The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About02/13/2008 AGENDA m .:==== . (01)\:r @@ ~~8~ CITY COUNCIL 345 6th Street, Suite 600, Bremerton, WA 98337-1873 D (360) 473-5280 FILE ***AMENDED*** FEBRUARY 13, 2008 CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 1. PRE-COUNCIL STUDY SESSION: 5:00 - 5:30 P.M. in COUNCIL CONFERENCE ROOM 603 A. General Council Business B. Presentation of "Street Improvement Agreement between the Port of Bremerton and the City of Bremerton" by Phil Williams, Director of Public Works & Utilities 2. CALL TO ORDER: 5:30 P.M. in FIRST FLOOR CHAMBERS A. Pledge of Allegiance 8. Invocation 3. PUBLIC RECOGNITION & ANNOUNCEMENTS 4. CONSENT AGENDA A. Claims & Check Register (#A808-028) B. Street Improvement Agreement between the Port of Bremerton and the City of 8remerton (#A808-029) 5. GENERAL BUSINESS - There are no GENERAL BUSINESS items tonight 6. ADJOURNMENT OF CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS MEETING CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION Immediately following the City Council Meeting, the Council Members will reconvene in COUNCIL CONFERENCE ROOM 603. Please note that the Study Session is open to the public but there will be no opportunities for input or participation; that no action will be taken, and the content of these items is subject to change... A. NO DISCUSSION PLANNED - The following items are budgeted items or have been reviewed by the appropriate Council Committee; and will be placed on the next Council Meeting Agenda for action... 1. Purchase of 4 vehicles (3 replacements and 1 addition) for Fire Department (2008 Budgeted item) - Jim Orton, Fleet Manager 2. Purchase of 2 trucks for the Facilities Department (2008 Budgeted item) - Jim Orton, Fleet Manager 3. Resolution to establish a Hearing Date of April 2, 2008 to vacate a portion of 16th Street & Chester Avenue - Michael Mecham, City Engineer; and Cecil McConnell, Public Works Committee Chair 4. Ordinance amending Chapter 2.88 of the 8remerton Municipal Code relating to the Disability Action Committee - Michael Mecham, City Engineer; and Cecil McConnell, Public Works Committee Chair Continued on back... I Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accommodations provided upon request. Those requiring special accommodations should contact the City Clerk's Office at (360) 473-5323 by noon on the Monday preceding the Council meeting. A. NO DISCUSSION PLANNED - Continued... 5. Amendment No. 1 to the Interlocal Agreement for Legal Services relating to the Phase II National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit Appeal - Mark Koontz; Legal Department; and Cecil McConnell, Public Works Committee Chair 6. Approval of Agreement with SOREN NORTHWEST, INC. for Lobbying and Consulting Services - Carol Etgen, City Clerk; and Nick Wofford, Finance Committee Chair 7. Budget Adjustment for 2008 for a Department of Ecology Grant - Michael Mecham, City Engineer; and Cecil McConnell, Public Works Committee Chair B. FULL DISCUSSION ITEMS 8. Briefing on the "Kitsap Library Education Initiative" by Carolyn Ferguson Neal, Branch Manager of the Downtown Kitsap Regional Library (Information only, Approx. 15-minutes) 9. Resolution adopting the 2008 - 2013 Six-Year Transportation Improvement Plan - Michael Mecham, City Engineer; and Cecil McConnell, Public Works Committee Chair 10. Ordinance amending Chapter 13.08 relating to Watercraft on Kitsap Lake \IVyn Birkenthal, Parks & Recreation Director; and Nick VVofford, District Q Council Member Item pulled... I Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accommodations provided upon request. Those requiring special accommodations should contact the City Clerk's Office at (360) 473-5323 by noon on the Monday preceding the Council meeting. CITY COUNCIL MEETING SPEAKERS LIST PLEASE NOTE THAT ALL REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION FROM THE CITY OF BREMERTON MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING. THANK YOU. PLEASE PRINT YOUR NAME BELOW IF YOU PLAN TO SPEAK DURING THE COUNCIL MEETING TONIGHT / /t-r(L 7)UrF January 2008 A White Paper Should Kitsap County Remove Itself l<-'rom The Puget Sound Regional Council? Why would our Kitsap County Commissioners voluntarily give up power and prestige to a non- electcd council centered in King County? Is it to be able to avoid accountability? Or is it just because someone hasn't been paying attention? In any case, the county is on the cusp of a major policy shift that would dramatically compromise its land use planning authority. This paper will show that this is unwise, unnecessary, and corredable. In view of the voter's rejection of Phase II Light Rail which was the centerpiece of the new regional plan, it would now clearly appear to be in the County's own best interest to divorce itself from a possibly fatally-wounded policy and go its own separate way. Indeed, the example of Thurston County indicates that a direct linkage