The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About08/07/96 AGENDABREMERTON CITY COUNCIL 239 4TH STREET BREMERTON, WA 98337 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA AUGUST 7, 1996 2 o 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 24, 1996 #AB96-166 3. CLAIMS/CHECK REGISTERS 4. COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS 5. MAYOR'S REPORT 6. PUBLIC RECOGNITION -- (Comments Limited to 3 Minutes) NEW BUSINESS A. Purchase Scat Trak Model 1700 And Attachments; Grinder,Broom, Bucket And Extra Set Of Grinder Teeth; And Approval of Budget Adjustment #26-2~ B. Community Development Bock Grant HOME Policy Plan #AB96-167 ORDINANCES A. Ordinance #4563 (Second Reading) Amending Size Of Planning Commission From 9 To 7 Members B. Ordinance (First Reading) Extending Interim Procedures For Land Use Permit Hearings #AB96-165 ~ #AB96-169 g/ AGENDA BILL BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: MINUTES - JULY 24, 1996 FOR AGENDA OF: ORIGINATING DEPT: ORIGINATOR: DATE SUBMITTED: 8-7-96 City Council John Law, Council Preside 2. C_~: (comment on back if necessary) 3. EXHIBITS: CoLrNCIL PRESIDENT Q~/~~ MAYOR // 4. SLaY STATEMENT AND REOUIREMENT FORCOUNCIL ACTION: 8. RECOMi~ENDATION: RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: EXPIRATION DATE: REVIEW DATE: PULLED TABLED COUNCIL DIRECTIVE: 10. NOTICE OF ACTION APPROVED DISAPPROVED __ DATE: A~ENDED 11. TAPE #1394 UNAPPROVED DRAFT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JULY 24, 1996 0025 #0046 The regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Bremerton was called to order in the City Council Chambers, 239 4th Street, Bremerton, Washington, Wednesday, June 24, 1996, at 5:30 P.M., with Council President John Law presiding. Council members present were Bob Winters, Carlos Montgomery, Sherril Huff-Menees, David Farr, Richard Neville, Lon Overson, Cecil McConnell, and A1 Colvin. Also present were City Attorney Ian Sievers and Deputy City Clerk Gil Johnson. The meeting opened with the Pledge of Allegiance led by Council President Law and Invocation given by Pastor Jeffery Pulse of Peace Lutheran Church. President Law announced item 7D had been pulled off the Agenda. CONSENT AGENDA A. Minutes - July 10, 1996 #AB96-154 M/S/C/U(Neville/Farr) to approve Consent Agenda as presented. CLAIMS/CHECK REGISTERS Vouchers audited and certified by the auditing officer as required by RCW 42.24.080, and those expense reimbursement claims certified as required by RCW 42.24.090, have been recorded on a listing that had been made available to the Council. M/S/C/U(Colvin/McConnell) on July 24, 1996, the Council does approve for payment those vouchers included and further described as follows: 199643 through 199987 in the amount of $1,021,795.13; and Regular Payroll for the period ending 7-15-96, in the amount of $729,686.31. COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS Mr. Colvin made the following report: (1) asked that the appropriate department check on a potential traffic hazard of vegetation blocking view of traffic at the corner of Sylvan and Pine Road; (2) Offered his supply of political signs to other political candidates; and (3) his attendance at the Walmart Grand Opening event. Mr. Fart congratulated Emily Moshay on the recent newspaper article about her volunteer efforts within the community. Mr. Winters reported on Clam Run 1996, which was sponsored by the Hombre Motorcycle Club, where he acted as the event's Master Of TAPE #1394 city Council Reg. Mtg. July 24, 1996 Page 2 of 17 Minutes Ceremonies. The weekend event included motorcycle demonstrations, a performance by the Seattle Cossack Motorcycle group and various other activities. Mr. Law reminded residents that there will not be a District #3 Neighborhood meeting in August. MAYOR,S REPORT Mayor Lynn Horton reported on a very successful city Employee picnic and softball game between four teams at Lions Field on July 19. The teams were Public Works, Fire Department, Police Department and the Parks Department. She presented the First Annual Softball competition trophy to the Parks Department team, which was accepted by Jim Spencer, Parks and Recreation Director. Mr. Spencer stated because his team was representing the Parks and Recreation department they felt they had to win. Mayor Horton noted this past week the City interviewed for an EDA grant and during that process they were up against some stiff competition. In 1995 they applied for the same grant in the amount of one million dollars for infrastructure improvements in the Werner Road and Auto Center Way area, but the City ended up being ranked third. This year, the City ranked #1 and still has a ways to go in the process, but did receive the official blessing from the Economic Development District Board. The next step is to see that Congress puts money into the 1997 budget for Economic Development grants. The City was a previous recipient of an EDA grant for the boardwalk project. She extended special thanks to Earl Smith, of the EDC, and Rich Hanna, City Treasurer, for their effort in the interview process. PUBLIC RECOGNITION Terry Dupee, North Cambrian, stated it took a couple of years to get a speed limit sign on North Cambrian, and she was pleased to report traffic has slowed down. She has observed people littering and urged the public to not litter public streets. Bill Kamps, Vice President of the Hombre Motorcycle Club (Peninsula Chapter), made a special presentation to Councilman Winters for his participation as Master Of Ceremony/Official Greeter for the 1996 Clam Run that was held at the Kitsap County Fairgrounds this past weekend. Mr. Winters stepped in and assisted them at various times making their weekend program a truly professional event. He noted the Clam Run also benefitted the Bremerton Food Line. Tita Fabellnia, representing Sylvan Way Baptist Church and the Visayan Club of Kitsap County, commented on two subjects: (1) the availability of the movie "JESUS" to members of the public through the Sylvan Way Baptist Church; (2) described the various kinds of TAPE #1394 City Council Reg. Mtg. July 24, 1996 Page 3 of 17 Minutes activities of the Visayan Club of Kitsap County including an upcoming event on September 7, 1996. Tickets for the September event can be obtained by writing Visayan Club Of Kitsap County, P.O. Box 634, Tracyton, WA 98393, or calling 479-8061, 373-3385, or 692-4207. Shirley Howerton, 1002 Dibb Street, asked the following questions: (1) why is there such a disparity in City franchise fees on utilities; (2) why is Bremerton's garbage service costing twice as high as other garbage companies; (3) is Brem-Air selling the items they collect under the recycling program, and if so, why should the citizens have to pay a recycling fee when they are making a profit? President Law assured Ms. Howerton someone from the City would respond to her questions at a later time. CDR Jay Spurt, 241 5th Street, expressed his concern over the lack of residential parking for residents residing in an apartment buildings on 5th Street. The apartment building where he resides has 24 units and is surround with approximately 180 different commercial parking spaces, most of which are owned by Diamond Parking. In the past two days, he received two parking tickets having parked in the wrong spot resulting not only from his own ignorance, but also possibly with some misinformation from the apartment building owners and the people managing the parking lots. He is interested in finding out if there might be some relief for his parking needs. The City Treasurer's office informed him that there are two locations two blocks from his apartment building that are "no pay parking", but do require a City Parking sticker. He has received conflicting information about the Residential Parking Program and would like that information clarified. The two "no pay parking" locations cited to him were Highland Place and Pleasant Avenue. He suggested the City look into putting the fine situation on the ticket or somehow illustrate that to the general public. His suggestion would be if it was impossible to place it on the sleeve of the ticket, to list it in the Telephone Directory or provide handouts to be distributed by property management offices or real estate companies that own residents within the City. He understands that Ms. Karen Fisher had an opportunity to discuss this issue with the former Mayor, but now he is asking if Council will consider, if they choose not to rezone 5th Street as residential, to take the like number of spaces at the two identified locations and give them to the residents of his apartment building. Obviously, that would be a precedent setting move for everyone living in an apartment that has the same parking situation. He found it very difficult finding out where he should go to learn about the city's parking policy on 5th Street and he hoped there would be some way to provide that kind of information to people moving into the area. TAPE #1394 city Council Reg. July 24, 1996 Page 4 of 17 Mtg. Minutes Don Larson, President Washington Scuba Alliance, talked about the availability of some broken up concrete from a test track at the Paccar Technical Center in Mt. Vernon, 'which could be used as a foundation for an underwater park. It was his hope that the City of Bremerton would be willing to accept the donation of the concrete, which would be transported at no cost to the City. The State Parks Program was not prepared accept such a donation at this time. He was pleased to announce his group will receive a mini grant from the Puget Sound Water Quality Authority for a clean up of the Sinclair Inlet shoreline on September 21, 11:00 A.m. - 2:00 P.M.. The grant funds will be used to purchase materials used in the clean up as well as education materials. Also, the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary gave his group a mini grant to undertake a clean up and to study marine life in the Olymic Coast National Marine Sanctuary near Neah Bay on Labor Day weekend. That event is open to the public and information can be obtained by calling Mr. Larson at 373-5367. Gord¥ Byrd commented on: (1) "Just Good Food, a new restaurant in downtown Bremerton; (2) cautioned the public to be aware of the danger in leaving children or animals inside a vehicle during the hot weather; (3) Concerts In The park. Terry Dupee cautioned everyone to be careful during the hotter weather, especially children of all ages. Ed Rollman, 600 Block of Highland Avenue, stated he was pleased that the attempt to institute 12-hour shifts for Police Patrols was defeated by the Police officers themselves. He emphasized ideas are the foundation of any city or democracy and then cited people and events in history that supported that idea. He also supported the idea of a new City Hall facility and the possibility of using the vacant Penneys building for such a facility. 7A - BID AWARD, RESERVOIR 8 AND 21 REHABILITATION, #AB96-155 Bids were opened for the Reservoirs 8 and 21 Rehabilitation Project on June 17, 1996. Three bids for this project were received. The iow 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 Reservoir 8 and 21 Rehabilitation with R.D.S. Construction, Inc. Tim Richard, Senior Engineer, stated this proposal consists of rehabilitating the exterior coating on two City reservoirs - Reservoir #8 located on the west end of Werner Road behind the UPS facility and Reservoir #21, located within NAD Park. The rehabilitation system for the two reservoirs is to pressure wash and re-coat the exteriors with three coats of epoxy. This was the same system used to rehabilitate Reservoirs #17 and #20. Because the scope of work is considered maintenance, the funding source for #1367 TAPE #1394 City Council Reg. July 24, 1996 Page 5 of 17 Mtg. Minutes this project is the Water Operations Fund. The firm of R.D.S. Construction, Inc., is new to the City and a background check was made that revealed they are a 2-owner operation, who were former members, Superintendent/ Project Mangers, of Diamaco, Inc., who performed reservoir rehabilitation work for the City in 1995. The City was very satisfied with the previously performed work. Several other references were checked and the responses received were "very satisfactory". Public comment - none. Mr. McCennell pointed out an approximate $24,000 difference between the two lowest bids. He questioned if possibility R.D.S. Construction might have missed something in the bid? Mr. Richard stated no; however, they did speak with the firm about the difference in cost and their response was that the job could be done for the bid amount. Mr. Neville asked if Mr. Richard could reassure the public that the City will not run out of water as a result of work being done on the two reservoirs. Mr. Richard explained the work on the reservoirs will have no adverse affect on the water supply since only the exterior is being re-coated. Mr. Overson questioned the expected percent of materials that should be in the average bid? Mr. Richard stated he did not have an answer to that question; however, they determined the estimated cost from information provided by the supplier of the coating system...price per square foot/tank applied. Mr. Overson wanted to be assured that the contractor would not undercut on materials. Mr. Richard explained an inspection program has been identified that measures the specific thicknesses required for each coat of the system and those will be checked using two kinds of measuring equipment. Mr. Overson questioned the length of time to complete the work? Mr. Richard explained the contractor has 30 working days and will start within 10 days of the Notice to Proceed, which is given to them at the time they sign the contract and the City was satisfied with the insurance forms, and performance and payment bonds. M/S/C/U(Farr/Huff-Menees) to approve a contract for $72,912.37 with R.D.S. Construction, Inc. for the Reservoir 8 and 21 Rehabilitation and authorize the Mayor to execute the same. 7B - REVISION TO COUNCIL RUES AND PROCEDURES FOR QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARINGSt ~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 TAPE #1394 City Council Reg. July 24, 1996 Page 6 of 17 Mtg. Minutes 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 Sec 2(2)] Ian Bievers, City Attorney, stated as a result of Council's Study Session on July 22, Rules 11 and 12 were revised per Council's direction. He noted the following corrections: Rule 11, 2)(b) - no change to the appearance of fairness inquiry; Rule 12, 2, 1) Hearing Procedure - under the closed hearing Council desires that the record will be in the form of a written transcript thereby striking the following words: "the audio tape, audio/visual or". Under Rule 12, 3, - deleting the entire sentence because there will be no public testimony and all argument will be taken in written form prior to the hearing. Gord¥ Byrd requested clarification of the intent of Rule 11 and 12. Mr. Sievers explained land use permits are now required to have only one full public hearing where evidence is taken. Any subsequent hearing, either on the final decision or appeal, has to be what State law calls a "Closed Hearing", meaning there will no new evidence introduced at that hearing, but rather Council will use the record developed at the underlying hearing, which would be the Planning Commission in the City of Bremerton. The change from the copy of the rules in the Agenda packet resulting from Council's Study Session on July 22, primarily introduced a new section - Rule 12, that instead of oral argument taken at the Closed hearing, Council has substituted