is approval of a contract for the Reservoirs 8 and 21 Rehabilitation with R.D.S. Construction, Inc. 5. RECOMMENDATION: The City Council approve a contract for $72,912.37 with R.D.S. Construction, Inc. for the Reservoir 8 and 21 Rehabilition and authorize the Mayor to execute the same. 9. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: EXPIP. ATION DATE: REVIEW DATE: Director Pub Wks & Util Director Pub Wks & Util PULLED [] TABLED [] APPROVED [] DISAPPROVED [] AMENDED [] COUNCIL DIRECTIVE: (OVER) -2~- ii. AGENDA BILL NO.: 2. CLEARANCE COMMENTS: 3. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REOUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION - Continuation 5. IMPACT ON NON-PASSAGE: Reservoirs 8 and 21 will not be cleaned and recoated at this time and continued deteriorations of the reservoir exteriors will occur. 6. IMPACT ON STAFFING, BUDGETS, FACILITIES, EOUIPMENT AND OTHER RESOURCES: 180 hours of staff time for project inspection. Budget: This project is included in the 1996 budget and sufficient funds exist to do this work. An expenditure from the Water Capital Fund of $72,912.37 is necessary. Facilities/Equipment: No impact. CITY OF BREMERTON: BID TABULATION FORM BID OPENING DATE: OPENED BY TIME: ~; o 0 ~r~ RECORDED BY ************************************* BID BIC NET TAX TOTAL ~ANALYSIS NET flEMAflKSIflEFERENC E~EfllFIOATIONS, ETC. LOW BID VENDOfl: SECOND LOW BID: THIRD LOW BID: NON-COLLUSION CERTIFICATE~ State of Washington) ) County of Kitsap) The undersigned, being duly sworn, deposes and says that the person, firm, assoclafion, coparmership or corporation herein named, has not, either directly or indirectly, entered into any agreement, participated in any collusion, or otherwise taken any action in res~aint of ~ee competitive bidding in the preparation and submission ora proposal to the City of B'remerton for consideration in the award of a contract on the improvement described as follows: RESERVOIR ~8 AND #2] REHABILITATION Name of project R.D.S. CONSTRUCTION INC. Name of firm Signature of authorized m~mber Signed and swom to before me this 17th dayof June ,1996 Notary Public GOiNS 2-5 CERTIFICATION BY PROPOSED CONTRACTOR REGARDING EOUAI, Name of Prime Contractor GENERAL In accordance with Chapter 56, Laws of 1975 1st ExlraordinmT, Session, Certification regarding Equal Opportunity is required of bidders or prospective conlractors and their proposed subcontractors prior to the award of contracts or subcontracts. CERTIFICATION OF BIDDER Contractor's name R. D.S. CONSTRUCTION INC. Address ]2123 NE ]72nd Place STE. # M301, Bothell, WA 98011 Imemal Revenue Service Employer Identification No. 91-] 720269 1. Participation in a preyious contract or subcontract. Contractor has participated in a previous contract or subcontract subject to the Equal Opportunity Clause. Yes No xx Compliance reports were required to be filed in connection with such contract/subcontract Yes No xx Contractor has filed all compliance reports required by Executive Orders 10925, 11114, 11246 or by regulations of the Equal Opportunity Commission issued pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Yesxx No If answer to item 'c' is "no", please explain in detail on the reverse side of this certification. Dollar amount ofproposed bid $ ~.~ ~ Z~C~ 2-6 I I 1 i I 1 I I CERTIFICATION BY PROPOSED CONTRACTOR REGARDING EOUAL PAGE 2 Anticipated performance period 30 .days. Expected total number of employees who will perform the proposed construction: --3 Race or ethnic group designation of majority owner* '(check one): Black__ Hispanic__ Asian or Pacific Iflander__ American Indian or Alaskan Native__ WhiteXXXXX other (specify) 6. Sex of majority owner*. Male XXXX Female __ *Majority owner as used here is defined as owning 51% or more of the company. Number of employees and race or ethnic group of each employee and sex of each employee. Clerical personnel are not to be included in'the chart. The chart is to reflect only the individuals working in the trades of the job to be performed. AMERiCAN INDIAN / ALASKAN NATIVE M F ASIAN / PACIFIC ISLANDER BLACK M F WHITE TOTAL M ] F M Remarks: R.D.S. CONSTRUCTION IS AN OWNER/OPERATOR C(X~gxNY. CERTIFICATION BY CONTRACTOR I, the undersigned, certify that the information above is frae and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief. ROBERT DIS/q SECRETARY/TREASURER Name and Title of Signer (please type or print clearly) 2-7 Signature D ate 6/~7/1996 BIDDER'S SUBCONTRACTORS.. CONTACT REPORT Please list below all minority and other subconWactors ~ to bid on subcontract work on this project. Indicate with an asterisk (*) those firms that ~re at least 51% or more minority owned, crb_is listing does not in any way obligate you to contract with any faro on this listing). Name NONE Name Address . Address City/State City/Stat~ Telephone Number Telephone Number Type o£Work Bid On Type of Work Bid On Result Results Name Name Address Address City/State City/State Telephone Number Telephone Number Type of Work Bid On Type of Work Bid On Result Results Name Name Address Address City/State City/State Telephone Number Telephone Number Type of Work Bid On Typ~ of Work Bid On Result Results Contractor R D ~. CC~N~I~Tt~Tn~,~ INC. Name of Principle Responsible for Making Contact 6/17/1996 Date 2-8 BIDDER'S PROPOSED SUBCONTRACTORS [ The following list identifies firms whose subcontract will exceed ten percent of the :: . submitted bid price and items of work wkich the finns will be subcontracted to complete.. If ' work will not be subcontracted, the bidder must list itself. This must be completed and submitted with the bid. Conll. actorR.D.S. CONSTRUCTION INC. By' ROBERT C. DII~M -(Xutho ' iai) ~ Contractor Name Contractor Number Bid Item. Number(s) Amount 6/]7/]996 (Date) SECRETARY/TREASURER (Title) CITY OF BREMERTON DISADVANTAGED BUSINESSES & WOMEN'S BUSINESS ENTERPRISE CERTIFICATION To be eligible for award of this contract, the bidder mus'~ execute and submit, as a part of the proposal, the following certification relating to disadvantaged businesses and women's business enterprises. This certification shall be deemed a part of the resulting contract~' therefore, a failure to complete and submit this certification or the inclusion of a false certification shall be considered as evidence that the proposal is'unresponsive to the invitation to bid. Disadvantaged Businesses and Women's Business Enterprise Certification R.D..~.- CONSTRUCTION INC. Name of Bidder(s) certifies that: (A) (B) It does ~ does not intend to sublet a portion of the contract work and (has):(~ taken affirmative action to seek out and consider disadvantaged business and women's business enterprises as potential Contractors. It has had contact w/th the following Disadvantaged Businesses (DB) and Women's Business Enterprises (WBE) and if it is the successful bidder on this project, it shall award subcontract to the following DB/WBE firms as indicated on the next page: (if necessary, use additional sheet). t ! 2-10 ! 2q CITY OF BREMERTON [~ISADVANTAGED BUSINESSES & WOMEN'S BUSINESS ENTERPRISE CERTIFICATION PAGE 2 Name of DB/W'BE Address Bid .item number(s) for which quote(s) were asked Bid item number(s) for which quote(s) were received Bid item numbers for item(s) or portions of item(s) awarded DB/WBE Value of bid item(s) or portions of item(s) awarded to DB Value of bid item(s) or portions of item(s) awarded WBE Name of DB/WBE Address Bid item number(s) for which quote(s) were asked Bid item number(s) for which quote(s) were received Bid item numbers for item(s) or portions of item(s) awarded DB/WBE Value of bid item(s) or portions of item(s) awarded to DB Value of bid item(s) or portions of item(s) awarded WBE Attach additional sheet if needed. ! ! 2-11 DISADVANTAGED BUSINESSES WOMEN'S BUSINESS ENTERPRISE CERTIFICATION PAGE 3 In order to comply with the requirement of 49 CFR Part 23, goals have been established in the amount of: A. 0 for DisadvantagedBusiness Enterprises: B. 0 for Women's Businesses Enterprises: The bidder shall complete a Disadvantaged Business and Women's Business Enterprise Certification which has been made a part of the proposal. The City of Bremerton shall consider as unresponsive those bids submitted which do not contain the certification or which contain an incomplete or false certification. The City of Bremerton expects that the bidder shall make every effort, through negotiations and/or written solicitations commenced not less than five (5) working days in advance of the date specified for the opening of the bids, to meet the above specified goal(s). The City of Bremerton expects each bidder to attain each goal. Mr./Ms. $2mAIN has been designated as the Liaison Officer for the Administration of the Disadvantaged Businesses and Women's Business Enterprise Program for this firm. (C) tf the answer to (A) of page one, is no, please explain (Attach additional sheet if needed). R.D.S. CONSTRUCTION INC. Contractor 6/~ 7/~ 996 Date SECRETARY/TREASURER By (signature) Title 2- 12 CERTIFICATION OF NONSEGREGATED FACILITIES The bidder certifies that he does not maintain or provide for his employees any segregated facilities at any of his establishments, and that he does not permit his employees to perform their services at any location, under his cona-ol, where segregated facilities are maintained. The bidder certifies further that he will not maintain or provide for his employees any segregated facilities at any of his establishments, and that he will not permit his emplo~/ees to perform their services at any location under his control where segregated facilities are maintained. The bidder agrees that a breach of this certification ~All be a violation of the equal, opportunity clause in any contract resulting fi.om acceptance of this bid. As used in t.h/s certification, the term "segregated facilities" means any waiting rooms, work areas, restrooms and washrooms, restaurants and other eating areas, timeclocks, locker rooms and other storage or dressing areas, parking lots, drinking fountains, recreation or entertainment areas, transportation, and housing facilities provided for employees which are segregated by explicit directive or are in fact segregated on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin, because of habit, local custom, or otherwise. The bidder agrees that (except where he has obtained identical certification from proposed subcontractors for specific time periods) he will obtain identical certifications from proposed subcontractors prior to the award of subcontracts exceeding $10,000 which are not exempt from the provisions of the equal opportunity clause, and that he will retain such certification in his files. Note: The penalty for making false statements in offers is prescribed in 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Date JUNE 17th ,19 1996. R. D.S. CONSTRUCTION INC. (Name of Bidder) By ~/~---X--'/?-'~ ROBERT C. DIEM Title SECRETARY/TREASURER Official Address: P.O. BOX 1587, (Street or P.O. Box) __.l~l-h~=ll. ~ ann~,l (City, State, Zip) *Must be included without alteration 2-13 CERTIFICATION OF EOUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY REPORT Certification with regard to the performance of previous contracts ol: subcontracts subject to the equal opportunity clause and the filing of required reports. The bidder~ , proposed subcontractor , hereby certifies that she/he has ' , has not xx , participated in a previous contract or subcontract subject to the Equal Opportunity Clause, as required by Executive Order 10925, 'l 1114, or 11246, and that she/he has xx , has not , filed with the Joint Reporting commiuee, the Dkector of the Office of Federal Contract Compliance, a federal government contracting or administering agency, or the former President's Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity, all reports due under the applicable filing requirements. R.D.S. CONSTRUCTION INC. Company ROBERT C. DIeM By Date 6/17/1996 SECRETARY/TREASURER Title 2-!.4 CONTRACTOWS REGISTRATION Nm'ne Address P.O. BOX ~ 1587, ~.L: WA' 9804] Employer's identification number (employer Soc. Sec.#)(not your personal Social Security number): 9]-]720269 Employment Security Department number: 91-1720269 Industrial lnsurance number: 52 15 42 31 State Excise Tax Registrafion nurnber: 601 701 524 State Contractor's Registration number/expiration date: R City of Bremerton Business License number: RDS COI* 044JE SEE A~IfACHED PAGE 2-15 Regarding your request for the business license number from R.D S. which has not been acquired previous to the date of June, 17. It is our intentions to apply for a business license from the city of Bremerton after R.D.S. has been awarded the contract for resuffacing reservoirs numbers 8 and 21. Thank You Robert B Strain RESERVOIR 8 and 21 REHABILITATION TO THE CITY CLERK BREMERTON, WA The undersigned hereby certify/certifies that we/he/she h~-q/hav~ personally examined the location and conslxuction details of work as outlined on the plans and specifications for RESERVOIR 8 AND 21 REHABILITATION in the City of Bremerton and has/have read and thoroughly understand(s) the Plans and Specifications and Contract governing the work embraced in this Improvement and the method by which payment will be made for said work and hereby propose to undertake and complete the work embraced in the Improvement in accordance with said Plans, Specifications, and Contract and at the following schedule of rotes and prices. The undersigned also acknowledge that addenda numbers been delivered to g, .0.