with State agencies such as the Depattment of TranspOltation would likely result in more funding for the county's priority projects than is obtained via the current regional arrangement. Background: There is a long history of Kitsap County's involvement in organizations designed to coordinate regional transpOltation planning, and to a lesser extent, to coordinate land use planning. In those early days, no one could see any harm in going to some meetings to find out what the other counties were thinking and to see how we could work together. But over the years, things have become a little more complicated. The need to develop multi-year transportation plans to obtain federal funding, was formalized in the 1991 transportation bill know as the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA), which set the rules for spending federal gasoline tax revenues for the next six years. The bill has been renewed twice, first as TEA-21 (Transportation Equity Act for the 21 st Century 1998-2(03) and more recently as SAFETEA-LU (Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient, TranspOltation Equity Act 2004-2(09). The federal law requires the establishment of TranspOltation Management Areas (TMAs) in areas having urban populations over 200,000 (there are three TMAs), and Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) in areas having populations over 50,000 people. Washington also has Regional Transportation Planning Organizations (RTPOs). These are voluntary organizations which are not mandated by federal law, except for a provision that requires allocation of federal surface transportation funds to areas with populations under 5,000. In some cases TMAs, MPOs, and RTPOs are combined. In two cases, the regional organizations are single counties and in the other cases they are composed of two or more counties. In any case, there currently appears to be 18 MPO. RTPO or combined MPO/RTPO organizations. Interlocal agreements arc used to give multi-county RTPO's their authority. A primary function of these planning organizations is to use federal and state guidelines to identify and prioritize transportation projects in order to ohtain federal funds which are disbursed hy the state Department of Transpoltation. There are some interesting nuances. The Pugct Sound Regional Council (PSRC) actually falls into three primary categories. It is both the TMA for the Pugd Sound Region, the MPO for the Seattle area and the RTPO for four counties (Kitsap, King, Pierce, and Snohomish). But Kitsap County is also unique - it belonging to two RTPOs. Not only is it a member of the PSRC, but it also is part of the Peninsula Regional Transp0l1ation Planning Organization (PRTPO). which also includes Clallam. Jefferson, and Mason Counties. However, the federal funds to Kitsap flow only by way of the PSRC, not the PRTPO. Discussion: Additional transportation planning rcquirements were indirectly established by Washington State's 1991 Growth Management Act which require,s jurisdictions to concurrently provide the necessary infrastmcture, including transportation, to support new growth and dcvelopment. This is known as "concurrency". In most cases, the individual counties assumed the responsibility for insuring their land use planning was properly coordinated with their regional transportation planning. But for Kitsap County and the Puget Sound region. this role is now being reversed. The Puget Sound Regional Council has inselted itself into regional land use planning and, under the auspices of the Interlocal Agreement, is nmv assuming a leadership role. In the process, it has become a force to be reckoned with, with an operating budget of $10,550,000 a year. It has even adventured into regional environmental protection planning as well as health and safety. It has also assumed leadership responsibility for regional economic development under its Prosperity Partnership Program. In expanding into these additional areas. it has appropriated planning functions that legitimately belong to local governments or to the state. This distinction is important, because the state and local governments are elected and accountable to the voters while the regional planning organizations are not. The PSRC recently published its long-term planning documents for the region, Vision 2040 (land use) and Destination 2030 (transportation). Aside from the fact that these documents are somewhat idealistic and pertain more to a vision for the East-Sound than for Kitsap County, the real question is whether these documents are binding on the county under the Interlocal Agreement. In comments in public meetings, PSRC representatives have assumed that the counties will bring their planning documents into conformance once they have approved the PSRC documents. Our county executives have not indicated otherwise. Once the PSRC plans are approved, there ]ikely will not be a choice. The PSRC has a history of insisting that their plans be complied with -- in court if necessary. In 1996, the King County Superior Court, in a case involving the SEAT AC third runway, ruled that City of Des Moines' local plans did not take precedence over PSRC regional plans, but rather that the plans must be coordinated to insure consistency. In this case, the PSRC plan was found to have met all legal requirements. Indeed, the Interlocal Agreement requires that the PSRC certify that local or county plans are "consistent and coordinated with regional plans and policies", and requires that conflicts be resolved by a board of hearing examiners. With the Kitsap representatives having only 3 percent of the vote, it is hard to see the King County dominated Council changing their plan for us. Thus, we will be f6rced to march in lockstep with Seattle and its urban growth policy. SOI1lC pcopk in a position to know, acknowledge that most of our county officials wcrL~ too in\'ohed with their routine day-tn-day business to pay much attention to vvhat was going on over at the PSRC when these plans were being dC\clopcd. Even a former commissioner who was a PSRC co-chair did not make mllch of an effort to feed back information on what thc PSRC was planning. 51) it may havc been a",sl1l1ll'd that the final PSRC plans would he innncuolls and could 2 be signed off with little consequence. There was no apparent concern about their impact on the county or its elected officials. But the dramatic rejection by voters of Sound Transit's Phase II light rail project, the centerpiece of PSRC planning, has drastically changed how a lot of politicians now view PSRC and its plans. It is no longer possible to avoid taking a stand on Vision 2040 and Destination 2030 that won't offend some significant segment of the \'llting population. FOItunately, Kitsap County is not King County. King has to deal with the light rail issue and Kitsap doesn't. It is hard to imagine that elected officials here wouldn't be delighted to cleanly separate themselves from this mess. Aside from the East-Sound light rail embarrassment. it is not clear that elected officials would arbitrarily choo&e to give up political power and their ability to control the distribution of funds (which equates to political power). And, while we are already frustrated by the legal challenges over existing planning, it is not that difficult to predict that hearings board and other legal issues will become significantly more complicated for the county, with the introduction of regional planning requirements into the mix. The county has already experienced the frustration of meeting state imposed mandates; we do not really need regional consistency entanglements. We already have sufficient challenges coordinating the planning among local governments within the county - utilizing the Kitsap Regional Coordination Council (KRCC). Why would we voluntarily choo&e the additional complexity of involving a regional quasi-governmental organization when we still have the option of choosing not to? Indeed, those counties that did not join a regional planning organization appear to be reveling in their freedom. Thurston and Whatcom do not need to consult with, coordinate their plans with, or obtain permission from anyone else in their land use and transportation planning process. They have their own regional transportation plan and obtain all the federal and state funds they would get if they were a multi-county RTPO. Although it is difficult to quantify, it also appears they wind up with less work and fewer appeals than they would under a regional setup - and more money to spend on local planning jobs. It would only require a modest restructuring of the Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council to incorporate the RTPO and land use coordination functions, with Thurston County's organization serving as a model. Conclusions and Recommendations: On balance, the only reason to remain in the PSRC would seem to be to maintain the status-quo. When the boat is not rocking, maintaining a steady course is often the most prudent action. But the boat is rocking. The PSRC vision that Kitsap County will be asked to approve was severely damage by the voters in their rejection of the Sound Transit light-rail expansion. It has also been subject to public criticism in numerolls letters and op-ed pieces in the local ml?dia, with almost no SUpp0l1. Even tht~ new l1layor of Port Orchard has written an op-cd questioning the value of being in the PSRC. The Kit:-,ap County cOl1llllissiontTs slwuld find that there is little downside, and a lot of upside. for themtn \'otl' to rel110Ve the county from PSRC. All it tah~s is a simple majority. a letter to the PSRC. and in six Il)onths the action is final. "> ,1 The goal is for Kitsap County to he politically and financially independent - indeed, fully in charge of our own destiny. To accomplish this, we would designate our existing county agency, the KRCC, as our sole RTPO, with full authority to coordinate land use and