a procedure for submitting written argument by the parties both in favor and opposed to either the Planning Commission's commendation or decision. The procedure for submitting argument is set forth in Rule 12, 1. Mr. Montqomery stated even though he feels the adopted State law is preposterous, he recommended approving the rule changes as presented, including the corrections identified by Mr. Sievers. Mr. McConnell stated the City Council is the people's contact with the City government and SHB1724 (RCW 36.70B), as passed by the State Legislature, more or less takes the Council out of the picture when it comes to public contact concerning land issues. In his opinion, by not allowing public contact and testimony it reinforces the opinion that some people have that the Council does not listen to them. The rule change would not only address decisions from the Planning Commission, but also on any TAPE #1394 city Council Reg. Mtg. July 24, 1996 Page 7 of 17 Minutes recommendations they bring forth to the Council on land use issues. His previous comment still stands..that is the City of Bremerton should tell the State of Washington to stay out of City business. He will vote "no" on this issue not because the procedure is not well written and covers what the State mandates, but because the State says Council is required to do as they say. Mr. Colvin asked if the City had any latitude under this new law? Mr. $ievers quoted directly from the State law and concluded that there was very little latitude. This requirement is sort of integrated into growth management and the State wants to impose this approval process on jurisdictions that operate under growth management. Mr. Colvin stated then we must abide by State law. Mr. Sievers stated Mr. Colvin was correct and if not, the City would be corrected by the Courts for not being in compliance. Mr. Montqomery stated he believes there is a loophole in the law that says the City can hold hearings by making a few modifications and that is have the Planning Department hold public meetings verses open hearings. Mr. F&rr asked the City Attorney if he was correct in understanding the legislation was designed to speed up the permit approval process? Mr. Sievers stated that was certainly the expressed intent of the legislation in its Purpose Section. This particular procedure of opened/closed hearings does not necessarily speed up that process because it does not eliminate the second hearing, in fact it may make the second hearing more delayed because the City would have to produce a written record of the hearing. Mr. Farr wanted to avoid the misconception that the City Council will no longer hear the facts as the public might have been lead to believe by earlier comments. There has to be extra care taken by appellants and others involved in this process, but the City Council is required to hear and review everything that was presented at the open hearing. Mr. Overson stated he disagreed with the law and its intent in that it does tend to take away the right of the local people to control what happens in their community. It is important to have that control because we have to live in our own communities. He pointed out and as emphasized by Mr. Farr, this is not a change in right of the citizens, but it changes the process so it becomes a more closely aligned process in order that the decisions made are hopefully better understood by all parties. Mr. M¢Connell stated contrary to Mr. Overson's comments, the statements he made did not say anything about the Council not receiving the facts, it will come in a type written form similar to what is presented in Court. What he did say was it removes the Council from contact with their constituents when it involves land use issues. The public will be able to present their oral arguments in front of an appointed #1894 TAPE #1394 City Council Reg. July 24, 1996 Page 8 of 17 Mtg. Minutes Planning Commission, not in front of their elected officials. M/S/C(Farr/Huff-Menees) to approve Revised Rule 11 and 12, including the modifications identified by the City Attorney. Vote on Motion: Motion carried. In Favor: Opposed: Overson, Farr, Neville, Overson, Colvin, Huff-Menees, Law McConnell, Montgomery, Winters 7C - DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES (DNR) COMMUNITY FORESTRY GRANT. #AB96-156 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. Jim Spencer, Parks and Recreation Director, stated this particular grant was included in his department's 1996 budget; however, as the year progressed it looked a little bleak as to whether or not the city would be successful in actually being awarded the grant in 1996. A few weeks ago, he learned that DNR, through the good work of the City's Urban Forester, had earmarked $50,000 to be used to continue the enhancement to the City's urban forest. A number of projects have been highlighted to be funded under the grant. Terry Dupee asked what specific projects are being consider? Mr. Spencer stated grant funds would be exclusively used for the City's urban forest, which would include: removal of hazardous trees, enhancements to several parks, specifically phase 2 of Pendergast Regional Park, tree planting at Lions Field/SR-3, neighborhood trees removed and replaced. Mr. Winters reported a UPS driver contacted him and requested that someone from the City trim some trees that are causing a traffic hazard. Mr. Winters asked how does someone from the public find out where they should report problems relating to trees within the City? Mr. Spencer explained the City's recently revised Tree Ordinance addresses those issues and it becomes a matter of educating the public and making them aware systems are in place to deal with those kinds of problems. An internal policy within the City was included as part of the ordinance that clearly, in matrix form, identifies which department is responsible for what concerning problems within rights-of-way and parks. Mr. McConne11 asked if the grant required matching funds? Mr. Spencer stated there is a match, but that match comes in a variety #2249 TAPE #1394 city Council Reg. July 24, 1996 Page 9 of 17 Mtg. Minutes of forms. Not only will the City provide labor as a source of match, the City's Urban Forester has been very successful in soliciting volunteer support and those hours can be applied. Mr. Overson complimented Mr. Spencer and the Urban Forester, Jim Trainer, for their work on the Urban Tree Program. Mr. Colvin echoed Mr. Overson's comments and asked if DNR inspects what the City has done with the grant funding? Mr. Spencer stated yes, approximately three months age two people from DNR were given a tour of Pendergast Regional Park, Forest Ridge Park, the newly created tree nursery and library. Their response to that tour was very positive and Mr. Spencer believes that visit may have been the catalyst for the City receiving this grant. In addition, the City has been encouraged to submit an grant application to Tree City USA, which receives national recognition. The City did make out an application, which has been forwarded through DNR to the State Urban Forester for review. M/S/C/U(McConnell/Winters) to authorize and direct the Mayor to accept the Community Forestry Grant from DNR in the amount not to exceed $50,000. 8A - RESOLUTION NO. 2551 AMENDING EMPLOYMENT APPLICATION PROCESS FEEt #AB96-158 The Civil Service Commission has recommended that the Application and Testing fees apply to uniformed positions only. Jim Meith, Human Resources Manager, stated this issue has been before Council at a couple of Study Session as well as before the Civil Service Commission. This proposal would repeal the resolution that puts the application and testing fee into effect for all positions and would limit it only to "Uniformed" positions. Gordy Byrd asked for the definition of "Uniformed employees"? President Law stated that would apply to Police and Fire personnel. Terry Dupee asked how the funds collected were used? Mr. Meith explained the application processing fee is used to partially offset the cost of processing the application, basically staff time and materials to carry out that responsiblity. He estimates that his department spends approximately $30.00 per application. In regards to the testing fee, it is a straight through charge on some tests. Mr. winters stated it was important that Mr. Meith brought out the fact that this proposal will not eliminate the testing fee for all applicants. Mr. McConnell asked if the application fee and testing fee are two separate charges and do testing fees vary in cost? Mr. Meith TAPE #1394 city Council Reg. July 24, 1996 Page 10 of 17 Mtg. Minutes stated yes, and in some instances he does not know the cost of the testing fee until they determine how many applicants will be tested. Mr. McConnell questioned the Civil Service Commission's rational for retaining the application fee for uniformed personnel only? Mr. Meith stated he believed the Commission's determination was based on practices in other jurisdictions. Mr. McConnell stated it bothers him when someone does something just become someone else is doing it. He questioned if the current application fee was the same for both uniformed and non-uniformed employees? Mr. Meith stated yes, $15.50. Mr. M¢Connell asked why is the application fee being left in place for the uniformed personnel? Mr. Meith explained the original intent was to recoup the cost of processing applications. After much study by the City Council and two meetings of the Civil Service Commission, the Civil Service Commission felt the application fee relating to the non-uniformed personnel was not something that was traditionally done in the industry and or in other jurisdictions. Mr. M¢Connell stated he would vote "no" on this proposal because he believes the application fee should be applied to all employees, not just the uniformed employees. Mrs. Huff-Menees emphasized Council McConnell is within his right to vote against this proposal, however, we would all do well to remember that this has been given a very thorough study and it comes back before Council because members of the public told Council over and over that the issue to be revisited. In reference to an earlier comment made by Mr. McConnell that sometime the public does not feel they are being heard by Council, in this instance the public has been heard. Also, Council asked the Civil Service Commission to make a recommendation to them on this resolution and she believes Council needs to adopt that recommendation. Mr. Montgomery asked how much does the City spend, dollar-wise, on processing applicants? Mr. Meith stated the total budget for Human Resources is $210,000 and based on a study conducted earlier this year approximately 75% is spent on application processing. Mr. Montgomery questioned the amount collected under the City's current application fee structure? Mr. Meith stated the application fee was instituted in April of 1995, and since that time $25,549.00 has been collected. Mr. Montgomery noted even with an application fee, the department did not come close to breaking even. Mr. Meith pointed out it was never intended that the application fee structure would allow them to break even. Mr. Overson asked Mr. Meith to convey his appreciation to the Civil Service Commission for their review of this issue and making a recommendation to the City Council. l/ #2717 TAPE #1394 City Council Reg. Mtg. July 24, 1996 Page 11 of 17 Minutes M/S/C(Overson/Huff-Menees) to approve Resolution No. 2551, fixing the charges to the public for employment application processing and testing for uniformed positions and to repeal Resolution No. 2505. Vote on motion: Motion carried. In Favor: Opposed; Winters, Huff-Menees, Overson, Law, Colvin McConnell, Montgomery Fart, Neville, 9A - ORDINANCE (FIRST READING) AMENDING B.M.C. CHAPTERS 2.76.100~ 2.76.200, 2.76.300t 2.76.600 FOR PROCUREMENT OF MATERIALS. EQUIPMENT t AND SERVICESt #AB96-159 In 1994, City Council adopted Ordinance No. 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. Gil Johnson, Deputy City Clerk, referenced Section 2.76.100,200 Definitions, and noted the dictionary definition for supplies refers to quantity or amount of commodities available, which does not describe what the City is attempting to put forth in the proposed ordinance. A better word is "goods", which means something that has economic utility, personal property having intrinsic value, commodities, and merchandise. These terms have been changed in the applicable chapters and additional changes proposed are to provide clarity to the chapters. Mr. Johnson referenced Secton 2.76.300 and noted there have been occasions when questions have arisen as to whether a needed service is a professional service or not. In order to provide a more adequate description, the following definition of Purchased Services has been proposed for inclusion in Chapter 2.76.300: "Purchased Services are defined as general support services provided by a vendor to accomplish routine, continuing and necessary functions. These include but are not limited to: Court reporting, data entry, word processing, language translation, equipment repair and maintenance, landscape maintenance, cleaning and janitorial services". As described in subsection (a) of Section 2.76.300, immediately following the Purchased services definition, it is proposed that contracting procedures for Purchased Services be conducted in a similar manner as Professional Services so as to maintain competition and by pre-qualification of vendors. The pre- qualification process occurs annually or as needed by advertisement in widely circulated publications, such as The Sun, Daily Journal Of Commerce and Northwest Dispatch. At the present time, TAPE #1394 City Council Reg. Mtg. July 24, 1996 Page 12 of 17 Minutes Professional Services is an Open Roster, that is new contractors can apply and be added to the roster at any time during the year. It is proposed that Purchased Services will also be an Open Roster. At the present time, the Professional Services Roster includes approximately 200 companies representing 41 disciplines. This process insures that firms submitting proposals for either Professional or Purchased Services are qualified to provide the requested services, while maintaining the spirit and intent of formal budding principles through competitive negotiations relying not on price alone, but also on qualifications. Bids for construction projects, and goods, materials and equipment in amounts greater than $10,000.00 will continue to be solicited by advertised call for bids procedures. At the last session of the State Legislature, computer hardware and software were exempted from formal bidding requirements, providing that procurement is made through competitive negotiations. The rationale is that technology of systems need to be tailored to specific applications and that hardware and software purchases are not driven by price, but rather by system performance necessary to meet the needs of the City. Therefore, a new Section 7 is proposed as follows: "Acquisition of electronic data processing and telecommunications systems, hardware and software or related services is conducted through competitive negotiations.,, Another recommended change is Mayoral expenditure of funds in the event of emerqency. At the present time, there is no provision for expenditure of appropriated funds in the event of a natural disaster or other catastrophic event resulting in the absence of incapacitation of members of Council necessary to constitute a quorum needed to conduct City business. Therefore, it is proposed that a new Section 8 be added as follows: "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. It is proposed that Section 7 in the present ordinance be deleted. The decision as to whether a purchase, lease or rental falls within exceptions to bidding is moot because the exceptions are listed. Additionally, Council will continue to approve contracts greater than $10,000. The approval process includes review by appropriate directors, recommendation to/by the Mayor and Council committees' review and ultimately action by the full Council in a public meeting. TAPE #1394 city Council Reg. July 24, 1996 Page 13 of 17 Mtg. Minutes Public comment - none. Mr. Fart asked if he understood correctly that the $10,000 limit does not apply to computer software and hardware regardless of the price? Mr. Johnson yes, and the $10,000 cap applies to bringing a contract before the City Council for approval and award. TAPE #1395 Mr. Fart stated he wanted assurance that the City was not giving away the advantage the City receives by going to lowest bid. Mr. Johnson explained based on his experience there are disadvantages going by the lowest bid and the City has not always benefitted by taking the lowest dollar amount. He believes by pre-qualifying vendors and by having competitive negotiated contracts with those vendors the City is not only getting a qualified product and service, but also getting the best possible price. Mr. Fart asked Mr. Johnson to tell him how we can achieve the same thing on a competitive bidding on award on lowest price, if you prepare the bid procedure with restrictions that would allow the City to receive the services or quality that is needed? Mr. Johnson stated on a sealed bid process there have been instances where the City has been stuck with a bid that was not the most beneficial to the city. In the instance of a negotiated bid, the process can be reviewed, talked through and understand fully before the contract is completely negotiated. Mr. Parr stated even after Mr. Johnson's explanation he could not support the proposal as presented. Mr. M¢Connell questioned if the City was restricted negotiating with more than one company on a negotiated bid? Mr. Johnson stated no, and an example is the City's Small Works Roster, which has 150 contractors for a variety of services, i.e. plumbing, roofers, etc. The City conducts those negotiations for purchased services much like the small works projects. Mr. M¢connell stated his support of a negotiated contract for computer software and hardware. Mayor Lynn ~orton explained in a construction project there is a design, specifications and is something that is fairly straightforward. Since she has been with the City, she has witnessed many times when software has been ordered only to find that it was not what we thought we were getting and ended up either having to "gerry rig" something to make it work or send it back, or spend a huge amount of time and effort on training for something we thought was fairly simple. Getting a product that you are really satisfied with is sometimes an art, not a science. Mr. Winters stated since his tenure on the Council he has seen the lowest bid on major construction contracts often come back to Council Committee with change orders. Based on that, he felt that the negotiated contract process should be applied to construction projects as well, since it provides the City with more control of the product or services they are to receive. #3065 TAPE #1394 city Council Reg. July 24, 1996 Page 14 of 17 Mtg. Minutes M/S/C(Montgomery/Farr) to approve ordinance on first reading, 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. Vote on Motion: Motion carried. In Favor: Opposed: McConnell, Colvin, Winters, Montgomery, Huff-Menees, Neville, Overson, Law Farr iOA - PUBLIC HEARINGt PRELIMINARY PLATt 6 LOT SUBDIVISIONt APPLICANT: JERRY VERGER/CHARLES PARR; LOCATION: ADJACENT TO ~ND NORTHWEST OF MCCL~IN AVENUE ~ND SHERID~NROAD (628 SHERID~NROAD)~ AND APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. 2552~ ~AB96-160 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. President Law asked the "Appearance Of Fairness/Conflict Of Interest" question. Councilman Montqomery announced he visited the subject site and Councilman Fart stated he sold a personal property to one of the applicants. Ian Sievers, City Attorney, determined that no one had a conflict and that all Council members could be seated. Jack Allinqham, Planner, stated this is an application for a Preliminary Plat approval to subdivide approximately 3.65 acres. The applicant is Jerry Vergeer and the property owner is Charles Parr. The site is located just north of Sheridan Road and just to the west of McClain Avenue. The site is relatively vacant and had developed with a single family residence, the Parr's residence. In late 1994/early 1995, Mr. Parr short platted four lots on his property, the remainder is now being requested to be further subdivided. The lots primarily front McClain Avenue. The site is zoned Single Family 3 (SF-3), and SF-3 has a minimum lot size of, at the date of this application, of 4,800 sq. ft. The proposed lots are substantially larger than the 4,800 sq. ft., at approximately 9,000 sq. ft. in size, 75 feet in width and 120 feet in depth; and are similar in configuration to lots on the east side of Mcclain Avenue. TAPE #1395 City Council Reg. Mtg. July 24, 1996 Page 15 of 17 Minutes Access to lots #2 and #3 will be off of McClain Avenue and lots #4, #5 and #6 will use a common driveway, which will access onto Sheridan Road. The plan proposes a preliminary storm drainage system that will consist of an underground storage tank in the area of the shared driveway and will discharge into the City's stormwater system. The Planning Commission heard substantial testimony from neighboring residents, primarily concerned whether or not the lots would be in-filled to raise the site up to McClain avenue, which would raise the elevation and potentially block views. The applicant stated for clarification that there was no intention to fill in the site and in order to gain access to the lots a shared driveway would be provided. It was indicated the houses would have a frontage appearance on McClain Avenue, but the access to lots #4, #5 and #6 would be via the shared driveway. There was also testimony about the need for street lighting along McClain Avenue. Currently, houses along the east side of McClain Avenue provide a "yard" light at the entrances of their homes along their driveways and requested the side of the street to be developed provide street lighting in the same character. The Planning Commission is recommending that street frontage lighting of the same character be provided for the subdivision. Finally, there was concern that a shallow water table moves along the soil and is flooding foundations on existing houses, which were built under the short plat and that there needs to be some sort of a system, i.e. curtain drains,~to direct the water around the foundations for this site. The Planning Commission is recommending that curtain drains be provided as necessary; however they did not mandate that for every structure since it may not be needed in every instance. The determination whether or not such a drain would be necessary would be up to the builder/developer of the property. Furthermore, the Planning Commission recommends that the applicant/developer construct a sidewalk the full length of McClain Avenue. For the short plat that was approved, the developer constructed a curb and gutter all the way down McClain Avenue and a side walk fronting the earlier short plat lots. As part of the new development, the sidewalk will be extended down to Sheridan Road. The developer will also be required to provide temporary erosion control, develop underground utilities and a stormwater retention system, which has been submitted and reviewed by the City's Engineering Department. Based on the conditions as outlined in the Resolution, the Planning Commission recommends approval. Craiq Baldwin, West Sound Engineering, 217 SW Wilkins Drive, Port Orchard, and representing Jerry Verger, stated he would be happy to answer any questions. He complimented Jack Allingham on the completeness of his presentation of the proposal. He pointed out TAPE #1395 City Council Reg. July 24, 1996 Page 16 of 17 Mtg. Minutes some people might call this project an "in-fill" in an area with an established neighborhood. As indicated by Mr. Allingham, by ordinance the developer could use smaller lots, but Mr. Verger has not elected that option because he wants to maintain the consistency of the neighborhood, which is also a good marketing tool. Mr. Verger was involved with Mr. Parr in the short platting of the lots to the north, lots #B, #C and #D, which have homes built on them. During that process, they learned it would be to everyone's advantage to run sanitary sewer lines from the back of the lots instead of connecting to the sewer main in McClain Avenue; thereby not having to have the interruptions or excavation to McClain Avenue. The water main is already located behind the curb and gutter and will require only running simple water meter connections to the lots. A hydrant will be installed at the corner of Sheridan Road and McClain Avenue for fire protection. The preliminary engineering is shown to demonstrate the developer can comply fully with the requirements and regulations for development, the Stormwater Managements Manual, developed by the Department Of Ecology, and not change the character of the remaining land owned by Mr. Parr. There was a lot of discussion about groundwater and the problems neighbors across the street on McClain Avenue were experiencing. During those discussions, it became evident that the owner of Lot B does have some problems with water under the foundation, but the homes on lot "C" and "D do not have that problem. So, there is evidence and proof that a groundwater problem exists in certain areas within the neighborhood and the developer feels the Planning Commission's recommendation is appropriate that foundation drains be installed where necessary. To require foundation drains on every home might be a little onerous and precedent setting. He would recommend that at the time footings are dug and formed the builder and building inspector review the concern for groundwater problems and require curtain drains be install, if there is evidence of groundwater and that evidence can be found in two ways. In the winter time, if there is evidence of water under the foundation a problem exists, but in the summer water tables can go down. During the dryer months of the year, to determine if groundwater is a problem, the soil can be examined to see if there is any mottling, which reflects intermittent presence of water. Kate Billlnqs stated she was not opposed to the project and the concerns that she and other neighbors sent into the Planning Commission have mostly been answered, and Mr. Baldwin's explanation about the groundwater issue helped her better understand that concern and how it will be handled. Gordy Byrd asked what give a city the right to tell people what they can do with their property. President Law pointed out Mr. Byrd's question was not relevant to the issue being discussed and #0774 TAPE #1395 city Council Reg. Mtg. July 24, 1996 Page 17 of 17 Minutes could be answered at another time. Mr. McConnell stated it is unusual to have something other than apartment complexes proposed and he was pleased that the developer was proposing to build single family homes on the site because he believes that is what will continue to maintain this city. Mr. Overson pointed out one of the functions of a city is to be urban and that means density. He agreed this is a good proposal, but he is also pleased with some of the good apartment developments that have been established in the City providing quality living spaces and he encourages those as well. Mr. Montqomer¥ emphasized the system works, area brought their concerns to the Planning were reviewed and acted upon. the residents of the Commission and they M/S/C/U(Colvin/McConnell) to adopt Resolution No. 2552, accepting the preliminary plat of "Parr's Corner", located adjacent to and northwest of McClain Avenue and Sheridan Road (628 Sheridan Road), Bremerton, Kitsap County, Washington. President Law thanked the TV camera crew for their services: Nadine Price, Terry Bowlby, Dave Noble, Bruce Hall. With no further business meeting adjourned at 7:36 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. SUBJECT: Purchase Scat Trak Model 1700 & attachments; ORIGINATING DEPT: Grinder, Broom, Bucket, ORIGINATOR: & extra set grinder teeth{ DATE SUBMITTED: & Budget Adjustment #96-26 2. CLEARANCES: (comment 3. EXHIBITS: CITY TREASURER PW DIRECTOR PW OPERATIONS MGR. PURCHASING SUPER. CITY ATTORNEY FOR AGENDA OF: August 07, 1996 PWO Street Div. Robert E. Tulp July 29, 1996 o back if necessary) 1. Manufacturer's brochures 2. Price Sheets 3. funding Documentation FISCAL&BUDGET ~ -~.~.~-~ OPERATIONS ENDORSEMENT ~/ INFO~TION APPROVED BY CO~CIL P~~ ~YOR~~. ~ -- CO~CIL PRESIDENT~ 4. SUP94ARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION: Current equipment is on Pierce Co. bid with which the City has reciprocal agreement, no bid is required. Total price with attachments minus rental agreement reduction is $31,582.61. Funding available is a one time State settlement amount of $35,854.00. Equipment will be placed in Equipment Rental Reserve Fund. 8. RECOMMENDATION: Approve the purchase of Scat Trak Model 1700 an~ attachments; and Budget Adjustment #96-26. 9.RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: EXPIRATION DATE: REVIEW DATE: 10. NOTICE OF ACTION PULLED TABLED APPROVED COUNCIL DIRECTIVE: DISAPPROVED DATE: 11. AGENDA BILL NO: 2. CLEARANCE COMMENTS: 5. IMPACT ON NON-PASSAGE: Scat Trak grinder is primarily used in the Street program for the grinding of asphalt and street restoration. Previously we have had to rent the proper equipment to do the grinding. Rental of a grinder is $4,200 per month for a 5-6 month asphalt season. Scat Trak also has various other uses besides grinding. 6. IMPACT ON STAFFING, BUDGETS, FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCES: No impact on staffing or facilities. One-time State funding available. 7. RESEARCH SOURCES: CITY OF BREMERTON BUDGET ADJUSTMENT REQUEST NO.. 96-26 Requesting Department: Publ ic Works SOURCE OF FUNDS: Equilxnent Rental Reserve Fund 510 365.2100 $35,854.48 NARRATIVE: ~NDS: Purchase Scat Trak 594.4846.56410 Amount $31,582.61 One time funds received from Petroletrn Products Antitrust Litigation $2,998.48 and City Hardship Assistance Account Distribution $32,856.00 Department Head Signature Treasurer Commer, ts: Date Director ,Si9natur~__..~ Recommended Mayor Comments: Not Recommended Treasurer s Signature ~ \ Date [-~ Recommended [-~ Approved Not Recommended Denied Fiscal & Budget Committee Comments: M~yor's Signature Recommended Approved Not Recommended Denied scal & Budget Corru~ttee ~ignature Date AGENDA BILL BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL 1. SUBJECT: 1997 CDBG/HOME Policy Plan FOR AGENDA OF: August 7, 1996 ~ ORIGINATING DEPT: Neighborhood Development ORIGINATOR: Debbie Peavler-Stewart DATE SUBMITTED: August 1, 1996 2. CLEARANCES: (Comme~n back if necessary) 3. EXHIBITS~ Development Director: ~ 1997 Plan Fiscal and Budget:~ Operations: ~.~. ~J'~ 4.SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REOUIRRMR. NT FOR COUNCIL ACTION: Attached is the draft 1997 CDBG/HOME Policy Plan which was presented to potential subrecipients at an advertised public meeting on July 25, 1996. The Plan identifies the CDBG rules and regulations, as well as the City's allocation process. A new rating and ranking system is included. 