% (_o~. and have been examined as part of the contxact documents. have (NOTE: Prices for all items, all extensions and total mount of bid must be shown. Show prices in both words and figures and where conflict occurs the written or typed words shall prevail.) BASE BID ITEM ESTIMATED UNIT NO. QUANTITY DESCRIPTION OF ITEM PRICE AMOUNT RESERVOIR 8 COATING (Unit price in words) RESERVOIR 21 COATING (Unit price in words) N~r~ 2- 16 3(o RESERVOm 8 AND 21 REHABILITATION (PAGE 2) All retail sales tax shall be included in the bid prices or other contract amounts. Bid Subtotal Washington State Sales Tax (~ 8.1%) Total Bid 5 :q u 3. 2-~7 PROPOSAL SIGNATURE SIqW~ET R.D.S. CONSTRUCTION INC'. Bidder By Date Authorized Official 6/1 7/lqqR - (206) 806-8026 Phone P.O. Box #1587 Address Bothell, WA 98041 City and State Note: (2) (3) If the bidder is a copartnersh/p, so state, giw, ng firm name under wkich business is uansacted. If the bidder is a corporation, this proposal must be executed by its duly authorized official. If no bid is submitted, kindly mark '~0 BID" and return to: City of Bremerton ' City Clerk 239 4th Street Bremerton, WA 98310 2-18 AGENDA BILL BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL 1. SUBJECT: FOR AGENDA OFI ~/I0/~6 Revision to Council Rules ORIGINATING DEPT. Legal and Procedures for quasi-judicial ORIGINATOR: Ian R. Siever~ hearings DATE SUBMITTED: 7/2/96 2. CLEARANCES: (Comment on back if necessary) COUNCIL ~OM/~ITTEE s Op. 3. EXHIBITS: - Draft Amended Rule 11 - Ord. 4550 MAYOR ~3(-~-- ,;--v-, COUNCIL PRESIDENT ~ 4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REOUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION: Ordinance 4550 established interim procedures for land use permits pursuant t( ESHB 1724 (RCW 36.70B) including procedures for a closed record hearing or appeal before the City Council where there has been a prior open record administratiw hearing on the application or appeal. Current Council rules set a procedure for an open record hearing where ne~ evidence is introduced and must be amended for a closed record hearing based o] the record from the prior hearing, argument of parties, and "limited ne~ information or evidence as allowed by Council rules of procedure." lOrd 4550 Sec 2(2)] 8. ~: Motion approving Revised Rule 11 9. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: EXPIRATION DATE: REVIEW DATE: PULLED [] TABLED [] COUNCIL DIRECTIVE: 10. 0 C APPROVED [] DISAPPROVED [] AMENDED 2 . CLEARANCE COM~ENTB: 5. IMPACT OF NON-PASSAGE: Procedures would not comply with state law and local ordinance. 6. IMPACT ON STAFFING. BUDGETS. FACILITIES. EOUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCES: N/A RULE L1 - PUBLIC HEARINGS AND APPEALS 1. Time of Hearings: The time for commencing a public hearing or appeal will be noted in the Council Agenda. The presiding officer may modify the order of business under Rule 5 in order to conduct the hearing or appeal at or about the designated time. 2. Ouasi-Judicial Body: In hearing matters requiring application of law and determination of facts which predominantly affect particular parties rather than the public generally or a class or group, the Council sits as a Quasi-Judicial body. It will conduct the hearing in accordance with ~. 1) 'Council President convenes hearing or appeal. 2) Item is introduced by City Clerk. 3) Council President asks ~: a. If any Council member believes .................. .............. Appea~anc~ ...... Doctrine and -' ~-' .............. '~ =,,~ =~== ,,~,,,/,,~,m=~,. theY_ have a real or potential conflict which should cause that member to avoid participation in the hearing: and b. If any member of the public believes any Council member should excuse th~,,, ~ E~,,=== do~trine, be excused due to a real or potential conflict. 4) (a) Staff presents recommendation of executive or decision of commission or board, gives general background and answers council questions. 6) Council President designates the length of argument to ~fford a fair hearing of the issues. Correspondence is read and testimony taken from ~ proponents, then opponents and those neutral. Council may ask questions of those testifying. Limited questioning of opposing witnesses on technical matters by either side may be allowed in the discretion of the Council President. 8) President closes the public testimony portion of the hearing. Council deliberates and may ask questions of the presenters. A decision by motion is made. The Council may affirm. reverse or modify an appealed decision based upon its application of code criteria and standards to the record ~ For actions forwarded with a favorable recommendation of the Planning Commission, a draft ordinance or resolution should be presented at the initial public hearing for action. 9) On subsequent hearing(s) of an implementing ordinance or resolution, the public comment at the hearing will be limited to the issue of whether the ordinance or resolution, including findings and conclusions of Council, reflects the Council's decision at the initial public hearing. 10) .................... No motion to rescind~ the initial quasi-judicial decision may be brought by any Council member following close of the ~ ..... nd t ......................... d' ct' RULE 12 - APPEALS- CLOSED RECORD 1. Record on Appeal: If the hearing is a closed record appeal, the record of the prior open record hearing may be supplemented with written argument directed to the record and any alleged errors. Argument shall be submitted as follows: a) The Department of Community Development shall assign an appeal hearing date in coordination with the Council upon the filing of an appeal from an open record hearing or appeal, with sufficient time to allow filing of argument. b) Only applicants for the permit or approval, owners of the property at issue, or persons who participated in the open record hearing are permitted to file an appeal or argument in support or in opposition to the appeal. c) The appellant shall file a list of issues on appeal with supporting argument on each with the Council office 16 days (3rd Monday) prior to the assigned hearing date. Those opposing the appeal may file responsive argument to issues raised in the appeal 9 days (2nd Monday) prior to hearing. The appellants may file a reply 7 days (Wednesday) prior to hearing. 2. Hearing Procedure: 1) After the appearance of fairness inquiry, the President will announce that the decision will be based on materials received in evidence at the previous open hearing; the audio tape, audio/visual tape or transcript of the prior hearing; the final decision or recommendation from the previous hearing; and written argument which has been submitted in a timely manner. The President asks if Council members have listened to the tapes and reviewed other evidence submitted in the prior open record hearing, and excuses those who have not. 2) 3) 4) 6) 7) (a) Staff presents the recommendation or decision of the commission or board which reviewed the action, gives general background and answers Council questions regarding the record. (b) The Council may consider the following limited evidence not set forth in the record on appeal: (1) The Council may take official notice of known information such as any law, ordinance, resolution, rule or other fact generally known and verifiable from reliable sources. (2) Members may view the area in dispute, but shall note the time, manner and circumstances of such view on the record. President closes the public testimony portion of the hearing. Council deliberates and may ask questions of the staff. A motion incorporating the decision is made. The Council may affirm, reverse or modify an appealed decision based upon its application of code criteria and standards to the record on appeal. The decision may adopt the findings of the lower review authority to the extent they address the merits of the appeal and shall specify such additional findings and conclusions necessary to support the decision. For actions forwarded with a favorable recommendation of the Planning Commission, a draft ordinance or resolution should be presented at the initial public hearing for action. On subsequent hearing(s) of an implementing ordinance or resolution, the public comment at the hearing will be limited to the issue of whether the ordinance or resolution, including findings and conclusions of Council, reflects the Council's decision at the initial public hearing. No motion to rescind or reconsider the judicial decision may be brought by any following close of the meeting. initial quasi- Council member C©?Y ORDINANCE NO.~__O_~3 AN ORDINANCE implementing interim Land Use Permit procedures pursuant to ESHB 1724, Ch. 347 Laws of 1995; and amending Bremerton Municipal Code Title 21. WHEREAS, ESHB, Ch. 347 Laws of 1995 require Bremerton and other local governments planning under the Growth Management Act to establish by ordinance or resolution procedures for 1) a consolidated project permit, 2) combining the environmental review process with review of land use project permits and 3) providing for no more than one open record hearing and one closed record appeal; and WHEREAS, an interim ordinance is needed to comply with deadlines of this regulatory reform bill while allowing continued public participation and policy discussions and the integration of these procedures into the City's development regulations; now, therefore, THE CITY OF BREMERTON DOES HEREBY ORDAIN: Section 1. Consolidated Project Permit. Processing and approving any project permit shall include the actions listed below. Project permits are those defined by RCW 36.70B.020, but does not include street vacations or other approvals relating to use of public areas; lot line adjustments; and building and other construction permits or similar administrative approvals categorically exempt from environmental review under chapter 43.21C RCW, or for which environmental review has been completed in connection with other project permits. (a) A Notice of Application to the public and agencies with jurisdiction as required by RCW 36.70B.110 (b)A determination of completeness to the applicant as required by RCW 36.70AA40. (c) Completion of project review and a Notice of Decision as required by RCW 36.70B.130 within the time period provided in RCW 36.70A.065 and RCW 36.70B.090. The Notice of Decision may be the project permit or a report consistent with RCW 36.70B.060. (d) An optional consolidated project permit review providing for the integrated and consolidated review and decision on two or more project permits relating to a proposed project action, including all project permits requested by an applicanL (e) Public meetings or required open record hearings may be combined with another agency or jurisdiction's meeting or open record hearing on the project Section 2. Open Record Hearing. (1) Except for an appeal ora determination of significance, there shall be no more than one open record hearing or open record appeal hearing, and one closed record appeal for project permits as defined by RCW 36.70B.020 (2) Any project permit currently requiring Planning Commission action and City Council approval shall have a predecision open record hearing by the Planning Commission. The Planning commission will forward a recommendation, after considering the input from its open public hearing, for consideration by the City Council. The Council shall make its decision based on findings and conclusions and the taped or written transcript of the Planning Commission and shall not supplement the record with additional evidence or testimony. The City Council shall enter its decision based on the record, except for limited new information or evidence as allowed by Council rules of procedure (3) Any project permit currently requiring Planning Commission approval with an appeal to the City Council shall have an open record hearing or appeal hearing before the Planning Commission and a closed record appeal before the City Council. Only applicants for the permit or approval at issue, owners of the property at issue, or persons who participated in the record hearing leading to the appealed decision shall be permitted to file an appeal. The council may modify or reverse the decision of Planning Commission based upon its findings and conclusions that approval criteria for the particular project permit have or have not been met. Section 3. Consolidated Environmental Review. (t) Appeals of environmental determinations under [3MC 21.12.210 shall be of the governmental action together with its accompanying environmental determinations and shall be commenced within the time required to appeal the governmental action which is subject to environmental review; ?rovided, however, a determination of significance may be appealed and decided before the agency's final decision on a proposed action and a determination of non- significance (DNS) may be appealed before the agen~:y's final decision only if the appeal is heard at a proceeding where the hearing body will render a final recommendation or decision on the underlying action. A threshold determination shall have an open record appeal hearing before the Planning Commission. 2) Except for a determination of significance, no threshold determination, decision or recommendation on a project permit shall be issued until the expiration of the public comment period on the notice of application. 