transpOltation planning and to compete at the state level for federal funding for our local priority projects. Researched and Prepared by - Kitsap A11iance of Property Owners P.O. Box 1861 Poulsbo, W A 98366 www.kapo.orJ! For Questions or more information call or Email Vivian Henderson 360-710-8560 viviankapo@wavecable.com See Attached Fact Sheet 4 Acronym Glossary STP Surface Transportation Program ($393 M for 2004-2009) FHW A Federal Highway Administration Ff A Federal Transit Administration (a separate funding authority from the FHWA) Washington State Department of Transportation Washington State Ferrie~ (the Marine Division of the WSDOT) Kitsap Transit Regional Transportation Planning Organization (see RCW 47) Revised Code of Washington Metropolitan Planning Organization (distributes STP allocations to member jurisdictions based on population) Puget Sound Regional Council (Snohomish, King, Pierce, Kitsap counties) Thurston Regional Planning Council Regional Planning Council (often composed of cities, towns. ports, tribes & counties within jurisdictional boundaries) Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council Peninsula Regional Transportation Planning Organization (Clallam, Jefferson, Kitsap. Mason counties) FFY Federal Fiscal Year SFY State Fiscal Year (currently July 1,2007 - June 30, 2008) SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient, Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for User's: (current federal transpol1ation act with 14 Apportionments of which STP is one) Total Washington State Apportionments 2004-2009 = $3.263 Billion WSDOT WSF KT RTPO RCW MPO PSRC TRPC RPC KRCC PRTPO FACT SHEET Single RTPO/MPO Transportation Funding Data Kitsap/Thurston Comparison POPULATION DATA Kitsap County plus the counties of King, Snohomish and Pierce comprise the member jurisdictions of the PSRC. Federal Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds are allocated annually to county members based on current population by the FHW A to RTPO's directly, or by the FHW A indirectly through MPO's. Kitsap receives its STP funds from the PSRC in its role as an MPO. 2006 POPULATION Kitsap County Pierce King Sllohomish Total 240,400 773,500 U05.300 671.XO() 3.521.000 6.R% of total 5 J Thurston County has formed a single RTPO called the Thurston Regional Planning Council (TRPC) - Thurston County's population is similar to Kitsap County's. 2006 POPULATION Thurston 231, JOO STP ALLOCATIONS Within the PSRC, STP allocations for federal fisc.al years have been summarized below. The STP allocations are nearly identical percentages to the county populations relative to the whole. STP Allocations per FFY: $ rounded ofT PSRC 2007 2006 2005 2004 $ 43,280,000 34,337,000 34,706,000 42,358,000 Kitsap $ 2,979,000 2,381,000 2,429,000 2,951,000 (Kitsap % 6.9% 6.9% 7.0% 7 J)% ) Thurston $2,749,000 2,070,000 2,079,000 2,678,000 At first glance given the above, there does not appear to be any advantage to single RTPO status in terms of STP fund allocations. However, the additional funds available through the Grant A wards process can be as much or more than the annual STP allocation. See below the TRPC"s budget for administration and projects. Kitsap County, as a single RTPO, could also successfully increase its regional project- funding base as the TRPC has, by deriving grants fr0111 the Federal and State transportation funding programs. TRPC Thurston Reldonal Plannine Council (TRPC) SFY2008 ($rounded off) Unified Plannine Work Proeram (Admin and Overhead budeet) See page 20 TRPC Financial Report for SFY 2008 Regional Transportation Planning Program Administrat ion RTPO Long Range Total 862,200 (STP=434,700) ] 21.200 (STP= 59,3(0) 5 I .SOO S I ,034,900 (STP= 494,O()()) Thurston STP FFY 2007 S2,749,OOO Less -.!94,OO(j $2,255,000 6 (cont TRPC) SAFETEA-LU, State, &TRPC Match $ Project Funds 2008-10= $4,600,000 (Awarded November 3,2007 - note project expenditures overlap Admin SFY expenditures - .Ice 7RPC Programs-Transportation-Funding Opportunities Note that the TRPC has used $494,000 of STP funds for admin, and the $2,255,000 remaining for regional projects. Also note that the total funding for regional projects amounted to $4,600,000 derived from additional SAFETEA-LU Federal and State programs leveraged by Thurston's matching funds. PSRC's KITSAP DATA The PSRC has summarized the 2006-2007 Transportation Funding for Kitsap as amounting to $7,412,000. This amount includes Kitsap's STP allocation of $2,979,000, (shown as $2. 