8. RECOMMENDATION: Move for approval of the draft 1997 CDBG/HOME Policy Plan as presented. 9. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Neighborhood Development ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: Neighborhood Development EXPIRATION DATE: ~ COUNCIL DIRECTIVE. DATE: c? A - /~ >~ ~ OF 1997 CDBG/HOME POLICY PLAN AND APPLI[CATION TABLE OF CONTENTS SCIIEDULE PART I GENEF~AL INFORMATION PART II CDBG ALLOCATION POLICY PART III CDBG FUNDING APPLICATION FORM PART IV CDBG RATING CRITERIA PART V NATIONAL OBJECTIVES AND ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS 1-3 1-9 1-7 1-11 1-10 CITY OF BREMERTON 1997 CDBG ALLOCATION SCHEDULE July 16, 1996 Advertise Availability of Policy Plan-Send Copy of Policy Plan to Those on Updated Mailin8 List July 25, 1996 Public meeting on draft Policy Plan Public Works Utility Building Conference Room 3027 Olympus Drive 3:00 p.m. August 7, 1996 Bremerton City Council Public Hearing on the Policy Plan August 8, 1996 Advertise 1997 CDBG Funds August 14, 1996 Final Policy Plan Available from City of Bremerton 286 4th Street August 21, 1996 Technical Assistance Meeting Public Works Utility Building Conference Room 3027 Olympus Drive 2:30 p.m. September 13, 1996 Applications Due to City of Bremerton September 16-27, 1996 Staff Technical Review and Citizen Advisory Board Review September 30 through CDBG Citizen Advisory Board Applicant Interviews October 11, 1996 October 15, 1996 Publish Draft Action Plan and Public Heafin~ Notice October 30, 1996 City Council Hearing on Committee Funding Recommendations November 1, 1996- Discuss Applications with Subrecipients and Prepare November 10, 1996 Final Action Plan November 15, 1996 Annual Action Plan to HUD January 1, 1997 Pro~ram Year Begins Revised (August 7, 1996) City of Bremerton 1997 CDBGPrlOME Allocation Schedule Part I GENERAL INFORMATION What is the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program · The program is authorized by Title I of the Community Development Act of 1974. · Federal funds are provided to local governments to assist in the development of decent housing, a suitable living environment, and expanded economic opportunities primarily for persons of low and moderate income. · CDBG funds must be used for activities determined by the federal government to be eligible, however the local government determines which eligible use is appropriate in the community. · The City of Bremerton is an "entitlement city" and receives an annual CDBG allocation from the federal government. · The City accepts applications from various organizations to implement CDBG activities. · Each application, at a minimum must meet the three threshold requirements, It must: be implemented by an eligible applicant/recipient; be eligible under the CDBG program requirements; and, meet one of the three national objectives. How much money is available? In 1996 the City of Bremerton received $608,000. The amount for 1997 is dependent on the federal HUD budget and will not be known until it is appropriated. Due to discussions of a cut in the CDBG budget, we are estimating the amount available to be $550,000. Who is an eligible applicant/recipient? Eligible applicant/recipients include: · City departments · Other local public agencies · Public and private nonprofit organizations (501 C 3) · Section 301(d) small business investment companies · Local development corporations · Private profit organizations may implement certain economic development and microenterprise activities. Additionally applicants must: · Demonstrate an active governing body or board of directors with skills and experience to provide leadership and direction to the agency · Demonstrate the legal, financial, and programmatic ability to administer the proposed project; and · Meet the City's requirements for contracting agencies such as insurance requirements, audit and financial requirements. What are eligible activities? Eligible activities are defined in the CDBG program regulations at 24 CFR 570.201- 570.207. More information concerning eligible activities, and special circumstances relating to the activities, can be found in Part V pages 6 through 10 of this package. A list of some of the activities follows: Acquisition of real property by purchase, lease or donation Acquisition, construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation or installation of public facilities and improvements Code enforcement in deteriorated or deteriorating areas Clearance, demolition and removal and rehabilitation of buildings and improvements Removal of material and architectural barriers Public services (including labor, supplies and materials) including but not limited to those concerned with employment, crime prevention, child care, health, drug abuse, education, energy conservation, welfare or recreation needs Planning activities Assistance to Community Based Development Organizations (CBDO) to carry out projects Assistance to carry out economic development projects Housing services such as housing counseling and energy auditing Assistance to facilitate and expand homeownership opportunities for low and very low income people. Lead based paint hazard evaluation and reduction The following activities generally are not eligible for CDBG funding: New residential housing construction, except in special circumstances Regular government operations Buildings such as city halls, police stations, or other buildings primarily for the general conduct of government (except for the removal of architectural barriers) Income payments such as payments to individuals or families for food, clothing, or rent except in certain circumstances Political activities What are the three National Objectives? An eligible CDBG activity must either: · Principally benefit low and very low income households; · Reduce or prevent slum and blight; or, · Meet an urgent need The National Objectives are included in the CDBG regulations at 24 CFR 570.208 and described in detail in Part V pages I through 6 of tiffs package. GENERAL INFORMATION PART I PAGE 2 Are there rules or regulations that I should consider when thinking about submitting and application? All projects are subject to environmental review, civil rights compliance, and procurement requirements. Some of the other things that may effect the amount you request, and your project, are labor standards, relocation, local hire, American Disability Act, and audit requirements. How do I apply? Complete an application and submit it by 5:00 PM on September 13, 1996 to the: City of Bremerton, Neighborhood Development 286 4th Street Bremerton, WA 98310 Eligible applicants will be required to take part in an interview with the Citizen Advisory Committee between September 30 and October 11. ][Iow do I get help with the application? · Call Deborah Peavler-Stewart at 478~7996 or Marylyn Waibel at 478-5375. · Attend the pre-application workshop scheduled August 21, 1996 at the Public Works Utility Building Conference Room, 327 Olympus Drive, Bremerton. }Iow will applications be reviewed and projects selected? · City staff will review the application for compliance with CDBG regulations, consistencey with the Consolidated Plan, and for project feasibility. · A Citizens Advisory Committee, appointed by the Mayor, will review the applications, interview applicants, rate and rank the projects utilizing the process outlined in Part II, and forward their recommendation to the Bremerton City Council. · A public hearing will be held and the Bremerton City Council will make the final decision concerning activities to be included in the 1997 Action Plan. · The 1997 Action Plan will be sent the to U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development on November l 5, 1996 for approval. When will funds be available? Funding is dependent on the federal HUD budget being ratified. In "normal" years this is by March. We will not be able to sign contracts with subrecipients until we receive a contract from HUD. Remember the $550,000 is an estimation, we will not know the actual amount until after HUD's budget is approved. GENERAL INFORMATION PART I PAGE 3 Part II CITY OF BREMERTON CDBG ALLOCATION POLICY How will CDBG funds be distributed between various eligible activities Funds available for various eligible CDBG activities are determined by Federal regulations and local priorities. Federal regulations limit the amount of funds which can be allocated to public service projects to 15% of the annual CDBG entitlement, plus 15% of the program income received during the City's immediately preceding program year. The City has no program income from last year, therefore, the amount available for public services will be 15% of the federal allocation. The amount of funds that can be allocated to planning and administration projects, including the overall administration of the City ofBremerton's CDBG Program, is limited to 20% of the annual grant · Federal regulations require that a minimum of 70% of the annual grant funds go to projects that directly benefit low and moderate income persons. Funds allocated under the CDBG program must meet one of the priorities identified in the Consolidated Plan. The City of Bremerton is included in the Kitsap County Consolidated Plan for 1995 through 2000 since the City and Kitsap Urban County joined together as a consortium for purposes of receiving HOME funds for the period of 1997-1999. The Consolidated Plan identifies 5 general priorities related to housing, homeless, and non-housing community needs to be addressed with CDBG funds. The priorities are listed below: · Increase the availability and affordability of safe and decent rental housing for households earning 80 percent of median income or less. · Increase the supply of housing units available to homeowners through rehabilitation of substandard units and construction of new units. Assist first time homebuyers to become owners. · Support a continuum of housing and related services for homeless people, and forestall further homelessness through prevention activities. · Promote a continuum of housing and related services for people with special needs such as frail elderly and persons disabled by sickness or injury~ · Provide support for non-housing activities, to communities and non-profit organizations for economic development, public facilities, public services, and planning activities which primarily benefit low income persons. City of Bremerton-CDBG Allocation Policy PART II page It 1 Each CDBG project funded is required to address at least one of the identified priorities. Four of the priorities address housing. Thirty percent (30%)of the 1997 allocation will be set aside for housing activities. What is the proposed distribution of 1997 CDBG funds? Public/Human Services $ 82,500 15% maximum Planning & Administration $110,000 20% maximum Housing Activities $165,000 Capital and Economic $192,500 Development Projects ESTIMATED TOTAL $550,000 Remember, the amount the City will receive in 1997 is an estimate. We will not know the actual amount until Congress approves the federal HUD budget. How will Projects be selected for funding ® Applications that meet eligibility requirements will be provided to members of the Citizen Advisory Committee for review. · Each applicant will have the opportunity to orally present their project, and answer questions concerning the application, during a brief interview with the Advisory Committee. · Based on the application and the interview, each member of the Committee will rate the application according to criteria described in this section. Activities in each category (public service, housing, capital/economic development, and planning,) will be rated in comparison with other activities in the same category. · The scores of the three Committee members, on each activity, will be added together and divided by three to determine the final activity score. · The recommendation to be forwarded to the City Council will consist of the projects in each category that receive the highest ranking score based on the funding distribution described above. · Applicants will be notified of the status of their applications. · A public heating will be held and the Bremerton City Council will make the final decision concerning activities to be included in the 1997 Action Plan. What is the Criteria each of the applications will be rated on? The City anticipates receiving more eligible proposals that address priorities identified in the Consolidated Plan than can be funded. The following criteria will be utilized to select City of Bremerton-CDBG Allocation Policy PART H page it 2 activities to be funded. The actual rating form that will be used to evaluate applications is included in part IV. You are strongly encouraged to review it and make sure you respond to the chteria when completing the questions required in the application. It is unlikely that any application will address all of the criteria. PUBLIC/HUMAN SERVICE CRITERIA Public service activities include but are not limited to: child care; health care; job training; recreation programs; education programs; public safety services; fair housing activities; services for senior citizens; services for homeless persons; and drug abuse counseling and treatment. The minimum grant award will be $7,500 and the maximum award will be $30,000 The criteria that will be used to evaluate public service activities is based on issues identified by service organizations, the Continuum of Care Coalition, Navigating Change meetings and the Family Policy Principals developed by the State of Washington. Projects that address the following criteria will receive priority: ~ Activities that address priorities identified in community planning efforts (0-30 pts). ~1 Projects that are effective in addressing the identified need and can be initiated in a timely fashion (0-30 pts). ['~ Projects that are a collaboration between 2 or more agencies to best serve a client group (0-10 pts). ['~ Projects that address a basic need (food, shelter, or clothing) (0-10 pts). ~ Projects that address a problem creating health or safety hazard for low and very low income persons (0-10 pts). ['~ Projects that address a defined problem through prevention and thus reduce crises and the need for future services (0-l 0 pts). [~1 Projects that include a fair and realistic system for measuring both short-range and long range progress (0-10 pts) ~1 Projects that benefit a larger number of people with the CDBG funds (0-10 pts) [~ Quality points--Citizen Advisory Members have the option of providing up to +10 or -10 points for projects that are either exceptional or projects they feel will have a negative impact on the community. (-10-+ 10 pts). City of Bremerton--CDBG Allocation Policy PART II page it 3 PLANNING & ADMINISTRATION CRITERIA. CDBG funds may be used for studies, analyses, data gathering preparation of plans; and identification of actions that will implement plans. Examples include comprehensive plans, individual project plans, neighborhood plans and capital improvement plans. Projects that address the following criteria will receive priority: ~-1 Plans that result in the development of specific community priorities (0-30 pts). [~ Plans that upon implementation wilt benefit low and moderate income persons (0-20 pts). [~ Projects that are a collaboration between 2 or more agencies (0-10 pts). ~-1 Projects that promote neighborhood and local improvements (0-10 pts). [~ Quality points--Citizen Advisory Members have the option of providing up to +10 or -10 points for projects that