3) Where a project requires an open record predecision hearing and the threshold determination requires public notice under chapter RCW 43.21C, the threshold determination shall be issued at least fiheen (15) days prior to the open record hearing or predecision hearing. Section 4. Amendment. Those sections of BMC Title 21, Land Use, relating to land use approvals are amended by this ordinance to the extent they are inconsistent Section 5. Effective Dates. This ordinance shall take effect ten (10) days from passage and publication and shall expire ninety (90) days following its effective date APPROVED by the City Council of the City of Bremerton this /G:O,~tay of~vg.z.2~, 1996. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Bremerton this/.daqtg~tay of~, O'HN E. LAW, Council President APPROVED this ~'3--day of ~ , 1996. 1996. LYNN HORTON, Mayor ATTEST: KATHLEEN McCLUSKEY, City Clerk EFFECTIVE DATE PUBLICATION DATE ORDINANCE NUMBER 3 AGENDA BILL BP~EMERTON CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: DNR Com,~unity FOR AGENDA OF: Forestry Grant ORIGINATING DEPT: ORIGINATOR: DATE SUBMl'i-r~43: July 24, 1996 Parks and Recreation Jim Spencer July 11, 1996 ENDORSE _.INFQ ATION MAYOR% - -- CLEARANCES: (Comment on back 3. EXHIBITS: if necessary) Parks Grant Agreement Treasure~~-- ~ ~-~_. Number FY96-196/K244. 095. E1 Fiscal Budge~ Operations A- ~?~. W./,/~ APPROVED BY COUNCIL P~_ENTFOR~9~MITTAL: CoUNCIL PRE S ID~/~.~/~.-~ SUN~4ARY STA'r~ENT AND REOUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION: The City has been awarded a fourth $50,000 Community Forestry Grant from the Department of Natural Resources '(DNR). This funding will be used for hazardous tree removal, select pruning, Neighborhood Block tree removal and replanting projects, expansion of Pendergast tree planting, and other urban forestry projects throughout the city. The action before the City Council is approval of the grant. REC0~ENDATION: That the City Council authorize and direct the Mayor to accept the Community Forestry Grant from DNR in the amount not to exceed $50,000. 9. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Jim Spencer ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: Jim Spencer EXPIRATION DATE: REVIEW DATE: T~L~ COUNCIL DIRECTI~: 10. NOTICE OF ACTION APPROVED DISAPPRO~u DATE: 2. CLEARANCE C0~WENTS: 5. IMPACT OF NON-PASSAGE: The City would be unable to accept the $50,000 grant funding offered by the DNR. Therefore, the projects discussed in paragraph (4) would not be accomplished. 6. IMPACT ON STAFFING. BUDGETS. FACILITIES. EOUIPMENT OR OTHER P~ESOURCES: The grant will be managed by the City's urban forester. The hazardous tree removal project will be contracted out. The remaining projects will be accomplished using a combination of staff and volunteer support. The required staff support can be absorbed within current staffing levels. 7. RESEARCH SOURCES: Grant Agreement Number FY96-196/K244.095.E1 CFDA Number 10.664 AGREEY[ENT BETWEEN STATE OF WASItlNGTON DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES CITY OF BREMIgRTON This agreement is made and entered into by and between Washington State Department of Natural Resources, PO Box 47046, Olympia, Washington 98504-7046, hereinafter referred to as the DNR, and City of Bremerton, 239 4th Street, Bremerton, WA 98337, hereinafter referred to as the Grantee, for the express purposes set forth in the following provisions. In consideration of the terms, conditions and covenants contained herein, or attached and incorporated and made a part hereof, the parties mutually agree as follows: SPECiAL~T~_~J~-ON DITIONS ~o ec~_q_f Ac~men-t: The Grantee will perform the work outlined in Attachment B and complete all reports required under this agreement. b. The Grantee shall produce quarterly progress reports, annual reports, and a final report summarizing work performed and evaluating the performance and results of this contract. All deliverables required under this agreement must be delivered to the grant manager. All oral reports required under this agreement must be presented at the location requested by the DNR. c. Attachment B contains the scope of activity, objectives and tasks, deliverables, work plan, and project cost as described by the City of Bremerton. d. The Grantee shall complete all specified activities including submission of reports, and/or other required documentation within the time periods set forth in the agreement. Failure by the Grantee to make satisfactory progress toward completion of the activities or project within the timelines specified in this agreement shall be considered a material breach and shall be grounds for immediate termination of this agreement by the DNR. The DNR has sole discretion to determine whether the Grantee is making satisfactory progress on the activities or project. Conduct of Work: The Grantee shall furnish all necessary qualified personnel, material, and equipment, and manage and direct the same to timely complete the activities or project described in this agreement. Period of Performance: Commencemell[ Date: Subject to its other provisions, the period of performance under this agreement shall commence upon final execution by both parties. Completion Date: This agreement shall terminate on December 31, 1996, or when all of its terms and conditions have been satisfied, whichever is earlier, unless sooner terminated as provided herein. Rights and Obligations: Attachment A contains the General Terms and Conditions governing the activities to be performed under this agreement, the nature of the relationship between the DNR and the Grantee, and specific obligations of both parties. All rights and obligations of the parties to this agreement shall also be subject to and governed by Attachment B incorporated by reference herein. Grant Disbursement and Payment: Amount of Grant. The total grant shall not exceed $50,000, and will be disbursed upon satisfactory completion of timely deliverables as described in Attachment B and in compliance with all contract terms. Grant disbursement shall be on a cost reimbursement basis for costs incurred in the performance of this agreement. Time of Disbursement. Disbursement shall be considered timely if made by the DNR within 30 days after receipt of properly completed invoice vouchers. Disbursement shall be sent to the address designated by the Grantee. The DNR may, in its sole discretion, terminate the agreement or withhold disbursements claimed by the Grantee if the Grantee fails to satisfactorily comply with any term or condition of this agreement or if USDA Forest Service federal funding which the DNR receives is no longer available. Method of Disbursement. Requests for disbursement under this agreement shall be submitted by the Grantee on invoice vouchers prepared in the manner prescribed by the DNR. These vouchers shall include such information as is necessary for the DNR to determine the exact nature of all expenditures. voucher will clearly indicate that it is for activities under this agreement. Requests for disbursement shall be submitted to the DNR grant manager. Each Expenses. No additional requests for costs or expenses are allowable. All costs and expenses associated with the Grantee fulfilling the terms and the agreement's conditions are included in the grant's amount stated in section 5(a) and no additional disbursements shall be made under this agreement. Recapture Provision. In the event the Grantee fails to expend funds in accordance with any federal or state law or regulation or the provisions of this agreement, the DNR reserves the right to recapture funds in the amount equivalent to the amount of noncompliance. Repayment by the Grantee of funds under this section shall occur within 30 days of demand. Federal Subcontract: When the DNR is passing federal funds to the Grantee, the Grantee shall: Adhere to the federal Office of Management & Budget guidelines and to other applicable federal and state regulations. Grantees that receive federal financial assistance from more than one state agency are to inform the state agency providing the majority of federal assistance of that fact and request that the state agency act as cognizant state agency for the Grantee. A Grantee with the major federal assistance originating from a local or federal source other than the state should inform the cognizant state agency of the other source and ensure that the major federal assistance agency is notified of the cognizant state agency's need for audit information to comply with its own monitoring requirements. Cognizant state agency is defined as a state agency that is either assigned or has assumed the responsibility of implementing single audit requirements and coordinating audit follow-up for a particular Grantee by virtue of providing the majority of financial assistance. c~ Grantees are to notify their cognizant agency of their audit cycle. Within 30 days of receipt of the annual or biennial audit report, Grantees are to distribute copies to their cognizant agency. Have an audit made in accordance with Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-128, or OMB Circular A-133 in the case of higher education, hospitals, or other nonprofit organizations if the Grantee receives, in total from all sources, $25,000 or more. The Grantee must forward a copy of the state auditor's audit along with Grantee response and the final corrective action plan as approved by the State Auditor's Office to the cognizant agency The f'mal report is due to the DNR upon completion date as specified in 3 (b). Grant manager: The grant manager for the Grantee is: Jim Spencer City of Bremerton 239 4TH Street Bremerton, WA 98337 The grant manager for the DNR is: tish carr, Program Coordinator Community Forestry Washington Depa~ hnent of Natural Resources 1111 Washington Street SE PO Box 47037 Olympia, WA 98504-7037 (360) 902-1703. CITY OF BREMERTON By:. WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES By:. Title: Title: Date: Date: APPROVED AS TO FORM BY THE ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL. within ninety (90) days of the date of the audit report. If it has been determined that the DNR is the cognizant state agency, the Grantee shall provide by August 31 of each calendar year the following: 1) Type of audit to be performed. If the Grantee is exempt from federal audit requirements, the DNR shall be so notified. 2) A listing of all state agencies providing federal assistance and the programs under which they were received by OMB Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number (CFDA). If the Grantee is a local or municipal government and subject to the State Auditor's Office (SAO) Budgeting Accounting Reporting System (BARS), the Grantee is to identify all financial assistance received by the appropriate BARS code. This should include assistance received directly from federal agencies and through, or from, other state and local governments. 3) A listing of all financial assistance sources and the amounts provided identified under the following categories: 1) federal assistance obtained directly from a federal agency; 2) federal assistance obtained through a state or local government; and 3) other financial assistance obtained from a state or local government. f. Provide access to grant/financial records for inspection by the DNR or by any duly authorized audit representative of Washington State for a period of at least six years after the final grant payment or any dispute resolution. ~Acceptanc¢: Disbursement shall be payable to the Grantee only upon completion of contract by the Grantee, and acceptance by the DNR. If a deliverable is not acceptable to the DNR, the DNR shall within ten (10) working days from receipt, notify the Grantee in writing of the nature of the defects in the deliverable and any proposed remedy. The Grantee shall respond to this notice in writing within ten (10) working days specifying action to be taken so as to permit acceptance by the DNR. performance Reporting: The Grantee shall submit quarterly and annual progress reports to the DNR. These reports shall address any adverse conditions that have affected the project objectives and/or time schedules, and include action taken to resolve the matter. The Grantee shall also immediately contact the DNR grant manager in person or by fax or by telephone should any adverse conditions arise. The quarterly progress reports are due to the DNR for each quarter falling within the grant period on the following dates: September 30 March 31 December 31 June 30 52. ATTACHMENT B GRANTEE: CITY OF BREMERTON TITLE: Municipal Tree Program SCOPE OF ACTIVITY: Under the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978 and 1990 amendments, the Municipal Tree Program will continue to remove hazardous trees and continue the pruning projects for Parks and City trees; initiate a Municipal Tree Management Plan Neighborhood Block tree removal and replanting projects; expand the Pendergast Field planting projects around the soccer field, entrance corridor and replacement trees for prior planting mortality; expand specific tree planting projects throughout the City. OBJECTIVES/TASKS: Attachment B-2, "Project Work Plan", outlines the objectives and tasks to be accomplished under this grant. DELIVERABLES YEAR 1: 1. Prior to tree plantings and pruning projects, grantee will submit a tree planting proposal/pruning project proposal to the Department of Natural Resources for approval. The proposal shall include a tree species list (size included) and description of planting locations (including vicinity map). In addition all relative technical specifications to the project will be submitted. All pruning projects will meet the most recent National Arborist Association pruning standards. Planting standards will meet DNR specifications as a minimum. These are attached for your reference. 