147M). However, the remaining amount of $4,433,000 is derived from the Federal Transit Administration (FT A) as applied to Washington State Ferries and Kitsap Transit. Consequently, the mass transit programs are being provided nearly twice the amount of funding as surface transportation. This illustrates the majority thought within the PSRC, that evidently WSF is not part of the State regional transportation network, but specifically a Kitsap County Mass Transit organization. PRTPODATA Kitsap County is also a member of the Peninsula RTPO with Clallam, Jefferson, and Mason Counties. However the Federal STP fund allocations are distributed only to the three counties excluding Kitsap because Kitsap receives this amount from the PSRC/MPO. Peninsula RTPO 2006 Population Mason Jefferson Clallam 53, 100 28,200 67.800 $629,500 STP FFY 2007 369.HOO 825,000 Total 146.100 $1,824.300 Kitsap County could compete for STP l:nhancemcnt grant funds in the PRTPO but out of concern for regional cohesiveness and cooperation has chosen nol to. 7 FHWA FORMULA FUND See WSDOT SAFETEA-LU Ol'erview of FHWA Formula Funds in Washington pdf See wsnor Transportation Equity Act/ill" the 21" Cellfury. (TEA-21) III R/'I'i/'ll' For Loco/ (;ovcmll1t'lIfs PC!{ Of the SAFETEA-LU Apportionments fro 2004-2009, amounting to $3.263 Billion, three programs arc apportioned as follows: STP Enhancement = $77 Million, STP Programs = $393 Million, and Statewide Flexible = $305 Million. The Statewide Flexible program is administrated by the governor as applied specifically to WSDOT projects. The significant WSDOT presence in Kitsap concerns SR's 104,3, 305,307,308,303,304,310 and 16, 160, and 166. The State Highways 104,305,304, and 160 cross Puget Sound as ferry routes tol from Kingston, Bainbridge Island, Bremerton, and Southworth respectively. As noted above, the Thurston RPC has been sllccessful at leveraging local funds toward these SIP subprograms, and other programs, to provide the additional $1,850,000 of their total $4,600,000 in FFY 2008-10. Although unrealized as yet by virtue of membership in the PSRC, Kitsap may also expect to acquire similar grant funds toward regionally significant projects if it were a single RTPO partnering with the WSDOT, the Port and other jurisdictions. The amount of STP Enhancement grant funds made available to Kitsap by the PSRC is about $ L 700,000 over the 16 years we have been members, averaging only about $160,000 per year. ~ Page 1 of 1 vivian "___~__~__'__'~~__<_.'__~_____'4_', _.~'_._______._'__.____~~~_.~..____,_.~,__._______,_"~"_'_~'__'M'__'_~~___~__,.~_._._~~~___.___.,__.__._._.~___~__ From: Karl Duff [kduff@ix.netcom.com} Sent: Monday, February 04, 20084:50 PM To: Jan Angel; Josh Brown; Steve Bauer Cc: Vivian Bodle; Linda Webb Subject: Community Panel Dear Commissioners Bauer, Brown and Angel, Per my discussion this afternoon with Chairman Bauer, I plan to submit to KRCC tomorrow the following recommendation( s): (1) That a committee of recognized public service volunteers be formed to weigh Kitsap County options concerning participation in the PSRC. (2) That this committee be supported by Kitsap County in its fact-finding. (3) The county seek the committee's recommendations regarding the long-term best interests of Kitsap County. Past Commissioner Bill Mahan has recommended this approach. He also agreed that Linda Webb would be a publicly recognized, objective and effective chairperson. For these same reasons, Linda was also elected by the 2000-2001 Board of Freeholders to serve as its Chairperson and served with distinction. I have contacted Linda (currently in Oregon for approximately another week.) She has indicated she would be very interested in serving. Bill Mahon has provided a partial list of other nominees he would recommend "sit at the table". The list has not been circulated and, so far as I'm aware, noone else contacted. Either Bill or I could provide this list upon request. Kitsap Alliance of Property Owners (KAPO) has accomplished considerable fact finding on this topic and would welcome involvement according to the best interests of the committee and county commissioners Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council (KRCC) may have a special interest in the matter inasmuch as it is the logical agency to serve as Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) in lieu of PSRC. Respectfully, Karl Duff Ji.u ~ iJ~ ~ ~ J'r~ 2/6/2008 DATE SUBMITTED: 2/13/2008 BILL # AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCil. AB08-028 tJA m..........................................................................................1 Claims & Check Register Committee Meeting Date: COUNCIL MEETING Date: February 13, 2008 Department: Financial Services Presenter: Cathy Johnson Phone: 473-5296 SUBJECT: SUMMARY: Consent Agenda item. Approval of c~ecks and electronic fund transfers. ATTACHMENTS: Check Register. FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): APPROVALS: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY: FINANCE DIRECTOR: MAYOR: COMMITTEE CHAIR COUNCil. PRESIDENT: 4r)~~~ ~. CONSENT AGENDA ~ GENERAL BUSINESS 0 PUBLIC HEARING 0 RECOMMENDED MOTION: 1) Check #'s 322559 through 322689 and EFT's 7653 through 7670 in the amount of$911,635.52. 2) Regular Payroll for the pay period ending January 31,2008 in the amount of$6,465.67. COUNCIL ACTION: . ~ Approve 0 Deny 0 Table o Continue D No Action AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL BILL # as - 0,;2 C) DATE SUBMITTED: February 13, 2008 16 ........................................................................................ SUBJECT: Street Improvement Agreement between the POli of Bremerton and the City of Bremerton Committee Meeting Date: COUNCIL MEETING Date: February 13, 2008 Department: City Attorney's Office Presenter: Roger A. Lubovich Phone: 473-2345 SUMMARY: The street improvement agreement authorizes the City to provide labor and equipment to the Port to install switch vaults, j-vaults, transforn1er vaults and conduits in the City right-of way in support of the Port expansion project. ATTACHMENTS: Proposed Agreement FISCAL IMP ACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): The work to be completed is fully reimbursable and costs for providing the work will be deposited into the Street fund and accounted for in the mid- year budget adjustment. APPROVALS: DEP ARTMENT DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY: FINANCE DIRECTOR: MAYOR: :l> COMMITTEE CHAIR COUNCIL PRESIDENT: ,,~ ~ ~f(/;' ",.-.""'~' '\" ( / ?t/ ~- ;;~ CONSENT AGENDA !Rl GENERAL BUSINESS D PUBLIC HEARING D RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to approve and ratify the Street Improvement Agreement between the Port of Bremerton and the City of Bremerton. COUNCIL ACTION: D Approve D Deny D Table D Continue D No Action .'-." STREET IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT THIS AGREEl\ilENT, is entered into between the Port of Bremcrton, a Washington Port Authority ("'Por!"), and the City of Bremcrton. a Washington ~y'lunicipal Corporation ("Contractor"). The parties agree as follows: 1. CONTRACTOR SERVICES. The Contractor shall perform the following services for the Port: Contractor will supply labor and equipment to the Port to install switch vaults, j-vaults, transformer vaults and conduits on the City of Bremerton right of way on or near 2nd Street in Bremerton, Washington as directed by the Port and for the purpose of installing electric utilities for the Port expansion project. All vaults and conduits wiII be owned by Puget Sound Energy and provided by the Port. Installation of all vaults and conduits wiII be installed as per Puget Sound Energy standards and drawings supplied. Contractor wiII also provide labor, equipment and material to restore the right of way to conform with the City of Bremerton's standards and specifications. 2. TIME OF COMMENCEMENT OF WORK. Contractor shall commence work within one week of the parties' execution of this Agreement. Contractor will attempt in good faith to complete underground work within one month of commencement of work and restoration to follow weather permitting. 3. COMPENSATION. The Port shall pay the Contractor based on time and material at the City's cost. The Contractor shall send an invoice to the Port at the end of each month for services performed the previous month. 4. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. Contractor is and shall be at all times acting as an independent contractor and not as an employee of the Port. 5. TERMINATION. The Contractor's obligations under this Agreement wiII terminate upon completion of the services described herein and inspection by Puget Sound Energy according to its standards. The Port's obligations under this Agreement wiII terminate upon its payment of the final invoice. 6. CHANGES. The Port or Contractor may issue a work change directive for any change in the Contract work during the performance of this Agreement. The work change directive must be in writing and submitted to the person designated for notice in this Agreement. The parties will attempt, in good faith, to reach agreement with each other on all equitable adj lIstments. However, if the parties are unable to agree, the Contractor will determine the equitable adjustment as it deems appropriate. If the Port disagrees with the equitable adjustment the Port must submit a \vritten notice of protest within five days of the Contractor's notice to the Port of the equitable adj ustment. The Port shall pay for all services related to a disputed equitable adjustments into an escrow account until the matter is resolved as set forth herein. The Street Improvcment Agrccment -I of 2 r" Port's luilure to follow the protest procedure set forth herein \vill constitute a waiver of any claim rdated to the equitabk adjustment as determined by the Contractor. IN WITNESS WHEREOF. the parties bdov,' have executed this agreement. CJ~+-{~Ek:: DATE DATE ziti JOB I Notices to be sent to: Notices to be sent to: CONTRACTOR: Bob Tulp 100 Oyster Bay Avenue Bremerton, W A 98312 360-473-5753 PORT OF BREMERTON: Steve Slaton (director Marine Facilities) 8850 S. W. State Hwy. 3 Port Orchard, W A 98367 APPROVED AS TO FORM: Bremerton City Attorney ATTEST: Bremerton City Clerk R:\Legal\ Legal'Contracts\.p[J sLle WORKS\port of Bremerton Street Improvement Agreement doc Street Improvement Agreement -2of2