are either exceptional or projects they feel will have a negative impact on the community. (- 10-+ 10 pts). City of Bremerton--CDBG Allocation Policy PART II page # 4 HOUSING ACTIVITIES CRITERIA Housing projects include but are not limited to housing rehabilitation projects, weatherization, increasing opportunities for homeownership and increasing housing opportunities for the homeless. Projects that address the following criteria will receive priority: ~'[ Activities that address priorities identified in community planning efforts (0-30 pts). [] Projects that promote homeownership either through rehabilitation or homebuyer assistance programs (0-10 pts). ~ Projects that leverage private funds or other public funds (0-10 pts). ~'1 Projects that benefit a larger number of people with CDBG funds (0-10 pts). [~ Loans will receive priority over grants (0-10 pts). ~-] Projects that will bring units to a condition to meet federal housing quality standards (0-10 pts). ['~ Projects that include post-assistance maintenance requirements (0-10 pts) ~ Quality points--Citizen Advisory Members have the option of providing up to + 10 or -10 points for projects that are either exceptional or projects they feel will have a negative impact on the community. (-10-+10 pts). City of Bremerton-CDBG Allocation Policy PART H page # 5 CAPITAL AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS CRITERIA Capital proposals include a variety projects such as community centers, senior centers, health and day care centers, water and sewer facility improvements, parking, street improvements, parks and playgrounds. Projects that address the following criteria will receive priority: Iii Activities that address priorities identified in community planning efforts (0-30 pts). ['~ Projects that are effective in addressing the identified need and can be initiated in a timely fashion (0-30 pts). ~ Projects that address slum and blighting conditions in areas meeting the definition of a slum and blight area under state or local law (0-10 pts). ['~ Projects that address a problem creating health and safety hazards for low and very low income persons (0-10 pts). ~'[ Projects that benefit a larger number of people with CDBG funds (0-10 pts). ~ Projects that include post assistance maintenance and operation requirements (0-10 pts). ~ Projects that leverage private funds or other public funds (0-10 pts) [] Quality points--Citizen Advisory Members have the option of providing up to +10 or -10 points for projects that are either exceptional or projects they feel will have a negative impact on the community. (-I 0-+ 10 pts). City of Bremerton-CDBG Allocation Policy PART II page # 6 What are the other policies and regulations you briefly mentioned? · Family Policy Principals In the early 1990s the State of Washington conducted a number of focus groups throughout the State. Approximately 400 people, who were receiving human services at the time were asked to describe the characteristics of services that would be most effective for them. The Family Policy Principles reflect their collective response, and form the basis for the Washington State Human Service Policy. The principals have been incorporated in the rating of applications. · Consistency with applicable City, County, and/or State Codes and Policies To be considered for funding, projects must be consistent with adopted codes and other applicable policies, plans and standards. Applicants for capital projects must indicate the appropriate jurisdiction's major requirements for building permit/occupancy permit, and must show how they can meet those requirements within the proposed schedule and budget. · Approval of the Implementing Agency: Proposals submitted by applicants other than the Agency, City or County Department that will implement them must be reviewed and approved by the appropriate implementing Agency, City, or County Department prior to submittal. All CDBG projects located on publicly owned property will be implemented by the public agency responsible for the property. · Legally Binding Public Interest in CDBG Assisted Property: HUD requires that facilities acquired, constructed or improved with CDBG funds be "publicly owned" and that the CDBG public interest be protected. The public (CDBG) interest will be secured through a lien on the property recorded as a deed of trust, and a promissory note explaining the sale and change of use provisions that accompany CDBG assisted real property. The specific terms and conditions of the public interest security agreements will vary depending on the type of project assisted. · Restrictions on the Change-of-Use of CDBG Assisted Property: All CDBG recipients must agree to restrict the use of the property to the intended purpose for which the funds were awarded for a minimum of 5 years after close out of the project. This is to ensure compliance with City of Breraerton-CDBG Allocation Policy PART II page # 7 HUD requirements restricting the change in use of property acquired, constructed or improved with CDBG assistance, and to ensure continued public benefit. · Restriction on Assessments: CDBG funds may not be used for public improvement projects where a portion of the projects is to be financed by assessments to area property owners, unless the project is structured such that CDBG funds are used to pay the assessments of all low and very low income property owners. The analysis of incomes of affected persons must be done ahead of time and submitted as part of the application for CDBG funds. · Guidelines for Evaluation and Selecting Economic Development Projects: The City of Bremerton will utilize the guidelines provided at 24 CFR 570.209 relative to project costs and financial requirements and standards for evaluating public benefit. · Equal Opportunity: All CDBG proposals must comply with federal, state, local laws, and executive orders which prohibit discrimination on the grounds of race, creed, color, national origin, sex, age, marital status, or the presence of any disability. Discrimination is prohibited in the provision of a service or facility funded with CDBG funds, and in all other aspects of administering a CDBG proposal including contracting, procurement, and employment. · Minimizing the Loss of Low and Very Low Income Dwelling Units: Any CDBG proposal that would directly result in any occupied or vacant occupiable low and very low income dwelling units being (1) demolished, or (2) converted to a use other than as low and very low income housing must include a realistic plan to provide replacement housing within three years of the commencement of the demolition or rehabilitation relating to conversion. · Minimizing Displacement and Providin~ Relocation Assistance: It is the policy of the City of Bremerton CDBG Program to discourage CDBG proposals that would cause displacement of people or businesses. Any proposal for CDBG funds that is likely to cause displacement must include relocation assistance payments in the budget. Relocation City of Bremerton--CDBG Allocation Policy PART II page # 8 assistance must be provided consistent with the federal Uniform Relocation Act. · Federal Wage Rates (Davis-Bacon): Pursuant to the Davis-Bacon Act, federal wage rates apply to almost all construction project over $2,000. Applications that involve construction must consider Davis-Bacon wage rates in the budget. There are few exceptions to the Davis-Bacon Act such as public agency use of force account crews and the rehabilitation of single family homes and small multi-family buildings. · Federal Audit Requirements: · Private non-profit agencies expending $25,000 or more in federal funds annually (whether CDBG alone or CDBG in conjunction with other federal funds) must have an annual audit conducted by an independent auditor in accordance with OMB A-133 Audit Standards for Private Non-Profit Organizations. Agencies am responsible to meet this audit requirement. · Lead-Based Paint Abatement: Any proposed rehabilitation project that involves a (1) pre-1978 structure, and (2) would likely house a child age 7 or less must be informed of the possible hazards of lead based paint and a plan must be developed for removal of lead based paint if necessary. Costs for abatement must be included in the rehabilitation budget. · Supplanting: Federal regulations prohibit using CDBG funds to supplant (replace or substitute for) local funds for public services or ongoing responsibilities of general local government. The intent of this federal regulation is to prevent local government from using the availability of federal CDBG dollars as an excuse to reduce local funding commitments. City of Bremerton-CDBG Allocation Policy PART II page # 9 PART III CDBG FUNDING APPLICATION FORM Check the appropriate box to identify the type of activity for which you are applying: ~ Public Service 0 Capital Improvement [3 Housing ~ Economic Development ['] Planning Total Amount of Funds Requested in this Application Project Title Project Applicant Name Federal Tax I.D. it Mailing Address Agency Director Name Phone # Staff Contact Name and Title Phone # Fax # Project Location (physical address) Geographic Service Area Census Tracts Type of Organization Director Signature Public Agency Private Nonprofit (501)(c)(3) (attach determination) Other (Specify) Date CDBG FUNDING APPLICATION DOCUMENTS 7/15/96 PART III PAGE 1 1997 CDBG APPLICATION REQUIRED ATTACHMENTS All applications submitted must include attachments A and B ADDITIONALLY: · Public (human) Service, planmng, and Housing Rehabilitation projects must also include attachment C · Capital and Economic Development projects totaling less than $50,000 must include attachment D · Capital, Housing and Economic Development projects totaling more than $50,000 must include attachment E Please be sure to mark each item within the attachments with the corresponding letter and number as shown. Attachment A (Organizational Capacity) A-1 Area benefit map showing project location and service area of the project A-2 An organizational chart showing all staff, board members and volunteer positions A-3 A board profile which includes: directors and advisors A-4 Information of personnel who will be paid for using CDBG funds. This includes: resumes, description of their roles, and percentage of time they devote to the project Attachment B (Organizational Management) B-1 Organizational Information Form (provided within packet) B-2 Summary of the most recent financial audit from the firm that conducted the audit B-3 A statement of experience including operating statements and lender references and record of performance, qualifications, and capacity to carry out the project described in this application Attachment C (Public Service, Planning and Housing Rehabilitation Projects): C-1 Sources and Use Statement (provided within packet). Include total project cost and statement defining source of cost estimates · C-2 Commitment letters from funding sources C-3 Project History Attachment D (Capital Projects totaling less than $50,000): D-1 Sources and Use Statement (provided within packet). Include total project cost and statement defining source of cost estimates D-2 Commitment letters from funding sources D-3 Operating and Maintenance Budget Attachment E (Capital and Housing Projects and totaling greater than $50,000): E-1 Sources and Use Statement (provided within packet). Include total project cost and statement defining source of cost estimates E-2 Commitment letters from funding sources E-3 Relocation Plan, if appropriate E-4 Operating Proforma E-5 Plans and Specs for the Project E-6 Management Plan CDBG Funding application documents revised 8/7/96 Part Ill Page 2 ORGANIZATIONAL INFORMATION FORM Attachment B-1 Agency Expense Cost 1995 Cost 1996 Cost 1997 Actual Estimate Proposed Total Total Total City CDBG City CDBG City CDBG Share Share Share What is your agency's overall mission? How will the requested funding for this project help your agency achieve your goals? __ What is your agency*s insurance program for general liability/officers and board volunteers, etc.? Does your agency have any threatened or pending litigation? [] No [] Yes (if yes attach explanation) Does the agency have any audit or IRS problems? [] No [] Yes (dyes attach explanation) Director Signature Date CDBG FUNDING APPLICATION DOCUMENTS 7/15/96 PART I]/ PAGE 3 CITY OF BREMERTON 1997 CDHG APPLICATION Sources of Financing--AH funding Sources C-l, D-l, and E-I Attachment Source Committed Conditional Tentative Federal $ $ $ State: $ $ $ Local: $ $ $ Applicant: $ $ $ Private: $ $ $ In-kind: $ $ $ Subtotals: $ $ $ TOTAL ALL FUNDI31G SOURCES $ CDBG FUNDING APPLICATION DOCUMENTS 7/15/96 PART HI PAGE 4 CITY OF BREMERTON 1997 CDBG APPLICATION Uses of Financing - All Funding Sources C-1, D-l, and E-1 Attachment OTHER SOURCE PROJECT COST AMOUNT CITY CDBG OF FUNDS PERSONNEL Managers Staff Other SUBTOTAL SUPPLIES/EQUIPMENT Office Supplies Equipment Other SUBTOTAL ADMINISTRATION Advertising Audit Insurance/Bonds Postage/Printing Rent/Utilities Communication Training/Travel Transportation Other SUBTOTAL ACQUISITION COSTS: Acquisition Other SUBTOTAL: DEVELOPMENTAL SOF]' COSTS Appraisal Design and A & E Processing/Settlement and Financing Marketing Operating Reserve Other SUBTOTAL: DEVELOPMENTAL HARD COSTS Clearance/Demolition Construction Rehabilitation Improvements Other SUBTOTAL: OTHER COSTS Relocation Operating,~aintenance expenses Other SUBTOTAL: TOTAL PROJECT COST CDBG FUNDING APPLICATION DOCUMENTS 7/15/96 PART III PAGE NARRATIVE QUESTIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS Before answering the following questions review the rating criteria in Part V. Be sure to answer the questions in a concise manner and assure you have included information in your answer to address the rating factors. At the beginning of each response, include the question and number underlined (for example 1. Describe your proposed project). Limit your response to a maximum of 4 pages. (Your answer to question #1 should include most of the response to the rating factors--it is recommended you emphasize your answer to this question). 1. Describe your proposed project. Provide a description of the proposed project. Be sure the description is of the project or program, not your agency's general mission. Some questions to consider are: What is the project? What are the goals of the project? Why is it important to implement the project (provide measurable and quantifiable data when possible) ? Is this issue identified as a priority in a plan? (if so provide information concerning the plan requested in the rating criteria) How did you determine that this is the most appropriate method of addressing the issue? What other solutions did you consider? Are other agencies doing similar projects? Are you coordinating with other agencies? What will happen if you don't implement the project? Who is going to benefit from the project? How many unduplicated people do you realistically expect to serve? How will yqu measure if the project is successful? (include short and long range measurements). How will you report if the project is successful? Are you ready to start the project? What are any obstacles you have identified that may effect timely completing of the project? How have you addressed them? How long will it take you to complete the project? What are the specific activities you will accomplish to complete the project? Which of these activities will be supported by CDBG funds? etc... (remember to provide information concerning factors included in the rating criteria!!,t} 2. Identify and describe applicable local policies the project meets Describe how the project is consistent with the Consolidated Plan, Comprehensive Plan, or other appropriate plans. Have you considered planning and zoning requirements? etc... 3. Describe how the proposed project will meet one of the CDBG National Obi ectives: Describe the national objective the project will meet and include information required to demonstrate the national objective. Part V pages I through 6 outlines the three national objectives and the type of information that shouM be submitted with the application and maintained. 