2. Grantee will submit to the DNR by June 30, 1997, a final narrative report including but not limited to: Actual tree species and planting locations. Description, photos and an pertinent news releases to the projects the Municipal Tree Management plan COSTS AND GRANT AMOUNTS: Attachment B-3 summarizes the sources and uses of funds for this project. Allowable costs are all charges necessary and reasonable to accomplish the objectives of the agreement during the grant period subject to DNR approval. The Grantee will meet with the DNR at the beginning of and throughout the grant period to discuss proposed projects and to determine which activities are reimbursable. Costs not reimbursable include: 53 Overhead greater than the indirect cost rate agreed upon by the DNR and the USDA Forest Service for a given period. This rate is 17% through June 30, 1997. Stipends or any kind of director's fees for Municipal Tree Program members. Out-of-state travel. Construction activities or capital outlays including purchase of land. Grant Amount and Match Grant Match Total project Year 1 $50,000 $50.000 $100,000 ATTACHMENT B - 2 / B - 3 PROPOSED 1996 DNR TREE GRANT Ob~iv¢ [ Municipal Tree Management Plan Additional hazardous tree removal and pruning projects for Parks and City trees. Total Construction Costs Total Administrative Costs Total Salaries and Benefits $10,000 $ 1,500 500 Total Grant Funds Total Matching Funds Total of Both Funds $ l 0,000 $12,000 Objective II Municipal Tree Management Plan Neighborhood Block Tree Removal and Replanting Projects Total Construction Costs Total Administrative Costs Total Salaries & Benefits Grant Funds MalchingJEuadl I.o. IaLEun~ $10,000 $ 2,500 2,500 Total Grant Funds Total Matching Funds Total of Both Funds $10,000 5 000 $15,000 Objective III Pendergast Field Phase II - Planting Trees Around Soccer Fields, Entrance Corridor and Replacement Trees for Prior Planting Mortality. Total Construction Costs Total Salaries Total Equipment ~ ~ Total Funds $15,000 $ 1,500 50O Total Grant Funds Total Matching Funds Total of Both Funds 5'5 $15,000 517.000 ATTACH3,IENT B - 2 / B - 3 Objective IV Tree Planting Projects (e.g. SR-3, Kiwanis, Lent Lane, Nursery, etc.) Total Construction Costs Total Salaries Total Equipment $15,000 $ 4,000 2,000 Total Grant Funds Total Matching Funds Total of Both Funds $15,000 6.000 $21,000 Budget Summary of 1996 Funded Pr~ects ~ Cit3'' Funds ~rallI_Eun~ ~ Tree Removal $ 2,000 $15,000 = $17,000 Tree Planting 8,500 15,000 = 23,500 Tree Replacement 4500 20.000 = 23~_Q_Q Total $15,000 $50,000 = $65,000 AGENDA BILL BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Westsound Community FOR AGENDA OF: July 24, 1996 Access Television Contract ORIGINATING DEPT: Admin. Services ORIGINATOR: Kathleen McCluske~ DATE SUBMITTED: July 12, 1996 ~' CLEARANCES:/~6~men~on back ~~ary) Attorney Fiscal & Budget Operations ~- 3. EXHIBITS: Proposed Contract Intergovernmental Agreement w/County Proposal & timeline to establish Non-Profit List of Board of Conveners List of Board of Directors ENDORS MENT INFg TION__ APPROVED BY CO CI , FOR SUSMI A .: COUNCIL SIDEN 4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCI~ACTION. The attached Interim Services Agreement transfers management of governmental programming to Westsound Community Access Television (WCAT). As you will recall, the City entered into an Intergovernmental Cooperation Agreement with the county to establish a non-profit community access management organization. A Board of Conveners (local residents) with the assistance of a consultant and county and city staff, developed the Articles of Incorporation and By-Laws in 1995. They selected, through an open application process, the first Board of Directors for the new corporation in September 1995. Since that time the new board has met on a regular basis and hired the new WCAT Executive Director, Doyle Detroit, in May 1996. (continued on page 2) 8. RECOMMENDATION: Motion to approve interim contract with WCAT to provide governmental programming. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: EXPIRATION DATE: REVIEW DATE: PULLED TABLED COUNCIL DIRECTIVE: 10. NOTICE OF ACTION APPROVED DISAPPROVED DATE: AMENDED 57 2. CLEARANCE COMMENTS (cont.): 4. SUMMARY STATEMENT (cont.): The actual transition to WCAT will take place in the Fall. In the interim, in order to assure a smooth transition it is recommended that WCAT assume management responsibility for BCAT and the employees currently managed by the City. We will continue to receive the same services. This contract is for the period 8/1/96 to 12/31/96 and provides for monthly payments to WCAT of the funds currently budgeted for salaries for the 1.5 employees and part-time funds for Bob Neal's continuing services to Inside Bremerton. The remaining funds, approximately $ qloo~, oo , will be used to upgrade equipment in council chambers. The attached agreement is solely for the provision of governmental services. At the conclusion of our negotiations, an Operating Agreement will be presented to Council which will cover the over-all operation and management of Public, Education and Governmental Access. The county has concluded franchise negotiations and signed an agreement with WCAT. o IMPACT ON NON-PASSAGE: City continues to manage BCAT. IMPACT ON STAFFING, BUDGETS, FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCES Budgeted in 1996. 7. RESEARCH SOURCES: INTERIM SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF BREMERTON AND WESTSOUND COMMUNITY ACCESS TELEVISION This Agreement is made this day of ,19__ by and between City of Bremerton, a municipal corporation, and Westsound Cable Access Television, a nonprofit corporation ONCAT), who agree as follows: RECITALS 1. WCAT is a nonprofit public benefit corporation formed to develop and promote the concept of public access to existing and future telecommunications media in a manner that promotes a free exchange of ideas and information. 2. in order to meet future cable-related community needs and interests there is a need for the provision of public, educational and governmental access services. 3. The City of Bremerton desires to contract with WCAT to provide governmental programming. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants set forth herein, the parties agree as follows: Section 1. Scope of Services. In exchange for the funding provided by City of Bremerton to WCAT pursuant to this Agreement, WCAT shall develop policy, operate and manage the governmental programming for the City of Bremerton. Governmental programming shall include, but not be limited to the following: Regular Productions: Inside Bremerton - 3 times per week/2 shows per month Critter Connection - 2 times per week/2 shows per month City Council Meetings - weekly Public Service Announcements: All City Departments as needed Community Outreach: Concerts on the Boardwalk Concerts in the Park Bremerton Blackberry Festival *4. Town Forums As requested w5. * If scheduled time is available. Section 2. Independent Contractor. Single episode special programming As requested It is understood and agreed that WCAT is an independent contractor and that no relationship of principal/agent or employer/employee exists between City of Bremerton and WCAT. If in the performance of this Agreement any third persons are employed by the WCAT, such persons shall be entirely and exclusively under the control direction and supervision of WCAT. All terms of employment, hiring and discharging or any other term of employment shall be determined by WCAT, and City of Bremerton shall have no right or authority over such persons or terms of employment. 2 Section 3. Funding. WCAT shall receive funding in exchange for delivery of the services delineated in Section 1. of this Agreement. City of Bremerton shall make funds available to WCAT as follows: City of Bremerton shall pay WCAT $14,457.00 for the period August 1, 1996 through December 31, 1996 in monthly payments of $2,891.40 payable by the 10th day of the month following. Section 4. Term of Agreement. The term of this Agreement, shall be for a period of five (5) months commencing on August 1, 1996 and ending on December 31, 1996 unless terminated earlier, as provided in this Agreement. Section 5. Indemnification and Insurance. A. WCAT shall indemnify, defend and save City of Bremerton from all loss or damages sustained by City of Bremerton on account of any suit, judgment, execution, claim or demand (including legal fees incurred) resulting from WCAT installation, construction, operation or maintenance of its activities under this Agreement, except such loss or damage shall be apportioned where the City of Bremerton is judicially found to be negligent. The duty to indemnify and hold harmless shall include but not be limited to a duty to indemnify against losses or damages sustained as a result of WCAT acts or omissions arising out of any claim for invasion of the right of privacy, libel, slander, copyright violation, patent infringement or the like. The indemnity is conditioned on the following: City of Bremerton must notify WCAT within thirty (30) days after the presentation of any claim or demand, either by suit or otherwise, made 3 against City of Bremerton on account of any act or omission by WCAT. Nothing in this section prohibits City of Bremerton from participating in the defense of any litigation by its own counsel at its own cost. B. WCAT shall maintain in full force and effect at all times during the term of this Agreement insurance as required by this section. The cost of such insurance shall be borne by WCAT and may be included in WCAT's annual budget. 1. Comprehensive Liability Insurance. Comprehensive general liability insurance, including protective, completed operations and broad form contractual liability, property damage and personal injury coverage, and comprehensive automobile liability including owned, hired, and non-owned automobile coverage. The limits of such coverage shall be: (a) bodily injury including death, $1,000,000 for each person, each occurrence and aggregate; (b) property damage, $1,000,000 for each occurrence and aggregate. The City of Bremerton shall be named an additional insured. 2. Workers' Compensation. Workers' Compensation Insurance as required by Washington law shall be maintained at all times. 3. Cablecaster's Errors and Omission Insurance. Errors and omissions insurance providing at least $500,000 of coverage shall be maintained by WCAT to cover the content of productions which are cablecast on the access channel in, at minimum, the following areas: libel and slander; copyright or trademark infringement, infliction of emotional distress, 4 invasion of privacy; plagiarism; misuse of musical or literary materials. This policy shall not be required to cover individual access producers. 4. Policy Cancellation. All policies shall provide that no cancellation, major change in coverage or expiration may be affected by the insurance company or WCAT without first giving the County thirty (30) days written notice prior to the effective date of such cancellation or change in coverage. 5. NOTIFICATION OF COVERAGE. WCAT shall file with the City proof of insurance coverage as follows: (a) Comprehensive General Liability upon signing contract; and (b) Cablecaster's Error and Omission insurance within thirty (30) days of commencement of full responsibility for the cablecasting of programming on the designated access channel(s). Section 6. WCAT agrees to maintain and repair all City owned equipment for the duration of this contract. Section 7. Termination. A. The City of Bremerton shall have the right upon thirty (30) days written notice to WCAT to terminate this Agreement for; (1) breach of any provision of this Agreement by WCAT; (2) malfeasance, misfeasance, misappropriation of public funds; (3) or if WCAT fails to obtain its 501 (c)(3) status. Provided that WCAT may avoid termination by curing any such breach within ninety (90) days of notification or within a time frame agreed to by the City of Bremerton and 5 WCAT. The City of Bremerton may also terminate this Agreement at the expiration of its term, or any extension thereof. B. Upon termination of this Agreement, WCAT shall immediately transfer to the City of Bremerton all equipment, real property, fixtures, contracts, leases, deposit accounts or other assets received by or purchased by WCAT with funds received pursuant to this Agreement. Section 8. Non-discrimination in Employment and Service. WCAT shall not discriminate against any person, employee or applicant for employment or subcontractor on the basis of race, color, creed, religion, sex, sexual preference, marital status, ancestry, national origin or physical or mental handicap. Grantee shall not discriminate in the delivery of services on the basis of race, color, creed, religion, sex, sexual preference, marital status, an ancestry, national origin or physical or mental handicap. C. Grantee shall comply with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements. Section 9. Assignment and Subletting. Neither this Agreement nor any interest herein shall be assigned or transferred by WCAT, except as expressly authorized in writing by City. 6 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the date written above. CITY OF BREMERTON By: Date: WESTSOUND COMMUNITY ACCESS TELEVISION By: Date: 7 'rNTERGOVERIQ~NTAL COOPEI~T~'ON AGReEmeNT RE~ARDTN~ ~ 'ST~%BL'f~I~NT OF A NON-PRO~-T COMI,~UI~rTY ACCES~ ]~I~GF~NT ORGA~,,~T'rON KC-449-94 Th ade and entered into this E~ of , 1994 by and between Kitsap County (hereinafter County), a political subdivision of the State of Washington, and the city of Bremerton (hereinafter city). RECITALS 1. Pursuant to the powers accorded to the County and the city by RCW 39.34 et seq. the County and the City possess authority to execute an Intergovernmental Cooperation Agreement for the purpose of exploring alternative management organizations to provide Public, Educational and Governmental (PEG) access television programming in the City and County franchise areas. 2. The County has negotiated franchise agreements with TCI Cablevision and Falcon Cable Television which provide funding for PEG Access. 3. The city currently has a PEG access channel, Bremerton Community Access Channel, which is jointly funded and operated by the City and TCI Cablevision. 4. The City is rsnegotiating its franchise agreements with TCI Cablevision and Falcon Cable Television to provide continued funding for PEG Access. 5. The City and the County wish to explore the possibility of jointly exploring alternative management organizations to provide PEG access. NOW, TKEREFORE, in consideration of the initial covenants and agreements hereinafter contained, the parties hereto agree as follows: Article 1: Duration The duration of this agreement shall be a period of two (2) years. Attachment 1 contains the proposed time-line for this effort. Article 2: Consultant It is agreed that the City and County will jointly fund a consultant to assist in the creation of the non-profit corporation to provide PEG access. The Consultant's scope of work shall be j~ subject to approval by the City and County. The Consultant shall ~=u~ be jointly selected and supervised by the City and County. Article 3: Fundina The Consultant's fees and expenses will be pro-rated to the City and County based on their respective populations. The County will be responsible for eighty percent (80%) of the costs and the ~ City will be responsible for twenty percent (20%) of the costs. The County will execute the Consultant's contract and p~y the costs in full. The City will reimburse the County for the City's share within sixty (60) days of receiving an invoice from the County. Consultant's fees and expenses shall not exceed fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000) in total and the City's share shall not exceed five thousand dollars ($5,000). DATED THIS ~--~-~ day of ~ , 1994. ATTEST: Holly ~derson CLERK OF THE BOARD Lessor: DATED THIS ~% ~-~ day of ~._~-~ _ , 1994· ATTEST: Kathleen L. McCluskey CITY CLERK CITY OF BREMERTON · Horton, Mayor -2- PROPOSED TIMELINE FOR CREATING NON-PROFIT COMMUNITY ACCESS MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION City/County decision to proceed Contract with consultant, finalize work plan & schedule Community Resource Team appointed by City/County Community Resource Team Activities: Review & establish "vision" for PEG Review & make recommendations, re: bylaws & article of incorporation Establish criteria, recruit founding Board of Directors Appoint founding Board of Directors File Articles of Incorporation & approve bylaws Apply for and secure tax exempt status Hire Executive Director Develop operating plan, budget plan, and facilities plan Begin operations ATI'AEEHF.2,iT 1 PROPOSAL TO ESTABLISH NON-PROFIT COMMUNITY ACCESS NIANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION PROPOSAL: · Consultant would facilitate joint County/City effort to establish organization Non-profit community access management would include two channels, one exclusively for government/civic programs County and City would jointly fund base budget of $100,000 annually out of franchise fees through contracts for services Capital equipment and facilities would be funded through 21 cents/month pass through to subscribers. Could capitalize initially up to $900,000 or provide annually $75,000 Tax-exempt status will allow for more diverse fund-raising than will be possible as government agency Status as a separate organization will create an "arms length" distance from government, an important First Amendment consideration as well as a practical consideration Funding through contracts will provide better access for government and more control over governmental programming A community-based board of directors will promote increased community "ownership" and responsiveness A non-profit structure will allow flexibility and the potential for entrepreneurial thinking and problem solving. This will become incr~.ashagly important as telecommunications media and the public's ability to understand and use media more fully develops BOARD OF CONVENERS Nonprofit Public, Education, and Government Access Management Corporation to serve Kitsap County and City of Bremerton Russ Johnson 6530 Lake Drive Bremerton, WA 98312 396-2530, 2147 (wk) 479-4032 (hm) Carol Atldnson 245 4th Street, Suite 201 Bremerton, WA 98337 377-3041 (wk) Larry Stone 1824 S Marine Drive Bremerton, WA 98312 792-9359 Sandy Ward 120 Washington, Suite 101 Bremerton, WA 98337 479-3588 (wk) Lane Dowell 6195 Silver Beach Drive Bremerton, WA 98311 478-0753 (wk) 479-1189 (hm) Sue Walgren 4105 Eflands Point Road Bremerton, WA 98312 373-3431 Tony Miles P.O. Box 3152 Silverdale, WA 98383 6924699 Deanna Ymuzlaric Olyrrpic College 1600 Chester Bremerton, WA 98337-1699 478-4544 Cable Committee and past City Council Main Street Retired Businessman Visitor & Convention Bureau Bremerton High School fid-ts More Learning Through Hope Public Information Manager BOXRD OF CONVENERS Page 2 Rick Lurid 7625 Central Valley Road Bremerton, WA 98311 692-7729 (wk) 478-2070 (lam) Marianne Mabbitt 5159 Country Club Way Port Orchard, WA 98366 871-1621 Steve Frazier Kitsap County Personnel & Human Services, MS 23 614 Division Street Port Orchard, WA 98366 871-7185 Betty Griggs 1147 Shore Drive Bremerton, WA 98310 377-7667 Kathleen McCluskey City of Bremerton 239 4th Street Bremerton, WA 98337 478-5290 fax 478-5200 Debbie Broughton Kitsap County Dept. of Administrative Services, MS 7 614 Division Street Port Orchard, WA 98366 876-7150 Family of God Luthenm Church Access Producers KC Human Services Kitsap Conmunity Action Program City of Bremerton Kitsap County - Franchise Authority WESTSOUND COMMUNITY ACCESS TELEVISION Board of Directors Catherine A. Ahl 20455 First Avenue NE, #A101 Poulsbo, WA 98370 Ken Kirkpatrick 1903 4th Street Bremerton, WA 98337 Jeff Olson Northwest College of Art 16464 State Highway 305 Poulsbo, WA 98370 Lynn Ziegler Suquamish Tribe P. O. Box 498 Suquamish, WA 98392 Donald Zimmerman 3046 Banner Road SE Port Orchard, WA 98366 Bruce E. Stier P. O. Box 692 Silverdale, WA 98383 Charleen Burnette City Representative Debbie Broughton County Representative Don Ricks 3560 Narrows View Lane NE, #101 Bremerton, WA 98310 Barbara Gray Boyd 703 Callahan Drive, #309 Bremerton, WA 98310 Joan Dingfield 1904 Perry Avenue Bremerton, WA 98310 Henry W. Sykes 10737 Jetty Place NW Silverdale, WA 98383 Ed Woodd 6363 NW Gross Road Bremerton, WA 98312 AGENDA BILL BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: RESOLUTION #2551 Amending Employment Application Processing Fees FOR AGENDA OF: ORIGINATING DEPT: ORIGINATOR: DATE SUBMITTED: July 24, 1996 Human Resources Jim Meith July 17, 1996 2. CLE~ES: (Comment on back if necessary) Fiscal & Budget Committee EXHIBITS: Proposed Resolution ENDORSEMENT [~ INFORMATION [] APPROVED BY COUNCIL P~%E~h/DENT FOR SUBMITTAL: 4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL~T~IOTION: The Civil Service Commission has recommended that the Application and Testing fees apply to uniformed positions only. 8. RECOMMENDATION: Motion to approve Resolution # ~/ , fixing the charges to the public for employment application processing and testing fees. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Mayor Horton ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: Human Resources Manager EXPIRATION DATE: Ongoing REVIEW DATE: PULLED [] TABLED [] COUNCIL DIRECTIVE: 10. NOTICE OF ACTION APPROVED [] DISAPPROVED [] AMENDED [] DATE: 11. AGENDA BILL NO.: (OVER) 8A 2. CLEARANCE COMMENTS: 5. IMPACT OF NON-PASSAGE: Application and testing fees will continue to be charged for all open positions. 6. IMPACT ON STAFFINGt BUDGETS, FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCES: Based on 1995, it is estimated that this will result in a annual decrease revenue of approximately $15,000. 7. RESEARCH SOURCES: RESOLUTION NO. o~ 5 5 l A RESOLUTION fixing the charges to the public for employment application processing and testing for uniformed positions and to repeal Resolution No. 2505. WHEREAS, the number of applications for open uniformed positions with the City of Bremerton has steadily increased over the past several years creating significant expenditures of stafftime and materials in processing these examinations now, therefore BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Bremerton: I. There shall be an examination application processing fee to be charged to all individuals for the processing of an employment application for uniformed open positions by the Bremerton Department of Human Resources of Fifteen Dollars and fifty cents ($15.50). The examination processing fee shall be paid at the time of filing the application. 2. Beginning January 1, 1997, and the beginning of each calendar year thereafter, the application processing fee shall be increased by using the Consumer Price Index (CPI) as published by the United States Department of Labor for the Seattle-Tacoma Area for the most current period preceding the beginning of the calendar year. 3. In addition to the examination application processing fee, applicants may be required to reimburse the City for the per applicant cost charged to the City by appropriate agencies for any part of the examination process, in the discretion of the Human Resources Manager, where the charge is reasonable. 4. A statement of financial inability to pay the examination fees shall excuse the imposition of the fees. BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that Resolution No. 2505 is hereby repealed. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Bremerton this , 1996. day of JOHN E. LAW Council President APP-FEE.RES 07/17/96 AGENDA BILL BREM]~KTON CITY COUNCIL 1. SUBJECT: Ordinance Amending B.M.C. Chapters 2.76.100, 2.76.200, 2.76.300, 2.76.600 for Procurement of Materials, Equipment and Services. FOR AGENDA OF: ~ ~ ?~ DEPARTMENT:Purchasinq ORIGINATOR: Gil John~o~ SUBMITTED:July 8, 1996 2. CLEARANCES: (comment on back if necessary) Administ~ Services~ Legal ~/~ ~ Council Op r ' ns ~ ~-~ ENDORSEMENT× INFO TION __ APPROVED BY COUNC PRESIDENT 3. EXHIBITS: Amending Chapters 4. SUMM~Y STATEMENT AND REOUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION: In 1994, City Council adopted Ordinance 4492 for the Procurement of Materials, Equipment and Services. The proposed changes address standardization of terms; provides additional definition of exceptions to bidding requirements; and provides for mayoral approval for the expenditure of funds in the event of an emergency. 8. RECOMMENDATION: That City Council approve on 1st Ordinance amending Chapters 2.76.100, 2.76,200, and 2.76.600 of the Municipal Code. reading 2.76.300 That City Council approve on 2nd reading Ordinance amending Chapters 2.76.100, 2.76.200, 2.76.300 and ~.76.600 of the Municipal Code. 9. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: EXPIRATION DATE: DATE: REVIEW DATE: PULLED TABLED COUNCIL DIRECTIVE: 10. APPROVED NOTICE OF ACTION DISAPPROVED AMENDED DATE: 11. AGENDA BILL NO: q{a - 15q 9A 2. CLEARANCE COMMENTS: 5. IMPACT OF NON-PASSAGE: Will not provide for language clarification. Won't address bidding exceptions provided by State Legislature. Won't allow authorization for emergency expenditure of funds by Mayor. 6. IMPACT ON STAFFING, BUDGETS, FACILITIES, EOUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCES: Could result in higher costs to City for purchased services and computer equipment. 