4. List the project eligibility according to CDBG requirements. Part V pages 6 through 10 outlines eligibility requirements. CDBG FUNDING APPLICATION DOCUMENTS 7[15196 PART m PAGE 6 5. Describe the accessibility of the project/program. How will you make sure people in general will be aware of and have access to your project or program? Are program services and facilities accessible to individuals with disabilities? Describe the proximity of the program to pubfc transportation. Explain your capacity to serve limited English speaking individuals. Describe the agency's prior performance in the delivery of services and efforts to increase and/or enhance services to minority clients. CDBG FUNDING APPLICATION DOCUMENTS 7/15/96 PART BI PAGE 7 PART IV--1997 CDBG RATING CRITERIA PUBLIC SERVICE APPLICATIONS I. In order to encourage the development of community priorities and to maximize the impact of the limi CDBG funds, activities that address priorities identified in community planning efforts will receive higher consideration. Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) Members will not have enough time to read the plans, therefore, include the plan, identify the pages where the project is included and highlight the information ~ou wish the advisor~ committee to review. i>,atin~ Criteria Points a. The need for the specific activity is clearly defined and prioritized in a ~ommtmitv wide plan. (If the plan 20-30 does not clearly prioritize the activin, it does not fall in this catel~ory). b. The need for the specific activi~ is clearly identified in a community w/de plan. 10-15 c. The need for the specific project is clearly defined and prioritized in an agency plan. 5-10 d. The need for the specific project is clearly defined in the application (not m community or agency plan) 5 e. The need for the project is not clearly defined 0 2. Projects that are effective in addressing the identified need and can be initiated in a timely fashion will receive priority. Projects may not meet all identifiers in the category, raters will select the most appropriat category. Rati~ ~riteria Points a. The solution is appropriate to address the need and will .substantially solve or address the problem or 20-30 condition. The design of the proposed solution includes a realistic schedule for completion, identifies and controls obstacles. Cost are well defined. The proiect is ready to proceed if funded. b. The solution is appropriate to address the need and will partially solve or address the problem or condition. 15-20 The design of the proposed solution includes a realistic schedule for completion, and identifies and controls obstacles. Cost are realistic. The project is ready, with minor issues, to proceed if funded. c. The solution is appropriate to address the need and will partially solve or address the problem or condition. 5-10 The design of the proposed solution does not include a realistic schedule for completion, nor identify and control obstacles. Costs are questionable. Them appear to be major issues that may delay proceeding ~vith the project if funded. d. The solution is not appropriate to address the need. 0 3. Projects that are a collaboration between 2 or more agencies to best serve a client group will receive £riori v i>,atinl~ ~riteria Points a. Two or more agencies are/will be working together to provide the specific service to the clients (~oint 10 application with a lead asency) b. Two or more a~encies will coordinate with each other to provide the specific service 5 c. Little, or no coordination with other al~enmes 0 4. Projects that address a basic need (food, shelter, or clothing) will receive priority Ratin~ Criteria a. The project addresses a basic need (food, shelter, or clothinl~) Points b. The project does not addresses a basic need (food, shelter, or clothinl~) 1997 CDBG ADv~soP. y RATING CRITERIA PART IV PAGE 1 5. Projects that address a problem creating health and safety hazards for low and very low income person. will receive a ioriorit~. Rating Criteria Points a. The project addresses a problem creating health and/or safety hazards for low and very low 5-10 income persons. (point spread based on the degree the health and safety problem is defined and the extent to which the proiect will address the need) b. The project does not address a problem creating health and safety hazards for low and very low 0 income persons. 6. Projects that address a defined problem through prevention and thus reduce crises and the need for future services will receive priori{y }*,atin~; Criteria Points The project directly addresses a defined problem through prevention. (point spread is based on the 5-10 desree to which the issue is defined and the extent to which the proiect prevents the problem) The proiect does not address a problem throush prevention 0 7. Project that include a fair and realistic system for measuring both short-range and long range progress will receive t~riori~. . Rating Criteria Points a. Results of the project are defined in short and long term outcomes rather than in units. (point 5-10 spread is based on the dei~ree to which the outcome is defined and can be measured) b. Results of the project are not defined in "planned outcomes" 0 8. Projects that benefit a larger number of people with CDBG funds will receive a priority. All human service applications will be reviewed to determine the number of persons reasonably expected to directll~ benefit in relation to the CDBG funds requested Rating Criteria ' Points a. Top quartile (applicants that benefit the most persons ~n relation to amount of CDBG funds) 10 b. Second quartile 7 c. Third quartile 4 d. Fourth quartile 0 9. Quality points: Citizen Advisory members have the option of providing up to +10 or -l O points for projects that are either exceptional or projects they feel will have a negative impact on the community. A specific reason for awarding points, either + or- must be stated P~atin~ Criteria Points Quality Points: Explanation: 1997 CDBG ADVISORY RATING CRITERIA PART 1V PAGE 1997 CDBG ADVISORY COMMITTEE COMPILATION SHEET PUBLIC SERVICE APPLICATIONS Applicant Project Name Rating Rating Rating Factors CAC #I CAC #2 · 1. Need/Community Planning __ (0-30) __ (0-30) · 2. Appropriate and Timely __ (0-30) __ (0-30) · 3. Collaboration (0-10) __ (0-10) · 4. Basic Need __ (0-10) __ (0-10) · 5. Health and Safety Hazards (0-I0) __ (0-10) · 6. Prevention __ (0-10) (0-10) · 7. Progress measures __ (0-10) (0-10) · 8. Benefit __ (0-10) __ (0-10) · 9. Quality Points (-10-+10) __ (-10-+10) Total __ (0-120) + __ (0-120) + Rating CAC #3 (0-30) (o-30) __ (O-lO) (O-lO) __~ (0-10) (O-lO) (040) (040) (-10-+10) __ (0-120) Total of three CAC ratings = divided by 3 = Individual rating form of three CAC to be attached RATING 1997 CDBG Anvlsogy RATING CRITERIA PART IV PAGE 3 1997 CDBG ADVISORY COMMITTEE RATING CRITERIA HOUSING APPLICATIONS 1. In order to encourage the development of community priorities and to maximize the impact of the limit CDBG funds, activities that address priorities identified in community planning efforts will receive higher consideration. Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) Members will not have enough time to read the plans, therefore, include the plan, identify the pages where the project is included and highlight the information ~ou wish the advisor~ committee to review. ~*,ating Criteria Points a. The need for the specific activity is clearly defined and prioritized in a community wide plan. (If the plan 20-30 does not clearly' prioritize the activity, it does not fall in this category). b. The need for the specific activity ~s clearly identified in a community wide plan. 10-15 c. The need for the specific proiect is clearly defined and prioritized in an agencv plan. 5-10 d. The need for the specific project is clearly defined in the application (not in community or a~enc7 plan) 5 e. The need for the project is not clearly defined 0 2. Projects that promote homeownership either through rehabilitation or homebuyer assistance programs will receive priori{v. Rating Criteria Points The project ~s entirely for homeownership activities 10 The project includes homeownership as one of the activities to be supported 5-10 The project does not include homeownership activities 0 3. Projects that levera~e private funds or other public funds will receive priori{y Rating Criteria Points Each activity leverages one dollar or more of private/other funds for each dollar of CDBG funds. I 0 Each activity leveral~es between 50 and 99 cents of private/other funds for each dollar of CDBG funds. 5-10 Each activity leverases less than 50 cents of private/other funds for each dollar of CDBG funds. 0 4. Projects that benefit a larger number of people with CDBG funds will receive a priority. All housing rehabilitation applications will be reviewed to determine the number of persons reasonably ~rpected to directlv benefit in relation to the CDBG funds requested. (applicants will be required to show average number of persons bene[~ting from existing rehabilitation programs) Rating Criteria Points Top quartile (applicants that benefit the most persons in relation to amount of CDBG fundsI 10 Second quartile 7 Third quartile 4 Fourth quartile 0 1997 CDBG ADVISORY RATING CPdTERIA PART 1V PAGE 4 5. Loans will receive priority over,rants Ratin~ Criteria Points Project provides loans 10 Project provides 8rants and loans 5 Project provides ~rants 0 6. Projects that will bring units to a condition to meet federal housing quality standards will receive priority }~atin~ ~riteria Points Project will brinl~ all units assisted to a condition to meet federal housin~ quality standards 10 Project will bring at least half of all units assisted to a condition to meet federal housing quality 5 standards Project will bdn~ less than half of the units to a condition to meet federal housinl~ quality standards. 0 7. Pro, rams that include post-assistance maintenance requirements will receive priority IRatin~ Criteria Housinl~ pro~ram includes adopted post-assistance maintenance requirements Housin~ prosram does not include adopted post -assistance maintenance requirements Points 10 8. Quality points: Citizen Advisory members have the option of providing up to +10 or -l O points for projects that are either ~zceptional or projects they feel will have a negative impact on the community. A specific reason for awarding points, either + or- must be stated ILatin~ Criteria Points Quality Points: Explanation: 1997 CDBG ADVISORY RATING CRITERIA PART IV PAGE 1997 CDBG ADVISORY COMMITTEE COMPILATION SHEET HOUSING APPLICATIONS Applicant Project Name Rating Rating Rating Rating Factors CAC #1 CAC #2 CAC #3 · 1. Need/CommunityPlanning __. (0-30) __. (0-30) · 2. Promotes homeownership __ (0-10) __ (0-10) · 3. Leveraging __ (0-10) __ (0-I0) · 4. Benefit (0-10) __ (0-10) · 5. Loans __ (0-10) __ (0-10) · 6. Standard Condition (0-10) __ (0-10) · 7. Maintenance (0-10) __ (0-10) · 8. Quality Points (-10-+10) (-10-+10) Total __. (0-90) + __ (0-90) + (0-30) (o-lo) (o-lo) (o-lo) (o-lo) (o-lo) (040) (4o-+~o) (0-90) Total of three CAC ratings = divided by 3 -- RATING Individual rating form of three CAC members to be attached 1997 CDBG ADVISORY RATING CRITERIA PART IV PAGE 1997 CDBG ADVISORY COMMITTEE RATING CRITERIA CAPITAL PROJECT APPLICATIONS 1. In order to encourage the development of community priorities and to maximize the impact of the limit CDBG funds, activities that address priorities identified in community planning efforts will receive higher consideratiota Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) Members will not have enough time to read the plans, therefore, include the plan, identify the pages where the project is included and highlight the information Vou wish the advisor), committee to review. ~atin~ Criteria Points a. The need for the specific activity is clearly defined and prioritized in a commumty wide plan. (Iftheplan 20-30 does not clearly prioritize the activity, it does not fall in this category). b. The need for the specific activity is clearly identified in a commum~ wide plan. 10-15 c. The need for the specific project is clearly defined and prioritized in an agency plan. 5-10 d. The need for the specific project is clearly defined in the application (not in community or al~ency plan) 5 e. The need for the project is not clearly defined 0 2. Projects that are effective in addressing the identified need and can be initiated in a timely fashion will receive priority. Projects may not meet all identifiers in the category, raters will select the most appropriat category. Rati~ driteria Points a. The solution is appropriate to address the need and will substantially solve or address the problem or 20-30 condition. The design of the proposed solution includes a realistic schedule for completion, identifies and controls obstacles. Cost are well defined. The project is ready to proceed if funded. b. The solution is appropriate to address the need and will partially solve or address the problem or condition. 15-20 The design of thc proposed solution includes a realistic schedule for completion, and identifies and controls obstacles. Cost are realistic. The project is ready, w~th minor issues, to proceed if fimded. c. The solution is appropriate to address the need and will partially solve or address the problem or condition. 5-10 The design of the proposed solution does not include a realistic schedule for completion, nor identify and control obstacles. Costs are questionable. There appear to be major issues that may delay proceeding with the project if funded. d. The solution is not appropriate to address the need. 0 3. Activities that address slum and blighting conditions in areas meeting the definition ora slum and blig area under state or local law will receive a priority. IRatin[[ Criteria Points Activity addresses slum and blight conditions in an area determined to be blighted Activity does not occur in an area determined to be blil~hted O0 1 1997 CDBG ADVISORY RATING CRITERIA PART 1V PAGE 7 4. The project will address a problem creating health and safety hazards for low and very low income i>,atinl~ Criteria Points The project addresses a problem creating health and/or safety hazards for low and very Iow income 5-10 persons. (point spread based on the degree the health and safety problem is defined and the extent to which the project will address the need) The project does not address a problem creating health and safety hazards for low and very low 0 income persons. 5. Projects that benefit a larger number of people with CDBG funds will receive a priority. All capital an economic development project applications will be reviewed to determine the number of persons reasonab, expected to directly benefit in relation to the CDBG funds re~ ~uested ins Criteria Points Top quartile (applicants that benefit the most persons in relation to amount of CDBG funds) 10 Second quartile 7 Third quartile 4 Fourth quartile 0 6. Pro,rams that include i~ost-assistance maintenance and operation requirements will receive l~riorit~ Project includes adopted post-assistance maintenance requirements I0 Project does not include adopted post -assistance maintenance requirements 0 7. Proiects that leverafe private funds or other ]~ublic funds will receive ' ~rit~ Ratin[~ Criteria Points Each activity leverages one dollar or more of private/other funds for each dollar of CDBG funds. 