7. RESEARCH SOURCES: 77 ORDINANCE AN ORDINANCE revising procedures for the procurement of materials, equipment and services by the City of Bremerton, and amending Chapter 2.76.100, 2.76.200, 2.76.300 and 2.76.600 of the Bremerton Municipal Code. THE CITY OF BREMERTON DOES HEREBY ORDAIN: Section 1. Amending Chapter 2.76.100, of the Bremerton Municipal Code. as follows: 2.76.100 PURCHASES - UNDER $10,000.00 (a) A department manager or designee, acting within their department budget appropriation, may authorize the purchase of s~pp~ies g_Q9_~, materials and equipment, or the lease or rental of equipment costing less than $10,000.00. Projects or purchases of good o~-se~:vic-es may not be divided into units or phases to avoid bid call requirements. (b) If the cost og-a-pur-ehase is less than $10,000.00, the Purchasing Officer has the authority to determine whether the acquisition is made in the best interests of the City through the use of telephonic or facsimile quotations, sealed quotation or formal bid call. (c) tr~-mal~g-p~e-hasesqs~f-goods and-sc-~viees-under-this-ehapter~ The responsible department and Purchasing Officer shall consider those business factors normally relied upon to achieve the most satisfactory performance at the lowest cost. These shall include, but are not limited to ¢an, p!,~yees cost of acquisition, expcnse-4n- shipment shipping costs, delay of acquisition, life cycle cost and City tax revenue which -77 might be receivable fi:om l~ purchasing t~-S~l~ies-a~amtefials and ser~iees within the City limits. (d) Further, in making purchases of goods and materials under this chapter, the City shall seek to maximize purchase mad-ase of products manufactured from recycled materials or products suitable for re-use, unless such use will place an unreasonable financial burden on the City or result in undue degradation in quality or performance. Section 2. Amending Chapter 2.76.200 of the Bremerton Municipal Code as follows: FORMAL BID - OVER $10,000.00 (a) The procurement of goods, materials, supplies or equipment for which the cost of a single item or a quantity of a single item is in excess of Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00) including sales transaction taxes shall be by bid call. (1) If the item(s) is approved in the current budget, the responsible department shall provide the purchasing division with technical specifications and bidding instructions. (2) If the item(s) requested is not in the current budget, a Budget Adjustment form and Capital Asset form (as if necessary) must be approved by City Council. Section 3. Amending Chapter 2.76.300 of the Bremerton Municipal Code as follows: 2.76.300 PROFESSIONAL AND PURCHASED SERVICES 2 (a) General (1) Professional Services are defined as a vocation, calling, occupation or employment requiring a license, degree, labor, skill or special knowledge wherein the labor or skill involved are predominantly mental or intellectual rather than physical. They include but are not limited to consulting on: legal, planning, architectural, engineering or instructional services. ~ (2~ Purchased Services are defined as general support services provided by a vendor to accomplish routine, continuing, and necessary, functions. They include. but are not limited to: court reporting, data entry., word processing, language translation, equipment rep. air and maintenance, landscape maintenance, cleanin~ and janitorial service. ((a)). As needed or annually, the City may advertise in a newspaper of general circulation its projected needs for Professional and Purchased Services disciplines. (2) All professional and purchased services utilized by the City from $.-0- to $5,000.00 in value may be by purchase order and letter of understanding. Professional and Purchased Service Agreements in excess of $5,000.00 but less than $10,000.00 require a formal contract and approval by the Mayor. Professional and Purchased Services Agreements in excess of $10,000.00 require Council approval. (b) Architectural and Engineering Services (1) Pursuant to RCW 39.80.030, the City shall publish its requirements for 3 architectural and engineering services on each occasion when services are required or annually. Section 4. Amending Chapter 2.76.600 of the Bremerton Municipal Code, as follows: 2.76.600 EXCEPTIONS TO CHAPTER REQUIREMENTS (a) The City is not required to seek competitive bids when: (1) The City contracts for professional or purchased services; Provided, however, That in contracting for architectural or engineering services, the City must comply with RCW Chapter 39.80. (2) The City contracts with other political sub-divisions. (3) The City contracts for materials, goods and/ov-sevvic-es equipment in order to effectively respond to emergencies affecting public health and safety. (4) The City contracts for materials, goods or services and equipment with a person, firm or vendor who constitutes a sole or single source, (5) The City uses a Small Works Roster for public works projects as provided for in RCW 35.22.620. (6) In certain circumstances, it may be in the best interest of the City to waive bid call when goods can be obtained at a lower price than current state contract price. ~(7) Acquisition of electronic data processing and telecommunications systems, hardware and software or related services is conducted through competitive negotiations. 4 ~7-}-The-Co~ne~*shall determine-whether-the-pur-ehase-,-lease-ov-r-enm! f-al~ withie,-the-abc, ve-enumemted-exeeptions wh~he amount-is-over-$tO,-000:.00: (8~ In the event of a natural disaster or other catastrophic event which results in the absence or incapacitation of a quorum of the City. Council necessary, to conduct City. business, the Mayor shall have the authority, to issue an interim emergency proclamation and to approve expenditure of appropriated funds necessary, to respond to the emergency, Section 5. Effective Date. passage and publication. APPROVED by the City Council on the first reading this _ day of PASSED by the City Council of the City of Bremerton this _ day of This ordinance shall become effective ten (10) days from , 1996. , 1996. JOHN LAW, Council President APPROVED this __ day of ,1996. ATTEST: LYNN S. HORTON, Mayor KATHLEEN L. McCLUSKEY, City Clerk ]%GENDA BILL BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL 1. SUBJECT=PUBLIC HE~RING/RESOLUTION FOR ~GENDA OF: July 24, 1996 DEPT. OF ORIGIN: DCD- P~anninq ACTION= Preliminary Plat: 6-lot ORIGINATOR: Jack Allinqham~_/ subdivision DATE SUBMITTED.July 18, 1996 APPLIC~I~T: Jerry Verger/Charles Parr LOCATION: Adjacent to and northwest of McClain Avenue and Sheridan Road (628 Sheridan Road).; ~d ~proving Resolution #2552 2. CLEAI~tNOES: (Comment on back if necessary) 3. EXHIBITS: pcp Director : o Pc in in s ~/~ Conclusions City Attorney: z~/ o PC Minutes (6/25/96) city Engineer: .'~~ ,w ~ .~ o Resolution No. 2 OperationsCommitte~:~T~.~--~~. ENDORSEMENT ~ IN~O~MATIoN -- APPROVED BY COUNCIL P L: 4. SUMMARY STATR~NT AND REOUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION: On June 25, 1996, the Planning Commission recommended approval to City Council for the Preliminary Plat for 6 lots . The City Council is the decision-making body responsible for evaluation of Preliminary and Final Plats. The City Council shall either: 1) Approve the preliminary plat and pass the approving resolution; 2) Deny the plat; 3) Modify in whole or part the conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission; or 4) Remand the matter back to the Planning Commission for further consideration. 5. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends APPROVAL of the Preliminary Plat for Parr's Corner as conditioned in the attached resolution. Recommended Motion: I move to adopt Resolution No. ~55~ the Preliminary Plat of the Parr's Corner subdivision. accepting RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: EXPIRATION DATE: REVIEW DATE: Donald Pratt Scott Erickson 7. NOTICE OF ACTION PULLED TABLED __ COUNCIL DIRECTIVE: APPROVED DISAPPROVED AM~~ DATE: AGENDA BIlL NO.: 9. CLEARANCE COMMENTS: 10. IMPACT OF NON-PASSAGE: If the Preliminary Plat is denied, undertake the project as proposed. the applicant will be unable to 11. IMPACT ON STAFFINGt BUDGETS, FACILITIES, EOUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCES: Additional staff resources will be required to review final plans and permits. 12. RESEARCH SOURCES: Zoning Ordinance File LP-O1-96 Site Visits m SOLtVrtoN NO.. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF "PARR'S CORNER', LOCATED ADJACENT TO AND NORTHWEST OF MCCLAIN AVENUE AND SHERIDAN ROAD, BREMERTON, KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON. WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 58.17 Jerry Vergeer/Charles Parr, proponents for the proposed subdivision, comprising 3.65 acres and located adjacent to and northwest of McClain Avenue and Sheridan Road (628 Sheridan Road) within the City of Bremerton, has made application for approval of a preliminary plat containing six lots; and WHEREAS, the Planrfing Commission held a public hearing concerning this matter on June 25, 1996; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended to the Council that the Parr's Corner Subdivision Preliminary Plat be accepted subject to certain conditions; and WHEREAS, an environmental checklist has been prepared and considered by the responsible official and a determination of environmental nonsignificance issued, and WHEREAS, the Bremerton City Council held public hearings on July 1, 1996, concerning the preliminary plat, and adopted the Findings of Fact & Conclusion of Law - including (INSERT mitigating conditions; now, therefore BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL That the 'Parr's Corner" Subdivision Preliminary Plat presented for approval and filing ts hereby accepted and approved subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit mA" (Conditions of Parr's Corner Preliminary Plat). Property in the City limits of Bremerton included in this Preliminary Plat is described as follows: LOT A, CITY OF BREMERTON SHORT PLAT NO B-217 RECORDED UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NO. 9508040013 (SP-01-95). TRACT B. MANE'Fig VILLA TRACTS, AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN VOLUME 4 OF PLATS, PAGE 95, RECORDS OF KITSAP COUNTY , WASHINGTON; EXCEPT THE EAST 30 FEET FOR MCCLAIN AVENUE; AND EXCEPT THE SOUTH 75 FEET OF THE NORTH 265 FEET OF THE EAST 120 FEET OF THE REMAINDER. PASSED by the City Council this day of JULY, 1996. APPROVED this day of JULY, 1996. JOHN LAW President, City Council ATrEST: LYNN HORTON, Mayor KATHLEEN L. McCLUSKEY, Clerk EXHIBIT "A" *"~'A'~T.'~G pac./JERRY VERGEER/P~%RR'S CORNER PRELIMINARY PLAT (FILE NO. LP-01-96 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: Infrastructure: 1. Right-of-way: The applicant/developer shall design and construct a sidewalk which meet the adopted City Design Standards for work within the right-of-way subject to review and approval of the City Engineer. 2. Utilities: The applicant/developer shall design and construct underground utilities for water and sanitary sewer subject to the review and approval of the Bremerton public Works Director. Utilities for power, telephone, and cable television shall be constructed underground. The sanitary sewer main extension shall be constructed prior to Final Plat Approval. Pole mounted yard lights fronting McClain Avenue shall be provided consistent with other properties on Mclain Avenue. 3. 8tormwater: The applicant/developer shall design and construct a stormwater collection and disposal system for stormwater. The stormwater system shall be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. Curtain drains for foundations and roof gutter down spouts shall be provided as necessary. 4. Subdivision Design: The Final Plat shall be prepared by a licensed surveyor showing distances and bearings for lots and rights-of- way. Environmental: Prior to making any improvements on the property such as land clearing, grading or construction of utilities, a sediment and erosion control plan shall be approved by the city Engineer. The facilities required by the plan shall be in operation prior to land clearing and or construction. The erosion control measures shall be maintained until construction is completed and the potential for on-site erosion is absent. Ail disturbed soils shall be re-seeded or replanted with ground cover and continually maintained to prevent erosion. FTNDING~ OF FI~CT & CONCLUSIONS OF L~ ~ DHCI~TON: FINDINGS OF FACT ~ CONCLUSTONS OF LAW Bre~e~con Planninq Co~mise~on REGARDING: ~:~U~L~S PI%RR/JEP~Y FERGEHR/PARR~S CORNER PRELIMINARY PLAT (FILE NO. LP-01-96 Planning Commission Hearing Date: JUNE 25, 1996 I. SUMMARY A. Applications: 1) B. ApDlicant: Request for a Preliminary Plat approval to subdivide 3.65 acres into 6 single family residential lots. Jerry Vergeer 2670 Traycyton Beach Road Bremerton, WA 98310 Owner: Charles Parr 628 Sheridan Road Bremerton WA 98310 C. Location: The project is located adjacent to and northwest of McClain Avenue and Sheridan Road (628 Sheridan Road). D. Attachments: II. III. Application: Preliminary Plat; Plat Map Written comments - 1 petition II. FINDING~ B~ED ON T~ I~ECORD D~¥~LOPED AT TkUS PUBLIC WRaW!NG CONDUCTED ON JUNE 25, 1996, T~ PLANNING COMMISSION ENTEP~ T~u~ FOLLOWING A. Backqround: The applicant is requesting preliminary plat approval to subdivide 3.65 acres into 6 single-family residential lots. The project involves marking the property lines of the lots, installing utility lines for water, wastewater, stormwater and constructing street improvements for sidewalks along McClain Avenue. Subdivision Process: Subdivision is the process of dividing (or redividing) land for subsequent sale or transfer of qO ownership. The subdivision process in the City of Bremerton is regulated by the State Subdivision Act (RCW 58.17) which is intended to ensure that land is properly described and monumented and that it has adequate improvements - such as roads, parks, drainage, sewer and water - prior to development. The provision of adequate services and facilities is usually a condition of subdivision approval. Dedications of lands for parks, schools, etc. may also be required if "reasonably necessary" and a direct result of needs created by the subdivision, but must be based upon adopted policies and standard to determine such impacts. Subdivision review involves a two-step approval process: preliminary and final. Preliminary plat approval is conceptual and typically conditioned on installation of various improvements and dedications of land. Final plat approval and recording are the last steps before land division, sale or transfer of ownership, or development. This step assures that all conditions of preliminary approval have been performed. Usually, final approval will be given if the developer posts a performance bond or other secured method as assuring actual completion of improvements. The final plat approval does not require a public hearing but does need City Council approval. Once preliminary plat approval is granted, physical development - grading and construction of roadway - can commence. Therefore the preliminary plat approval does grant actual development. Zoning: Single-Family-Three (SF-3). Comprehensive Plan MaD Deslqnation: Low Density Residential 3 to 8 dwelling units per acre. Surrounding Land Uses and Zoning: Urban Residential Use Zoning North: South: East: West: Residential SF-3 Residential DR Residential SF-3 Multi Family Residential MF Zoninq Ordinance Considerations: The following table states lot requirements of the SF-3 zoning district. Future development will be required to conform to these standards. The proposed lots meet the lot width and size requirements. 2 Lot Requirements Required Proposed Land area per dwelling unit. Minimum lot size ........... Maximum lot coverage ....... Minimum lot width .......... Setbacks: Front ........... Rear ............ Side ............ Landscape plan required .... Maximum height ............. Maximum area under roof .... .4,800 sq. ft. .4,800 sq. ft .... 9,000 ...40% ...40 ft ........... 75 ...20 ft. ...15 ft. .... 5 ft. ...No ...30 ft. .None sq. ft. Utilltles and Services: Stormwater: The applicant has made provision for the collection of stormwater from impervious surfaces. The water will be collected into an underground detention pipe and released via a biofiltration prior to discharge into the City's storm system at Sheridan road. These stormwater systems are subject to the City's stormwater ordinance. Wastewater: Wastewater will be disposed of by connection to the Bremerton Wastewater Treatment system. A gravity flow system located at the west portion of all of the lots will flow to the sanitary sewer line located in Sheridan Road. ft. Grading: The applicant has stated that only fill and excavation necessary for home and roadway construction will occur and that it is not the intent to fill the site to raise the building pads to the level of McClain Avenue. As a condition of the preliminary plat, the applicant should provide an erosion control plan that limits heavy equipment on steep slopes, minimizes vegetation removal and utilizes erosion control walls. Power/Telephone: Puget Power and U.S. West Communications will provide power and telephone services. Fire/Police: Fire and police services will be provided by the City of Bremerton. Street Liqhts: The portion of Mclain Avenue abutting the site does not have street lights. Request for street lights were receive during the neighborhood meeting and subsequent written comments from neighboring residents (see attachment III). Because this development comprises (approximately) less than one third of the frontage abutting Mclain Avenue, the applicant/developer should only be responsible for their proportionate frontage. In order to provide street lights for this area, all of the property owners should agree to participate in a local improvement district for the installment of street lights. Access/Circulation: Access to lots 2 and 3 will be via McClain Avenue. A private shared drive way will provide access to lots 4, 5 and 6 via Sheridan Road. Access to lot 6 will remain via Sheridan Road. SEPA: An Environmental Threshold Determination of Non- significance was issued for the subdivision on May 23, 1996. An Environmental Impact Statement was not required. Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan Map designation for the site is Low Density Residential 3 to 8 dwelling units per acre. The following Comprehensive Plan Housing Element's state Goals and Policies applicable to this proposal: 1. New Housinq Development Goal: Provide a variety of housing types and densities to meet the changing needs of Bremerton residents. Policies Stimulate the production of new housing for all income, age, family type and ethnic groups. (Policy 3) comment survey: The following comments relevant to preliminary plat approval were received. Enqineerinq Department per Ned Lever: 1. The utility easement on the Typical shared driveway Section must be 7.5 feet wide The access road shall be constructed prior to Final Plan Approval. 3 o The percentage of impervious area designated in table III-1.3 in the DOE Manual for a density of five dwelling units per gross acre is 48%. This translates to an impervious area of 0.60 acres for this site. Either use 4 this value at final design or submit actual calculations for the impervious area. 4. Provide conveyance calculations for the 100 year storm for the bioswale. Se The building downspouts must be tightlined to the detention system if the cross culvert is to be installed at the driveway entrance. The detention system must be in place and a maintenance agreement must be submitted to the City prior to Final Plat approval. The detention system will be privately owned and maintained. 7. The sidewalk along the west side of McClain shall be constructed prior to final plat approval. All other departments stated they had no problems, or no comments were received. Stream Development: A type III stream is located within lot 1.. The Bremerton Critical Lands Ordinance defines a Type III streams as: Those streams that are intermittent or ephemeral during years of normal rainfall and are not used by salmonids and do not have significant salmonid habitat or flow directly into streams used by salmonids or which have significant salmonid habitat. Type III streams generally require a 25 ft. buffer. The platting and development of this parcel provides for the 25 ft. buffer setback. The Critical Lands Ordinance exempts projects from stream development requirements when a public hearing is required and when the project is clearly in compliance with setback buffers which will result in no impact to the stream. Development meeting: An informal development meeting was conducted on May 22, 1996. City staff, the applicant and surrounding residents attended to review the project and discuss the approval process. IV. PRELIMINARY PLAT CONSIDERATIONS criteria for Approval of Preliminary Plats: 5 1. Consistency with the Bremerton Comprehensive Plan. 2. Conformance with zoning and shoreline regulation. 3. Availability and adequacy of utilities and public services. Conclusions: Comprehensive Plan: The subdivision is consistent with the Residential Comprehensive Plan designation and will allow development at 1.6 dwelling units per acre. This is even less than the Comprehensive Plan's ~ to ! dwelling units per acre designation. The Comprehensive Plan's Goal and Policies support this subdivision. Zoninq: The proposed lots exceed minimum zoning requirements for lot size and width. Future residential construction can be developed in compliance with zoning regulations. Utilities/Public Services: Water and sanitary sewer utilities are available and adequate. Adequate access can be designed and constructed to serve the subdivision. V. DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION BASED ON THE RECORD DEVELOPED, THE BREMERTON PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF PARR'S CORNER SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: Infrastructure: 1. Riqht-of-wa¥: The applicant/developer shall design and construct a sidewalk which meet the adopted City Design Standards for work within the right-of-way subject to review and approval of the City Engineer. 2. Utilities: The applicant/developer shall design and construct underground utilities for water and sanitary sewer subject to the review and approval of the Bremerton public Works Director. Utilities for power, telephone, and cable television shall be constructed underground. The sanitary sewer main extension shall be constructed prior to Final Plat Approval. 6 Pole mounted yard lights fronting McClain Avenue shall be provided consistent with other properties on Mclain Avenue. 3. Stormwater: The applicant/developer shall design and construct a stormwater collection and disposal system for stormwater. The stormwater system shall be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. Curtain drains for foundations and roof gutter down spouts shall be provided as necessary. 4. Subdivision Desiqn: The Final Plat shall be prepared by a licensed surveyor showing distances and bearings for lots and rights-of- way. Environmental: Prior to making any improvements on the property such as land clearing, grading or construction of utilities, a sediment and erosion control plan shall be approved by the City Engineer. The facilities required by the plan shall be in operation prior to land clearing and or construction. The erosion control measures shall be maintained until construction is completed and the potential for on-site erosion is absent. Ail disturbed soils shall be re-seeded or replanted with ground cover and continually maintained to prevent erosion. WAYNE OLSEN, Chairman Date Bremerton Planning Commission DONALD L. PRATT Executive Secretary 7 Name of Plat PARR'S CORNER Date Submitted Sec. Lt. Twp. 24 N. Range 1Io__ Genera! Vicinity Northwest corner of Sheridan Rd. & McClain Avenue. Total Acreage 3.65 Acres Number of Lots 6lots Smallest Lot Area 9,000 sq. ft. Average Lot Area ~ Acreage in Parks 0 Acres Length of Public Streets 0 LF Total Acreage of Public Streets 0 Acres Length of Private Streets 163 LF Total Acreage of Private Streets 0.07 Acres Designated Cormmercial Acreage 0 Acres Name and Address of Land Owner Charles S, Parr 628 Sheridan Road Bremerton. WA 98310 Phone: (360) 373-8897 BREMI:~TON B U II_F~I ,',!P, Name and Address of Developer Jerry_ Vergeer 2670 Tracyton Beach Road Bremerton. WA 98310 Phone: (360) 373-6948 Name of Licensed Civil Eng. or Surveyor Craig T. Baldwin. WestSound Engr. 2i7 S,W, Wilkins Drive Phone: (360) 876-3770 SOURCE OF WATER Name City. of Bremerton Address 3027 Olympus Drive Bremerton. WA 98310 SOURCE OF POWER Name Puget Power Address 1300 Sylvan Way Bremerton. WA 98310 Exist. Zoning Low Density. Residential Applied for Change of Zone to NA Sanitation Reports and Data Submitted on NA Type of Sewage Disposal System City. of Bremerton Sewers FHA Financing ? YES (Developers ~ignatm'~c'~ - TELEPHONE COMPANY Name US West Communications Address 4920 Kean Street Bremerton. WA 98312 q7 To: Bremerton City Planning Commission From: Concerned Neighbors of Manerte Villa on McClain Ave. Re: Subdivision 628 Sheridan Rd.-Northwest Comer of Sheridan Rd. And McClain Ave. On May 22 there was a public meeting to address concerns aborn th/s subdivision. Representatives of this neighborhood had some concerns that were not completely answered. Following is a list of these concerns. 1. Street lighting. The existing homes of this Villa have street lamps that aid in the lighting and security of the neighbor- hood. We feel that the new homes (and previous homes added by the contractor concerned) should have comparable street hghtmg to blend with the neighborhood. 2. Underground springs. This field is peen year round. Our concc'rn is weather proper care is taken so that water problems will not allow for early deterioration of these buildings. The long range value of our properties has been and ongoing concern for the majority of homeowners. Just take a look at the properties and care taken thereof. JUN 0 7 3. View. The 5 most southern properties of the Manette Villa Replat, have beautiful views of the mountains. Are we going to lose that view due to fill and two story homes? A. Fill dirt. Will there be fill dirt brought in? If so, How much? Will there be any packing of fill din? If there is packing of fill dirt, how are the currant owners insured against damage to there property and/or dwellings. 