10 Each activity leverages between 50 and 99 cents of private/other funds for each dollar of CDBG funds. 5-10 Each activity leveral~es less than 50 cents of private/other funds for each dollar of CDBG funds. 0 8. Quality points: Citizen Advisory members have the option of providing up to +10 or -l O points for projects that are either ~rceptional or projects they feel will have a negative impact on the community. A specific reason for awarding points, either + or- must be stated Ratin~ Criteria Points Quality Points: Explanation: 1997 CDBG ADVISORY RATING CRITERIA PART IV PAGE 1997 CDBG ADVISORY COMMITTEE COMPILATION SHEET CAPITAL PROJECT APPLICATIONS Applicant Project Name Rating Rating Rating Factors CAC/il CAC//2 · 1. Community Planning __ (0-30) __ (0-30) · 2. Appropriateness (0-30) (0-30) · 3. Slum and Blight (0-10) (0-10) · 4. Health and Safety (0-10) (0-10) · 5. Benefit (0-10) (0-10) · 6. Operation and Maintenance (0-10) (0-10) · 7. Leverage (0-10) __ (0-10) · 8. Quality Points (-10-+I0) (-10-+10) Total (0-110) + __(0-110) + Rating CAC/t3 (0-30) __ (0-30) __ (0-10) (o4o) __ (o-lo) (0-10) __ (o-lo) . (-10-+10) __ (o-Ho) Total of three CAC ratings = divided by 3 = RATING Individual rating for~n of three CAC members to be attached 1997 CDBG ADVISORY RATING CRiTERL~ PART IV PAGE 9 1997 CDBG ADVISORY COMMITTEE RATING CRITERIA PLANNING APPLICATIONS 1. Plans that result in the development of specific community priorities will receive Ratin~ Criteria Points The plan will result in the development of specific community priorities 20-30 The plan will result in the development of~eneral community priorities 10-20 The plan will not result in priorities. 0 2. Plans that upon implementation will benefit low and moderate income persons will receive priority. Ratin~ Criteria Points The plan will benefit low and moderate income persons 200 The plan will not benefit low and moderate income persons 3. Projects that are a collaboration between 2 or more a~[encies will receive priority Ratin~ Criteria Points Two or more a~encies are/will be workin~ to~ether to develop the plan. 5-10 Two or more a~encies will coordinate with each other to develop the plan 0-5 No coordination with other al~encies 0 4. Projects that plan and l~romote neighborhood and local improvements will receive Ratin~ Criteria The plan will promote nei~,hborhood and local improvements The plan will not promote nei~3hborhnod and local improvements 5. Quality points: Citizen Advisory members have the option of providing up to +I O or -l O points for projects that are either exceptional or projects they feel will have a negative impact on the community. A specific reason for awarding points, either + or- must be stated Ratin~; Criteria Points Quality Points: Explanation: 1997 CDBG ADVISORY RATING CRITERIA PART IV PAGE 10 1997 CDBG ADVISORY COMMITTEE COMPILATION SHEET PLANNING APPLICATIONS Applicant Project Name Rating Rating Rating Rating Factors CAC #1 CAC #2 CAC #3 · 1. Community Planning (0-30) (0-30) · 2. Low/Mod Benefit __ (0-20) (0-20) · 3. Collaboration __ (0-10) (0-10) · 4. Neighborhood/localimprovement __ (0-10) (0-10) · 5. Quality Points (-10-+10) (-10-+10) Total __ (0-70) + (0-70) + (0-30) (0-20) (0-10) (o4o) (-10-+10) __ (0-70) Total of three CAC ratings = divided by 3 = RATING Individual rating form of three CAC members to be attached 1997 CDBG ADmSORY RATING CRITERIA PART 1V PAGE 11 Part V NATIONAL OBJECTIVES AND ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS As stated in Part I, each activity must meet a national objective and must be eligible in order to be funded. The following information is provided to assist you in defining the eligibility and national objective that your activity meets and the type of information you need to provide to the City. Specific regulations that govern the CDBG program are available in our office. What are the National Objectives? (Benefit Criteria) An eligible CDBG activity must either (1) principally benefit low and very low income households, (2) reduce or prevent slum and blight or (3) meet an urgent need. The vast majority of the City's CDBG activities are designed to benefit low and very low income persons and households. The following list outlines the way in which CDBG projects can meet a national objective. Principally benefit Iow and very low income A. Area Benefit B. Limited Clientele (1) At least 51% of beneficiaries are low or very low income persons/households (a) Presumed Benefit (b) Agency Requires Client Information (c) Income Eligibility Requirement (Direct Benefit) (d) Nature/location (2) Removal of Architectural Barriers (3) Assistance to Owners of Microenterprises (4) Employment Support Services C. Housing Activities (Residential) D. Job Creation or Retention - Economic Developmem II. Reduce or Eliminate Slum or Blight A. Area Basis B. Spot Basis Potential applicants may be able to demonstrate that their proposed CDBG activity addresses one of these national objectives in one of several ways described below. NATIONAL OBJECTUfE AND ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS PART V PAGE l I. Benefit Low and Very Low Income Persons To meet this national objective, an applicant must document that the proposed project will benefit predominantly Iow and very low income persons or households. A low income person/household is one whose annual income does not exceed 80% of the area median income for the City of Bremerton -- a very low income person/household is one whose annual income does not exceed 50% of the area median income. Median annual income in the City for a family of four is $44,900. The following shows low and very low income limits by household size for the City of Bremerton. INCOME LIMITS #INFAMILY I VERY LOW INCOME I LOW INCOME 1 $15,700 $25,150 2 $17,950 $28750 3 $20,200 $32,350 4 $22,450 $35,950 5 $24,250 $38,800 6 $26,050 $41,650 7 $27,850 $44,550 8 $29,650 $47,400 *Bremerton SMSA, Published by HUD, Gross Annual Income, Effective December 7, 1995 There are several different ways that CDBG activities can benefit low and very low income persons: · Area Benefit - This is defined as an activity, the benefits of which are available to all residents in a particular area, where at least 51% of the residents are low and very low income persons. In addition, the area must be primarily residential. Examples of area benefit activities include parks (that serve the irmmediate area), water and sewer projects, sidewalks and streets, and other public improvements that are available to all residents in a particular area. Applicants must: [] Attach a map with the boundaries of the project's service area delineated (the surrounding geographic area in which all or most of the people benefiting from the project reside): [] Explain why that particular geographic area is the service area for the project; NATIONAL OBJEC'F1VE AND ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS PART V PAGE 2 [] Indicate on the map residential and commercial areas within the service area boundary; and [] Provide documentation that 51% or more of the residents within the service area are low and very Iow income persons/households. If you would like assistance in determining if your project is in a low income area, please contact Debbie or Marylyn at 478-7996 or 478-5375. · Limited Clientele An activity which benefits a limited clientele, at least 51% of whom are low or very Iow income persons/households. There are four types of activities in this category: Presumed Benefit -- An activity may benefit one of the following groups who am presumed by HUD to be principally low and very low income: abused children, battered spouses, elderly persons, handicapped persons, homeless persons, illiterate persons, and migrant farm workers. Applicants must: [] Demonstrate that the facility or service is designed for and used predominantly by one of the groups identified above. Agency Requires Client Information Which Shows 51% or More are Low and Very low Income -- For example, community health clinic and most other agencies keep information on client income and family size. The information will be able to document whether or not 51% or more of the clientele are persons whose family income does not exceed low and very low income limits for Kitsap County. Note: Income qualification criteria from other programs (such as state poverty guidelines) may be substituted provided those criteria are at least as restrictive as the HUD income limits. Applicants must: [] Provide documentation of the total number of clients/households served in 1996 (if this is an existing service); [] State what percent of the clients/households served in 1995 were Iow or very low income (or met criteria that are stricter); [] Provide a copy of the income qualification criteria that were used to screen clients and to determine the percent that were low and very low income; [] Provide a copy of the client intake form highlighting the questions regarding family size and income levels; and [] Agree to maintain documentation of the client's incomes for the CDBG contract period. NATIONAL OBJECTIVE AND ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS PART V PAGE 3 3-? Income Eli~ibility Requirements (Direct Benefit) -- This means that the agency uses income screening to limit the benefits of the CDBG funded activity to only those persons who are low and very low income. For example, a housing counseling program would screen potential clients and use the CDBG funds to pay for the counseling only of those who are income eligible. Applicants must: [] Screen clients by family size and income; [] Provide a copy of the client intake form highlighting the questions regarding family size and income levels; and [] Describe how the program/project would limit the benefits of the CDBG funded activity exclusively to low and very low income persons/households. Nature/Location of Activity Allows Conclusion of Primarily Low and Very Low Income Benefit -- This means that the activity is of such a nature and in such a location that it may be concluded that the clientele will be primarily low and very low income; for example, a food bank near an assisted housing project. Applicants must: [] Explain how the nature, and if applicable, the location of the proposed project, establishes that it is used primarily for low and very low income persons. · Removal of Architectural Barriers A project which removes material or architectural barriers which restrict the mobility and accessibility of elderly or handicapped persons to publicly owned and privately owned non-residential buildings, facilities and improvements, and the common areas of residential structures containing more than one dwelling unit is considered a limited clientele activity. Note: This refers to the removal of existing barriers. It does not apply to new construction. · Assistance to Owners of Microenterprises When assistance is to be provided to a microenterprise (a commercial enterprise that has five or fewer employees, one or more of whom owns the enterprise) the owner must qualify as low or moderate income. Note: for microente~prise projects under the limited clientele national objective justification, the Iow and moderate income threshold applies only to the owner, there are no income requirements for the workers the owner employs. NATIONAL OBJECTIVE AND ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS PART V PAGE 4 · Employment Support Services. If CDBG assistance is only provided for training or supportive services (peer support programs, counseling, child care, transportation, and other similar services) to assist business(es), the percentage of low and moderate income persons assisted may be less than 51% if the proportion of the total cost borne by CDBG funds is no greater than the proportion of the total number of persons assisted who are low or moderate income. For example: A new business moves into town and begins an on-site day care program for workers. The total cost of the day care is $10,000. There are 40 children 3 of which meet qualifications as low and moderate income. The maximum amount chargeable to the CDBG program is $750.00. ($10,000/40 =$250 X 3 = $750). Applicants must: Maintain data documenting the total cost of the service, Screen clients by family size and income; and provide a copy of the client intake form highlighting the questions regarding family size and income levels; · Housing Rehabilitation Activities (Residential) These are activities providing or improving permanent residential structures which are or will be occupied by Iow and very low income households. It does not include group homes or shelters for the homeless, which are considered limited clientele activities. Applicants must: Screen households for family size and income eligibility. If a residential structure contains two dwelling units, at least one must be occupied by low or moderate income households. If it contains more than 2 units, at least 51% must be occupied by Iow and moderate income households. · Job Creation or Retention Activities These are economic development activities which are designed to create or retain permanent jobs, where at least 51% of the jobs, computed on a full-time equivalent basis, can be documented to employ low and very iow income persons for the geographic area where it is located. There are very specific elements of this national objective. Please contact the Community Development staff to discuss your project prior to submitting an application. NATIONAL OBJECTIVE AND ELIGIBILITY RE?