4. Repaying of Street. Big trucks have damaged McClain Ave and will probably cause more damage before these additions are complete. Patch jobs have been done but look real shoddy. We look forward to attending the meeting on June 18th at 6 p.m. to see if we can get some answers to our concerns. Thank You Concerned Neighbors of Manerte Villa on McClain Ave. NAMIg (printed) Signature Address J PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES UNAPPROVED DRAFT June 25, 1996 Chairman Olsen called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM. The meeting began with the Secretary calling the roll: Those present were: Chairman Olsen, Vice-Chairman Stone, Commissioners Hancock, Dingfield, and Robinson. Those absent were: Commissioner Adams and Boyd. Staff Present: Donald Pratt, Ron Hough, Jack Allingham, Kay Wilson, and Marylyn Waibel. Chairman Olsen asked for approval of the agenda. Commissioner Dingfield requested that Public Hearing//3 and//4 be moved under study session on the agenda and then moved for approval. Approved unanimously. Chairman Olseu asked for approval of the minutes of June 18, 1996. Motion by Commissioner Stone and seconded by Commissioner Dingfield to approve the minutes as presented. Question called: Sto.ne, yes; Robinson, yes; Hancock, yes; Dingfield, yes; Olsen, yes. Chairman Olsen asked for public comment on items not on the agenda. Steve Sbank~ 4167 Wheaton Way, had concerns with the Broadmoor project. Stated he was concerned about loosing access to his alley, located by Parker Lumber and the Pancake House. Has been maintaining the road for 13 years. Discussion followed. Jack Allingham stated the notice that was posted pertained to the Robinson hearing that will be heard tonight. Chairman Olsen invited Mr. Shank to stay for Hearing//2. Public Hearing #1 - Parr/Vergeer Chairman Olsen asked the appearance of fairness question. No response. Jack Allingham, City Planner, presented the staff report. This is a request for a preliminary plat approval to subdivide 3.65 acres into 6 single family residential lots. The owner of the property is Charles Parr and the applicant is Jerry Vergeer. The project is located adjacent to and northwest of McClain Avenue and Sheridan Road (628 Sheridan Road). Exhibit 1, plat map was shown. PAGE - 1- Craig Baldwin, Civil Engineer representing Jerry Vergeer, reviewed the project and stated his willingness to work with the neighbors. Stated the project is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and is consistent with the existing neighborhood. Stated that lots 2 & 3 will access on McClain and lots 4, 5, and 6 will access off the back of the lots. This project will complete the sidewalks along McClain. Stated that the drainage will be in accordance with Engineering requirements and will comply with Deptu'hnent of Ecology's Storm Water Manual. Not proposing any street lighting, stated if there was an LID, would be willing to participate. Plans to have normal home lighting and post lighting in the landscaping. Regarding the concern about view, all of the homes will comply with the maximum height of 30'. Not much fill will be done. Not planning to repave the street. Mrs. Parr, owner, stated the reason they are selling this is because the property is too much work too keep up, as well as the fact that their health is not as good as before. Plan on keeping all of the trees in the hack. Kate Billings, 2818 McClain, supports the homes being built, but has some concerns that she will bring up later. Commissioner Adams arrived. Helen May Reed, representing her mother who lives in the area, concerned about the lighting. Would like to see post lighting in front of the houses. Would like to see the project done correctly so that their homes will retain their value. Edward Kalmbach, concerned about the access for 2, 3, and 4, as well as the lighting and surface water. Patrick Munns, 2909 McClain, owner of one of the new homes already built. Currently has water problems, talked to builder and builder indicated they would do nothing to help with the problem. Concerned with the new six houses using the same builder. Christina Neale, 3000 McClain, not against the building, wants assurance the continuity of the neighborhood will be maintained, consistent amenities and utilities, wants post lighting, no street lights, concerned about the natural springs, would like to see natural gas put in. Kate Billings, presented Exhibit 2, pictures of their view, basically support the project, concerned about the seasonal/underground streams, storm drains--efficient enough to handle new homes, repaying of the street, and blocking of the view. Pleased with the Parr's and how they have taken care of the property. Bob Billings, 2818 McClain, concerned about the drainage and the possible backing up of the natural springs when the homes are built. PAGE -2- avis Kalmbach, 2816 McClain, concerned about the underground springs backing up. ~anked Mr. and Mrs. Parr for keeping their property in such nice shape. 5-. Parr, stated he is on a limited income and time -- thanked the people in Kitsap County tbr ising his taxes -- can't afford to keep the property. Happy he was able to fred a builder who as willing to build single family homes and not multi-family. raig Baldwin, Engineer representing Mr. Vergeer, responded that the lighting will be post ,~hting, access -- lots 4, 5, and 6 will be accessed from the shared driveway. The from doors ill face McClain Avenue. Feels that the water issues will be dealt with during the building ~rmit process, not all lots may have footing drain problems, will have to be dealt with on a case ~ case basis. Typically ground that is lower will not impact lots that are higher. '.hairman Olsen, questioned if the storm drain on private property is adequate? :raig Baldwin, responded that they are abandoning and removing a portion. They will be using drainage system under the shared driveway. The hope is not to import any fill dirt. There lay be just a little bit in lot 2 and 3, hopefully the grading will eliminate bringing in any dirt. ~hey are not putting in cable nor gas to the best of his knowledge. Late Billings, questioned if the underground streams could be backed-up and cause additional roblems for the ex/sting homes. 2raig Baldwin, responded that he doubted if there was enough top-soil to cause the water to ,ack-up especially given the topography. Footing drains would be a part of the building permit ~rocess if needed. dr. Parr, stated there is a 8" storm drain along McClain that has dried up much of his property. 7he east side of McClain should be hooked onto the storm sewer. Further discussed the history ,f the drainage problems and the utilities available in the area. 2ristina Neale stated her concern with the impact of the water and the ultimate value of the ~omes. Feels the water problems directly impact the values. ~ommissioner Stone questioned footage drains. Can you divert the water'? Zraig Baldwin stated that the tooting drains are basicly a perforated pipe with gravel and the ,rater is intercepted and taken to a low point, allowing for free flowing of the water. Commissioner Dingfield stated that in the model motion it refers to the storm water system will )e designed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, and with the department heating the :oncerns, wouldn't Engineering take a hard look at the system? PAGE-3- [ 0.2.__ Jack Allingham stated tha~ there has been an ongoing problem between the Engineers and Building Department regarding respohsibility for roof drains and curtain drains around the foundation. There doesn't seem to be any consensus. Feels that it could be a condition that curtain drain~ be provided for foundations and roof downspouts as needed. Commissioner Robinson .m~ted that you certainly do not want to block any water. Regarding the shared driveway for lots 4, 5, and 6. Appears the road ends at lot 5'? Craig Baldwin stated that lhe dash line is a 10 foot easement. Chairman Olsen asked if the Fire Department has reviewed the preliminary plat'? Jack Allingham responded yes. Feels the water issue should be dealt with in the construction and engineering design of the homes. Commissioner Stone stated that if we put the stipulation in "as needed" what happens six months from now if the wat~ problem arises? Jack Allingham stated that cmtain drains could help eliminate future problems. Motion by Commissioner Stone for approval after considering oral and written testimony and the staff report, recommends to the City Council approval of the Preliminary Plat application subject to the conditions listed in the model motion. Commissioner Dingfield seconded the motion with an amendment that with regard to the utilities, the developer indicated a willingness to do post lighting and on the stormwater include curtain drains as needed. Amendment secrmde, d by Commissioner Stone. Question called. Adams, yes; Hancock, yes; Dingfield, ye~; Stone, yes; Robinson, yes; Olsen, yes. Motion passes. Jack Allingham stated the appeal process available. Public Hearing #2 - Zoning Ordinance Special Exception - Robinson Chairman Olsen asked the appearance of fairness question. No response. Jack Allingham presented the staff report. The applicant, James Robinson, seeks exception to the 10 foot setback requirement along the south property line which is adjacent to the rezoned "Broadmoor Village" propem.'. The Planning Commission and City Council, ~at the time of rezone, had included policy statements that the applicant's property should not be subject to any restrictions due to the rezone of the Broadmoor site to residential. Location of the property is 4117 Wheaton Way. It is requested that the exception shall not expire. Jim Robinson, owner of the property, requests approval of the exception. Spoke in favor of the Broadmoor project, and ~:mld like to see owner's property developed to its potential with good planning practices. The language of the rezone addressed his concerns. PAGE -4- The Broadmoor project would provide the set back and screening and he not be burdened. Steve Shank, resident, concerned about the access to his driveway. His renters use it and his utilities come up it. Jim Robinson stated that along the south side of his property is a meandering two lane driveway. There is no legal access of record. The road is not legally described as it lies on the ground. Feels that another thrum will decide if it is a legal access. Stated it is not Mr. Shank's only access. Jack Allingham stated that the Planning Commission is not empowered to settle property line disputes or questions on access easements. The issue is best handled by a Judge in court. Commissioner Stone questioned the Fire Departments need for 10 feet around the building. Jim Robinson responded that the Building Code allows Commercial Zone property to build up to the line. Motion by Commissioner Stone of the model motion, be it resolved, the Bremerton Planning Commission, having heard oral and written testimony, and staff report, hereby approves this request for a Zoning Ordinance Special Exception to allow the elimination of any zoning setback or other zoning restrictions associated with a commercial zoned use adjacent to a residential zoned use as it relates to the rezoned Broadmoor Village property as shown on the attached Site Plan. This Zoning Ordinance Special Exception shall have no expiration date. Seconded by Commissioner Dingfield. Question called. Hancock, yes; Dingfield, yes; Stone, yes; Robinson, yes; Adams, yes; Olsen, yes. Motion passes. Jack Allingham stated the appeal process available. No Director's Report. Study Session - By-Laws Commissioner Stone stated that Article I under Authorization has not been changed. The last part of the paragraph "and the County Planning Enabling Act" should be removed. Chairman Olsen introduced Resolution 02-96. Commissioner Stone addressed the changes. (1) Authorization, removing the County Planning Enabling Act, (2) Organization, requiring the minutes to be pre-approved by the Chairman belbre distribution, (3) Quorum, being a simple majority, (4) Rules of Conduct, using now the Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure, and (4) Suggested Agenda Format, eliminating old business. PAGE-5- Commissioner Stone asked the stares of the resolution to the Council changing the size of the Commission from 7 to 5. Chairman Olsen asked Ron Hough to check with Don Pratt on the status. Motion by Commissioner Stone and seconded by Commissioner Hancock to approve Resolution 02-96. Question called: Adams, yes; Hancock, yes; Dingfield, yes; Stone, yes; Robinson, yes; Olsen, yes. Motion passes. Discussion followed on the need to have a study session with the Mayor. It was determined that at this time it would not be necessary. It was determined that a meeting will be needed in the future to discuss 1724 with the Council. Study Session - Capital Facilities Element - Comprehensive Plan Kay Wilson presented the staff report. The only part of the Capital Facilities Element that is to be reviewed annually is Part 2, because this includes the 6 year finance plan which must be current. The sections for approval are Fire and Emergency Medical Services, Law Enforcement and Parks. They had intended to update the entire plan, but ran out of time. The sections mentioned are completed. This will be submitted to the state. Commissioner Dingfield asked if next year the other areas will be completed? Kay Wilson responded that one problem was that since Kitsap County had not completed their Plan, it was difficult because the City depends on some of their numbers for calculations, for example population numbers. The updates that were not completed this year certainly should be updated next year. Stated that most of the Sanitary Sewer section is completed, hopes to complete it tomorrow. Briefly reviewed the changes in each element. 9A is a new section, growth assumptions and population forecasts. Discussion followed regarding the population. The basis for the Capital Facilities Plan is how many people are we planning for. Each year we have to plan for the next six years. Fire and Emergency Services: inventory of existing facilities, calculations showing current and proposed level of services, calculations 6 and 16 year needs, six year financing plan for both fire and emergency services. Law Enforcement: inventory of facilities, level of services, future needs, financing plan. Parks: the biggest change is removing Gold Mountain from the inventory of regional parks total and putting it in a section called special use facilities, forecast of future park needs, level of service, the six year f-mance plan and capacity balance. Discussion followed. Chairman Olsen discussed the Resolution regarding docks. Commissioner Stone stated that according to the minutes is was referred to the July 16th meeting. PAGE -6- to5 Commissioner Dingfield stated she would like to have a future discussion on how the Planning Depathuent comes up with the stipulation for creating an LID, how many LID's are out there, etc. Study Session of July 9th to discuss 1724 and the budget. Meeting adjourned. Respectfully submitted, n Waibel Approved: h ~ Wayr/e Olsen, Chairm,/ap/