~IREMENTS PART V PAGE Reduce or Eliminate Slum and Blight An activity may meet the national objective of reducing or eliminating slum and blight, instead of benefiting low and very low income people. There are two different ways that CDBG activities can meet this second national objective. Area Basis A project must be located in an area defined as a slum or blighted area under state or local law; the conditions which qualified the area as slum or blight must be on record; and the project must specifically address one or more of these conditions. Spot Basis A CDBG project to eliminate slum and blight on a spot basis (for example, outside of a locally designated slum or blighted area) must be limited to activities necessary to eliminate specific conditions posing a threat to the public health or safety. The health or safety hazard must be identified, and the scope of the project must be limited to correcting the hazard. What are Eligible Activities? To be considered for funding, a CDBG proposal must also be an eligible activity under the federal CDBG regulations. A variety of activities serving low and very low income people are eligible activities as well as any special requirements or limitations that apply to use of CDBG funds. The applicant should recognize that the City may have local priorities within each of these categories of federally eligible activities that reflect local needs. Local priority policies are described in Part II of this document. Acquisition of real property in whole or in part by public agencies or private non-profit organizations which is: blighted, deteriorated, deteriorating, undeveloped, or inappropriately developed from the standpoint of sound coxranunity development and growth; - appropriate for rehabilitation or conservation activities; and, appropriate for the preservation or restoration of historic sites, the beautification of urban land, the conservation of open spaces, natural resources and scenic areas; the provision of recreational opportunities, or the guidance of urban development; NATIONAL OILIECT1VE AND ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS PART V PAGE 6 Acquisition, construction, reconstruction or installation (including design features and improvements that promote energy efficiency of these) of public works facilities (except of buildings for the general conduct of government), and site or other improvements; Code enforcement in deteriorated or deteriorating areas where such enforcement together with public and private improvements or services are expected to arrest the decline of the area; Clearance, demolition, removal, and rehabilitation (including rehabilitation which promotes energy efficiency) of buildings and improvements, such as interim assistance, and financing of public or private acquisition for rehabilitation, and rehabilitation of privately owned properties, including the renovation of closed school buildings; Special projects directed to the removal of material and architectural barriers which restrict the mobility and accessibility of elderly and handicapped persons; Relocation payments and assistance to individuals, families or businesses displaced permanently or temporarily by a CDBG funded project consistent with the Federal Uniform Relocation Act; Public/human services, including but not limited to those concerned with employment, crime prevention, child care, health, drug abuse, education, energy conservation, welfare or recreation needs, if such services have not been provided by the unit of general local government (through funds raised by such unit, or received by such unit from the State) during any part of the twelve- month period imtnediately preceding the date of submission of the CDBG Action Plan; Planning activities necessary to: - develop a comprehensive community development plan; develop policy-planning management capacity to rationally and effectively determine needs, set long and short term objectives, devise programs and activities to meet these objectives, and carry out management, coordination, and monitoring of activities necessary for effective planning implementation; Provide assistance including loans and grants for activities carried out by public and private non-profit organizations including: - acquisition of real property; NATIONAL OBJECTIVE AND ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS PART V PAGE 7 acquisition, construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation and installation of certain public facilities, site improvements and utilities; and commercial or industrial buildings or structures and other commercial or industrial real property improvements; and - planning; Assistance to Community Based Development Organizations (CBDO) to carry out neighborhood revitalization, community economic development, or ene~'gy conservation. A CBDO is an organization with specific characteristics such as: it is organized under State or local law to engage in community development activities; has as its primary purpose the improvement of the physical, economic or social environment of the area; may be either non profit or for profit provided any monetary profit to its shareholders must be only incidental to its operation; it must maintain at least 51% of its governing body's membership for low and moderate income residents of its geographical area of operation, owners or senior officers of private establishments, or representatives of low and moderate income neighborhood organizations located in the area of operation. The Development staff is available to review other requirements with entities interested in becoming CBDOs. Provide assistance to private, for-profit entities, when the assistance is appropriate to carry out an economic development project (that shall minimize to the extent practical, displacement of existing businesses and jobs in neighborhoods) that: - create or retain jobs for low and very low income people; - prevents or eliminates slums and blight; - meets urgent needs; - creates or retains businesses owned by community residents; assists businesses that provide goods or services needed by, and affordable to, low and very low income residents; provide technical assistance to promote any of the activities described above; Provide technical assistance to public or non-profit entities to increase the capacity of that entity to carry out eligible neighborhood revitalization or economic development activities; NATIONAL OBJECTIVE AND ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS PART V PAGE 8 Housing services such as housing counseling, energy auditing, preparation of work specifications, loan processing, inspections, tenant selection, management of tenant based rental assistance and other services related to assisting owners, tenants, contractors, and other entities participating or seeking to participate under CDBG or under Title II of the Cranston-Gonzales National Affordable Housing Act; Provide assistance to public and private organizations, agencies and other non- profit and for profit entities to enable such entities to facilitate economic development by: providing credit such as through direct loans and loan guarantees, establishing revolving loan funds, and facilitating peer lending programs for the establishment, stabilization and expansion of micro enterprises; providing technical assistance, advice and business support services (including assistance, advice, and support relating to developing business plans, securing funding, conducting marketing, and otherwise engaging in micro-enterprise activities) to owners of micro-enterprises and persons developing micro- enterprises; and providing general support, such as peer support programs, counseling, child care, transportation, and other similar services to owners of micro-enterprises and persons developing micro- enterprises; Provide direct assistance to facilitate and expand homeownership among persons of low and very low income by using such assistance to: subsidize interest rates and mortgage principal amounts for low and very low income homebuyers; finance the acquisition by low and very low income homebuyers of housing that is occupied by the homebuyers; acquire guarantees for mortgage financing obtained by low and very low income homebuyers from private lenders, except that funds may not be used to directly guarantee such mortgage financing and grantees may not directly provide such guarantees; provide up to 50% of any down payment required from low and very low income homebuyers; or NATIONAL OBJECTIVE AND ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS PART V PAGE - pay reasonable closing costs normally associated with the purchase of a home incurred by a low or very low income homebuyer. Lead based paint hazard evaluation and reduction, as defined in Section 104 of the Residential Lead Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992. The following activities are not eligible for CDBG funding: X New Residential Housing Construction q CDBG funds generally cannot be used to construct new residential housing units, although activities in support of new housing construction may be eligible. (exception: CBDOs may use CDBG funds for new housing construction) Please note that group homes and shelters are not considered residential housing and are eligible for CDBG for new construction. X Regular Government Operations - CDBG funds cannot be used to fund the ongoing responsibilities of general local government. X Government Buildings - Government buildings such as city halls, police stations, jails and other buildings predominantly for the general conduct of government are not generally eligible for CDBG assistance. A major exception is rehabilitation to remove architectural barriers, which is eligible, even in government buildings. X Income payments - CDBG funds cannot be used for income payments such as payments for income maintenance or housing allowances. X Political Activities - CDBG funds cannot be used to finance the use of facilities or equipment for political purposes or to engage in other partisan political activities. NATIONAL OB~CT1VE AND ELIGIBILITy RE~.Q~.~EMENTS PART V PAGE 10 AGENDA BILL BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL 1. SUBJECT: ORDINANCE N0._~__~ Amending Size of Planning Commission from 9 to 7 members FOR AGENDA OF: July, 31, 1996 ORIGINATING DEPT.: Dept. of Comm. Dev. ORIGINATOR: Plannin,q Commission DATE SUBMITTED: 2. CLEARANCES: (Comment on back if necessary) D i r. of C o m m. ,De"~. ,~'~/-- City Attorne~.~-. 3. EXHIBITS: A. Planning Commission Resolution 01-96 B. Draft Minutes: Planning Commission 4/16/96 mtg. C. Current Planning Commission Roster ENDORSEMENT Y INFT~_/~ON APPROVED BY COUNC~R~.~ENT~.F%~AL: MAYOR ~ ~ -~fZ'7~a---~ COUNCIL PRESIDE~LT / z.~ ~- -- / 4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION: The Bremerton Planning Commission has approved Resolution #01-96 which calls for a decrease Commission membership from 9 to 7 members. The resolution also requests term expiration dates to be individualized for each member. 8. RECOMMENDATION: To approve Ordinance, on second reading, decreasing the size of the Planning Commission from 9 members to 7 members and to establish individualized term expiration dates and revised terms to match the revised membership. 9. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: EXPIRATION DATE: REVIEW DATE: PULLED TABLED COUNCIL DIRECTIVE: 10. NOTICE OF ACTION APPROVED DISAPPROVED AMENDSA 11. AGENDA BILL NO.: 2. CLEARANCE COMMENTS: 5. IMPACT OF NON-PASSAGE: The Planning Commission will continue to operate with 9 members. 6. IMPACT ON STAFFING, BUDGETS, FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCES: None. 7. RESEARCH SOURCES: Bremerton Municipal Code. ORDINANCE ~S~ AN ORD~qANCE reducing the size of the Bremerton Planning Commission from nine to seven members, and amending Bremerton Municipal Code Section 2.12.010. THE CITY OF BREM1ZRTON DOES HEREBY ORDAIN: Section 1. Amenthnent. Section 2.12.010 of the Bremerton Municipal Code is amended to read as follows: 2.12.010 ESTABLISHED - APPOINTMENT AND TERMS. There is established a planning commission planning commission which shall be appointed by the mayor and approved by the city council. The planning commission shall consist of seven n/ne members who shall be citizens of the United States .................... ,,.~uuttty who are residents; of the City. unless a qualified resident is not available. Their term of office shall be for four years. Members shall be appointed for staggered terms so that at least one member shall be appointed annually. The members shall serve without compensation. Section 2. Implementation. Members of the planning commission serving on the effective date of this ordinance shall serve out the remainder of their appointed terms. The term immediately following an expiring term may be shortened if necessary to provide for staggered terms with at least one member appointed annually. Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective ten (10) days from passage and publication. 1996. 1996. APPROVED by the City Council of the City of Bremerton this day of , PASSED by the City Council of the City of Bremerton this __ day of , JOHN E. LAW, Council President PLANNCOI~d. IRS- Disk 2 - 8/1/96 ~ '/~.~ APPROVED this __ day of , 1996. ATTEST: LYNN HORTON, Mayor KATHLEEN McCLUSKEY, City Clerk PLANNCO~.IRS - Disk 2 - 8/1/96 CITY OF BREMERTON PLANNING COMMISSION Resolution No. 01-96 Regarding Size of the Planning Commission WHEREAS the City of Bremerton Planning Commission is created and authorized by the Bremerton Municipal Code, Chapter 2.12 and enjoys the ability to make recommendations to the City Council, and WHEREAS the Planning Commission has studied the legal and procedural basis for having 9 members of the Commission, and WHEREAS the Planning Commission has operated with only 7 Commissioners for most of 1995, and WHEREAS the Commission found that internal procedures, public debate, and presentation of a broad range of points of views flourished with a 7 member Commission, and WHEREAS the Commission has only 7 members appointed and confirmed; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Bremerton Planning Commission does hereby recommend and request that the City Council amend City of Bremerton Ordinance No. 4069 in accordance with Article XI, Section 11 of the State Constitution, Planning Commission Act, the Optional Municipal Code to allow the City of Bremerton Planning Commission to consist of 7 members, and; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the ordinance be further amended such that terms will be staggered, with annual appointments made on the anniversary date of each individual member's appointment rather than a standard anniversary date. Approved on Ex~"utJve Secretaq~ PCR196. doc. AGENDA BILL BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL Ordinance Extending Interim Procedures for Land Use Permit Hearings FOR AGENDA OF: August 7, 1996 ~ ORIGINATING DEPT: Community Devel~m~ - ORIGINATOR: Ian R. Sievers~j~/~ City Attorney~--~~ DATE SUBMITTED: 2. ~: (Comment on back if necessary) DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 3. Proposed Ordinance 4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REOUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION: Ordinance No. 4550 established interim procedures for conducting hearings and appeals on Land Use Permits as required by Chapter 36.70(b) RCW. This Ordinance was effective May 3, 1996, and was limited to 90 days in duration. The Planning Commission and Council have deliberated on permanent procedures, but it appears Bremerton Zoning Code text changes implementing these changes will not take effect for at least 2 months. Motion to approve on first reading Ordinance No. Motion to pass on second reading Ordinance No. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: EXPIRATION DATE: REVIEW DATE: PULLED [] TABLED [] COUNCIL DIRECTIVE: APPROVED 10. C O [] DISAPPROVED [] AMENDED [] DATE: 11. AGENDA BILL NO.: (OVER) CLEARANCE COMMENT~: 5. IMPACT OF NON-PASSAGE= Confusion on applicable procedures following the expiration of Ordinance No. until adoption of permanent regulations. 4550 6. IMPACT ON STAFFING. BUDGETS. FACILITIES. EOUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCm~: Negligible. LANDUSE.AB - Agendas - 7/30/96 ~ ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE extending interim procedures for Land Use Permit Hearings and amending Ordinance No. 4550. WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 4550 established interim procedures for heating Land Use Permit approvals and appeals in accord with Chapter 36.70(b) RCW; and WHEREAS, these interim regulations should be extended to allow for completion of permanent procedures in the Bremerton Zoning Code; now, therefore, THE CITY OF BREMERTON DOES HEREBY ORDAIN: Section 1. Amendment. Section 5 of Ordinance No. 4550 is amended to read as follows: Section 5. Effective Dates. This ordinance shall take effect ten (10) days from passage and publication and shall expire iiiiicty (90,) one hundred eighty (180) days following its effective date. Section 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective ten (10) days from passage and publication. APPROVED by the City Council of the City of Bremerton this day of , 1996. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Bremerton this __ day of 1996. ' JOHN E. LAW, Council President APPROVED this day of , 1996. ATTEST: LYNN HORTON, Mayor KATHLEEN McCLUSKEY, City Clerk LANDUSE. IRS- Disk 2 - 7/30/96